K. So what aspect of this do you find physically impossible? Run me through every possible complaint you might have about the physical operation of the process of sending people to space between bodies.
explain the logic
The United States was occupied by a foreign government in 1945 and conquered legally in 1971. When the political narrative surrounding outcompeting the communists in one facet of society was deemed no longer expedient, funds were redirected from human spaceflight toward traditional war (Vietnam) and silent war (CIA operations) instead.
For the same reason we developed battleships until they were no longer financially justifiable, ICBMs until they were no longer financially justifiable, we developed the Saturn V until it was no longer justifiable. The rockets slated for Apollos 18, 19, and 20 are on display because there was no funding to fly them.
Moreover, look at the 1960s/1970s understanding of space and the utilization of its resources. Satellites exploded in popularity because of their low cost and high utility with readily available and developed technology. But justifying long-term human presence on other bodies requires asteroid mining/smelting/etc. Scientific grants can’t foot the bill. As such, we still don’t have financial justification to do what can still be done more cheaply on Earth, both public and private.
Finally, returning to my initial point, in 1965, the United States had its borders thrown open to other species and whites were forced at gunpoint to accept it. As such, we have collectively and subconsciously given up. As a species. No technology in use today, in any field, hails from later than 1970. It has been clinically proven that multicultural societies cause people to refuse to dedicate resources to a future they no longer own, because those resources aren’t guaranteed to go to their own children. We don’t bother developing things anymore because we recognize we’re going extinct and the brain, in self-defense, refuses to be cuckolded.
For your first point, there are many reasons why, physically, a human moon landing is impossible, but you don’t need many to debunk it. How about these, to start?
Fuel capacity for the round trip. The spacecraft would need to be huge to launch that much cargo.
No blast zone around the landing/launch site.
No dust. Anywhere.
Van Allen Belt.
Communications.
“Wagging the Moondoggie Parts 1-4” covers your second point well (and loads more of the physical aspects of the hoax too). Have you read it? There’s audio files there too:
The surface dust was blown away down to the rock substrate. There’s not much loose “soil” on the Moon at any given time due to constant solar ablation in the first place.
no dust
There’s literally dust everywhere. It’s jagged, so it coated all the suits, the surfaces the suits touched, the interior of the LEM, and it overheated suits and the rovers, besides gumming up the axles and general operation. Apollo 12 landed a few hundred yards away from Surveyor 3, coating it with dust and interfering with one of the experiments to return parts from it to study the effects of vacuum solar exposure on machinery.
Van Allen belt
What about it. Don’t stay in it. They didn’t. In the same way that 10gs are survivable for under a minute and 100gs are survivable for under a thousandth of a second, radiation is survivable if you’re not around it for prolonged periods. Their parking orbit was below the belt, their outbound leg was at escape velocity, and their return leg was at almost twice that speed.
Humans have never been past low earth orbit
140-ish thousand feet seems to be the popping point for weather balloons. I doubt anyone or anything has been further than that.
Right. You are completely correct on all counts.
So electricity doesn’t exist because Kalahari bushmen still haven’t discovered bronzeworking?
Prove that we landed on the moon and explain the logic on why we haven’t been back.
K. So what aspect of this do you find physically impossible? Run me through every possible complaint you might have about the physical operation of the process of sending people to space between bodies.
The United States was occupied by a foreign government in 1945 and conquered legally in 1971. When the political narrative surrounding outcompeting the communists in one facet of society was deemed no longer expedient, funds were redirected from human spaceflight toward traditional war (Vietnam) and silent war (CIA operations) instead.
For the same reason we developed battleships until they were no longer financially justifiable, ICBMs until they were no longer financially justifiable, we developed the Saturn V until it was no longer justifiable. The rockets slated for Apollos 18, 19, and 20 are on display because there was no funding to fly them.
Moreover, look at the 1960s/1970s understanding of space and the utilization of its resources. Satellites exploded in popularity because of their low cost and high utility with readily available and developed technology. But justifying long-term human presence on other bodies requires asteroid mining/smelting/etc. Scientific grants can’t foot the bill. As such, we still don’t have financial justification to do what can still be done more cheaply on Earth, both public and private.
Finally, returning to my initial point, in 1965, the United States had its borders thrown open to other species and whites were forced at gunpoint to accept it. As such, we have collectively and subconsciously given up. As a species. No technology in use today, in any field, hails from later than 1970. It has been clinically proven that multicultural societies cause people to refuse to dedicate resources to a future they no longer own, because those resources aren’t guaranteed to go to their own children. We don’t bother developing things anymore because we recognize we’re going extinct and the brain, in self-defense, refuses to be cuckolded.
For your first point, there are many reasons why, physically, a human moon landing is impossible, but you don’t need many to debunk it. How about these, to start?
Fuel capacity for the round trip. The spacecraft would need to be huge to launch that much cargo.
No blast zone around the landing/launch site.
No dust. Anywhere.
Van Allen Belt.
Communications.
“Wagging the Moondoggie Parts 1-4” covers your second point well (and loads more of the physical aspects of the hoax too). Have you read it? There’s audio files there too:
https://centerforaninformedamerica.com/moondoggie/
Have you never seen a Saturn V?
The surface dust was blown away down to the rock substrate. There’s not much loose “soil” on the Moon at any given time due to constant solar ablation in the first place.
There’s literally dust everywhere. It’s jagged, so it coated all the suits, the surfaces the suits touched, the interior of the LEM, and it overheated suits and the rovers, besides gumming up the axles and general operation. Apollo 12 landed a few hundred yards away from Surveyor 3, coating it with dust and interfering with one of the experiments to return parts from it to study the effects of vacuum solar exposure on machinery.
What about it. Don’t stay in it. They didn’t. In the same way that 10gs are survivable for under a minute and 100gs are survivable for under a thousandth of a second, radiation is survivable if you’re not around it for prolonged periods. Their parking orbit was below the belt, their outbound leg was at escape velocity, and their return leg was at almost twice that speed.
Tells us next about the gas chambers and the holocoaster. I'm having a great laugh morning, thanks.
You’re shit at your job.
go back to trolling UNZ you idiot
Thanks for admitting you support white genocide, I guess.
For a private company, yes, that is an achievement.