Something I never questioned until this idiot told me not to
(media.communities.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (44)
sorted by:
The first one would not have been that difficult to fake considering all the technology they had hidden at that point, but real landings are easier to do now than back then. They needed to produce something to show engineering superiority to other countries and continue research. The Russians did some crazy things back then. They killed a dog in their first LEO mission with a living animal because they weren't figuring out safe retrieval before launching.
saturn v rocket that was used.. nasa lost the plans.
hd video recording of the event. nasa lost the them.
australia has found the video of the event. nasa got them from them, then 'lost' them too.
with this little string of facts..
appear impossible to disprove.
But videos of jews in concentration camps still exist ?
something something FORD ran slave labor camps
i hear there was labor camps everywhere during that time
funny how this one group is the only one that appears
oh my.... you know about the dog. You have NO idea how many people I bring that up to and they never heard of it. I actually was taught that in grade school.
But the landings were faked. Artificial lights, of any kind, won't work in a vacuum, period. You can't be out on the moon when the sun's out - you'd die instantly.
The moon landings were just compilation footage of the training videos. If you dig, you can find some engineers standing near a VERY large, full scale moon with a track going around it. Hook a camera to that track, and you can easily make it look like you're "landing" on the Moon.
Van Allen radiation belts, start between 360 and 400 miles up. Can NOT be passed through by a human. We need 3 ft, of concrete all around you to be protected from Gamma radiation alone ; sun puts out ALL wave lengths of light = radiation. You'd instantaneously evaporate.
Fire / combustion of any kind won't work in a vacuum either. How'd they get off?
Why do we watch Neil Armstrong set up a FILM video camera on a tripod, get back in the LEM, and it's 'blasts off' back to the module..... nobody pays attention that the camera PANS UP to follow the LEM.
How they remote controlled a FILM camera, on the Moon, from Earth in 1969 is amazing because we don't have the tech to do that today.
Just a few points.
Light works in a vaccum because it doesn't need a medium. You're thinking of sound. Sound needs a medium.
The Van Allen belt is not solid at all. It's like a thin cloud.
Combustion works with oxygen, so you only need an oxidizer to supply oxygen to get combustion.
They had technology they didn't share with the public back then. I think the moon landing being faked with the technology is not outside possibility, but I won't disregard everything else over the possibility it could be or the possibility it couldn't.
I used to think the same, but once you really look into it you start to get the idea that for it to be a real landing it would have to be nothing short of a miracle of impossible proportions.
The late Dave McGowan really did write an excellent piece on it: http://centerforaninformedamerica.com/moondoggie/ If you have the time to go through it you will start seeing all the really "incredible" feats they have done.
If you do not have time, think of it like this: The best fighter jet from the sixties will be a sitting duck compared to any modern fighter jet. One would think with all of the advances of the last 50 years, going to the moon would be a piece of cake, except for the fact that they really can't do it again at the moment, and no, the typical brainwashed excuse of: "it cost too much" or "we don't need to" is bullocks.
The film would be shielded until it was being used and it would be affected by radiation, but still usable. But it's not even my position to defend.
I don't know much about film. I would need to be an expert in multiple specific fields to defend a position that isn't even mine. I just don't think that one possible fake moon landing means flath Earth. It's a stupid connection to make.
wrong.
Artificial light can NOT work in a vacuum. Take a clear tube, a flashlight and a vacuum cleaner. Real simple. Artificial light reacts with oxygen. No oxygen in space. You can even go to NASA's website and read, for yourself, the ENTIRE equipment lists for the Moon landings - no artificial lights.
The VA Radiation belts aren't clouds. Do know what radiation is? It's a form of light, doesn't have a physical property you can touch.
Take a container. Fill half with fuel, half with oxygen. Place an igniter inside. Place entire container in a vacuum. Ignite, and open a vent for exhaust ( or all you have is a bomb ). The nanosecond the vent opens, the vacuum rushes in and separates all atoms. Process fails.
Combustion of any kind can not work in a vacuum.
By your logic, vacuum sealed beam headlights, standardized in 1940, wouldn't work because the light would never leave the vacuum sealed unit. But they do work, because regardless of source, light can travel through a vacuum.
It’s astonishing how confident you are while being so obviously wrong.
Guess you missed my post on the Dunning Kruger effect.
Wow
I'm not sure how anyone buys the footage of us being in "low earth orbit" even. Have you rewatched the first NASA space walks recently? Go do that if not. Also check out Dilly Gill's channel, he does some really good research and explanations on the HOW they were able to do all the filming/faking, would recommend that as well.
Go bacj to reddit for that