Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[Vixen]

No, you have no idea what you’re talking about. Engineering is not just “doing as you’re commanded.” NASA is expressly non military.

Objective analysis does not involve making up alternate realities and fantasy scenarios where the facts are different and support your desired conclusions.

Okay, so I looked up the set-up of NASA and whilst it's not part of the department of Defense [sic] (or should that now be War?) it was until recently under the auspices of the Executive body answering directly to the Senate and US President. Quasi-military, answering to Defense. So the rotund orange one recently divested NASA from government, meaning it is no longer State-funded or owned but is now an ordinary company owned by shareholders, of which from the recent IPO Elon Musk is a 40% shareholder, and I dare say the orange crime family also have large significant investments. So Trump's Executive Order for men to be back on the Moon by 2028 all makes sense now, when they are still at the stage of space station and refuelling development. Opportunism. Just as the Russians sent poor little dogs to die in space, we can guess which demographics neo-nazi seig-heiling Musk would send into orbit around Mars first. It's not to do with engineering integrity any more, more to do with greedy accumulation of profit.

 

[Vixen]

Wow. About an hour ago, finding myself 10 pages behind in this thread, I jumped to the last page. I didn't figure I'd miss anything.
And now I was over a page behind again. We have some VERY patient posters in this forum!

This reminds me of people loudly complaining about TV shows when they have the 'off' switch in their hand.

 

[zooterkin]

It's not to do with engineering integrity any more, more to do with greedy accumulation of profit.

<fx; idiocy snippage>
Oh, so now you say there was engineering integrity, in contrast to what you've been insinuating up until now?

 

[Vixen]

To be fair, licence is the noun's spelling in the UK, license is the verb.

Shhhh, don't shatter EHocking's fond illusion he or she knows better than me.

 

[Vixen]

Pull the other one!

ETA: You have in fact reached a conclusion, and you are groping around for evidence to support it.

No, I haven't actually.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

No, I haven't actually.

Just like you haven't quite come clean and said you understand the modified Hasselblad cameras could not photograph stars.

Got to maintain that implausible deniability to keep the pot boiling.

 

[Axxman300]

o the rotund orange one recently divested NASA from government, meaning it is no longer State-funded or owned but is now an ordinary company owned by shareholders, of which from the recent IPO Elon Musk is a 40% shareholder, and I dare say the orange crime family also have large significant investments.

This is lie. You are a liar. NASA is an independent government agency.

You are a liar.

 

[JayUtah]

Okay, so I looked up the set-up of NASA and whilst it's not part of the department of Defense [sic] (or should that now be War?) it was until recently under the auspices of the Executive body answering directly to the Senate and US President. Quasi-military, answering to Defense.'

No.

 

[JayUtah]

Please read carefully. I said the guff about reflectors and supposed images of 'proof' of track remnants doesn't count as primary evidence but more as 'statements in support'. Rather like getting your grandad to back up your claim to teacher the 'dog ate the homework' and here's the proof: a photo of some mangled bits of paper in Halli's jaws.

No. Observation of an artifact that should be there if a particular claim is true is primary evidence of the claim.

 

[catsmate]

The LRO isn't today's technology, it was launched in 2009 with camera technology avaianle at its inception many years before. It did not go to the moon to take photos of Apollo. Allen put no effort into his lazy dismissal. It could not be anywhere, it's the moon

The fact is that Chinese, Japanese, Indian and South Korean probes have photographed the Apollo sites and corroborated what is in the LRO images, and the photographs, 16mm film and live TV from Apollo.

Probed

Modern unmanned probes imaging Apollo sites

onebigmonkey.com

Third-party evidence for Apollo Moon landings - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[catsmate]

They may have 'corroborated' the images but they remain of low resolution and don't prove anything other than it being claimed as being what is claimed.

That is a lie, as you well know.

 

[catsmate]

<snip>

Irrelevant rubbish.

 

[Darat]

This is lie. You are a liar. NASA is an independent government agency.

You are a liar.

I think she thinks SpaceX is NASA!

 

[Mojo]

I think she thinks SpaceX is NASA!

No, she's just trying to tar the reputation of NASA in 1969 by association with Musk in 2026.

 

[steenkh]

No, I haven't actually.

You are fighting an uphill battle. Not only has every single of your arguments been shown to be false — or even lies — but your position makes no sense just like every other conspiracy theory: thousands of people have worked on this project, and not a single one has come forward during the past 50 years and blown the whistle that they have all worked on the biggest deception project of all times.

The U.S. has notoriously been unable to keep the lid on actual conspiracies, and one with so many participants would never stand a chance of remaining hidden.

 

[JesseCuster]

Okay, so I looked up the set-up of NASA and whilst it's not part of the department of Defense [sic] (or should that now be War?) it was until recently under the auspices of the Executive body answering directly to the Senate and US President. Quasi-military, answering to Defense. So the rotund orange one recently divested NASA from government, meaning it is no longer State-funded or owned but is now an ordinary company owned by shareholders, of which from the recent IPO Elon Musk is a 40% shareholder,

Uh… what? NASA is no longer a government agency, is actually a publicly traded company, and Elon Musk is a 40% shareholder in NASA?

Where did you get this nonsense from?

 

[Reformed Offlian]

No.

That line of argument would make that *other* Kennedy Center military.

 

[Matthew Best]

Was that meant to be a serious answer or are you suffering some sort of episode?

I think we're all suffering from this particular episode.

 

[zooterkin]

Okay, so I looked up the set-up of NASA and whilst it's not part of the department of Defense [sic] (or should that now be War?) it was until recently under the auspices of the Executive body answering directly to the Senate and US President. Quasi-military, answering to Defense. So the rotund orange one recently divested NASA from government, meaning it is no longer State-funded or owned but is now an ordinary company owned by shareholders, of which from the recent IPO Elon Musk is a 40% shareholder, and I dare say the orange crime family also have large significant investments. So Trump's Executive Order for men to be back on the Moon by 2028 all makes sense now, when they are still at the stage of space station and refuelling development. Opportunism. Just as the Russians sent poor little dogs to die in space, we can guess which demographics neo-nazi seig-heiling Musk would send into orbit around Mars first. It's not to do with engineering integrity any more, more to do with greedy accumulation of profit.

I never make anything up. All of my comments are sourced, unless I state 'IMV'.
...

 

[Axxman300]

No, she's just trying to tar the reputation of NASA in 1969 by association with Musk in 2026.

Joke's on her. Wait until she finds out where we got our German rocket scientists from.