When you know the government lies but, you still trust NASA, you're only:

submitted by JasonCarswell from (cdn.discordapp.com)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Tom_Bombadil 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

We know today. Hoax. Impossible in an era of black and white tv.

  • 100% analogue electronics.
  • No laser range finding for the surface.
  • Vacuum tubes, and huge transistors.
  • The astronauts would have landed through the rocket exhaust, so they couldn't see.
  • Radiation sheilding technology that they inexplicably cannot reproduce, because they claim to have lost it.

Nope. Not happening.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Any one detail details the hoax, because 100% of each piece of equipment had to function properly. If any of it it's impossible, then it couldn't have happened. Everything they claim has to be at a minimum 'possible'. Most of it isn't.

Plus fake moon rocks, that are infact petrified wood. Trees. Trees on the moon. :-/

[–]magnora7 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Ehh I don't think it's impossible, it's not that different from putting rovers on the moon.

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

One of the big ones for me is the film in their shielded cameras. I'm no radiation expert but space is supposed to be very hostile. But let's just say it wasn't that day (those days). A cool light radiation breeze swept across the surface of the moon, not wrecking any film, just minding it's own business.

I forget who/where/etc pointed out that all the film was numbered. Every photographer knows you need to take 10 pictures before you get 1 good one and you need 10 good ones before you get 1 great one. Well, every single shot those astronauts took is A++ keeper. No photos of thumbs or shoes, or lens flares or whatever.

Further the speculars reflecting of some objects clearly indicate other sources of light, and I'm not talking about the light from bouncing off the surface of the moon.

Also, the background dunes and rock formations are identical for different missions.

That's why I'm certain the images and video were staged. For a while I thought the mission might have been real with the staged imagery for backup. But then (read my other comment "In 2015...").

[–]Tom_Bombadil 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

I agree completely with the theory that the photos were staged. The best photographers in the world always take multiple photos of any scene. There's no possibility that a chest mounted camera could ever take 200 consecutive C+ quality photos without the use of a viewfinder, or lens focus, or aperture control. It's laughable to imagine.

However, the argument had been made that we did go to the moon, but that the photos were staged.
The photos were 100% staged.

Astronauts flying 250,000 miles to the moon and safely landing an inverted pendulum 6/6 times is so far beyond conceivable, that a person has to literally be brainwashed to believe it.

I was brainwashed for 3 decades, so I'm not criticising anyone in any way. The brainwashing is a fact, and it continues to this day. It's a fact.

The moon landings were faked. Also, an inconvenient fact.

[–]magnora7 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Astronauts flying 250,000 miles to the moon and safely landing an inverted pendulum 6/6 times is so far beyond conceivable, that a person has to literally be brainwashed to believe it.

It's at 1/6th gravity though, that makes it a LOT easier.

Clearly a giant rocket went up to space, and clearly the astronauts landed in the ocean weeks later, having come from space. That part wasn't faked, it seems. So is your contention that they just went in to orbit around earth for 2 weeks and pretended to go to the moon?

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

That's exactly what that guy who confronted the astronauts said. (Buzz Aldren punched him.)

His docu showed how, with real footage, they darkened the interior of the cab to shoot it like it was the black of space, and through the round portal window was a section of the blue and white Earth, which provides the illusion of being a planet.

I think that documentary also features how they were asked questions, with a timed pause, were then prompted with "talk" when they should reply - as if it was a real long distance time-delayed conversation.

It's a mediocre documentary with several good points within weak points, ad nauseum.

I'm pretty sure this is that documentary, not recommended unless you're deep into this : "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xciCJfbTvE4

Not to be confused with the extremely clever Kubrick moon hoax 2002 mockumentary, "Dark Side Of The Moon" (which shouldn't be taken seriously but is very entertaining). And that Kubrick mockumentary should not be confused with the also excellent and well recommended, inconclusive yet riveting 2012 documentary "Room 237" about Kubrick's "The Shining" and it's esoteric Moon Landing symbolism.

"Room 237"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_237

Find your "friendly" version : https://1337x.to/search/Room+237/1/

Or a cropped/pirated version of "Room 237 (2012)- Bill Blakemore, Geoffrey Cocks, Juli Kearns" : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sz6AXOQU4A

"Dark Side Of The Moon" aka "Opération Lune"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Side_of_the_Moon_(film)

Almost all but disappeared: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Dark+Side+Of+The+Moon+Kubrick+torrrent&t=h_&atb=v148-6a_&ia=web

For more, search for yourself : https://duckduckgo.com/?q=moon+hoax+documentary&t=h_&atb=v148-6a_&ia=videos

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Yea, the dark side of the Moon hoax video totally duped me the first time I saw it.

I was thinking that it was amazing!

Too good to be true!
It was.. too good... They got me the first time I watched it. :-/.

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

As incredulous as it was it had me going for a while. I was astounded at the interviews with Rumsfeld etc. There were a few intentional tells that had me questioning the veracity, but then when they talked about the lenses used to shoot Barry Lyndon by candle light (a great novel too), as a Kubrick fan and filmmaker I knew they were bullshitting the first time I saw it.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Satellites are real. Space shuttles are real. These travel in near Earth orbits.

The farthest the shuttle has gone is just over 400 miles, which is 1/15th the distance across the US. The moon is an orbiting object that is 250,000 miles away.

1/6 gravity may help, but having no atmosphere means that all motion control is 100% caused by both gravity and thrusters. One tiny overcompensation and it's over.

One mistake = Over.

In that instant the manually controlled craft starts overrotating the thrust that balances against the pull of gravity is off-balance. Gravity continues to pull towards the center of the moon. Any horizontal force vector applied by the rocket being out of alignment will:

1) push the craft sideways.
2) create a rotational moment, and begin to rotate the craft around it's center of mass.
3) reduce the force vector that was decelerating the craft against the moons acceleration/gravity.

For perspective: It's probably a good time to consider the fact that all of the controls on the lunar lander are either mechanical, or electronic. Not computer controlled. All manual. The computer controls used in modern ABS brakes far exceeds anything available in 1969.

There's no guidance to save them.
No accelerometers.
No laser guidance or laser range (distance) finding.

Just 3 pilots sitting in a windowless aluminum box that is 10 feet (or so) above a giant lunar landing rocket booster (which is huge, but still undersized; given its supposed to launch then back into space from the moon).

Again, just 3 pilots in a windowless aluminum box, with steering controls consisting of:

  • Electronic/mechanical analogue knobs.
  • Electronic/mechanical switches (on/off).
  • Mechanical/electronic analogue steering controls.
  • Manual controlled side thrusters (4)

This is truly an impossible feat. This is a basic descriptive breakdown of only one necessary portion of the supposed to the moon.

This is beyond impossible. Space X crashed 1/3 rockets during their recent falcon heavy mission, and they have the best and most modern computer-controlled equipment that money can buy.

Manually Landing on the moon is not even remotely possible for a single landing in a thousand attempts. 6/6 successful NASA lunar landings in the 70s is slapstick comedy.

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Having no air resistance is both a pro and a con. It's neither something to rely on or "lean" against nor something to complicate things.

I'm not saying your wrong, but you're comparing apples and orangutans.

The ace pilots would be better than computers at a lot.

The Space X vehicles are sooo different than the lander.

A better point to make is that their failures with the LLRV. https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=LLRV+ejection

They claim to have gotten a handle on it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=091ezcY-mkU

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Agreed. The lander vs. space X crafts are very different.

The space X versions are superior in nearly every capacity. Yet, 33% (1/3) crashed upon landing. The lunar lander had a 100% (6/6) successful landing record on the moon...?

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Added links to another comment.

I think all these comments will become a TT20 Counter Points To The Official Moon Landing Story.

[–]Jesus 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I’m not a 153news subscriber because the place is a hivemind for shills who push the mandela effect and flat earth but I found this video hilarious. https://153news.net/watch_video.php?v=88R73BGAKW5D

For me, American Moon documentary 2017 made me rethink my position on the moon landings and NASA (Never A Straigh Answer).

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

American Moon documentary 2017

Thanks for the reference. Will check it out after your other post.

[–]Jesus 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

My other post is kind of crap, I just found the chicken dance hilarious. American Moon is a much watch though, same with the New Pearl Harbor doc.

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

One mainstream exception worth noting, in the movie set in the future by Christopher Nolan, "Interstellar", the "backwards" teacher no longer teaches that the Moon Landing was real - and it is handily left in the air unresolved. I don't know if this was for his "scientific accuracy", (especially when their crafts don't have much need for large fuel tanks to get on/off planets).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstellar_(film)