http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/64711...ushpmg00000023
Printable View
I love NDT... But I lost a little respect for him when Rogan asked about the fake moon landings. His response was an amazingly unscientific "Just look how big that Saturn rocket was, they built it big enough to go to the moon!".
Meanwhile ignoring the fact that a craft on the moon that wanted to achieve escape velocity to be able to dock with a craft in stationary orbit around the moon would need to achieve a velocity of 2400 m/sec (escape velocity of the moon, per wikipedia). In other words, you need a massive rocket to get away from the moon's gravity, which they obviously didn't have.
Here is a video of the lunar lander lifting off: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMBcLg0DkLA
And we are told to believe it somehow achieved 2400 m/sec velocity? not to mention that it obviously lifts off with linear velocity (instead of velocity being affected by acceleration of a rocket).
The whole lunar landing thing is such a joke, yet NDT felt compelled to tow the bullshit party-line.
I still love the guy, but I was hoping for more from him.
I'm surprised that being a wrestler and knowing Joe he doesn't have interest in jiu jitsu. I'm sure he'd love it
Beast !!
Yea I wanna listen to the podcast and see if Joe tried to sell him on it.Quote:
Originally Posted by hespectnogi
\Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Murray
I'm assuming this view of the lunar landing module STILL on the moon is fake as well?
http://www.space.com/14874-apollo-11...oon-photo.html
The other thing I don't get about people who think the moon landings were fake. There were 6 landings over a 3 year period. Wouldn't it be impossible to fake this 6 times without real proof of it being fake getting out? The only "proof" that we have of it being fake are images with "questionable" shadows. Nobody has ever found the 6 studios used to film the landings. Nobody has ever found the actual fake footage with actors walking on set. How could you fake something 6 times over a 3 year period and not have it be exposed?
This is a common argument used when trying to assert that 17 Saudi's and a dude in a cave blew up WTC1,2, and 7. As far as it "not being exposed", it has been exposed... the fact that we're talking about it proves that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ric
Also notice that you have changed my argument from the basic physics involved in achieving a stable orbit to something about photographs and shadows, which I never mentioned.
Obviously this isn't the right "forum" for a real debate over things like moon landing fakery, or 911 truth. The truth about all those things is out there. Investigate if you want, or don't. Believe what you want.
As a science major who is also fond of conspiracies, I saw absolutely nothing wrong with Neil and Joe's discussion about the moon landings. The only bit that actually seemed unanswerable was the flag movement as the astronaut bounced by.
SO obviously you believe that the USSR was in on it? Otherwise them (and many other nations) would have exposed it as fake. So was it part of a global conspiracy in your view?Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Murray