Did the Americans put a man on the moon?

Markus Antonius

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120095069#Comment_120095069

You and your friend are expending energy which manifests itself in creating a displacement (i.e. distance) between you. Forget about the nature of the motion, think about the state you are in before the push and the final state after everything has settled. Both of you will be sitting there motionless but now with a distance between you. This only works because your friend is external to you. If your friend was sitting on your lap and you tried to throw them off, you wouldn't go anywhere as they are part of your system initially.

If we were to follow the magical rocket physics described above, you would slide away indefinitely, which is preposterous. If physics worked like that we wouldn't have an energy crisis 😆

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120095076#Comment_120095076

Nobody debunked anything so that's a useless contribution.

Why do some people pretend to be beggars on the street when, in truth, they are quite well off? What motivates them to do this and how do they keep it a secret?

magicbastarder

Moving goalposts around still obeys the same laws of physics as everything else...

Dohnjoe

Two astronauts demonstrating Newton's third law in space (3 minute video)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkVU-bj9bDk

One pushes the other, they both move in opposite directions to the force applied.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120095124#Comment_120095124

If we were to follow the magical rocket physics described above, you would slide away indefinitely, which is preposterous. If physics worked like that we wouldn't have an energy crisis 😆

Misrepresentation.

No one is arguing for "magical" anything except perhaps yourself.

In the analogy above, the people would not slide away indefinitely as they would be slowed by friction with the ice (it's small, but still there) and air resistance.

If this experiment was done in a vacuum in space then they would slide away indefinitely until another force acted on them. As per Newton's 1st Law.

You seem to be now arguing that this law is false.

Additionally your attempts at explaining the analogy contradict your stance.

You claim

Both of you will be sitting there motionless but now with a distance between you.

This doesn't make sense as you are arguing that the two people shouldn't slow down and stop since it's impossible to slow down in space.

But you are arguing that the two bodies move some unknown distance apart then stop dead. You don't explain how this happens.

It simply does not make any sense. And I suspect this is when you are unwilling to actually discuss the "nitty gritty" of your theory.

joe40

I have heard plenty of people sceptical about the moon landings, but this is the first time I have encountered someone saying rockets propulsion won't work in space.

ohnonotgmail

Probably best if this thread is left to die. Posters (myself included) are just giving them what they want.

silliussoddius

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120095239#Comment_120095239

They probably think a vacuum means a hoover and should suck it backwards.

robinph

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120095124#Comment_120095124

Have you ever been to an ice rink, or even watched skating on TV? Or come to that have you ever slipped on a frozen puddle or sat in an office chair with wheels on?

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120095124#Comment_120095124

How you think this irrelevent riddle counts as an explanation of this grand conspiracy theory is anybody's guess. We're not talking about beggars on the street. We're talking about two superpowers engaged in the Cold War.

I have asked specific questions of the rationale for this grand conspiracy.

I have outlined the basis as to why there is no coherent political rationale to underpin this great deception.

It is obvious from your response you have no coherent political explanation as to why this would be done. Or why the USSR and USA would both participate in this deception, especially the USSR re: the moon landings and the huge loss of prestige that mean for them.

These are fatal flaws in the plausibility of your theory at a political level.

Markus Antonius

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120095292#Comment_120095292

Here we go with the "Why didn't the USSR blow the whistle" lunacy. Maybe the USSR didn't know themselves? Even if they did know, why would they blow the whistle? Why would they help out the American people by telling them that they are being defrauded by NASA? Maybe they wanted to keep their own fraudulent space program a secret? Even if they did blow the whistle, would you believe them? Maybe they were shouting it from the mountaintops but nobody was listening?

During the cold war, a huge measure of dominance between the US and USSR was what range they could get on their missiles. The reason there wasn't an all out nuclear war when the USSR launched sputnik (i.e. a potential vessel to carry nuclear weapons to US soil) was because Eisenhower/JFK were fully aware that their space program was a farce.

This is why the cuban missile crisis was such a crisis because it actually brought the US within range of soviet missiles. Why did they need a base in cuba when they could deliver bombs via a space rocket?

robinph

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120095292#Comment_120095292

There is also that Newton would have to be in on the conspiracy as well, along with any other person paying vague attention to the world around them since the invention of the wheel, or discovery of how to create and control fire.

For the moon landings and space travel to be fake, the entirety of science since the dawn of time must also be fake.

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120095369#Comment_120095369

You're directly and indirectly claiming that the US and USSR faked their space programs. Along with the Japanese, and Europeans and Chinese and everyone. Private companies like SpaceX and Blue Origin. GPS systems and international commercial satellites. Not just that but you are claiming there is a vast cover-up and conspiracy going on for decades involving astronomical numbers of people, scientists, engineers, experts. That the international space station is not actually in space, that it's all shot underwater. That every space launch is trickery or CGI. That all photos from space are faked. On top of all that, you're claiming the related study of physics, orbital mechanisms, jet propulsion, large tracts of science is either wrong or part of the conspiracy. That schools all over the world that teach these are wrong, that universities have it all "wrong". That Newton was wrong, that essentially all human knowledge on the subject is wrong.

Or

You can't grasp some school science

Even you should be able to see why people are leaning towards the second one.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120095369#Comment_120095369

The USSR didn't know themselves that the missions were impossible? The USSR could put Sputnik into orbit but lacked the basic understanding to know the moon landing wasn't possible? But you do?

Because the claims you have made on this thread are not just about that the moon landing was impossible but are much wider in scope re: what space missions were not possible.

They wouldn't be helping out the USA. They would be helping themselves out because the loss in the space race to the USA was a great hit to the prestige of the USSR. If their programmes such as Sputnik were sound, but the US had faked it, they had expertise to know it was not possible, and the motive to disclose it.

Notice how when you are unable to respond to a point which is fatal to the plausibility of your theory, you dash off on a gish gallop tangent to distract the person from honing in on the point you could not refute.

The concern re: the cuba based missiles was the time the US would have to respond and the success of a first strike.

Evidence of the USSR shouting this from the rooftops = zero. Absolutely zero. To suggest that the USSR did this and there is no record of it is completely without merit or foundation. You have discredited your own theory by the falsehoods your have to resort to to defend it.

monkeybutter

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120093739#Comment_120093739

have you ever even seen a rocket of any kind, sure air to light to provide enough resistance to make a rocket move at that speed

monkeybutter

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120095245#Comment_120095245

if they are wasting their time here, it gives them less time to be doing some actual damage somewhere else

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120095463#Comment_120095463

I stumbled across a few videos online, I think some individuals believe that rockets work by pushing against the ground or air. This is why they refuse to accept that rockets work in the vacuum of space.

Even when there are experiments which demonstrate rockets working in vacuums, these individuals claim that the rocket is "pushing" against the piece of glass or whatever at the end of the vacuum chamber.

sydthebeat

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120095479#Comment_120095479

the issue of they cannot differentiate between the potential energy of a chemical such as fuel (petrol etc) an teh ability to turn this potential energy into the kinetic energy of motion.

no new energy is created, instead its the conversion of potential energy into kinetic energy and the resultant motion.

a coiled spring can be brought to space, put against a motionless spacecraft, released, and the resultant forces will move both the spacecraft and spring away from each other.

Thrusters are simply stronger versions of this energy and this conversion from potential to kinetic energy.

There are many, many examples of chemical potential energy being converted to kinetic energy to do work

Bogwoppit

Passenger jet planes, we’ve all travelled in them, they get pretty high.

Turbofan jet engines expel gases at speed to provide thrust, sounds similar to rockets.

Why do passenger jet planes travel so high? The air is considerably thinner that high up so according to Markus’ theory they would be far less efficient. Why expend all that energy getting so high in order to work in a less efficient environment?

I have 3 theories on why (following Markus’ line of thought here so near with me)

1; They do it to provide credence to the space travel hoax somehow

2; The windows in the planes are actually tv screens, we don’t actually go anywhere (haven’t figured out how they change the airport yet though)

3; I’m a shill (and so if everybody else who claims to have been on a jet plane).

Of course the debunkers will just say that planes fly high because (just like rockets), they work better in a low atmosphere environment.

monkeybutter

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120095479#Comment_120095479

the funny thing is, jets exist because air is so light, propellers wont work at high speed

Markus Antonius

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120095438#Comment_120095438

Do you really think the USSR, who had the greatest mathematicians in the world would let the US beat them in a space race? The only thing the US beat them at was how far they defrauded their own citizens.

Why didn't Russia land a man on Mars since? Wouldn't this give them the bragging rights in space if it's all about prestige as you say?

They didn't, because the US never went to the moon. The footage is laughably fake and the only thing propping it up is your gullibility. It's remarkable when you think about it. In order to believe the moonlandings, you are openly accepting that space travel is the only technological field in history which has regressed in the last 50 years rather than advance 😂

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120095771#Comment_120095771

But your entire argument rests on the USSR letting the US fake a win over them.

In order to believe your theory...

We have to believe that no expert in physics in any country could see through the deception.

We have to believe that the USSR scientists who could put Sputnik into orbit, could not see through the US deception.

But you could.

Your own posts contradict each other and therefore discredit your own theory.

magicbastarder

if you have to ask 'why haven't we been to the moon in 50 years?' as a way of supporting a moon landing hoax theory; why not ask 'why haven't we faked a manned moon landing/mars landing in 50 years?' as a way of supporting a counter-hoax theory?

if it was so much easier for them to fake the landings in the late 60s/early 70s - why did they stop faking them? the technology to fake the landings has come on in leaps and bounds in the intervening decades.

Man Vs ManUre

The British could only make it to Button Moon. Mr Spoon and Tim Peake the only 2 British astronauts i ever heard of.

Bogwoppit

Why didn’t the USSR fake them first for the win? Or when the US faked the moon landings why didn’t the USSR fake going to mars? Or the sun?

magicbastarder

also, if rockets don't work in a vacuum, what about the mirrors on the moon you can fire lasers at and get a measurable response from?

gameoverdude

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120095874#Comment_120095874

But did we put them there?

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120095273#Comment_120095273

You've clearly been reading the flat earth forums/tiktok/manifesto.

(yes, that is one of the explanations they have about how the atmosphere works on flat earth).

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120095121#Comment_120095121

Same as we saw with dissident, it all comes back to "proof" that there is an almighty god actually controlling everything and only a few people know the real truth about it and all evidence to the contrary is a test of their faith.

Most don't openly admit this, but let it slip in here and there.

Capt'n Midnight

Russia: The Real Moon Landing Hoax

After the Apollo 1 fire NASA really upped it's quality control game. This paid off when the engineers were fired after the moon landings and took the processes into general industry.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120095771#Comment_120095771

But space flight hasn't regressed. No one arguing this or "accepting" this.

We used to have a super sonic jetliner, but now we don't. Yet it would be wrong and ridiculous to suggest that aviation has regressed because of this.

Also if the Russia mathematicians were so unbeatable, then they would have figured out that space travel was impossible and figured out that the Americans were faking it.

So it seems you are arguing that you are somehow smarter or more well informed than the greatest mathematicians.