there was no moon landing .... discus

[beorhthelm]

I think I've found Van Allen Collinz! It gets REALLY good after 5 minutes.

i thought he was bat shit stupid and prepared to rant, but quality in the end. 9/10

 

[BadFish]

I think I've found Van Allen Collinz! It gets REALLY good after 5 minutes.

I'm convinced!

 

[colinz]

you are ignoring all the other bits. a bunch of men jumping around blies a great deal even in a fake film scenario, films take alot to produce. the rockets (cant fake them), the film crews, the fake data feed for mission control, moving the astronuats from Florida to the Pacific unnoticed, the fake moon rock sent off to laboratories around the world which they dont notice is really not extraterrestrial. all doable, but really, just put a man on the moon instead it will be easier.

But they can't, thats why all the other stuff you mentioned had to be done.

A few films (a few faked shots) don't take a lot to produce.
Faked data feed, just derivatively faked data from previous faked missions.
The technology of getting a few faked astronots to a dinghy in the Pacific, does actually exist, it's called an aeroplane.

 

[readingstockport]

How d'you work that one out, got any calculations, how objects can move with less resistance than when in the gravitational pull of the Earth's atmosphere.

If the level of your scientific education and understanding is so high that it has produced that gem then I think that everyone can safely ignore anything and everything you ever say about science again. If I were you I would seriously consider suing your science teachers for doing such a poor job, assuming you actually had any science lessons that it.

 

[readingstockport]

I think I've found Van Allen Collinz! It gets REALLY good after 5 minutes.

I call poe on him, a rather good poe but poe nonetheless.

 

[beorhthelm]

But they can't, thats why all the other stuff you mentioned had to be done.

but they can and they did. you have yet to tell us why they couldn't and from some posts (questioning basic physics of inertia) you dont know enough to be questioning it. clearly you dont want to believe, and wont despite the evidence of laser reflectors left behind, moon rock and indepedantly monitored transmissions.

 

[GoldWithFalmer]

Man went to the moon as this picture quite clearly states-Look at Saturn V there next to the shuttle(i never tire of watching space shuttle launches),she would burn fuel at a rate of 20 tons per second-

I know this is open to debate,but getting to the moon for me represents mankind's greatest achievement.

 

[The Buttery Biscuit Base]

Man went to the moon as this picture quite clearly states-Look at Saturn V there next to the shuttle(i never tire of watching space shuttle launches),she would burn fuel at a rate of 20 tons per second[/IMG]

It's mad, that rocket created 7,500,000 pounds of thrust. It is the single greatset piece of engineering!

 

[brunswick]

if you really believe in the moon landing i ask this:

america was torn at the time with protests and needed cash from the increased space programme tax.

no one has ever been back there.

most of nasa are freemasons......hence "the EAGLE has landed"....and the APRON.

check out a vid called "secret space"

then get back to me

 

[Shropshire Seagull]

It's mad, that rocket created 7,500,000 pounds of thrust. It is the single greatset piece of engineering!

Sadly, even with that much power, Van Allen Colinz will argue that his calculations will prove that there was never enough fuel at that power to wight ratio to go all the way to the moon and back again without a top up on the way.

If you read up on it, they acually used orbit speed around both earth and moon to "sling-shot" out of orbit with maximum inertia.
See here for gist: Flight to the Moon

Bit more on Apollo / Saturn V here too: Making the Modern World - Getting to the moon: Flight modes

Awsome engineering / application of physics and astromony.

 

[GoldWithFalmer]

if you really believe in the moon landing i ask this:

america was torn at the time with protests and needed cash from the increased space programme tax.

no one has ever been back there.

most of nasa are freemasons......hence "the EAGLE has landed"....and the APRON.

check out a vid called "secret space"

then get back to me

I take it you call in some reservations about the Lunar landings,as if six mission's at great cost were not enough....i have not checked out the video,would you care for a quick summary

 

[readingstockport]

I take it you call in some reservations about the Lunar landings,as if six mission's at great cost were not enough....i have not checked out the video,would you care for a quick summary

I wouldn't bother waiting. I've not watched it but I'll summarise it for you.

Someone at NASA was allegedly, with little or no evidence, a freemason. A US president was a freemason. The Illuminati control everything.

Ergo the moon landings were a hoax.

Facts? Who need pootling facts?

 

[Shropshire Seagull]

if you really believe in the moon landing i ask this:

america was torn at the time with protests and needed cash from the increased space programme tax.

no one has ever been back there.

most of nasa are freemasons......hence "the EAGLE has landed"....and the APRON.

check out a vid called "secret space"

then get back to me

a) many govenments choose to spend their money on things that citizens disagree with - USA is no exception
b) no need to return - nothing to gain, race to the moon "won", new projects more worthy of limited funds available [Beagle / Voyager / Shuttle / ect]
c) with NASA being some 300,000 staff, I would be very supprised if anything close to 5% of them were - but freemasons are "secret" so we'll never know - does this add to your arguement that they can all keep a secret?
d) I've just watched "secret space pt" - as soon as I saw "David Icke" in the credits at the start, all credibility was suspect - he was "certified" I believe - once the narator told me the Nazi's had a space programme during the WWII, I fell off my chair laughing ...
If you belive that, you might as well believe in the Witches of Eastwick and Father Christmas too.

 

[readingstockport]

Oh FFS. I've just read the description of part 1 of that video. Apparently "it expose the involvement of Aleister Crowley, Satanists and high ranking FreeMasons in the Apollo Moon Missions."

That would be Aleister Crowley who died in 19 f***ing 47 but was somehow involved in the apollo moon landings, the first of which took place on 21 July 1969. That's 22 years after Crowley died for fucks sake. Switched off after reading that bollocks.

 

[One Love]

Love it

 

[Bass dodger]

moondust

I don't understand the laws of physics in a vacuum but with the powered descent and the thrust needed to slow down IRO 14 tons of metal to a soft landing I would have thought the moon dust would have been blasted away.

Judging by the depth of footprints this doesn't appear to have happened, but maybe it wouldn't in a vacuum. Anyone know

 

[colinz]

Sadly, even with that much power, Van Allen Colinz will argue that his calculations will prove that there was never enough fuel at that power to wight ratio to go all the way to the moon and back again without a top up on the way.

If you read up on it, they acually used orbit speed around both earth and moon to "sling-shot" out of orbit with maximum inertia.
See here for gist: Flight to the Moon

Bit more on Apollo / Saturn V here too: Making the Modern World - Getting to the moon: Flight modes

Awsome engineering / application of physics and astromony.

Can you link to the post where I made the calculations.

 

[Frutos]

I can only presume that [MENTION=17480]colinz[/MENTION] is on some form of elaborate fishing trip here?

 

[colinz]

If the level of your scientific education and understanding is so high that it has produced that gem then I think that everyone can safely ignore anything and everything you ever say about science again. If I were you I would seriously consider suing your science teachers for doing such a poor job, assuming you actually had any science lessons that it.

I'm still waiting for the answer, how a vessel in space can move with momentom using less fuel, than when travelling through the Earth's atmosphere.

Here's the response somebody else posted in reply to the same question.
there was no moon landing .... discus - Page 5

That's a bit unfair! That's doctorate maths isn't it? Shooting a rocket between two objects one orbiting the other rapidly and taking into account their gravitational pull (and the sun's)..... Easy peasy Einstein.

So come on Einstein tell us the answer.

 

[The Buttery Biscuit Base]

I'm still waiting for the answer, how a vessel in space can move with momentom using less fuel, than when travelling through the Earth's atmosphere.

Here's the response somebody else posted in reply to the same question.
there was no moon landing .... discus - Page 5



So come on Einstein tell us the answer.

It was Newton actually!

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newton3laws.html

This is incredibly simple, basic physics. Newton worked it out 400 years ago without going anywhere near space or even a vacuum!