Jump to content

Insert Cricket Chirping Here


Recommended Posts

Well, there is a lot of evidence on both sides, so I like to keep a pretty open mind when it comes to these things, but I just don't trust the government.

Lou Gutman, P.I.- It's like I'm not even trying anymore!
http://theatomicdanger.iforumer.com/index....theatomicdanger

One billion b-balls dribbling simultaneously throughout the galaxy. One trillion b-balls being slam dunked through a hoop throughout the galaxy. I can feel every single b-ball that has ever existed at my fingertips. I can feel their collective knowledge channeling through my viens. Every jumpshot, every rebound and three-pointer, every layup, dunk, and free throw. I am there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, there is a lot of evidence on both sides, so I like to keep a pretty open mind when it comes to these things, but I just don't trust the government.

 

No, there isn't. There is no evidence that the Moon Landings did not take place. Absolutely none. All the claims made by those that propose the hoax theory can be shown to be false or unscientific.

 

 

Something I remembered. It is true that we can't see the flag from Earth, but there is something. The astronauts placed mirrors on the moon. If you get the positions of those mirrors, and point a laser at them, your laser will come right back to you, proving the existence of something reflective placed at an angle and position so precise that really the only logical explanation is that someone put it there. These mirrors were used by scientists to make the recorded distance between the Earth and the moon more accurate.

Hawk! Eggplant! AWAKEN!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, there is a lot of evidence on both sides, so I like to keep a pretty open mind when it comes to these things, but I just don't trust the government.

 

No, there isn't. There is no evidence that the Moon Landings did not take place. Absolutely none. All the claims made by those that propose the hoax theory can be shown to be false or unscientific.

 

 

Something I remembered. It is true that we can't see the flag from Earth, but there is something. The astronauts placed mirrors on the moon. If you get the positions of those mirrors, and point a laser at them, your laser will come right back to you, proving the existence of something reflective placed at an angle and position so precise that really the only logical explanation is that someone put it there. These mirrors were used by scientists to make the recorded distance between the Earth and the moon more accurate.

 

 

That sounds like something the government would say...

Lou Gutman, P.I.- It's like I'm not even trying anymore!
http://theatomicdanger.iforumer.com/index....theatomicdanger

One billion b-balls dribbling simultaneously throughout the galaxy. One trillion b-balls being slam dunked through a hoop throughout the galaxy. I can feel every single b-ball that has ever existed at my fingertips. I can feel their collective knowledge channeling through my viens. Every jumpshot, every rebound and three-pointer, every layup, dunk, and free throw. I am there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
How do they aim the lasers?

 

The mirrors are arranged in a corner fashion (like an inside corner of a rectangular box, with the three reflectors on the inside of the corner). Thismeans that whatever angle your laster hits the mirror, it'll come back out at the same angle. Thus, you just have to know where on the moon to aim for (NASA would provide you with the co-ordinates of the mirror), and then you point the laser at those co ordinates on the moon, and if your laser comes back, you're aiming right. I imagine they would aim it with come sort of machanical contraption that could respond to point at the co-ordinates fed into it in the same way that large ground-based telescopes do.

 

EDIT:

 

That sounds like something the government would say...

 

Perhaps, but if you'd like to give me an example of the 'evidence' against the landing, I'd be happy to explain it for you.

Hawk! Eggplant! AWAKEN!

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Pictures

NASA have never offered any explanation whatsoever for the numerous

errors in the photographs, despite repeated questioning.

These errors include:

The Apollo 11 pictures show the ground in the distance being much darker

than the ground in the foreground, as if the Astronauts were standing in

a pool of light.

 

Several photos show evidence of extra lighting (as a professional photographer

would use fill-in lights) but no such lights were supposed to have been

used.

 

Some photos clearly show the light coming from "impossible"

angles. In one instance, Aldrin's boot is lit from below as he descends

the ladder.

 

Some photos contradict the TV camera pictures of the same events.

 

Some photos of one astronaut taken by the other are clearly taken from

slightly above the eye level of the subject, but in his visor, the reflection

of the astronaut with the camera shows it being held at chest level.

 

The length of the shadows in the Apollo 12 pictures don't agree with

the angle which the Sun should have been at.

 

Some wide area photos show shadows pointing in different directions.

 

In the sound recording of the lunar landing, you cannot hear the sound

of the engines. As the astronaut calls out the remaining distance to the

surface, he is only a few feet away from a rocket engine which should have

been producing 10000 lb of thrust.

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

The sounds

The major point which has helped convince me that the moon landing was faked was the fact that when the control room asked a question to the Astronoughts the replies were instant with no delays. This seems strange as even with technology in the 1990's there is a delay from satellite links from the UK to the US. There is about a 0.7 second delay from London to California so how is it possible for instant replies from the Moon ?

There is also evidence that when people go into space that there voice goes tense although the Astronaughts voices have been analyzed and found to be normal, and 7/10 people said it sounded like someone reading from a script.

 

When Houston are talking to the module you should not be able to hear the responses at least when the module is landing and the infamous "eagle has landed" quote, this is due to the noise that should have been created by the rocket motor which generates several hundred thousand pounds of thrust 20 ft below the astronaughts. The noise would have completely drowned

the vocals out.

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

The Radiation

An American author has researched and found out that he believes the Apollo Spacecraft would have needed to be two meters thick to prevent cosmic radiation from cooking the Astronaughts inside.

Also in addition to the radiation protection for the astronaughts similar protection would be required for the films + cameras, NASA's official explanation of how the films were protected was that the cameras were painted with a coat of aluminum paint,

yeah right.

http://web.archive.org/web/20010407065641/...moonlanding.htm

 

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

 

9 SPACE ODDITIES:

 

1. Apollo 14 astronaut Allen Shepard played golf on the Moon. In front of a worldwide TV audience, Mission Control teased him about slicing the ball to the right. Yet a slice is caused by uneven air flow over the ball. The Moon has no atmosphere and no air.

 

2. A camera panned upwards to catch Apollo 16's Lunar Landerlifting off the Moon. Who did the filming?

 

3. One NASA picture from Apollo 11 is looking up at Neil Armstrong about to take his giant step for mankind. The photographer must have been lying on the planet surface. If Armstrong was the first man on the Moon, then who took the shot?

 

4. The pressure inside a space suit was greater than inside a football. The astronauts should have been puffed out like the Michelin Man, but were seen freely bending their joints.

 

5. The Moon landings took place during the Cold War. Why didn't America make a signal on the moon that could be seen from earth? The PR would have been phenomenal and it could have been easily done with magnesium flares.

 

6. Text from pictures in the article said that only two men walked on the Moon during the Apollo 12 mission. Yet the astronaut reflected in the visor has no camera. Who took the shot?

 

7. The flags shadow goes behind the rock so doesn't match the dark line in the foreground, which looks like a line cord. So the shadow to the lower right of the spaceman must be the flag. Where is his shadow? And why is the flag fluttering if there is no air or wind on the moon?

 

8. How can the flag be brightly lit when its side is to the light? And where, in all of these shots, are the stars?

 

9. The Lander weighed 17 tons yet the astronauts feet seem to have made a bigger dent in the dust. The powerful booster rocket at the base of the Lunar Lander was fired to slow descent to the moons service. Yet it has left no traces of blasting on the dust underneath. It should have created a small crater, yet the booster looks like it's never been fired.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Because of all the quotes, I'm going to split this up so it diplays right. Nice cut 'n' paste job, by the way, Ender.

 

The Pictures

NASA have never offered any explanation whatsoever for the numerous

errors in the photographs, despite repeated questioning.

These errors include:

The Apollo 11 pictures show the ground in the distance being much darker

than the ground in the foreground, as if the Astronauts were standing in

a pool of light.

 

Several photos show evidence of extra lighting (as a professional photographer

would use fill-in lights) but no such lights were supposed to have been

used.

 

This is the moon's surface, which is white(ish), reflecting into the shadows, creating fill in.

 

Some photos clearly show the light coming from "impossible"

angles. In one instance, Aldrin's boot is lit from below as he descends

the ladder.

 

Moon is Reflective.

 

Some photos contradict the TV camera pictures of the same events.

 

Such as?

 

Some photos of one astronaut taken by the other are clearly taken from

slightly above the eye level of the subject, but in his visor, the reflection

of the astronaut with the camera shows it being held at chest level.

 

The Moon is not Flat. The photos were taken on an incline.

 

The length of the shadows in the Apollo 12 pictures don't agree with

the angle which the Sun should have been at.

 

Most likely an issue of projecting a 3D surface onto a 2D image, but could you show me them?

 

Some wide area photos show shadows pointing in different directions.

 

This is the result of perspective. Because distances become distorted as you get further from the camera, shadows going in the same direction appear to be going in different directions. If there was more than one light source in these pictures, objects would have more than one shadow, which we never see in the pictures.

 

In the sound recording of the lunar landing, you cannot hear the sound

of the engines. As the astronaut calls out the remaining distance to the

surface, he is only a few feet away from a rocket engine which should have

been producing 10000 lb of thrust.

 

How much sound does a rocket in a vacuum make?

Hawk! Eggplant! AWAKEN!

Link to post
Share on other sites
The sounds

The major point which has helped convince me that the moon landing was faked was the fact that when the control room asked a question to the Astronoughts the replies were instant with no delays. This seems strange as even with technology in the 1990's there is a delay from satellite links from the UK to the US. There is about a 0.7 second delay from London to California so how is it possible for instant replies from the Moon ?

 

When you listen to the recordings, you can hear these delays, and they do come between the control room asking a question and recieving an answer. There is no delay, however, between the Astronaut saying something, and mission control responding. This is because it is being recorded from the control room, where Control can respond instantaneously.

 

There is also evidence that when people go into space that there voice goes tense although the Astronaughts voices have been analyzed and found to be normal, and 7/10 people said it sounded like someone reading from a script.

 

That's silly. If Niel Armstrong was reading from a script, why did he mess up his lines? He intended to say "That's one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind", when you listen to him say it, you can hear the beat of silence when he realises mid-sentence that he screwed it up, before he decided to finish the line anyway. That sort of mistake to me sounds like someone who definitely isn't at ease.

 

When Houston are talking to the module you should not be able to hear the responses at least when the module is landing and the infamous "eagle has landed" quote, this is due to the noise that should have been created by the rocket motor which generates several hundred thousand pounds of thrust 20 ft below the astronaughts. The noise would have completely drowned

the vocals out.

 

The rocket was turned off before they landed.

 

The Radiation

An American author has researched and found out that he believes the Apollo Spacecraft would have needed to be two meters thick to prevent cosmic radiation from cooking the Astronaughts inside.

 

Yet plenty of scientists have researched it aand come to the conclusion that you can pass through the Van Allen Belts on the way to the moon and only absorb 1 rem of radiation.

 

Also in addition to the radiation protection for the astronaughts similar protection would be required for the films + cameras, NASA's official explanation of how the films were protected was that the cameras were painted with a coat of aluminum paint,

yeah right.

http://web.archive.org/web/20010407065641/...moonlanding.htm

 

The film and cemeras didn't bake because the Landings all took place on Lunar mornings, when the radiation is at its lowest. Had the landings taken place at Lunar Noon, you bet the Astronauts and their film would have fried.

Hawk! Eggplant! AWAKEN!

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 SPACE ODDITIES:

 

1.  Apollo 14 astronaut Allen Shepard played golf on the Moon. In front of a worldwide TV audience, Mission Control teased him about slicing the ball to the right. Yet a slice is caused by uneven air flow over the ball. The Moon has no atmosphere and no air.

 

Perhaps technically. On the other hand, Mission Control just might have been using it as an informal term about him having a poor aim.

 

2.  A camera panned upwards to catch Apollo 16's Lunar Landerlifting off the Moon.  Who did the filming?

 

A remote control camera mounted on the Lunar Rover, which was left behind.

 

3.  One NASA picture from Apollo 11 is looking up at Neil Armstrong about to take his giant step for mankind. The photographer must have been lying on the planet surface. If Armstrong was the first man on the Moon, then who took the shot?

 

A Camera mounted on an arm that extended from the lowar part of the module.

 

4.  The pressure inside a space suit was greater than inside a football. The astronauts should have been puffed out like the Michelin Man, but were seen freely bending their joints.

 

Spacesuit pressure is about 4.3 psi. Standard air pressure is what, 14 psi?

 

5.  The Moon landings took place during the Cold War. Why didn't America make a signal on the moon that could be seen from earth? The PR would have been phenomenal and it could have been easily done with magnesium flares.

 

Come on! What sort of question is this? If we're going to start playing politics, what about the fact that at the height of the Cold War, not a single soviet official pointed out that it is impossible to go to the moon because of supposed radiation? The PR would have been phenomenal!

 

6.  Text from pictures in the article said that only two men walked on the Moon during the Apollo 12 mission. Yet the astronaut reflected in the visor has no camera. Who took the shot?

 

I'd like to see this picture, please.

 

7.  The flags shadow goes behind the rock so doesn't match the dark line in the foreground, which looks like a line cord. So the shadow to the lower right of the spaceman must be the flag. Where is his shadow? And why is the flag fluttering if there is no air or wind on the moon?

 

Which picture is this? The flag is fluttering because the flg is being held up by a crossbar across the top. It is only partially extended so as to make it look as if it is fluttering.

 

8.  How can the flag be brightly lit when its side is to the light? And where, in all of these shots, are the stars?

 

The stars are insufficiently bright to be picked up on a camera designed to take pictures of people standing on a white surface.

 

9.  The Lander weighed 17 tons yet the astronauts feet seem to have made a bigger dent in the dust. The powerful booster rocket at the base of the Lunar Lander was fired to slow descent to the moons service. Yet it has left no traces of blasting on the dust underneath. It should have created a small crater, yet the booster looks like it's never been fired.

 

There is no dust under the lander, only rock, this was due to the rocket's force blowing it away. However, there is no crater because the rocket was throttled down before the eagle landed (though whether a rocket with a thrust of 10,500lbs would create a crater anyway is a matter for debate). Also, the lander did not land vertically, it skidded to a halt, so the force was in any case dissipated somewhat.

Hawk! Eggplant! AWAKEN!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, there is a lot of evidence on both sides, so I like to keep a pretty open mind when it comes to these things, but I just don't trust the government.

 

 

Evidence on both sides?

 

I can't think of any evidence that supports the moon landing as a hoax.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Attempting to play devil's advocate, I posted some stuff above regarding flaws in the pictures taken on the moon. I can provide links where professional experts decry the pictures to be faked.

 

I've also seen someone break down the physics of the video footage. They claimed the low-gravity was faked by slowing down the video feed to make it seem like you fell slower. They also said the way that dust floated was inconsistent, and that the flag fluttered as if wind were blowing on it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Several professional photography experts have claimed that without a doubt the photographs were faked. Yet your amateur opinion without seeing the photographs is that these things can be explained.

 

WHAT?!

 

 

Ender Ender Ender..........tsk tsk tsk.

 

 

In any case, take a peek at this

 

In any case, I have seen the video of him putting the flag up. Odd, that it's fluttering WHILE trying to drive the thing into the ground. Who would have thought that by moving the pole, the flage itself might move.

 

 

Add this to the fact that somehow, the government was able to keep something so huge and so big underwraps, despite the Soviets trying to do the same thing and getting beaten.

 

As for the radiation of the Van Allen belts...Van Allen himself said that the duration of a trip through the belts would not be sufficient to get radiation poisoning.

 

 

The inconsistency of the dust floating, is that it didn't float. It has a nice parabolic motion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, there is a lot of evidence on both sides, so I like to keep a pretty open mind when it comes to these things, but I just don't trust the government.

 

 

Evidence on both sides?

 

I can't think of any evidence that supports the moon landing as a hoax.

I watched 2 shows in Aus in a relativley short period of time, one was saying the moon landings were fake and the other saying they were real.

 

Both had pretty covincing arguements.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Which professional experts would these be?

 

Given that we also have "professional experts" that say Climate change is occurring, and other "professional experts" that say climate change isn't occurring.

 

 

How many of these professional experts have taken photographs on the moon?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another good read

 

This one is a case by case study of hoaxes in general, rather than just looking at Fox's "documentary."

 

He has many links to the photos that "prove" the lack of moon landings.

 

 

 

This quote I liked the most (so far, as I'm not done reading it):

 

Orbiting spacecraft and satellites are easily visible to the naked eye; in fact, there are many people who enjoy tracking satellites as a hobby (I have personally seen many satellites, including Mir and the Space Shuttle). The Apollo spacecraft were large vehicles, thus bright and easy to see. Had the Apollos not left orbit, they would have been observed by many people worldwide, yet there where no such sightings. Also, there are documented cases of observers following the Apollos as they left Earth orbit on their translunar trajectories - exactly when and where the spacecraft were predicted to be. Furthermore, the Soviets closely tracked the Apollos all the way to the Moon and back.
Link to post
Share on other sites

When you listen to someone making the case for the landings being a hoax, it does sound very convincing, but I've heard someone making the case for the Earth being flat, and he sounded equally convincing. I don't have the time or the expertise to sift through the evidence myself. However, I don't believe it was a hoax. There are too many people who could expose it quite easily, and yet they haven't. It would only take one person who worked at NASA to come out and say it was a hoax for the whole thing to collapse. It would have been an insane risk for the US government at the time of the Cold War, and most importantly, the technology for a moon landing did exist at the time. Losing astronauts' lives if the technology failed would have been bad, but not as bad as having a hoax exposed. Lastly, the US government simply isn't that good at keeping secrets. It's good at spinning events and making bad seem good, blurring the issue and so on, but not very good at telling this kind of lie.

"An electric puddle is not what I need right now." (Nina Kalenkov)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Which professional experts would these be?

 

Given that we also have "professional experts" that say Climate change is occurring, and other "professional experts" that say climate change isn't occurring.

 

 

How many of these professional experts have taken photographs on the moon?

 

ah good old Global Warming....

 

i remember in the early 90's these "professional experts" thought we were heading towards another ice age....

when your mind works against you - fight back with substance abuse!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Winters here in Nebraska just aren't what they used to be, we have record heat waves, and skin cancer is on the rise.

 

Ozone depletion is easily quantifiable and hard to discount.

 

Oh, and perhaps the sky isn't falling the but the Earth is ripping itself asunder.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/07/20...unds/index.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

Alberta has also had mild winters in the past few years. This past year was rather cold.

 

We also had some really, really hot summers the past few years, but this summer has been anything but (in fact it's been mostly we here in Northern Alberta).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting...

 

There are many pictures of spacesuited astronauts inside buildings with artificial moonscapes, presumably the studio where the moon landings were faked.

 

The hoax advocates often cite such photographs as evidence for the hoax. These photos are common and were obtained during crew training for the actual moon landings. NASA has made no attempt to hide the photos, nor have they ever claimed them to be taken on the Moon. The Lunar Module, Rover, experiments, etc. seen in the training photos are generally training replicas or flight spares, rarely actual flight hardware.

 

Interesting that NASA made no attempts to hide the fact that when doing simulations they used a mock-up of the lunar surface. Now why on earth would they make this stuff public, and then shoot the "real" thing there and say it's not faked?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...