If you believed they put a man on the moon....

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119543378#Comment_119543378

I hope this post was an attempt at humour or some sort of sarcasm or even trolling. (CQD style, where everything proven stupid was a pretend joke).

Wibbs

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119543148#Comment_119543148

If the moonlandings were such a sure thing, your posts wouldn't need to be aggressive, insult-riddled mess of generic, dismissive, long-winded, off-topic statements.

I'm allergic to idiotic notions of this magnitude so react accordingly.

The video I posted above where the NASA engineer says

"As we get further away from earth we'll pass through the Van Allen Belts, an area of dangerous radiation"

"We must solve these challenges before sending people through this region of space"

You completely ignored and dismissed this. Are you saying this engineer is ill informed and that you know better than he does?

All radiation beyond background is dangerous, but it depends on dosage and exposure time and they're a lot more cautious about such things these days. Van Allen himself didn't see the issues involved so long as transit was relatively speedy. Note the same NASA engineer talks more about the risks to the delicate electronics, an issue not in play to nearly the same degree in the late 60's. If you were exposed to an EMP blast if you had an old valve radio it would almost certainly keep working, your phone wouldn't. And of course the fact that men have already gone and come back through the same belts, as have dozens of probes and satellites without issue. But of course you don't believe that so... Then again your pronouncement about alpha and beta radiation show your understanding is woefully lacking.

I haven't even touched on the little matter of the 500-1000km thick layer of the thermosphere that the Astronauts would have to pass through without being baked alive.

Good lord, you're actually doubling down on demonstrating your ignorance? You do understand the same thermosphere is damn near a complete vacuum? Ever hear of a vacuum flask that keeps your tea hot and your iced drinks cold? The reason it does is the vacuum around the contents stops heat transfer in and out by massively reducing convection and conduction. And the vacuum of the thermosphere is a lot harder than the one in a flask. You could fly though it at 1000's of kms per hour and because the molecules are so far apart you'd get near zero friction, so near zero heat build up. It's only when you get into the thicker parts of the atmosphere where stuff is a lot closer together that the friction kicks in. Even if the very nebulous particles up there were glowing white hot they're so dispersed and the vaccum is so hard a craft could sail right through them with little risk.

Oh and the IIS flies through it, the Shuttles flew through it, every near Earth orbit since Gargarin has flown through it. That's the region near earth orbit is. And not one of them was "baked alive". Even if it were a risk, and it's not, we have shown we can make heat sheilding that actually works in much denser and hotter atmospheric conditions.

Your insults will wear thin very quickly and you will soon have to stand over some outrageous claims so be careful...

I'm the one making outrageous claims? 🤣

PS: How in the name of God! do you know they got the angles wrong on the pyramids?? The arrogance of people to come out with such statements 🙄

A few funny things called evidence and observation and understanding of building techniques. The pyramids didn't just appear out of nowhere like magic. They evolved from earlier structures over time and this evolution came with mistakes as it tends to. There are examples of earlier pyramids where after they were completed the builder noticed stresses they hadn't allowed for and put in extra reinforcements like cedar beams to prop them up. Which worked.

bad2thebone

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119543504#Comment_119543504

As for CQD I'm not really interested in talking about other members in an atempt to draw them out or be drawn into a circular sealioning session.

dxhound2005

Amateur radio operators bounce radio signals off the moon, in a mode known as Moonbounce or EME (Earth Moon Earth). They can communicate with each other using that mode.

https://rsgb.org/main/technical/space-satellites/moonbounce/

They also use a mode called Meteor Scatter which bounces signals off meteor trails.

Leg End Reject

Wibb's sig has never been more apt.

Wibbs

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119543378#Comment_119543378

Well, lasers work a little differently in atmosphere. They're much more attenuated. On the moving moon thing; observatories and the pro telescopes, radio and visual have mechanisms which allow them to track an object in space and have had from the early days. They used to be purely mechanical but for decades they've been motorised and electronically controlled.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119543461#Comment_119543461

Funny enough I fly fish and it's kinda similar in casting a line(it's quite like a specific technique called Spey casting, mostly used for salmon fishing), though in the case of fly fishing you're casting the weight of the actual line rather than a weight at the end of it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4khq81DAQl8

silliussoddius

Watches a youtube channel on Spey casting, thinks I can do that. Goes to the river and ends up with a fly line necklace.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l42uu89aReU

Wibbs

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119542481#Comment_119542481

When NASA and Concorde engineers met in the 70's the NASA guys reckoned that in many ways Concorde was a harder engineering task than Apollo. Apollo was pretty much all prototypes, flown by the very top performers in their field and was risky as hell. Concorde was a mach 2 airliner flying daftly high while ordinary people inside were sipping martinis in luxury and was a regular service. IIRC the only aircraft that could intercept one going at full speed from a ground start was the English Electric Lightning and that was two engines and a seat and had the nickname "Frightening" and was one of the fastest interceptors ever built. It was even able to intercept an American U2 at 60 odd 1000 feet.

bad2thebone

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119543644#Comment_119543644

Fulcrum, Gravity and balance is amazing.

Flyfishing is a philosophy and science in itself, I've come up with the most outrageous ideas while fluff chucking.

The foam is home :)

Markus Antonius

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119543577#Comment_119543577

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119543747#Comment_119543747

"They're a lot more cautious about such things these days"

"Van Allen himself didn't see the issues involved"

"If you had an old valve radio it would almost certainly keep working"

"Thermosphere is damn near a complete vaccuum"

"Hard craft could sail right through them with little risk"

"NASA guys reckoned that in many ways Concorde was a harder engineering task than Apollo"

Everything in your posts is nothing more than pure speculation on your part - throwaway statements with no scientific basis, data or even shred of evidence behind them. And you say it with such nonchalance as though you tested all these things personally and then the cherry on top being the shear aggression with which you communicate it.

In other words 99% of what you are saying is utter Bullsh!t.

Leave the emotion at the door please, this debate all comes down to whether or not one trusts or believes NASA - just because you trust and believe them does not mean everyone else should.

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119543597#Comment_119543597

It has to be an attempt at humour though? I mean, even basic telescopes can come with small motors to compensate for celestial movements, they are a common thing that exists that most humans know about, apologies if you didn't (if so, we really are beyond satire, why would anyone post about such things without a modicum of research being done first).

bad2thebone

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119544020#Comment_119544020

So what, I didn't know about motors I have a pair of astronomy binoculars. I put it on a tripod I look into it. I observe the moon flying past. I post about it and someone else informed me about how it's done with the lazers.

That's how people learn, I don't claim that I was right I just had an observation and was corrected.

It's no big deal. We've had similar discussion on other thread's where I couldn't shake you away as you keep on asking different versions of the same thing. Then proceed to follow me around the thread until I tell you in a not so nice way to FCK off and I get an infraction, then you thank the moderator .

buried

I have no doubt in my mind that NASA sent men to the moon on the Apollo 11 mission. They had 10 previous attempts in order to calculate just how they do it, hence Apollo 11 was the one that succeeded. If the notion was just to fake it, they could have claimed that they reached the moon far earlier in the programme. I think that people get suspicious about the whole thing due to the notion that they never went back after Apollo 13. And the reasons NASA give for not going back probably aren't the entire truth. For one, the whole enterprise was and still is highly highly dangerous, but the Astronauts that went on the Aplollo 11 mission weren't just following orders from NASA, Armstrong and Aldrin were both high degree members of Freemasonry. Armstrong held up his Masonic apron over his hips after planting the American flag, a photo of this incident is on display in the House of the Temple in Washington DC. Aldrin himself planted the flag of the Scottish rite on the lunar surface. These men were under orders to also claim the moon for Freemasonry, a society infatuated with the occultish aspects of both Solar and Lunar worship. Once the society had claimed the mission for themselves, they probably found it needless to send anymore of its brothers back up into such a dangerous environment.

The dangerous environment aspect is also something that NASA probably wants to keep quiet about too IMO. The human body, its brain and nervous system is deeply tied to the magnetic field of the planet Earth, now this claim is disputed, but I feel it is, considering this planet is the only planet we have been on for hundreds of thousands of years. Only within the last few years scientists and researchers have declared that humans might have the ability to pick up on Earth’s magnetic field. I think it may be the case that if the human body goes too far from the magnetic field, it may start to break down, both physically and mentally. I think NASA knows this, or is in the knowledge of something akin to that theory, knowledge probably gained from the Apollo missions themselves. It really looks like NASA definitely knows it will not be able to send humans as far as they would like to into the space well beyond the Earth, and have decided to stay quiet about it until they come up with a solution, which they still have not found. This is where the suspicions start to grow about the whole event IMO.

o1s1n

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119543899#Comment_119543899

Pot, meet Mr kettle...

Man landed on the moon. It's a factual, recorded event which happened, the results of which can be proven scientifically.

It's not an opinion. It's not conjecture. It's not something you should feel you have the right to 'disagree' with.

Not realising the above just makes you sound completely ignorant of the history and science of space travel.

For a bit if perspective, I am assuming you're not a flat earther and agree that they're completely ignorant of the science of the earth. You're not far off sounding like one of them.

Larbre34

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119543385#Comment_119543385

What?

Wibbs

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119543899#Comment_119543899

They are more cautious these days. This is an observable fact. Apollo 8(which of course you don't believe even happened) was originally planned to be the first full up launch vehicle test in Earth orbit. Get up there check the systems, come home. Lower risk, lower speeds much closer to home should things go south on an untested in flight full system and one that had been redesigned in a few vital areas. But in fear of the Soviets being right behind them they decided to do a TLI burn and human left Earth orbit for the first time, orbited the Moon and returned home. Extremely risky. The burn to the Moon had to work, the burn at the Moon had to work, the burn to return home had to work, the command module had to survive the previously untested much higher speeds into Earth's atmosphere and navigation had to work throughout. Many of those within the agency had grave doubts about it. One high up reckoned 50/50 odds of it going to plan. No way in hell after Challenger and Columbia and much lower public and government support would NASA risk something like that today. The Artemis mission is unmanned. If this were 1968 it almost certainly wouldn't be. The first Shuttle launch was manned. The Soviets first Shuttle launch wasn't(surprisingly).

Read what Van Allen himself had to say on the matter.

Read how EMP and radiation can affect electronics and why older style electronics are less vulnerable.

The thermosphere is a near complete vacuum. What the hell do you think the atmosphere is like at 100kms to 700kms up like?

The Space Shuttle flying through the thermosphere between 200 and 600 kms out. Not being baked alive.

Then again you likely have doubts about that too.

And yep the Apollo guys thought very highly of the engineering innovations around Concorde. If you understood a fraction of what you think you do you'd understand why.

Wibbs

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119544102#Comment_119544102

I think that people get suspicious about the whole thing due to the notion that they never went back after Apollo 13.

Eh.... yes they did. 14, 15, 16 and 17. 18, 19 and 20 were cancelled.

The freemasonry stuff I really don't know what to say.... Though Aldrin did hold Holy Communion after they landed which raised Armstrong's eyebrows more than a little.

buried

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119544162#Comment_119544162

Sorry, 13 was just in my mindframe concerning the near disaster, but yeah you are right. The Freemasonry aspect is true, NASA was and still has countless high ranking members of the Scottish rite of Freemasonry, the rite most popular within American professional and military circles. You can look up the flag Aldrin placed on the lunar surface, its not a secret or hidden history or anything, they are quite blatant about it.

https://scottishrite.org/scottish-rite-myths-and-facts/featured-artifact-scottish-rite-flag-went-moon/

kingtiger

https://youtu.be/6nUSPXHfiGY

never gets old

silliussoddius

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119544102#Comment_119544102

I thought it was the lower level of gravity that takes it's toll on the human body, especially on the spine.

buried

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119544191#Comment_119544191

Yeah, could be something akin to that too, like I said, I don't know its just a theory really. But something happened that they don't want to go back up there.

Larbre34

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119543385#Comment_119543385

What?

dxhound2005

There is another Concorde type airliner in development, expected to fly with passengers in 2029.

Psychlops

Of course we did, nobody else put the laser reflectors up there for us.

Count Dracula

I have always struggled with how they got back off it? I can fathom the moon having less gravity, I am not a scientist btw, I went to school centuries ago and logic has always been a big problem for me.

But how they left the cylinder thingy orbiting around the moon at one point, then landed with limited fuel and then managed to take off again at the exactly correct time and speed, to reunite with the same cylinder and then reattach itself to that cylinder and then fly another 3 days home has always boggled me?

The moon is roughly a sixth the size of earth, that is a big thing. I just don't understand how they managed it so perfectly at the first time of asking? It must have been planned and actioned impeccably. I always found that one a stretch, it is the same logic as a beginner hitting the bullseye 28 times in a row, work it out.

I reckon they were up and around it possibly. They could well have got there and came back, but the landing and getting back is difficult to fathom.

Did they ever send recon missions to the moon prior to the Apollo 11 mission ? Surely that makes sense? At least it would have given the mission the option to abort an attempted landing if things were not going to plan?

But attempting to silence 100's of NASA employees is not possible. In fact I am astonished that one of the crew was not tempted to blab over the years if he was asked to lie to the entire world and his wife and kids.

Why have they never gone back? You would think they would have built something on it by now?

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119544463#Comment_119544463

If you have questions about how the lander made it down to the moon and back again, surely the best course of action is to look it up? It's fascinating stuff.

The race to the moon was chiefly that, a race. US vs USSR at the height of the Cold war, which is why eye-watering amounts of money were spent on it. After the US "won" that race, the political will to keep spending vast amounts to keep resending people up there faded for obvious reasons.

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119540956#Comment_119540956

Nope. We're dealing with a poster here who also believes that the International Space Station is actually fake. When confronted with footage, they claim it's shot "underwater" or on parabolic flights. There are strong hints they don't believe the Earth is a globe.

growleaves

Wibbs' emotional meltdowns and liking a video of Buzz Aldrin punching some guy are embarrassing.

Some of the same posters getting worked up over this would also become emotionally incontinent if told that a biological girl wasn't a boy in certain cases.

Its no surprise that conspiracy theories are gaining ground as mainstream discourse becomes increasingly curdled and disorientating. Mainstream science now comes as "package deal" with all sorts of strange social beliefs that are not believable and with commitments to leftism in general. You're told to believe it all equally.

I'm not questioning the moon landings, but I am saying that conspiracy theories are a semi-rational response to decline in social trust and a decline in trust of institutions. Even on the most optimistic interpretation you would have to admit that what we are told about how the world works by the mainstream is an admixture of truth and lies.

Markus Antonius

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119544102#Comment_119544102

Freemasons yes, Moon travellers, no. Neil Armstrong, who was the only (relatively) honest man in the bunch made only a handful of public appearances since the 'moonlanding', in all likelihood because he couldn't face the public with the shame of fueling such a gargantuan lie.

Armstrong and Collins on the otherhand had a much lower moral bar and were happy to flaunt it a lot more. It says it all really that not one of the astronauts would swear on a bible that they went to the moon. Not surprising they had the uncharacteristic reaction to punch, swear and threaten to kill the journalist who asked them...

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119544463#Comment_119544463

Exactly, you would almost consider it unbelievable wouldn't you?

Especially when this is one example of the rare pieces of footage we have:

https://youtu.be/sj6a0Wrrh1g?t=166

All those things that had to go right and they nailed everything without a single hitch. They must have excellent wifi signal on the moon too 😆

100s of NASA employees would not need to be silenced, they weren't privy to the deceptive information - it only took a very close collaboration (most likely freemasons under some kind of duress) to shoot the footage.

Just look at how uncomfortable they are in this interview:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RcKLAo62Ro

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119544661#Comment_119544661

Prior to the internet, stupid people were just stupid. Now, unfortunately, they have social media to broadcast it. Which they do, fanatically. This is why if you looked up the moon landings on Youtube a few years back, all the top hits were loony conspiracy videos. They actually had to change the algorithm.

Did we land on the moon? Yes. Discussion done. But nope, conspiracy theorists want to pretend that we didn't, and the contrarians and fringe types who orbit them want to validate that somehow or extract some nonsense message out of it :)