Finally...Unequivocal Proof That the Apollo Moon Landings Were Staged on Earth

Rayo. wrote:

[quote]Rayo. wrote: and now NASA are telling people that they have lost the technology to go beyond Earth orbit again.

I'm feeding the troll wrote:

citation needed

Rayo. wrote:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Hs3FCl-ONJE

That says nothing about lost technology. NASA has been pretty open about redoing their missiles to provide enough equipment and resources so humans can spend longer on excursions rather than a short amount of time. Trying to change and adapt technology ≠ lost technology.

However, I feel like no matter how much arguing we do with you, regardless of what we show you, you won't believe it until you yourself set foot on there. So I won't bother.

We did a soft landing on the moon in December 2013. And before that, we have gone back...a lot.

Rayo. wrote:

no YOURE hilarious wrote:

You are a fool for sure. You realize going to the moon costs money right? A sh*t ton of it. We can build all the craft and have the technology to get to the moon, it's a matter of money and funding.

50 years on from the Apollo missions should be dirt cheap by now, no.

Why should they be dirt cheap now?

Rayo. wrote:

derp wrote:

Even with current technology NASA won't be able to get to the moon till 2020.

And that my friend is the biggest joke of all this. 50 years ago we supposedly went to the moon and now NASA are telling people that they have lost the technology to go beyond Earth orbit again. Absolutely pathetic lie. Think about how much more advanced we should be by now and how easy those problems should be to solve. They are taking us for fools, but not all of us.

Ask yourself how the hell have they not got a HD camera on the moon recording the Earth by now. It's very simple to shut up the doubtful, but they can't BECAUSE IT IS FAKE.

And the globe sheep still believe this bullshit excuse from NASA. "the dog ate my homework too" LMFAO

I'm confused. That person in the reflection is so clearly in a space suit I don't understand the claim.

Can someone explain?

dwightarm wrote:

Rayo. wrote:

and now NASA are telling people that they have lost the technology to go beyond Earth orbit again. Absolutely pathetic lie. Think about how much more advanced we should be by now and how easy those problems should be to solve.

I haven't seen NASA claim that anywhere. I've heard them claim there's no funds for them but never heard them say they lost the technology.

Can you link us to a source?

But of course! NASA Astronaut Don Pettit:

Rayo. wrote:

derp wrote:

Even with current technology NASA won't be able to get to the moon till 2020.

And that my friend is the biggest joke of all this. 50 years ago we supposedly went to the moon and now NASA are telling people that they have lost the technology to go beyond Earth orbit again. Absolutely pathetic lie. Think about how much more advanced we should be by now and how easy those problems should be to solve. They are taking us for fools, but not all of us.

Ask yourself how the hell have they not got a HD camera on the moon recording the Earth by now. It's very simple to shut up the doubtful, but they can't BECAUSE IT IS FAKE.

We haven't been back because slide rules were used to get to the moon and not enough people know how to use them anymore.

Uh, what?

We have sent objects outside of orbit nearly every year -- probes, etc.

He means the fabrication facilities for things like the Saturn V no longer exist. So the spool-up time for making a large interplanetary rocket would be lengthy.

The technology is relatively straight-forward. Unless you failed Physics I.

Harambe wrote:

We have sent objects outside of orbit nearly every year -- probes, etc.

And how many of them landed on the moon to follow up on Apollo "science?" Much easier than their complicated Mars landings, but they're not interested.

The real world does not even care about moon landings. Y'all are arguing about nothing.

The most comprehensive research about Apollo:

http://www.aulis.com/index.html

http://www.aulis.com/exposing_apollo1.htm

http://www.aulis.com/moonbase2017.htm

http://www.aulis.com/scientific_analysis.htm

http://www.aulis.com/moon-earth.htm

http://www.aulis.com/nasareviews.htm

^ and YOU should stop posting so many links, do you not realize how long that takes to load?

Bad Wigins wrote:

^ and YOU should stop posting so many links, do you not realize how long that takes to load?

Legit Question and Rayo are complete retards. Don't even bother trying to reason with them.

Legit question wrote:

The most comprehensive research about Apollo:

http://www.aulis.com/index.htmlhttp://www.aulis.com/exposing_apollo1.htmhttp://www.aulis.com/moonbase2017.htmhttp://www.aulis.com/scientific_analysis.htmhttp://www.aulis.com/moon-earth.htmhttp://www.aulis.com/nasareviews.htm

You should call that what it is: a blog. And tooling around in Photoshop doesn't count as research.

Care to argue with a NASA scientist?

“NASA’s focus now is on sending humans beyond low-Earth orbit to Mars… We are trying to develop the technologies to get there, it is actually a huge technological challenge. There are a couple of really big issues. For one thing – Radiation. Once you get outside the Earth’s magnetic field we are going to be exposing the astronauts to not just radiation coming from the Sun, but also to cosmic radiation. That's a higher dose than we think humans right now should really get.”

Dr Ellen Stofan, Chief Scientist, NASA, and principal advisor

to NASA Administrator – BBC Newsnight interview, November 2014

Or argue with this guy?

“Radiation surely must be the showstopper preventing mankind’s exploration of the Universe.”

Professor Clive Dyer, MA (Cantab.), PhD (Lond.), DIC., June 1997

(Clive Dyer has worked in space and radiation research for more than 40 years, authoring more than 200 publications in the field.)

How about this scientist?

“The radiation problem is the toughest one to solve and the most concerning,” In particular, there is no technology to protect against galactic cosmic rays, a type of ionizing radiation likely produced by supernovae, or exploding stars. That type of radiation can pass right through the hull of a spacecraft and the skin of people on board..." Valerie Neal, PhD, a historian at the National Air and Space Museum, told Healthline.

Yet you believe that astronauts in the 1960's flew through all that radiation inside tin cans successfully.

Barry Badrinath wrote:

Legit question wrote:

The most comprehensive research about Apollo:

http://www.aulis.com/index.htmlhttp://www.aulis.com/exposing_apollo1.htmhttp://www.aulis.com/moonbase2017.htmhttp://www.aulis.com/scientific_analysis.htmhttp://www.aulis.com/moon-earth.htmhttp://www.aulis.com/nasareviews.htm

You should call that what it is: a blog. And tooling around in Photoshop doesn't count as research.

Yes Barry, a blog that has been compiled by scientists & photographic experts. Photoshop exposed the fakery. Hello!

Legit question wrote:

Yet you believe that astronauts in the 1960's flew through all that radiation inside tin cans successfully.

Have you ever taken a drug?

Dosage matters

Apollo astronauts got at most 4-ish days of radiation exposure.

Astronauts to Mars would ~100x as long exposed, if not more.

Do you take 2 ibuprofen pills?

Would you take 200?

Do you expect your body to react differently to those two doses?

Legit question and rayo are trolls. They are the ones behind the flat earth thread. They use the same methods; they simply have a bunch of cheesy websites, photos, text, and other bogus stuff to refute any attempt to reason with them.

It's a troll. You'll just argue forever with them. Don't even bother. This is LetsRun, not LetsArgueWith ConspiracyRetards.com.

Harambe wrote:

Uh, what?

We have sent objects outside of orbit nearly every year -- probes, etc.

He means the fabrication facilities for things like the Saturn V no longer exist. So the spool-up time for making a large interplanetary rocket would be lengthy.

The technology is relatively straight-forward. Unless you failed Physics I.

Wow, you gullible NASA believers will go to any lengths to try and make this make sense when it comes to this "lost technology" excuse. So, are we to believe that NASA made no backups or saved the data, any of it???? Bahahahahahahaha!!!!

Do you really believe that we can not quickly reproduce tech over 50 years old???? Wow.

And you call me the wacky conspiracy nut? Pure comedy. You guys are brainwashed.

Legit question wrote:

And you call me the wacky conspiracy nut?

Nope. I know for a fact you don't believe any of this sh!t. You just like trolling people who are slow on the uptake