Yes, when you are totally ignorant, you are at the mercy of anyone who tells you anything. So, why do you assume you are being lied to about the Apollo program? (Because it is only an assumption, as you have no evidence to the contrary.)
I did ask several questions regarding the Apollo program. I did not get good answers and also, Julian Assange. Some said he is DS but I don't think he would go to jail for that long if he isn't honest and telling the truth.
What questions did you ask, and not receive answers to? Maybe I can help.
You have to know information from sources other than social media, like history books or textbooks. Fairly reliable insofar hard science is concerned (because it has to match experimental results). Must be cautious about the "soft" sciences and politics. The oldest history books may be best (and also old dictionaries).
One question I have and it has been asked before by others, if Armstrong landed and it was filmed, who did the filming?
If we have been there, why doesn't we go back there again? Why go elsewhere but never returned? This one is mine.
Did you see the interview after they came back? They all but looked depressed instead of triumphant. Most people who had done such a monumental thing would be so excited.
Haven't you ever heard of remote cameras? They had several installed on the exterior of the LEM, activated from within. Once Armstrong got out, Aldrin was able to mount another camera.
Didn't go back? Why? No money, that's why. NASA's budget was cut and the last three planned missions were canceled. The Vietnam War was ramping up and going to the Moon was becoming a bore, so President Nixon decided to pull down the curtain on the Apollo program. And then afterward, we were all entertained by the Shuttle program and the International Space Station. The explanation is pathetically prosaic. You have to realize that things like going to the Moon do not have a limitless credit card for the satisfaction of the small minority that thought it was worthwhile. It's like a family that goes to Disneyland once upon a time, then has no budget to do it again in the future. They didn't lose the "ability" to go there; they lost the finances to go there. But once you shut down the production of launch vehicles, you sure enough lose the ability to go there.
You travel incredible distances in a deadly environment where there can be NO slip-ups, nerves taut when the landings took place (and the first landing had a last minute surprise when on the final approach), and then no letup on the very long trip home, then suffering the high-gs from the aerodynamic re-entry and the jostle about being plucked out of the water.... Yeah, they are heroes for even being able to walk, and you complain that they didn't look chipper as chipmunks? They were dead tired after holding it together for over a week. Who does something like that? "Most people"? Maybe someone who has returned from a grueling ascent of Mount Everest, or a trek across the Antarctic polar cap. I don't recall when the interview took place. Some of the physical strain may have worn off. But there is also a psychological strain of being in something not much larger than a phone booth for a week, with two other guys, no privacy, and a full schedule of tasks every day without letup. And there is the philosophical reaction to being on another world and getting your head around that. Perhaps they were so awed with what they experienced, they were distracted from trivialities like making interview chit-chat.
Sorry if my tone is off. I've crawled inside an Apollo capsule at the museum in Huntsville. I've seen the Saturn V vehicle there, once all stretched out on the ground, longer than a football field, and all assembled vertically. I'm familiar with the system design and how much went into it. The whole program was shocked with the deaths of Apollo 1. I'm just trying to convey the circumstances and considerations.
But, yeah, there are explanations. More questions are welcome.
Yes, when you are totally ignorant, you are at the mercy of anyone who tells you anything. So, why do you assume you are being lied to about the Apollo program? (Because it is only an assumption, as you have no evidence to the contrary.)
I did ask several questions regarding the Apollo program. I did not get good answers and also, Julian Assange. Some said he is DS but I don't think he would go to jail for that long if he isn't honest and telling the truth.
You get all these debunk and fact check.
What questions did you ask, and not receive answers to? Maybe I can help.
You have to know information from sources other than social media, like history books or textbooks. Fairly reliable insofar hard science is concerned (because it has to match experimental results). Must be cautious about the "soft" sciences and politics. The oldest history books may be best (and also old dictionaries).
One question I have and it has been asked before by others, if Armstrong landed and it was filmed, who did the filming?
If we have been there, why doesn't we go back there again? Why go elsewhere but never returned? This one is mine.
Did you see the interview after they came back? They all but looked depressed instead of triumphant. Most people who had done such a monumental thing would be so excited.
Haven't you ever heard of remote cameras? They had several installed on the exterior of the LEM, activated from within. Once Armstrong got out, Aldrin was able to mount another camera.
Didn't go back? Why? No money, that's why. NASA's budget was cut and the last three planned missions were canceled. The Vietnam War was ramping up and going to the Moon was becoming a bore, so President Nixon decided to pull down the curtain on the Apollo program. And then afterward, we were all entertained by the Shuttle program and the International Space Station. The explanation is pathetically prosaic. You have to realize that things like going to the Moon do not have a limitless credit card for the satisfaction of the small minority that thought it was worthwhile. It's like a family that goes to Disneyland once upon a time, then has no budget to do it again in the future. They didn't lose the "ability" to go there; they lost the finances to go there. But once you shut down the production of launch vehicles, you sure enough lose the ability to go there.
You travel incredible distances in a deadly environment where there can be NO slip-ups, nerves taut when the landings took place (and the first landing had a last minute surprise when on the final approach), and then no letup on the very long trip home, then suffering the high-gs from the aerodynamic re-entry and the jostle about being plucked out of the water.... Yeah, they are heroes for even being able to walk, and you complain that they didn't look chipper as chipmunks? They were dead tired after holding it together for over a week. Who does something like that? "Most people"? Maybe someone who has returned from a grueling ascent of Mount Everest, or a trek across the Antarctic polar cap. I don't recall when the interview took place. Some of the physical strain may have worn off. But there is also a psychological strain of being in something not much larger than a phone booth for a week, with two other guys, no privacy, and a full schedule of tasks every day without letup. And there is the philosophical reaction to being on another world and getting your head around that. Perhaps they were so awed with what they experienced, they were distracted from trivialities like making interview chit-chat.
Sorry if my tone is off. I've crawled inside an Apollo capsule at the museum in Huntsville. I've seen the Saturn V vehicle there, once all stretched out on the ground, longer than a football field, and all assembled vertically. I'm familiar with the system design and how much went into it. The whole program was shocked with the deaths of Apollo 1. I'm just trying to convey the circumstances and considerations.
But, yeah, there are explanations. More questions are welcome.
They spent all that time on a ship at sea