Do you think America landed on the moon?


#121

If you want to talk about intelligence, try to reword your statement. Then we can debate.
Only thing your are showing me right now is an attempt at a quick and easy debate ender that isnt based on anything tangible.


#122

Funny, and NO :exclamation:

We can talk about the next 40 years if you want :exclamation:

And as stated before in my topic about, I explained that I researched several months about it, and I am not a Conspiracy theorist, I weigh everything, whether possible or not … so thats why I marked 2 points as possible and explained, BUT there are toooo many open points where I cannot find any real answer, same as you did now avoid the simple question :exclamation:

  • why NASA lost “all” data (original footage, technical data, technology from ALL Apollo missions) :x:

  • how they were able to travel through the deadly Van Allen Belts (they need to cross them 2 times - to the moon and back), when the technology for - new build - is right now under construction and confirmed by actual astronauts :x:

  • why they “faked” the sight of the Earth in close to the Earth orbit at the Apollo11 flight “to” the moon, when they claimed to be half way to the moon :x:

  • why the sun has 2 rings if you darken an original photo from the sun made on the moon from NASA :x:

  • how you can see the horizon before AND behind you when you are standing an a huge (:exclamation:) round globe :x:

  • WHY NASA was / is not able to show 1 single picture from the many LEMs (Lunar Excursion Module) on the moon :question:

all they presented in +40 years are pictures with DOTs on it, claiming that WOULD be the LEMs (Lunar Excursion Module) :exclamation:


These 2 points I could clear after researching about …

  • bright site from objects in shadows = possible :white_check_mark:

cos of the surface reflection

  • flag “waving” without atmosphere = possible :white_check_mark:

after moving the flag it waves even more than with atmosphere


But what about the 6 questions above :question::question::question:

Nasa self : “We lost all data and technology!” HOW and WHY :question:
There were no fire at their archive or any other big accident … try to find :exclamation:

:wink:


#123

Dank gave complete proof of that. Point done.

He also proved that. Point down.

Dank proved that. Point Down.

Dank proved that. Point Down.

Can you show a picture of what you mean by this?

By this, do you mean that the lunar module was never seen on the moon? In that case, watch the video of the moon landing…


#124

Sorry, but the points are not down, only because Dank gave an answer and he tried to explain it somehow, doesnt mean that it is a proof :exclamation:

I see the total oposite, the presented videos and given statements from current Nasa “workers” / scientists / astronouts, proves that they were never on the moon :exclamation:

And with all the respect to your brother, I really believe a Nasa “worker” /scientist / astronout a little little bit more about space than your brother writing here something :exclamation:

Example :

SEVERAL astronauts who WERE DEFENETLY in the space, said :

“There are tons of stars to see, it is an amazing look !”

The 3 astronauts claiming they were on the moon …

“We didn’t saw any stars”

MAYBE all stars had a break in 1969 :interrobang:

:rofl:

I hope you watched the whole press conference as I did, there you can see the real proof


#125

Im not sure why you keep pointing to the videos…he dubunked them, and in the one about the radiation belt he USED the video…read, please.


#126

I have to go besty, so I will respond tomorrow.


#127

No, he didn’t debunk anything :exclamation:

Furthermore he avoid to answer directly to my questions, best example the sun and it’s rings :exclamation:

He talked about camera effects … NO I did NOT talk about camera effects, I talk about why the sun … the sun, not any camera effect … has 2 rings, if you darken the pictures, which is easy to do for everyone NOWADAYS, 1969 it was not easy to do for everyone :exclamation:

So, take one of these questions and give a clear answer, as I can give you an answer WHY it has 2 rings :exclamation:

:wink:


#128

If you are wondering about lack of stars in the photo- the lunar landscape is very bright- therefore they had to turn down exposure on the cameras- so the lunar landscape was visible easily but the less bright stars could not be seen from the camera

And about the Van Allen belt- I explained and give proof. You can read up on the procedures


#129

How that explains that the astronaunts didn’t saw any :interrobang:

NOW I am curious about your answer, because here you did the same, you gave an explanation, about anything, BUT not about the question itself :exclamation:

So let me ask the questions very exactly …

HOW Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins didn’t see any stars, BUT several other astronouts who were in the space 20 - 40 years later are talking about that it is an amazing look to see ALL that many stars in space :question:


#130

I do not know!

I will look into it, and see if I can come back with evidence


#131

I’d guess superior camera technology on the later missions, or even just a setting change.


#132

The astronauts Armstrong, Collins and Aldrin, NOT the camera :exclamation:

:wink:


#133

I think I have an explanation… but first I need to know-

Are these guys astronatus on the moon, or astronauts just in space?

There is a reason why the astronauts on the moon did not see stars.

Do you know how when the sun is out, you cannot see any stars? It has nothing to do with the sky being blue during the day- that is caused by atmospheric scattering of the light. The stars during day are not visible because the sun is bright enough that it “blocks them out” in a sense.

The same thing on the moon. Even though there is no atmosphere on the moon to make the daytime sky blue, the sun is just as bright! And keep in mind, you have probably seen how much a full moon can illuminate the night sky. So imagine standing on that extremely reflective surface, along with the sunlight. The stars in the sky would be effectively blocked out because of the bright light- the same way it happens here on Earth. On the other hand, the astronauts on the Space Station, do not have to worry about stars get blocked out by brighter light- so the sky is as filled with stars as it possibly can be.


#134

It actually applies the same way as the camera does- when it gets dark out, our eyes adjust to the sensitivity and the dim stars become visible- just like the camera.


#135

Besides all of the above, remember that astronauts use sun shields when the sun is out, which would definitely block out the relatively dimmer stars.


#136

Nice “explanation”, BUT …

Duration on lunar surface Apollo11 mission …

21:31 (hours:minutes)

Collins circumnavigated 2 times during this time the moon …

his words at the press conference :

“can’t remember seeing any”

watch at 48:21 how Armstrong did the mistake saying “recall” and Collins tried to safe him, but he forgot, he was NOT on the moon …

:wink:

Here read the explanation to this video …

if you have eyes and you know something about body-language

you will be able to see the truth …


#137

They did not disagree if you take it in context

00;47:25: Moore: ” I have two questions……”

The first one was about the surface of the Moon and the second, about the Solar Corona Experiment on the way to the Moon.

…When you looked up at the sky, could you actually see the stars in the Solar Corona in spite of the glare”

00:47:23…Aldrin answers the first question about terrain.

00:48:23: Armstrong answers about stars. “ We were never able to see stars from the lunar surface or on the daylight side of the Moon without looking through the optics. I don’t recall during the time we were photographing the Solar Corolla ( sic) what stars we could see.

00:48:40: Collins: “I can’t recall seeing any”

Collins and the others conducted the SCE while in cislunar space from the Command Module, when the Moon eclipsed the sun during the journey to the Moon. this was basically taking photographs through a small telescope.

It was all a bit mixed up but not a mystery to anyone with brains…

So basically it was Armstrong who said they could not see stars and he was answering a question about the sun’s corona.

Collins was the person running the experiment on the SC looking straight at the sun being eclipsed.

So in this interview Aldrin did not mention the stars at all. And Collins and Armstrong were talking about seeing stars in the Solar Corona Experiment.

There was no disagreement with ISS astronauts - just different conditions.

By the way no one seems to have mentioned, when on the Moon the astronauts had their tinted visors down to protect against the sun’s glare and UV damage.


#138

@dankmementos you are talking about things in general, we are talking about DETAILs, even about the smallest …

there is NO other explanation for their body-language, than that they lie …

"If you are not familiar with this issue, you need to see a longer section of this interview and then come back here. It will help you better to understand what exactly happened.
The question was a bit unclear. Patrick Moore asks a two part question first about how soft is the lunar surface and then he said "when you looked up in the sky could you actually see the stars in spite of the glare and the Solar Corona ? "
P.Moore did not ask the Apollo11 crew if they could see stars during the Solar Corona photography.
Using the word ‘Corona’ in his question he was referring to the general glare, the daylight, and the Solar Corona as a general light not the Sun’s halo. Whichever way you like to interpret his question, OK, but he clearly never mentioned any solar corona photography at all.
Although I believe P. Moore was later a NASA propagandist, and thus a major idiot, I am sure he knew that to make Solar Corona photography you don’t need to go to the moon. Using a Solar filter with a center dark disk and the job is done easily from Earth. However the confusion caused by his somewhat unclear question is what matters here. Armstrong shows he doesn’t even know what Solar Corona is, the mispronunciation of both the words is simply not acceptable and the little hand gesture when he phrases “sorda corolla” is more hilarious.
But within his answer is Armstrong who first, and unexpected, mentions solar corona photography. Nobody else. At that point Collins is falsely alerted and he prepares himself to answer about the solar corona photography. I guess the Apollo11 official scenario includes some Solar Corona photography on which Collins was supposedly involved after all. The already nervous wreck Collins confused from Armstrong (who did not had reason to mention corona photography) feels the need to answer on what he thinks is his part answering and he says "I can’t remember seen any’’ stars… The one misled is misleading the other here. At that point “captain” Armstrong thinks something like…“Shut up idiot ! you were never supposed to be on the Lunar surface! " and gives the nudge gesture to Collins with his left elbow(!!) because he felt they losing the scenario. And it does not matter if he actually touched him, the gestures are a form of communication and this one says it all. It’s like kids who ate the marmalade. Then, quick enough, Armstrong realizes under a long, challenging, and VERY meaningful look from nearly hysterical Collins, that he, Armstrong himself, is the one who first talked about Solar Corona photography therefore he misled Collins… and so he whispers something to Collins in a clearly apologetic manner. It’s all there to see.
PS. It is my belief the so-called ‘Flat Earth’ is a false flag operation upon which a certain shill master Cass Sunstein should be questioned. I am convinced the flat earth on the net is an organised disinformation attempt with the purpose to discredit researchers. If I am wrong on this, then the flat earthers are just stupid people and in any case they are not welcomed in to this channel.”

:wink:


#139

I do not have time to respond so just a quick question

why do you wink


#140

I thought that was just her ‘classic signature’.