Why do so many doubt the moon landing? | |
Anonymous Coward (OP) User ID: 1115432 Canada 10/01/2010 10:34 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 1116217 United States 10/01/2010 10:35 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | NO DUST on Lunar Lander or crater beneath it which should have been made by rocket thruster when landing. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1115432I hear stuff like that all the time, seems like such a small detail. I want to know why it ISN'T possible to get there. OP explain why you think NO DUST or Rocket Thruster crater is a small detail to you. |
508527
User ID: 1100406 United States 10/01/2010 10:35 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | lol, duct tape and tin foil [link to www.reformation.org] |
Anonymous Coward (OP) User ID: 1115432 Canada 10/01/2010 10:36 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Nikki_LaVey
User ID: 1044099 United States 10/01/2010 10:38 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I grew up with manned space flight. I saw Apollo 1 in the pad a few days before it burned. In my life I have known engineers, flight specialists, ground controllers, and contractors that all worked on the Apollo Program, I have taken private tours of Goddard Space flight center, Houston Space Flight Center, Cape Kennedy, Huntsville etc ... it was no fake. How Can You Be Two Places At Once When You're Not Anywhere at all |
Anonymous Coward (OP) User ID: 1115432 Canada 10/01/2010 10:39 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I grew up with manned space flight. Quoting: Nikki_LaVeyI saw Apollo 1 in the pad a few days before it burned. In my life I have known engineers, flight specialists, ground controllers, and contractors that all worked on the Apollo Program, I have taken private tours of Goddard Space flight center, Houston Space Flight Center, Cape Kennedy, Huntsville etc ... it was no fake. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 687593 Sweden 10/01/2010 10:40 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Because it was technically impossible in the late 60's to do it. Technology progress follows a linear step by step progress. They could send primitive crafts up in low orbit around earth, today we have space stations and space shuttles, more advanced but still in earth orbit. But 40 years ago they could land people 6 times, including 3 times together with a car! Get over it. Realize the truth, even if it hurts. To be based on truth is much more refreshing, think about that all you shills and dumb clowns on GLP. |
Anonymous Coward (OP) User ID: 1115432 Canada 10/01/2010 10:41 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Because it was technically impossible in the late 60's to do it. Technology progress follows a linear step by step progress. They could send primitive crafts up in low orbit around earth, today we have space stations and space shuttles, more advanced but still in earth orbit. But 40 years ago they could land people 6 times, including 3 times together with a car! Get over it. Realize the truth, even if it hurts. To be based on truth is much more refreshing, think about that all you shills and dumb clowns on GLP. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 687593You're on GLP....Shill or dumb clown? |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 905800 Mexico 10/01/2010 10:42 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
508527
User ID: 1100406 United States 10/01/2010 10:42 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward (OP) User ID: 1115432 Canada 10/01/2010 10:43 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Nikki_LaVey
User ID: 1044099 United States 10/01/2010 10:43 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Three words. VAN ALLEN BELT. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1115051That is all. Unless you deliberately caused your spaceship to hover within this layer, for many hours or days, the radiation exposure is well below dangerous levels. The Apollo astronauts passed through the Belts in less than four hours total for the trip. It's not much more serious than getting a chest x-ray How Can You Be Two Places At Once When You're Not Anywhere at all |
Nikki_LaVey
User ID: 1044099 United States 10/01/2010 10:48 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | why can't we do it today op, over 40 years later? Quoting: 508527If we had the will to do it of course we could do it again today. Maybe your not old enough to have lived through that time, but there was a great national will to go to the moon ... now we have lost our way as Americans to do great things. How Can You Be Two Places At Once When You're Not Anywhere at all |
Anonymous Coward (OP) User ID: 1115432 Canada 10/01/2010 10:49 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Three words. VAN ALLEN BELT. Quoting: Nikki_LaVeyThat is all. Unless you deliberately caused your spaceship to hover within this layer, for many hours or days, the radiation exposure is well below dangerous levels. The Apollo astronauts passed through the Belts in less than four hours total for the trip. It's not much more serious than getting a chest x-ray |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 1116040 United Kingdom 10/01/2010 10:50 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | When they go back? to the moon we shall know the truth,how a big tin can landed so easy,and how our new craft will find it not so easy to do,so would we not be better off with the old tin can craft,instead of wasting to much money on somthing we can not land on the moon,well i say go back the cheap way with the old type tin can craft,and cut the cost and see if we can do it again and again,bet you we can not. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 1106754 United States 10/01/2010 10:52 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | NO DUST on Lunar Lander or crater beneath it which should have been made by rocket thruster when landing. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1116217Both have been debunked 1000 times over and make no sense whatsoever if you know the first thing about basic physics. THAT's the problem in all this...those who claim we didn't go have no clue about this stuff. They just parrot what some tard selling books told them or they read it on some kook web site. I'll bet 100 dollars that the poster isn't capable of calculating just what the thrust per square foot hitting the ground underneath the LM was at landing. It's very basic first year physics stuff. If you run the numbers, you'll see that there could not possibly be a "crater" underneath it. The fact that there is no air means that there will be no dust hanging in it to settle on the footpads. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 1116217 United States 10/01/2010 10:53 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I grew up with manned space flight. Quoting: Nikki_LaVeyI saw Apollo 1 in the pad a few days before it burned. In my life I have known engineers, flight specialists, ground controllers, and contractors that all worked on the Apollo Program, I have taken private tours of Goddard Space flight center, Houston Space Flight Center, Cape Kennedy, Huntsville etc ... it was no fake. Did they worship Satin and Crowley with you? |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 1106754 United States 10/01/2010 10:53 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward (OP) User ID: 1115432 Canada 10/01/2010 10:53 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | NO DUST on Lunar Lander or crater beneath it which should have been made by rocket thruster when landing. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1106754Both have been debunked 1000 times over and make no sense whatsoever if you know the first thing about basic physics. THAT's the problem in all this...those who claim we didn't go have no clue about this stuff. They just parrot what some tard selling books told them or they read it on some kook web site. I'll bet 100 dollars that the poster isn't capable of calculating just what the thrust per square foot hitting the ground underneath the LM was at landing. It's very basic first year physics stuff. If you run the numbers, you'll see that there could not possibly be a "crater" underneath it. The fact that there is no air means that there will be no dust hanging in it to settle on the footpads. Congrats! |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 1106754 United States 10/01/2010 10:55 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Because it was technically impossible in the late 60's to do it. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 687593OK, put up or shut up. What exactly was lacking in the technology of the day? Please be specific. Remember that by the time of Apollo, both the USSR and the US had successfully sent probes to Venus and Mars. So, in detail, do tell us just what technology was lacking. I'm looking forward to your "educated" answer. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 1116217 United States 10/01/2010 10:55 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | NO DUST on Lunar Lander or crater beneath it which should have been made by rocket thruster when landing. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1106754Both have been debunked 1000 times over and make no sense whatsoever if you know the first thing about basic physics. THAT's the problem in all this...those who claim we didn't go have no clue about this stuff. They just parrot what some tard selling books told them or they read it on some kook web site. I'll bet 100 dollars that the poster isn't capable of calculating just what the thrust per square foot hitting the ground underneath the LM was at landing. It's very basic first year physics stuff. If you run the numbers, you'll see that there could not possibly be a "crater" underneath it. The fact that there is no air means that there will be no dust hanging in it to settle on the footpads. ...been debunked a 1000 times. Name the 1000 debunkers. |
Astronut
Senior Forum Moderator User ID: 634208 United States 10/01/2010 10:57 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | NO DUST on Lunar Lander or crater beneath it which should have been made by rocket thruster when landing. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1106754Both have been debunked 1000 times over and make no sense whatsoever if you know the first thing about basic physics. THAT's the problem in all this...those who claim we didn't go have no clue about this stuff. They just parrot what some tard selling books told them or they read it on some kook web site. I'll bet 100 dollars that the poster isn't capable of calculating just what the thrust per square foot hitting the ground underneath the LM was at landing. It's very basic first year physics stuff. If you run the numbers, you'll see that there could not possibly be a "crater" underneath it. The fact that there is no air means that there will be no dust hanging in it to settle on the footpads. ^This +10000000000000 |
Nikki_LaVey
User ID: 1044099 United States 10/01/2010 10:57 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | When they go back? to the moon we shall know the truth,how a big tin can landed so easy,and how our new craft will find it not so easy to do,so would we not be better off with the old tin can craft,instead of wasting to much money on somthing we can not land on the moon,well i say go back the cheap way with the old type tin can craft,and cut the cost and see if we can do it again and again,bet you we can not. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1116040Easy? Neil Armstrong almost crashed the LEM! How Can You Be Two Places At Once When You're Not Anywhere at all |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 610516 United States 10/01/2010 10:57 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 1106754 United States 10/01/2010 10:57 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Quoting: 508527 The same Kapton and MLI used on every spacecraft ever sent into space. Look it up. Dumbass. |
Anonymous Coward (OP) User ID: 1115432 Canada 10/01/2010 10:57 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Because it was technically impossible in the late 60's to do it. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1106754OK, put up or shut up. What exactly was lacking in the technology of the day? Please be specific. Remember that by the time of Apollo, both the USSR and the US had successfully sent probes to Venus and Mars. So, in detail, do tell us just what technology was lacking. I'm looking forward to your "educated" answer. That is my whole point exactly! All the deniers say ONE dumb thing at a time...no explanation...just simple little answers. |
Anonymous Coward (OP) User ID: 1115432 Canada 10/01/2010 10:58 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 1110949 United States 10/01/2010 11:00 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Nikki_LaVey
User ID: 1044099 United States 10/01/2010 11:00 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | NO DUST on Lunar Lander or crater beneath it which should have been made by rocket thruster when landing. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1116217Beneath the layer of dust, the Moon is made of fairly densely-packed rock. What dust and loose dirt there was though, was "kicked up" as referenced by the astronauts and captured in their landing films. How Can You Be Two Places At Once When You're Not Anywhere at all |
Anonymous Coward (OP) User ID: 1115432 Canada 10/01/2010 11:00 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Is there just that many chronic deniers out there? You're looking in the wrong direction. You need to focus your attention on all the chronic spewed by TPTB. If you eliminate the BS, all the chronic denying will go away. Not EVERYTHING in human history is a lie... |