Regarding the Moon Landings-Must see video

[daws101]

How do you know this. Oh yeah, because the very people involved in the conspiracy say so. Wonder why they would say that?
The reason that I do not believe is not because I was not there to witness it, but because there is far more evidence that says we didn't than that we did. It's called researching both sides, and you really should try it.

If we were able to put man on the moon in 1969 as easily as you say, than why have we not returned? Why hasn't any other country been there? It seems to me that if we had gone to the moon than we would have chosen it to place the space station.

Those who say that it did happen point to the moon rocks often. I submit this article from the BBC to you.

BBC NEWS | Europe | Fake Dutch 'moon rock' revealed

please present irrefutable evidence of a conspiracy.

I can do that no more than you can bring irrefutable evidence to support your view. If either you or I could do so than this would not be the topic it has become over the years.

nice dodge! everything that I've posted is fact backed up by hard evidence and and credible eyewitnesses..whether or not you choose accept that has more to do with your beliefs and perceptions than any thing else.
in other words you're trying to prove a negative :

Try to think of it this way for a minute (without geting a headache). Can you prove that you can't prove a negative? If you could, would that mean that you have proved a negative, thus making the proof untrue?

 

[Stashman]

please present irrefutable evidence of a conspiracy.

I can do that no more than you can bring irrefutable evidence to support your view. If either you or I could do so than this would not be the topic it has become over the years.

nice dodge! everything that I've posted is fact backed up by hard evidence and and credible eyewitnesses..whether or not you choose accept that has more to do with your beliefs and perceptions than any thing else.
in other words you're trying to prove a negative :

Try to think of it this way for a minute (without geting a headache). Can you prove that you can't prove a negative? If you could, would that mean that you have proved a negative, thus making the proof untrue?

No one can prove a negative is a negative, if they could prove it than it wouldn't be true.

Yes, but having the debate is fun.

 

[Ringel05]

If I knew where this idiot was I'd find an opportune moment to smack him again, hopefully breaking his nose, hell I'd pay to watch him get his ass kicked in some back alley.

 

[Ringel05]

After Aldren punched the guy, were there any repercussions?

Yeah, that was my question, this asshole (not Buzz) has a Westboro feel to him. We should finance a walking tour in Africa for him and his crew to determine if lions really are carnivorous........

 

[Moonglow]

did you not try to say that the apollo flights did not have enough fuel to get to the moon and back?

The fact is that they only needed the fuel to get out of earths atmosphere and guide the ship for any corrections. Land on the moon and come back. There is no fuel needed to move through empty space. Or are you denying this?

Facts, don't you just love them?

The moon landings are real.

here's a fact for you. Debate this one with me ollie. Lol!

“it is commonly believed that man will fly directly from the earth to the moon, but to do this, we would require a vehicle of such gigantic proportions that it would prove an economic impossibility. It would have to develop sufficient speed to penetrate the atmosphere and overcome the earth’s gravity and, having traveled all the way to the moon, it must still have enough fuel to land safely and make the return trip to earth. Furthermore, in order to give the expedition a margin of safety, we would not use one ship alone, but a minimum of three … each rocket ship would be taller than new york’s empire state building [almost ¼ mile high] and weigh about ten times the tonnage of the queen mary, or some 800,000 tons.”

wernher von braun, the father of the apollo space program, writing in conquest of the moon

obviously von braun was wrong!

Von Braun was the father of the Redstone rocket program,which developed into the Apollo program. I was at Redstone Arsenal, Alabama in 1982 learning TOW I anti-armor missle system repair and maint for the Army. It was a great place. The women off base hated soldiers but, there are always hookers.

 

[Moonglow]

After Aldren punched the guy, were there any repercussions?

Yeah, that was my question, this asshole (not Buzz) has a Westboro feel to him. We should finance a walking tour in Africa for him and his crew to determine if lions really are carnivorous........

or if the crocs are cranky when you swim in their area of operation.

 

[Rationalist1016]

How do you know this. Oh yeah, because the very people involved in the conspiracy say so. Wonder why they would say that?
The reason that I do not believe is not because I was not there to witness it, but because there is far more evidence that says we didn't than that we did. It's called researching both sides, and you really should try it.

If we were able to put man on the moon in 1969 as easily as you say, than why have we not returned? Why hasn't any other country been there? It seems to me that if we had gone to the moon than we would have chosen it to place the space station.

Those who say that it did happen point to the moon rocks often. I submit this article from the BBC to you.

BBC NEWS | Europe | Fake Dutch 'moon rock' revealed

Can you address the question about the reflectors put on the moon? It seems like a valid point. If we have never been there, how do you explain this quote: What Neil & Buzz Left on the Moon - NASA Science

or this one: How Scientists Use Reflectors On The Moon

Both USA and Russia have left reflectors on the Moon. Reflectors are used by NASA as part of its lunar laser ranging experiment to measure the distance between the Earth and the Moon. These reflectors were initially placed on the lunar surface by the Apollo missions, namely Apollo 11, 14 and 15. Apollo 11 left a reflector array consisting of 100 retro-reflectors as did Apollo14, whereas the Apollo 15 reflector array had 300 retro-reflectors.

So, in your opinion, these scientists are continuing to produce "fake" research based on the "fake" reflectors even to this day?

Not at all. Just because they are there do not mean they were placed there with a manned mission. In 1970 Russia sent the Luna 17 unmanned craft to the moon that left reflector arrays. This brings up two questions:

1. Could we not have used unmanned craft just as they did to leave those reflectors?

2. If Russia used an unmanned craft to leave their reflectors why did they not just use a manned craft, and land on the moon themselves?

The assumption by many that the Russians did not land on the moon because we had already done so makes 0 sense. That's like Russia saying that America has already created the atom bomb so why should they.

Now, earlier, weren't you debating that at the time we didn't possess the technology to travel that far? And that radio signal could not be transmitted that far?
But now you are saying that an unmanned craft definitely could have made the trip? That seems contradictory.
Please clarify, if I am misunderstanding.

 

[Stashman]

Can you address the question about the reflectors put on the moon? It seems like a valid point. If we have never been there, how do you explain this quote: What Neil & Buzz Left on the Moon - NASA Science

or this one: How Scientists Use Reflectors On The Moon


So, in your opinion, these scientists are continuing to produce "fake" research based on the "fake" reflectors even to this day?

Not at all. Just because they are there do not mean they were placed there with a manned mission. In 1970 Russia sent the Luna 17 unmanned craft to the moon that left reflector arrays. This brings up two questions:

1. Could we not have used unmanned craft just as they did to leave those reflectors?

2. If Russia used an unmanned craft to leave their reflectors why did they not just use a manned craft, and land on the moon themselves?

The assumption by many that the Russians did not land on the moon because we had already done so makes 0 sense. That's like Russia saying that America has already created the atom bomb so why should they.

Now, earlier, weren't you debating that at the time we didn't possess the technology to travel that far? And that radio signal could not be transmitted that far?
But now you are saying that an unmanned craft definitely could have made the trip? That seems contradictory.
Please clarify, if I am misunderstanding.

No I never said that we could not travel that far. There is a difference from going that far an putting a man on the moon.

 

[Rationalist1016]

(*NASA gives the distance from the center of Earth to the center of the Moon as 239,000 miles. Since the Earth has a radius of about 4,000 miles and the Moon’s radius is roughly 1,000 miles, that leaves a surface-to-surface distance of 234,000 miles. The total distance traveled during the alleged missions, including Earth and Moon orbits, ranged from 622,268 miles for Apollo 13 to 1,484,934 miles for Apollo 17. All on a single tank of gas.)

To briefly recap then, in the twenty-first century, utilizing the most cutting-edge modern technology, the best manned spaceship the U.S. can build will only reach an altitude of 200 miles. But in the 1960s, we built a half-dozen of them that flew almost 1,200 times further into space. And then flew back. And they were able to do that despite the fact that the Saturn V rockets that powered the Apollo flights weighed in at a paltry 3,000 tons, about .004% of the size that the principal designer of those very same Saturn rockets had previously said would be required to actually get to the Moon and back (primarily due to the unfathomably large load of fuel that would be required).


To put that into more Earthly terms, U.S. astronauts today travel no further into space than the distance between the San Fernando Valley and Fresno. The Apollo astronauts, on the other hand, traveled a distance equivalent to circumnavigating the planet around the equator nine-and-a-half times! And they did it with roughly the same amount of fuel that it now takes to make that 200 mile journey, which is why I want NASA to build my next car for me. I figure I’ll only have to fill up the tank once and it should last me for the rest of my life.

This sure sounds like you are saying that you don't believe it is possible to travel that far.

 

[Stashman]

(*NASA gives the distance from the center of Earth to the center of the Moon as 239,000 miles. Since the Earth has a radius of about 4,000 miles and the Moon’s radius is roughly 1,000 miles, that leaves a surface-to-surface distance of 234,000 miles. The total distance traveled during the alleged missions, including Earth and Moon orbits, ranged from 622,268 miles for Apollo 13 to 1,484,934 miles for Apollo 17. All on a single tank of gas.)

To briefly recap then, in the twenty-first century, utilizing the most cutting-edge modern technology, the best manned spaceship the U.S. can build will only reach an altitude of 200 miles. But in the 1960s, we built a half-dozen of them that flew almost 1,200 times further into space. And then flew back. And they were able to do that despite the fact that the Saturn V rockets that powered the Apollo flights weighed in at a paltry 3,000 tons, about .004% of the size that the principal designer of those very same Saturn rockets had previously said would be required to actually get to the Moon and back (primarily due to the unfathomably large load of fuel that would be required).


To put that into more Earthly terms, U.S. astronauts today travel no further into space than the distance between the San Fernando Valley and Fresno. The Apollo astronauts, on the other hand, traveled a distance equivalent to circumnavigating the planet around the equator nine-and-a-half times! And they did it with roughly the same amount of fuel that it now takes to make that 200 mile journey, which is why I want NASA to build my next car for me. I figure I’ll only have to fill up the tank once and it should last me for the rest of my life.

This sure sounds like you are saying that you don't believe it is possible to travel that far.

I said in an earlier post that I had copy and pasted that from an article online. I intended to link to that article but didn't. However, since you want to bring that up answer a question about it for me. How is it possible that the Apollo astronauts could travel to the moon and back at a distance equivalent to circumnavigating the planet 9 and a half times on the same amount of fuel it takes today's astronauts to travel 200 miles?

 

[Rationalist1016]

(*NASA gives the distance from the center of Earth to the center of the Moon as 239,000 miles. Since the Earth has a radius of about 4,000 miles and the Moon’s radius is roughly 1,000 miles, that leaves a surface-to-surface distance of 234,000 miles. The total distance traveled during the alleged missions, including Earth and Moon orbits, ranged from 622,268 miles for Apollo 13 to 1,484,934 miles for Apollo 17. All on a single tank of gas.)

To briefly recap then, in the twenty-first century, utilizing the most cutting-edge modern technology, the best manned spaceship the U.S. can build will only reach an altitude of 200 miles. But in the 1960s, we built a half-dozen of them that flew almost 1,200 times further into space. And then flew back. And they were able to do that despite the fact that the Saturn V rockets that powered the Apollo flights weighed in at a paltry 3,000 tons, about .004% of the size that the principal designer of those very same Saturn rockets had previously said would be required to actually get to the Moon and back (primarily due to the unfathomably large load of fuel that would be required).


To put that into more Earthly terms, U.S. astronauts today travel no further into space than the distance between the San Fernando Valley and Fresno. The Apollo astronauts, on the other hand, traveled a distance equivalent to circumnavigating the planet around the equator nine-and-a-half times! And they did it with roughly the same amount of fuel that it now takes to make that 200 mile journey, which is why I want NASA to build my next car for me. I figure I’ll only have to fill up the tank once and it should last me for the rest of my life.

This sure sounds like you are saying that you don't believe it is possible to travel that far.

I said in an earlier post that I had copy and pasted that from an article online. I intended to link to that article but didn't. However, since you want to bring that up answer a question about it for me. How is it possible that the Apollo astronauts could travel to the moon and back at a distance equivalent to circumnavigating the planet 9 and a half times on the same amount of fuel it takes today's astronauts to travel 200 miles?

That's simple...................they don't. The space shuttle uses less fuel than the Saturn V rockets that they used to go to the moon. As far as comparing the distances, the space shuttle has to be propelled all the way into orbit. The Apollo missions did not need propulsion all the way to the moon. Once they left earths orbit, they only needed power for direction change or to slow.

NASA - Space Shuttle and International Space Station
Saturn V: America's Moon Rocket

Where did you get the information that they used the SAME amount of fuel?

 

[daws101]

here's a fact for you. Debate this one with me ollie. Lol!

“it is commonly believed that man will fly directly from the earth to the moon, but to do this, we would require a vehicle of such gigantic proportions that it would prove an economic impossibility. It would have to develop sufficient speed to penetrate the atmosphere and overcome the earth’s gravity and, having traveled all the way to the moon, it must still have enough fuel to land safely and make the return trip to earth. Furthermore, in order to give the expedition a margin of safety, we would not use one ship alone, but a minimum of three … each rocket ship would be taller than new york’s empire state building [almost ¼ mile high] and weigh about ten times the tonnage of the queen mary, or some 800,000 tons.”

wernher von braun, the father of the apollo space program, writing in conquest of the moon

obviously von braun was wrong!

Von Braun was the father of the Redstone rocket program,which developed into the Apollo program. I was at Redstone Arsenal, Alabama in 1982 learning TOW I anti-armor missle system repair and maint for the Army. It was a great place. The women off base hated soldiers but, there are always hookers.

so he was the grandfather of the Apollo program? what do hookers have to do with this debate, did von braun have an std?

 

[daws101]

Not at all. Just because they are there do not mean they were placed there with a manned mission. In 1970 Russia sent the Luna 17 unmanned craft to the moon that left reflector arrays. This brings up two questions:

1. Could we not have used unmanned craft just as they did to leave those reflectors?

2. If Russia used an unmanned craft to leave their reflectors why did they not just use a manned craft, and land on the moon themselves?

The assumption by many that the Russians did not land on the moon because we had already done so makes 0 sense. That's like Russia saying that America has already created the atom bomb so why should they.

Now, earlier, weren't you debating that at the time we didn't possess the technology to travel that far? And that radio signal could not be transmitted that far?
But now you are saying that an unmanned craft definitely could have made the trip? That seems contradictory.
Please clarify, if I am misunderstanding.

No I never said that we could not travel that far. There is a difference from going that far an putting a man on the moon.

how? if all the other technolgy worked then why not. A Spacecraft is comparable to a submarine if you can do the one why not the other?