[dwizzy22]

Originally Posted by Kanda444 ↗

i literally laughed at that.

you think that because i dont believe Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17 were all faked....that i must have had a sheltered life? not only did i not have a sheltered life at all but as a kid, i was obsessed with the space program and loved reading and learning about the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo programs (though....i have to admit....im not a fan of NASA anymore. their past work was great but that ended around when the shuttle program started).

i'd love to see what "evidence" you have to prove that they faked all six landings (since people seem to only give a shit about the first one).

i dont think i've told anybody here this before....so you can be the first: i occasionally e-mail with Story Musgrave (Frank is his name) and we have talked about moon landing deniers before. that's a surreal experience. usually we just talk about my kids and his granddaughter (he calls her his 'little story'). you pass your 'evidence' on to me, then (if it's interesting enough ) perhaps i will talk to him about it. maybe he will be convinced.

American flag waving and fluttering as Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin planted it. Photos of the landing also seem to show rippling in a breeze, such as the image above which clearly shows a fold in the flag. The obvious problem here is that there’s no air in the moon’s atmosphere, and therefore no wind to cause the flag to blow.

had NASA really landed us on the moon, there would be a blast crater underneath the lunar module to mark its landing. On any video footage or photograph of the landings, no crater is visible, almost as though the module was simply placed there. The surface of the moon is covered in fine lunar dust, and even this doesn’t seem to have been displaced in photographic evidence.

On the moon there is only one strong light source: the Sun. So it’s fair to suggest that all shadows should run parallel to one another. But this was not the case during the moon landing: videos and photographs clearly show that shadows fall in different directions.

In order to reach the moon, astronauts had to pass through what is known as the Van Allen radiation belt. The belt is held in place by Earth’s magnetic field and stays perpetually in the same place. The Apollo missions to the moon marked the first ever attempts to transport living humans through the belt. the sheer levels of radiation would have cooked the astronauts en route to the moon.

One compelling argument for the moon landing hoax is the total lack of stars in any of the photographic/video evidence. There are no clouds on the moon, so stars are perpetually visible and significantly brighter than what we see through the filter of Earth’s atmosphere.The argument here is that NASA would have found it impossible to map out the exact locations of all stars for the hoax without being rumbled, and therefore left them out – intentionally falling back on an excuse that the quality of the photographs washes them out (an excuse they did actually give).Some photographs are high-quality, however, and yet still no stars are shown. Certainly eerie, considering you can take pictures of stars from Earth in much lower quality and still see them.



This is only a few I could remember, plus I love the creativeness ejected in a debate about the moon landings.
Even though this is a thread about Pluto.

[Kanda444]

Originally Posted by dwizzy22 ↗

Americans. I'm out.

what bullshit. who gives a shit if im american or not? i will support all my claims about the apollo missions with evidence...i suggest you do the same next time. unfounded assumptions and 'silly american' comments dont equate to an honest argument.

[Xfactor]

[Kanda444]

Originally Posted by Xfactor ↗

spectacular!

[Xfactor]

Waited 30 years to see it

[dwizzy22]

Originally Posted by Kanda444 ↗

what bullshit. who gives a shit if im american or not? i will support all my claims about the apollo missions with evidence...i suggest you do the same next time. unfounded assumptions and 'silly american' comments dont equate to an honest argument.

It comes down to how far you want to go down the rabbit hole, me as far as this goes champ I can't be fucked, it's kind of like god. I think it's great and a perfect reflection of mans aim of progression, why not document a whole mission for nat Geo? We seem to be able to pin point a planet at the far reaches of our galaxy or document plankton's ballsack but no moon. C'mon man. Appreciate your time on this debate too.

[dwizzy22]

Originally Posted by Kanda444 ↗

what bullshit. who gives a shit if im american or not? i will support all my claims about the apollo missions with evidence...i suggest you do the same next time. unfounded assumptions and 'silly american' comments dont equate to an honest argument.

I only state that because 64 million of your own citizens disagree with you.

[dwizzy22]

Btw that capsule never re-entered our atmosphere.
If it did they must of had some sweet aluminium paint or some shit to repel the scorchings of re entry, wait your about to speak for NASA and tell me it was the salt water wakes that washed it of.. I'm just pokeing the bear now.

[Kanda444]

Originally Posted by dwizzy22 ↗

It comes down to how far you want to go down the rabbit hole, me as far as this goes champ I can't be fucked, it's kind of like god. I think it's great and a perfect reflection of mans aim of progression, why not document a whole mission for nat Geo? We seem to be able to pin point a planet at the far reaches of our galaxy or document plankton's ballsack but no moon. C'mon man. Appreciate your time on this debate too.

here's the thing though.....(and i mean this with respect. i dont mean to come across as an asshole...but i am an asshole, so that's what you get. just know, it's nothing personal...just my personality) you have yet to present any real evidence to support your claims.

if you want evidence, NASA documented every part of their missions from Gemini to the Shuttle missions. the fact is, it would have been harder to fake all six moon landings (not to mention also faking the apollo 13 mishap and having it air live) than it would have been to actually go to the moon.

it's a great testament that people find it hard to believe. i mean, what an accomplishment....so spectacular, people still think it wasnt possible. the fact is, if you really look into it, there are answers for all your questions and no real reasons for the landings to be faked. not to mention, you will find many theories on the apollo 11 landing....but how come we never hear anything about the apollo 12 landing? or that apollo 13 was faked? or the apollo 14, 15, 16 and 17 landings.

Originally Posted by dwizzy22 ↗

I only state that because 64 million of your own citizens disagree with you.

yeah, but the majority of Americans are dumb and their ideas dont represent mine. ffs, more americans believe that the Christmas story from the bible (jesus' birth) is based on truth than believe that climate change is real. that is to say: most americans think a god being born of a virgin is real....but climate change due to human pollution isnt. (source)

so when the majority of americans believe something, that's a great reason to think 'perhaps i should re-investigate this shit a bit more'

Originally Posted by dwizzy22 ↗

Btw that capsule never re-entered our atmosphere.
If it did they must of had some sweet aluminium paint or some shit to repel the scorchings of re entry, wait your about to speak for NASA and tell me it was the salt water wakes that washed it of.. I'm just pokeing the bear now.

nope. they used a heat shield that was jettisoned during re-entry at 24,000 feet. heat was reduced greatly by reducing the angle of attack. it was also coated in aluminum thermal strips (i believe...i cant remember) which you can see is burnt off after re-entry:



they used foam on the shuttle...so using metallic strips isnt shocking.

these kinds of procedures werent new. it's silly to assume the Apollo missions couldnt have gone through re-entry considering the feat had been accomplished many times before by other nations (Vostok and Voskhod for example) .

The simplest axisymmetric shape is the sphere or spherical section. This can either be a complete sphere or a spherical section forebody with a converging conical afterbody. The aerodynamics of a sphere or spherical section are easy to model analytically using Newtonian impact theory. Likewise, the spherical section's heat flux can be accurately modeled with the Fay-Riddell equation. The static stability of a spherical section is assured if the vehicle's center of mass is upstream from the center of curvature (dynamic stability is more problematic). Pure spheres have no lift. However, by flying at an angle of attack, a spherical section has modest aerodynamic lift thus providing some cross-range capability and widening its entry corridor. In the late 1950s and early 1960s, high-speed computers were not yet available and computational fluid dynamics was still embryonic. Because the spherical section was amenable to closed-form analysis, that geometry became the default for conservative design. Consequently, manned capsules of that era were based upon the spherical section.

Pure spherical entry vehicles were used in the early Soviet Vostok and Voskhod and in Soviet Mars and Venera descent vehicles. The Apollo Command/Service Module used a spherical section forebody heatshield with a converging conical afterbody. It flew a lifting entry with a hypersonic trim angle of attack of −27° (0° is blunt-end first) to yield an average L/D (lift-to-drag ratio) of 0.368. This angle of attack was achieved by precisely offsetting the vehicle's center of mass from its axis of symmetry. Other examples of the spherical section geometry in manned capsules are Soyuz/Zond, Gemini and Mercury. Even these small amounts of lift allow trajectories that have very significant effects on peak g-force (reducing g-force from 8-9g for a purely ballistic (slowed only by drag) trajectory to 4-5g) as well as greatly reducing the peak reentry heat.

(source)

as for the Apollo command module construction:

The command module's inner structure was an aluminum "sandwich" consisting of a welded aluminum inner skin, a thermally bonded honeycomb core, and a thin aluminum "face sheet". The central heat shield consisted of 40 individual panels interspersed with several holes and openings for the reaction control engines and after-compartment equipment access. The central compartment structure consisted of an inner aluminum face sheet with a steel honeycomb core, a glass-phenolic ablative honeycomb heat shield, a layer of q-felt fibrous insulation, a pore seal, a moisture barrier, and a layer of aluminized PET film thermal strips.

The aft heat shield consisted of four brazed honeycomb panels, four spot-welded sheet metal fairings, and a circumferential ring. The fairing segments were attached to the honeycomb panels and ring with conventional fasteners. The steel honeycomb core and outer face sheets were then thermally bonded to the inner skin in a giant autoclave. The aft heat shield was nearly identical to the central, except no alluminized film layer was applied.

Earth landing system

The components of the ELS were housed around the forward docking tunnel. The forward compartment was separated from the central by a bulkhead and was divided into four 90-degree wedges. The ELS consisted of three main parachutes, three pilot parachutes, two drogue parachute motors, three upright bags, a sea recovery cable, a dye marker, and a swimmer umbilical.

The Command Module's center of mass was offset a foot or so from the center of pressure (along the symmetry axis). This provided a rotational moment during reentry, angling the capsule and providing some lift (a lift to drag ratio of about 0.368[4]). The capsule was then steered by rotating the capsule using thrusters; when no steering was required, the capsule was spun slowly, and the lift effects cancelled out. This system greatly reduced the g-force experienced by the astronauts, permitted a reasonable amount of directional control and allowed the capsule's splashdown point to be targeted within a few miles.

At 24,000 feet (7.3 km) the forward heat shield was jettisoned using four pressurized-gas compression springs. The drogue parachutes were then deployed, slowing the spacecraft to 125 miles per hour (201 km/h). At 10,700 feet (3.3 km) the drogues were jettisoned and the pilot parachutes, which pulled out the mains, were deployed. These slowed the CM to 22 miles per hour (35 km/h) for splashdown. The portion of the capsule which first contacted the water surface was built with crushable ribs to further mitigate the force of impact. The Apollo Command Module could safely parachute to an ocean landing with at least two parachutes (as occurred on Apollo 15), the third parachute being a safety precaution.

(source)

....then there was the fact that the re-entry was photographed and videotaped by various sources and different angles.

for example, have you ever heard of Apollo/Advanced Range Instrumentation Aircraft? here they are:



(Col. Oakley Baron (left) and Lt. Col. Robert L. Mosley at the controls of an ARIA at Patrick Air Force Base, Florida, 1969.
Photo: Bob Burns.)

These men also documented the re-entry:

(The Apollo 11 re-entry, photographed from a USAF KC-135 (tail no. 123) at 43,000 feet, flown by Col. Oakley Baron of the ARIA fleet.)

and recorded 16mm film courtesy Bob Mosley (Lt. Col., retired.) of the event here

they worked on many of the apollo missions and their stories can be found here.

also, we know that the Apollo 11 Saturn V rocket was launched and that the Saturn V rocket was filled with 331,000 gallons of liquid oxygen and 203,000 gallons of refined kerosene just to fuel the first stage......then there was the interstage, 2nd stage, 3rd stage (with separation rockets in between stages), then the instrument unit, followed by the LM shroud, the service module, command module and lunar module (and let's not forget the escape rockets). the thing stood 363 feet tall. now, the majority of the rocket (obviously) was gone shortly after launch (and re-used)....but what are you suggesting they did with the astronauts on board and the CM/LM/SM (command module) for the four days they were on the way to the moon and back

remember....we are talking space race era and the soviets would have loved to call the US out on faking achievements. they were closely monitoring the apollo missions and had the command module been kept in orbit, it would have been detected as it wasnt silent....it as sending back communications that were interceted by more than just NASA (an amateur ham radio operator named Larry Baysinger intercepted Apollo 11's transmissions from the lunar surface. the story is here and at the bottom of the page, you can find the actual audio he intercepted).

so, what exactly are you claiming they did with the astronauts and their vehicle during their trip to the moon that you dont think happened? also, how were they able to communicate with the astronauts without anybody else knowing they were in low earth orbit? and how did they do that while somehow faking communication so well that it could be intercepted and appear to be coming from the moon?

how was NASA able to make it so that Larry Baysinger was able to intercept and record Apollo 11 astronauts communications from on the moon (which, by the way, i urge you to listen to the actual recording here and compare it to NASA's transcripts here) and have it being recorded live....and have it match NASAs version....if, as you claimed, the astronauts werent on the moon? how did nasa fake that, get it so Baysinger could intercept it....yet still avoid detection from the rest of the world?

never once has any moon landing conspiracy theorist actually been able to answer my questions about their theory without their theory turning into a hyper complex, convoluted mess of assumptions based on no evidence. perhaps you will surprise me though?

[Xfactor]

.