Login | Register

Poll: Did NASA land men on the Moon, in the late 60s, early 70s?
Yes
No
I dunno
[Show Results]
 
Post Reply 
July 21, 1969: Man walks on the Moon for the 1st time?
08-08-2019, 03:01 AM
Post: #646
RE: July 21, 1969: Man walks on the Moon for the 1st time?
^ good post
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
08-08-2019, 04:33 AM
Post: #647
RE: July 21, 1969: Man walks on the Moon for the 1st time?
So we had someone vote 'yes', NASA put men on the Moon, but somehow they forgot to venture into the thread itself, and share their keen insights with the rest of us...

You got to wonder how much of the thread they read, and how it is that they don't have any questions they are seeking answers to.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
08-08-2019, 04:36 AM
Post: #648
RE: July 21, 1969: Man walks on the Moon for the 1st time?
I'm meeting more and more people who believe in the manned moon landing recently

looks like the propaganda is working

people have given up on being INDEPENDENT THINKERS

INDEPENDENT THINKING IS NO LONGER VALUED

people are SPIRITUALLY VAPID NOW
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
08-08-2019, 06:28 AM
Post: #649
RE: July 21, 1969: Man walks on the Moon for the 1st time?
(08-08-2019 04:33 AM)Chaos Reigns Wrote:  So we had someone vote 'yes', NASA put men on the Moon, but somehow they forgot to venture into the thread itself, and share their keen insights with the rest of us...

You got to wonder how much of the thread they read, and how it is that they don't have any questions they are seeking answers to.

Despite my earlier comment about Thomas Glennan, I voted yes. The physics of getting there is relatively straightforward. To be sure there are engineering challenges but there's little that white men can't do when we put our collective heads together. People sometimes ask why we never went back. We did. 8 more times. Why haven't we gone back lately? Because the dick waiving contest between the US and USSR ended 3 decades ago. There's little of interest on the moon. It's cheaper and safer to send unmanned satellites and robots. Satellites monitoring the Earth are fa more useful than sending yet another person to the moon.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
08-08-2019, 07:31 AM
Post: #650
RE: July 21, 1969: Man walks on the Moon for the 1st time?
(08-08-2019 06:28 AM)Count Iblis Wrote:  Despite my earlier comment about Thomas Glennan, I voted yes. The physics of getting there is relatively straightforward. To be sure there are engineering challenges but there's little that white men can't do when we put our collective heads together. People sometimes ask why we never went back. We did. 8 more times. Why haven't we gone back lately? Because the dick waiving contest between the US and USSR ended 3 decades ago. There's little of interest on the moon. It's cheaper and safer to send unmanned satellites and robots. Satellites monitoring the Earth are fa more useful than sending yet another person to the moon.

Apollo 11, Apollo 12 but they broke the camera 10 seconds in, Apollo 13 failed to make it to the Moon's surface, Apollo 14, 15, 16, 17.

6 times, so 5 times after Apollo 11. Officially.

The question isn't merely why haven't NASA gone back, it is also why did the Soviets abandon their quest, if they were so close, and why has no one else achieved it. If it is just a question of being white, surely Europe's ESA should have accomplished it by now, as well.

Then you have to explain why the footage lacks 1/6th lunar gravity, and why the Sun looks like a gigantic metal halide floodlight, instead of you know... The Sun.

Then you have to explain why the monkey on Biosatellite 3 died, and yet they changed nothing about the Apollo 11 mission profile less than 3 weeks later.

Engineering isn't a question of calculations. It is a question of being able to design components that can fulfill the requirements that the calculations say are needed. For example, it is relatively simple to calculate the required delta-V for a Moon landing and return.

Designing a rocket that can generate the required lift in lower Earth atmosphere as well as in the upper atmosphere as well as in outer space, that is more difficult. You can't just add more rockets or more fuel either. Each change, each part, changes the aerodynamics. Think of it this way.

Say you have a 100 ton fuel tank for your Saturn V. Easy enough, right? Now you have to find a way to fill it. Now you have to find a way to keep the fuel at or below its required temperature. Now you have to find a way to keep the fuel supplied to the engine at JUST THE RIGHT RATE during the whole burn. That was actually their biggest problem.

If you supply just a little too much kerosene and too little oxygen, it is not burning at the required efficiency. If you supply the kerosene and oxygen in the right ratio, but too slowly for 2/10s of every second (because of how it pumps) it is not going to burn at the required efficiency. If the engine starts to behave differently once the tank is 92% empty, it is not going burn as efficiently as the calculations require of it.

If the G forces during the burn exceed what humans can handle, because of Pogo oscillations, what do you do? Look it up. This is the true reason the Saturn V was retired. It couldn't do what they said it could do. Very close, yes, but not to the required specs.

We haven't talked much about the engineering side of things because I have never really perceived people to be most interested in that side of things.

Even once you get there, you have to land, rendezvous in lunar orbit (which means without being in contact with the Flight Center for at least part of the rendezvous, as you are not in direct line of sight, being on the far side of the Moon) and safely re-enter. Temperatures, G-forces, the added weight of life support systems, never mind radiation (which they don't give us all the info about, so we can't analyze this even if we wanted to), that is why it is FOR SURE easier to send probes and drones.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
08-08-2019, 10:39 AM
Post: #651
RE: July 21, 1969: Man walks on the Moon for the 1st time?
Let's suppose it was faked. So what? I mean, we already know that the government regularly engages in hoaxes and false flags. Faking the moon landings pales in comparison to the CIA assassinating JFK or false flags being used to get us into the Vietnam and Iraq Wars.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
08-08-2019, 11:37 AM
Post: #652
RE: July 21, 1969: Man walks on the Moon for the 1st time?
(08-08-2019 10:39 AM)Count Iblis Wrote:  Let's suppose it was faked. So what? I mean, we already know that the government regularly engages in hoaxes and false flags. Faking the moon landings pales in comparison to the CIA assassinating JFK or false flags being used to get us into the Vietnam and Iraq Wars.

There aren't that many great examples of positive propaganda. This is why it is effective. The top two, IMO, would be the Apollo Program and Q.

They are spaced almost 50 years apart. I guess you could count a lot of stuff as positive propaganda, if you include pop culture, but in terms of large, hoaxed intelligence operations, it is just a handful.

It really sheds new light on the vastness of the Apollo Program, and its cultural influence, and the effect positive propaganda has, even 50 years later.

I agree that it is important to look at everything, not just Apollo. JFK, 9/11, are both as big, if not much bigger.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
08-08-2019, 11:52 AM
Post: #653
RE: July 21, 1969: Man walks on the Moon for the 1st time?
(08-08-2019 10:39 AM)Count Iblis Wrote:  Let's suppose it was faked. So what? I mean, we already know that the government regularly engages in hoaxes and false flags. Faking the moon landings pales in comparison to the CIA assassinating JFK or false flags being used to get us into the Vietnam and Iraq Wars.

It's embarrassing as hell because it's a landmark event only done for showboating purposes

it's also mankind's greatest achievement, so if it was indeed hoaxed, would cause permanent embarrassment

it's a bigger issue than people think

America would lose all credibility on the world stage.. and it could be brought up anytime there is a dispute.

Those who know, know! Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
08-08-2019, 10:36 PM
Post: #654
RE: July 21, 1969: Man walks on the Moon for the 1st time?
The US doesn't have any credibility. We do have military and economic might, which trumps credibility issues.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
08-09-2019, 01:53 AM
Post: #655
RE: July 21, 1969: Man walks on the Moon for the 1st time?
(08-08-2019 10:36 PM)Count Iblis Wrote:  The US doesn't have any credibility. We do have military and economic might, which trumps credibility issues.

Do you see how Apollo shown to be a hoax could embolden America's military opponents, into thinking it is a paper tiger, with good PR, good optics?

Think of it this way. America says "And you don't even know about our secret weapons".

People shudder. Then the Apollo Program is exposed and all of a sudden people laugh at the idea of America's secret weapons.

Keep in mind I am not saying the American military IS a paper tiger or that it doesn't have formidable 'secret weapons'. Just the importance of optics in this sort of situation.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
08-09-2019, 12:43 PM
Post: #656
RE: July 21, 1969: Man walks on the Moon for the 1st time?
I don't see why exposing a 50 year old hoax would embolden any enemies. It's commonplace for militaries to probe each other so knowledge of our strengths and weaknesses are pretty up to date.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
08-09-2019, 12:48 PM
Post: #657
RE: July 21, 1969: Man walks on the Moon for the 1st time?
(08-09-2019 12:43 PM)Count Iblis Wrote:  I don't see why exposing a 50 year old hoax would embolden any enemies. It's commonplace for militaries to probe each other so knowledge of our strengths and weaknesses are pretty up to date.

I won't probe you, if you don't probe me, deal? Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
08-09-2019, 01:41 PM
Post: #658
RE: July 21, 1969: Man walks on the Moon for the 1st time?
(08-09-2019 12:43 PM)Count Iblis Wrote:  I don't see why exposing a 50 year old hoax would embolden any enemies. It's commonplace for militaries to probe each other so knowledge of our strengths and weaknesses are pretty up to date.

the event is supposed to be a milestone in science and would cause a rewrite of the history books. This is diff. from other false flags or politically motivated events

the blowback will be far reaching and it would harm America's soft power credibility as well.

Those who know, know! Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
08-10-2019, 02:45 AM
Post: #659
RE: July 21, 1969: Man walks on the Moon for the 1st time?
The moon landing is the big enchilada of hoaxes. Once you allow yourself to see it as a hoax, you realize basically anything can be hoaxed. The so-called authorities lose all credibility. I certainly don't have to believe Anderson Cooper's flapping gums once I know thousands have conspired over the past 50 years to make me believe Santa Claus is real.

It was a confidence trick. And it worked. The US won the space race by cheating. It was a very sociopolitically adept move at the time. But, here we are 50 years later and their ass is hanging in the breeze. If enough people notice, the whole thing comes falling apart.

If they can fake the greatest achievement of mankind, they can (and obviously have) fake almost anything. Apollo is the domino that brings it all down.

“Reality denied comes back to haunt.”
― Philip K. Dick, Flow My Tears, the Policeman Said
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
08-10-2019, 03:11 AM
Post: #660
RE: July 21, 1969: Man walks on the Moon for the 1st time?
Imagine Asia is completely unexplored, except for what we have seen by satellite.

We send 6 balloons, that land in different parts of Asia. And then we say "Well, we explored Asia!"

[Image: 350px-Asia_satellite_orthographic.jpg]

We landed one in Siberia, that means we explored Russia, one somewhere in Rajasthan, check off India, one got lost in the jungle somewhere by Laos, that counts as all of SE Asia, one landed in coastal China, so that means we explored all the urban environments.

Himalayas? Naah. Interior China? Nope. The tundra and taiga? It is probably pretty similar to what we found in Siberia. Pakistan, Iran, the hills of Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan, the Caspian region, Korea, Japan, how different could it be, really?

I understand the argument that it makes more sense to explore via probes and rovers. For sure. That was also the case in the late 60s, and early 70s though. You can't say 'we explored the Moon' AND say 'it was mankind's greatest ever achievement'.

Because if landing a man on the Moon is an achievement, even believing the official story, we have achieved fuck all.

(for the record, the surface area of the Moon and Asia are very comparable)
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  Most muted July 4th in my lifetime pug-thug 12 99 Today 01:10 AM
Last Post: pilgrim
Video G Edward Griffin warns about Cultural Revolution in America in 1969 CTsar 5 90 07-01-2020 06:55 PM
Last Post: Redneck
  old man walks into walmart without mask, gets shoved and pushed around pug-thug 7 526 06-24-2020 12:56 AM
Last Post: KurtDangle
  Would These Poor People Be BetterOff with 1st World Problems? karasu 22 334 06-15-2020 01:47 PM
Last Post: pilgrim

Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)