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

Defense contractor wrote:

We already have plenty of pictures of the Earth taken from space. Don't need Hubble to do it. Duh!

He's going to say every_single_one of the photos were Photoshopped or CGI. It doesn't matter if you show him one that isn't. He will say it is. Trust me. You can't prove it isn't, and that's what the game is. He knows we went to the moon; you are being trolled.

Look, this thread is the same troll as the flat Earth thread. Same trolls, too. You're wasting your time and being trolled.

Troll Alert wrote:

Defense contractor wrote:

We already have plenty of pictures of the Earth taken from space. Don't need Hubble to do it. Duh!

He's going to say every_single_one of the photos were Photoshopped or CGI. It doesn't matter if you show him one that isn't. He will say it is. Trust me. You can't prove it isn't, and that's what the game is. He knows we went to the moon; you are being trolled.

Look, this thread is the same troll as the flat Earth thread. Same trolls, too. You're wasting your time and being trolled.

Why do u persist parroting NASA bullshit? You are more indoctrinated than a Scientologist.

I challenge all you NASA fanboys to explain away these 10+ points. Instead of making insults, do some research and make your points- if you can.

Troll Alert wrote:

Defense contractor wrote:

We already have plenty of pictures of the Earth taken from space. Don't need Hubble to do it. Duh!

He's going to say every_single_one of the photos were Photoshopped or CGI. It doesn't matter if you show him one that isn't. He will say it is. Trust me. You can't prove it isn't, and that's what the game is. He knows we went to the moon; you are being trolled.

Look, this thread is the same troll as the flat Earth thread. Same trolls, too. You're wasting your time and being trolled.

This video might change your mind:

Rayo. wrote:

Barry Badrinath wrote:

Why should they be dirt cheap now?

Because the smart phone in your pocket is more powerful than the supposed computers on the Apollo were back then .

This doesn't answer the question. This suggests one reason why launches should be cheaper, which unmanned commercial launches are.

You claimed they should be dirt cheap now.

Why should they be dirt cheap now?

Asking why things should be cheaper now smacks of a subjective agenda-ridden attitude.

EVERYONE who's a reasonable intelligent adult KNOW that the FIRST model(s) always TEND to cost the most - because so much is new. The first car of a model-line costs MILLIONS; as the company makes more, the cost per car plummets.

Whatever the Apollo Mission cost over 40 years ago, to just reproduce those results (but, one would hope and expect, with more efficient results) - SHOULD cost FAR LESS; while the quality should be far greater.

You line of reasoning is so weak as to call in question what your real motive in posing this question were/are: But we can tell, your purpose is to ridicule whether than engage in dialogue.

That doesn't exactly contribute anything positively useful to the discussion at hand; and certainly won't TEND to help you learn from others.

Thanx a lot for this information/link. I've wondered for decades WHEN somebody would finally send probe(s) to the Moon and document, one way or the other, whether people actually went to and landed on the moon.

This reminds me of the fact that, since the Apollo Missions, the US Gov has periodically and regularly announced a new telescope or satelite that was going to show, once and for all, evidence of the Apollo Moon landings. Then, a few years later, they make the same announcement about the latest, new and improved means to spot the stuff supposedly there.

It SHOULD make us all wonder WHY they keep announcing that finally they'll show us the proof - that NECESSARILY means that each and ALL their previous claims FAILED. Why would that be IF there was stuff there on the moon to be found; AND the latest technical gear they were using was capable to seeing farther and more precisionly than ever before.

By the way, I, myself, AM NOT A FLAT-EARTHER; I also don't claim that EVERYTHING or even most of what NASA claims it has done is untrue. In my opinion, NASA has sent stuff out into outer space, beyond low-Earth orbit, all kinds of things - just not human beings YET.

REFLECTORS ON THE SURFACE OF THE MOON (Left There By Apollo Astronauts?):

A number of people in this thread have raised the question of the reflectors that MEN supposedly left behind on the surface of the Moon - and which have been used to get the most accurate distance measurements ever of the Earth-Moon distance (which changes over time - the Moon is ever-so-slowly drifting away from the Earth (it used to be MUCH closer and thus much bigger in the sky). BUT, even if we assume that there ARE such reflectors on the surface of the Moon, that does NOT, in and of itself, tell us HOW they got there. It's a zillion times cheaper, safer and more successful to send things on UN-MANNED missions. I'm not calling into question that NASA may have sent rockets to the Moon, and that, on one or more of those trips, they left behind such reflectors.

In the "Wagging the Moondoggie" series, by Dave McGowan, that I've talked about and linked to; he CLAIMS that NASA does not even need such artificial, man-made reflectors. That there are sections of the surface of the Moon that face Earth that are more than adequate for bouncing signals off of and getting them back with useful information. Personally, it seems evident to me, that such ability would be something we achieved AGES AGO - it's not advanced technologically. Not at all.

You make a TWO-PART claim. You claim that the Earth was early-on struck with another heavenly body and the collision kicked stuff up and out into space where it later coalesced to form the Moon. I firmly believe this too.

But you then claim that combining THAT fact with the Flat Earth (your claim, something I do not agree with) necessarily means that such a collision would produce a Flat Moon. But even if Earth were Flat, such a collision wouldn't necessarily produce a Flat Moon. Except for the claims of Flat Earth (and now Flat Moon) - no other large heavenly body is flat - none of them.

I watched this Flat Earth video once that claimed that a rocket sent up HIT the dome; and that anyone could actually hear the collision. So I watched the video and, it seems to be of a rocket blasting off from the surface of the Earth, with cameras.

BUT, when it supposedly "hits" the "dome", there is no huge blast SOUND, nor blast SIGHT (exploding rocket). There is instead this tiny little "ding" sound. In 67 years of life, I'd be hard-pressed to recall any "proof" less worthy! A MASSIVE ROCKET, flying really, really fast. It hits a stationary object and just goes "ding" - with no other sight- nor sound- evidence???

Yikes!

My post was NOT the first to mention 9/11. So I just added my thoughts on it.

As to ALL people who believe in ONE conspiracy believing in ALL of them - YOUR claim - that's utter nonsense; and you SHOULD know this.

There are conspiracies happening ALL the time. In the court system, anti-Mafia crimes are usually based on, or include, charges of conspiracy. Afterall, conspiracy simply means that MORE THAN ONE PERSON is involved; planning something illegal or injurious to others. Lots of stuff fits that description.

Otoh, there are MILLIONS of conspiracy theories - 99% of ALL people who believe in ONE of them, DO NOT believe in all of them.

One of the conspiracy theories I believe in is that JFK was cut down by more than one assassin. The House Committee, some years after the Warren Commission, determined that shots HAD been fired from more than one direction PROVING it WAS a conspiracy; and that's how they labeled it!

IF, as you claim, there was lots of dust kicked up when the Lunar Lander landed; enough to block the view out the windows, then there certainly should have been a good deal of that dust landing on the landing pods - yet they are squeaky clean - you can't see any dust on them at all.

Also, there should have been a NOTICEABLE CRATER directly beneath the Lander; a crater from which all that dust was kicked out. YET NONE ONE of the 100s of pictures of the Landers show any craters below ANY of the Landers.

Hmmm

I'm not exactly new here; but it's true I haven't posted much AND I was unaware of a 9/11 thread.

Thanx for the link; I'll check it out (and probably post a thing or two).

Pablo Novi wrote:

IF, as you claim, there was lots of dust kicked up when the Lunar Lander landed; enough to block the view out the windows, then there certainly should have been a good deal of that dust landing on the landing pods - yet they are squeaky clean - you can't see any dust on them at all.

Also, there should have been a NOTICEABLE CRATER directly beneath the Lander; a crater from which all that dust was kicked out. YET NONE ONE of the 100s of pictures of the Landers show any craters below ANY of the Landers.

Hmmm

Last time bub, you obviously don't want to accept anything else but your nutbag theories and I won't waste any more time. You were told about a little thing called physics but it didn't sink in. In short the moon is a very different place from earth, you know, gravity and atmosphere and all that hogwash (to you).

I didn't ask why things should be cheaper (in fact I stated that commercial launches are cheaper), I asked why it should be "dirt cheap". I didn't make the claim, I just asked someone to support it. I don't care what it smacks of.

If things "TEND" to cost more at first, when might they not? We're talking about rockets, not cars.

The question remains unanswered. The Apollo program cost well clear of $20 billion in 1973 dollars, or $115 billion in today's dollars. Some estimates place it much higher. A modern Apollo program could in theory be much cheaper than the original and still cost more than $100 billion.

So I'll ask again: what makes you (or Rayo) think it should be dirt cheap? Can you give some specifics?

1) Yes you can. Before digital, we had analog. 2) Predictable flight, rudimentary programming plus post-production editing 3) Post-production editing, cropping, retouching, to enhance picture quality 4) The lunar module used fuel cells 5) Aluminum is lightweight but strong. Foil used as thermal blankets. 6) Post-production editing, cropping, retouching, to enhance picture quality 7) Too many Soviet failures -- program ultimately scrapped for cost reasons 8) Who wants fold up cars? Spain built Hiriko -- after R&D, no commercial investors to build it. 9) No it wouldn't. Not for moon missions. 10) Cost benefit analysis. Manned missions are more expensive. No one willing to pay anymore. Bonus: Tapes last about 10 years. FOTOS with stars: They went to the light side of the moon. We don't see stars either during the day. Too much light from moon and earth and sun. Stars are not that bright. Photographing stars requires long exposure. 11) Rockets don't need to be that powerful. Wouldn't leave super-visible craters. 12) Some dust was kicked up, and ejected at high velocity. No atmosphere for dust to swirl. None of it would land on the landing pads.

All your dumb questions answered easily. Your conspiracy trolls are just too much. It's fun toying with you, however. :)

[quote]Bang zoom straight to the Moon! wrote:

1) Yes you can. Before digital, we had analog.

2) Predictable flight, rudimentary programming plus post-production editing

3) Post-production editing, cropping, retouching, to enhance picture quality

4) The lunar module used fuel cells

5) Aluminum is lightweight but strong. Foil used as thermal blankets.

6) Post-production editing, cropping, retouching, to enhance picture quality

7) Too many Soviet failures -- program ultimately scrapped for cost reasons

8) Who wants fold up cars? Spain built Hiriko -- after R&D, no commercial investors to build it.

9) No it wouldn't. Not for moon missions.

10) Cost benefit analysis. Manned missions are more expensive. No one willing to pay anymore.

Bonus: Tapes last about 10 years.

FOTOS with stars: They went to the light side of the moon. We don't see stars either during the day. Too much light from moon and earth and sun. Stars are not that bright. Photographing stars requires long exposure.

11) Rockets don't need to be that powerful. Wouldn't leave super-visible craters.

12) Some dust was kicked up, and ejected at high velocity. No atmosphere for dust to swirl. None of it would land on the landing pads.

20171203 Apollo Moon Hoax - Pablo

N.B. This is, necessarily, a HUGE POST. Please permit me to begin it with an "Outline" of the 12+ points to be discussed (debated):

1) LESS THAN A HAND-HELD CALCULATOR'S WORTH OF COMPUTER TECH BACK THEN

2) THE FINAL, APOLLO 17, MOON TAKE-OFF VIDEO IS WAY TOO PRECISELY FRAMED

3) TONS OF TOP QUALITY PHOTOS DESPITE ASTRONAUTS UNABLE TO FOCUS & ADJUST THE CAMERAS.

4) TINY SPACE AVAILABLE TO FIT A HUMONGOUS AMOUNT OF GEAR (and astronauts too)

5) SPACE-CRAFT's FLIMSY LOOKING "WALLS" (seemingly connected with duct tape).

6) NASA PHOTOS CLEARLY SHOWING PITCH-BLACK AREAS AS ILLUMINATED.

7) US WAS WAY BEHIND THE SOVIETS BUT PASSED THEM IN A FLASH & THE SOVIETS NEVER ADVANCED.

8) FOLD-UP CARS, 50 YEARS AGO; BUT NOT NOW.

9) DEATHLY RADIATION (Van Allen Belts & beyond them)

10) NOBODY HAS SENT HUMANS BEYOND 400 MILES IN 50 YEARS.

Bonus points: NASA "LOST" ALL THEIR ORIGINAL TAPES.

BONUS B: NOT ONE SINGLE PHOTO WITH STARS IN IT!

11) NO CRATER BENEATH THE LUNAR LANDER.

12) NOT A SPECK OF MOON DUST ON THE LUNAR LANDER'S LANDING PADS.

-----

General Note from Pablo: In ALL 12-14 examples in this discussion / debate, BANG ZOOM will resort to simply making unsubstantiated (and clearly RIDICULOUS) claims as if they are facts. We should take HIS word for this?)

PABLO: 1) All the computer tech they had back then is less than we have now on a calculator - you can't control a 6-9 million part machine with that little.

BANG ZOOM : 1) Yes you can. Before digital, we had analog.

My claim was that NASA had far too little computational power to PRECISELY CONTROL a multi-million-part machine, particularly at such tremendous distances (distances that were changing every second!). My claim stands; Bang Zoom's debunking effort flunks completely.

Pablo's suggestion: Read the definitions provided and then, read the following "Comparison Chart" - Please notice, in point after point, the INFERIORITY (meaning: inadequacy) of Analog for super-long-distance DATA transmission & control!

QUOTE from "Diffen" (

https://www.diffen.com/difference/Analog_vs_Digital

):

Analog and digital signals are used to transmit information, usually through electric signals. In both these technologies, the information, such as any audio or video, is transformed into electric signals. The difference between analog and digital technologies is that in analog technology, information is translated into electric pulses of varying amplitude. In digital technology, translation of information is into binary format (zero or one) where each bit is representative of two distinct amplitudes.

[from: Analog versus Digital comparison chart]

"Analog: Analog signal is a continuous signal which represents physical measurements.

Example Human voice in air, analog electronic devices.

Applications: Thermometer

Data transmissions: Subjected to deterioration by noise during transmission and write/read cycle.

Response to Noise: More likely to get affected reducing accuracy

Flexibility: Analog hardware is not flexible.

Uses: Can be used in analog devices only. Best suited for audio and video transmission.

Power: Analog instrument draws large power

Errors: Analog instruments usually have a scale which is cramped at lower end and give considerable observational errors.

Digital: Digital signals are discrete time signals generated by digital modulation.

Example: Computers, CDs, DVDs, and other digital electronic devices.

Applications: PCs, PDAs

Data transmissions: Can be noise-immune without deterioration during transmission and write/read cycle.

Response to Noise Less affected since noise response are analog in nature

Flexibility: Digital hardware is flexible in implementation.

Uses: Best suited for Computing and digital electronics.

Power: Digital instrument drawS only negligible power

Errors: Digital instruments are free from observational errors like parallax and approximation errors."

-----

PABLO: 2) The video of the "final take off" from the Moon seems way too precision (with the capsule within the frame despite the ever-changing acceleration). The would-be camera was supposedly remote-controlled from Earth - just the time delay for the relaying of signals would seem to make that impossible.

BANG ZOOM: 2) Predictable flight, rudimentary programming plus post-production editing

A QUOTE FROM "Physlink.com ... Ask Experts":

"Light travels through space at just over 186,000 miles per second. The moon is just under 250,000 miles from Earth, so light from the Moon's surface has to travel more than one second (about 1.3 seconds) to reach us.

...

If you've watched any of the videos of the moon landings, you might have noticed that the radio responses from the moon walking astronauts SOMETIMES included a delayed echo of the questions. That also was a result of the 3 seconds it takes for a radio signal to travel to and from the moon, since radio waves are another form of light waves. " [emphasis added by Pablo]

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae255.cfm

Quick Comments by Pablo to this Physlink.com quote:

a) "SOMETIMES". Hmmm. Why in the world wasn't it ALL THE TIIME? This was SUPPOSED to be LIVE coverage:

b) Never forget that there is an AUTOMATIC 3 second delay for every single NASA response to what supposedly happened on the Moon. (including 3 seconds for NASA to continuously-readjust the video-camera on the Moon's surface in order to keep the ascending capsule in the view. And a 3 second delay between every single NASA-to-"Moon Men" and "Moon Men-to-NASA communication. Yet the LIVE transmission clearly lacks this, both NASA and the "Moon Men" are heard LIVE, commenting on each change AS IT OCCURS with NO DELAY.)

"Last humans on the moon" you tube video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOdzhQS_MMw

Here's the description provided:

"Lunar lift-off film for Apollo 17. The television camera was mounted on the rover which Gene parked about 145 meters east of (behind) the lunar module. The ascent stage ignites and climbs, spacecraft foil and dust flying in all directions. Ed Fendell in Houston anticipates exactly the timing of ignition, lift-off, and the rate of climb, and the camera tilts to follows the ascent. At pitchover, the throat of the ascent engine points down at the camera and its combustion is visible as a small bright light. The clip ends as Challenger reaches an altitude of 1,500 feet. "

Ed Fendell in Houston was a quarter million miles away; and any and all information about the actual take-off was, AUTOMATICALLY, delayed in getting to him (in other words, he was aiming the camera BLIND!). Do YOU really believe that he ANTICIPATED E-X-A-C-T-L-Y all of:

i) the timing of ignition,

ii) the timing of the lift-off,

iii) the EXACT rate of climb ???

Impossible? Worse, it's ridiculous!

-----

PABLO: 3) The quality and content of the photos - taken from cameras attached to their space suits where they couldn't even see precisely what they were looking at.

BANG ZOOM: 3) Post-production editing, cropping, retouching, to enhance picture quality

PABLO: So, NASA was presenting to us these photos AS the mission went on; yet somehow they processed all of the photos (with the photo-editing technology they had back then?) And, if they could: edit, crop, retouch & ENHANCE -

i) WHY WOULD THEY (when the original un-altered shots would be better documentation that they did what they claimed;

ii) HOW CAN WE KNOW such "PHOTO-SHOPPED" images originated ON the Moon in the first place.

iii) "Chain of custody"???

iv) Video NASA presented us with was super-low-quality. Why would they photo-shop the photos but not the videos - between the two sets of "documentation", the videos would have been much more believable

v) NASA has the time, experts and money to "process" tons of photos?

vi) Most importantly of all, no one (especially back then) could take terrible-quality photos and make them top-quality photos.

-----

PABLO: 4) The tiny amount of space within their capsules as compared to the necessary huge amount of space to take all that would have really been needed: lots of batteries (both primary and back-up), a lunar rover ...

BANG ZOOM: 4) The lunar module used fuel cells

PABLO: That's it??? That's ALL you've got. I stated that the amount of space was tiny; it was ONLY 12 FEET ACROSS, in which to fit EVERYTHING (including a 10-foot long rover (that supposedly folded up into the size of a large suit case! YIKES!)

Here's only a PARTIAL LIST of what HAD TO FIT INSIDE THOSE 12 FEET!:

GROUP I: BASIC CRAFT COMPONENTS:

i) The "fuselage" of the craft itself (walls, struts, beams, frame ...); (which took up much more space back then!)

ii) sophisticated navigation equipment; (which took up much more space back then!)

iii) sophisticated guidance equipment; (which took up much more space back then!)

iv) sophisticated communication equipment; (which took up much more space back then!)

v) POWER SUPPLY, (MULTIPLE power supplies!). (enough to cover ALL EMERGENCIES & delays)

v-a) Descent stage reverse-thrust rocket (big enough to provide a soft landing on the Moon);

v-b) Ascent stage rocket - to take off from the Lunar surface and make it 69 miles up;

v-c) Stabilization rockets

vi) MASSIVE AMOUNT OF FUEL. (The ascent stage rocket had to have been a big fuel hog! Remember, the Moon causes the tides here on Earth 234,000 miles away!)

GROUP 2: LIFE-SUPPORT COMPONENTS:

vii) Beds for 2-3 astronauts (they did sleep, right?) AND the room for those beds;

viii) Sanitation / Septic system (with BACK-UP emergency system)

ix) FOOD (enough to cover ALL EMERGENCIES & delays)

x) WATER (enough to cover ALL EMERGENCIES & delays)

xi) OXYGEN (with BACK-UP system) (enough to cover ALL EMERGENCIES & delays)

xii) Oxygen RE-CHARGE system (for the spacesuits)

xiii) Top-of-the-line HEATING system (several and with back-ups);

xiv) Top-of-the-line COOLING system (several and with back-ups)

"Because the ‘weather’ on the Moon, so to speak, can be a bit unpleasant. According to the experts over at NASA, daytime highs average a balmy +260° F, but it cools off quite a bit at night, dropping to an average of -280° F. If you’re looking for anything between those two extremes, you won’t really find it on the Moon. It’s pretty much one or the other. If you’re in the sun, you’re going to be boiled alive, and if you’re out of the sun, you’re going to be flash frozen." - Dave McGowan, Wagging The Moondoggie, Episode 2

xv) Air conditioning system (and the AIR to run it!)

GROUP 3: MAINTENANCE & REPAIR EQUIPMENT:

xvi) an exhaustive supply of spare parts and a wide variety of tools. (No mechanics or parts stores on the Moon or on the trip)

xvii) Testing equipment for conducting experiments (on the Moon and on the trip) (some of this was quite bulky)

xviii) Space for the petrified-wood (i.e. "Moon rock") samples.

xix) Dune Buggy / Lunar Rover

"And the rovers, according to NASA, are a full ten feet long, just two feet less than the diameter of our craft. But not to worry – according to NASA, the rovers (pictured below) folded up to the size of a large suitcase. When released, they would just sort of magically unfold and snap into place, ready to roam the lunar terrain." ibid

xx) BATTERIES, LOTS OF BATTERIES:

"One last thing we’re going to need is a whole lot of batteries. Lots and lots of batteries. That’s going to be the only way to power the ship while we’re on the Moon, and we’ll definitely need to run the communications systems, and the oxygen supply system, and the heating and cooling system, and the cabin lights, and the television cameras and transmitters, and all the testing equipment, and our spacesuits, and that damn rover. And we won’t be able to recharge any of the various batteries, so we’re going to need a lot of back-ups. Especially of the really big batteries that run the ship. We may need a separate ship just to carry all the batteries we’re going to need."

REMEMBER, THE ABOVE IS ONLY A P-A-R-T-I-A-L list of all the stuff absolutely necessary to take (and fit on-board); in a 12 foot diameter space!

-----

PABLO: 5) The totally flimsy looking "walls" (seemingly connected by duct tape).

BANG ZOOM: 5) Aluminum is lightweight but strong. Foil used as thermal blankets.

PABLO: Ever been on a plane? Ever look out the windows over the wings? Ever notice the super-visible markings warning against standing on the wing beyond a certain point? That's the "strong Aluminum" you're talking about???

"Foil used as thermal blankets." Remarkable? Have you looked at photos of the actual spacecraft. It DOES look like aluminum foil - and just exactly how well does that fare when you put any pressure on it at all? And it's guaranteed to protect the LIVES of 2-3 astronauts while flying thru take-offs and landings & flying thru space; and 500 degree temperature ranges on the Lunar surface???

About 1/3rd of the way down on this page:

http://centerforaninformedamerica.com/moondoggie-2/

, McGowan includes three ACTUAL NASA photos of the Lunar Lander. PLEASE TAKE A CLOSE LOOK, particularly at the 3rd of the 3 photos.

IT LOOKS LIKE A PIECE OF JUNK that you could poke your finger thru (NASA admitted that, just during the testing phases, they were very concerned about screw drivers hitting and puncturing the walls - and looking at the photos, you can see why!)

-----

PABLO: 6) Photos that show parts of the Lunar Module clearly, when they were in the shadows and thus un-illuminated.

BANG ZOOM: 6) Post-production editing, cropping, retouching, to enhance picture quality

PABLO: Wait a second now. NASA is supposedly provided the public of the US and world with the actual evidence of landing on the Moon; and yet they "photo-shopped" the imagery? And so much so that their EDITED photos show areas (that should have been completely dark due to being in the shadow) as being well-illuminated??? That's supposed to convince the normally & healthily sceptical person?

IF you are correct, that NASA "photo-shopped" the photos; then we are left with ABSOLUTELY NO WAY to know IF the photos were originally taken on the Moon; or were produced here on Earth and presented to LOOK like Moon shots).

-----

PABLO: 7) That the US was well over a decade behind the Soviets, yet "caught up" in just a very few years - while the Soviets never got there. (I don't find it convincing the claim that the Soviets would have exposed the farce - because there are endless examples of the buying off of politicians; if the price is right.)

BANG ZOOM: 7) Too many Soviet failures -- program ultimately scrapped for cost reasons

PABLO: The Soviet program had a super-high success rate (compared to the PRE-APOLLO American rate). They were more than a decade ahead of the US. Yet, within about 5 years, the US leap-frogged ahead of them, with almost perfect success (on 6 missions out of 7!) while the Soviets NEVER got there. Where/when were all these "Soviet failures"? (Your modus operandi seems to be to just MAKE THINGS UP as you go along!)

-----

PABLO: 8) We still don't have anything close to fold-up cars almost 50 years after they supposedly had ones they took to and drove on the Moon.

BANG ZOOM: 8) Who wants fold up cars? Spain built Hiriko -- after R&D, no commercial investors to build it.

PABLO: "Who wants fold up cars?" Are you kidding us? EVERYBODY who owns a car (or more than one) and is cramped for parking space (or who wants to remove their car(s) from view and make them much harder to steal)! Everybody with a 2-car garage could convert that space into living area! Everybody who doesn't even have a garage (millions upon millions of people who live in "mini-houses" or who have been forced to convert their garage into living quarters - they'd want a fold-up car - especially a car that folds up into the size of a large suitcase.

-----

PABLO: 9) #1: The Van Allen Belts (and beyond) would require manned capsules to be enclosed by thick amounts of lead - something NASA has never claimed they had.

BANG ZOOM: 9) No it wouldn't. Not for moon missions.

PABLO: NASA has repeated admitted, including nowadays, that the Van Allen Radiation Belts (and radiation in space beyond them) is a HUGE problem for their sending manned spacecraft beyond low-Earth orbit TO THIS DAY. Regardless of whether astronauts were going to Mars or just the Moon; they'd spend EXACTLY THE SAME AMOUNT OF TIME going thru the Van Allen Radiation Belts AND even much more time in the highly irradiated space beyond it. btw, Van Allen himself, originally said that humans didn't have the technology to pass thru them; and wouldn't for the foreseeable future.

-----

PABLO: 10) Related to "7)" and "9)" above: that no country has sent humans above LOW Earth Orbit since then.

I don't buy one bit that there supposedly no reason to go back to the Moon.

BANG ZOOM: 10) Cost benefit analysis. Manned missions are more expensive. No one willing to pay anymore.

PABLO: Manned missions were INCREDIBLY expensive a half-century ago (remember, the FIRST time you do something new or build something new IS the MOST EXPENSIVE. But the US and the Soviets were supposedly willing back then; but not now??? Yet, somehow, NASA (for the nth time) is calling for a Manned Mars mission. Tell us about the "cost benefit" analysis of THAT!

-----

PABLO: Bonus points: NASA supposedly lot almost all the original tapes (cartons and cartons of them) of what was supposedly THE most historic achievement humans ever made. That they didn't have/make copies and lost the only ones seems totally unreasonable. and ...

BANG ZOOM: Bonus: Tapes last about 10 years.

PABLO: SORRY; the problem ACCORDING TO NASA ITSELF, is not that the tapes last only 10 years. NASA says the problem is:

McGOWAN: “But wait,” you say, “NASA has solid evidence of the validity of the Moon landings. They have, for example, all of that film footage shot on the moon and beamed live directly into our television sets.”

Since we’re on the subject, I have to mention that transmitting live footage back from the Moon was another rather innovative use of 1960s technology. More than two decades later, we would have trouble broadcasting live footage from the deserts of the Middle East, but in 1969, we could beam that sh*t back from the Moon with nary a technical glitch!

As it turns out, however, NASA doesn’t actually have all of that Moonwalking footage anymore. Truth be told, they don’t have any of it. According to the agency, all the tapes were lost back in the late 1970s. All 700 cartons of them. As Reuters reported on August 15, 2006, “The U.S. government has misplaced the original recording of the first moon landing, including astronaut Neil Armstrong’s famous ‘one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind’ … Armstrong’s famous moonwalk, seen by millions of viewers on July 20, 1969, is among transmissions that NASA has failed to turn up in a year of searching, spokesman Grey Hautaluoma said. ‘We haven’t seen them for quite a while. We’ve been looking for over a year, and they haven’t turned up,’ Hautaluoma said … In all, some 700 boxes of transmissions from the Apollo lunar missions are missing.”

Given that these tapes allegedly documented an unprecedented and unduplicated historical event, one that is said to be the greatest technological achievement of the twentieth century, how in the world would it be possible to, uhmm, ‘lose’ 700 cartons of them? Would not an irreplaceable national treasure such as that be very carefully inventoried and locked away in a secure film vault? And would not copies have been made, and would not those copies also be securely tucked away somewhere? Come to think of it, would not multiple copies have been made for study by the scientific and academic communities?

Had NASA claimed that a few tapes, or even a few cartons of tapes, had been misplaced, then maybe we could give them the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps some careless NASA employee, for example, absent-mindedly taped a Super Bowl game over one of them. Or maybe some home porn. But does it really seem at all credible to claim that the entire collection of tapes has gone missing – all 700 cartons of them, the entire film record of the alleged Moon landings? In what alternative reality would that happen ‘accidentally’?

Some of you are probably thinking that everyone has already seen the footage anyway, when it was allegedly broadcast live back in the late 1960s and early 1970s, or on NASA’s website, or on YouTube, or on numerous television documentaries. But you would be mistaken. The truth is that the original footage has never been aired, anytime or anywhere – and now, since the tapes seem to have conveniently gone missing, it quite obviously never will be.

The fact that the tapes are missing (and according to NASA, have been for over three decades), amazingly enough, was not even the most compelling information that the Reuters article had to offer. Also to be found was an explanation of how the alleged Moonwalk tapes that we all know and love were created: “Because NASA’s equipment was not compatible with TV technology of the day, the original transmissions had to be displayed on a monitor and re-shot by a TV camera for broadcast.”

So what we saw then, and what we have seen in all the footage ever released by NASA since then, were not in fact live transmissions. To the contrary, it was footage shot off a television monitor, and a tiny black-and-white monitor at that. That monitor may have been running live footage, I suppose, but it seems far more likely that it was running taped footage. NASA of course has never explained why, even if it were true that the original broadcasts had to be ‘re-shot,’ they never subsequently released any of the actual ‘live’ footage. But I guess that’s a moot point now, what with the tapes having gone missing.

With NASA’s admission of how the original broadcasts were created, it is certainly not hard to imagine how fake Moon landing footage could have been produced. As I have already noted, the 1960s were a decidedly low-tech era, and NASA appears to have taken a very low-tech approach. As Moon landing skeptics have duly noted, if the broadcast tapes are played back at roughly twice their normal running speed, the astronauts appear to move about in ways entirely consistent with the way ordinary humans move about right here on planet Earth. Here then is the formula for creating Moonwalk footage: take original footage of guys in ridiculous costumes moving around awkwardly right here on our home planet, broadcast it over a tiny, low-resolution television monitor at about half speed, and then re-film it with a camera focused on that screen. The end result will be broadcast-ready tapes that, in addition to having that all-important grainy, ghosty, rather surreal ‘broadcast from the Moon’ look, also appear to show the astronauts moving about in entirely unnatural ways." - end McGowan quote on NASA's original Moon Mission tapes and of how they produced their original broadcasts.

-----

PABLO: (2nd bonus point): NOT ONE SINGLE PHOTO WITH STARS IN IT! The sky from the Moon's surface should be blazing with stars at least some of the time when they were supposedly there. Yet they didn't manage to take ONE single Photo of them? Not one? When just one would have been so convincing? (NASA even has art-work depicting a would-be Lunar view in which the sky is chock full of stars.

BANG ZOOM: PHOTOS with stars: They went to the light side of the moon. We don't see stars either during the day. Too much light from moon and earth and sun. Stars are not that bright. Photographing stars requires long exposure.

PABLO: So, photographing stars requires a long exposure. Yet, as I said, NASA artwork clearly shows a sky absolutely full of stars. So, given that it was ESSENTIAL to US Gov reputation and NASA's funding, to CONVINCE the public that NASA had put men on the Moon ....

i) Why didn't they at least take ONE night-time photo (out their window)????

ii) Why didn't they at least take ONE day-time long-exposure???

Besides, I'm not buying that ZERO stars were visible in EVERY direction during every moment of their presence on the surface. (Again, just one single photo with stars in it; would have sealed NASA's case for them. Ridiculous that they wouldn't have documented something that was so easy to document - remember, they hit golf balls - though, come to think of it, we never did see any astronauts JUMPING as high as they should have been able to under 1/6th gravity!)

-----

PABLO: 11) There is no crater underneath ANY of the Lunar Landers; to slow the descent to nearly zero, so as to land without harming ship or crew, they had to use powerful rockets - that HAD to have left a super-visible crater directly below the craft. Not one photo shows one.

BANG ZOOM: 11) Rockets don't need to be that powerful. Wouldn't leave super-visible craters.

PABLO: Wait a second. Those rockets DID need to be very powerful. Afterall, without COMPLETE control of the descent, the landing would have wrecked the Lander (and probably not been too good for the crew inside either, right?).

And what's this about "Wouldn't leave SUPER-VISIBLE craters".??? Anybody can look at the 6 landing sites and see that there is NO VISIBLE CRATER AT ALL under any of them! NONE, zilch, zip, nada! We're talking about directly beneath the Lander, just a couple of feet below the ROCKET ENGINE itself. You admit that it would have kicked up a ton of dust; yet how could it do that if it didn't, in removing all that dust, leave behind an empty space (a CRATER, visible for all to see)?

-----

PABLO: 12) Along the same lines, such a landing should have kicked up a HUGE dust storm (heck the Lunar Rover driver said that THEY, with just that un-powerful machine, were driving thru a cloud of dust they were kicking up. Yet, in ALL pictures of the Lunar Landers, not one, not one shows a bit of dust on the landing pads! They should have had lots of it.

BANG ZOOM: 12) Some dust was kicked up, and ejected at high velocity. No atmosphere for dust to swirl. None of it would land on the landing pads.

PABLO: "Some dust"? Given that the astronauts who drove/rode the Rover stated that it kicked up a CLOUD of dust; the rocket engine MUST have kicked up a HUMONGOUS amount of dust. NASA and its astronauts stated that this was so; actually blocking the view temporarily. So let's not SNEAKILY use the words "some dust", ok?

"NONE of it would land on the landing pads"? NONE??? OF COURSE, SOME of it would land on the landing pads. It would have fallen over a large area, INCLUDING, due to dust-particle to dust-particle collisions, on the landing pads themselves. Consider that as the rocket engine was shut off, the last moments of gas it pushed out, would have lifted up some dust FAR less intensely than earlier and THAT dust would have fallen closer-still to the Lander; inevitably settling on the Landing Pads.

END POST

Pablo Novi has destroyed all your pathetic knee-jerk single line answers. You lose again, NASA fanboy.