Tweet
I consider the facts you present and give them due note. Do you want a gold star for each factual error you identify? 
On a serious note, your partial rebuttal of lost information (rover/rocket plans, etc.) is interesting, but it doesn't change the fact that still a huge amount of what I would consider very important original footage and data was simply 'misplaced'. Weird!
Also true that it is very easy to get moon rocks because there are plenty here on earth. In fact NASA took a little publicized trip to Antarctica shortly before Apollo 11. Guess what kind of rocks are very easy to find there?
I challenged two basic presumptions at the outset. That there isn't enough money - when there obviously is. And that there's no reason to go, because only the first walk mattered. The latter argument is falsified by the fact that we went there 6 ****ing times, and for several years despite having already won the much-hyped Space Race for Big Dicks. We were, conveniently, being distracted by these five unnecessary "sloppy seconds" missions from a brutal genocide commonly known as the Vietnam War.
Here is a compelling video of Apollo footage which clearly shows the astronauts creating misleading film. Interesting part starts ~7:30 and goes into part 5.
They have, fairly elaborately, framed an earth shot to look as though they are halfway to the moon (thereabouts), but when they pan out and turn on the lights, you can see in the window that the earth is very close, and they are no further than low earth orbit! They did this several times. Why would they do that? Maybe because a huge and deadly radiation belt exists and prevents humans from safely flying to the moon in 1960s origami-style technology?
The time stamp on the video also conflicts with the official Apollo timeline. Weird!
Just to be clear, I am open to both the idea that we did land on the moon, or that we did not. I am not so cowed by prevailing orthodoxy or the stomping herd to challenge popular ideas. As with many other unpopular ideas I present, people take the opportunity to satisfy their strong emotional need for peer-acceptance with redundant and otherwise pointless "me too!" declarations.
On a serious note, your partial rebuttal of lost information (rover/rocket plans, etc.) is interesting, but it doesn't change the fact that still a huge amount of what I would consider very important original footage and data was simply 'misplaced'. Weird!
Also true that it is very easy to get moon rocks because there are plenty here on earth. In fact NASA took a little publicized trip to Antarctica shortly before Apollo 11. Guess what kind of rocks are very easy to find there?
I challenged two basic presumptions at the outset. That there isn't enough money - when there obviously is. And that there's no reason to go, because only the first walk mattered. The latter argument is falsified by the fact that we went there 6 ****ing times, and for several years despite having already won the much-hyped Space Race for Big Dicks. We were, conveniently, being distracted by these five unnecessary "sloppy seconds" missions from a brutal genocide commonly known as the Vietnam War.
Here is a compelling video of Apollo footage which clearly shows the astronauts creating misleading film. Interesting part starts ~7:30 and goes into part 5.
They have, fairly elaborately, framed an earth shot to look as though they are halfway to the moon (thereabouts), but when they pan out and turn on the lights, you can see in the window that the earth is very close, and they are no further than low earth orbit! They did this several times. Why would they do that? Maybe because a huge and deadly radiation belt exists and prevents humans from safely flying to the moon in 1960s origami-style technology?
The time stamp on the video also conflicts with the official Apollo timeline. Weird!
Just to be clear, I am open to both the idea that we did land on the moon, or that we did not. I am not so cowed by prevailing orthodoxy or the stomping herd to challenge popular ideas. As with many other unpopular ideas I present, people take the opportunity to satisfy their strong emotional need for peer-acceptance with redundant and otherwise pointless "me too!" declarations.
Comment