Did the U.S. really go to the moon in 1969?

[thelerner]

This is a good answer to the question of why fund NASA. 

Cool informative video.  Near the beginning it talks about a wonderful satellite the man worked on that measures soil moisture throughout the world, every few days.  An incredible tool to help mankind predict droughts.  Yet to the true conspiracy nut.  NASA is pseudo science.  It government funded and must be fake.  All a lie cause, the government.. and control and paranoia..

On 12/19/2018 at 8:53 PM, futuredaze said:

- If faked, then NASA is a corrupt, pseudo-scientific megaphone for government propaganda.  Thus, by taking taxes from the people, it becomes a great enemy of the people (like the mainstream media is currently).

- Science itself is highly corruptible (that is already irrefutable); and when the government gets involved with science, pseudo-science as propaganda inevitably follows.

- When people react to this, they get VERY emotional.  I wasn't expecting this. The reaction I see from people (not just on this forum) is very intense - as if their god is being blasphemed.  And, in a way, it is - since science is this worshipped kind of thing for some people.

- We gotta keep our focus on EARTH.  If it is easy to leave Earth - cool, we can maybe terraform some other planet or something.  However, if it is significantly more difficult, it shifts our focus outward from inward, and we have to really just focus on all the things  here, positive and negative.

- There are many more implications, I am sure you can think of a few as quickly as I just did.

 

 

Is it really hard to believe that a government organization could have lied?  That humans could have lied?  Did it ever happen before?  Isn't it true that many people get away with lying for some fraction of time, but only a fraction, before the truth comes out?  Can you think of one thing we could do 50 years ago that we CAN'T do now?

 

Anyway, I do not imagine myself to be 100% right about this.  The fact that I know I have limited information and not any scientific expertise makes me curious and agnostic about the topic.  I get the sense there are smart people on both sides of the issue, which makes it more interesting.

NASA tends to have the best of the best in cutting edge engineers and theoreticians.

Yes the government organizations can lie.  That doesn't mean they all do, all the time.  Humans can also lie, that doesn't everything is a lie.  They were able to get to the moon in 1969, and 1970 and 1971 and 1972.  We did it 5 times.  It costs billions and the decision was made that its better to put the money into the an orbiting space station that could be much more easily manned because while the moon has lesser gravity its still much much much harder for things to land and take off versus an orbiting station. 

 

I get the feeling most of the most smart people are on one side of the issue.  If studied beyond conspiracy theory youtubes, you pretty much know the simple truth. 

Edited December 22, 2018 by thelerner

[futuredaze]

2 hours ago, thelerner said:

This is a good answer to the question of why fund NASA. 

Cool informative video.  Near the beginning it talks about a wonderful satellite the man worked on that measures soil moisture throughout the world, every few days.  An incredible tool to help mankind predict droughts.  Yet to the true conspiracy nut.  NASA is pseudo science.  It government funded and must be fake.  All a lie cause, the government.. and control and paranoia..

NASA tends to have the best of the best in cutting edge engineers and theoreticians.

Yes the government organizations can lie.  That doesn't mean they all do, all the time.  Humans can also lie, that doesn't everything is a lie.  They were able to get to the moon in 1969, and 1970 and 1971 and 1972.  We did it 5 times.  It costs billions and the decision was made that its better to put the money into the an orbiting space station that could be much more easily manned because while the moon has lesser gravity its still much much much harder for things to land and take off versus an orbiting station. 

 

I get the feeling most of the most smart people are on one side of the issue.  If studied beyond conspiracy theory youtubes, you pretty much know the simple truth. 

You have a tendency to take something clearly stated, and twist it into something they didn't say.

 

I asked if it was possible a government organization could lie.  I never tried to suggest they always are lying.  That is preposterous.  If you are a charlatan - lying all the time is a bad move since it becomes obvious soon.  However if you can mix truth with lies, it is easier to mislead people.

 

I never claimed we "definitely didn't have people land the moon," I am just raising questions and very skeptical of the official narrative.  I am not trying to refute everything about NASA, about science -- only this one event (ok, several events since there were subsequent landings, supposedly).  You aren't helping yourself by resulting to ad hominem insults and fighting straw men.

[thelerner]

16 hours ago, futuredaze said:

I never claimed we "definitely didn't have people land the moon," I am just raising questions and very skeptical of the official narrative.  I am not trying to refute everything about NASA, about science -- only this one event (ok, several events since there were subsequent landings, supposedly).  You aren't helping yourself by resulting to ad hominem insults and fighting straw men.

True, but I'm taken by the idea of kids in the next generation saying the space shuttles were fake.  That all the photos and videos fake. All the people who designed and built them fake.  All the people who flew them liars. 

 

How can something so big fly?  I'm sure they could find videos of some kid asking if an old mothballed ship could 'fly' if it was refueled and an ex pilot saying no.  The kid could ask why there weren't new ones coming out.   Further he could point out they were built by the government which lies.  The people who built it were schooled by an army of engineers and technicians who worked and were educated by those who worked in the Apollo program who learned  from the Gemini missions, and they learned from Project Mercury. 

 

More evidence Stephen Spielberg did a movie space camp, which had a shuttle in it, and he married the actress.  Which means he coulda faked the launch, and all the other launches. 

 

Seems to me very similar arguments can be made for both, if you dismiss all the literally tons of physical evidence, all the photos, the videos, the 1,000's of people who worked intimately on the project world wide.  Dismiss that, dismiss the experts debunking the conspiracy theorists claims.   Once all the physical, logistical, and logical evidence is dismissed you have reasonable doubt. 

 

It could happen.  This generation its the moon landing, next generation space shuttles, after that flat earth all the way. 

 

 

 

 

[Lost in Translation]

1 hour ago, thelerner said:

I'm taken by the idea of kids in the next generation saying the space shuttles were fake

 

This! Everyone knows there is no atmosphere in space, so why have a craft with wings? Totally fake! 

[futuredaze]

On 12/23/2018 at 12:34 PM, thelerner said:

True, but I'm taken by the idea of kids in the next generation saying the space shuttles were fake.  That all the photos and videos fake. All the people who designed and built them fake.  All the people who flew them liars. 

 

How can something so big fly?  I'm sure they could find videos of some kid asking if an old mothballed ship could 'fly' if it was refueled and an ex pilot saying no.  The kid could ask why there weren't new ones coming out.   Further he could point out they were built by the government which lies.  The people who built it were schooled by an army of engineers and technicians who worked and were educated by those who worked in the Apollo program who learned  from the Gemini missions, and they learned from Project Mercury. 

 

More evidence Stephen Spielberg did a movie space camp, which had a shuttle in it, and he married the actress.  Which means he coulda faked the launch, and all the other launches. 

 

Seems to me very similar arguments can be made for both, if you dismiss all the literally tons of physical evidence, all the photos, the videos, the 1,000's of people who worked intimately on the project world wide.  Dismiss that, dismiss the experts debunking the conspiracy theorists claims.   Once all the physical, logistical, and logical evidence is dismissed you have reasonable doubt. 

 

It could happen.  This generation its the moon landing, next generation space shuttles, after that flat earth all the way. 

 

 

 

 

 

I never said they can't launch space ships.  As far as I know, nobody has actually said that.  Stop arguing against positions nobody has made.

[thelerner]

??  The above was arguing the point that with an anti-science, anti-government, 'everythings a conspiracy' mindset, one could say that the space shuttle program never existed. 

 

P.S glad you said never said they can't launch space ships.  keep up the good work and insight.  really, take some time and learn about the latest missions to space that are being launched. 

 

Also if you want to learn how NASA learned about the Van Allen belt, good. But when you find a video, try to find out if the person making it has a scientific background.  If they're heavily invested in crazy conspiracy theories.  For example the one you have has a video talking about how the government is putting people into Walmarts and killing them.   

 

If you want to know the truth why not look at youtube like this:

See how they used science to understand the dangers of the Van Allen belt.  Notice how they did various experiments to figure out its size and danger.  How they used math to show how much radiation a craft moving 25,000 kilometers would experience.  The Van Allen belt is indeed dangerous (also life saving for the planet) so is water.  You can drown but if you study it and learn about things like swimming and boats, you traverse it.  Really. Again this is a site which uses science, you won't find rants against the NWO on it.  

 

Still youtubes aren't necessarily the best source for learning here are some other sites if you're interested in learning the how's and whys we know about the Van Allen Belt. 

 

To learn more about NASA's Van Allen belt calculations, check out these links: https://spacemath.gsfc.nasa.gov/earth... https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/tnD7080R...

 

Studying the Van Allen Belts 60 Years After America’s First Spacecraft https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/... 

 

6 Surprising Facts About the First Manned Space Mission https://www.livescience.com/33185-yur...

 

me. We don't have to guess, we can learn, from those who've studied the matter deeply, for decades.  The questions and problems faced, the experiments done.  How problems were solved through real experimentation and through delving into the physics of them.  These problems were tackled by some of the best minds in science.  They're proud of it and you can learn step by step how they were solved. 

Edited December 25, 2018 by thelerner

[zerostao]

in 1969 i watched the televised moon landing and was amazed at how shoddy a production nasa presented us.

this may explain

https://www.wired.com/2007/01/nasa/

at the time, i was 10 going on 11, i didnt have access to all've the resources available today, thus, my skepticism at the time seems justified.

tbh a few months later norad's tracking of santa claus seemed more realistic than nasa's moon landing.

the 1993 film Rising Sun addressed the high level skillz of japanese video and photography editors, no longer could anyone believe images as truth. some quaint footprints on the moon, how amusing. the kangaroo hop

at the least, nasa bungled a great many things related to preserving evidence of the moon landings.

however, when it came to the mission itself, they never bungled at all---

hmmm

[zerostao]

i did some immortal walking under the super blood wolf moon in the brisk night air yesterday evening-

the moon is what it is and it looks so attainable, ,,,

what it isnt is oumuamua

 

what is remarkable about the 1969 us moon landing

i mean the french went there in 1902 under the direction of Professor Barbenfouillis

 

[Lost in Translation]

48 minutes ago, zerostao said:

i did some immortal walking under the super blood wolf moon in the brisk night air yesterday evening-

the moon is what it is and it looks so attainable

 

The moon last night was gorgeous. I could not see the full eclipse from my location, but even the partial eclipse was amazing. The moon turned reddish brown. Fantastic!

[Kar3n]

3 hours ago, Lost in Translation said:

 

The moon last night was gorgeous. I could not see the full eclipse from my location, but even the partial eclipse was amazing. The moon turned reddish brown. Fantastic!

What we saw of it was pretty impressive. The clouds covered it more often than not. Seems like every time there is something to see in the night sky it's cloudy.