'Outer space' is only 50 miles up. 50 years ago ppl went 238,000 miles one way, several times, in a complete vacuum with 500 +/- temperature fluctuations, through asteroids, deadly radiation and other unknowns, using technology orders of magnitude less sophisticated than today. Brought a moon buggy as well as collapsible golf equipment smuggled in a pair of socks in a suitcase. [And now we can't go back because we destroyed that technology and it's too hard to do it again (Don Petit, NASA AstroNOT)]. 'Rockets' are still routinely exploding shortly after launch with millions of dollars of equipment on board. The list of contradictions is very long. Fraud.
Explain why the international SPACE station is only 280 miles above the surface in "low earth orbit".
Why did none of the shuttle missions go beyond the iSPACEs? Why did none go to the moon?
Project Orion is a 21st century program with a mission to send an unmanned vehicle THROUGH the belts to test for radiation exposure to the craft and instrumentation and radiation levels during exposure.
The young engineer heading the program, hosting the video said this mission was a first for nasa.
Explain why the international SPACE station is only 280 miles above the surface in "low earth orbit".
Its mission is to study thousands of experiments and allow many people to come and go. If it were on or near the moon, the logistics is dramatically greater. Much easier to maintain low orbit.
Why did none of the shuttle missions go beyond the iSPACEs? Why did none go to the moon?
Why would it? See my answer above. It takes 3-4 days to get to the moon. The cost of doing 'space stuff' in near-earth orbit is far easier and cost-effective.
Project Orion is a 21st century program with a mission to send an unmanned vehicle THROUGH the belts to test for radiation exposure to the craft and instrumentation and radiation levels during exposure.
Yeah, and they discovered there is a path that does not fry people which explains how they got to the moon and debunks your statement.
The young engineer heading the program, hosting the video said this mission was a first for NASA.
Just a note to say that belief in the Moon landings has nothing at all to do with intelligence.
A friend who's in Mensa sent me a link about something NASA was doing. I replied with, "It's hard to get excited about space when who knows if what they're doing is real." I included a copy of Dave McGowan's "Wagging the Moondoggie".
His reply began with, "I'm not going to read a word of that drivel...." How could he possibly know it was drivel if he'd never read a word of it? A grave and fundamental error in thinking. You see, he already "knew" the Moon landings were real, so what evidence could there possibly be that they weren't?
And this is coming from someone proven to be in the top 2% for intelligence.
the LRO images of the alleged landings sites are dodgy for many reasons:
They should be higher resolution. NASA has made two sets of images of landing site from lunar orbiting satellites. The earlier set at 50 km out and a later set at 25 km out. There was no improvement in resolution in the closer set of images.
At the time they made the images, both times, they have technology that can take images of earth from space with a high enough resolutions to tell what make of car is own the ground and even spot individual people. There is nothing like that resolution in the moon images. Why not?
The trails of the astronauts foots prints and rover tire trails are visible, despite the resolution issues. A stark contradiction. The rover itself appears as a pixelated blob, yet at the same resolution the tracks are clearly defined.
The boot print trails and rover tracks mysteriously stop abruptly outside the confines of the published area of the promotional image, and even rover tracks change color from black to white (the landing site images are a small part of a much larger surface scan)
inconsistent lighting between photos: with some pictures showing the artifacts lit up a bright white and others showing them pitch black, despite the Sun being directly overhead in both pictures; there is even one obliquely angled picture of the Apollo 15 site with the sunlit side of the ‘LM’ in darkness
there are ridiculous photos supposedly showing the US flag still casting a shadow on the lunar surface, when it should have been destroyed by micrometeorites decades ago. For a valid comparison, in 1992 the Soviet Union flag erected outside the orbiting Mir space station was reduced to ‘only two threads’ after less than two years of micrometeorite bombardment
I have no idea what you're talking about or the 'blob' you refer to. WTF are you on about?
inconsistent lighting between photos:
Oh this one again? Hey fuck wit, it's called reflectivity. The moon's surface reflects light onto shadowy areas. The apature of the camera also changes so some photos are different than others. If you know photography you know why. People who don't know (like you) invent conspiracy bull shit facts they know shit about.
micrometeorites decades ago
Baseless conjecture without anyone of any credentials that support you.
As in Flat Earth, you morons invent shit up and claim 'science fact' when none of you know anything, you don't have any degrees in science nor do you have anyone of any accreditation to support you. Come back with someone with more than a grade 12 education and an armchair to support your claims.
You've made no real points here, and launched straight into ad hominem, which is telling.
I'll just address one point:
Because the moon does not have spy satellites orbiting around it.
I'll just quote from the link I provided, since you probably didn't read it:
Since 2009, the LRO’s camera (LROC) has been mapping the lunar surface with resolutions of between 1m/pixel and 0.5m/pixel. In 2011, NASA announced that LRO had briefly descended in altitude and returned pictures of 0.25m/pixel.
For comparison, the cameras aboard the privately owned GeoEye-1 satellite have a resolution of 0.41m/pixel and are perfectly capable of distinctly resolving cars and humans from an altitude of nearly 700km (435.7miles).3
While bearing in mind that the ISRO probe is even more capable than the GeoEye, it is also true to say that having stated that the Apollo lunar landing sites were imaged by the LROC from a distance of 50km (31miles) at 0.5-meter resolution, the NASA images of these locations should be able to show any hardware present at these sites in distinct detail.
Yet the only LROC images that NASA has released since 2009 show a few white or gray pixels. Some are better than others, but generally they leave much open for interpretation.
1 meter per pixel looks exactly what this image looks like. You can see the lander, footprints and other items left behind. What's your problem? Can't understand reality?
Even if we assume those arbitrary low-res lines aren't made by microsoft paint, all that proves is that there is in unmanned robot on the moon. Same as the one Russia put there. Same as the one China put there. It does NOT prove we put men on the moon and got them back safely. Got any more evidence? No ya don't faggot lmao
Yeah but have you been convinced its real? The burden of proof is on them. Any evidence they could have used is destroyed or lost (in their own words) so they litteraly can't prove its real.
A lot of technology we use today was based on the stuff we did to get to the moon, including the tech behind this phone post. Even if we didn't explicitly get to the moon, we had the technology and money to do so.
So youre not convinced we made it? I mean its totally OK to believe we did but just know that it would be completely faith based. There's no proof at all.
I am convinced the science wasnt and still isnt there to go.
I know air conditioning will not work in space as there is nothing to transfer the heat to. (2nd law of thermal dynamics) I dont believe a rocket will push a craft in space as there is nothing to push against.
These are the big reasons I dont think its possible to go.
I believe the pics are fake. Which makes sense to have sexy pics whether they went or not. I believe the vids could be faked because they are so dark, granny, and well framed. There are even angles taken outside the craft as they landed if I remember right. Who took that??
I respect your skepticism and willingness to debate it.
700 million views (allegedly) of pointing at the moon-landing; while singing "sweet dreams are made of this".
How would you define relevancy? How about bringing flat earth into this as-well? Here ya go... https://pic8.co/sh/N9oxoU.jpg Lying on the flat plane while having the goyim (cattle) run in circles. Now look again at the intro and notice the globe in the pic as-well. "Who am I to disagree?"
Are you a disinfo/distraction agent?
a) all suggested information tempts one to ignore perceivable inspiration; hence representing "disinformation".
b) AGENT (action) ignores being reaction (living) within enacting (dying). Free will of choice represents a reaction within enacting balance (need/want); not the source of any action.
c) sleight of hand for those with eyes to see: "I am whatever you say I am; cause if I wasn't; then why would I say I am?"
d) pointing out ignored inspiration tempts those ignoring it to feel offended by lack of comprehension. I'm used to handle the heat of that.
Someone should ban you from posting here.
Suggestion in the name of others for passing judgments; while shirking responsibility for the choice of making suggestions within a system based on perception.
NEETtpride
NEETpride aka the pride of "wanting" what others are suggesting under the umbrella of "need"...a contradiction in terms.
'Outer space' is only 50 miles up. 50 years ago ppl went 238,000 miles one way, several times, in a complete vacuum with 500 +/- temperature fluctuations, through asteroids, deadly radiation and other unknowns, using technology orders of magnitude less sophisticated than today. Brought a moon buggy as well as collapsible golf equipment smuggled in a pair of socks in a suitcase. [And now we can't go back because we destroyed that technology and it's too hard to do it again (Don Petit, NASA AstroNOT)]. 'Rockets' are still routinely exploding shortly after launch with millions of dollars of equipment on board. The list of contradictions is very long. Fraud.
Hey, hey! Disengage brain. Science says we went, so we went.
Best way to put it. kudos. Fairy tales for kids.
Four words.
Van Allen radiation belts.
Two words.
Project Orion.
Never been there.
Only morons say this because they are too stupid to understand that there is a gap between these belts called the slot region, which is generally devoid of energetic particles. https://science.thewire.in/the-sciences/apollo-11-van-allen-radiation-belts-translunar-injection/
A project in the 50's is your proof? - lol. What a fuck wit. Try again.
Okay knuckle dragger. I'll play along.
Explain why the international SPACE station is only 280 miles above the surface in "low earth orbit".
Why did none of the shuttle missions go beyond the iSPACEs? Why did none go to the moon?
Project Orion is a 21st century program with a mission to send an unmanned vehicle THROUGH the belts to test for radiation exposure to the craft and instrumentation and radiation levels during exposure.
The young engineer heading the program, hosting the video said this mission was a first for nasa.
Shit is on YouTube for shits sake.
Its mission is to study thousands of experiments and allow many people to come and go. If it were on or near the moon, the logistics is dramatically greater. Much easier to maintain low orbit.
Why would it? See my answer above. It takes 3-4 days to get to the moon. The cost of doing 'space stuff' in near-earth orbit is far easier and cost-effective.
Yeah, and they discovered there is a path that does not fry people which explains how they got to the moon and debunks your statement.
Yeah, Apollo was 1969 - Orion led the way.
Just a note to say that belief in the Moon landings has nothing at all to do with intelligence.
A friend who's in Mensa sent me a link about something NASA was doing. I replied with, "It's hard to get excited about space when who knows if what they're doing is real." I included a copy of Dave McGowan's "Wagging the Moondoggie".
His reply began with, "I'm not going to read a word of that drivel...." How could he possibly know it was drivel if he'd never read a word of it? A grave and fundamental error in thinking. You see, he already "knew" the Moon landings were real, so what evidence could there possibly be that they weren't?
And this is coming from someone proven to be in the top 2% for intelligence.
So true. Highly intelligent people can be VERY susceptible to social pressure
I'm less and less certain that there are 'highly intelligent people', outside of autistic pursuits with well defined rules (chess, programming etc).
the LRO images of the alleged landings sites are dodgy for many reasons:
They should be higher resolution. NASA has made two sets of images of landing site from lunar orbiting satellites. The earlier set at 50 km out and a later set at 25 km out. There was no improvement in resolution in the closer set of images.
At the time they made the images, both times, they have technology that can take images of earth from space with a high enough resolutions to tell what make of car is own the ground and even spot individual people. There is nothing like that resolution in the moon images. Why not?
The trails of the astronauts foots prints and rover tire trails are visible, despite the resolution issues. A stark contradiction. The rover itself appears as a pixelated blob, yet at the same resolution the tracks are clearly defined.
The boot print trails and rover tracks mysteriously stop abruptly outside the confines of the published area of the promotional image, and even rover tracks change color from black to white (the landing site images are a small part of a much larger surface scan)
inconsistent lighting between photos: with some pictures showing the artifacts lit up a bright white and others showing them pitch black, despite the Sun being directly overhead in both pictures; there is even one obliquely angled picture of the Apollo 15 site with the sunlit side of the ‘LM’ in darkness
there are ridiculous photos supposedly showing the US flag still casting a shadow on the lunar surface, when it should have been destroyed by micrometeorites decades ago. For a valid comparison, in 1992 the Soviet Union flag erected outside the orbiting Mir space station was reduced to ‘only two threads’ after less than two years of micrometeorite bombardment
https://www.aulis.com/j_white_col2.htm
https://youtu.be/qr3YrmTOQaY?list=PL41EF9DE445B05F89
Yes there is. FFS - you might want to think before you post that what you say is 100% wrong.
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/images/index.html
Because the moon does not have spy satellites orbiting around it. Gee, again, your injection of "things you know nothing about" is telling. They do today https://www.space.com/12030-moon-photos-nasa-lunar-reconnaissance-orbiter.html
I have no idea what you're talking about or the 'blob' you refer to. WTF are you on about?
Oh this one again? Hey fuck wit, it's called reflectivity. The moon's surface reflects light onto shadowy areas. The apature of the camera also changes so some photos are different than others. If you know photography you know why. People who don't know (like you) invent conspiracy bull shit facts they know shit about.
Baseless conjecture without anyone of any credentials that support you.
As in Flat Earth, you morons invent shit up and claim 'science fact' when none of you know anything, you don't have any degrees in science nor do you have anyone of any accreditation to support you. Come back with someone with more than a grade 12 education and an armchair to support your claims.
You've made no real points here, and launched straight into ad hominem, which is telling.
I'll just address one point:
I'll just quote from the link I provided, since you probably didn't read it:
1 meter per pixel looks exactly what this image looks like. You can see the lander, footprints and other items left behind. What's your problem? Can't understand reality?
https://imageio.forbes.com/blogs-images/startswithabang/files/2018/12/584398main_M168353795RE_25cm_AP12_area-1200x900.jpg?format=jpg&width=960
Are you so incompetent that you couldn't replicate that image in MS paint in 30 seconds? Figures.
why would I want to do that?
lmao you're such a simp for the deep state
imagine thinking this image is proof that men landed on the moon and returned safely to earth: https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_width_feature/public/thumbnails/image/vikram_ejecta_1100px_scalebar.png
Well yeah, that's a lame ass photo. But this one is not:
https://imageio.forbes.com/blogs-images/startswithabang/files/2018/12/584398main_M168353795RE_25cm_AP12_area-1200x900.jpg?format=jpg&width=960
Even if we assume those arbitrary low-res lines aren't made by microsoft paint, all that proves is that there is in unmanned robot on the moon. Same as the one Russia put there. Same as the one China put there. It does NOT prove we put men on the moon and got them back safely. Got any more evidence? No ya don't faggot lmao
I never saw American Moon but I independently reached the conclusion that the moon landing didn't happen. I'll check it out, thanks!
So far I've yet to be convinced it's fake, but I wouldn't be surprised.
Yeah but have you been convinced its real? The burden of proof is on them. Any evidence they could have used is destroyed or lost (in their own words) so they litteraly can't prove its real.
A lot of technology we use today was based on the stuff we did to get to the moon, including the tech behind this phone post. Even if we didn't explicitly get to the moon, we had the technology and money to do so.
So youre not convinced we made it? I mean its totally OK to believe we did but just know that it would be completely faith based. There's no proof at all.
There's tons of footage, with nuances that are very hard to fake for a movie studio at the time.
Tech to go to the moon and make smart phones but not fake pics?
Tech behind satellites and space communication.
They certainly had the tech to make convincing stillframes at the time, but not full video.
I am convinced the science wasnt and still isnt there to go. I know air conditioning will not work in space as there is nothing to transfer the heat to. (2nd law of thermal dynamics) I dont believe a rocket will push a craft in space as there is nothing to push against. These are the big reasons I dont think its possible to go. I believe the pics are fake. Which makes sense to have sexy pics whether they went or not. I believe the vids could be faked because they are so dark, granny, and well framed. There are even angles taken outside the craft as they landed if I remember right. Who took that?? I respect your skepticism and willingness to debate it.
A movie on TV? Nothing wrong with religion I just find it weird to worship NASA.
Who said anything about worship?
That's fair. "Faith in" or "blindly listen to" is probably more accurate. Its like watching the news and believing it.
FAKE. Watch American Moon documentary. Find it on yt, hard because shadowbanned, and on Odysee very easy to find.
link for the lazy?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qeMFqkcPYcg "Sweet dreams are made of this"..."Who am I to disagree?" https://pic8.co/sh/xZmfV3.jpg
"Some of them want to use you"..."Some of them want to get used by you"
"Some of them want to abuse you"..."Some of them want to be abused"
Wtf is this irrelevant shit? Are you a disinfo/distraction agent? Someone should ban you from posting here.
700 million views (allegedly) of pointing at the moon-landing; while singing "sweet dreams are made of this".
How would you define relevancy? How about bringing flat earth into this as-well? Here ya go... https://pic8.co/sh/N9oxoU.jpg Lying on the flat plane while having the goyim (cattle) run in circles. Now look again at the intro and notice the globe in the pic as-well. "Who am I to disagree?"
a) all suggested information tempts one to ignore perceivable inspiration; hence representing "disinformation".
b) AGENT (action) ignores being reaction (living) within enacting (dying). Free will of choice represents a reaction within enacting balance (need/want); not the source of any action.
c) sleight of hand for those with eyes to see: "I am whatever you say I am; cause if I wasn't; then why would I say I am?"
d) pointing out ignored inspiration tempts those ignoring it to feel offended by lack of comprehension. I'm used to handle the heat of that.
Suggestion in the name of others for passing judgments; while shirking responsibility for the choice of making suggestions within a system based on perception.
NEETpride aka the pride of "wanting" what others are suggesting under the umbrella of "need"...a contradiction in terms.
Wrong, you fucking schizophrenic. That's just a music video from the 1980s. Any moon landing skepticism you see there is just you reading into it.
Let's read a little further then.... https://eurythmics-ultimate.com/records/4999-annie-lennox-apollo-13-the-usa-promo-cd-nasa-cd-990013/
What are the fucking schizophrenic odds of such a coincidence? But then again "who am I to disagree?"..."some of them what to be abused".
Leave basement go back on meds