> U.S. intel community and U.S. military up to about 22 or so year ago practiced stove pipe/need to know only.
> An uncle of mine was at n a s a at the time. He died about three or four years after the last so-called moon landing, December, 1972, an unexpected massive heart attack. Lt. Lothar Zogg, film Dr Strangelove was based on my uncle. All it takes are two or a few suspicious deaths to keep the others in line.
20 astronauts! Mission Control! All their families! It’s more work to fake!
Why hasn’t ANYONE taken a photo of the empty landing sites? It would be so easy! Russia or China could do it tonight!
Twenty so-called space travellers would be on need to know. Their families? You must be joking. Do people at N.S.A., C.I.A., Office of Naval Intelligence tell their wives about their day at work? No! Mission Control? Stove pipe. Need to know only.
It is ph*cking unbelievable that this site has threads that deny absolutely confirmed historical scientific facts and attract pages of deranged naysayers. It says everything one needs to know about the frequenters of this site and contemporary American culture.
That's rude. And incorrect. One website is not a reflection of 'contemporary American culture' by any means.
If you look at history, a lot of 'confirmed historical scientific facts' change over time. For example, the man who suggested that soap and cleaning hands prevents infection was committed to an asylum. No one believed him and it was an outrageous suggestion at the time. Whereas we all know now that soap helps. This was not too long ago either.
Well, since the evidence that we did go in the form of telemetry data for all six trips disappeared and the video / photographic evidence is clearly fake and communications between the moon and Houston apparently broke the laws of physics and even ChatGPT thinks lead shielding of tens of meters thick is required to safely travers the Van Allen belts, I would say there is no evidence. An absence of evidence that something happened is evidence that it didn’t.
Your previous post was better, with a hint of humor. This one ^ is just idiotic with no redeeming qualities.
Your response, on the other hand, is funny. Too on the nose for you? lol
So we can assume the Apollo 1 tragedy and Apollo 13 were also staged to give validity to the Apollo fake landings? That's giving it your all...dying for a hoax.
It would take more energy and be significantly more difficult to travel 1/5th of the way to the moon, turn around, and come back; than to go to the moon and return.
After a rocket launch failure left Asiasat 3 in a useless low orbit with a high inclination, some orbital engineers decided it would cost less fuel to send it to the moon, twice, than it would to brute force raise the orbit, and reduce the inclination.
The HGS-1 communications satellite arrived in geosynchronous orbit over the Pacific Ocean today, successfully completing an historic mission that sent it around the moon twice to reposition it into a useful orbit.
yeah it was me. plenty of pictures of the landers out there.
is this a joke? the guy's own tweet reads:
"I pushed my GigaMoon image as far as I could, then you can see the same area imaged by a lunar orbiter"
The images that show the "landing site" are, again, provided by NASA. In his most zoomed in GigaMoon picture (top right) you can more or less see the general locale, but you see no details.
1 second of Google: "Can you see an American flag on the moon with a telescope? Even the powerful Hubble Space Telescope isn't strong enough to capture pictures of the flags on the moon."
Want to try again?
Some guy posted how a random amateur in Arizona took a large composite photo that can see the landers… if Russia or China can’t measure up to some guy in Arizona?? That’s your excuse?
yeah it was me. plenty of pictures of the landers out there.
is this a joke? the guy's own tweet reads:
"I pushed my GigaMoon image as far as I could, then you can see the same area imaged by a lunar orbiter"
The images that show the "landing site" are, again, provided by NASA. In his most zoomed in GigaMoon picture (top right) you can more or less see the general locale, but you see no details.
to expand on this, 2600 bro:
you have self-owned yourself by proving that NASA's very powerful hubble space telescope _and_ amateur astronomers can't take photos of the landing sites. apparently to take photos of the landing sites, you have to be orbiting the moon. and even then, just barely make out details.
when your conspiracy relies on lots of complex subterfuge and coordination, it’s crucial that ignore the simple things!
Yes. Like trying to explain away mistakes in obviously faked videos, trying to explain why the laws of physics can be broken, using grainy photos as proof, etc. 😂
If we're doubting the findings of NASA, then I think we need to doubt all of them. The conspiracy runs deeper than the lunar landing. Do yall actually believe all that hogwash about how stars are giant balls of fusing gas? All those ridiculous pictures that JWST and Hubble have taken of other "galaxies" look like CGI nonsense. And personally, I think the concept of a satellite "orbiting" the earth is ridiculous. Seems like magic to me. I think they're pulling one over on us
If we're doubting the findings of NASA, then I think we need to doubt all of them. The conspiracy runs deeper than the lunar landing. Do yall actually believe all that hogwash about how stars are giant balls of fusing gas? All those ridiculous pictures that JWST and Hubble have taken of other "galaxies" look like CGI nonsense. And personally, I think the concept of a satellite "orbiting" the earth is ridiculous. Seems like magic to me. I think they're pulling one over on us
there is nothing wrong with believing in space, but not believing that we had the technology to go the moon 60 years ago.... and yet can't today after many, many promises and false-starts.
There is absolutely no way the moon landings could have been staged on Earth. Come on. This is obvious. Way too many people would be in the know, far too many witnesses, and everything would have leaked by now. No way.
Instead, the moon landings were faked on the moon. No witnesses nearby. The perfect place to pull off a hoax of this magnitude in absolute secrecy.
If we're doubting the findings of NASA, then I think we need to doubt all of them. The conspiracy runs deeper than the lunar landing. Do yall actually believe all that hogwash about how stars are giant balls of fusing gas? All those ridiculous pictures that JWST and Hubble have taken of other "galaxies" look like CGI nonsense. And personally, I think the concept of a satellite "orbiting" the earth is ridiculous. Seems like magic to me. I think they're pulling one over on us
there is nothing wrong with believing in space, but not believing that we had the technology to go the moon 60 years ago.... and yet can't today after many, many promises and false-starts.
So you doubt that we had the technology to go to the moon, but you're willing to believe that we have the technology to put objects into space? And you also believe that we have the technology to build satellites that can do ridiculous things like see objects that are supposedly millions of lightyears away, measure gravity ripples in spacetime, measure cosmic ray flux, determine the ratio of elements in a sun's corona, etc? On what logic do you make that distinction?
there is nothing wrong with believing in space, but not believing that we had the technology to go the moon 60 years ago.... and yet can't today after many, many promises and false-starts.
So you doubt that we had the technology to go to the moon, but you're willing to believe that we have the technology to put objects into space? And you also believe that we have the technology to build satellites that can do ridiculous things like see objects that are supposedly millions of lightyears away, measure gravity ripples in spacetime, measure cosmic ray flux, determine the ratio of elements in a sun's corona, etc? On what logic do you make that distinction?
Easily, actually: None of what you said involved driving a dune buggy on the moon 60 years ago.
Inanimate objects into NEO is not nearly on the same scale as humans on another celestial body with a paper mache lunar lander.
So you doubt that we had the technology to go to the moon, but you're willing to believe that we have the technology to put objects into space? And you also believe that we have the technology to build satellites that can do ridiculous things like see objects that are supposedly millions of lightyears away, measure gravity ripples in spacetime, measure cosmic ray flux, determine the ratio of elements in a sun's corona, etc? On what logic do you make that distinction?
Easily, actually: None of what you said involved driving a dune buggy on the moon 60 years ago.
Inanimate objects into NEO is not nearly on the same scale as humans on another celestial body with a paper mache lunar lander.
So dune buggies require far more advanced tech than observing merging black holes via gravitational waves? That doesn't make sense to me. Why is sending a human to the moon so much harder than building an impossibly precise and fantastical detection instrument? Before you say "van allen radiation" remember that the satellites that discovered the van allen belts were in fact discovered and mapped by the group that later became NASA - so if you think NASA is conspiring against us, then why do you trust their reports about the existence of the van allen belts themselves?
Easily, actually: None of what you said involved driving a dune buggy on the moon 60 years ago.
Inanimate objects into NEO is not nearly on the same scale as humans on another celestial body with a paper mache lunar lander.
So dune buggies require far more advanced tech than observing merging black holes via gravitational waves? That doesn't make sense to me. Why is sending a human to the moon so much harder than building an impossibly precise and fantastical detection instrument? Before you say "van allen radiation" remember that the satellites that discovered the van allen belts were in fact discovered and mapped by the group that later became NASA - so if you think NASA is conspiring against us, then why do you trust their reports about the existence of the van allen belts themselves?
In the 60s before we had circuitboards at scale and with nascent computing? Yes.
If sending a human is so easy, go ahead and send one now after 60 years of technological improvements.
Easily, actually: None of what you said involved driving a dune buggy on the moon 60 years ago.
Inanimate objects into NEO is not nearly on the same scale as humans on another celestial body with a paper mache lunar lander.
So dune buggies require far more advanced tech than observing merging black holes via gravitational waves? That doesn't make sense to me. Why is sending a human to the moon so much harder than building an impossibly precise and fantastical detection instrument? Before you say "van allen radiation" remember that the satellites that discovered the van allen belts were in fact discovered and mapped by the group that later became NASA - so if you think NASA is conspiring against us, then why do you trust their reports about the existence of the van allen belts themselves?
The hoops you guys have to jump through trying to prove it. Lol
Just because one thing happens doesn’t mean something else happened.
