all 6 comments

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

Crisis actors.

[–]Mnemonic[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

? Who, Tom Hanks or Kevin Bacon?

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

Apollo 13 was supposed to land on the moon, right? Are you familiar with the absurd fakery surrounding the moon landing(s)?

The idea that people could survive 6 continuous days of solar wind; without any "astronaut" experiencing any side effects related to radiation exposure is literally impossible.
Someone would get sickness/cancer/hair-loss/birth defects/etc. There is a 0.000000000000% chance of that happening.

The radiation issue is still the greatest obstacle to manned space travel. I could go on, and on, but that's a start. It was all fake AF.

 
That's just scratching the surface.

 
Mnemonic. I've read many if you're comments/posts. You're an intelligent individual with great insight. If you're unfamiliar with the fakery, then I would be honored to elucidate. Cause you'll easily understand the big picture, and spread the truth.

 

Here's another question for you. Do you think that a pilot could fly a rocket and safely land it with the rocket booster facing the ground? Can you envision any person reliably accomplishing this? Could a person land any Space X rocket manually?

[–]Mnemonic[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Radiation is (especially for NASA standards) easily blocked and yeah the moon landing capsules would be difficult to land (though far easier than a whole long rocket like Space X) on earth because of the wind and (compared to the moon) gravity. The absence of atmosphere makes things so much easier to control (really like this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5C5_dOEyAfk).

I'm far from any expert on any of the involved fields but I've not had technical doubts.

But I'm too young to have seen the media about Challenger exploding in the news and I'm not from America. The closest I've come with space is ESA and a small GPS-satelite that I was afraid to touch because of the costs.

I do know of the fake moon-rock given to The Netherlands: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands_lunar_sample_displays#History A lot has changed since the moon-missions and whatever practical prestige they had back in those days, it's long gone. Like an advertisement doesn't become less of a lame advertisement if someone really put their life at risk for it.

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

Radiation is (especially for NASA standards) easily blocked.

NASA astronaut claims they've destroyed the radiation protection technology. The idea of irreversibly destroying a 60's technology is ludicrous. They clearly think we're idiots.
If thin effective radiation sheilding was possible, then we'd be cleaning up Fukashima like it was old news. They aren't; cause it doesn't exist.
Fukashima could irreversibly contaminate the oceans, and they haven't even contained it; an ethical solution doesn't exist.
Sacrificial volunteers who have already had children are needed for a final doomed mission. They will each have mere minutes of action until they are irreversibly injured. They will die, but they may save the planet from disaster. Sheilding/absorbtion is the only known solution to broad spectrum radiation and Solar wind. More material = more sheilding. Lead vests are thick, and dense. Particle accelerators are buried underground. No fancy tricks.

and yeah the moon landing capsules would be difficult to land (though far easier than a whole long rocket like Space X) on earth because of the wind and (compared to the moon) gravity.

Yep. Impossible to manually land an "inverted pendulum" (that's the name of the physics problem). Neil Armstrong was a legendary pilot. He deserves credit for that, but he's not up to this task. Imagine him trying to land from inside the lander. Landing completely blind to the surface, cause a rocket booster is roaring away beneath him.
No cameras. No depth perception. No laser range finders to gage distance. Just a man in a blind space rocket machine careening towards certain death; assuming he isn't already dead/dying from radiation exposure.

The absence of atmosphere makes things so much easier to control (really like this one:.

Do you think they actual brought a hammer?
Absence of an atmosphere? Also, debunked.

An atmosphere would make it easier to land. It assists with stabilization. Parachutes, wings, etc. The Curiosity used parachutes and computer controlled thrusters. Assuming the craft can adequately slow down; prior to atmospheric entry. That's a significant assumption.

I'm far from any expert on any of the involved fields but I've not had technical doubts.

Legit engineer here. 12 years of work experience. A moon landing is possible today, but not in the 60's. Death from radiation exposure is still a certainty.

But I'm too young to have seen the media about Challenger exploding in the news and I'm not from America. The closest I've come with space is ESA and a small GPS-satelite that I was afraid to touch because of the costs.

I remember watching it in elementary school. Watched the shuttle explode, and our teacher cried. A teacher was supposed to be flying into space to advance education.

I do know of the fake moon-rock given to The Netherlands: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands_lunar_sample_displays#History.

I laughed out loud the first time I read this. Caught red handed in a hoax.

A lot has changed since the moon-missions and whatever practical prestige they had back in those days, it's long gone. Like an advertisement doesn't become less of a lame advertisement if someone really put their life at risk for it.

Yep. I'm starting to agree with others that there is a plan to use SpaceX instead. Privatize everything. That way there's no civilian oversight, and no accountability. Diabolical.

I would be thrilled if we did land in the moon. Nixon was the friggin president at the time, and he lied his ass off. Unfortunately, it was impossible, so they had to fake it to "beat the communists", which meant free taxpayers money for the corporations. Plus a nice patriotic shot in the arm during the Vietnam protests of the 60's.

Here's another interesting fact. NASA admits that it erased all of the original moon landing footage..
This is so far beyond crazy, that it's difficult to find words to describe how gullible they must think we are. Most people accept this bullshit. Do you?

Edit:. I believed the moon landing narrative for over 30 years. A friend asked me about the moon landings while I was detailing the 9/11 inside job tragedy, and I hadn't considered looking into it. It was so embarrassingly obvious when I finally did take the time.
Take your time.
Examine the facts.
Judge for yourself.
Petrified wood gifted to the Netherlands?! Hilarious!

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

A moon landing is possible today

On that I can agree, the rest would be up for the 'next' people to travel to or beyond the moon to find out.

It's this area where the proof lies in doing it (or failing to do it) and with this it's hard (money and operation wise) to proof it. How do we observe it if they're really doing it? Maybe with modern earth based telescopes we can observe them landing on the moon?

The videos were the best thing to observe stuff, but I understand that that doesn't cut it.