nnnnnnn wrote:
Pablo Novi wrote:
It's certainly no proof of anything; but I've found that it does tend to be true that the:
Side that the side (of the argument) that has the weak(er) position TENDS to be the side that hurls the most insults.
So much semi-colons, brackets, caps, and quotes. What am I even looking at?
You're looking at Pablo admitting he has a weak position.
Pablo Novi wrote:
I have a question for ALL those who say that NASA's Apollo program DID land men on the moon:
How many years more have to pass (without any humans "going back" to the Moon), before you yourself begin to doubt that we went back in 1969 (-72)? 60 years (2030 ish)? 80 years (2050 ish)? 100 years? *
FIFTY YEARS seems to me to be an incredibly, unbelievably long period to not even get within 1% of the distance of what we supposedly did back then (with relatively super-primitive technology).
* I assume that someday we will get to the Moon (and Mars and to other moons of the Solar System beside our Moon). But I HIGHLY DOUBT that we had the tech, almost 50 years ago, to get humans safely thru the Van Allen Radiation Belts AND land & keep them safely on the Moon.
I was an avid watcher of the nightly BBC programme "The Sky at Night" hosted by an eminent astronomer Patrick Moore (also the guy that asks Armstrong at the Apollo press conference about the stars). I always believed that Moore would have called out any hoaxes or fictions, so I never considered the moon landings could ever be a hoax. However, when Moore died, a lot of his background came to light, and links to shady ex-Military Intelligence were revealed.
Can't help but ask questions about it all, now.
Pablo Novi wrote:
I have a question for ALL those who say that NASA's Apollo program DID land men on the moon:
How many years more have to pass (without any humans "going back" to the Moon), before you yourself begin to doubt that we went back in 1969 (-72)? 60 years (2030 ish)? 80 years (2050 ish)? 100 years? *
FIFTY YEARS seems to me to be an incredibly, unbelievably long period to not even get within 1% of the distance of what we supposedly did back then (with relatively super-primitive technology).
* I assume that someday we will get to the Moon (and Mars and to other moons of the Solar System beside our Moon). But I HIGHLY DOUBT that we had the tech, almost 50 years ago, to get humans safely thru the Van Allen Radiation Belts AND land & keep them safely on the Moon.
We could never go again and I wouldn’t doubt it any more than I do now (which is very, very little).
You need to do more research on how we got through the Van Allen belts. I’m not going to do it for you.
Trump was pushing hard for another manned trip to the moon. They finally told him they can't get past the Van Allen radiation belt.
Yeah, I know. (I guess a half-century of being a heavy-duty peace-justice activist and trying to be as clear as possible - has led me to this habit of "qualifying" what I say using such as "semi-colons, brackets, caps (how else to add emphasis - I don't see any "Bold" feature?) and quotes".
Be that as it may; it seems to me that my main points come across clear enough.
Any response to my CONTENT?
I thought he was doing the opposite; ridiculing me for the very minor issue of using "semi-colons ...". He/she didn't even address my CONTENT.
Relatively recently a NASA spokesman said that they're (still) trying to solve the problem of getting thru the Van Allen Radiation Belts.
As to me needing to do more research - over the last 50 years, I've done a ton of research on Apollo. (Have you run across my numerous and often quite-lengthy posts in this thread? I've not only written a lot; I've referred to several (long) videos I've watched and a number of (lengthy) critiques I've read and studied.)
Yet, I might be the only (certainly one of the very few) posters in this entire thread who publicly states that he (I) could be wrong and I continue to be open to the opposite view (that we did go to the Moon). It just seems to be that there's a preponderance of lack-of-evidence that we did - especially since, it seems to me, it'd be super-easy and cheap to take a close-up photo or two of the would-be Apollo landing sites - and settle the matter once and for all, one way or the other.
If sending a camera back to the moon is super easy and cheap, how about a Moon Landing conspiracy group crowd fund the money and do it? You act like a matter has been properly and successfully raised, and that there is a matter of substance that needs to be settled, and that the burden is NASA's to prove it beyond unreasonable doubt. Speaking of what NASA recently said, way back on page 20, we've already seen what NASA scientists recently discovered about the Van Allen radiation:
Bang Zoom to the moon wrote:
Here is a recent finding that confirms why NASA's risk was in fact not as dangerous as they initially thought:
"It's long been assumed that these seething regions of radiation are too dangerous for spacecraft to explore for extended periods of time, but NASA just made an unexpected discovery - the fastest, most energetic particles in the inner radiation belt are usually not even there."
"The reason this is so exciting is simple - by overestimating the intensity of high-energy electrons in the inner belt, and therefore the amount of damaging radiation in low and medium altitude orbits, we've been building bulky, expensive spacecraft for no reason."
"Now that we know that the inner Van Allen Belt is usually a whole lot weaker than we assumed - except in extremely rare cases like the 2015 solar storms - it won't be very often that we'll have to avoid the area."
https://www.sciencealert.com/earth-s-inner-radiation-belt-is-far-weaker-than-we-thought-and-it-s-got-nasa-very-excited
Bang Zoom to the moon wrote:
If sending a camera back to the moon is super easy and cheap, how about a Moon Landing conspiracy group crowd fund the money and do it? You act like a matter has been properly and successfully raised, and that there is a matter of substance that needs to be settled, and that the burden is NASA's to prove it beyond unreasonable doubt.
0/10
Rainbows & Marshmellows wrote:
Bang Zoom to the moon wrote:
If sending a camera back to the moon is super easy and cheap, how about a Moon Landing conspiracy group crowd fund the money and do it? You act like a matter has been properly and successfully raised, and that there is a matter of substance that needs to be settled, and that the burden is NASA's to prove it beyond unreasonable doubt.
0/10
The landing site(s) should already have been photographed in detail by any number of existing lunar-orbitting satellites. The absence of pictures from these lunar orbiters is very difficult to explain. Especially since the Mars surface has been spectrally-analysed in such detail, to a depth of some metres. Seems like the moon is off-limits to investigation.
Pablo Novi wrote:
Deliberate exaggeration is a hallmark of the: dishonest, mis-lead and/or people with weak arguments.
I've posted what a few dozen posts. Oh, and btw, in none of my posts will anyone find any would-proof that NASA put men on the moon - given that I've been QUESTIONING (I've NEVER claimed I was 100% sure and I would much rather be proven wrong) that very proposition for 50 years and still haven't found anything that proves it did.
People responded with facts for the first 20 pages of this thread to debunk your conspiracy theory. It's pointless to argue with a conspiracy theorist, so now everyone is just insulting you. Pictures from the LRO have been posted already. Third party evidence has been posted. Lots of other info posted. It'll never be enough to convince you.
Not only was the moon landing fake, but the moon is also fake.
Pablo Novi wrote:
Relatively recently a NASA spokesman said that they're (still) trying to solve the problem of getting thru the Van Allen Radiation Belts.
As to me needing to do more research - over the last 50 years, I've done a ton of research on Apollo. (Have you run across my numerous and often quite-lengthy posts in this thread? I've not only written a lot; I've referred to several (long) videos I've watched and a number of (lengthy) critiques I've read and studied.)
Yet, I might be the only (certainly one of the very few) posters in this entire thread who publicly states that he (I) could be wrong and I continue to be open to the opposite view (that we did go to the Moon). It just seems to be that there's a preponderance of lack-of-evidence that we did - especially since, it seems to me, it'd be super-easy and cheap to take a close-up photo or two of the would-be Apollo landing sites - and settle the matter once and for all, one way or the other.
Bit difficult to photograph something that ain't there.. just sayin.
If you don't believe it is possible for us to get humans through the Van Allen Belts alive then you very plainly have 1) not done your research or 2) not understood your research. Writing "quite-lengthy" posts and citing other uninformed scientists does not make you well-versed on the subject.
Waiting Patient wrote:
Rainbows & Marshmellows wrote:
0/10
The landing site(s) should already have been photographed in detail by any number of existing lunar-orbitting satellites. The absence of pictures from these lunar orbiters is very difficult to explain. Especially since the Mars surface has been spectrally-analysed in such detail, to a depth of some metres. Seems like the moon is off-limits to investigation.
Ugh! The pictures of the Apollo landing sites taken from the LRO satellite orbiting the moon have already been posted in this very thread. But you trolls just go ahead and keep ignoring that to keep your stupid thread going. We have pictures. We have plenty of evidence.
Tired of banging head against wall wrote:
Waiting Patient wrote:
The landing site(s) should already have been photographed in detail by any number of existing lunar-orbitting satellites. The absence of pictures from these lunar orbiters is very difficult to explain. Especially since the Mars surface has been spectrally-analysed in such detail, to a depth of some metres. Seems like the moon is off-limits to investigation.
Ugh! The pictures of the Apollo landing sites taken from the LRO satellite orbiting the moon have already been posted in this very thread. But you trolls just go ahead and keep ignoring that to keep your stupid thread going. We have pictures. We have plenty of evidence.
Are these picture(s?) you speak of taken recently (in the 21st Century). Please do not insult my intelligence by referring to the risible black and white dot images.
Generation Jpeg wrote:
I don't want to know about weird alien stuff or government conspiracies. I desperately need a recent picture of the moon landing site, and I need it this week for a space tourism assignment.
Any pictures taken during this century will work for me. When I search online, I get Mars landers and pictures of dots with arrows saying "landing site" , but that's not what I need here.
I got nothing for my space tourism paper. All I wanted was a single recent frikkin' image of the apollo landing site, but nooooo, you cant have it because we don't have it. Thanks for nothing. In the end I used a still from the Space 1999 show. What a joke!
The absence of pictures might be difficult to explain, if indeed detailed pictures from lunar orbiters were absent. Here is one high resolution image from a lunar orbiting satellite of Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17 landing sites from 2015 providing "an unprecedented look at the moon’s surface":https://prd-wret.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/assets/palladium/production/s3fs-public/thumbnails/image/fig4.png
Waiting Patient wrote:
The landing site(s) should already have been photographed in detail by any number of existing lunar-orbitting satellites. The absence of pictures from these lunar orbiters is very difficult to explain. Especially since the Mars surface has been spectrally-analysed in such detail, to a depth of some metres. Seems like the moon is off-limits to investigation.
Waiting Patient wrote:
Tired of banging head against wall wrote:
Ugh! The pictures of the Apollo landing sites taken from the LRO satellite orbiting the moon have already been posted in this very thread. But you trolls just go ahead and keep ignoring that to keep your stupid thread going. We have pictures. We have plenty of evidence.
Are these picture(s?) you speak of taken recently (in the 21st Century). Please do not insult my intelligence by referring to the risible black and white dot images.
We'll, the LRO was launched in 2009 and photos of the Apollo sites were released in 2011, so yes taken in this century. This info is really easy to find.
Oh and to waiting patiently... I don't have to insult your intelligence. You're doing that fine all by yourself.
