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

Kolsiv wrote:

2600 bro wrote:

1) Apologies if I wasn’t clear. Your side is the one that just produces uncertainty and doubt and asserts the threshold for proof hasn’t been met! This is intellectually acceptable but doesn’t do anything to convince people of your side. It’s a moving target and suggests you are in this for the game and not reaching consensus - again, totally fine.

2) What’s wrong with the Japanese and Indian data. The China images are not public so I’ll withhold judgement.

Link:en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_ev...

Clearly, you have a little bit of evidence here and there (that has mostly been debunked years ago). It should be easy for you to prove, but for some odd reason you can’t string together two coherent sentences on the subject. You keep blathering on about some betting site and other unrelated topics.

Are you typically this frazzled?

Kolsiv wrote:

Salvitore Stitchmo wrote:

Look let's let calmer heads prevail here.

The simple reality is that none of us here either just reading each others opinions or getting fired up defending either side of this truly know, do we? A lot of us weren't even born when this happened and if we were we were so young that applying any kind of critical thought process to it simply wasn't happening. The evidence any of have is simply what we have been told or think we have seen. And I'm not going either way right here - what we have been told and seen could be 100% real - it could be 100% BS, but we should all understand that.

So, where from here - well NASA has a well funded Moon mission program happening right now called Artemis, hoping to send the first woman and person(s) of color to the moon and I would assume it would be pretty hard to fake this in the year 2023 onwards.

If they do it, then we know it's absolutely feasible and then we need to make a judgement on if, all things relative between now and the late 60's, we believe that it would have been possible back then too. Many would argue and defend that if the above happens there is no reason to doubt the original series of moon missions and landings. I'm fine with that.

However, if in this era - with the infinite technological, metallurgical, mechanical advantages and advances we have since the 60's, NASA was not able to do this - then I don't even understand how the most irrational and illogical human mind could still sit there and believe what happened in '69. Because it's not like you are hunting for the recipe to do this - if you did what 7 times with 12 men already walking the surface of the moon, you surely have a pretty good idea on to execute this. It would be akin to climbing Mt Everest back in the 1950's with all the crappy equipment they had and then not even knowing the climbing route in the year 2020. Simply implausible.

So let's just hold tight, see how this Artemis thing plays out and honestly we should be starting to get a much clearer picture of this debate within the next 2-3 years.

If we had the ability to do this in 1969, you would think it would take less than 19 years from the genesis of this new “return to moon” program to be completed.

The first time all we needed was some tin foil, bendy straws, duct tape and some bottle rockets. Oh yeah, and a badass dune buggy.

Kolsiv wrote:

2600 bro wrote:

I never understood what kind of posting tries to achieve LOL.
I just wanted to discuss the Japanese and Indian data with you and hear your thoughts on the future feasibility of human space travel; I’m not asking for a lot.

If you don’t want to, that’s fine.
I really want to hear from Sitchmo though - he wrote a novel on the last page that I think had some major flaws. Can you summon him?

My thoughts on future manned missions to the moon? Sure. I’m your huckleberry. 😉

My thought is that it sure is interesting that it supposedly took us only 7 years to develop a successful mission to put a man on the moon in the 1960s. However, in the 21st century we’re on year 18 of this project and still haven’t gotten anywhere close.

Salvitore Stitchmo wrote:

Kolsiv wrote:

If we had the ability to do this in 1969, you would think it would take less than 19 years from the genesis of this new “return to moon” program to be completed.

The first time all we needed was some tin foil, bendy straws, duct tape and some bottle rockets. Oh yeah, and a badass dune buggy.

I'm not saying I disagree with this at all. What I'm saying is for the sake of whatever side of the fence you are on, that the success or not of Artemis essentially ends the discussion. One of the key defenses to the legitimate question of "if it was possible 50 years ago how come we haven't been since" was simply "there was no need to - we did it then so we don't have to do it again" and this NASA project has now eliminated that and put them on the hook.

Do I have a slight double take moment when I hear that NASA are sending up the crash test dummies "seeking to learn how best to protect astronauts for Artemis II" () given that surely you know exactly how to do this because you've done it allegedly 7 times before? Yes of course I do. That makes little sense to me, I don't understand what you are trying to find out that must surely already know. But, as I said - we should stay open until this Artemis thing is either a success or abject failure and then I don't understand how there would be any questions anymore.

Link:www.nasa.gov/feature/purposeful-passen...

Legit question wrote:

Salvitore Stitchmo wrote:

Look let's let calmer heads prevail here.

The simple reality is that none of us here either just reading each others opinions or getting fired up defending either side of this truly know, do we? A lot of us weren't even born when this happened and if we were we were so young that applying any kind of critical thought process to it simply wasn't happening. The evidence any of have is simply what we have been told or think we have seen. And I'm not going either way right here - what we have been told and seen could be 100% real - it could be 100% BS, but we should all understand that.

So, where from here - well NASA has a well funded Moon mission program happening right now called Artemis, hoping to send the first woman and person(s) of color to the moon and I would assume it would be pretty hard to fake this in the year 2023 onwards.

If they do it, then we know it's absolutely feasible and then we need to make a judgement on if, all things relative between now and the late 60's, we believe that it would have been possible back then too. Many would argue and defend that if the above happens there is no reason to doubt the original series of moon missions and landings. I'm fine with that.

However, if in this era - with the infinite technological, metallurgical, mechanical advantages and advances we have since the 60's, NASA was not able to do this - then I don't even understand how the most irrational and illogical human mind could still sit there and believe what happened in '69. Because it's not like you are hunting for the recipe to do this - if you did what 7 times with 12 men already walking the surface of the moon, you surely have a pretty good idea on to execute this. It would be akin to climbing Mt Everest back in the 1950's with all the crappy equipment they had and then not even knowing the climbing route in the year 2020. Simply implausible.

So let's just hold tight, see how this Artemis thing plays out and honestly we should be starting to get a much clearer picture of this debate within the next 2-3 years.

You already had half a century to wait. Artemis will inevitably fail. It is IMPOSSIBLE to land on the Moon. Know this. Accept this.

valjean wrote:

Kolsiv wrote:

My thoughts on future manned missions to the moon? Sure. I’m your huckleberry. 😉

My thought is that it sure is interesting that it supposedly took us only 7 years to develop a successful mission to put a man on the moon in the 1960s. However, in the 21st century we’re on year 18 of this project and still haven’t gotten anywhere close.

It's crazy what can get done when you throw a good chunk of your GDP at a project! The US spent an average of 3.44% of its GDP on NASA during that seven-year period. Contrast that with the 0.49% it has spent on NASA over the last seven years - almost an order of magnitude. If the moon landing were really fake, then why has NASA not been faking moon landings this whole time in order to continue justifying an enormous budget? If I were the head of NASA, I would be faking moon landings left and right. I'd throw some Mars landings and an alien sighting in there, too

2600 bro wrote:

Salvitore Stitchmo wrote:

I'm not saying I disagree with this at all. What I'm saying is for the sake of whatever side of the fence you are on, that the success or not of Artemis essentially ends the discussion. One of the key defenses to the legitimate question of "if it was possible 50 years ago how come we haven't been since" was simply "there was no need to - we did it then so we don't have to do it again" and this NASA project has now eliminated that and put them on the hook.

Do I have a slight double take moment when I hear that NASA are sending up the crash test dummies "seeking to learn how best to protect astronauts for Artemis II" () given that surely you know exactly how to do this because you've done it allegedly 7 times before? Yes of course I do. That makes little sense to me, I don't understand what you are trying to find out that must surely already know. But, as I said - we should stay open until this Artemis thing is either a success or abject failure and then I don't understand how there would be any questions anymore.

Link:www.nasa.gov/feature/purposeful-passen...

NASA is significantly more risk averse these days. The cover a lot more bases with safety. No one cared if the Gemini astronauts got back problems from G-forces during launch. These days they just care about way more and have to study things that werent even on the radar in prior days of manned spaceflight.

I do wish you'd respond to my criticism of bike-distance analogy, I think it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of spaceflight, and might help calibrate your beliefs more.

Salvitore Stitchmo wrote:

Kolsiv wrote:

If we had the ability to do this in 1969, you would think it would take less than 19 years from the genesis of this new “return to moon” program to be completed.

The first time all we needed was some tin foil, bendy straws, duct tape and some bottle rockets. Oh yeah, and a badass dune buggy.

I'm not saying I disagree with this at all. What I'm saying is for the sake of whatever side of the fence you are on, that the success or not of Artemis essentially ends the discussion. One of the key defenses to the legitimate question of "if it was possible 50 years ago how come we haven't been since" was simply "there was no need to - we did it then so we don't have to do it again" and this NASA project has now eliminated that and put them on the hook.

Do I have a slight double take moment when I hear that NASA are sending up the crash test dummies "seeking to learn how best to protect astronauts for Artemis II" () given that surely you know exactly how to do this because you've done it allegedly 7 times before? Yes of course I do. That makes little sense to me, I don't understand what you are trying to find out that must surely already know. But, as I said - we should stay open until this Artemis thing is either a success or abject failure and then I don't understand how there would be any questions anymore.

Link:www.nasa.gov/feature/purposeful-passen...

2600 bro wrote:

Salvitore Stitchmo wrote:

I'm not saying I disagree with this at all. What I'm saying is for the sake of whatever side of the fence you are on, that the success or not of Artemis essentially ends the discussion. One of the key defenses to the legitimate question of "if it was possible 50 years ago how come we haven't been since" was simply "there was no need to - we did it then so we don't have to do it again" and this NASA project has now eliminated that and put them on the hook.

Do I have a slight double take moment when I hear that NASA are sending up the crash test dummies "seeking to learn how best to protect astronauts for Artemis II" () given that surely you know exactly how to do this because you've done it allegedly 7 times before? Yes of course I do. That makes little sense to me, I don't understand what you are trying to find out that must surely already know. But, as I said - we should stay open until this Artemis thing is either a success or abject failure and then I don't understand how there would be any questions anymore.

Link:www.nasa.gov/feature/purposeful-passen...

NASA is significantly more risk averse these days. The cover a lot more bases with safety. No one cared if the Gemini astronauts got back problems from G-forces during launch. These days they just care about way more and have to study things that werent even on the radar in prior days of manned spaceflight.