Buzz Aldrin admits they did not go to moon?

a reply to: Itisnowagain

Hmm - the link didn't format properly when it was posted.

Try copying and pasting what's inside the inverted commas:

"http://apollo17.org/?t=003:50:31"

and watch the window halfway down the left hand side of the screen.

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

Thank you....I saw the earth go past the window on the video........I liked that it has stars in the footage.

a reply to: CosmicAwakening

Why doesn't the Hubble just take pics of the L.E.M. part that was left after they left the Moon, to prove we went there?

a reply to: thepixelpusher

why would anyone who dismisses all the currently availiable evidence for the veracity of the appollo program - believe a single [ or set of ] image[s] taken from hubble of the appollo mission artefacts - and change thier mind - based on this " new " evidence ???????????????????

a reply to: thepixelpusher

The Hubble isn't designed for such close pictures. As odd as that sounds to us.

Various space agencies have orbiters around the moon that have sent back pictures of the landing sites that show clear evidence of the visitation by Apollo missions.

Three of the Apollo landing sites.

Reminds me of the recent video of the NASA engineer talking about the Orion spacecraft and still having to figure out how to get passed the Van Allen belts. Maybe just use the same tech Apollo did? lol

relevant bits around the 3 min mark.

www.youtube.com...

a reply to: CajunMetal

Maybe just use the same tech Apollo did? lol

The top comment on that youtube page:

Put some aluminum foil around it. Worked for Apollo.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

a reply to: CajunMetal

given that the design criteria for the orion craft = manned mars missions

Q1 - what was the maximum mission duration for the appollo lunar program ?

Q2 - what is the minimum mision duration forecast for a manned mars mission

Q3 - have you realised yet - why the radiological protection protocol used for the appollo program will not work for a maned mars mission ?

a reply to: CajunMetal


The display of wilful ignorance exhibited in some of the comments to that video makes me very sad indeed.

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: Itisnowagain

a reply to: CajunMetal

given that the design criteria for the orion craft = manned mars missions

Q1 - what was the maximum mission duration for the appollo lunar program ?

Q2 - what is the minimum mision duration forecast for a manned mars mission

Q3 - have you realised yet - why the radiological protection protocol used for the appollo program will not work for a maned mars mission ?

The man in the video is speaking about the Van Allen radiation belt that is around the Earth. Even the Apollo mission would have had to travel through Van Allen belt.
So your questions are not really valid as he did not mention 'duration'................he said the Van Allen Belt has to be gone through twice - once up and once down......Pretty sure Apollo would have had to go through twice as well.
Here is the video so you can watch it.

a reply to: Itisnowagain


Here is a video that explains exactly how Apollo avoided the worst of the Van Allen belts - educate yourself:

How Nasa got Apollo through the Van Allen Belts

Orion has a different mission profile. Shame you cannot applaud the bravery of those astronauts but can only sneer at them. Very sad.

Yeah, I watched your video. Shame you failed to understand it.

originally posted by: oldcarpy
Shame you cannot applaud the bravery of those astronauts but can only sneer at them.
.

I do applaud the astronauts and their bravery.
I have stated before that I do not think they knew they were not going to actually get to walk on the moon. It was no fault of the astronauts themselves that they had to lie.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

i admit that i did not watch the vvid - i has however heard the " argument " previously - and it is truel;y cringeworthy - the claims :

< insert > ADMITS that < insert > is impossible PROOF

have always been utter bollox - from scietifficallly ililterate cockwombles

originally posted by: ignorant_ape

have always been utter bollox - from scietifficallly ililterate cockwombles

That's a fact. You can only trust scientifically literate cockwombles. By the way, I'd go easy on the illiteracy verbiage, using adjectives like "scietifficallly ililterate", as a very wise man once said, and I quote, "Just sayin'."

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: Itisnowagain

i admit that i did not watch the vvid - i has however heard the " argument " previously - and it is truel;y cringeworthy - the claims :

< insert > ADMITS that < insert > is impossible PROOF

have always been utter bollox - from scietifficallly ililterate cockwombles

I am sorry.......I cannot work out what you are saying..........can you try again please?

originally posted by: thepixelpusher
a reply to: CosmicAwakening

Why doesn't the Hubble just take pics of the L.E.M. part that was left after they left the Moon, to prove we went there?

They should use the hubble to detect things in blood too, I mean it's the most powerful magnifying glass in the universe, and they're wasting it just pointing it at very very distant things.

Science hates sick people

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: thepixelpusher

why would anyone who dismisses all the currently availiable evidence for the veracity of the appollo program - believe a single [ or set of ] image[s] taken from hubble of the appollo mission artefacts - and change thier mind - based on this " new " evidence ???????????????????

He means, they should use the hubble to look there, and when it doesn't see anything, then they can accept it.

Otherwise, you are correct.

a reply to: SummerRain

Yes, don't lump me in with the deniers.

originally posted by: thepixelpusher
a reply to: CosmicAwakening

Why doesn't the Hubble just take pics of the L.E.M. part that was left after they left the Moon, to prove we went there?

The same reason NASA isnt breaking its back to dispute Flat Earthers.

Its a futile effort to convince stupid people, that simple concepts and evidence are real.

If someone tells me the sky is pink, I dont waste my time

a reply to: Whatthedoctorordered

While I think skepticism is healthy to some point I'd agree that some of these theories are just plain stupid.