Whould you get in this if I told you it goes to the moon?

originally posted by: clevargenuis

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: clevargenuis

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: clevargenuis
a reply to: DJW001

that didnt make it to space....just like the lander Roflmao

So d kid.

son, your only proof that thoon is that nasa said so.

Actually, kid, there is a mountain of evidence from different countries. So you want to rethink that argument.

countries or rather governments tend to collaborate on various issues, such as "space exploration". That doesnt mean they are being honest so you might wanna rethink it, boy.

You mean like Russia, in the 1960s, would cooperate with America?

Try coming up with some proof of your claims. Otherwise you're just expelling warm air.

a reply to: TerryDon79

and the "tons of information thats available" are all released by nasa. Its the ole "its true cos nasa said so" routine ive seen a million times this week.

originally posted by: clevargenuis
a reply to: TerryDon79

and the "tons of information thats available" are all released by nasa.

false. Try again.

Its the ole "its true cos nasa said so" routine ive seen a million times this week.

i never said that though. I've seen the evidence of it happening.

Evidence. Now there's a word you're not familiar with.

originally posted by: clevargenuis

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: clevargenuis

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
I'm still waiting for anyone who believes that the lunar module was not up to the job of landing on the moon and returning its occupants to orbit to provide a single shred of evidence that it was not capable of doing so, other than "gee it looks kinda funny".

.

if nasa said the cellotaped hunk of junk went to space, i guess its true. Right?

Have you got any proof that NASA hasn't been to the moon?

Im just questioning whether that structure held up by cellotape/curtain rods could even take off from the ground let alone leave the earths atmosphere.

Or am i to blindly believe it did because nasa said so.

Well, I certainly don't blindly believe that the LM "took off from the ground" just because you said it did. Instead, I have at least a basic knowledge of the Apollo Program to know that the LM was safely tucked away inside the Saturn V launch vehicle, and it was that launch vehicle that left the ground. And the LM could get through Earth's atmosphere BECUASE it was safely tucked away inside the Saturn V as the Saturn V went through Earth's atmosphere.

Plus, it has been shown to you time and time again on this thread that the foil and tape on the outside of the LM was ONLY on the outside (for insulation purposes). Underneath that insulation was a hard-shell rigid-bodied structure.

Did you even look at my post showing how the LM ascent stage had a crew cabin that was composed of two solid metal cylinders? Those cylinders were relatively sturdy and each milled out of a solid chuck of aluminum. Sure, there are other parts added on beyond those two cylinders, but arguably the most important part -- the crew cabin -- is a simple and straightforward pressure-vessel.

Go back to my post on the previous page and take a look at (and make an attempt at understanding) the graphics showing the assembly of the Ascent stage. Please explain to me how those show a craft the is made of tape and cardboard.

I mean, this is all pretty basic stuff that you seem to be having a difficult time getting grasping. You inexplicably keep repeating the same "it's only tape and cardboard" argument when it has been shown in this thread to be quite the false argument, and the "the LM would fall apart in Earth's atmosphere" argument when it has been explained several times in this thread that the LM did not operate in Earth's atmosphere...

...So please try to keep up with the information presented in the thread.

originally posted by: clevargenuis
a reply to: TerryDon79

and the "tons of information thats available" are all released by nasa. Its the ole "its true cos nasa said so" routine ive seen a million times this week.

Practically no one on this thread has argued that "it's true cuz NASA says so".

The vast majority of the people on this thread trying to explain how the LM could have worked are doing so in a well-informed manner (informed about the Apollo-era technology), have a basic understanding of that technology and the science behind it, and have been using their critical thinking skills. They are stuck on the extremely uninformed argument of "it's made of cardboard".

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: clevargenuis
a reply to: TerryDon79

and the "tons of information thats available" are all released by nasa.

false. Try again.

Its the ole "its true cos nasa said so" routine ive seen a million times this week.

i never said that though. I've seen the evidence of it happening.

Evidence. Now there's a word you're not familiar with.

your only "evidence" is NASA's word that the junkmobile landed on the moon. citing the source of the claim is not evidence.

Its like citing the bible as "evidence" that a wooden boat sailed around carrying a pair of all animal species

originally posted by: clevargenuis

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: clevargenuis
a reply to: TerryDon79

and the "tons of information thats available" are all released by nasa.

false. Try again.

Its the ole "its true cos nasa said so" routine ive seen a million times this week.

i never said that though. I've seen the evidence of it happening.

Evidence. Now there's a word you're not familiar with.

your only "evidence" is NASA's word that the junkmobile landed on the moon. citing the source of the claim is not evidence.

again, that's false.

Its like citing the bible as "evidence" that a wooden boat sailed around carrying a pair of all animal species

2 different things.

There are more sources than just NASA to prove that Apollo 11 landed on the moon.

originally posted by: clevargenuis
your only "evidence" is NASA's word that the junkmobile landed on the moon. citing the source of the claim is not evidence.

Its like citing the bible as "evidence" that a wooden boat sailed around carrying a pair of all animal species

Who says so? When did you get to decide which evidence is acceptable and which isn't? Why is "NASA says so" inadmissible but "because I say so" just fine?

It isn't just NASA's "word" - there are many evidence streams that provide a coherent narrative showing that the LM operated as it was intended to. The actual engineering science being it, the mission telemetry, the scientific data sent back from the lunar surface, the material brought back from the lunar surface, the images of Earth with unique time and date fingerprints showing the weather patterns and surface details exactly as they should be, the crew transcripts describing things they could not see from Earth, the positions of the lunar terminators changing through the mission in Apollo images from lunar orbit, the changing length of LM shadows as missions progress, the actual photographs, live TV and 16mm footage, all publicly available from the outset.

Last but not least is the evidence of human activity seen in images taken from lunar orbit. This includes the panoramic camera images that show different stages of the missions during Apollo, the LRO images, and more importantly the photographs taken by Japanese, Indian and Chinese probes that provide images corroborating not just the LRO's view of the surface but the details recorded in Apollo photography.

All the above provide a completely and totally consistent narrative that has never been contradicted except by people who know absolutely nothing about the subject and have no interest in finding out in case it threatens their world view, or by people who want to make money out of telling lies. Neither of these two groups have succeeded in proving their case because they can't.

All you have so far is a lack of understanding about how the missions progressed (get it into your head: the LM never operated in Earth's atmosphere), a dismissal of an engineering masterpiece based on your subjective and ill-informed view of what you think a lunar lander should look like, and in irrational and unfounded dislike of a space agency.

None of these things amount to actual evidence that show why the LM could not have worked as it was designed to.

originally posted by: clevargenuis

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: clevargenuis
a reply to: TerryDon79

and the "tons of information thats available" are all released by nasa.

false. Try again.

Its the ole "its true cos nasa said so" routine ive seen a million times this week.

i never said that though. I've seen the evidence of it happening.

Evidence. Now there's a word you're not familiar with.

your only "evidence" is NASA's word that the junkmobile landed on the moon. citing the source of the claim is not evidence.

Its like citing the bible as "evidence" that a wooden boat sailed around carrying a pair of all animal species

why do you blindly believe that its a junkmobile incapable of landing on the moon? where is your evidence that suggests this?

a reply to: choos

Well, he can tell from his years of experience in astro-aeronautics, of course.

And since NASA is the only space agency in the world that has any images of the space mission, it's clearly a conspiracy.


(Tongue firmly in cheek here.)

originally posted by: clevargenuis

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: clevargenuis
a reply to: TerryDon79

and the "tons of information thats available" are all released by nasa.

false. Try again.

Its the ole "its true cos nasa said so" routine ive seen a million times this week.

i never said that though. I've seen the evidence of it happening.

Evidence. Now there's a word you're not familiar with.

your only "evidence" is NASA's word that the junkmobile landed on the moon. citing the source of the claim is not evidence.

Its like citing the bible as "evidence" that a wooden boat sailed around carrying a pair of all animal species

What about the fact that thousands of people who lived in Florida saw the launch? You have no argument. It's basically, "OMG, look at that tape and tinfoil". Do you have an actual argument that actually relates to the mission or structure of the LM module? You can cry and whine repeating the same argument over and over, but it doesn't help your situation. "OMG LOOK AT THAT!!!! YOU BELIEVE NASA!!!" isn't an argument.

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: clevargenuis

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: clevargenuis
a reply to: TerryDon79

and the "tons of information thats available" are all released by nasa.

false. Try again.

Its the ole "its true cos nasa said so" routine ive seen a million times this week.

i never said that though. I've seen the evidence of it happening.

Evidence. Now there's a word you're not familiar with.

your only "evidence" is NASA's word that the junkmobile landed on the moon. citing the source of the claim is not evidence.

Its like citing the bible as "evidence" that a wooden boat sailed around carrying a pair of all animal species

why do you blindly believe that its a junkmobile incapable of landing on the moon? where is your evidence that suggests this?

Come on bro. It's completely composed of scotch tape and aluminum foil!! This is proven by the one picture of the outside of the craft on the moon. Since it has scotch tape and aluminum foil on the outside, that means it has it on the inside, and that means it is completely composed of junk! I don't care what the blueprints say or what the pictures of its construction say! It's all a lie!

/sarcasm

Fallacies are fun.

TerryDon79

2 different things.

There are more sources than just NASA to prove that Apollo 11 landed...

you can only BELIEVE it landed on the moon. I am not trying to convince you to change your beliefs.

But yes believing that pile of junk went to the moon is in the same league as belief in a magical wooden ship. Both tales are unquestiningly swallowed by the masses on the basis of faith.

Multiple "sources" agreeing with nasa doesnt mean anything.

a reply to: clevargenuis

Not faith, demonstrable fact.

Still awaiting anything other than "Because I said so" from you to prove your point.

originally posted by: clevargenuis
you can only BELIEVE it landed on the moon. I am not trying to convince you to change your beliefs.

But yes believing that pile of junk went to the moon is in the same league as belief in a magical wooden ship. Both tales are unquestiningly swallowed by the masses on the basis of faith.

Multiple "sources" agreeing with nasa doesnt mean anything.

Biblical ark: No evidence, no blue prints, in fact no evidence that this flood even happened or is possible. It also relies on pure fantasy like millions of animals squeezing on an arc for a few months. It's pure conjecture based on fairy tales.

Nasa landing module: Tons of evidence, tons of pictures, videos, blueprints and engineering schematics available and full documentation of the building process including the actual structure of the ship that shows it's not just tape and tinfoil. You need to show evidence that the ship is just a junkpile. Do you have this or are you just lying?

originally posted by: Barcs
... it's not just tape and tinfoil. You need to show evidence that the ship is just a junkpile. Do you have this or are you just lying?

Oh, I think he came into the thread with the idea, like Patternfish, that it was on the top of the rocket, and that the outer skin was the thermal control material. "How can THAT have held air! Stood the stresses of launch and going through the atmosphere! FAAAAAKE!"

Only to find out it wasn't the command module, and that the stuff wrapped around it was very lightweight plastic to reflect sunlight and not the hull at all.

But unlike Patternfish, who did a bit of reading and said 'oh', clevar isn't able to just say 'oh'. So he's stuck in this one note song junkpile junkpile junkpile even after being confronted repeatedly on his assertion that it was "made out of foil and cellotape that couldn't have made it out of the atmosphere". He now knows he was wrong. But the teenaged often can't just give in easily.

a reply to: clevargenuis

I showed you how the LM had an actual hard structure under the foil and tape, but you have yet to respond to that. instead, all of your responses have been "the LM was junk because I say so".

Why don't you instead respond to the evidence shown that the LM had a solid structure beneath the foil, and thus could withstand the forces exerted on it during the mission. Furthermore, if you have a reason (other than "because I said so") that the structure of the LM could not withstand to forces of landing on the Moon and taking off again, then please post some evidence to support that.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: clevargenuis
you can only BELIEVE it landed on the moon. I am not trying to convince you to change your beliefs.

But yes believing that pile of junk went to the moon is in the same league as belief in a magical wooden ship. Both tales are unquestiningly swallowed by the masses on the basis of faith.

Multiple "sources" agreeing with nasa doesnt mean anything.

Nasa landing module: Tons of evidence, tons of pictures, videos, blueprints and engineering schematics

hollywood spaceships also have blueprints etc to enable there construction. ultimately they are just props for a story.

the lander was also just a prop for another story, except that story was intended to be broadcast as real.

a reply to: clevargenuis

Evidence to support your point of view.

Post it.

a reply to: clevargenuis

You have been asked, several times now, to provide proof of your assertions.

Your continued refusal to do so, in fact, constitutes trolling by almost any definition.

Put up, or shut up.