Artemis II moon mission

jus sayin wrote:

Paolo Mastaveccio wrote:

But honest question - what is your evidence it happened back in '69 and the early 70's?

Because on the flipside the simple reality is hat you don't have anything other than NASA telling you they did it (which at a guess they might have a vested interest in themselves being successful, no?), and what they provided could be seen as "scraps of evidence" at best. You have no more evidence than anyone else does and everyone is entitled to their own interpretation.

And sorry, a bunch pictures and film footage - some of it quite comical to be honest (go look at the "moonbuggy" footage which hasn't stood the test of time well because it's clearly a rigid doll strapped to a remote control car), isn't firm evidence at all. It's evidence originating from only one non-objective party whether you want to accept that reality or not. Same as Nixon having his real-time, delay-less phone call with the moon on a rotary dial phone, 240'000 miles away back in 1969 when cellular technology was literally decades away. Same as the "lunar takeoff" footage which has been and can be debunked by any filmographer worth their salt, because there is no way that a 1960's Westinghouse camera on a tripod could be remotely controlled from 240'000 miles away by some guy in Houston to smoothly capture a panning takeoff shot and simultaneously zoom in on it as Neil and the boys made their triumphant getaway.

Even now, the reality is that NASA could tell us anything. I personally don't see any misdirection now, but this is a possibility. I'll also say this, if you think what we are seeing now validates the legitimacy of something that happened 56 odd years ago, when the world was very very different, especially in terms of technology and technological advancement, I think you are making a laughably weak case.

You're obviously watching the conspiracy theory videos. The evidence you seek is in the videos by people who have a good understanding of physics and enjoy debunking the real nonsense.

CaliClubCoach wrote:

jus sayin wrote:

You're obviously watching the conspiracy theory videos. The evidence you seek is in the videos by people who have a good understanding of physics and enjoy debunking the real nonsense.

You don't have to watch a conspiracy theory video to prove that the Apollo 11, or at least images of Apollo 11, were faked, I can prove it to you in 2 official photos and 37 seconds of the video they claimed was the landing. I urge you to look at it.

Both images are the official images released by Nasa and still in their video library, they are:

AS11- 40 – 5927 Alleged Apollo 11 lunar module on the moon
AS11- 40 – 5926 Leg and foot of alleged lunar module on the moon

Feel free to Google if you doubt the accuracy

The video in question is the video shown to the American public as proof of their landing, the "Eagle has landed" video. Easily searchable and verifiable.

The problem:

The moon has gravity. Even at 1/6th gravity, dust that is kicked up, must come down. The video of the landing shows a lot of dust being kicked up, in fact, the astronaut even says "were kicking (picking?) up a lot of dust. You can see the dust swirling. The odds of not one single particle of dust landing on that foot, which is in essence a large bowl, is statistically zero. The thrusters to slow the vehicle and land would have distributed dust everywhere, including on the feet. That thing in that picture could not have landed on the moon in the way the video depicts. This isn't even a tough one, even the dumbest person could look at that and say, ummm... no. You can't claim this high tech mission to the moon and then expect people to not apply the same rules of science, gravity, particle dispersion and common sense to what they present. Not a single particle of dust, debris, rock,? None?

I do not know if they went to the moon on Apollo 11, maybe they did and something happened where they could not document it truthfully, but what I do know, is that these images that they presented (and many others that I could easily go through) were not taken on the moon.

Video start at 2:40 -

Link:fb.watch/GfZa8FVTdx/

AS11- 40 – 5927

Image:upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons...

AS11- 40 – 5926

Image:upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons...

CaliClubCoach wrote:

You don't have to watch a conspiracy theory video to prove that the Apollo 11, or at least images of Apollo 11, were faked, I can prove it to you in 2 official photos and 37 seconds of the video they claimed was the landing. I urge you to look at it.

Both images are the official images released by Nasa and still in their video library, they are:

AS11- 40 – 5927 Alleged Apollo 11 lunar module on the moon
AS11- 40 – 5926 Leg and foot of alleged lunar module on the moon

Feel free to Google if you doubt the accuracy

The video in question is the video shown to the American public as proof of their landing, the "Eagle has landed" video. Easily searchable and verifiable.

The problem:

The moon has gravity. Even at 1/6th gravity, dust that is kicked up, must come down. The video of the landing shows a lot of dust being kicked up, in fact, the astronaut even says "were kicking (picking?) up a lot of dust. You can see the dust swirling. The odds of not one single particle of dust landing on that foot, which is in essence a large bowl, is statistically zero. The thrusters to slow the vehicle and land would have distributed dust everywhere, including on the feet. That thing in that picture could not have landed on the moon in the way the video depicts. This isn't even a tough one, even the dumbest person could look at that and say, ummm... no. You can't claim this high tech mission to the moon and then expect people to not apply the same rules of science, gravity, particle dispersion and common sense to what they present. Not a single particle of dust, debris, rock,? None?

I do not know if they went to the moon on Apollo 11, maybe they did and something happened where they could not document it truthfully, but what I do know, is that these images that they presented (and many others that I could easily go through) were not taken on the moon.

Video start at 2:40 -

Link:fb.watch/GfZa8FVTdx/

AS11- 40 – 5927

Image:upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons...

AS11- 40 – 5926

Image:upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons...

jus sayin wrote:

CaliClubCoach wrote:

You don't have to watch a conspiracy theory video to prove that the Apollo 11, or at least images of Apollo 11, were faked, I can prove it to you in 2 official photos and 37 seconds of the video they claimed was the landing. I urge you to look at it.

Both images are the official images released by Nasa and still in their video library, they are:

AS11- 40 – 5927 Alleged Apollo 11 lunar module on the moon
AS11- 40 – 5926 Leg and foot of alleged lunar module on the moon

Feel free to Google if you doubt the accuracy

The video in question is the video shown to the American public as proof of their landing, the "Eagle has landed" video. Easily searchable and verifiable.

The problem:

The moon has gravity. Even at 1/6th gravity, dust that is kicked up, must come down. The video of the landing shows a lot of dust being kicked up, in fact, the astronaut even says "were kicking (picking?) up a lot of dust. You can see the dust swirling. The odds of not one single particle of dust landing on that foot, which is in essence a large bowl, is statistically zero. The thrusters to slow the vehicle and land would have distributed dust everywhere, including on the feet. That thing in that picture could not have landed on the moon in the way the video depicts. This isn't even a tough one, even the dumbest person could look at that and say, ummm... no. You can't claim this high tech mission to the moon and then expect people to not apply the same rules of science, gravity, particle dispersion and common sense to what they present. Not a single particle of dust, debris, rock,? None?

I do not know if they went to the moon on Apollo 11, maybe they did and something happened where they could not document it truthfully, but what I do know, is that these images that they presented (and many others that I could easily go through) were not taken on the moon.

Video start at 2:40 -

Link:fb.watch/GfZa8FVTdx/

AS11- 40 – 5927

Image:upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons...

AS11- 40 – 5926

Image:upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons...

☝️All of this has been thoroughly debunked

fisky wrote:

CaliClubCoach wrote:

Really? By whom? How?

Explain it to me like I'm 5; or did you just hear it's been debunked and you have no idea how it has been and you just accept the words "it's been debunked" as proof?

I showed you the actual footage and the actual images, what is there to debunk? Do you have an explanation as to where there is no debris on the lander feet? Please tell me, I'm all ears. What did the debunkers say was the reason?

There is debris on the lander feet. Open the photo AS11-40-5926 you posted. Save the photo. Then open it and start blowing it up until it gets fuzzy. Look at the bottom of the creases to the left of the leg. The bottom of most of those creases in the foil aren't visible, but in one you can see what appears to be very small gray grains of sand. The thrust of the engines prior to landing would have blown most of the loose soil away, leaving only the harder soil behind. There wouldn't have been a cloud of dust because their is no air to support the particles. Any loose particles would have been ejected from the landing site in a ballistic trajectory so there would have been very little soil to settle on the legs... and that's what you see... only a tiny amount of soil in the bottom of the one crease that you can see the bottom of clearly.

CaliClubCoach wrote:

fisky wrote:

There is debris on the lander feet. Open the photo AS11-40-5926 you posted. Save the photo. Then open it and start blowing it up until it gets fuzzy. Look at the bottom of the creases to the left of the leg. The bottom of most of those creases in the foil aren't visible, but in one you can see what appears to be very small gray grains of sand. The thrust of the engines prior to landing would have blown most of the loose soil away, leaving only the harder soil behind. There wouldn't have been a cloud of dust because their is no air to support the particles. Any loose particles would have been ejected from the landing site in a ballistic trajectory so there would have been very little soil to settle on the legs... and that's what you see... only a tiny amount of soil in the bottom of the one crease that you can see the bottom of clearly.

Try harder, you have no idea what you are talking about. Trust me, I've researched this since I was 16 years old and that was in 1980 when I first took an interest in it. No one has ever been able to answer his question. Not NASA, not Neil deGrasse Tyson, nobody. Anyone that has tried, comes up with nonsensical, unscientific blather like you just did. Did you even look at the video? There is no way, I repeat, no way what is depicted in that video would result in what is pictured in those photos. We have footage of what was purported to be happening on the ground, it's not hypothetical. You are hypothesizing as to what may have happened, I am presenting to you what Nasa says happened, and what they say happened as depicted in the video could not have happened as depicted in the images.

CaliClubCoach wrote:

fisky wrote:

There is debris on the lander feet. Open the photo AS11-40-5926 you posted. Save the photo. Then open it and start blowing it up until it gets fuzzy. Look at the bottom of the creases to the left of the leg. The bottom of most of those creases in the foil aren't visible, but in one you can see what appears to be very small gray grains of sand. The thrust of the engines prior to landing would have blown most of the loose soil away, leaving only the harder soil behind. There wouldn't have been a cloud of dust because their is no air to support the particles. Any loose particles would have been ejected from the landing site in a ballistic trajectory so there would have been very little soil to settle on the legs... and that's what you see... only a tiny amount of soil in the bottom of the one crease that you can see the bottom of clearly.

Try harder, you have no idea what you are talking about. Trust me, I've researched this since I was 16 years old and that was in 1980 when I first took an interest in it. No one has ever been able to answer his question. Not NASA, not Neil deGrasse Tyson, nobody. Anyone that has tried, comes up with nonsensical, unscientific blather like you just did. Did you even look at the video? There is no way, I repeat, no way what is depicted in that video would result in what is pictured in those photos. We have footage of what was purported to be happening on the ground, it's not hypothetical. You are hypothesizing as to what may have happened, I am presenting to you what Nasa says happened, and what they say happened as depicted in the video could not have happened as depicted in the images.

fisky wrote:

CaliClubCoach wrote:

Try harder, you have no idea what you are talking about. Trust me, I've researched this since I was 16 years old and that was in 1980 when I first took an interest in it. No one has ever been able to answer his question. Not NASA, not Neil deGrasse Tyson, nobody. Anyone that has tried, comes up with nonsensical, unscientific blather like you just did. Did you even look at the video? There is no way, I repeat, no way what is depicted in that video would result in what is pictured in those photos. We have footage of what was purported to be happening on the ground, it's not hypothetical. You are hypothesizing as to what may have happened, I am presenting to you what Nasa says happened, and what they say happened as depicted in the video could not have happened as depicted in the images.

Geesh. I did not watch the video. I looked at the lander legs. Saw what might be a few grains of sand and then explained what likely happened. I then asked Perplexity AI to explain what happened WITHOUT stating my hypothesis. AI basically confirmed my premise.

I did not watch the video. But...based on your reply, I just now went back and watched it. I did not see any swirling. I saw grains of sand being ballistically blown away by the landing thrusters. Once given a momentum, Newton's First Law of Motion states that a body in motion would continue in motion until it was acted upon by another force... in this case, the gravity of the moon since there is no air on the moon. The particles would have continued on a ballistic trajectory until gravity pulled them down to the surface again. Since there is no air to slow the particles down, they might have landed dozens of even hundreds of meters away. They wouldn't just fall down into the lander legs... unless they bounced off something and lost their momentum, which is probably how those few grains of sand wound up there.

In fact, since we know the moon's gravity and we could probably find the velocity of the thrust by the engines, we could guess at the angle of thrust and determine how far away the particles would most likely have traveled.

That's an interesting question, so I posted it to AI. Here is the answer. It turns out that my guess was off by an order of magnitude.

The original lunar thruster had a velocity of approximately 3,000 m/s. Assuming a grain of sand was blown away from the surface of the moon at an upward angle of 0.1 degrees from the surface at 3,000 m/s, how far would it travel on level terrain before landing? The answer was an astounding 19,000 meters.