Is it possible that NASA faked the moon landing?

SunnyJim · May 30, 2016

Dr.Pecker said:
Post them and point out the flaws. If you do what you say show us why they're fake, it should be easy for you.

Seems like you could use one of these right about now:

Dr.Pecker · May 30, 2016

SunnyJim said:
Seems like you could use one of these right about now:

View attachment 3695689

I'm totally convinced now thanks. Nobody wants this shit to be more real than me but sometimes you have to pick through the crap to find a worm.

eye exaggerate · May 30, 2016

Dr.Pecker said:
Post them and point out the flaws. If you do what you say show us why they're fake, it should be easy for you.

Get me the originals.

Also, very easy to point out the flaws. Post one and I'll show you. I'll be back here in a bit.

Mellowman2112 · May 30, 2016

Where is the fucking blast crater? I want answers. We have been scammed for billions yet everyone goes and votes and thinks all is hunky dory in the world.

Kasuti · May 30, 2016

My father-in-law helped to design and build the llm for Apollo 11-13. We went to the moon and are still there.

Mellowman2112 · May 30, 2016

Kasuti said:
My father-in-law helped to design and build the llm for Apollo 11-13. We went to the moon and are still there.

This thing made out of plywood, foil and shower rods?

Mellowman2112 · May 30, 2016

Mellowman2112 said:
This thing made out of plywood, foil and shower rods?

Where is the blast crater from the 10,000 pounds of rocket thrust?

Mellowman2112 · May 30, 2016

Look at the feet of the lander, they are spotless. Where is the moon dust from the lander's rocket blast?

Kasuti · May 31, 2016

Mellowman2112 said:
Where is the blast crater from the 10,000 pounds of rocket thrust?

It did not use 10,000lbs of thrust to land in on a satellite planet with only one sixth the gravity of earth. Also keep in mind that the cameras from that time period were not the high definition cameras that we have now.

Mellowman2112 · May 31, 2016

Kasuti said:
It did not use 10,000lbs of thrust to land in on a satellite planet with only one sixth the gravity of earth. Also keep in mind that the cameras from that time period were not the high definition cameras that we have now.

I see, thanks for your response. The specs say 10000 lbs of thrust, do you think maybe they only used a few thousand pounds of thrust? That reminds me about the cameras. I don't think the cellulose film would have resisted the 260 degree temps on the moon when the sun is ''up''.

Kasuti · May 31, 2016

Mellowman2112 said:
I see, thanks for your response. The specs say 10000 lbs of thrust, do you think maybe they only used a few thousand pounds of thrust? That reminds me about the cameras. I don't think the cellulose film would have resisted the 260 degree temps on the moon when the sun is ''up''.

the llm used liquid propellant thrusters and were able to be throttled back whereas the Saturn 5 main boosters were solid propellant engines that went full throttle from the moment of firing till thy ran out of fuel

Mellowman2112 · May 31, 2016

Kasuti said:
the llm used liquid propellant thrusters and were able to be throttled back whereas the Saturn 5 main boosters were solid propellant engines that went full throttle from the moment of firing till thy ran out of fuel

Yes helium according to NASA's site. With 10,500 pounds of max thrust.

Padawanbater2 · May 31, 2016

Is it possible that NASA faked the moon landing?

No, not without believing in a global conspiracy theory without evidence

You can see the markings left by astronauts with technical enough equipment. The LRRR module left by the crew of Apollo 11 is absolute proof that we landed on the Moon in 1969

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment

tyler.durden · May 31, 2016

Padawanbater2 said:
No, not without believing in a global conspiracy theory without evidence

You can see the markings left by astronauts with technical enough equipment. The LRRR module left by the crew of Apollo 11 is absolute proof that we landed on the Moon in 1969

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment

Hey Pad. If this is your first time posting in either this or the worst thread in RIU History (the flat earth thread), you are probably in for quite a shock. The mixture of delusion, ignorance, and arrogance is unlike anything I've ever witnessed. These threads have actually made me a little nauseous, but like the aftermath of a horrible car crash, it's difficult to look away. Facts, logic, and science mean nothing here. I'm looking forward to your reaction after your participation, it is a new low...

Padawanbater2 · May 31, 2016

tyler.durden said:
Hey Pad. If this is your first time posting in either this or the worst thread in RIU History (the flat earth thread), you are probably in for quite a shock. The mixture of delusion, ignorance, and arrogance is unlike anything I've ever witnessed. These threads have actually made me a little nauseous, but like the aftermath of a horrible car crash, it's difficult to look away. Facts, logic, and science mean nothing here. I'm looking forward to your reaction after your participation, it is a new low...

lol threads like these and Shaggy's 9/11 thread are hilarious. I like to venture out into the absurd every once in a while

Nobody got time for bullshit though, so I'm ready for some reasoned, well thought out arguments against landing on the Moon, and I probably made a huge mistake, but fuck it

SunnyJim · May 31, 2016

Mellowman2112 said:
Where is the blast crater from the 10,000 pounds of rocket thrust?

Read the thread. These silly questions have been asked and answered.

https://www.rollitup.org/t/is-it-possible-that-nasa-faked-the-moon-landing.885189/page-29#post-11971589

Rrog · May 31, 2016

It's a bonafide medical delusion. Amazing.

tangerinegreen555 · May 31, 2016

tyler.durden said:
Hey Pad. If this is your first time posting in either this or the worst thread in RIU History (the flat earth thread), you are probably in for quite a shock. The mixture of delusion, ignorance, and arrogance is unlike anything I've ever witnessed. These threads have actually made me a little nauseous, but like the aftermath of a horrible car crash, it's difficult to look away. Facts, logic, and science mean nothing here. I'm looking forward to your reaction after your participation, it is a new low...

Yeah... Gives 'Deez Nutz' a whole new meaning...

cannabineer · May 31, 2016

Mellowman2112 said:
Yes helium according to NASA's site. With 10,500 pounds of max thrust.

Helium at high pressures (not forces) was used to pressurize the actual propellants. N2O4 and MMH iirc. Engine was throttlable form 10 to 60 per cent rated thrust. Kids these days.

Mellowman2112 · May 31, 2016

SunnyJim said:
Not according to math.

The engine bell was 63in across, with an area of roughly 3100 in sq. If the engine was producing 3000 ft-lbs of thrust nearing the lunar surface, that would make the pressure 1.03 ft-lb per sq inch, or a psi of 1.03. That's less pressure than the average human footprint.

The pictures do show bare lunar surface under the engine bell, and some scorching. The simple fact is that there was insufficient exhaust pressure to move much more than fine dust at touchdown.

So, where is the find dust that should be covering the entire lander at 1/6 gravity. The feet of the lander are pristine, I could eat off of them.

Is it possible that NASA faked the moon landing?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Ursus marijanus

Well-Known Member