Did the Americans put a man on the moon?

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120110283#Comment_120110283

Yes, they were twins.

As for your views on NASA, what about the Roscosmos (Russian space programme) and the European space agency, are they also fake? 57 countries have managed to put satellites into space, all of that "fake" also?

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120110283#Comment_120110283

But again, Nasa wasn't founded by a Satanist or L. Ron Hubbard. What a bizarre claim to make.

Also, your argument about twins is likewise bizarre and unsupported.

Yes, they were twins (Edit: Brothers, not twins it seems.). You are claiming that they are in fact the same person. You've not shown anything to support this notion.

You have not shown that the other astronauts have dopplegangers either. You have simply copy and pasted a picture that shows people with the same/similar names who do not look anything like the astronauts. You've not shown that they are all the same age. You have not explained why Nasa would allow them to continue living with the same names and appearances.

Your current claim adds a new wrinkle. Why was Onizuka the only one of the astronauts given a fake twin? Why was he allowed to claim he was his twin after the disaster when you are claiming that it's a dead give away?

You also seem to be shifting your beliefs again. You originally claimed that Onizuka was not actually a twin, but now you're claiming that the fact he is a twin is somehow evidence that Nasa is secret Nazis.

This shows that either your beliefs are so vague a variable that you can completely reverse them like this, or they are not genuine.

It's also curious that you're claiming that Nasa is "obsessed with experimenting on twins."

There's only been one example I can find of this, which is the Twin study on the Kelly brothers. Beyond this, I don't see any other mentions or examples of twins even being in Nasa.

I'm actually not finding any sources that say that Onizuka's brother is a twin. Sources only refer to him as a "younger brother."

Additionally, your claim doesn't make sense. If they were faking all space flight with these twins, how would they be experimenting on them?

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120110186#Comment_120110186

Your claims are all false.

There were 6 manned moon missions in addition to dozens of unmanned missions. I'm not sure what "space moon modules" are.

Yes, they are still testing the Van Allen belts. This does not mean that the Van Allen belts would have prevented the moon missions. If you believe it would, can you provide what level of radiation would be a lethal dose and what dose astronauts traveling through them would receive? Can you also provide a reliable source for these numbers? I have asked conspiracy theorists many times for this, and never once received an answer.

I'm curious why you are claiming this when the conspiracy position seems to be that all space travel is impossible.

The photos are not fake. You are simply declaring that Kodak chrome 64 "does not act like that". Does not act like what? How do you know?

The Netherlands never gave back a moon rock because it was petrified wood.

This is a false story that never made any sense and has never been explained or defended by conspiracy theorists.

Here are some videos that explain it:

https://youtu.be/mHALUGcEEiQ

https://youtu.be/hGQhArtFqIM

Here is a written article that also explains it:

http://onebigmonkey.com/itburns/maansteen/maansteen.html

The short version is that the rock that was shown to be petrified wood was not presented by the astronauts or Nasa as a moon rock.

They also never gave it back.

Quazzie

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120086849#Comment_120086849

I know this is an old post, but I find it very telling that you think 99.9+0.01=100 😂

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120110283#Comment_120110283

So, tell everyone what's really going on, why are Nazi's relevant to the discussion? Why did the CIA fake a failure?

Manifesto time Markus, you have an audience, make it count.

Tony EH

First of all the "Nazis", as an organisation, didn't have an obsession with "testing on twins". It was really just one guy, Josef Mengele, and he confined most of his study to Auschwitz from 1943 to 44. Into the bargain, he had absolutely nothing to do with NASA's space program, unless NASA were secretly talking to him down in Argentina.

Secondly, NASA having a "fascination on using twins in their experiments" would make for an interesting 1970's conspiracy movie. But as far as reality is concerned...well, I don't even know where to start with that.

Big Bag of Chips

@Markus Antonius - I'm not sure what the Nazi's have to do with NASA. If you would like to post some link or evidence please provide it. Otherwise the discussion ends here.

Tony EH

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120111452#Comment_120111452

Well, it's no secret that the American's used German rocket scientists after the war. They poached them in 1945 and were happy to employ them in various areas involving rocketry, including their space programme. The Germans were so far ahead in terms of rocket science, that their scientists were considered a valuable spoil of war and the scientists themselves were only too happy to be put to work in the area that they wanted to work in. They were also happy not to have to answer for the regime's policy towards forced labour too, or just how deep their own Nazi credentials were.

The most famous of these, of course, was Wernher Von Braun, the "father of rocket science", who's expertise was invaluable to America's space programme.

However, using so called "Nazi scientists" to further their own ends certainly doesn't make NASA a Nazi organisation or even an affiliate. It just meant that they used their skills and research.

Markus Antonius

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120111939#Comment_120111939

Some Nazi's were put on trial in Nuremburg, others fled to South America. Affiliate or not - they housed prominent Nazis and gave them a very comfortable life at the very least. Von Braun himself treated like a celebrity. You can't deny this.

I find it incredible that the sceptics in this forum get riled the most by two things - Antisemitism and questioning NASA. Quite the oxymoron when you think about it.

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120113051#Comment_120113051

You aren't "questioning" NASA, you are claiming the entirety of space travel is false or faked. All of it. By everyone. Satellites, that people can see with binoculars (and even the naked eye) aren't there according to you. The International space station is a set. Countries don't send probes to other planets, science is wrong, physics is wrong. All according to you.

These are pretty big claims. Yet you aren't making any effort to explain how or why. Perhaps it's your belief you should be "questioning" more than anything.

Akrasia

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120092278#Comment_120092278

We can see satelites and the ISS in the night sky with naked vision

Go outside at night, look up, and if it's not cloudy, you'll see multiple satellites going past in a 10-20 minute timescale

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120113123#Comment_120113123

They're a test of your faith (Firmament - Wikipedia):

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120113310#Comment_120113310

Judging by this thread, my money is on "lol you think satellites are real?"

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120113051#Comment_120113051

Your claim was that Nasa was founded by a Satanist, a scientologist and a nazi.

You implied that these were the same person. But you don't seem able to specify who.

I'm not sure what point your trying to make. Why is it an oxymoron to not believe in the ridiculous claims you're making about space travel and also not believe in antisemitic conspiracy theories?

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120113123#Comment_120113123

There's been no attempt to try and explain this.

We ha e just been told that space flight is impossible because rockets cannot work in a vacuum. But these claims have since been abandoned when they were challenged and debunked.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120113485#Comment_120113485

And the poster submitted as evidence a video shot from orbit. So their own evidence disproves their core claim.

@Markus Antonius your own evidence

In case you think it wasnt noticed how you have tried to ignore this.

It was

Your claim has been proven false.

Thanks for submitting the evidence establishing this.

You have proven space flight is feasible and has happened.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120113515#Comment_120113515

This is one of the main reasons conspiracy theorists don't want to elaborate on their theories.

The more they make solid statements about what the believe, the more chances there are that they'd trip themselves up or post something contradictory.

It's much easier to keep things vague and "just ask questions".

But when they claim something so extreme it's hard to avoid these contradictions or find people who share your beliefs who aren't just open flat earthers.

MonkieSocks

Apollo 11: The Complete Descent:

A detailed account of every second of the Apollo 11 descent and landing.

The video combines data from the onboard computer for altitude and pitch angle,16mm film that was shot throughout the descent at 6 frames per second.

The audio recording is from two sources.

The air/ground transmissions are on the left stereo channel and the mission control flight director loop is on the right channel.

Subtitles are included to aid comprehension.

As well as Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin and Mike Collins, the video includes the following people from the mission control team:

Flight - Gene Kranz

CapCom - Charlie Duke

GNC - Buck Willoughby

EECOM - John Aaron

FIDO - Jay Greene

RETRO - Chuck Deiterich

Guidance - Steve Bales

Control - Bob Carlton

TELCOM - Don Puddy

Surgeon - John Zieglschmid

https://youtu.be/xc1SzgGhMKc

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120154272#Comment_120154272

A very clever fake I grant you. quote impressive for the time.

Markus Antonius

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120154272#Comment_120154272

How come East Germany got zero credit for landing man on Venus in 1960? There is absolutely no way this could be faked with the technology they had at the time (I have the telemetry data in an excel file here too if you need it):

https://youtu.be/5xDtliUL2bo?t=3164

Maybe @Wibbs could help us out here. Incredible that 1/5 people still don't believe we did it.

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120164697#Comment_120164697

Pathetic.

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120164697#Comment_120164697

Somehow I don't think highlighting a film with horrendous special effects is making your case any stronger.

They didn't have the video tech back then to fake a continuous live broadcast in "slow motion" for that period of time.

Keep in mind you aren't just denying the moon landing, you're denying all of them and the entire history of space flight from the last 50 years. You've yet to provide a single piece of credible evidence for that apart from personal disbelief and incredulity.

How do you rationalise to yourself how GPS and satellites work? You can buy a pair of decent binoculars and see them yourself (even possible to see them with the naked eye in the night sky).

Markus Antonius

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120164807#Comment_120164807

1. How do you know it was live and not just a prerecorded broadcast? Your entire moonlanding belief system revolves around faith - the faith in them to broadcast something live because they told you it was live. It's essentially saying "I believe in the moonlanding because my grandfather saw it on the television"
2. What makes you think there had to be 2 hours of continuous slow motion footage? Most of the footage there is absolutely nothing moving in the frame. The only parts that are slow motion are when they are hopping/driving/golf swinging. This certainly does not go on for 2 hours and even if it did - you could easily stitch smaller segments together. It is purely a matter of how fast the film reel is pulled through the projector. No witchcraft needed. @Wibbs never managed to explain his way out of this one despite a huge proportion of his moonlanding faith attributed to this argument.
3. Why don't you tell me how GPS works, and I don't want a link to a wiki page, I want you to tell me: Upon what technological principle does GPS work?

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120164945#Comment_120164945

1 and 2 addressed by the below video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_loUDS4c3Cs

For the 3rd point, can you answer the question I asked, thanks (repeated below)

How do you rationalise to yourself how GPS and satellites work? You can buy a pair of decent binoculars and see them yourself (even possible to see them with the naked eye in the night sky).

Markus Antonius

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120165022#Comment_120165022

I've seen that video countless times, it is the biggest pile of nonsense and doesn't address any of my points about 1. why you think the footage is live and 2. why you think there had to be 2 hours of continuous footage. Neither of these points are addressed here. But fine, the foundation stone to your moonlanding belief comprises a video of a film director who bizarrely thinks the footage can't be faked (despite it absolutely and undeniably being incredibly easy to fake). There is more compellingly believable footage in that East German film from 1960 linked above.

So GPS works because you have a pair of binoculars and you saw a satellite? I do not have the strength for this... 😖

You clearly do not know, upon which fundamental technological phenomenon, GPS works...

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120165081#Comment_120165081

It clearly explains how they didn't have the tech to fake the live continuous broadcast on the moon (involving continuous slow motion).

So GPS works because you have a pair of binoculars and you saw a satellite? I do not have the strength for this... 😖

You clearly do not know, upon which fundamental technological phenomenon, GPS works...

It's a simple question. If you want to try and answer it, it's there.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120164945#Comment_120164945

Noted how you dodged the question about satellites. The poster really doesn't need to address point #3

It is obvious you have no rebuttal to it.

Your entire argument is holed below the waterline.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120165221#Comment_120165221

Markus doesn't want to answer the question directly because it will reveal that he is either a flat earther or he is not genuine in his own beliefs.

Wibbs

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120164945#Comment_120164945

you could easily stitch smaller segments together. It is purely a matter of how fast the film reel is pulled through the projector. No witchcraft needed.

Tell me you know precisely bugger all about how film and video work, by telling me you know precisely bugger all about how film and video work.

As usual the conspiracy types just concentrate on Apollo 11. Handy for them as it had the crappiest black and white video cameras, though high quality still and film cameras. They ignore the hours upon hours of increasingly higher quality colour video footage(and audio and telemetry) from later missions. EVA's that showed near continuous colour video footage back to mission control(and other places like universities) for hour after hour where actual scientists watched and often directed through CAPCOM the astronauts to check out different geological features of interest to sample. Samples that they then directly examined in clean rooms back on Earth. They were all in on it too of course. As were all the universities and other scientists across the world who checked and sill reference their work and conclusions to this day.

That some write off an actual expert in film and video technology speaks volumes about their claims. Never mind referencing the inventive but pretty amateur hour special effects of 1960's East German film as a response and as "compellingly believable". Jaysus. 🤣 But let's look at "compellingly believable". Our images of space travel are very much influenced by Hollywood and other media, not the reality. Well the reality, especially in near Earth orbit, is cramped and slow and mundane in many ways. No laser guns, hyperspace and three titted blue aliens. Fantasy space bears almost no relationship or relevance to real space. No artificial gravity, no faster than light travel, no spacecraft banking in a vacuum. In space you couldn't even see the most powerful laser imaginable unless you looked down the barrel of it.

"Well that doesn't look real!!" What they're actually saying is "That doesn't look like the fantasy I believed!!".

GPS? In simple terms a system of satellites all running on very precise atomic clock time sending their position in space and time via radio waves(at the speed of light constant) to each other and the ground. The reciever on the ground such as a phone picks up these signals from different satellites overhead and works out the difference in distance between each of them and by simple telemetry calculates where you are in relation to them.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120164697#Comment_120164697

But this is not a very good point for you.

If this is the state of special effects for the time, how were they able to fake the moon landings?

If you believe that this movie is an attempt to fake a venus landing, why do you believe that Nasa didn't fake further landings beyond the Apollo ones?