Why The Moon Landing Couldn't Have Been Faked

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

I can't see footprints in the sand because the person who made them is still standing in them!!!!

​

 

[thekingsmen]

conspiracy set trying to ignore @Dafunkdoc_Unlimited hard as possible, as usual

Is that your real account cause @Barnett114 gave your alias last post a tombstone piledriver.

 

[Booker T Garvey]

Strawman Alert!!

No one here is arguing that the Moon is a solid rock.

​

​

A couple inches of dust on top of solid rock.

​

because they landed on solid rock.

​

I'm done entertaining this dude.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

So there should be photos of them like that footprint

Hey, why can't you see footprints if the person who made them is still standing in them?

​

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

I'm done entertaining this dude.

I didn't argue that THE MOON was a solid rock.

The reason there's no crater under the landing area is because they landed on solid rock.

The subject of the sentence is 'crater', the object is 'landing area', not 'the Moon'.

You're just being silly and showing your ignorance of 6th Grade English.

​

 

[OJ Simpsom]

 

[Booker T Garvey]

at 8:56 in the video, actual astronauts, AND BARACK OBAMA saying out of their own mouths that they can't go beyond low earth orbit.

 

[Self_Born7]

Source or you talking out yo ass

stop being lazy,,, google is your best friend...

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

They will keep changing the story to fit the narrative. If I were to prove there was moon dust under the landed ship they would think of another excuse.

....................there IS dust under the module, though. No one is arguing there isn't. The argument was about a 'crater', not the presence of dust.

at 8:56 in the video, actual astronauts, AND BARACK OBAMA saying out of their own mouths that they can't go beyond low earth orbit.

That's because the only vehicle we had that did, the Saturn V, required expertise that no longer exists, factories that no longer exist, and funds that no longer exist.

The people who worked on it actually acquired their expertise while they worked on it. That was 50 years ago. Since our space program didn't pan-out, those skills were unnecessary. The plants were shut down and disassembled. All that specialized knowledge pretty-much died of old age and disinterest.

There are technicians/scientists working on reviving all that, but it takes a TON of money............

How NASA brought the monstrous F-1 “moon rocket” engine back to life

This is just ONE of the 5 F-1 rockets that took the Saturn V BEYOND low earth orbit.​

 

[OJ Simpsom]

^nikkaz comparing going to the moon like it's some ancient black and white tv tech that went away and died.

Brain dead retards."If" they tryna go to MARS, then the tech IS THERE.

 

[OJ Simpsom]

Next ya'll gon say "Well the tech is there to go to Mars, but different tech (the one from the 60s) is needed to get to the Moon. And there's nothing on the Moon worth going back to."

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Next ya'll gon say "Well the tech is there to go to Mars, but different tech (the one from the 60s) is needed to get to the Moon."

Actually, that is the case. Mars is much further away than the Moon so it would require different rockets, amounts of fuel, speeds, etc. The tech exists to put UNMANNED craft on the Moon and Mars. The tech, expertise, manufacturing capabilities, and funding from the 60's doesn't exist any more.

Your argument is disingenuous, by the way.

Here's why:

The fact that the United States can't build a craft capable of exceeding low earth orbit NOW doesn't cast doubt on the historical fact that the Saturn V existed, exceeded LOE, and landed men on the Moon in 1969.
​

 

[OJ Simpsom]

Told you.

 

[Black Panther]

We can't make Model T's, Greek fire, or Windows 95 from scratch :bpunimpressed:

But it's supposedly possible to do the same with rocket science with a massively reduced NASA budget :bpunimpressed:

Dudes in here are actually arguing that it's entirely possible to rebuild the tech that got us to the Moon using some old photographs and blueprints, as if "rocket science" isn't a colloquial reference to a highly difficult subject (i.e. "it's not rocket science") :bpunimpressed:

For that matter, dudes in here are acting like we have all the blueprints and diagrams of mission-critical moon technology :bpunimpressed:

Dudes in here are acting like having the parts to a thing means you can easily put them together and make it work, as if having the engine to a Shelby means you can build a functional car from scratch :bpunimpressed:

Dudes in here acting like the Van Allen belts are "impenetrable" as if radiation shielding (lead) didn't exist then :bpunimpressed:

Whole thread is sad :bpunimpressed:

How We Lost The Ability To Travel To The Moon

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Told you.

All you've done is avoid using valid logic to support your argument which boils-down to: 'I find it hard to believe we went to the Moon since we haven't gone back.'

You've been shown the reasons why we haven't and they are all completely historically valid.

You've provided NO evidence to prove otherwise.

Just objected to the evidence against your position with a youtube video and made assertions without backing them up.

No math, no science, no financial breakdowns, nothing.

You've said nothing at all.​