So, we didn't go to the moon then

Alright, let's get to this.

Before I answer this first question, I've noticed this in some of your questions. Why are you implying I'm somehow paranoid, thinking that I could think this is a widespread, secret conspiracy? This only tells me you're indoctrinated to think that people who are skeptical of things like the Moon Landing are potentially a bunch of loons.

Don't pay so much attention to the television.

Moving on, it's not technology "they" use, it's technology you use as well every time you open up your GPS. The GPS system is completely land-based. There's no satellites involved at all.

To start, your phone, be it an iPhone or an Android or whatever, cannot send a signal 22,000 miles. Even based on modern-day science, your phone only recieves a signal and does not send one back.

Now you can believe all you want that the signal you're recieving comes from space, fine, whatever. If you believe that, however, then you believe that satellites have synchronized clocks and shoot signals at the speed of light through ever changing and varying atmospheric conditions, but the signals are perfect nonetheless.

What is actually used by the GPS system in your phone is something called trilateration. And this can easily be achieved using any kind of 2D or 3D model using circles or spheres. There's no two-way satellite connection with your phone at all. Let's use an example:

Take 3 towers.

• Tower A
• Tower B
• Tower C

To start, the first tower measures the reciever's distance (you) from said tower. Imagine a circle coming from this tower. But once that's done, we know that you basically exist somewhere in the range of that circle. You could still be anywhere in said range.

Then take the second tower and measure your distance from there. Now we know you're either in one of two spots because the circles intersect in two spots.

Then we take the final tower and that one measures your distance. All three circles from the towers, at this point, will intersect at one location, where you are.

I don't know about you, but to me, this sounds more reasonable than magical boxes in orbit who have synchronized clocks and take relativity and the spin of the Earth into account, sending data at the speed of light which is supposed to be in a vacuum, not the atmosphere of Earth, and then using your distance from each satellite, you computer your location exactly from 22,000 miles away, still having those clocks synchronized exactly, and then send signals and then multiply the time it takes for that signal to get you by the speed of light and you have your distance.

GPS is a land-based system. Nobody uses satellites for it.

The second example of your paranoid implication.

Ah, the ISS. Another piece of bullshit. No, I don't think you're looking at the ISS at all. I think you're looking at a high-altitude weather balloon. We all know that the ISS is supposed to be as large as a football field, but if you're in an 737, you will not be able to see football fields on the ground at all and most airplanes fly about 7 and a half miles in the air.

The ISS is supposed to be 254 miles above Earth. You're not supposed to be seeing that shit at all.

Google sends high-altitude balloons in the air all the time and these balloons stay up in the sky for weeks at a time. I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say NASA created a balloon that can stay in the sky for years.

Besides, even if it wasn't a balloon, it most certainly doesn't prove that's the ISS because of all the loads of holes and evidence against it. For example, how the fuck is the ISS as big as a football field, but requires only three people to maintain it? Submarines, the REAL "spaceships" of our time since they actually operate in an environment human beings can't breathe in, need as close as 150 people to operate it, and submarines are much smaller.

Your first claim is anecdotal. You can't prove to me or anybody else here you know a rocket scientist. Every piece of evidence you could bring up to prove that could always be countered with a "Yeah, but" statement. I could say I know a rocket scientist as well that actually says rockets don't work in space.

Therefore, the "fact" that you know one is completely irrelevant. Use your knowledge, not "his".

As for the rest, this is still bandwagon rationale you're attempting to use to give yourself a leg to stand on. As a matter of fact:

All of this is the same rationale as well, although some small parts of these responses touch on some interesting points, which I'll address in a moment.

Let me repeat myself once more: You cannot be naive to think that in order for a misconception to be widely held, it ALSO MUST be a conspiracy widely held. It is NOT that everyone is either lying or misguided as this is an extreme generalization, but rather, MOST are misguided and only a few are clearly lying.

You also cannot be naive to think that large groups of people don't or can't lie when they clearly do. They just don't do it well. This is a fallacy. Popularly held ideas and claims aren't always (in fact, in my experience, it's almost always the opposite) correct.

We still need to go where the hard evidence actually leads. The ISS has holes in it, there's no way rockets work in space, the moon landing has holes in it, which all clearly points to the existence of a shit-ton of misinformation as well as blatant lying.

I mean, for fuck's sake, people here in this thread won't even touch on the holes I pointed out in the Moon Landing itself because you can't logically reconcile them! Why the fuck did Neil Armstrong refuse to swear on the Bible that he went to the moon, NIXON WAS PRESIDENT, why is the Earth small in the pictures, where is the blast crater, why are there no stars in the pictures, why do the astronauts and astronomers and astrophysicists constantly contradict each other, where the fuck is the moon landing data that could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they went to the moon, why do we have such crappy camera angles on the rocket launches, why did Buzz and Neil turn to going into hiding and drinking booze all the time, why were they so miserable and seemingly uninterested when they spoke at the conference that was held when they returned, fucking sports players get more excited than they did when they win, why is there no camera on the moon recording Earth, who the fuck put the first camera on the moon, Elon Musk actually stated they just use CGI for the rocket launches on video, why would he say that if it was real, why would they destroy the tech they used to get to the moon, why did an astronaut supposedly on the ISS actually state they were filming in the US, why does the ISS "24/7" camera feed cut out every 90 minutes for 40 minutes, how did Nixon call them, why is "space technology" regressing instead of progressing...?

Need I go on? You can watch shows of magicians making entire cars appear as if from nowhere. I really don't see why it's hard to think that rocket launches could be faked. I mean, look at everything space flight has given us. How could it be fake? Am I saying that they've only done it just to steal our money? Huh. If that were true, then all we'd see is them taking money year after year, giving us promises and ideas and wishes, but never following through on any of it.

Oh wait, that's exactly what they do.

EDITED: Oh, I should also give you a list of all the space kickstarters that were launched in the past. Many people signed up to those and donated money, but never recieved their rewards or product. They ended up being scams.

People lie. They lied to you when they told you Santa Claus and the tooth fairy exists, they lied to you when they said your hair didn't look stupid, they lied to you when they said masturbation and porn was healthy, and your government lies to you all the time. I fail to see why it's so hard to think the Moon Landing is just another one of these lies. Other than the indoctrination, of course.

I'm not saying everyone is lying, no. That's absurd. When you thought masturbating to porn was healthy, were you lying or just misinformed? I'm saying some very clearly are.

Which is why, whether you advocate the Moon Landing or not, is why I encourage everybody I talk to about this to look into shit themselves. Don't even believe me, I'm probably just another liar, right? Believe your own conclusions, find out answers yourselves, don't believe everything you hear and read. Research it. Think about it. Debate with yourself on it. Let it bother and bug you. That's all I want. I don't want you to suddenly say you doubt the Moon Landing to me. I just want you to look into it yourself, as I have.

Set aside an hour or so everyday and just do a ton of Googling, reading, watching videos and reading about what said videos presented, shit, maybe even do some real experiements yourself. Read up on some physics. Thermodynamics. All that. Not only will it educate the fuck out of you (besides, I don't think NoFap should be just about abstaining, I say it should also be about self-improvement and this is one way to do that), it may answer questions you probably didn't even know you had.

We have to avoid thinking religiously and doing that is to believe something without any evidence for said belief. And remember, once you believe something, you can no longer see details.

Moving on.

The word "thousands" tells me you're attempting to use bandwagon rationale again, but let's ignore that.

To answer you: YUP.

You should just watch some of the SpaceX launches. Not only are the camera angles absurd, but the things they say are so funny, it's ridiculous. Oh, and the ridiculous things happen during the launches. Like the video feed constantly going out everytime the rockets "land".

I should also find a piece of the ISS footage for you. Somebody pointed out that they actually used part of a drumset to make it look like part of the ISS. It was hilarious.

Please, I wouldn't avoid this at all. Although I will admit I was sleepy and a bit lazy the last time I replied to you.

Just because you say that A, your explanation is satisfactory enough, and B, that there's a low chance of a better explanation is low doesn't mean either statements are true. You just lack perspective.

You're assuming the "project" is a secret at all and you also seem to think that it takes a lot for them to fake it at all. No, it doesn't.

We live in an age of technology now in which reality itself can be faked and mimiced pretty easily to the untrained/uninformed eye. CGI technology, video editing technology, virtual reality technology, etc. Mix that with people unable to think that large groups of people could decieve you about this stuff and out pops people like you.

Now as for WHY they're lying or what's the point...

I'll be straight up with you. I have absolutely no clue why they're lying. But this doesn't mean they're not. I could lie right now and say I'm not really a human male, I'm actually a shapeshifting purple 800 pound platypus with fairy wings, a diaper for a hat, and lollipops sticking out of my ass.

In this scenario, it's obvious I'm lying. You don't know why I am, but I clearly am.

What are you talking about? IT HAS LEAKED OUT. It leaks out everywhere! You clearly just haven't taken the time to look. This isn't even a intelligently constructed hoax, it's so mindnumbingly stupid, it's one of the most questionable events in human history out there.

Despite the loud-mouths of those in mainstream media, moon landing deniers are not a small group. Though it is true that consensus does not prove reality, I only mention this to tell you that it's not as well covered up as you seem to think it is.

 

It rushes out due to exposure from the vacuum of space.

 

I'll get to you later.

 

To quote:

"The duty of the man who investigates the writings of scientists, if learning the truth is his goal, is to make himself an enemy of ALL that he reads, and attack it from every side. He should also suspect himself as he performs his critical examination of it, so that he may avoid falling into either prejudice or leniency."

-Alhazen.

The average person, including most modern-day scientists, DON'T do this. And we can talk about that, too.

 

Yay, we have a rocket! Wasn't that hard, was it?

 

This is... I don't... I don't even know where to begin with this one. If the ISS really was 250 miles up in the air, you still shouldn't be able to see it, regardless of whether or not it was "reflecting light".

Let me mention this example again, but this time, expand on it a little.

An airplane flies about 35,000 feet in the air, (which is actually less than 7.5 miles) and when you're that high in an airplane, you won't be able to see any kind of detail on the ground at all. Rivers and forests, maybe, but absolutely no specific details. Floodlights that sports stadiums use, extremely high intensity lights, are still extremely difficult to see at that height.

Converting 250 miles into feet, that's 1,320,000 feet above the Earth. Anything the size of a football stadium, I don't care how much light its "reflecting", you wouldn't see it at all. You can't even see football stadiums 6.6 miles in the air, which is 35,000 feet.

So either the ISS is significantly lower than they've said it is or that's not the ISS you're looking at.

I also want to point out something: I don't need a model to debunk yours. In other words, I don't have to know what is the light you're seeing to be able to show you that it's not the ISS. Models are merely pseudo-science stand-ins for the lack of a hypothesis.

I don't have to prove you're a human being to be able to tell you you're not a normal guy that was transformed into a lizardman that knows how to fight with an axe and a shield. The same applies here.

You're grasping at straws and making presuppositions since the principles would be the same. On a submarine, you don't want the pressure getting in. On the ISS, you don't want the pressure getting out. In both examples, it would be a constant battle against keeping the pressure where you want it to be.

On the ISS, it's supposedly incredibly complex technology (which is weird, since you'd think the construction of the ISS would be celebrated more, yet it barely is at all) spread out across roughly 57,000 feet. One little crack in that hull (especially when supposedly dealing with the problem of micro-meteoroids and other space debris) and you've got a major problem, no different than it would be on a submarine.

A submarine is a complicated ship with thousands of pumps, motors, generators, turbines, and valves that have to be kept in working order. When they are not on deployment, about once a quarter, submarines enter an upkeep or refit maintenance period, which lasts about four weeks, during which the submarine is repaired to full capability. After the maintenance period, submarines go to sea for "sea trials" where they test out the repaired systems, which normally includes a controlled dive down to test depth.

All of this being done by a crew of around 150 people, as stated earlier. So what about the ISS?

Well, the ISS has the FGB Zarya, Unity, 3 pressurized mating adapters, the service module Zvezda, the Z1 Truss, a P6 solar array, the Destiny Lab, Canadarm 2 and the Mobile Base System, airlocks, the Pirs Russia Docking Compartment, S0 Central Power Data Truss, the S1 Right Truss, the P1 Left Truss, etc, etc, etc.

Eh, here, here's more shit on how complex the technology of the ISS supposedly is:

Spoiler

Station systems

Life support

Main articles: ISS ECLSS and Chemical oxygen generator

The critical systems are the atmosphere control system, the water supply system, the food supply facilities, the sanitation and hygiene equipment, and fire detection and suppression equipment. The Russian Orbital Segment's life support systems are contained in the Service Module Zvezda. Some of these systems are supplemented by equipment in the USOS. The MLM Nauka laboratory has a complete set of life support systems.

Atmospheric control systems

The interactions between the components of the ISS Environmental Control and Life Support System (ECLSS)

The atmosphere on board the ISS is similar to the Earth's.

Normal air pressure on the ISS is 101.3 kPa (14.7 psi);

the same as at sea level on Earth. An Earth-like atmosphere offers benefits for crew comfort, and is much safer than the alternative, a pure oxygen atmosphere, because of the increased risk of a fire such as that responsible for the deaths of the Apollo 1 crew.

Earth-like atmospheric conditions have been maintained on all Russian and Soviet spacecraft.

The Elektron system aboard Zvezda and a similar system in Destiny generate oxygen aboard the station.

The crew has a backup option in the form of bottled oxygen and Solid Fuel Oxygen Generation (SFOG) canisters, a chemical oxygen generator system.

Carbon dioxide is removed from the air by the Vozdukh system in Zvezda. Other by-products of human metabolism, such as methane from the intestines and ammonia from sweat, are removed by activated charcoal filters.

Part of the ROS atmosphere control system is the oxygen supply, triple-redundancy is provided by the Elektron unit, solid fuel generators, and stored oxygen. The Elektron unit is the primary oxygen supply, O
2 and H
2 are produced by electrolysis, with the H
2 being vented overboard. The 1 kW system uses approximately 1 litre of water per crew member per day from stored water from Earth, or water recycled from other systems. MIR was the first spacecraft to use recycled water for oxygen production. The secondary oxygen supply is provided by burning O
2-producing Vika cartridges (see also ISS ECLSS). Each 'candle' takes 5–20 minutes to decompose at 450–500 °C, producing 600 litres of O
2. This unit is manually operated.

The US Orbital Segment has redundant supplies of oxygen, from a pressurised storage tank on the Quest airlock module delivered in 2001, supplemented ten years later by ESA built Advanced Closed-Loop System (ACLS) in the Tranquility module (Node 3), which produces O
2 by electrolysis.

Hydrogen produced is combined with carbon dioxide from the cabin atmosphere and converted to water and methane.

Power and thermal control

Main articles: Electrical system of the International Space Station and External Active Thermal Control System

Russian solar arrays, backlit by sunset.

One of the eight truss mounted pairs of USOS solar arrays

Double-sided solar, or Photovoltaic arrays, provide electrical power for the ISS. These bifacial cells are more efficient and operate at a lower temperature than single-sided cells commonly used on Earth, by collecting sunlight on one side and light reflected off the Earth on the other.

The Russian segment of the station, like the Space Shuttle and most spacecraft, uses 28 volt DC from four rotating solar arrays mounted on Zarya and Zvezda. The USOS uses 130–180 V DC from the USOS PV array, power is stabilised and distributed at 160 V DC and converted to the user-required 124 V DC. The higher distribution voltage allows smaller, lighter conductors, at the expense of crew safety. The ROS uses low voltage. The two station segments share power with converters.

The USOS solar arrays are arranged as four wing pairs, with each wing producing nearly 32.8 kW.

These arrays normally track the sun to maximise power generation. Each array is about 375 m

2

(450 yd

2

) in area and 58 metres (63 yd) long. In the complete configuration, the solar arrays track the sun by rotating the alpha gimbal once per orbit; the beta gimbalfollows slower changes in the angle of the sun to the orbital plane. The Night Glider mode aligns the solar arrays parallel to the ground at night to reduce the significant aerodynamic drag at the station's relatively low orbital altitude.

The station uses rechargeable nickel-hydrogen batteries (NiH

2

) for continuous power during the 35 minutes of every 90-minute orbit that it is eclipsed by the Earth. The batteries are recharged on the day side of the Earth. They have a 6.5-year lifetime (over 37,000 charge/discharge cycles) and will be regularly replaced over the anticipated 20-year life of the station.

The station's large solar panels generate a high potential voltage difference between the station and the ionosphere. This could cause arcing through insulating surfaces and sputtering of conductive surfaces as ions are accelerated by the spacecraft plasma sheath. To mitigate this, plasma contactor units (PCU)s create current paths between the station and the ambient plasma field.

ISS External Active Thermal Control System (EATCS) diagram

The large amount of electrical power consumed by the station's systems and experiments is turned almost entirely into heat. The heat which can be dissipated through the walls of the stations modules is insufficient to keep the internal ambient temperature within comfortable, workable limits. Ammonia is continuously pumped through pipework throughout the station to collect heat, then into external radiators where the fluid gives off infrared radiation, and back into the station to repeat the cycle over.

The International Space Station (ISS) External Active Thermal Control System (EATCS) maintains an equilibrium when the ISS environment or heat loads exceed the capabilities of the Passive Thermal Control System (PTCS). Note Elements of the PTCS are external surface materials, insulation such as MLI, or Heat Pipes. The EATCS provides heat rejection capabilities for all the US pressurised modules, including the JEM and COF as well as the main power distribution electronics of the S0, S1 and P1 Trusses. The EATCS consists of an internal, non-toxic, water coolant loop used to cool and dehumidify the atmosphere, which transfers collected heat into an external liquid ammonia loop capable of withstanding the much lower temperature of space, which is then circulated through radiators to remove the heat. The EATCS is capable of rejecting up to 70 kW, and provides a substantial upgrade in heat rejection capacity from the 14 kW capability of the Early External Active Thermal Control System (EEATCS) via the Early Ammonia Servicer (EAS), which was launched on STS-105 and installed onto the P6 Truss.

Yada, yada, yada, some bullshit on how complex it is, but let's say this is all true.

This is all supposed to be spread out across as something as big as a football field. You think you can justify to me their claims of having a crew of just 3 people with a machine like this, maintaining it in the most extreme environment known to man 365 days a year?

Okay.

So instead of actually providing something even remotely substantial to anything I just said, you take what I said, twist it to where it suits your "stance", and then parrot it back to me.



Well done. You really got me there. I mean, you're right. I'm completely full of it. I'm so speechless, you could hear a rat pissing on cotton.

Come on, man. You can do better than that. Teach me, dammit. Or at least, I'd like you to, but the next paragraph of yours really makes me want to look somewhere else:

So instead of considering anything I pointed out, you just shove it all away as "nitpicking". (also, bad camera angles are NOT definite proof, nobody said that, it's just evidence)

Then instead of actually doing any kind of arguing, you just give me links to websites that you're not even completely sure of yourself! If you're going to doubt these websites for being useful in any kind of debate, but still use them anyway, then I don't see a reason to continue speaking to you.

It also tells me that you're more interested in just arguing rather than showing me anything useful. Who shoots back two links to websites they're "not 100% sure about" in response?

This conversation is over. I'll talk to the other two, perhaps they'll give me something a little more interesting.