Moon HOAX CONSPIRACY - LEM HATCH TOO SMALL! BEST DOCUMENTARY IS 1 OF OLDEST DOCUMENTARIES

I am sorry to burst your bubble but nothing you can see on a computer screen is really rpoof of anything since anything can be faked with digital rendering.

What you have is a CLAIM that the photos are real and no way in hell to ever hope to prove it.

It's just that simple.

Go to any GOOGLE EARTH image, see if you can see footprints in the dirt from 60 miles up.

Thats a fucking RETARDED BELIEF, the resolution of the camera that took the images was supposedly two meter or one meter resolution.

FOOTPRINTS OR FOOTPATHS WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE TO MAKE OUT, unless they were simply photoshoped, LIKE THEY WERE.

If you had the original rendering you could prove it one way or another.

When I asked to review the telemetry tapes to determine if the missions were real or not with certainty two days later NASA announced it had recorded over them to save money.

YEP.

This is simply not true. The computers used on Apollo were essentially identical electronically to what we use now.
Very vulnerable to charged particles corrupting the data.

According to NASA's own version of events Apollo spent two to three hours within a belt of proton radiation so high it would kill in minutes if not seconds. Yes, you can avoid the regions which are in ordinary conditions very high flux and energy values but what you CANNOT do is predict the density of particles or their energy at any latitude with accuracy, nor is it possible to reach the moon without going through deadly radiation.



Thats is the barrier we cant get past.

I think it is there for a good reason, we have people who are best off contained. If the whites continued their pattern as they went out into space it would be to kill everything that got in their way and conquor the natural order.

i've seen films of bigfoot. guess they must be real, right?

and the blacks would say space is racist and demand it be demolished.

The most obvious flaw in the photos is in every single one of them. The moons surface is not black and white.

It looks that way from earth from 240,000 miles away, but not on the surface.

Look at the Chinese moon probe photos. It has an overall brownish hue.

They used B&W surveyor images and scotchlite screen and a technique called rear screen projection to project it behind the astronauts.


If you doubt what I said look at some of the lists of the physical makeup of the surface, and what color those objects and materials are or would be. The "moonrocks" are geological samples of what IS SUPPOSED TO BE on the moons surface, all different colors.

It goes through the entire spectrum. What you see from earth is an AVERAGING of color.

As far as I am concerned this issue is concluded, no one can give me a single piece of evidence the moonlandings were an actual manned lunar mission that I cannot instantly debunk as nonsense.

Science is a cold hard bitch when it comes to proving something.

You don't just say you did it without someone else either duplicating it or proving it with physical evidence.

NASA has never reached that level of credibility and every year that goes by they lose more an more.

Not a single one of the astronauts of the sixties and seventies was black.
It baffles me why since they are physically and in many cases intellectually superior to whites.

I think there has been two or three since.

The ONLY color you will ever see in any NASA lunar surface photography is the artificial objects, and they are VIVID.

WHy arent the green and red rocks, and orange soil?



The same rock that is greyscale in the surface photography is very colorful on earth all of a suddden. How is that?

The only time a J w ever flew in space the space shuttle disintegrated over PALESTINE texas.

What a stupid son of a bitch you are.

And sick in the fucking head, apparently.

Solar wind, CME, gravity wave, black hole, dark matter, big bang, photon, EM wave, quantum, QM, GR, SR, also are all lies.

Van Allen Belts are also BS. There is no such thing at all.

Scientists today still don't know what is radiation/light energy/EM wave. Don't know radiation only coexisting with matters.

They think radiation photon particles that carry the energy from sun travel in space to earth at the light speed.

Stupid monkey science.

No radiation outside the earth's atmosphere. No radiation in empty space. Radiation only coexisting with matters/mediums.

Radiation/light/EM wave is AC transfer over space/distance, all matters are AC transformers and generators.

Radiation strength is inversely proportional to the distance squared to the sun.

Therefore spacecraft near around earth induced from the sun the same strength radiation as in earth outer atmosphere. About 1.3 kW per meter squared.

The stronger harmful radiation is closer to the sun, not near earth.

There is no Van Allen Belts in reality. Just another science lie.

Utter nonsense. The Apollo computers used something called rope memory that had to be hand-woven by little old ladies. They had some integrated circuits, but they were ridiculously less dense than modern chips (seven transistors per chip versus billions now) and therefore far less vulnerable to radiation hits.

[link to www.universetoday.com (secure)]

[link to airandspace.si.edu (secure)]

Robert Lawrence was selected in 1967 for a military space project that ended up feeding a bunch of astronauts to NASA, but he was killed in a plane crash that same year.

Fourteen black astronauts have flown in space, all on the space shuttle. [link to en.wikipedia.org (secure)]

Where did the hundreds of pounds of Moon rocks come from?

By that metric you wouldn't be able to prove that you exist.

This is an epistemological issue.
Since it is impossible to prove with 100% certainty that something wasn't faked with unknown means it is always the claimant of fakery who has the burden of proof.
If this wasn't the case we'd live in a permanent state of uncertainty about everything and wouldn't be able to function.

Solipsism is a dead end.


In regular mode, not when the images were taken.


Presumes facts not in evidence.


You just said that is impossible.
Make up your mind already.


Suuuuure...
That happened back in the 70s, and it wasn't done to save money.


Your misplaced sense of self-importance is rather amusing.


This is incorrect.
Modern processors use much smaller transistor-elements which are more vulnerable to galactic rays.


[citation needed]


This is incorrect.
There are very relliable models that are used for example to predict the lifespan of commercial satelites.


This is incorrect.
Space is 3D, buddy.


Presumes facts not in evidence.
And it very much contradicts the professional opinion of all scientists that study space radiation.



This is incorrect.
[link to nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov (secure)]

Clearly you haven't actually studied the images.


Well, it has become ABUNDANTLY CLEAR that making FALSE CLAIMS is perfectly fine with you.

There doesn't seem to be a single hoaxie who is an actually truth-seeker, all they care about is mongering their disinfo.

For once in your life try to fucking PROVE something.
I dare you.


Last Edited by Halcyon Dayz, FCD on 06/29/2020 07:30 PM

The original brown photos were uncalibrated - [link to theconversation.com (secure)] .

Later photos are gray just like the Apollo ones - [link to www.space.com (secure)]

prove it

If you don’t understand momentum conservation law. Stfu and learn.

If you think the moon landings are fake you are retarded and I’d venture to guess you believe a plethora of conspiracy theories it’s really a mental illness but it makes sense it has self preservation written all over it

Conservation of momentum is a fundamental law of physics which states that the momentum of a system is constant if there are no external forces acting on the system. It is embodied in Newton's first law (the law of inertia).

The external force acting on the gas To overcome its inertia is pressure gradient force. Not the rocket.

[link to www.shodor.org (secure)]


Simply saying learn conservation of momentum is not an argument.

Since it is pressure gradient force moving the gases out of the rocket, the rocket doesn’t apply force and there is no opposite force on the rocket. The gases that move out of the rocket push off the atmosphere moving the rocket forward. It is the same principal of a propellers. It simply can work with an atmosphere to push off of

I've noticed that EVERYONE wearing a mask believes NASA.

Coincidence?

They had a fixed lens facing forward as it was mounted on their suits. Did they have to disconnect the Hasselblad camera, point at the ground and arbitrarily HOPE that the photo would come out in perfect focus? Without having to focus on any footprint?

Back in the day, on here, there was a post about that camera and how one of the directors of the company saying that the film in it would have melted or froze on the lunar surface.

MOONSHOTTA MONDATTA

The computers used on Apollo were essentially identical electronically to what we use now.

I can prove I exist to anyone with eyes.

What you CANNOT do is show me one piece of evidence Apollyon landed men on the moon that I cannot INSTANTLY debunk as nonsense.

TRY ME.

Ther est of what you wrote is what you do, cast doubt on obvious reality and misrepresent what I said.

I say there is no way to predict what level of radiation in any particular latitude at any time in the future, AND I AM RIGHT. It can vary from nothing to instantly deadly.


AND NO ONE can predict when it will change.

Determining the lifespan of satelites involves AVERAGE flux and energy levels. Living things are no shielded machines.

The lander didn't kick up any moon dust with its boosters. That is not evidence, it's absolute proof the landing was faked.

Look at you all. Beating a dead horse.

Making claims none of you can support, either way.

There's a shit ton of data, showing we went, yet there is very little saying we didn't. But that's none of my business.

I deal in facts, data. Tell me, how do you fake CGI in 1969? Was it possible? No. Computer technology would show you that for sure, but that's none of my business right? Or is it.

I've been involved in computers since 1986. Visual basic was the best there was. Yet, could it fake a moon mission? NO...

Deny all you want. the data is there.

Let me ask you all. Have you looked at the source files? Or are you of the mind, NASA is faking it all, even data from BEFORE the moon missions?

Search your ass off, and prove me or NASA wrong? The data goes back before Apollo, it was a concerted effort. Built upon many many missions before it.

Do you have an open mind or not? Are you willing to look at the accumulated data or not?

[link to ntrs.nasa.gov (secure)]

Black holes are usually associated with Uranus.