The Moon Mission
Discussion
jameswills said:
As opposed to people who have been indoctrinated at birth about certain realities, how do you think they fit in your paradigm? The moon landings were 50 years ago, pretty sure you don’t need conspiracy theorists to question that, considering so much has happened since. If you still believe what happens in 1969 was true, surely you’re a bit unhingihed?
You’ll have to expand on that. Why would I not believe “what happens in 1969 was true”? Do you believe the 1960s were some sort of preindustrial savage land?
SpudLink said:
jameswills said:
As opposed to people who have been indoctrinated at birth about certain realities, how do you think they fit in your paradigm? The moon landings were 50 years ago, pretty sure you don’t need conspiracy theorists to question that, considering so much has happened since. If you still believe what happens in 1969 was true, surely you’re a bit unhingihed?
You’ll have to expand on that. Why would I not believe “what happens in 1969 was true”? Do you believe the 1960s were some sort of preindustrial savage land?
jameswills said:
As opposed to people who have been indoctrinated at birth about certain realities, how do you think they fit in your paradigm? The moon landings were 50 years ago, pretty sure you don’t need conspiracy theorists to question that, considering so much has happened since. If you still believe what happens in 1969 was true, surely you’re a bit unhingihed?
Why shouldn't we believe history? What do you believe happened?Jim H said:
Right.
I’m talking about the sixties.
No Carbon Fibre. No CFD. Little knowledge about aerodynamics. No advanced Electrical Systems (I’m talking about the phone)
And this massive firework just set off and travelled all those miles. What is it nearly 300 K?
Stopped right on point.Ejected a capsule. Lowered one man down onto a place that was little understood. Perfectly took off again.
Used gravity to get back?
I’m going to look this up.
I’m sure Werner Von Braun said that the fuel to get there would be impossible
Think again.
The sixties remember.
"One man".I’m talking about the sixties.
No Carbon Fibre. No CFD. Little knowledge about aerodynamics. No advanced Electrical Systems (I’m talking about the phone)
And this massive firework just set off and travelled all those miles. What is it nearly 300 K?
Stopped right on point.Ejected a capsule. Lowered one man down onto a place that was little understood. Perfectly took off again.
Used gravity to get back?
I’m going to look this up.
I’m sure Werner Von Braun said that the fuel to get there would be impossible
Think again.
The sixties remember.
You're an idiot.
Eric Mc said:
It was extremely politically INCONVENIENT as even by 1966 the US realised it was costing a huge amount of money and even by then the desire to beat the Soviets in space was far less pressing than it had been in 1961.
And faking any of what was done on these missions at that time would not only have been even more expensive, it would not have been possible.
Anybody who really thinks the Apollo programme was faked is not only an idiot, they are a deluded idiot who doesn’t realise how much of an idiot they really are.
More expensive to who? NASA spend 66m a week today doing absolutely nothing based on what they fabricated in 1969. Think of the people getting rich off your tax dollars. Assuming you’re in the states. And faking any of what was done on these missions at that time would not only have been even more expensive, it would not have been possible.
Anybody who really thinks the Apollo programme was faked is not only an idiot, they are a deluded idiot who doesn’t realise how much of an idiot they really are.
It’s a fantastic scam.
MikeM6 said:
OddCat said:
...AI will further expose lies because it uses logic and isn't so susceptible to influence...
Sadly this is so wrong in every conceivable way. AI is incredibly susceptible to influence, that is the huge risk with it down the line.Fusion777 said:
Why shouldn't we believe history? What do you believe happened?
Why should we believe history? I mean we’ve lived the last 4 years and that’s been totally rewritten in front of our eyes, why would this not be fabricated considering there wasn’t social media circles to back it up? I’d personally write off anything you have learned in the last 200 years. 
t, we've really jumped the shark here.jameswills said:
Why should we believe history? I mean we’ve lived the last 4 years and that’s been totally rewritten in front of our eyes, why would this not be fabricated considering there wasn’t social media circles to back it up? I’d personally write off anything you have learned in the last 200 years.
Have you been receiving any sort of mental health help?Eric Mc said:
jameswills said:
Why should we believe history? I mean we’ve lived the last 4 years and that’s been totally rewritten in front of our eyes, why would this not be fabricated considering there wasn’t social media circles to back it up? I’d personally write off anything you have learned in the last 200 years.
Have you been receiving any sort of mental health help?I will now question your mental health
JuanCarlosFandango said:
I've always had my doubts. Not so much about the science of whether it is/was actually possible. More because it was so politically convenient, and it would be far easier, cheaper and safer to fake it than to actually do it.
How do the Russians fit into that hypothesis?jameswills said:
Eric Mc said:
No - I’m just wondering about your grasp on reality. It seems rather tenuous.
Does it? My feet are on the ground, my reality is OK. You believe we are on a spinning globe in space based on a few people in NASA, that’s tenuous. Stick Legs said:
1) Aerodynamics were exceedingly well understood in the 1960’s.
I'd disagree with this, understanding of aerodynamics advanced very quickly in the 3 decades from 1930 but there were still holes, however at the time people were happy enough to experiment to fill the data gap using test rockets, sometimes with meat puppets driving them. Now we chuck money at CFD software and hardware to run it on.Me reacting to this thread;
Jim H reacting to the push back.
croyde said:
Out of interest, how were ballistic missiles targeted to hit cities 1000s of miles away as there weren't GPS?
GPS weren't available to the general public in the early 90s around the time of the Gulf War.
I read that as the US had it but the Iraqis didn't, it gave the American tanks an extreme advantage in the desert.
Inertial navigation systems, which govts spent massive amounts of money on to make more accurate. Also missiles use astro navigation, which I still find mildly boggling but it worked.GPS weren't available to the general public in the early 90s around the time of the Gulf War.
I read that as the US had it but the Iraqis didn't, it gave the American tanks an extreme advantage in the desert.
Eric Mc said:
It was extremely politically INCONVENIENT as even by 1966 the US realised it was costing a huge amount of money and even by then the desire to beat the Soviets in space was far less pressing than it had been in 1961.
And faking any of what was done on these missions at that time would not only have been even more expensive, it would not have been possible.
Anybody who really thinks the Apollo programme was faked is not only an idiot, they are a deluded idiot who doesn’t realise how much of an idiot they really are.
Spoken like a religious zealot. And faking any of what was done on these missions at that time would not only have been even more expensive, it would not have been possible.
Anybody who really thinks the Apollo programme was faked is not only an idiot, they are a deluded idiot who doesn’t realise how much of an idiot they really are.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff