...DID we go to the moon?

[billvon]

I think it's quite possible that they lied about the altitude of the Gemini flights. Why are you so quick to believe the official story?

Because the physics works out. On the high altitude flights they got to orbit - _then_ rendezvoused with a target vehicle and used the target vehicle's engine to boost them to a higher orbit. This was practice for Apollo's Lunar Orbit Rendezvous plan, and a test of heat shielding for higher speed re-entries.

Needless to say "you are not in a position to verify this" because you'd need to understand physics to do so.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I think it's quite possible that they lied about the altitude of the Gemini flights. Why are you so quick to believe the official story?

The capsules were tracked by radar in various countries. Triangulation verified the height. But do keep trying. And failing.

 

[RainbowSingularity]

I think it's quite possible that they lied about the altitude of the Gemini flights. Why are you so quick to believe the official story?

over whelming global multi national scientific data surely tilts the scales a little.

if they were making such global multi-national-co-ordinated hoaxs back then, how can you trust your idea of the modern world is real ?
you cant prove airoplanes are real

 

[FatFreddy]

Because the physics works out. On the high altitude flights they got to orbit - _then_ rendezvoused with a target vehicle and used the target vehicle's engine to boost them to a higher orbit. This was practice for Apollo's Lunar Orbit Rendezvous plan, and a test of heat shielding for higher speed re-entries.

You read that this happened but how do you know that it really happened?

The capsules were tracked by radar in various countries. Triangulation verified the height.

Same as above. How do you know there were no secret deals with other governments made behind the scenes?

http://libcom.org/history/articles/cold-war-1940-1989
(excerpt)
-----------------------------------------------
In crucial respects, then, the Cold War was a kind of tacit arrangement between the Soviet Union and the United States under which the US conducted its wars against the Third World and controlled its allies in Europe, while the Soviet rulers kept an iron grip on their own internal empire and their satellites in Eastern Europe - each side using the other to justify repression and violence in its own domains. The Cold War even had a cultural component, with rival interventions in the art world.
-----------------------------------------------

over whelming global multi national scientific data surely tilts the scales a little.

Same as above. Lot's of stuff that we read is all lies.
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/we-never-went-to-the-moon.145207/page-26#post-3475851

We are not in a position to be able to confirm if the Gemini craft went up as high as we were told they went and documents that say they went up to over seven hundred nautical miles are not proof that they did so.

There's no reason to simply believe this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Gemini#Missions
(excerpt)
-----------------------------------------------
Gemini 11 set a manned Earth orbital altitude record of 739.2 nautical miles (1,369.0 km) in September 1966, using the Agena target vehicle's propulsion system. This record still stands as of 2017.
-----------------------------------------------


You people have a naive willingness to believe when you read official info and an a priori incredulity when you look at hoax evidence. An objective truth-seeker has neither a naive willingness to believe, nor an a priori incredulity.

 

[sideshowbob]

You read that this happened but how do you know that it really happened?

Same to you: How do you know the "objections" that you post are real?

How do you know there were no secret deals with other governments made behind the scenes?

Same to you: How do you know there isn't a conspiracy to fool you into thinking there's a conspiracy?

Lot's of stuff that we read is all lies.

Same as above. How do you know that what you read isn't lies?

You people have a naive willingness to believe when you read official info....

Same to you: You have a naive willingness to believe when you read what some goober posted on the Internet.

 

[billvon]

You read that this happened but how do you know that it really happened?

Because the details all add up. Ground stations from many countries tracked those missions. People in the US tracked them with telescopes, and the orbital period agreed with the higher apogee. Many of those missions failed, which you'd expect with brand new technology/capabilities like orbital rendezvous. Burn times are consistent with the increase in apogee.

Same as above. How do you know there were no secret deals with other governments made behind the scenes?

Occam's Razor.

An objective truth-seeker has neither a naive willingness to believe, nor an a priori incredulity.

Exactly. You show a very naive willingness to believe hoaxes, and a complete lack of background in physics and astronautics that would give you the background to tell truth from fiction.

 

[Michael 345]

Same to you: How do you know the "objections" that you post are real?

Same to you: How do you know there isn't a conspiracy to fool you into thinking there's a conspiracy?

Same as above. How do you know that what you read isn't lies?

Same to you: You have a naive willingness to believe when you read what some goober posted on the Internet.

Stalemate

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"Same as above. How do you know there were no secret deals with other governments made behind the scenes?"

Burden of proof is on you.

 

[FatFreddy]

Because the details all add up. Ground stations from many countries tracked those missions. People in the US tracked them with telescopes, and the orbital period agreed with the higher apogee. Many of those missions failed, which you'd expect with brand new technology/capabilities like orbital rendezvous. Burn times are consistent with the increase in apogee.

I wasn't going to bother responding to this as I've already stated my position. My position is that we read that all of this is true but we can't be sure that's it's really true. It all might be bogus info.

Of course the physics adds up on the info they give us but that's not the issue. The issue is whether the info they give us is bogus. Saying the physics adds up doesn't address the argument.

Same to you: You have a naive willingness to believe when you read what some goober posted on the Internet.

You're being simplistic. There are a lot of confirmed lies told by the mainstream (see link in post #244) so the source you depend on has no credibility. Have you people looked at the info? I don't simply believe something that Noam Chomsky says but when he talks about what the US does in third world contries, what he says is usually consistent with what people from those countries say so I think what he says about the cold war shouldn't simply be ruled out.

Some of the anomalies are simply too clear to obfuscate.
https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showth...pollo-footage-was-filmed-in-air-here-on-earth

Saying that I simply believe something may be bogus doesn't fit here. Those are clear anomalies that prove the hoax. They have not been debunked.

 

[Michael 345]

Saying that I simply believe something may be bogus doesn't fit here. Those are clear anomalies that prove the hoax. They have not been debunked.

Just out of my personal curiosity

Pick any mission, or do a job lot on them all

Say you pick Apollo 14, not saying you have to, feel free to pick any of them. Can you give answers to the following?

• what was the duration of the mission?
• how many defects found?
• total duration of all the defects would be? and
• that duration (of the defects) would be what % of the mission

Should take no longer than 15 minutes to work out as I am sure all such information would be at your fingertips

Thanks

 

[RainbowSingularity]

"we" didn't go to the moon
a very small extremely highly specifically skilled set of men risked their lives almost daily to land on the moon at personal risk putting their lifes in the hands of equipment that was cutting edge science and on the fringe of the ability of the then current American scientific community.

attaching ones own sense of timid complacent malaise Ego into the mix is probably literately deemed as a direct attempt to pre-set the theme to the nature of the facts as a form of intended bias.

but that's ok such self indulgent ego centering propaganda leverage of personality narcissistic self determination is nothing new.

maybe you could ask a different question
"is my rocket the Apollo to your moon?"
"Can my Moon accommodate your lovely big rocket?"
"i would love to see your dark side but im busy polishing my rocket can we take a assteroid check?"

real sciencey hard hitting spankalicious factoids like that should no doubt disrobe a great deal of worth while skyience

 

[RainbowSingularity]

"Same as above. How do you know there were no secret deals with other governments made behind the scenes?"

Burden of proof is on you.

when talking shit it is far better to leave a bad smell in the air than be caught with a pants load of crap

 

[sideshowbob]

There are a lot of confirmed lies told by the mainstream (see link in post #244) so the source you depend on has no credibility.

And almost everything in the conspiracy-nut-stream is lies so the source you depend on has no credibility.

Those are clear anomalies that prove the hoax. They have not been debunked.

You can repeat that until the cows come home. It's still false.

There are thousands of threads of evidence pointing to the truth of the moon landings. Your bunch has made laughable attempts to deny a tiny handful of the evidence.

 

[billvon]

I wasn't going to bother responding to this as I've already stated my position. My position is that we read that all of this is true but we can't be sure that's it's really true. It all might be bogus info.

Of course the physics adds up on the info they give us but that's not the issue. The issue is whether the info they give us is bogus. Saying the physics adds up doesn't address the argument.

The problem that you have is that word 'they.' The information doesn't come from 'them' - meaning whoever you think is in on the 'hoax,' like NASA. It comes from ARRL, and CSIRO, and MIT, and Cornell, and JPL, and India, and Stanford. Heck, even a grammar school in England. All the information they have supplied - records of amateur radio operators listening to Apollo 11, scientists bouncing lasers off the reflectors left on the Moon, orbital calculations done by measuring the period of orbits, pictures taken of the landing site by other countries - it all supports the facts of what actually happened.

Saying that I simply believe something may be bogus doesn't fit here. Those are clear anomalies that prove the hoax. They have not been debunked.

They have been debunked dozens of times - by scientists.

 

[paddoboy]

Time to post my all time favourite video! Good on you Buzz!!! Please note this idiot that Buzz punched deserved it and much more.....

and his another rebuking these nutty ratbags!!!

 

[FatFreddy]

Pick any mission, or do a job lot on them all

Say you pick Apollo 14, not saying you have to, feel free to pick any of them. Can you give answers to the following?

• what was the duration of the mission?
• how many defects found?
• total duration of all the defects would be? and
• that duration (of the defects) would be what % of the mission

It would take too long. Here's a summary of hoax info you can look at.
https://www.giraffeboards.com/showthread.php?t=31034
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/did-we-go-to-the-moon.134682/page-2#post-3151173


You people haven't said anything that debunks the info about the media I posted in post #510.
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/we-never-went-to-the-moon.145207/page-26#post-3475851

Have any of you looked at this info?


Here's an objectivity test for you people. In post #26 of this thread...
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=1118.15

...Jay Windley* says that putting large-grained dust-free sand in a dump truck and transporting it and dumping it would cause enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust cloud when the sand is driven over.

Do you agree with him? Please don't give any ambiguous answers.


*
http://www.clavius.org/about.html

 

[Michael 345]

It would take too long. Here's a summary of hoax info you can look at.
https://www.giraffeboards.com/showthread.php?t=31034
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/did-we-go-to-the-moon.134682/page-2#post-3151173


You people haven't said anything that debunks the info about the media I posted in post #510.
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/we-never-went-to-the-moon.145207/page-26#post-3475851

Have any of you looked at this info?


Here's an objectivity test for you people. In post #26 of this thread...
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=1118.15

...Jay Windley* says that putting large-grained dust-free sand in a dump truck and transporting it and dumping it would cause enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust cloud when the sand is driven over.

Do you agree with him? Please don't give any ambiguous answers.


*
http://www.clavius.org/about.html

So as I expected you don't check information, just recycle junk

Oh well was worth few minutes of my time but obviously 15 minutes of your time to valuable to waste on finding out something

Byeeee

 

[FatFreddy]

So as I expected you don't check information, just recycle junk

Oh well was worth few minutes of my time but obviously 15 minutes of your time to valuable to waste on finding out something

Do you agree with Jay Windley?

 

[billvon]

...Jay Windley* says that putting large-grained dust-free sand in a dump truck and transporting it and dumping it would cause enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust cloud when the sand is driven over.

Do you agree with him? Please don't give any ambiguous answers.

Not enough information provided from your leading question.

Large grained dust free sand is effectively gravel. Putting it in a dump truck and transporting it and dumping it would create dust, because the act of dumping it in, transporting it over a bumpy road and dumping it would cause a lot of friction, and that friction would generate small fragments (dust.) Not erosion, friction.

So the question doesn't make sense to begin with. If you started out with dust-free large grained sand (or gravel) and transported it you wouldn't end _up_ with dust free large grained sand.

 

[David C]

It would take too long. Here's a summary of hoax info you can look at.

Have any of you looked at this info?

Epic spam. Have you looked at this?

http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com/

Please try not to dismiss it because you have labelled the author unfavourably. Address the arguments.

Here's an objectivity test for you people. ...Jay Windley* says that putting large-grained dust-free sand in a dump truck and transporting it and dumping it would cause enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust cloud when the sand is driven over.

Do you agree with him? Please don't give any ambiguous answers.

Yes. I agree with him.

Since he is a fully qualified engineer, and since this is blindingly obvious it would take a monumentally stupid person to claim otherwise. I believe this is the point where you, the sole arbitrator of this ridiculous straw man argument, now say that I have no credibility. Thus, you can dismiss every argument made by me. This is what you did with Windley's website that absolutely destroys your wall of spam. It is your stop gap response to everyone who tears you multiple butt holes.

Considering all the crazy things you assert, credibility is not yours to judge with.