Pure bullshit and there are a lot more gullible sheep than I thought.
I watched the moon landing on TV. What was the lander made of and how much thrust was required to get it there. There was barely enough room for the astronauts and they had the rover and a set of golf clubs. First time a success at over 238,000 miles away and back again. Sixties technology. Seriously? I watched Stanley Kubrick's 2001 A space odyssey when in came out. On his death bed he made the admission to creating it all.
And they can make a live phone call to the moon and broadcast it on live TV in 1969, but my Zoom calls lags and cuts out across the country in 2023. Ok....
When I was young I remember listening to Nixon, Kissinger, and Rumsfeld laughing it up at a roundtable discussion on the ruse they played on the public.
And the camera equipment too. Do you know how sophisticated those video cameras had to be in a zero oxygen environment? Where.d they that 1970s analog technology anyway?
The Lunar Roving Vehicle (LRV) was transported to the Moon on board the Lunar Module (LM) during the Apollo 15, 16, and 17 missions. It weighed approximately 210 kg (463 lbs) on Earth but only 35 kg (77 lbs) on the Moon due to the Moon's lower gravitational pull (which is 1/6th that of Earth). This means that the astronauts had no trouble unfolding and assembling the Rover which they had trained and drilled for many times on Earth , while on the moon and in their space suits. The LRV was powered by two 36-volt silver-zinc potassium hydroxide batteries, which were located in the rear of the vehicle and provided power to the vehicle's electric motor.
The only 'pure billshit' here is your research skills and reading comprehension.
With 50 years of more advanced rocket and computer technology, the current Artemis moon rocket took 18 years to develop, had 3 launch failures, is not safe enough yet to carry astronauts, and will only orbit the moon, because a moon lander for it has not yet been developed that works. The farthest that the government can send astronauts today 50 years later, is to the space station, which is only one-thousandth the distance to the moon.
For the first time in the entire history of the world, technology was greater in the past than in the future. Considering this as an impossibly, it only means one thing: that the 1969 moon landing was a fraud.
It is not the first time a scientific "achievement" was falsified or the government lied. We are again witnessing this with Pfizer making billions of dollars, while making fraudulent claims about their vax☠xine.
The statement about Artemis moon rocket is not entirely accurate. NASA is working to make it safer and capable a far wider range of missions than just a "going to the moon and coming back" PR victory to beat the divuetsy. The Artemis program is not just limited to orbiting the moon. As for the lander, NASA plans to land astronauts on the moon surface in 2024, and that schedule hasn't slipped AFAIK, meaning that the lander is further along than you give it credit for. To suggest that the 1969 moon landing was a fraud due to the current state of technology is not supported by any evidence and disregards the incredible advancements made by NASA. They went to the moon, then there was no reason to go to the moon anymore, so they focused on low earth orbit. Calling this a reason as proof that the moon landing was a hoax is literally laughable.
"For the first time in the entire history of the world, technology was greater in the past than in the future. Considering this as an impossibly, it only means one thing: that the 1969 moon landing was a fraud."
No.
Technology wasn't "greater in the past," but the public will certainly was. The entire MSM/left-wing/hippie party line in the Seventies was that "We need to stop giving money to the space program and Spend It Right Here On Earth." Meaning, taking money from NASA and handing it to environmentalism and bailing out Da Ghettoes.
Thanks to this anti-space-program publicity campaign, it would be another generation and a private space-exploration company before it was even considered morally acceptable for the US to start prioritizing manned space exploration once more
As a note, this is not my writing and quote, but from the investigative reporter Bart Sibrel's book "Moon Man: The True Story of a Filmmaker on the CIA Hit List", who received a confession from Cyrus Eugene Akers of the Apollo fraud. The book is an interesting read and I'm always open in the sense for discerning.
On a semi-related topic, I have no doubt advanced technology in the field of gravitics is already known and is classified beyond top secret. Many inventors, past and present, have reported on their gravitic-related technology that always ends up with a very public campaign of debunking while the technology itself is censored at the same time. There certainly appears to be a definite dichotomy between what is publicly permitted and what is not. This is especially the case in energy technology. Some of the 'not permitted' technology is capable of taking us to the stars and beyond. This technology is capable of folding space (ergo, distance) and time.
Contrary to this is the permitted technology (ergo, rocketry), which has some very formidable hurdles to overcome starting with gravity itself. This brute force method of propelling humans in to space has to contend with limiting G-forces, not that its too great for astronauts to overcome, (it’s not), but to maintain a manageable acceleration within material design parameters. Considering this in rocketry, there are several factors at play. Some of them are: weight versus acceleration versus strength of material design and human safety. All of these factors have to be balanced. It turns out the typical G-force for Gemini and Apollo launches was up to about 4G, which is well-within the parameters of humans, especially astronauts to overcome.
Then, there is another hurdle in dealing with the radiation of the Van Allen belt, which consist of highly charged electrons and protons. These particles would penetrate the spacecraft, spacesuits and skin and cause radiation sickness or even death. Despite this, some type of safeguard had to be present during the Apollo missions for protecting equipment and the astronauts themselves. The time and intensity of exposure had to be determined. In the 1960s, very little was known about the Van Allen belt, it’s size, purpose, or intensity. Some 60 years later, scientists are still working to understand the peculiar and puzzling nature of the Van Allen Belts. In 2012, NASA launched the twin Van Allen Probes to study particle behavior in the dynamic region. This goes far beyond the 1960’s Explorer 1’s Geiger counter to observe particles, waves and fields in the radiation belts. A newly discovered barrier recently discovered show that the inner edge of the outer belt is highly pronounced and consists of the fastest, highest-energy electrons. The Apollo missions relied on limited Geiger counter readings for guidance. In the Van Allen belts, the average radiation dose rate for a satellite is about 50 Gray (Gy) per year. A single Gray (Gy) for x-ray, gamma ray, and electron equals one Sievert (Sv). 1 Gy = 2 Sv for charged proton exposure. On Earth, we receive the average background radiation of about 4 milliSv in 1 year. Thus for one hour Van Allen belt exposure in the spacecraft, this equals a total dose of 6 milliSv. So the astronaut in the Van Allen belt would accumulate a full year’s normal dose in less than 1 hour. Additional shielding would reduce this considerably. However, weight is always a critical factor for space flight. The Apollo astronauts were exposed to the Van Allen belt going to and from the moon. Evidently, they fully survived the radiation exposure without any short or long term health issues.
While astronauts have stayed on the International Space Station for a year, the ISS sits just within Earth’s protective magnetic field. This means that while astronauts are exposed to radiation levels 10 times higher than on Earth, it’s a smaller dose than what deep space has in store. Beyond the Van Allen belt in open space is another concern for exposure.
On the moon for example, astronauts face radiation levels 200 times higher than on Earth. While Apollo mission astronauts carried dosimeters to the moon to measure radiation, the data was never reported. I wonder why? The first systematically documented measurements of radiation on the moon were undertaken in January 2019 when China’s Chang’e 4 robotic spacecraft mission landed on the far side of the Moon, according to a new study in the journal Science Advances. Astronauts on moon missions would experience an average daily radiation dose equivalent to 1.4 milliSv per day – about 2.6 times higher than the International Space Station crew’s daily dose, the study said. “The radiation levels we measured on the Moon are about 200 times higher than on the surface of the Earth and 5 to 10 times higher than on a flight from New York to Frankfurt,” said Robert Wimmer-Schweingruber, a professor of physics at the University of Kiel in Germany and the corresponding author of the study that published Friday, in a statement.
Radiation exposure is one of the major risks for astronauts’ health as the chronic exposure to galactic cosmic rays (GCRs) may induce cataracts, cancer or degenerative diseases of the central nervous system or other organ systems, the study said.
To get to the moon and safely back home, the Apollo astronauts not only had to cross the Van Allen belts, but also the quarter of a million miles between the Earth and the moon – a flight that typically took around 3 days each way. They also needed to operate safely while in orbit around the moon and on the lunar surface. During the Apollo missions, the spacecraft were outside the Earth’s protective magnetosphere for most of their flight. The crewed Apollo flights actually coincided with the height of a solar cycle. This is akin to setting sail out to sea with ominous clouds on the horizon. Given that solar flares and solar energetic particle events are more common during times of heightened solar activity, this might seem like a cavalier approach to astronaut safety. On August 4, 1972 – mid-way between the safe return to Earth of the Apollo 16 crew and the launch of Apollo 17 – a solar energetic particle event was indeed detected. Had this struck a crew en route to the moon, or working on the lunar surface, it is likely that the astronauts would have needed to make an emergency return to Earth for prompt and potentially life-saving medical treatment, all while suffering from acute radiation sickness.
Even now, forecasting “space weather” is a challenge.
So how did NASA solve the problem of crossing the Van Allen belts? The short answer is they didn’t. They got lucky and essentially all won the lottery with their lives in tact.
There are so many valid arguments to consider a flat earth possibility. And so many examples of faked space. It's not just a forgone conclusion that the flat earthers don't know what they're talking about.
I agree. Though I’m a torus earth/hollow earth. If you just look at historical archeology and get away from main stream narrative there is so much incredible stuff.
While I absolutely appreciate cat5 and their dedication to the board, i simply direct people to different boards to discuss the high I think is fair.
My favorite resource is stolenhistory.org even though it’s difficult to navigate. What I recommend is start off by browsing, but it’s an insane rabbit hole.
This goes beyond flat earth and it’s not a place for answers, because we don’t have the answers, but poke around on there and if you don’t find what your looking for hit me up again.
The best videos get deleted often and I just spent ten min looking for one of my favorites but couldn’t find it.
"The mark of an educated mind is the ability to entertain a thought without accepting it"
Said otherwise, tell yourself "for one whole off day I'm going to research this bullshit with an open heart and mind and after 1 day I'll come back to my current mindset and try to offer an unbiased review of that day"
The forementioned is the exact the same mindset that got me off of the Bernie train and onto the Trump train.
The problem is is that most of the supposed lies you are referring to can easily be found out because they are based in verifiable science. Most of the asteroids and comments that we have discovered, for instance, have come from NASA's network of amateur astronomers, literally people in their backyard using custom-made software that they've made to scan the sky for movements in the points of light and to identify new things entering the solar system. It's where the green Comet came from
I didn't say we didn't go to the Moon. I'm not convinced we did, nor am I entirely convinced we didn't. My point was that nothing the government says should ever be taken at face value.
ask answer. The communication seemed to be instantaneous.
I still can't get good cell phone reception in certain places in the country.
Nixon talked to them using a phone. Some things you just have to question.
I read an article a while back that the space station had a leak and one of the Italian astronauts plugged it with his finger until they found a permanent fix.
The whole time I am thinking the vacuum of space. I don't believe any government narrative anymore. We are being controlled for a reason.
I think where they have the spacestation docked could have something to do with it possibly. The gas pressure is a measure for the density of thermal energy in the gas, and the gas pressure is very small in the thermosphere, because the thermosphere is almost a vacuum. Also the hole i Believe was caused by a micro meteor and the psi would have also been lower on a pin hole. Believe it or not where we spend most of our time in space doing stuff there is still atmosphere it's just very thin . We spend a lot of time in low earth orbit and that's not quite the same as the rest of space.
I've seen so many people saying stuff like this . My biggest argument is if we were gonna fake the moon landing, would you make all the tech. To actually do it. If you were faking it you would use props not design a computers and a bunch of tech. Not to mention there are moon satellite photos and you can see the tracks from the rover. Also the big bike reflector they placed on the moon so when we bounce light at it we can measure the distance from the moon to earth. Even in more recent times Russia stole our plans to the space shuttle ,would you steal plans for something that might just be a prop? All these claims people make have little to no understanding of this topic .
This. If NASA was faking the moon landings, why would they actually build the rocket and launch it in full view of everyone? It actually achieved orbit, it's stage separations were caught on film not just by Americans but also the Russians, too. During the Cold War, the Soviet Union closely followed the progress of the United States' space program, including the Apollo Moon landing mission. They attempted to acquire information about NASA's technology and plans through espionage and other means. In fact, a number of Soviet scientists and engineers were arrested and charged with espionage for attempting to steal American space technology, including plans for the Space Shuttle program. This shows that the Soviet Union believed that the American space program, and specifically the Apollo Moon landing mission, was real and they were trying to copy the technology. It is unlikely that they would have attempted to steal plans for something that they knew to be a hoax. The fact that the Soviet Union was actively trying to learn from the American space program further supports the authenticity of the Moon landing.
Yeah a guy got his hands on a Apollo landing computer from a scrap yard that got into the public space some how and was able to get it up and running because all of the documentation is out there. They spent tons of resources on designing it , you can find these documents. The guy made youtube videos showing it and how it works. Magnetic ram , things that were crazy tech for the 60s . You wouldn't go to this kind of work to fake something. No way ! I'm 100% that we went there and we all enjoy tech such as personal computers because of the space program. If we didn't goto the moon I'm not sure anyone would have a computer in there pocket now. I was a huge shot in the arm to technology!
I really appreciate everything you do for this board and this movement, but not cool that you're calling a lot of people here losers and retarded. This post does nothing but stoke division and is very much not like you. Maybe you're having an off day? But make your point without resorting to name calling.
I remember Justin Trudeau asking if people like us should be tolerated.
There are plenty of people here who are smart people who don't share your point of view.
There's absolutely got to be limits. Being "open minded" to flat earth and lunar landing hoax bullshit is no different than being open-minded enough to say, hey, let's go to the United Church down the street for a drag show. They're people, too! It's just a lifestyle!
Morality is just a perspective, right? Why not science, too! I say no. We should be asking ourselves just how powerful the devil we are fighting is that can pervert reality so strongly that "Hey, it's OK to believe the Earth is flat if you want!" is no different than sitting front row at the drag show watching groomers pervert our kids. They're going after the very FABRIC of our reality. How do you draw the line? Just "don't go" to the shows? What, GAW is supposed to be "tolerant" of this PROVABLY false bullshit?
Drag shows have nothing to do with lunar landing or flat earth and they're not in the same realm. Don't conflate things to try and discredit.
With how much you and most people in this board understand how much the government lies to us and how fake our reality is, it's not out of the question to say the moon landing was a hoax... What's next, we're not allowed to question 9/11? We found the terrorists passports in the rubble, how could it be fake? /s
Your argument is weak. Morality is set out for us in the bible and science has been wrong many many times through history. Science is a religion with adherents that take the word of someone else as fact. "Trust the science". I've heard that enough the past 2 years.
Science is based on theories. "Big bang", "earth has a molten core", "galaxies are spinning at x miles per hour". Prove any of it. You can't. They're all theories. And you're "trusting the experts"
how much the government lies to us and how fake our reality is, it's not out of the question to say
This is the most moronic logic humanly possible. By that logic, how do we know bacteria exist? Ya can't see 'em! The little imaginary bacteria! Wooo!
Science is a religion with adherents that take the word of someone else as fact
No, it isn't. That's exactly the opposite of science. Science is designed to be reproducible. In other words, something someone discovers somewhere, if it's proven to work, can be used in perhaps an entirely unexpected process elsewhere, because it just works.
"galaxies are spinning at x miles per hour"
Prove any of it, yeah, we can, dude. Uh, we have the data. The data is constantly being refined, but, it's going only towards a more precise direction. The galaxies are spinning.
The earth has a solid core, don't you even keep up? It's molten only down to a certain level.
Your last post was 2 months ago, then your post before that over a year ago? GAW is an elite research board, not a digital daycare for morons. What is it you say you do around here?
My post history here doesn't determine if I am or am not a moron. And that's not welcoming at all to new anons we're trying to wake up. All you keep doing is name-calling. Like I said at the start, I appreciate everything you do for this community, but we should be able to have debate without name-calling.
I agree with you that science is designed to be reproducible, but there are a lot of theories on science that aren't reproducible. And after the last few years I definitely don't"trust the science" all the time anymore.
I agree that we should draw the line somewhere. The flat Earth thing is ridiculous. And wasn't it specifically stated by Q that the moon landing was not faked? If we aren't even trusting Q then what are we all doing here?
However, it is not out of the realm of our government to lie to us, so that's the only reason I would have to question the moon landing. I haven't looked into it really so I'm not going to attempt to sound like I know what I'm talking about. But Q specifically said it was true, so I'm going with that. Plus I think a part of me would die if I found out it wasn't true.
As for posting history, I myself haven't been here much the past year aside from lurking now and then. I sure hope that wouldn't put my loyalty as an Anon to question. I've simply had a lot of personal issues and haven't had much time. Should that really be a marker for our validity as a member of this board? If so, I need to keep up more lol.
I just want to ask: do rockets work in empty space? Can you slow down speed in empty space with rocket trust? How much trust and fuel you need?
Is this rocket science?
Rockets work in empty space because they carry their own oxygen supplies, they carry all the fuel necessary to provide the combustion in the vacuum of space. Also, did you know that the engines on the first stage of the Rockets are optimized for the atmosphere, but they would work so terribly in orbit? That's why they use entirely different looking engines with entirely different designs in order to operate in the vacuum of space.
Ok my question was if rockets have trust in empty space. Boat move water, plane move air, car move tyres on tarmac....
Does racquet move empty space in a vacuum? Can a rocket brake or turn in empty space?
Heat transfer at an Atmospheric pressure of 0.00000000000145 psi at -270C vs 14 psi at 10C. Don't believe the atmospheric density makes a difference? Spend an hour outside naked at 10C and then do an hour in a pool at 10C.
The statement "Heat transfer at an Atmospheric pressure of 0.00000000000145 psi at -270C vs 14 psi at 10C" is not scientifically accurate or meaningful. Heat transfer is affected by several factors, including temperature difference, conductivity, and convection. Pressure can also play a role in heat transfer, but the comparison made in the statement is not valid as the pressure and temperature values given are not representative of any real-life scenario and do not reflect the actual conditions in which heat transfer occurs.
Additionally, the comparison made between being naked outside at 10°C and being in a pool at 10°C is not a valid way to demonstrate the effect of atmospheric pressure on heat transfer. This comparison is confounded by other factors such as wind, humidity, and body surface area, making it difficult to isolate the effect of pressure alone.
In conclusion, the statement is not a valid representation of the science of heat transfer and should not be used to make conclusions or arguments about the topic.
While you may find some silly memes, we didn't go to the moon. NASA admits this, individual astronauts admit this, the physics or technology then prove it. There's 10000 things wrong with the story. You just don't bother to look. As for the Earth being flat, well, it ain't as round as they say it is. Just do some math. The proof is riddled across everyday examples, as well as naval documents, light house observance, etc etc.
The book "Moon Man: The True Story of a Filmmaker on the CIA Hit List" is a memoir of the deathbed confession of the former Chief of Security at Cannon Air Force Base in Clovis New Mexico, who confessed to his regrettable participation in the fabrication of the first "moon landing". His identity is finally revealed. This predetermined waiting period was previously negotiated with his sole surviving son, who himself passed away this year. Cyrus Eugene Akers detailed the information in the book, including not only the location of the filming of the first fake moon landing at his military base, the dates it was filmed, and the CIA code-name for the operation, he also gave the names of 15 government scientists and officials who were allowed exclusive observation of this historic government fraud, some of whom are still alive today. The list was given to Akers by President Lyndon Johnson, who was there at the first day of filming. Threatened with execution if he ever revealed this information, Security Chief Akers kept all of this to himself until his deathbed, the guilt from which prompted his tearful confession to his son, who was also threatened with assassination after sharing this information with the author of Moon Man, Bart Sibrel.
“It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.” ― Mark Twain
This sad and outrageous deception was done for political reasons, to bolster national pride and financial profit. Unlike government frauds about war, assassination, or terrorism, the moon landing deception was especially cruel in that it gave an over-trusting public the performance of a lifetime that they wished for. Exposing their heroes as the actors and fakes would face fierce resistance and disbelief. Even a professor at a major university has so famously said, "Even if I heard a moon astronaut confess that he never really went, I would still believe that he walked on the moon."
The author of "Moon Man", Bart Sibrel grew up as a devout supporter of the supposed Moon landings, yet over the years, gradually began to recognize their unfortunate falsification. In Sibrel’s mind, the claim that astronauts walked on the moon on the very first attempt with antiquated untried 1960s technology, when today with five decades of more advanced technology the US can only send astronauts one-thousandth the distance to the Moon, simply defies logic. Sibrel is convinced that until the Moon landing fraud is exposed, the governments of the world will continue deceiving the people under their care until their eventual demise.
Bart Sibrel is an award-winning filmmaker, writer, and investigative journalist, who has produced television programs and documentaries for over 35 years. He has been employed by two of the three major US networks, worked as a television news reporter, and has produced segments for ABC, NBC, and CBS. Sibrel regularly speaks as a guest commentator regarding the Moon landing fraud, and has appeared as such on NBC, FOX, CNN, and HBO to discuss his films "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon" and "Astronauts Gone Wild".
In Sibrel’s mind, the claim that astronauts walked on the moon on the very first attempt with antiquated untried 1960s technology,
This is just patently absurd logic. The development of the SR-71 Blackbird, a high-altitude reconnaissance aircraft, began in the mid-1950s. The plane made its first flight on December 22, 1964.
The only reason to go into space is to get into orbit. Putting something into orbit is only possible or useful or feasible once you are fully outside of the Earth's atmosphere. That's it. That happens to be about 220 MI hi, just a few hours drive if you could drive straight up. That's it. There's no reason to be at 250 miles or 300 miles. The further you go, the less useful your satellite is because it's farther and farther away from earth. You're just wasting fuel. It doesn't really matter if the moon is $238,000 MI away, once you get out of Earth's orbit, you can float for as long as you've got food and water in the capsule, basically. There's no such thing as distance in space, there's only duration in terms of floating to your next objective.
the US can only send astronauts one-thousandth the distance to the Moon
Son, you truly don't understand how rockets get to orbit. Measuring things by "distance away" is irrelevant.
This is incredibly ignorant reasoning, man. Weak, weak stuff.
Pure bullshit and there are a lot more gullible sheep than I thought. I watched the moon landing on TV. What was the lander made of and how much thrust was required to get it there. There was barely enough room for the astronauts and they had the rover and a set of golf clubs. First time a success at over 238,000 miles away and back again. Sixties technology. Seriously? I watched Stanley Kubrick's 2001 A space odyssey when in came out. On his death bed he made the admission to creating it all.
And they can make a live phone call to the moon and broadcast it on live TV in 1969, but my Zoom calls lags and cuts out across the country in 2023. Ok....
Yeah, duh, because one is analog and the other is digital. They're not analogous at all.
When I was young I remember listening to Nixon, Kissinger, and Rumsfeld laughing it up at a roundtable discussion on the ruse they played on the public.
And the camera equipment too. Do you know how sophisticated those video cameras had to be in a zero oxygen environment? Where.d they that 1970s analog technology anyway?
What are you smoking? Video cameras need oxygen somehow to operate??
The Lunar Roving Vehicle (LRV) was transported to the Moon on board the Lunar Module (LM) during the Apollo 15, 16, and 17 missions. It weighed approximately 210 kg (463 lbs) on Earth but only 35 kg (77 lbs) on the Moon due to the Moon's lower gravitational pull (which is 1/6th that of Earth). This means that the astronauts had no trouble unfolding and assembling the Rover which they had trained and drilled for many times on Earth , while on the moon and in their space suits. The LRV was powered by two 36-volt silver-zinc potassium hydroxide batteries, which were located in the rear of the vehicle and provided power to the vehicle's electric motor.
The only 'pure billshit' here is your research skills and reading comprehension.
The is a sucker born every minute
Explain
You insulted me without knowing me or my background. Keep on believing everything you read and you'll do just fine.
.....here, have a Chupa Chup.
With 50 years of more advanced rocket and computer technology, the current Artemis moon rocket took 18 years to develop, had 3 launch failures, is not safe enough yet to carry astronauts, and will only orbit the moon, because a moon lander for it has not yet been developed that works. The farthest that the government can send astronauts today 50 years later, is to the space station, which is only one-thousandth the distance to the moon.
For the first time in the entire history of the world, technology was greater in the past than in the future. Considering this as an impossibly, it only means one thing: that the 1969 moon landing was a fraud.
It is not the first time a scientific "achievement" was falsified or the government lied. We are again witnessing this with Pfizer making billions of dollars, while making fraudulent claims about their vax☠xine.
The statement about Artemis moon rocket is not entirely accurate. NASA is working to make it safer and capable a far wider range of missions than just a "going to the moon and coming back" PR victory to beat the divuetsy. The Artemis program is not just limited to orbiting the moon. As for the lander, NASA plans to land astronauts on the moon surface in 2024, and that schedule hasn't slipped AFAIK, meaning that the lander is further along than you give it credit for. To suggest that the 1969 moon landing was a fraud due to the current state of technology is not supported by any evidence and disregards the incredible advancements made by NASA. They went to the moon, then there was no reason to go to the moon anymore, so they focused on low earth orbit. Calling this a reason as proof that the moon landing was a hoax is literally laughable.
"For the first time in the entire history of the world, technology was greater in the past than in the future. Considering this as an impossibly, it only means one thing: that the 1969 moon landing was a fraud."
No.
Technology wasn't "greater in the past," but the public will certainly was. The entire MSM/left-wing/hippie party line in the Seventies was that "We need to stop giving money to the space program and Spend It Right Here On Earth." Meaning, taking money from NASA and handing it to environmentalism and bailing out Da Ghettoes.
Thanks to this anti-space-program publicity campaign, it would be another generation and a private space-exploration company before it was even considered morally acceptable for the US to start prioritizing manned space exploration once more
As a note, this is not my writing and quote, but from the investigative reporter Bart Sibrel's book "Moon Man: The True Story of a Filmmaker on the CIA Hit List", who received a confession from Cyrus Eugene Akers of the Apollo fraud. The book is an interesting read and I'm always open in the sense for discerning.
On a semi-related topic, I have no doubt advanced technology in the field of gravitics is already known and is classified beyond top secret. Many inventors, past and present, have reported on their gravitic-related technology that always ends up with a very public campaign of debunking while the technology itself is censored at the same time. There certainly appears to be a definite dichotomy between what is publicly permitted and what is not. This is especially the case in energy technology. Some of the 'not permitted' technology is capable of taking us to the stars and beyond. This technology is capable of folding space (ergo, distance) and time.
Contrary to this is the permitted technology (ergo, rocketry), which has some very formidable hurdles to overcome starting with gravity itself. This brute force method of propelling humans in to space has to contend with limiting G-forces, not that its too great for astronauts to overcome, (it’s not), but to maintain a manageable acceleration within material design parameters. Considering this in rocketry, there are several factors at play. Some of them are: weight versus acceleration versus strength of material design and human safety. All of these factors have to be balanced. It turns out the typical G-force for Gemini and Apollo launches was up to about 4G, which is well-within the parameters of humans, especially astronauts to overcome.
Then, there is another hurdle in dealing with the radiation of the Van Allen belt, which consist of highly charged electrons and protons. These particles would penetrate the spacecraft, spacesuits and skin and cause radiation sickness or even death. Despite this, some type of safeguard had to be present during the Apollo missions for protecting equipment and the astronauts themselves. The time and intensity of exposure had to be determined. In the 1960s, very little was known about the Van Allen belt, it’s size, purpose, or intensity. Some 60 years later, scientists are still working to understand the peculiar and puzzling nature of the Van Allen Belts. In 2012, NASA launched the twin Van Allen Probes to study particle behavior in the dynamic region. This goes far beyond the 1960’s Explorer 1’s Geiger counter to observe particles, waves and fields in the radiation belts. A newly discovered barrier recently discovered show that the inner edge of the outer belt is highly pronounced and consists of the fastest, highest-energy electrons. The Apollo missions relied on limited Geiger counter readings for guidance. In the Van Allen belts, the average radiation dose rate for a satellite is about 50 Gray (Gy) per year. A single Gray (Gy) for x-ray, gamma ray, and electron equals one Sievert (Sv). 1 Gy = 2 Sv for charged proton exposure. On Earth, we receive the average background radiation of about 4 milliSv in 1 year. Thus for one hour Van Allen belt exposure in the spacecraft, this equals a total dose of 6 milliSv. So the astronaut in the Van Allen belt would accumulate a full year’s normal dose in less than 1 hour. Additional shielding would reduce this considerably. However, weight is always a critical factor for space flight. The Apollo astronauts were exposed to the Van Allen belt going to and from the moon. Evidently, they fully survived the radiation exposure without any short or long term health issues.
While astronauts have stayed on the International Space Station for a year, the ISS sits just within Earth’s protective magnetic field. This means that while astronauts are exposed to radiation levels 10 times higher than on Earth, it’s a smaller dose than what deep space has in store. Beyond the Van Allen belt in open space is another concern for exposure.
On the moon for example, astronauts face radiation levels 200 times higher than on Earth. While Apollo mission astronauts carried dosimeters to the moon to measure radiation, the data was never reported. I wonder why? The first systematically documented measurements of radiation on the moon were undertaken in January 2019 when China’s Chang’e 4 robotic spacecraft mission landed on the far side of the Moon, according to a new study in the journal Science Advances. Astronauts on moon missions would experience an average daily radiation dose equivalent to 1.4 milliSv per day – about 2.6 times higher than the International Space Station crew’s daily dose, the study said. “The radiation levels we measured on the Moon are about 200 times higher than on the surface of the Earth and 5 to 10 times higher than on a flight from New York to Frankfurt,” said Robert Wimmer-Schweingruber, a professor of physics at the University of Kiel in Germany and the corresponding author of the study that published Friday, in a statement.
Radiation exposure is one of the major risks for astronauts’ health as the chronic exposure to galactic cosmic rays (GCRs) may induce cataracts, cancer or degenerative diseases of the central nervous system or other organ systems, the study said.
To get to the moon and safely back home, the Apollo astronauts not only had to cross the Van Allen belts, but also the quarter of a million miles between the Earth and the moon – a flight that typically took around 3 days each way. They also needed to operate safely while in orbit around the moon and on the lunar surface. During the Apollo missions, the spacecraft were outside the Earth’s protective magnetosphere for most of their flight. The crewed Apollo flights actually coincided with the height of a solar cycle. This is akin to setting sail out to sea with ominous clouds on the horizon. Given that solar flares and solar energetic particle events are more common during times of heightened solar activity, this might seem like a cavalier approach to astronaut safety. On August 4, 1972 – mid-way between the safe return to Earth of the Apollo 16 crew and the launch of Apollo 17 – a solar energetic particle event was indeed detected. Had this struck a crew en route to the moon, or working on the lunar surface, it is likely that the astronauts would have needed to make an emergency return to Earth for prompt and potentially life-saving medical treatment, all while suffering from acute radiation sickness.
Even now, forecasting “space weather” is a challenge.
So how did NASA solve the problem of crossing the Van Allen belts? The short answer is they didn’t. They got lucky and essentially all won the lottery with their lives in tact.
There are so many valid arguments to consider a flat earth possibility. And so many examples of faked space. It's not just a forgone conclusion that the flat earthers don't know what they're talking about.
I agree. Though I’m a torus earth/hollow earth. If you just look at historical archeology and get away from main stream narrative there is so much incredible stuff. While I absolutely appreciate cat5 and their dedication to the board, i simply direct people to different boards to discuss the high I think is fair.
I have not been down the hollow earth rabbit hole yet, but would take a dive this week if you could point me in the right direction for research.
My favorite resource is stolenhistory.org even though it’s difficult to navigate. What I recommend is start off by browsing, but it’s an insane rabbit hole. This goes beyond flat earth and it’s not a place for answers, because we don’t have the answers, but poke around on there and if you don’t find what your looking for hit me up again. The best videos get deleted often and I just spent ten min looking for one of my favorites but couldn’t find it.
Thanks. Will do.
Bookmarked. Thank you, sir.
That poor, poor moron. Meanwhile, my ex drove three hours up to the neighbouring city to go to a drag show. Also moron.
"The mark of an educated mind is the ability to entertain a thought without accepting it"
Said otherwise, tell yourself "for one whole off day I'm going to research this bullshit with an open heart and mind and after 1 day I'll come back to my current mindset and try to offer an unbiased review of that day"
The forementioned is the exact the same mindset that got me off of the Bernie train and onto the Trump train.
Thank you. I did exactly this with flat earth, and it's not as ridiculous of an idea as I thought it was.
Thank you.
NASA is the one and only government entity that would never lie to the American people.
The problem is is that most of the supposed lies you are referring to can easily be found out because they are based in verifiable science. Most of the asteroids and comments that we have discovered, for instance, have come from NASA's network of amateur astronomers, literally people in their backyard using custom-made software that they've made to scan the sky for movements in the points of light and to identify new things entering the solar system. It's where the green Comet came from
I didn't say we didn't go to the Moon. I'm not convinced we did, nor am I entirely convinced we didn't. My point was that nothing the government says should ever be taken at face value.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9HdPi9Ikhk&t=10766s
ask answer. The communication seemed to be instantaneous. I still can't get good cell phone reception in certain places in the country. Nixon talked to them using a phone. Some things you just have to question.
There's only a 1.1s delay per direction, that's why. It doesn't take a long time to get a signal to the moon
because the POTUS doesn’t have something better than Sprint? Lol
I read an article a while back that the space station had a leak and one of the Italian astronauts plugged it with his finger until they found a permanent fix. The whole time I am thinking the vacuum of space. I don't believe any government narrative anymore. We are being controlled for a reason.
It is possible. It depends on the differential pressure, and did the Italian have a glove on, or bare hands? How big was the hole?
Deep underwater….lots of pressure on the outside, and you need greater pressure on the inside so you are not crushed.
Space….a vacuum (no pressure) so the outward pressure is the 1 atmospheric pressure on the inside…in other words, not a big differential.
His finger wasn't exposed to space, dude. They're not in tin cans up there. The walls are very thick.
Maybe you’d like to look a little more closely at this photo: https://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium-large/1-lunar-module-antares-apollo-14-nasa.jpg
What's your point? It looks flimsy? It didn't need to be heavy or super strong. It just needed to survive launch. The moon is 1/6th Earth's gravity.
I think where they have the spacestation docked could have something to do with it possibly. The gas pressure is a measure for the density of thermal energy in the gas, and the gas pressure is very small in the thermosphere, because the thermosphere is almost a vacuum. Also the hole i Believe was caused by a micro meteor and the psi would have also been lower on a pin hole. Believe it or not where we spend most of our time in space doing stuff there is still atmosphere it's just very thin . We spend a lot of time in low earth orbit and that's not quite the same as the rest of space.
http://centerforaninformedamerica.com/moondoggie/
I've seen so many people saying stuff like this . My biggest argument is if we were gonna fake the moon landing, would you make all the tech. To actually do it. If you were faking it you would use props not design a computers and a bunch of tech. Not to mention there are moon satellite photos and you can see the tracks from the rover. Also the big bike reflector they placed on the moon so when we bounce light at it we can measure the distance from the moon to earth. Even in more recent times Russia stole our plans to the space shuttle ,would you steal plans for something that might just be a prop? All these claims people make have little to no understanding of this topic .
This. If NASA was faking the moon landings, why would they actually build the rocket and launch it in full view of everyone? It actually achieved orbit, it's stage separations were caught on film not just by Americans but also the Russians, too. During the Cold War, the Soviet Union closely followed the progress of the United States' space program, including the Apollo Moon landing mission. They attempted to acquire information about NASA's technology and plans through espionage and other means. In fact, a number of Soviet scientists and engineers were arrested and charged with espionage for attempting to steal American space technology, including plans for the Space Shuttle program. This shows that the Soviet Union believed that the American space program, and specifically the Apollo Moon landing mission, was real and they were trying to copy the technology. It is unlikely that they would have attempted to steal plans for something that they knew to be a hoax. The fact that the Soviet Union was actively trying to learn from the American space program further supports the authenticity of the Moon landing.
Yeah a guy got his hands on a Apollo landing computer from a scrap yard that got into the public space some how and was able to get it up and running because all of the documentation is out there. They spent tons of resources on designing it , you can find these documents. The guy made youtube videos showing it and how it works. Magnetic ram , things that were crazy tech for the 60s . You wouldn't go to this kind of work to fake something. No way ! I'm 100% that we went there and we all enjoy tech such as personal computers because of the space program. If we didn't goto the moon I'm not sure anyone would have a computer in there pocket now. I was a huge shot in the arm to technology!
This board is host to tons of truth that isn't available elsewhere, for which I am truly grateful.
But we can't keep closing our eyes to the fact that a lot of hysterical nonsense gets posted around here as well.
Trying!
I'm not sure what this thread is pointing out. That the moon landing was faked or not faked? Didn't Q say it was real?
My apologies, I saw this in the ultra Pepe lives matter daily morale thread and I just can't believe that our movement tolerates people this retarded.
I really appreciate everything you do for this board and this movement, but not cool that you're calling a lot of people here losers and retarded. This post does nothing but stoke division and is very much not like you. Maybe you're having an off day? But make your point without resorting to name calling. I remember Justin Trudeau asking if people like us should be tolerated. There are plenty of people here who are smart people who don't share your point of view.
There's absolutely got to be limits. Being "open minded" to flat earth and lunar landing hoax bullshit is no different than being open-minded enough to say, hey, let's go to the United Church down the street for a drag show. They're people, too! It's just a lifestyle!
Morality is just a perspective, right? Why not science, too! I say no. We should be asking ourselves just how powerful the devil we are fighting is that can pervert reality so strongly that "Hey, it's OK to believe the Earth is flat if you want!" is no different than sitting front row at the drag show watching groomers pervert our kids. They're going after the very FABRIC of our reality. How do you draw the line? Just "don't go" to the shows? What, GAW is supposed to be "tolerant" of this PROVABLY false bullshit?
Drag shows have nothing to do with lunar landing or flat earth and they're not in the same realm. Don't conflate things to try and discredit. With how much you and most people in this board understand how much the government lies to us and how fake our reality is, it's not out of the question to say the moon landing was a hoax... What's next, we're not allowed to question 9/11? We found the terrorists passports in the rubble, how could it be fake? /s
Your argument is weak. Morality is set out for us in the bible and science has been wrong many many times through history. Science is a religion with adherents that take the word of someone else as fact. "Trust the science". I've heard that enough the past 2 years. Science is based on theories. "Big bang", "earth has a molten core", "galaxies are spinning at x miles per hour". Prove any of it. You can't. They're all theories. And you're "trusting the experts"
This is the most moronic logic humanly possible. By that logic, how do we know bacteria exist? Ya can't see 'em! The little imaginary bacteria! Wooo!
No, it isn't. That's exactly the opposite of science. Science is designed to be reproducible. In other words, something someone discovers somewhere, if it's proven to work, can be used in perhaps an entirely unexpected process elsewhere, because it just works.
Prove any of it, yeah, we can, dude. Uh, we have the data. The data is constantly being refined, but, it's going only towards a more precise direction. The galaxies are spinning.
The earth has a solid core, don't you even keep up? It's molten only down to a certain level.
Your last post was 2 months ago, then your post before that over a year ago? GAW is an elite research board, not a digital daycare for morons. What is it you say you do around here?
My post history here doesn't determine if I am or am not a moron. And that's not welcoming at all to new anons we're trying to wake up. All you keep doing is name-calling. Like I said at the start, I appreciate everything you do for this community, but we should be able to have debate without name-calling.
I agree with you that science is designed to be reproducible, but there are a lot of theories on science that aren't reproducible. And after the last few years I definitely don't"trust the science" all the time anymore.
I agree that we should draw the line somewhere. The flat Earth thing is ridiculous. And wasn't it specifically stated by Q that the moon landing was not faked? If we aren't even trusting Q then what are we all doing here?
However, it is not out of the realm of our government to lie to us, so that's the only reason I would have to question the moon landing. I haven't looked into it really so I'm not going to attempt to sound like I know what I'm talking about. But Q specifically said it was true, so I'm going with that. Plus I think a part of me would die if I found out it wasn't true.
As for posting history, I myself haven't been here much the past year aside from lurking now and then. I sure hope that wouldn't put my loyalty as an Anon to question. I've simply had a lot of personal issues and haven't had much time. Should that really be a marker for our validity as a member of this board? If so, I need to keep up more lol.
Your post proves how clueless and uneducated you are.
No wonder humanity is a mess.
I just want to ask: do rockets work in empty space? Can you slow down speed in empty space with rocket trust? How much trust and fuel you need? Is this rocket science?
Rockets work in empty space because they carry their own oxygen supplies, they carry all the fuel necessary to provide the combustion in the vacuum of space. Also, did you know that the engines on the first stage of the Rockets are optimized for the atmosphere, but they would work so terribly in orbit? That's why they use entirely different looking engines with entirely different designs in order to operate in the vacuum of space.
Ok my question was if rockets have trust in empty space. Boat move water, plane move air, car move tyres on tarmac.... Does racquet move empty space in a vacuum? Can a rocket brake or turn in empty space?
Do you like games? Get Kerbal Space Program. Start asking your questions on YouTube! Space is so fun
Doesn't Newton's 3rd law cover that?
I think a lot of this nonsense is spread by the cabal. Stupid people fall for it and discredit real conspiracies.
Same thing with the Demar Hamlin "clone" BS.
Relevant. Even the folks over on conspiracies.win don’t like these people.
https://conspiracies.win/p/15Jn6esKL3/why-do-you-reject-the-wisdom-of-/c/
Is this a real thing they claim?
Heat transfer at an Atmospheric pressure of 0.00000000000145 psi at -270C vs 14 psi at 10C. Don't believe the atmospheric density makes a difference? Spend an hour outside naked at 10C and then do an hour in a pool at 10C.
Why not ask ChatGPT?
The statement "Heat transfer at an Atmospheric pressure of 0.00000000000145 psi at -270C vs 14 psi at 10C" is not scientifically accurate or meaningful. Heat transfer is affected by several factors, including temperature difference, conductivity, and convection. Pressure can also play a role in heat transfer, but the comparison made in the statement is not valid as the pressure and temperature values given are not representative of any real-life scenario and do not reflect the actual conditions in which heat transfer occurs.
Additionally, the comparison made between being naked outside at 10°C and being in a pool at 10°C is not a valid way to demonstrate the effect of atmospheric pressure on heat transfer. This comparison is confounded by other factors such as wind, humidity, and body surface area, making it difficult to isolate the effect of pressure alone.
In conclusion, the statement is not a valid representation of the science of heat transfer and should not be used to make conclusions or arguments about the topic.
While you may find some silly memes, we didn't go to the moon. NASA admits this, individual astronauts admit this, the physics or technology then prove it. There's 10000 things wrong with the story. You just don't bother to look. As for the Earth being flat, well, it ain't as round as they say it is. Just do some math. The proof is riddled across everyday examples, as well as naval documents, light house observance, etc etc.
The book "Moon Man: The True Story of a Filmmaker on the CIA Hit List" is a memoir of the deathbed confession of the former Chief of Security at Cannon Air Force Base in Clovis New Mexico, who confessed to his regrettable participation in the fabrication of the first "moon landing". His identity is finally revealed. This predetermined waiting period was previously negotiated with his sole surviving son, who himself passed away this year. Cyrus Eugene Akers detailed the information in the book, including not only the location of the filming of the first fake moon landing at his military base, the dates it was filmed, and the CIA code-name for the operation, he also gave the names of 15 government scientists and officials who were allowed exclusive observation of this historic government fraud, some of whom are still alive today. The list was given to Akers by President Lyndon Johnson, who was there at the first day of filming. Threatened with execution if he ever revealed this information, Security Chief Akers kept all of this to himself until his deathbed, the guilt from which prompted his tearful confession to his son, who was also threatened with assassination after sharing this information with the author of Moon Man, Bart Sibrel.
This sad and outrageous deception was done for political reasons, to bolster national pride and financial profit. Unlike government frauds about war, assassination, or terrorism, the moon landing deception was especially cruel in that it gave an over-trusting public the performance of a lifetime that they wished for. Exposing their heroes as the actors and fakes would face fierce resistance and disbelief. Even a professor at a major university has so famously said, "Even if I heard a moon astronaut confess that he never really went, I would still believe that he walked on the moon."
The author of "Moon Man", Bart Sibrel grew up as a devout supporter of the supposed Moon landings, yet over the years, gradually began to recognize their unfortunate falsification. In Sibrel’s mind, the claim that astronauts walked on the moon on the very first attempt with antiquated untried 1960s technology, when today with five decades of more advanced technology the US can only send astronauts one-thousandth the distance to the Moon, simply defies logic. Sibrel is convinced that until the Moon landing fraud is exposed, the governments of the world will continue deceiving the people under their care until their eventual demise.
Bart Sibrel is an award-winning filmmaker, writer, and investigative journalist, who has produced television programs and documentaries for over 35 years. He has been employed by two of the three major US networks, worked as a television news reporter, and has produced segments for ABC, NBC, and CBS. Sibrel regularly speaks as a guest commentator regarding the Moon landing fraud, and has appeared as such on NBC, FOX, CNN, and HBO to discuss his films "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon" and "Astronauts Gone Wild".
This is just patently absurd logic. The development of the SR-71 Blackbird, a high-altitude reconnaissance aircraft, began in the mid-1950s. The plane made its first flight on December 22, 1964.
The only reason to go into space is to get into orbit. Putting something into orbit is only possible or useful or feasible once you are fully outside of the Earth's atmosphere. That's it. That happens to be about 220 MI hi, just a few hours drive if you could drive straight up. That's it. There's no reason to be at 250 miles or 300 miles. The further you go, the less useful your satellite is because it's farther and farther away from earth. You're just wasting fuel. It doesn't really matter if the moon is $238,000 MI away, once you get out of Earth's orbit, you can float for as long as you've got food and water in the capsule, basically. There's no such thing as distance in space, there's only duration in terms of floating to your next objective.
Son, you truly don't understand how rockets get to orbit. Measuring things by "distance away" is irrelevant.
This is incredibly ignorant reasoning, man. Weak, weak stuff.
Don't go there! Believe me, I know!