So the moon landing was faked!

[willems]

groen went fishing. he definitely got a bite or two

 

[Angilion]

With regards to the van allen belt, that was an observation.

No it wasn't. A hallucination, maybe, but not an observation. The van Allen belt is right next door in astronomical terms - it has been well studied. It is not as you "observed" it to be.

Why would van allen ruin is reputation by disproving glorious nasa.

van Allen isn't the only person who has studied the belt and he doesn't agree with you. It is not particularly dangerous to pass through the weakest part of the belt at very high speed inside a shielded spaceship. van Allen never claimed it was. Neither has anyone else who has studied the belt. Conspiracy believers are just making it up.

Most of what I have said is backed up by credible sources, a few things was just my own opinion though.

None of what you have said is backed up by credible sources. Almost all of what you have said is completely incredible (high earth orbit cargo planes, constant thrust being needed to retain velocity in the absence of all other forces, etc, etc.)

But the burden of proof is on the person making the claim,

And you have provided no evidence at all for any of your claims.

I am simply saying that I am not convinced of NASA's lies.

You have presumed that everything NASA says is a lie as an act of faith on your part. Since it's an act of faith, you ignore all evidence and rational argument against it.

I don't see how a satellite above 400 miles disproves anything. I was very specific about manned space flight.

You don't see anything you don't want to see - your faith leaves you utterly ignorant.

Here's what I wrote:

There are numerous satellites in orbit above 400 miles, most of which are more vulnerable to many forms of radiation than humans are.

It's not a difficult thing to understand. If satellites are more vulnerable than humans and satellites are unharmed, then humans would also be unharmed.

unless you claim that satellites have people in them, type of bs you get from NASA on a daily basis, to be honest if any one is making it up as they go along it is NASA and their convoluted lies on top of lies on to of more lies. They are so far gone down the lying abyss, that they even believe it themselves at this point.

You've never read anything from NASA, have you?

You're like someone raised in isolation by a weird cult which has brainwashed them into believing that Scotland doesn't exist and everyone from British Telecom is a devil-worshipping communist.

 

[anything I don't mind]

That explains a lot.

Why not take an hour out of your life and watch this instead of infowars with Alex Jones....

I don't watch alex jones and I think that was the one I watched that was not very good. But it may been the star gazing one.

 

[anything I don't mind]

This is hilarious and goes some way to explain why these 'theories' keep being put out there. A lot of the people who believe in them are basically ignorant, have very little understanding of science and their own slightly warped ideas of how the works works.

A 13 yr old schoolboy could correct our resident white supremacist* on the above statement...

It does go some way to explaining the confused nature of his other posts on here - he's either a deliberate troll or a very deluded racist with a poor education.

*he was promoting David Duke in another thread....

If you want to believe NASA came back from the moon 240000 miles with one thrust of a rocket for 200 seconds, then that is the mainstream view of it. I don't think that is possible. I can't prove it. I don't see why you have to go on then to call me a white supremacist or a racist with poor education and who is david duke?

 

[orderoftheflame]

If you want to believe NASA came back from the moon 240000 miles with one thrust of a rocket for 200 seconds, then that is the mainstream view of it. I don't think that is possible. I can't prove it. I don't see why you have to go on then to call me a white supremacist or a racist with poor education and who is david duke?

You can prove it with reasonably simple maths.

Have a go at working it out yourself if you're so inclined:

http://courses.ncssm.edu/math/NCSSM Student Materials/InvestigationsTrimester 3/Moon.pdf

 

[Angilion]

Well he is more of an actor than a physicist. I thought he got the job at cern because he was the "famous" actor, rather than the other way around.

The breadth and depth of your ignorance is remarkable.

Do you think that Einstein got the job because he had photogenic hair?

 

[Blue160]

If you want to believe NASA came back from the moon 240000 miles with one thrust of a rocket for 200 seconds, then that is the mainstream view of it. I don't think that is possible.

Think for a minute. To get to the moon you have to escape the Earth's gravitational pull, which takes a huge amount of energy. To get back, the Earth's gravity pulls you back in. All you have to do is escape the moon's gravity which is much weaker.

 

[m4rk84]

Why do you guys keep entertaining Groen's clear disregard for any physics or science in general?

It's quite clear his understanding is less then that of a GCSE student so debating with him is pretty pointless. I'm fairly certain any other sceptic in this thread would want to distance themselves from him too...

The more you feed him the more ludicrous statements he will produce... just leave it.

 

[G.s Glazing]

groen, grow up.....

 

[SexyGreyFox]

Think for a minute. To get to the moon you have to escape the Earth's gravitational pull, which takes a huge amount of energy. To get back, the Earth's gravity pulls you back in. All you have to do is escape the moon's gravity which is much weaker.

Groen's next theory:
There is no proof there is gravity, it is all lies.

 

[anything I don't mind]

No it wasn't. A hallucination, maybe, but not an observation. The van Allen belt is right next door in astronomical terms - it has been well studied. It is not as you "observed" it to be.

You have taken that out of context. I was specifically referring to my opinion on the claim that van allen himself had changed his mind on the topic after being approached by apollo fanatics.

van Allen isn't the only person who has studied the belt and he doesn't agree with you. It is not particularly dangerous to pass through the weakest part of the belt at very high speed inside a shielded spaceship. van Allen never claimed it was. Neither has anyone else who has studied the belt. Conspiracy believers are just making it up.

None of what you have said is backed up by credible sources. Almost all of what you have said is completely incredible (high earth orbit cargo planes, constant thrust being needed to retain velocity in the absence of all other forces, etc, etc.)

And you have provided no evidence at all for any of your claims.

High orbit being 50000 feet. But I later went on to explain that they used the technique to get weightlessness which appeared to look like zero g. I know the idea that objects do not continue for infinity at the same velocity in space is not mainstream. But like i said that is not directly related to moon hoax theory and just my own theory. I also have non mainstream theories about the creation of planet earth and other topics. But they are not related to nasa hoax.

What specifically would you like evidence for?

You have presumed that everything NASA says is a lie as an act of faith on your part. Since it's an act of faith, you ignore all evidence and rational argument against it.

You don't see anything you don't want to see - your faith leaves you utterly ignorant.

Here's what I wrote:

It's not a difficult thing to understand. If satellites are more vulnerable than humans and satellites are unharmed, then humans would also be unharmed.

You've never read anything from NASA, have you?

You're like someone raised in isolation by a weird cult which has brainwashed them into believing that Scotland doesn't exist and everyone from British Telecom is a devil-worshipping communist.

I don't assume everything NASA says is a lie, I just think apollo was a lie. But due to the past lies, I am more sceptical of information that comes from them. I do not ignore rational argument and there is no faith involved. I have never actually heard that before, that satellites are more more vulnerable than humans. Do you have any information on that specifically? That sounds like a good argument, but I would have thought they could or would build satellites with protection against the radiation. Plus machines from what I thought were generally less likely to have problems from radiation. For example that is why they want to send in machines to sort out Fukushima.

I have looked in to the apollo missions but I have probably not spent as much time as some people, i don't generally read nasa news etc.

No i was not raised in a wierd cult with BT communists.

 

[Blue160]

High orbit being 50000 feet.

lol

I know the idea that objects do not continue for infinity at the same velocity in space is not mainstream. But....just my own theory.

I'm out. You're unwilling to accept even basic laws of physics so you obviously don't have the mental capacity to debate anything as complex as space flight. Newton's laws of motion have been around a long time and no rational person thinks that they're wrong. You're either a fool, a troll or wilfully ignorant and I've wasted enough of today debating this.

 

[JRS]

If you want to believe NASA came back from the moon 240000 miles with one thrust of a rocket for 200 seconds, then that is the mainstream view of it.

It's not just 'the mainstream view'. It's physics. An engine burn of 91kN force for 203.7 seconds is enough to escape the Moon's gravitational field at parking orbit and send you barrelling back towards the Earth.

Mind, this is new. You've actually read something that someone posted on here, and used it in a future post. Back when I was trying to tell you about how the Apollo CSM was powered you were resolutely ignoring everything posted.

 

[Angilion]

You have taken that out of context. I was specifically referring to my opinion on the claim that van allen himself had changed his mind on the topic after being approached by apollo fanatics.

Which never happened. Like all your opinions, it's a figment of your imagination.

High orbit being 50000 feet.

No. It's already been explained to you, of course, but since when have you allowed reality to intrude on your opinions?

But I later went on to explain that they used the technique to get weightlessness which appeared to look like zero g.

And it has been explained to you, repeatedly, that doing so gets at most 30s of freefall, which is nowhere near long enough for the filming and does not result in the same conditions as actual zero g anyway. Not that it's relevant, since lunar gravity isn't zero. Or are you claiming that the aliens who warned everyone off the moon did so because they've turned the moon into a spaceship and the moon's engines nullify gravity?

I know the idea that objects do not continue for infinity at the same velocity in space is not mainstream. But like i said that is not directly related to moon hoax theory and just my own theory.

It's not a theory. It's a delusion that has been repeatedly proven false by experiment and which has no basis in anything. You don't even know what a theory is. It's also not what you have repeatedly claimed, so you're not even being consistent in your imaginative nonsense. You claimed, repeatedly, that objects require constant net force to maintain constant velocity. Which is just plain wrong.

I also have non mainstream theories about the creation of planet earth and other topics. But they are not related to nasa hoax.

Please delight us with your other delusions. You're the court fool of GD, capering and spouting nonsense for everyone's amusement.

What specifically would you like evidence for?

Start with anything you've said, since you haven't shown any evidence for any of it.

I don't assume everything NASA says is a lie, I just think apollo was a lie.

You're contradicting yourself again. You're a much more amusing jester when you keep your nonsense internally consistent (while being inconsistent with reality).

But due to the past lies, I am more sceptical of information that comes from them.

You've presumed that it's all lies and you're using your baseless presumption as if it was proof of itself.

I do not ignore rational argument

Yes you do, all the time.

and there is no faith involved.

You have taken a belief for which you have no evidence and you ignore the mountain of evidence against it. That is faith, pure and simple.

I have never actually heard that before, that satellites are more more vulnerable than humans. Do you have any information on that specifically? That sounds like a good argument, but I would have thought they could or would build satellites with protection against the radiation.

They do. Like they do with spaceships.

Solid state electronics are very vulnerable to some forms of radiation. Of course, that's "mainstream" (i.e. supported by evidence and explained by knowledge and logic), so you probably won't believe it.

Plus machines from what I thought were generally less likely to have problems from radiation. For example that is why they want to send in machines to sort out Fukushima.

Heavily shielded machines designed for withstanding radiation and either partially or completely disposible after a short period of time, i.e. completely different to satellites.

I have looked in to the apollo missions but I have probably not spent as much time as some people, i don't generally read nasa news etc.

You haven't looked into the Apollo missions. You've looked into a weird delusional fantasy about them, which is a very different thing.

No i was not raised in a wierd cult with BT communists.

Nobody said you were. Although it would explain some things.

 

[Kenai]

groen is either trolling or he has learning disabilities, either way I really don't think it's worth everyone's time trying to convince him of anything.

 

[V3teran]

Im sure if the moon landings were hoaxed then the Russians who were in fierce competition at the time with the USA would have let everybody know that they were indeed faked.

 

[Martytoon]

So when does round 2 start with gillywibbles report?

 

[Angilion]

[..] Newton's laws of motion have been around a long time and no rational person thinks that they're wrong. [..]

Strictly speaking, they are wrong. More accurately, they are incomplete (they don't account for relativistic effects). So strictly speaking they're not scientific laws.

Since they're an extremely accurate approximation up to speeds of millions of mph, they can be treated as being absolutely right in almost all circumstances, but strictly speaking they're wrong.

Which doesn't negate your point, of course. Groen is blathering about circumstances under which Newtonian physics applies extremely accurately and he'd still be completely wrong even if Newton was too, but your statement above is, strictly speaking, incorrect.

 

[JRS]

So when does round 2 start with gillywibbles report?

I'm sure he'll post it sometime this week. I'm just hoping that it's actually something new. Past experience on here suggests to me that no hoax believer ever has something new and halfway surprising to say, but hope springs eternal

 

[Deleted member 651465]

They went to the moon. End.