Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

originally posted by: turbonium1

OVER TIME, we can learn, that's quite true.

Apollo is centuries ahead of what we were/are capable of learning, however.

blatantly ignorant statement..

what you are suggesting is that rocket technology is centuries ahead of what they were capable of..
since there was no need for specific radiation shielding against GCR's for the Apollo missions..

so effectively what you are suggesting is that every single satellite probe in existence from every space faring nation around the world is fake.. good one.

The Saturn V is designed by 1962, and built as designed in 1962 a few years later.

They claimed Saturn V was designed to fly men to the moon, while they were still trying to blast a hole in the VA Belts!

Come on, think about it!!

they didnt need to protect against the deadlist area of the VAB..
they only needed to shield against the less energetic areas, which aluminium is capable of of stopping..
they went around and spent very minimal time in the deadliest areas of the VAB that they couldnt shield against..

if you had a burning gate in front of you, would you walk around the gate or try to walk through it?

come on, think about it!!

originally posted by: turbonium1

OVER TIME, we can learn, that's quite true.

Well, some of us...

Apollo is centuries ahead of what we were/are capable of learning, however.

Made up fabricated nonsense. With the sole exception of feet on the ground, there is not one single aspect of Apollo that hadn't been done by manned or unmanned vehicles before the landing, and many technologies and techniques currently in use are directly descended from Apollo equipment.

The Saturn V is designed by 1962, and built as designed in 1962 a few years later.

Completely untrue.

www.apollosaturn.com...

As you can see there were many modifications over time to the Saturn design, and it was certainly not finalised in 1962.

They claimed Saturn V was designed to fly men to the moon, while they were still trying to blast a hole in the VA Belts!

Do feel free to prove that the Saturn V was incapable of doing this particular job. Claiming we were trying to blow a hole in the VAB is garbage - that is not what that project was about.

Come on, think about it!!

If only you would.

Getting To THE Moon Isn't Hard THE Hard PART Is Getting back. To get there just need a really big rocket as far as shielding we have tons of readings not only Apollo but probes we have sent. None of these have shown short term trips to be lethal this is just people who do not understand radiation. Oddly Aluminum is excellent at most forms of radiation encountered in space. Through in some fiberglass or even plastics you can do even better. The only problem we have with long flights is trying to find light materials we can use for long term flights meaning months or years.

We could make something to block all radiation it's not beyond our capabilities problem is weight. If they chose to assemble it in orbit costing billions more we could. Problem becomes we want something that is as inexpensive as possible but still does the job.

originally posted by: choos
have you noticed how you STILL fail to quantify this statement??

how much more hazardous??

From their own documents, they indicate that it is not yet known how much more hazardous it is to humans.

Didn't you read the documents? I shouldn't have to tell you about this, or repost their quotes over and over.

originally posted by: choos
let me show you:
its safe to drive slowly.. its hazardous to drive faster..
while the statement is true, but what if driving faster is only 10km/hr?? 10 km/hr is faster than 5km/hr.

Your analogy doesn't work. Aluminum is supposed to shield radiation, not intensify it.

Let's rework your analogy...

Aluminum shielding was always considered to be safer than no radiation shielding, just like driving 5 km/hr is considered to be safer than 10 km/hr.

Then we found out aluminum shielding is worse than no radiation shielding, in the deep space environment, because it makes GCR radiation more hazardous than before.

So while 5 km/hr is considered safer than 10 km/hr, it might be considered safer to go 10 km/hr in a different 'environment' than we normally drive in (streets, etc). Driving over a thin sheet of ice across a lake, would probably be safer at 10 km/hr than 5 km/hr. Stopping to 0 km/hr would be ever more hazardous to you, as well.

originally posted by: choos
so why dont you quantify your statement?? how much more hazardous does aluminium shielding make GCR's?

In the paper you're citing below, they state...

Whereas aluminum was considered a useful shield material a few years ago, now it is considered as not only a poor shield material but may even be hazardous to the astronaut's health because dose equivalent may be a poor predictor of
astronaut risk.

This was written in Dec. 1997. At that point, aluminum was considered a poor shield material. They also indicated it may even be hazardous to a crew. As you see, THEY say it, and THEY do not quantify it.

In more recent documents, they confirm that aluminum IS more hazardous, while they don't yet quantify that statement.

So once again, I'm proving to you that this is NOT my statement, it is THEIR statement. And THEY don't quantify it.

Do you get it, finally?

originally posted by: choos

ntrs.nasa.gov...

this is from a report that you have quoted from multiple times..

looking at the dose only, during a solar maximum, dosage goes from ~6.5cGy/yr with no shielding to a maximum of ~7.7cGy/yr or more simply, thats about 20% increase in hazard.. your deadly aluminium intensifies GCR's by about 20%..

still no where near being able to make 2 weeks in deep space impossible let alone 6 days..

Come on, now! I've clearly explained these figures to you, that they are NOT valid numbers, NOT genuine data! Why are you still trying to use them to defend your argument? Remember when I told you the last time? You came back and said 'are you saying that real data doesn't exist?', and tried showing me different documents. And as I told you, they are not relevant to the figures you're trying to push as valid, IN THE DOCUMENT.

Here's what you need to grasp, about the ESTIMATES you are still trying to push as genuine data ...

protection systems (shielding, monitoring, and medical supplies) impact mission cost, and uncertainty in past
shielding databases is inadequate for present design studies For example, the required shielding to reduce the
5-cm-depth dose from GCR at solar minimum to 45 cSv behind an aluminum shield was estimated to be 2 _cm 2
by the NCRP in 1989 (ref. 4), to be 7 g/cm 2 by Simonsen, Nealy, and Townsend in 1992 (ref. 6), and to
be 55 + 10 g/cm 2 by the present estimate (table 2) using current transport codes and databases.

Do you see how they keep changing the REQUIRED shielding over time? The PRESENT ESTIMATE you are citing is with aluminum shielding, and they say over and over and over that aluminum is a POOR shield, and may be MORE hazardous than before. They now KNOW it is more hazardous, so do you think current estimates would be in your favor, or not?

originally posted by: choos
so whats their 150days limit in deep space from??

Just as I thought, you have no clue about where the 150 day limit came from.

Worse, you try and hold it up as proof of your argument!

originally posted by: choos
is it no shield ie completely naked??
is it using shielding that exists today??
or is it from radiation shielding that has yet to exist??

The article doesn't mention shielding at all, that's what I've been telling you.

originally posted by: choos
and they dont state no craft will be built in future with aluminium shielding.. that is YOUR opinion.. space crafts will still be built with aluminium..

Spacecraft built for manned deep space missions will not use aluminum shielding.

I'm sure I'll have to repeat this to you a few more times, because you obviously will keep on trying to twist my words, over and over again....

originally posted by: choos
its common sense.. when they say space radiation currently limits missions in deep space to 150days, it certainly DOES NOT mean that we can launch naked human beings into deep space for exactly 150days, no more no less, and expect them to survive..

It's also common sense to not cite a figure when you can't support with a sliver of evidence, too.

originally posted by: choos

they didnt need to protect against the deadlist area of the VAB..
they only needed to shield against the less energetic areas, which aluminium is capable of of stopping..
they went around and spent very minimal time in the deadliest areas of the VAB that they couldnt shield against..

Here is NASA engineer Kelly Smith, quoted in a 2014 NASA video, 'Orion: Trial By Fire', starting at the 3:02 mark...

"As we get further away from Earth, we will pass through the Van Allen Belts, an area of dangerous radiation. Radiation like this can harm the guidance systems, onboard computers, or other electronics on Orion. Naturally, we have to pass through this danger zone twice, once up and once back. But Orion has protection, shielding will be put to the test as the vehicle cuts through the waves of radiation. Sensors aboard will record radiation levels for scientists to study. We must solve these challenges before we send people through this region of space."

www.youtube.com...


You keep on trying to claim that Apollo didn't need to go through the most dangerous areas of the VAB.

You now realize this NASA engineer, in a NASA video, states we cannot yet "send people through this region of space"

If we cannot send people through "this region of space" today, then we know for sure that Apollo DID NOT, COULD NOT, have flown people through "this region of space", either.

There are no exceptions made for missions with "different targets" than Apollo (supposedly) had. There are no exceptions made for 'outer fringes', or 'less hazardous' areas of this region. He said we cannot yet send people through this region of space, period.

You can't wriggle out of it to save your precious, magical, Apollo fable.

originally posted by: turbonium1

From their own documents, they indicate that it is not yet known how much more hazardous it is to humans.

Didn't you read the documents? I shouldn't have to tell you about this, or repost their quotes over and over.

and yet you know with 100% certainty that 6-14 days in deep space exposed to GCR's while surrounded by aluminium is absolutely impossible??

you cant quantify your claims at all.. you have mere speculation..

find me a source that can show that aluminium will multiply the hazards of gcr's by several THOUSAND times..

Your analogy doesn't work. Aluminum is supposed to shield radiation, not intensify it.

and what you dont understand is that aluminium shield against low energy particle radiation very well.. it just doesnt do that for higher energy particles.. but for some reason you always ignore this, i wonder why?

Let's rework your analogy...

Aluminum shielding was always considered to be safer than no radiation shielding, just like driving 5 km/hr is considered to be safer than 10 km/hr.

Then we found out aluminum shielding is worse than no radiation shielding, in the deep space environment, because it makes GCR radiation more hazardous than before.

So while 5 km/hr is considered safer than 10 km/hr, it might be considered safer to go 10 km/hr in a different 'environment' than we normally drive in (streets, etc). Driving over a thin sheet of ice across a lake, would probably be safer at 10 km/hr than 5 km/hr. Stopping to 0 km/hr would be ever more hazardous to you, as well.

your attempt to twist my analogy failed.. want to know why you failed at attemping to twist my analogy??

driving on ice at 10km/hr although is hazardous, is still very much safe.. airbags wont even deploy.. why?? because 10km.hr although faster and more hazardous than driving at 5km/hr regardless of the surface is still a very low speed..

likewise with GCR dose.. although aluminium makes it more hazardous, the dose is still very very low..

In the paper you're citing below, they state...

Whereas aluminum was considered a useful shield material a few years ago, now it is considered as not only a poor shield material but may even be hazardous to the astronaut's health because dose equivalent may be a poor predictor of
astronaut risk.

This was written in Dec. 1997. At that point, aluminum was considered a poor shield material. They also indicated it may even be hazardous to a crew. As you see, THEY say it, and THEY do not quantify it.

In more recent documents, they confirm that aluminum IS more hazardous, while they don't yet quantify that statement.

umm.. this documents shows that it IS more hazardous when GCR's are concerned.. and they do quantify it..

So once again, I'm proving to you that this is NOT my statement, it is THEIR statement. And THEY don't quantify it.

Do you get it, finally?

they dont quantify it?? if they are incapable of quantifying it how are they able to say it is more hazardous?? they need numbers to support their conclusions.. if the numbers they have show that aluminium makes GCR's more hazardous then they can make such a conclusion..

if they dont have such numbers then they are merely guessing and speculating with absolutely no proof whatsoever.. you are now claiming that the report has absolutely no data to support its claim..

Come on, now! I've clearly explained these figures to you, that they are NOT valid numbers, NOT genuine data! Why are you still trying to use them to defend your argument? Remember when I told you the last time? You came back and said 'are you saying that real data doesn't exist?', and tried showing me different documents. And as I told you, they are not relevant to the figures you're trying to push as valid, IN THE DOCUMENT.

Here's what you need to grasp, about the ESTIMATES you are still trying to push as genuine data ...

as above.. you are claiming that the article made the conclusion that aluminium made GCR's worse with absolutely no data.. are you really sure you want to make that claim??

Do you see how they keep changing the REQUIRED shielding over time? The PRESENT ESTIMATE you are citing is with aluminum shielding, and they say over and over and over that aluminum is a POOR shield, and may be MORE hazardous than before. They now KNOW it is more hazardous, so do you think current estimates would be in your favor, or not?

and?? all you are doing is showing changes/refinement in regulations..

even so.. even by todays standard are you capable of showing how aluminium magnifies GCR's by several THOUSAND %???

Just as I thought, you have no clue about where the 150 day limit came from.

Worse, you try and hold it up as proof of your argument!

im asking for your opinion, genius.

im asking if the 150day limit is based on with a shield, without a shield or with shielding technology from the future.. did i really have to spell it out for you??

The article doesn't mention shielding at all, that's what I've been telling you.

so what you believe is that the NASA believes they can send an astronaut into deep space completely naked and expect him to survive for exactly 150days???

you dont think that maybe, just maybe being completely naked, GCR's will be the last of his concerns in the next minute or so let alone 150 days?? i mean who cares about oxygen, who cares about the temperature, who cares about the sun.. those are apparently minor.. since the limiting factor on a completely naked astronaut in deep space is GCR's, a limit of 150days..
i didnt know humans could survive without oxygen for 150days..

Spacecraft built for manned deep space missions will not use aluminum shielding.

I'm sure I'll have to repeat this to you a few more times, because you obviously will keep on trying to twist my words, over and over again....

you arent understanding me.. regardless of what shielding they will use, it wont be 100% foolproof unless its several meters or hundred meters of water or several kilometers of air.. GCR's can and do reach the surface of earth regularly

so if aluminium makes GCR's so deadly as you claim.. they wont use aluminium AT ALL for spacecraft construction

It's also common sense to not cite a figure when you can't support with a sliver of evidence, too.

you are mistaken.. YOU are the one attemping to create a figure with NO BASIS WHATSOEVER..

it is YOUR claim that 6-14 days in deep space is absolutely impossible because aluminium makes GCR's worse.. you are incapable of providing any evidence for your statement at all.. the absolute best you can do is wild speculation and conjecture..

from the same report:


the prescribed limits are 50cSv per year..
aluminium hull thickness of 5g/cm^2 - 10g/cm^2 is what they use alot for manned spacecraft..
which corresponds to 111cSv/yr - 93cSv/yr equivalent dose..

basic maths shows that the maximum limit in deep space would be ~164 days and 196 days for 5g/cm^2 and 10g/cm^2.. quite close to the 150 days quoted..

thats my interpretation.. so lets see your interpretations..

show me how 120cSv/year.. turns into 1520cSv/yr as your belief.

originally posted by: turbonium1

You keep on trying to claim that Apollo didn't need to go through the most dangerous areas of the VAB.

You now realize this NASA engineer, in a NASA video, states we cannot yet "send people through this region of space"

you answered yourself and didnt even realise..

or are you trying to suggest that all areas of the VAB is as dangerous as above the equator including the SAA??

If we cannot send people through "this region of space" today, then we know for sure that Apollo DID NOT, COULD NOT, have flown people through "this region of space", either.

the region of space that we cannot send humans through is directly above the equator, there are areas that we can bypass safely enough but this isnt always a practical trajectory as has been said several times..
but if you want to extend that region to absolutely everywhere in the VAB then you better provide some proof how the ISS astronauts shouldnt survive their passage through the VAB nearly every revolution..

There are no exceptions made for missions with "different targets" than Apollo (supposedly) had. There are no exceptions made for 'outer fringes', or 'less hazardous' areas of this region. He said we cannot yet send people through this region of space, period.

You can't wriggle out of it to save your precious, magical, Apollo fable.

what you are doing is trying to take the deadliest areas of the VAB and expanding it to cover all areas of the known VAB..

if we cant send humans into the VAB as you want to believe.. why does the ISS regularly go into and out of it?

p.s. have you realised yet that he is talking about shielding the electronics on orion properly before sending humans THROUGH that region??

originally posted by: choos

the region of space that we cannot send humans through is directly above the equator, there are areas that we can bypass safely enough but this isnt always a practical trajectory as has been said several times..


but if you want to extend that region to absolutely everywhere in the VAB then you better provide some proof how the ISS astronauts survive their passage through the VAB nearly every revolution..

A low Earth orbit (LEO) is an orbit around Earth with an altitude between 160 kilometers (99 mi), (orbital period of about 88 minutes), and 2,000 kilometers (1,200 mi) (about 127 minutes)...

Objects in LEO orbit Earth between the atmosphere and below the inner Van Allen radiation belt.

en.wikipedia.org...

The International Space Station (ISS) is a space station, or a habitable artificial satellite, in low earth orbit

The ISS maintains an orbit with an altitude of between 330 and 435 km (205 and 270 mi)

en.wikipedia.org...

The main belts extend from an altitude of about 1,000 to 60,000 kilometers above the surface

en.wikipedia.org...

The International Space Station and Space Shuttle, on this scale, orbit very near the edge of the blue 'Earth disk' in the figure, so are well below the Van Allen Belts.

spacemath.gsfc.nasa.gov...

The NASA engineer said we cannot "send humans through this region". He obviously would know we can, and do, send humans through the South Atlantic Anomaly, and he'd know it is consider a part of this same region. To say we cannot send humans "through this region" means traversing the Inner and Outer Belts, outward and beyond this region...that is going "through this region".

That is why he said we cannot send humans through this region.

As for your claim here...

"..there are areas that we can bypass safely enough but this isnt always a practical trajectory as has been said several times.."

As I told you, the NASA engineer made no exceptions to his statement. There were no "areas that we can bypass" mentioned. You are - as usual - concocting your own version of 'what he really meant'!! Yet again.

It makes no sense for him to say we need to solve all these problems before sending people through this region, if we COULD send people through this region, or if we HAVE sent people through this region.

This is what your version goes like..
'The NASA engineer states that we need to solve these problems before we can send people through this region. He doesn't mean the whole region, though. He is talking about to more hazardous areas WITHIN the region, not the less hazardous areas, like the outer fringes, where Apollo flew. So we need to solve these problems for only the unknown, unplanned, non-existent missions, since we may plan for them in future, and we'd like to be ready for them if they ever come to exist.


Sheesh, what a joke!

a reply to: turbonium1

You argue semantics, not science. The entire Moon Hoax is predicated on verbal chicanery.

Nice use of Apollo 4 footage in that Orion video.

Here's some more use of Apollo 4, and Apollo 6:

arc.aiaa.org...

Analysis of the Apollo 4 and 6 data indicated that the dose calcultions for manned lunar missiosn which pass through the more intense portion of the trapped radiation belt would be relialbe and that the expected doses are well below the planning operational dose limits set by NASA.

Still waiting for concrete proof that Apollo missions would have, or did, acquire a lethal dose of radiation, that aluminium is an inadequate shield, that aluminium was the only shield material, that the Saturn V rocket was unable to launch a lunar mission and that Apollo technology did not exist during the Apollo missions.

a reply to: turbonium1

The SAMA is part of the VAB, the is regularly traverses through it, this is a fact..

Also go back and read the entire paragraph you wrote of the quote. Cherry picking a sentence and putting it out of context is dishonest at best.

The man is talking about the challenge of shielding sensitive electronics which includes life support electronics properly, new electronics are now so much smaller that an electron from the VAB can and will change some of the states of the electronics memories etc, these challenges of shielding the electronics onboard Orion must be solved before they can successfully send a man THrOUGH the vab with Orion. That is what he is saying you cherry picking a quote and putting it out of context is dishonest.

P.s. And what I've been trying to tell you is that the vab has varying levels of energetic particles, the less energetic areas can be protected against, and a trajectory can be planned within these areas, the higher energetic areas are harder to protect against and planning a trajectory around this is very much possible, if you want to claim that we can't send a man through the vab, you are claiming that the high energy areas is everywhere in the vab and completely unavoidable. Which includes the saa. Which is completely false

You cannot send astronauts on an Apollo command module through the same region on the same trajectory as Orion EFT-1 without risking the astronauts developing mild symptoms of radiation poisoning.

Using SPENVIS, here is the dose expected for an Apollo astronaut sitting inside an Apollo spacecraft with about 7-8 g/cm^2 areal density on the trajectory taken by Apollo to the moon:
h.dropcanvas.com...
That dose isn't dangerous at all.

The trajectory taken by Apollo avoided the most intense parts of the Van Allen belts.


Now here is the expected dose if you were to send Apollo astronauts in an Apollo command module on the same trajectory as Orion EFT-1's final orbit:
h.dropcanvas.com...
Nearly 30 rads of radiation. At that dose you are approaching the threshold at which you may start to exhibit mild symptoms of radiation poisoning according to the CDC:

Mild symptoms may be observed with doses as low as 0.3 Gy or 30 rads.

www.bt.cdc.gov...

So in a very literal sense you cannot safely send astronauts through the region of space flown by Orion EFT-1 using older manned spacecraft capable of reaching that altitude, namely Apollo. You can, however, send it to the moon by avoiding the most intense part of the belts and not lingering in them. Orion EFT-1's trajectory, however, will potentially give you mild radiation poisoning. Now I don't know the exact numbers for Orion's areal density, but if it were similar to ISS around 15~20 g/cm^2 you'd be looking at only about half that dose:
h.dropcanvas.com...

Trajectory matters, spacecraft density matters. Yes, Apollo could safely get to the moon. No Apollo could not safely travel along Orion EFT-1's trajectory through that particular region of space, not without risking mild radiation sickness. Future methods for getting astronauts beyond low earth orbit may involve low thrust methods like Hall effect thrusters, according to NASA. If that is the case they will necessarily need more shielding than Apollo because they will take longer to get through the belts, whether they avoid the most intense region or not. EFT-1 provided an opportunity to test how the spacecraft would tolerate a higher dose of radiation than Apollo received.

a reply to: turbonium1

So in 1962, they're trying to blow a hole through the radiation belts, brilliantly making it worse than before, yet somehow can build a spacecraft which will safely fly men to the moon, at the very same time!!

I love a good fantasy tale, but even The Hobbit looks real, compared to the Apollo fibbery

A lot of people out there are far more familiar with ~~insert entertainment franchise like Seinfeld or Lord of the Rings~~ than they are with the Apollo moon landings. There is only a very small percentage of the population who could name you more than 2 or 3 astronauts who walked on the moon... it's sad really that 99.9% of humanity does not care about what NASA claimed to do during the Richard Nixon administration. We are the .1% Turbo. I am glad to be in the .1% with you.

That goes the same for everyone in the thread. We are the .1% and I'm proud to be with you, too.

a reply to: ngchunter

So in a very literal sense you cannot safely send astronauts through the region of space flown by Orion EFT-1 using older manned spacecraft capable of reaching that altitude, namely Apollo.

However, Orion has not demonstrated that capability and you are reaching to that conclusion by arguing what Orion can or cannot do (in the unforeseeable future) as compared to what Apollo was claimed to have done during Richard Nixon's first term in office.

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
That goes the same for everyone in the thread. We are the .1% and I'm proud to be with you, too.

Nothing substantive to offer so you insult the majority of the posters here, most of whom actually understand Apollo better than you do.

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
a reply to: ngchunter

So in a very literal sense you cannot safely send astronauts through the region of space flown by Orion EFT-1 using older manned spacecraft capable of reaching that altitude, namely Apollo.

However, Orion has not demonstrated that capability

Orion doesn't have a life support or service module just yet, so how could it safely put astronauts anywhere in space yet? You missed the point of my post, which was about the importance of trajectory in determining the radiation dose and the difference between what EFT-1 faced versus what the Apollo command modules faced. Congrats, not only do you not understand Orion or Apollo, you don't even understand my post. Don't worry, there will plenty of time for you to spend in future years insisting that the operational manned version of the Orion capsule doesn't actually work. Meanwhile NASA is continuing to refine the Orion design based on the data from the EFT-1 flight, which I was invited by them to attend in person. I'm sure you'll have fun insulting Orion throughout its future from the comfort of your computer instead.

a reply to: ngchunter

Don't worry, there will plenty of time for you to spend in future years insisting that the operational manned version of the Orion capsule doesn't actually work. Meanwhile NASA is continuing to refine the Orion design based on the data from the EFT-1 flight, which I was invited by them to attend in person. I'm sure you'll have fun insulting Orion throughout its future from the comfort of your computer instead.

Orion gets funding now, based on what Obama wants. What if the next president doesn't think Orion is a priority?? More delays. And we've had 43 years of delays brother and I don't see anybody breaking that Russian Glass Ceiling anytime soon.

edit to add: The Russian Glass Ceiling is at 475km. 50 years ago.

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
a reply to: ngchunter

Don't worry, there will plenty of time for you to spend in future years insisting that the operational manned version of the Orion capsule doesn't actually work. Meanwhile NASA is continuing to refine the Orion design based on the data from the EFT-1 flight, which I was invited by them to attend in person. I'm sure you'll have fun insulting Orion throughout its future from the comfort of your computer instead.

Orion gets funding now, based on what Obama wants. What if the next president doesn't think Orion is a priority??

Considering that Orion was a Republican project to start with and both political parties now have their stamps on it I seriously doubt it will be cancelled by the next president.

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
edit to add: The Russian Glass Ceiling is at 475km. 50 years ago.

We beat that by quite a wide margin when we went to the moon. Hell, even Gemini 11 beat that.

originally posted by: ngchunter

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
That goes the same for everyone in the thread. We are the .1% and I'm proud to be with you, too.

Nothing substantive to offer so you insult the majority of the posters here, most of whom actually understand Apollo better than you do.

To best understand the Apollo moon landings requires a basic understanding of world politics of the 1960's, do you agree? I'm just offering the readers of this thread an opportunity to escape from the limited, controlled, NASA-centric viewpoint that some people are projecting in this thread.

You are incorrect, my intention was not to "insult the majority". You are appealing to sympathy and it doesn't look good for you.