You still argue with stuff you really do not have much idea about.
One guy, who wanted to find out whether the phony landing was true or false, went to the space museums in DC and TX to take measures of the command module and lunar module on display. He concluded that it is impossible for the astronauts to perform the tasks shown on the TV in those modules. Check out his video on youtube. His name is ... Collier.
My expertise is probability. It is impossible for NASA to conduct manned Moon landing successfully on the first try.
Strange thing really happens: one of my post in this threat got one "thumb up" last night. Then that post was deleted this morning.
I wonder whether there full-time paid staff really inspecting these Yahoo board. It does not look like they are Yahoo employees. So who are they? Who paid them?
If you really want to find out whether I am wrong or right, just do some research on your own.
The manned LANDING did not happen due to the fact that there was no test with the lunar module on the Moon surface. It cannot be true if one wants to preserve the lives of the human astronauts.
I did not say that those powerful rockets did not send the astronauts to the Earth orbit. I only said that the men did not LAND on the moon.
By the way, all I say is that the manned Moon LANDING part did not happen. I do not have judgment on whether those astronauts were sent to the Lunar orbit or waited on the Earth orbit. But they have never LANDED on the Moon surface.
(1) I understand the programming that we all had been subject to. I know that it is hard. It took me about two years to fully process this notion in my mind.
(2) There is a guy who actually went to the space museums in DC and TX, and tool measures of the command module and lunar module on display. He concluded that what was shown on TV was impossible for the astronauts to perform in those modules on display. Check out youtube for his video.
(3) To me, I exam only the probability. From 1959 to 1967, NASA sent more than 40 robotic probes to the Moon, most of them failed until 1966. Manned mission is arguable many times more complicated than unmanned ones. What is the probability of a manned mission to be successful on its first try?
Getting punch in the face is nothing compared to getting brainwashed without realizing it.
Just use plain and simple logic:
It takes more than seven years and more than 30 failure for the unmanned probes to soft-land successfully. Only three years after that, the manned landing succeeded in the first try. They did not even tried to test the Lunar module without astronaut on the Moon before sending Men in it.
Forget about the programming, use your brain and logic. ;-))
Despite what are said on TV and Text Books, the manned Moon lending probably never happen, due to the following simple logic:
The space exploration is very risky business. From 1959-1966, US suffered more than 30 failures before it successfully soft-landed a unmanned probe onto the surface of the Moon.
The manned mission is probably many times more complicated than the unmanned ones: it requires the preservation of the life of the astronauts and the relaunch of the Lunar Module from the Moon surface to Lunar Orbit. Yet, Apollo 11 is said to have done the successful soft-landing and relaunching from the moon surface in the first try.
I did not see enough failure in the manned mission for me to believe that men actually landed on the Moon.
The logic is quite straight forward:
It look more than thirty failure between 1959 and 1966 for US to finally soft-landed a robotic prob on the surface of Moon in 1966.
The manned mission is probably one hundred times more complicated than the unmanned mission. Yet, it was successful in the first try in 1969. Space exploration is risky business. There were not enough failure for me to believe that Apollo program landed men on the moon.
That is common sense, I guess. ;-))
and information from the social media.
It is that obvious. ;-)))))
France said Non!
Will Germany say Nein! I am not sure because, like Japan, it is a subjugated state, as the result of WWII. How can a subjugated slave to say Nein! to its master? ;-))
France said Non! Germany will likely say Nein! to US's request for EU to commit economic suicide.
Obviously, UK and US work together on this.
Obama said recently that we live in a very complex world. He got that right. We live in a unnecessarily complex world. ;-)))
US and UK might want to see Germany and Russia get crippled again, like they were during the WW II. I wonder who supported Adolf Hitler to power? He was not royal, not well educated, not wealthy, and not even a great soldier. Maybe because he had destructive tendency and he hated communists.
So now the script is reused again. I hope that we collectively have learned the lesson and will not make the same mistake again.
US and UK want EU led by Germany and France to commit suicide so that US Dollar can still maintain its dominant global reserve currency status for longer. Will Germany bow to the pressure??
MH370 lost all communication with the ground and then disappeared.
Could it be that MH17 also lost transponder signal and other communication contact typical to a commercial passenger airline minutes before it was shot down?
As we learned from MH370 investigation, it is possible for the ground crew to have total control of airplane in case of emergency such as hijacking. The question is only how the "total control" algorithm would be triggered: by somebody in the cockpit manually, or by remotely also?
On the surface, US wants to push for tougher and crippling sanction against Russia. But upon further analysis, it is obvious that the ultimate targets are not Putin or Russian Economy, but Germany, EU economy, and EURO instead.
EURO is the only viable competitor to US Dollar as the global reserve currency. In order to defend US Dollar in light of the establishment of BRICS development bank, EURO must give, I guess. Some people tend to see this a "zero-sum" game.
We all know that US has sophisticated satellites and radars deployed all over the world so that it can reach a conclusion on MH17 within 24 hours. But what about MH370?
We can only assume that US has intel on the MH370 probably also within 24 hours. but somehow did not want to disclose to public. Why?
It does not take a genius to see the connection between MH370 and MH17. According to Boeing website, since 9/11, all the Boeing commercial jets have been upgraded with a control system which allows the ground crew to remote control the plane in case of a hijack or other emergency. The document is available on Boeing website. My impression is that somebody in the cockpit has to manually engage such function and give total control to the ground crew. But, a "back door" program, in my view, could be installed in the system to allow the ground crew remotely activate the "total control" option without the consent of pilots in the cockpit. Somebody could have infiltrated the Malaysian Air maintenance crew to have installed the software containing the "back-door". Or the "back-door" is present in all Boeing commercial jets, but only Malaysian Airlines was selected to be the victims.
It is highly likely that MH17 was indeed shot down by the Rebel, only because the transponder and other communication system might have been turned off so that it would not appear as commercial passenger jet on the radar screen.
The other interesting point is that, within 24 hours of downing of MH17, US has had all the information within 24 hours. based on ample intelligence allegedly collected through sophisticated satellite and radar systems. Then one might wonder what happened to MH730? US might have the information but simply did not have the political incentive to make it public. Why?
I heard that. But I am not sure it is disinformation or not.
There was rumor about how MH370 and MH17 somehow are connected. But to me, it really looks strange that two major incidences are associated with Malaysian Airline within four months. I guess I will wait for the investigation.