PDA

View Full Version : Science Have We Ever Been To The Moon?


R8RFAN
02-01-2003, 12:07 PM
I say No

Ebolapox
02-01-2003, 12:08 PM
really, I have no idea... some evidence looks like yes, but some points to no... I really haven't looked enough into it to form an opinion

-EBOLA-

R8RFAN
02-01-2003, 12:09 PM
Originally posted by EBOLA
really, I have no idea... some evidence looks like yes, but some points to no... I really haven't looked enough into it to form an opinion

-EBOLA-

If we had, why haven't we been back?

Ebolapox
02-01-2003, 12:12 PM
Originally posted by 家iders峨ck


If we had, why haven't we been back?

we did six or seven moon missions... we 'did' go back.... but they weren't really publicized as after the first one, the public lost interest

-EBOLA-...the moon missions ended, IIRC, with apollo 18's blowing up

KcMizzou
02-01-2003, 12:16 PM
Originally posted by 家iders峨ck


If we had, why haven't we been back?

We went enough times to figure out that it was a big rock, and there wasn't much else to learn there. No since in wasting more resources and taking more risks when we'd "been there and done that"

but then that's JMO

Mr. Laz
02-01-2003, 12:17 PM
Originally posted by 家iders峨ck
If we had, why haven't we been back?

that doesn't make sense.

if we HADN'T then why wouldn't we go?


been there, done that

conjureman
02-02-2003, 07:30 AM
Originally posted by 家iders峨ck
I say No

Keg: Would'nt this make a great movie?? I know...let's call Oliver Stone(d)!!:bong: :thumb:

Bob Dole
02-02-2003, 07:37 AM
Originally posted by conjureman
Keg: Would'nt this make a great movie?? I know...let's call Oliver Stone(d)!!:bong: :thumb: Wouldn't that just be a remake of Capricorn One, substituting "Moon" for "Mars?"

Bootlegged
02-02-2003, 07:37 AM
:rolleyes:


IT WAS ALL A CONSPIRACY!!

Mult9
02-02-2003, 07:46 AM
Originally posted by EBOLA


-EBOLA-...the moon missions ended, IIRC, with apollo 18's blowing up

I need some evidence of Apollo 18 blowing up.

There was a lauchpad fire that killed three, but no other astronauts were killed until the first shuttle blew up leaving the launch pad in 1986.

headsnap
02-02-2003, 08:05 AM
what you want though is a controlled explosion.;)


Originally posted by EBOLA
-EBOLA-...the moon missions ended, IIRC, with apollo 18's blowing up


Apollo 18 is the flight that finally took "Deke" Slayton into space, the last of the Mecury Seven to do so. It docked with a Soyuz space capsule during orbit. I remember as a kid looking up into the night sky and watching the two crafts in orbit.

R8RFAN
02-02-2003, 08:08 AM
I just can't figure out how they would actually take off from the moon if they landed on it.


I hope one day my thoughts are proven untrue to me because I really WANT to believe we have been to the moon but I just don't believe it.


RR

headsnap
02-02-2003, 08:08 AM
BTW, Apollo 18 docked with Soyuz 19 which carried Cosmonauts Valeri Kubasov, and Alexei Leonov. Alexei is my avatar.;)

headsnap
02-02-2003, 08:09 AM
Originally posted by 家iders峨ck
I just can't figure out how they would actually take off from the moon if they landed on it.



:spock:


with rockets?



:shake:

R8RFAN
02-02-2003, 08:18 AM
The goal was to fool the Soviet Union about US strategic capability during the height of the cold war

On one side then the other side

"There are a quarter of a million people who worked on the project. It would be impossible to keep that many people quiet about the conspiracy," Plait said. Also, there are some 900 pounds of lunar rocks and material that astronauts brought back from the moon that geologists agree are clearly from the moon and not from this planet"

Both stances make sense


It is just really hard to believe


RR

headsnap
02-02-2003, 08:25 AM
Originally posted by 家iders峨ck
The goal was to fool the Soviet Union about US strategic capability during the height of the cold war

On one side then the other side

"There are a quarter of a million people who worked on the project. It would be impossible to keep that many people quiet about the conspiracy," Plait said. Also, there are some 900 pounds of lunar rocks and material that astronauts brought back from the moon that geologists agree are clearly from the moon and not from this planet"

Both stances make sense


It is just really hard to believe


RR

it sounds like you are getting the space program and star wars mixed up.

R8RFAN
02-02-2003, 08:28 AM
Originally posted by headsnap


it sounds like you are getting the space program and star wars mixed up.


Add something to this instead of trying to debunk it with silly accusations.

Both sides of the argument were stated in the previous post, just show the facts, I don't need a lecture.


RR

BigMeatballDave
02-02-2003, 08:28 AM
With the lopsided results of this poll, the question could also be...

"Did the Raiders get there asses handed to them by the Bucs.?"

R8RFAN
02-02-2003, 08:31 AM
Originally posted by kchiefs30
With the lopsided results of this poll, the question could also be...

"Did the Raiders get there asses handed to them by the Bucs.?"

So ... how did your season go this year kchiefs30?

Been a long time since 1970 man


RR

stevieray
02-02-2003, 08:34 AM
It's bad enough young people do not have sense of history...questioning something like this just shows our lack of belief in ourselves.

Maybe they can get Spielberg to doctor the photos.

headsnap
02-02-2003, 08:35 AM
Originally posted by 家iders峨ck



Add something to this instead of trying to debunk it with silly accusations.

Both sides of the argument were stated in the previous post, just show the facts, I don't need a lecture.


RR

:rolleyes:

whatever dude, just because your team lost, don't take it out on me.:p


no need to get defensive, but your first statement describes the goal(and final result) that Regan wanted with SDI. Yes our goal was to fool the russians, heck that's still our goal, that's politics, but that is not an arguement that backs the no moon landing stance.

we had the technology, we were there.

BigMeatballDave
02-02-2003, 08:37 AM
Originally posted by 家iders峨ck


So ... how did your season go this year kchiefs30?

Been a long time since 1970 man


RR

Ahhh...1970, The year I was born. Yeah, Its been a few years.

Earthling
02-02-2003, 09:02 AM
Alice was there first..
One of these days Alice..POW!!..Right to the moon..

If you remember that then you too may be older than dirt...

stumppy
02-02-2003, 09:09 AM
Originally posted by 家iders峨ck
I say No
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
:spock:



:bong:




:shake:

Rausch
02-02-2003, 09:31 AM
Originally posted by 家iders峨ck
The goal was to fool the Soviet Union about US strategic capability during the height of the cold war

RR

No it wasn't....

headsnap
02-02-2003, 09:54 AM
Originally posted by BRAD_CAUDLE


No it wasn't....

it was in the sense of the space race and the arms race. we thought the russians were much closer to the moon than they actually were. In the end though, you have to walk the walk and do it.


we were there...

FloridaChief
02-02-2003, 09:54 AM
Cool! Another conspiracy theorist! Gotta love 'em, right?









Why else do we have the short buses...?

:rolleyes:

Zebedee DuBois
02-02-2003, 09:55 AM
Originally posted by headsnap
BTW, Apollo 18 docked with Soyuz 19 which carried Cosmonauts Valeri Kubasov, and Alexei Leonov. Alexei is my avatar.;)

I just dig the fact that Alexei was a Chiefs fan!

headsnap
02-02-2003, 09:57 AM
Originally posted by Zebedee DuBois


I just dig the fact that Alexei was a Chiefs fan!

yea, isn't that cool.;)

Rausch
02-02-2003, 10:01 AM
Originally posted by headsnap


it was in the sense of the space race and the arms race. we thought the russians were much closer to the moon than they actually were. In the end though, you have to walk the walk and do it.


we were there...

Of course we were. It's not hard to get to the moon, it's hard to get off the ground. Most of the danger is getting out of the atmosphere and IN to space. Troubles can always arise (obviously, in light of yesterday's tragedy) but the greatest dificulty was getting INTO space. Not traveling once there.

RedNeckRaider
02-02-2003, 10:04 AM
Don't sweat it RR, you being from the south and all. Heck you were taught at a very young age that wraslin is real, and the space program is fake! ;)

whoman69
02-02-2003, 10:17 AM
Yah. That's why they killed Kennedy, because he knew it was a sham and wasn't going along.

Whatever!!!!!!!!!

redbrian
02-02-2003, 10:18 AM
We can't go back because that's where the Ralians have their home base. In exchange for not going back they gave us the plans for the secret white fighter jet which we used to shoot down the plane over Pen. on 9/11.

See you can always make one idiot idea match with another:D .

Here is an idea for you read a friggen book about space instead of the suppermarket tabloid's.

morphius
02-02-2003, 10:32 AM
Its really hard to disprove your doubts when you don't state what your doubts are, and someone gave you the precise reason we haven't went back. After the first few missions to the moon the American public got bored with it and it became no big deal. Kind of like people stop carying about Shuttle launches unless an accident happens, the news barely covers them at all.

No here is a question to you, one Russian official stated that they would have loved to say it was a hoax, but they knew we had actually went there so they couldn't really discredit us, which he said they would have loved to have done.

headsnap
02-02-2003, 10:35 AM
the Shuttle program is a smoke screen for the real NASA. Gene Cernan found the monolith at TMA-1 and the govt wanted to keep our moon program secret. No civilan(except me of course) knows this but we have colonized the moon, and started a race of hyper-intellegent monkeys.



the Vogons are coming.:eek:


I hate thursdays...

RedNeckRaider
02-02-2003, 10:39 AM
Originally posted by headsnap
the Shuttle program is a smoke screen for the real NASA. Gene Cernan found the monolith at TMA-1 and the govt wanted to keep our moon program secret. No civilan(except me of course) knows this but we have colonized the moon, and started a race of hyper-intellegent monkeys.



the Vogons are coming.:eek:


I hate thursdays... Thats BS, if true AL Davis would have had a talent scout sent there to see if one of them could be trained to play QB by now.

Rausch
02-02-2003, 10:39 AM
Originally posted by headsnap
the Shuttle program is a smoke screen for the real NASA. Gene Cernan found the monolith at TMA-1 and the govt wanted to keep our moon program secret. No civilan(except me of course) knows this but we have colonized the moon, and started a race of hyper-intellegent monkeys.
[/i]

Yeah right...Were do you think they GOT their monkeys? That's right. Das Dirty Kraut's World Domination Monkey farm.

It's all in the handbook...:rolleyes:

RedNeckRaider
02-02-2003, 10:40 AM
Originally posted by BRAD_CAUDLE


Yeah right...Were do you think they GOT their monkeys? That's right. Das Dirty Kraut's World Domination Monkey farm.

It's all in the handbook...:rolleyes: ROFL

redbrian
02-02-2003, 10:43 AM
Thats BS, if true AL Davis would have had a talent scout sent there to see if one of them could be trained to play QB by now.

What do you think keeps al alive, it's the secret to long life given to him by the Raliens (but look at the awful price that al had to pay for that long life, he has ended up a shriveled old man who must wear a protective white leisure suit).

headsnap
02-02-2003, 10:43 AM
Originally posted by RedNeckRaider
Thats BS, if true AL Davis would have had a talent scout sent there to see if one of them could be trained to play QB by now.

they had a delay with the QB development, something to do with thechange in gravity and finding recievers. But they did have some mixed success with kickers, just look at Jano.:p

RedNeckRaider
02-02-2003, 10:44 AM
Originally posted by headsnap


they had a delay with the QB development, something to do with thechange in gravity and finding recievers. But they did have some mixed success with kickers, just look at Jano.:p I will buy he is a hairless ape, but at 6'2 two fiddy he aint no monkey!

Frazod
02-02-2003, 10:44 AM
Damn, RR been smacked down 47-1 so far. And I thought I got pummeled on the "sharpie" poll.... :spank:

Rausch
02-02-2003, 10:45 AM
Originally posted by redbrian


What do you think keeps al alive, it's the secret to long life given to him by the Raliens (but look at the awful price that al had to pay for that long life, he has ended up a shriveled old man who must wear a protective white leisure suit).

Why do you think Raider fans wear all that Star Wars shit?

Take a good look at Greasy Al. Dude, he IS the emperor...:eek:

headsnap
02-02-2003, 10:48 AM
Originally posted by RedNeckRaider
I will buy he is a hairless ape, but at 6'2 two fiddy he aint no monkey!

everybody knows that monkeys grow bigger on the moon.:spank:



[cartman voice]respect my gravitah...[/cartman voice]

headsnap
02-02-2003, 10:50 AM
and another thing...


on the moon, Jano is a 98 lb weakling.;)

RedNeckRaider
02-02-2003, 10:51 AM
Originally posted by headsnap


everybody knows that monkeys grow bigger on the moon.:spank:



[cartman voice]respect my gravitah...[/cartman voice] You tryin to edjucate a redneck?

fbal4lif32
02-02-2003, 11:07 AM
Ok, for anyone having just a small doubt that twe actually did land on the moon, you might want to skim through this site.

http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/

Not really sure how official it is.

Simba
02-02-2003, 11:38 AM
Originally posted by 家iders峨ck
I say No

Sure we did! General Charles Duke, lunar module pilot of Apollo 16, told me so.

Ari Chi3fs
10-06-2004, 01:28 AM
wow... 60 out of 62 say that we have been to the moon.

Now, i too, used to think that we had... but then I saw this.

http://66.90.75.92/suprnova//torrents/1882/Conspiracy%20theory%20-%20Did%20we%20land%20on%20the%20moon-mpg.torrent

Unreal. The shadows dont match up to reality... there is NO landing crater from the thrust, nor dust on the feet of the LEM. The same landscape used in multiple shots... video transposed proves that... and the clincher... Russian Satelite footage of Area 51 makes it apparent that they most likely shot the footage from that area. Also, the moon set is probably still there.

Also, during the first "moon landing" the largest recorded solar flare storm was going on, making the radiation in the Van Allen? Radiation Belt 1000 times stronger than usual... and apparently at normal strength you would need 6 feet of lead to protect yourself.

We did NOT land on the moon. Period.

:hmmm: spend 30 minutes and check out this valid entertainment

Miles
10-06-2004, 01:34 AM
the moon rules #1

KCChiefsMan
10-06-2004, 03:08 AM
I think that trailer trash people aren't really poor. they're government officials attempting to blend in while in search of the truth.

Ari Chi3fs
10-06-2004, 05:05 AM
I got this bridge to sell 70 of you... also some ocean front property in Colorado

Ultra Peanut
10-06-2004, 05:14 AM
WHO WROTE "THE MOON RULES #1" ON MY FRICKIN' CAR?!

(incidentally, my car really was keyed about 3 weeks ago; ****in' ignignokt and err)

tk13
10-06-2004, 05:21 AM
http://www.highschoolfootball.org/Images/PlayerPics/MoonOilersActionweb.jpg

Amnorix
10-06-2004, 06:38 AM
The goal was to fool the Soviet Union about US strategic capability during the height of the cold war

On one side then the other side

"There are a quarter of a million people who worked on the project. It would be impossible to keep that many people quiet about the conspiracy," Plait said. Also, there are some 900 pounds of lunar rocks and material that astronauts brought back from the moon that geologists agree are clearly from the moon and not from this planet"

Both stances make sense


It is just really hard to believe


RR
Err....you find the first statement, which is nothing more than a pure guess about possible intentions, to be just as convincing as the second statement, which is backed up by both scientific evidence and a simple and accurate assessment of human behavior?

:shake:

It's not getting to the moon that I find impossible. It's getting to the moon in the freaking 60s and 70s without any decent computer power. Watching Apollo 13, where the astronauts need to calculate their re-entry trajectory, etc., or else either come in too hard and burn to a crisp, or else come in at too oblique an angle and go skipping off into space forever, using FREAKING SLIDE RULES is just amazing to me...

Cochise
10-06-2004, 06:41 AM
this is the most ridiculous thing i've read in a while :shake:

Jenson71
10-06-2004, 07:08 AM
It's bad enough young people do not have sense of history...questioning something like this just shows our lack of belief in ourselves.

Maybe they can get Spielberg to doctor the photos.

Why? Everyone should know by now that it was Kubrick who directed it in some small government headquarters in Colorado.

From 1951 to 1957, Kubie directed 7 films. However, it was another three years before he made another. In the 60's, he made only four films. Was he at the gym, trying to make an intermural basketball team? I think not.

Mark M
10-06-2004, 07:48 AM
I got this bridge to sell 70 of you... also some ocean front property in Colorado

And five of you can come to my house and feed Bigfoot ... he's currently living in my basement.

MM
~~:rolleyes:

headsnap
10-06-2004, 07:58 AM
Capricorn One was a good movie, but IT WAS FICTION!!!!!!





some of you need a better brand of tin foil... :shake:

KingPriest2
10-06-2004, 08:09 AM
we did six or seven moon missions... we 'did' go back.... but they weren't really publicized as after the first one, the public lost interest

-EBOLA-...the moon missions ended, IIRC, with apollo 18's blowing up

Apollo 18 did not blow up

KingPriest2
10-06-2004, 08:16 AM
wow... 60 out of 62 say that we have been to the moon.

Now, i too, used to think that we had... but then I saw this.

http://66.90.75.92/suprnova//torrents/1882/Conspiracy%20theory%20-%20Did%20we%20land%20on%20the%20moon-mpg.torrent

Unreal. The shadows dont match up to reality... there is NO landing crater from the thrust, nor dust on the feet of the LEM. The same landscape used in multiple shots... video transposed proves that... and the clincher... Russian Satelite footage of Area 51 makes it apparent that they most likely shot the footage from that area. Also, the moon set is probably still there.

Also, during the first "moon landing" the largest recorded solar flare storm was going on, making the radiation in the Van Allen? Radiation Belt 1000 times stronger than usual... and apparently at normal strength you would need 6 feet of lead to protect yourself.

We did NOT land on the moon. Period.

:hmmm: spend 30 minutes and check out this valid entertainment

I think you need to go back to school if that is the case

KingPriest2
10-06-2004, 08:29 AM
wow... 60 out of 62 say that we have been to the moon.

Now, i too, used to think that we had... but then I saw this.

http://66.90.75.92/suprnova//torrents/1882/Conspiracy%20theory%20-%20Did%20we%20land%20on%20the%20moon-mpg.torrent

Unreal. The shadows dont match up to reality... there is NO landing crater from the thrust, nor dust on the feet of the LEM. The same landscape used in multiple shots... video transposed proves that... and the clincher... Russian Satelite footage of Area 51 makes it apparent that they most likely shot the footage from that area. Also, the moon set is probably still there.

Also, during the first "moon landing" the largest recorded solar flare storm was going on, making the radiation in the Van Allen? Radiation Belt 1000 times stronger than usual... and apparently at normal strength you would need 6 feet of lead to protect yourself.

We did NOT land on the moon. Period.

:hmmm: spend 30 minutes and check out this valid entertainment


Here I will help you.

http://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~jscotti/NOT_faked/

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

http://www.clavius.org/

http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/

yunghungwell
10-06-2004, 08:40 AM
wow... 60 out of 62 say that we have been to the moon.

Now, i too, used to think that we had... but then I saw this.

http://66.90.75.92/suprnova//torrents/1882/Conspiracy%20theory%20-%20Did%20we%20land%20on%20the%20moon-mpg.torrent

Unreal. The shadows dont match up to reality... there is NO landing crater from the thrust, nor dust on the feet of the LEM. The same landscape used in multiple shots... video transposed proves that... and the clincher... Russian Satelite footage of Area 51 makes it apparent that they most likely shot the footage from that area. Also, the moon set is probably still there.

Also, during the first "moon landing" the largest recorded solar flare storm was going on, making the radiation in the Van Allen? Radiation Belt 1000 times stronger than usual... and apparently at normal strength you would need 6 feet of lead to protect yourself.

We did NOT land on the moon. Period.

:hmmm: spend 30 minutes and check out this valid entertainment

Ok, your link didn't work for me, but let me guess...there is some video shot from the LEM and you don't see a cloud of dust obscuring the landscape below.

You are conditioned to believe that there needs to be a cloud of dust because you have lived your entire life on Earth, I think. The Earth has an atmosphere. Due to the molecular motion of the gases that make up that atmosphere dust particles stay suspended in the air for some amount of time instead of falling directly back to the ground. This dosen't happen in the "vacuum" of space. ie. On a the moom which has no atmosphere.

If you have ever seen the video where the astronaut drops the hammer and the feather from his hands, then you should know that the feather and the hammer hit the ground at the same time. This could only happen in a "vacuum".

Also notice, in the videos of the moon rover being driven by the astronauts, that the dust kicked up by the tires falls directly back to the ground as it should if you were driving the rover on the surface of the moon.

So, if you buy into the "We Never Landed on the Moon" argument, you must believe that we did have the capability to create a space large enough to hold the astronauts and all of their equipment, LEM and moon rover, in which we could create a "vacuum". Well now, that is one hell of an engineering feat!

I have also read some of the websites out there that try to debunk the moon landing using optics as their basis. Funny how usually the author presents his/her evidence with the disclaimer, "I really don't know a whole lot about optical phenomena." or some similar statement.

I have taken a bunch of chemistry and physics classes, and I have yet to hear a professor or someone with similar qualifications make claims about the moon landing being faked. I'm sure that they all were probably paid off by the CIA! :rolleyes:

Ari Chi3fs
10-06-2004, 08:54 AM
Ok, your link didn't work for me, but let me guess...there is some video shot from the LEM and you don't see a cloud of dust obscuring the landscape below.

You are conditioned to believe that there needs to be a cloud of dust because you have lived your entire life on Earth, I think. The Earth has an atmosphere. Due to the molecular motion of the gases that make up that atmosphere dust particles stay suspended in the air for some amount of time instead of falling directly back to the ground. This dosen't happen in the "vacuum" of space. ie. On a the moom which has no atmosphere.

If you have ever seen the video where the astronaut drops the hammer and the feather from his hands, then you should know that the feather and the hammer hit the ground at the same time. This could only happen in a "vacuum".

Also notice, in the videos of the moon rover being driven by the astronauts, that the dust kicked up by the tires falls directly back to the ground as it should if you were driving the rover on the surface of the moon.

So, if you buy into the "We Never Landed on the Moon" argument, you must believe that we did have the capability to create a space large enough to hold the astronauts and all of their equipment, LEM and moon rover, in which we could create a "vacuum". Well now, that is one hell of an engineering feat!

I have also read some of the websites out there that try to debunk the moon landing using optics as their basis. Funny how usually the author presents his/her evidence with the disclaimer, "I really don't know a whole lot about optical phenomena." or some similar statement.

I have taken a bunch of chemistry and physics classes, and I have yet to hear a professor or someone with similar qualifications make claims about the moon landing being faked. I'm sure that they all were probably paid off by the CIA! :rolleyes:


There is a lot more to it than just moon dust...many many correlations. Look, we all want to believe that we could go to the moon, and that we WENT to the moon. The Russians who were BLOWING us away in the late 50s and 60s have YET to go to the moon, stating its impossibility of getting through the Van Allen Radiations Belt alive...

Many people believed that if the Russians made it to the moon first... then they would probably win the cold war. We HAD to get the moon first. Nixon was president... Vietnam was a quagmire... we needed NEEDED an American Hooorah.

If you cant make it... fake it. Im sure with the 40 BILLION dollar budget they could Easily create a sound studio in teh high desert of NM to get the job done. Neil Armstrong wont even answer questions about the moon landing, and going to the moon. Because he didnt go... He feels like a shitbag.

Also... *** That file is a torrent file... you need a bit torrent client to watch it... there, smarty pants.

cadmonkey
10-06-2004, 08:54 AM
Whether we have or have not will be known soon enough. Japan or China, I forget which one is sending a satelite to orbit the Moon in a couple years. The mission is to photograph the surface, and see how much change has happened since we were there. They are going to go to where we landed and see it the Flag is there. If it isn't, at least the lunar modual should be there.

I say it won't be there.

yunghungwell
10-06-2004, 08:55 AM
Sorry about the long windedness about dust and all. I just realized that you could have found all of that stuff out if you check out a previously posted website.

http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/

One thing that I would like to call to attention, is that I am not an expert on anything that is written in this report. I don't know much about camera's, or non-atmospheric conditions, or physics or anything.

http://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~jscotti/NOT_faked/

Here is the example I was talking about. When I taught high school a student gave me this web address. He believed that the landings were faked and he thought that this website proved that they were. Obviously this student didn't bother to read the website's text, because this website is disproving someone else's website.

cadmonkey
10-06-2004, 08:57 AM
On the moon, there is only one light source, the sun. This is a shot of Buzz Aldrin and Neal Armstrong planting the US flag on the moon. If the sun is the only light source used by NASA on the moon, Aldrins shadow A shadows should not be so much longer than Armstrong's

http://batesmotel.8m.com/nasa2.gif

Dr. Facebook Fever
10-06-2004, 08:59 AM
who's "we?" I've never been there with you.

cadmonkey
10-06-2004, 08:59 AM
This is a famous picture labeled "Man on the Moon"

If you will look at area B you will notice a shadow cast across Buzz Aldrin's space suit. Once again, if the Sun is the only light source used on the moon, this shadow would have been MUCH darker.

Looking at area C you will notice that the surface of the moon fades off into the distance, then is met with the moon's horizon. In a no-atmosphere environment, the ground shouldn't have faded out, but stayed crystal sharp unto the moon's horizon.

Looking at area D you can plainly see some type of structure reflected through Aldrins helmet. I do not know what it is, but it is there.

http://batesmotel.8m.com/nasa3.gif

cadmonkey
10-06-2004, 09:01 AM
In this picture, taken from the LEM, you can see at least two abnormalities. In section E you see an abnormal shadow on the moon's surface. NASA claims that this shadow is the shadow cast by the Lunar Module, but on earth, even when aircraft is flying low to the ground, it does not produce such a clearly defined shadow.

OK, here's the kicker... if you will look at section 3 you will notice there are no stars in the sky. In fact, you will never see any stars in any NASA Moon photographs, or hear an astronaut mention anything about the glorious stars that are visible when out of the earths atmosphere.

http://batesmotel.8m.com/nasa4.gif

yunghungwell
10-06-2004, 09:01 AM
If you cant make it... fake it. Im sure with the 40 BILLION dollar budget they could Easily create a sound studio in teh high desert of NM to get the job done. Neil Armstrong wont even answer questions about the moon landing, and going to the moon. Because he didnt go... He feels like a shitbag.

I saw Buzz Aldrin speak at the National Science Teacher's Convention. He wasn't shy about being pissed off at the people that say everything was fake. Hopefully you remember that he was the second man to walk on the moon, or fake sound studio, whatever.

Go the first website that was in my last post...it might help with your understanding of radiation.

BTW, thanks for posting a link to something that you need to be a member of in order to view. That helps everyone.

cadmonkey
10-06-2004, 09:08 AM
if you look in areas 6 and J , you will again see no stars. In area K you will notice that one side of the LEM in covered in shadow, but somehow the symbol of the US flag in illuminated.

This very well could have been a touch up job.

http://batesmotel.8m.com/nasa7.gif

cadmonkey
10-06-2004, 09:36 AM
This is a picture of Alan Bean holding up a Special Environmental Examiner Container. This picture was taken off a camera that was strapped to Conrad's chest. If the camera was attached to Conrad's chest, the top of Bean's helmet L should not be in this picture.

All of the shadows reflected in Bean's visor M are going off in separate directions, not in parallel lines like they should be.

If you will look at the Environmental sampler that Al Bean is holding, N , The reflection is coming from a light source other than the sun, but it is possible that light is being reflected off the space suit.

There is a strange anomaly in the sky 7 , It is yet to be determined what that might be.

http://batesmotel.8m.com/nasa8.gif

Amnorix
10-06-2004, 09:40 AM
Many people believed that if the Russians made it to the moon first... then they would probably win the cold war.


This is the most laughably erroneous statement of history I've heard in quite a while.

Landing on the moon was a morale boost, but it sure didn't help win the Vietnam War, did it?

And how, exactly, would landing on the moon have helped solve the USSR's systemic problems brought on by their economic system, political unrest, etc????

Nutzoid.

cadmonkey
10-06-2004, 09:42 AM
In our last picture, I would like to direct your attention to the circled portion of the screen. These Lunar Rover tracks are quite well defined, don't you agree? Well, the fact is, you need a mixture of a compound, and water, to make such defined lines. I don't know if that idea is so convincing, but I assure you, this next one is.

If you look at the rock labeled R you will notice a the letter C carved in the rock. Perhaps a gag left by the props department?

http://batesmotel.8m.com/nasa9.gif

cadmonkey
10-06-2004, 09:43 AM
Here is a portion of the previous picture, blown up. Take a look at the cross hairs that appear on the picture. These hairs appear on EVERY lunar picture. These cross hairs are placed between the shutter of the camera, and the film, supposedly. If you take a look at the cross hair on the left, this cross hair was placed behind the lunar rover, you can see the Lunar Rover is in front of the cross hairs.

http://batesmotel.8m.com/nasa10.gif

Saulbadguy
10-06-2004, 09:43 AM
This is retarded.

cadmonkey
10-06-2004, 09:44 AM
Facts about the Moon

An average days temperature on the moon ranges from 260 F to 280 F, too for film to survive. At those temperatures, film crinkles up into a ball.

About 20 miles about the Earth, there is a radiation belt named the Van Allen belt. No human can get through this belt, If you try than you get hit with 300+ rads of radiation. Unless they are surrounded on each side by 4 feet on lead.

There are millions of micro-metors traveling at speeds up to 6000 MPH, which would tear the ship to pieces.

If you look at the pictures/video of people on the moon, you will never see more than 3 stars.

When the LEM set down on the Lunar surface, it gave out 3000 lb. worth of thrust. This would have created a massive hole underneath the Lunar Module, but in pictures of the Lunar Module, the ground underneath is untouched.

jspchief
10-06-2004, 09:45 AM
When I bought the movie studio in GTA Vice City, one of the studio buildings had the "set" for the fake lunar landing. I can only assume that Rockstar Games is responsible for the hoax.

Amnorix
10-06-2004, 09:55 AM
I at least found out why there aren't any stars in the pictures from the moon:

Q:

When ever i see clips of when the astronaunts or on the moon, there are never any stars in the back round, why is this?
(age )



A:


Well, the sun is a star, and it should be plenty visible to the astronauts and their photographers on the moon. Maybe they were careful not to point their cameras directly at the sun for fear of damage.

As for all the other stars, they are much fainter than the sun. The lunar surface, when illuminated by sunlight, is very bright. The astronauts' helmet visors were metallized to reflect most of this (sunglasses built right in). The range of brightnesses which are recorded by a camera is limited -- brighter than some maximum is white, and dimmer is black. Set a camera so it records an astronaut and the surrounding lunar surface reasonably, and the sky will look black (except for the sun and the Earth). Set the camera so the stars are visible, and the astronaut and the lunar surface will look all white ("washed out"). It's pretty hard to take pictures of stars with ordinary cameras even on a dark night. The shutter has to be left open a long time to collect enough light to see the stars. Stars should appear to be brighter when viewed on the moon because of the lack of air to dim their light, but with those sunglass-like visors on, I'll be the astronauts themselves had a tough time seeing them, if at all.

Tom


http://van.hep.uiuc.edu/van/qa/section/Stuff_about_Space/The_Earth_and_the_Moon/20040319115220.htm

jspchief
10-06-2004, 09:57 AM
CadMonkey, Thank you for spamming the f*ck out of this thread with your insane ramblings. Now go take your pills and put the jacket back on before they know you've escaped.


75% of your proof is based on improper shadows. Apparently you're going on the assumption that the astronauts took absolutely no light source with them, relying 100% on the light of the sun.

Amnorix
10-06-2004, 10:06 AM
On the moon, there is only one light source, the sun. This is a shot of Buzz Aldrin and Neal Armstrong planting the US flag on the moon. If the sun is the only light source used by NASA on the moon, Aldrins shadow A shadows should not be so much longer than Armstrong's

http://batesmotel.8m.com/nasa2.gif

The answer is in the angles of the ground (i.e. whether one guy is standing in a flat area while another guy is standing at the top of a slope.

Further, and more importantly, if TWO light sources were being used, why does each figure only have ONE shadow?

(note of attribution -- I learned this from one of the Hoax-busting websiets someone else linked to).

Amnorix
10-06-2004, 10:07 AM
Facts about the Moon

An average days temperature on the moon ranges from 260 F to 280 F, too for film to survive. At those temperatures, film crinkles up into a ball.



This theory is based on the maximum temperature that the moon's surface reaches during the long lunar day. (The moon has a day that lasts for two of our weeks.) That's very, very hot. Fortunately, no-one went to the moon to spread film out under the sun for two weeks.
The Apollo missions were timed to take place during lunar mornings. The temperatures are at their most hospitable then, so the astronauts themselves were at not going to overheat.
The film also spent all its time either within the camera or within the lander. Unlike the moon's surface, both of these were designed to reflect as much of the sun's heat as possible. So they never got anywhere near the temperatures that the surface reaches.
You also have to keep in mind that because there is no air, there is no ambient temperature and no convected heat on the moon. So if you are out of direct sunlight, and therefore radiated heat, you will be quite chilly. As the camera and lander were designed to reflect heat, the film wouldn't even pick up much conducted heat from them. So that's no convection, little radiation, little conduction. There are no other methods of receiving heat.

http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/Baked_Film.htm

BigRedChief
10-06-2004, 10:08 AM
Okay conspirasists tell me this...If it is a big cover up how do they keep it a secret? How many people know the truth? Even the mafia can't keep it's secrets any more. You know how much this would be worth in book deals , movie rights etc if you were one of the ones with defenitive proof of the cover up.

BS no way is it a cover up

Sydd
10-06-2004, 10:12 AM
Facts about the Moon

An average days temperature on the moon ranges from 260 F to 280 F, too for film to survive. At those temperatures, film crinkles up into a ball.

About 20 miles about the Earth, there is a radiation belt named the Van Allen belt. No human can get through this belt, If you try than you get hit with 300+ rads of radiation. Unless they are surrounded on each side by 4 feet on lead.

There are millions of micro-metors traveling at speeds up to 6000 MPH, which would tear the ship to pieces.

If you look at the pictures/video of people on the moon, you will never see more than 3 stars.

When the LEM set down on the Lunar surface, it gave out 3000 lb. worth of thrust. This would have created a massive hole underneath the Lunar Module, but in pictures of the Lunar Module, the ground underneath is untouched.



There are so many things wrong with this post I don't know where to begin.

The film - The ambient temperature on the moon did not reach 260. Read about heat transfer and why the temperature inside the Hasselblad cameras never was that hot. Hasselblad designed the cameras to reflect heat.

The radiation from the Van Allen Belt. First, it is a lot farther than 20 miles. Space Ship One, earlier this week, went to 62 miles. Have you ever heard of Bremsstrahlung? Do some research on this. The 4+ feet of lead may help when dealing with an atomic blast, but does very little to help with particle radiation.

I am at work and don't have time to dispute all this crap, but I will say this: I have sat down and had dinner with two people that walked on the moon. I spent four hours taking with them and have ZERO doubt about the moon landings. It really pisses me off that people with very little knowledge of a subject try to ruin one of the greatest acheivments in human history.

Amnorix
10-06-2004, 10:12 AM
Here is a portion of the previous picture, blown up. Take a look at the cross hairs that appear on the picture. These hairs appear on EVERY lunar picture. These cross hairs are placed between the shutter of the camera, and the film, supposedly. If you take a look at the cross hair on the left, this cross hair was placed behind the lunar rover, you can see the Lunar Rover is in front of the cross hairs.

http://batesmotel.8m.com/nasa10.gif


The cross hairs are called reseau-lines and were produced by a glass plate within the camera, between the lens and film. They cause a black cross on the film where they block the light from reaching the film directly below them. If, however, you are taking a photograph of a really bright white object, the white, over-exposed part of the film 'bleeds' into other parts of the film. This is particularly the case if the adjacent part of the film is black. This is what is happening where the thin reseau-lines meet a bright, reflective part of the photograph and is not unusual. It happens on photographs with reseau-lines on Earth too.
It occurs in a number of the Apollo photographs, but you only see it where the reseau-lines seem to disappear behind a bright white part. You never see it happening anywhere else.

http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/Cross_Hairs.htm

Rain Man
10-06-2004, 10:15 AM
Whether we have or have not will be known soon enough. Japan or China, I forget which one is sending a satelite to orbit the Moon in a couple years. The mission is to photograph the surface, and see how much change has happened since we were there. They are going to go to where we landed and see it the Flag is there. If it isn't, at least the lunar modual should be there.

I say it won't be there.


What if China or Japan is faking their orbital mission? Would they then "confirm" NASA's fake moon mission, or would they produce fake photos that show the moon with no lunar module, which would be ironic since they wouldn't need to be fake photos if Japan or China wasn't on a fake mission.

Personally, I don't think we went to the moon. I think we went to Mars, and we say it's the moon because we don't want anyone else to know about our bases there.

headsnap
10-06-2004, 10:15 AM
The answer is in the angles of the ground (i.e. whether one guy is standing in a flat area while another guy is standing at the top of a slope.

Further, and more importantly, if TWO light sources were being used, why does each figure only have ONE shadow?

(note of attribution -- I learned this from one of the Hoax-busting websiets someone else linked to).
in that photo, it's obvious just by the light hitting the ground(moon) that it slopes up on the left of the photo(light hitting it more directly), that causes one shadow to be shorter than the other.

THE MOON LANDING WAS NOT FAKED!!!!!!!!!

yunghungwell
10-06-2004, 10:16 AM
Hey guys, thanks for taking care of my light work :thumb:

I don't have the time or energy to fix or even address all of the misconceptions in cadmonkey's head...especially at work.

Amnorix
10-06-2004, 10:17 AM
If you look at the rock labeled R you will notice a the letter C carved in the rock. Perhaps a gag left by the props department?


The "C" isn't in the original NASA photo. It's a bit of fiber that got involved when copies were made.

http://www.lunaranomalies.com/c-rock.htm

cadmonkey
10-06-2004, 10:29 AM
CadMonkey, Thank you for spamming the f*ck out of this thread with your insane ramblings. Now go take your pills and put the jacket back on before they know you've escaped.


75% of your proof is based on improper shadows. Apparently you're going on the assumption that the astronauts took absolutely no light source with them, relying 100% on the light of the sun.


I got all these "facts" from some site. I just thought there should be some info for people to look at and discuss.

Skip Towne
10-06-2004, 10:29 AM
I'm firmly convinced the landing did take place. But it has been 35 years since it happened and I still haven't seen a moon rock. But I don't get out much.

Rain Man
10-06-2004, 10:35 AM
They've got moon rocks at the Smithsonian, or maybe it's the Air and Space Museum. I'll warn you, though, that I spent a lot of time looking at them and for a month afterward I was able to ignite myself on fire at will.

cadmonkey
10-06-2004, 10:37 AM
:) PBJ I love having everyone get angry and start yelling at me. These are not my words, I got all those pictures and descriptions from another web site. I don't care enough about it to do all that research. I don't think we landed there, but if we did well terrific

MOhillbilly
10-06-2004, 11:08 AM
This is a time when i wish my dad was around, cause hed own you flat earth ****ers.

penguinz
10-06-2004, 11:17 AM
Also... *** That file is a torrent file... you need a bit torrent client to watch it... there, smarty pants.Ok smarty pants. If you want to be that way.

1. You do not use a bit torrent client to watch the video. You use a bit torrent client to download the video.

2. Anyone with half a brain would:

a. Realize that torrent sites like Suprnova do not allow you to hotlink.
b. Checked to make sure there link worked before posting it on a forum.

Skip Towne
10-06-2004, 11:17 AM
This is a time when i wish my dad was around, cause hed own you flat earth ****ers.
Hehe. When I first read the topic starter I thought Oh no, it's the Flat Earth Society.

ChiefJustice
10-06-2004, 11:32 AM
About 20 miles about the Earth, there is a radiation belt named the Van Allen belt. No human can get through this belt, If you try than you get hit with 300+ rads of radiation. Unless they are surrounded on each side by 4 feet on lead.



Professor Van Allen has stated that his original concept of the
"Van Allen Belt" was flawed and incorrect.A more proper definition
of the field is as follows...





"The radiation belts are regions of high-energy particles, mainly protons and electrons, held captive by the magnetic influence of the Earth. They have two main sources. A small but very intense "inner belt" (some call it "The Van Allen Belt" because it was discovered in 1958 by James Van Allen of the University of Iowa) is trapped within 4000 miles or or so of the Earth's surface. It consists mainly a high-energy protons (10-50 MeV) and is a by-product of the cosmic radiation, a thin drizzle of very fast protons and nuclei which apparently fill all our galaxy.

" In addition there exist electrons and protons (and also oxygen particles from the upper atmosphere) given moderate energies (say 1-100 keV; 1 MeV = 1000 keV) by processes inside the domain of the Earth's magnetic field. Some of these electrons produce the polar aurora ("northern lights") when they hit the upper atmosphere, but many get trapped, and among those, protons and positive particles have most of the energy .

"I looked up a typical satellite passing the radiation belts (elliptic orbit, 200 miles to 20000 miles) and the radiation dosage per year is about 2500 rem, assuming one is shielded by 1 gr/cm-square of aluminum (about 1/8" thick plate) almost all of it while passing the inner belt. But there is no danger. The way the particles move in the magnetic field prevents them from hitting the atmosphere, and even if they are scattered so their orbit does intersect the ground, the atmosphere absorbs them long before they get very far. Even the space station would be safe, because the orbits usually stop above it--any particles dipping deeper down are lost much faster than they can be replenished.

"If all this sounds too technical but you still want to find out-- what ions and magnetic fields and cosmic rays are, etc.--you will find a long detailed exposition (both without math) on the World Wide Web at: http://www.phy6.org/Education/Intro.html


http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970228a.html

Dave Lane
10-06-2004, 11:37 AM
The goal was to fool the Soviet Union about US strategic capability during the height of the cold war

On one side then the other side

"There are a quarter of a million people who worked on the project. It would be impossible to keep that many people quiet about the conspiracy," Plait said. Also, there are some 900 pounds of lunar rocks and material that astronauts brought back from the moon that geologists agree are clearly from the moon and not from this planet"

Both stances make sense


It is just really hard to believe


RR

Why?


Oh wait you are a raiders fan. Never mind...

Daev

Lightning Rod
10-06-2004, 12:05 PM
We did land on the moon. The aliens asked us not to come back because they needed the Cheese since they were on the Adkins diet.

Lightning Rod
10-06-2004, 12:14 PM
http://www.anomalous-images.com/astroufo.html



Speaking of green little cheese eating men This is an interesting site.

Buck
01-26-2009, 12:01 PM
Of course we haven't. If we made it there 40 years ago, how come we haven't been back since?

Buck
01-26-2009, 12:02 PM
LOL at the Thread Starters Avatar.

KcMizzou
01-26-2009, 12:02 PM
Of course we haven't. If we made it there 40 years ago, how come we haven't been back since?Nothing there worth going back for?

Buck
01-26-2009, 12:04 PM
We have space missions all the time, you'd think at least one would have been to the moon, if it was even possible to travel there without getting fried in the Radiation Belts.

KcMizzou
01-26-2009, 12:05 PM
We have space missions all the time, you'd think at least one would have been to the moon, if it was even possible to travel there without getting fried in the Radiation Belts.You're serious, huh? You believe it was a hoax?

Bowser
01-26-2009, 12:07 PM
According to some "expert" on Coast-to-Coast a few weeks back, not only have we been back to the moon, we haved manned bases there AND on Mars.

Buck
01-26-2009, 12:08 PM
You're serious, huh? You believe it was a hoax?

Yes, totally.

Buck
01-26-2009, 12:09 PM
According to some "expert" on Coast-to-Coast a few weeks back, not only have we been back to the moon, we haved manned bases there AND on Mars.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/iAJliVJ804k&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/iAJliVJ804k&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Saulbadguy
01-26-2009, 12:12 PM
Yes, totally.

Moron.

Over-Head
01-26-2009, 12:15 PM
I say No
It was on tv and everything.
It just had to be real! :cuss:
I saw a moon rock in a NASA center :)

BigRedChief
01-26-2009, 12:15 PM
Yes, totally.
Funny, I've never seen you in a tin foil hat?

The fact that 35+ years later we have no one come forward to "leak" or confirm they were involved in a cover up is a testament to the fact that this is a tin foil hat conspiracy of no real merit.

Buck
01-26-2009, 12:15 PM
Moron.

poopface

KcMizzou
01-26-2009, 12:22 PM
It was on tv and everything.
It just had to be real! :cuss:
I saw a moon rock in Houstan at the NASA center :)Being unable to spell "Houston" kinda detracts from your argument.

Over-Head
01-26-2009, 12:24 PM
Being unable to spell "Houston" kinda detracts from your argument. :banghead: damn you!
(fixed it :)~ )

KcMizzou
01-26-2009, 12:25 PM
:banghead: damn you!:D

Buck
01-26-2009, 12:29 PM
If theres one thing that pisses off your-guys' generation, its a 23 year old kid doubting the moon landing.

While I honestly don't think we did it, I think its funnier seeing everybody call me a jackass.

Guru
01-26-2009, 12:44 PM
If theres one thing that pisses off your-guys' generation, its a 23 year old kid doubting the moon landing.

While I honestly don't think we did it, I think its funnier seeing everybody call me a jackass.I find your lack of faith distrubing.:D

acesn8s
01-26-2009, 12:58 PM
I saw a movie once that we flew right around the moon with no power in the space capsule. If we can fly around the moon we can land on the moon.:harumph:

FishingRod
01-26-2009, 01:08 PM
Well the Laser reflector left by Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin in 1969 (and it still works) would be a pretty good indication that it was real.

Saulbadguy
01-26-2009, 01:22 PM
If theres one thing that pisses off your-guys' generation, its a 23 year old kid doubting the moon landing.

While I honestly don't think we did it, I think its funnier seeing everybody call me a jackass.

I'm not much older than you. While it doesn't "piss me off", it just makes me think you are less intelligent than your posts lead on.

It is not as outrageous or offensive as calling the holocaust a hoax, but it is among the same lines of absurdity.

Buck
01-26-2009, 01:24 PM
I'm not much older than you. While it doesn't "piss me off", it just makes me think you are less intelligent than your posts lead on.

It is not as outrageous or offensive as calling the holocaust a hoax, but it is among the same lines of absurdity.

Well, each person has his/her flaws.

I just don't see how they made it all the way to the moon using the equipment they were using. That's all.

I mean, look at the shitty computers we used 25 years ago compared to today. This was 40 years ago.

I just cant see us getting to the moon w/ the technology we had.

Guru
01-26-2009, 01:31 PM
It was all about being first back then. Now its about money allocation. Which is laughable.

Stewie
01-26-2009, 01:37 PM
Well the Laser reflector left by Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin in 1969 (and it still works) would be a pretty good indication that it was real.

I saw a Discovery Channel show on the "did we really land on the moon" theory. It was pretty comical. The naysayers had all these crazy ideas and proof that it didn't happen. Then when faced with facts their whole "money-making, book-selling" scam fell apart. The best part was visiting the observatory (in Texas, I believe) that shoots those lasers off of the mirrors. It's really interesting and validates the drift of the moon's orbit etc. When the scientist was asked if any doubters had been to visit the observatory he said, "Never, but they are welcome any time."

Brock
01-26-2009, 01:39 PM
Well, each person has his/her flaws.

I just don't see how they made it all the way to the moon using the equipment they were using. That's all.

I mean, look at the shitty computers we used 25 years ago compared to today. This was 40 years ago.

I just cant see us getting to the moon w/ the technology we had.

:shake:

Cheater5
01-26-2009, 01:39 PM
Yes, yes of course. Billions of dollars spent on a hoax, all to convince the USSR that we had the upper hand in the space race.

Anyone who has worked in the government for any amount of time can tell you- conspiracy on a grand scale such as this is literally impossible.

Buck
01-26-2009, 01:42 PM
Okay Nevermind, we went to the moon.

If a mod would be so kind as to change my vote, I'd appreciate it.

MTG#10
01-26-2009, 01:42 PM
Moron.
This.

Buck
01-26-2009, 01:46 PM
I just read the wikipedia page on The Moon Landing Hoax Conspiracy, and almost everything I was arguing was legitimately discredited, so in all truthfulness, I do believe we landed on the moon.

The_Doctor10
01-26-2009, 01:47 PM
Well, each person has his/her flaws.

I just don't see how they made it all the way to the moon using the equipment they were using. That's all.

I mean, look at the shitty computers we used 25 years ago compared to today. This was 40 years ago.

I just cant see us getting to the moon w/ the technology we had.

Mythbusters had an episode about this on not too long ago; they proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the moon landing was real. All the crap conspiracy theorists spout off was disproved in such a simple way that all you needed was to be in possession of higher brain functions and you'd have no choice but to accept the science.

Guru
01-26-2009, 01:51 PM
Mythbusters had an episode about this on not too long ago; they proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the moon landing was real. All the crap conspiracy theorists spout off was disproved in such a simple way that all you needed was to be in possession of higher brain functions and you'd have no choice but to accept the science.I never get to see that show anymore. Would have loved seeing that ep.

Planetman
01-26-2009, 01:52 PM
I miss the Earth so much. I miss my wife. It's lonely out in space.

Buck
01-26-2009, 01:55 PM
I miss the Earth so much. I miss my wife. It's lonely out in space.

As a matter of fact, its cold as hell.

Guru
01-26-2009, 01:56 PM
I miss the Earth so much. I miss my wife. It's lonely out in space.Ground Control to Major Tom.
Yes, I know that is not the song you are referencing.

Planetman
01-26-2009, 01:57 PM
And all this science, I don't understand. It's just my job, five days a week.

Donger
01-26-2009, 01:57 PM
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/mouUUWpEec0&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/mouUUWpEec0&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

JOhn
01-26-2009, 03:14 PM
Mythbusters had an episode about this on not too long ago; they proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the moon landing was real. All the crap conspiracy theorists spout off was disproved in such a simple way that all you needed was to be in possession of higher brain functions and you'd have no choice but to accept the science.

:thumb:

Saulbadguy
01-26-2009, 03:28 PM
I just read the wikipedia page on The Moon Landing Hoax Conspiracy, and almost everything I was arguing was legitimately discredited, so in all truthfulness, I do believe we landed on the moon.

I don't what makes you the bigger idiot, the fact that you believed it in the first place, or you were so easily swayed the other way after reading a few things.

Saulbadguy
01-26-2009, 03:30 PM
Well, each person has his/her flaws.

I just don't see how they made it all the way to the moon using the equipment they were using. That's all.

I mean, look at the shitty computers we used 25 years ago compared to today. This was 40 years ago.

I just cant see us getting to the moon w/ the technology we had.

You'd actually be surprised if you saw the technology we use NOW on Space Shuttles. My cell phone has more computing power than the processors they use on the Shuttle.

Plus, it's not like technology back then was all that different from what we have now. We just have made it much, much smaller. :doh!:

Darth CarlSatan
01-26-2009, 03:35 PM
Van Allen belt says NO.

Rain Man
01-26-2009, 03:39 PM
Mythbusters had an episode about this on not too long ago; they proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the moon landing was real. All the crap conspiracy theorists spout off was disproved in such a simple way that all you needed was to be in possession of higher brain functions and you'd have no choice but to accept the science.


What if Mythbusters is in on it? Maybe they were set up by the government as an ostensibly free-market show, but the actors are really CIA agents and their whole agenda is to discredit the truthseekers?

You can't disprove this.

Guru
01-26-2009, 03:41 PM
What if Mythbusters is in on it? Maybe they were set up by the government as an ostensibly free-market show, but the actors are really CIA agents and their whole agenda is to discredit the truthseekers?

You can't disprove this.ROFL

Darth CarlSatan
01-26-2009, 03:55 PM
Here's some science for you:

Fly through the Van Allen belt, and get irradiated to crisp. It's the plane that can not be crossed or circumvented.

Planetman
01-26-2009, 04:19 PM
Here's some science for you:

Fly through the Van Allen belt, and get irradiated to crisp. It's the plane that can not be crossed or circumvented.
This is complete and utter nonsense. The van Allen belts are regions above the Earth's surface where the Earth's magnetic field has trapped particles of the solar wind. An unprotected man would indeed get a lethal dose of radiation, if he stayed there long enough. Actually, the spaceship traveled through the belts pretty quickly, getting past them in an hour or so. There simply wasn't enough time to get a lethal dose, and, as a matter of fact, the metal hull of the spaceship did indeed block most of the radiation.

BigMeatballDave
01-26-2009, 05:54 PM
Yes, totally.Are you a member of the Flat Earth Society, too?

Adept Havelock
01-26-2009, 06:07 PM
I'll let Buzz Aldrin speak for my opinion of "Apollo Hoax" tinfoil wearers.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZOo6aHSY8hU&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZOo6aHSY8hU&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Ebolapox
01-26-2009, 06:09 PM
I find your lack of faith distrubing.:D

YOUR FAITH IN YOUR FRIENDS IS YOURS!

Bowser
01-26-2009, 06:11 PM
Here's some science for you:

Fly through the Van Allen belt, and get irradiated to crisp. It's the plane that can not be crossed or circumvented.

Bullshit. One of four things happens -

1) You turn to rock and get really strong

2) You can become invisible AND create/manipulate forcefields

3) You burst into flames without dying and can fly

4) You become really stretchy

JuicesFlowing
01-26-2009, 06:11 PM
Just as Jerry Seinfeld points out in one of his jokes, how in the hell did we get a car on the God damn moon?

Donger
01-26-2009, 06:12 PM
I'll let Buzz Aldrin speak for my opinion of "Apollo Hoax" tinfoil wearers.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZOo6aHSY8hU&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZOo6aHSY8hU&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Damn. I was going to post that. Don't f*ck with Buzz.

Donger
01-26-2009, 06:13 PM
Just as Jerry Seinfeld points out in one of his jokes, how in the hell did we get a car on the God damn moon?

It was packaged into the LM. A really elegant piece of mechanical engineering, actually.

Ebolapox
01-26-2009, 06:14 PM
Well, each person has his/her flaws.

I just don't see how they made it all the way to the moon using the equipment they were using. That's all.

I mean, look at the shitty computers we used 25 years ago compared to today. This was 40 years ago.

I just cant see us getting to the moon w/ the technology we had.

yeah--and a teenager almost started a nuclear war in the late 80's using an apple IIe, which has less computational power than the average scientific calculator.

look, innovation is one of the hallmarks of the human race. ever heard of the pyramids? yeah, pretty cool, eh? they were done quite a while back. just because something happened without technology doesn't mean it isn't possible.

KcMizzou
01-26-2009, 06:14 PM
I'll let Buzz Aldrin speak for my opinion of "Apollo Hoax" tinfoil wearers.

:clap:

Jackass had it comin'.

KcMizzou
01-26-2009, 06:15 PM
yeah--and a teenager almost started a nuclear war in the late 80's using an apple IIe, which has less computational power than the average scientific calculator.

look, innovation is one of the hallmarks of the human race. ever heard of the pyramids? yeah, pretty cool, eh? they were done quite a while back. just because something happened without technology doesn't mean it isn't possible.
Bad example. Everybody knows aliens built the pyramids.

mikeyis4dcats.
01-26-2009, 06:15 PM
Just as Jerry Seinfeld points out in one of his jokes, how in the hell did we get a car on the God damn moon?

it was folded up in a capsule. no lie.

dumbass.

Bowser
01-26-2009, 06:16 PM
Bad example. Everybody knows aliens built the pyramids.

It was people from the future, working with the denziens of Atlantis.

Fuckin n00bs.

JuicesFlowing
01-26-2009, 06:20 PM
it was folded up in a capsule. no lie.

dumbass.

I referring more to Seinfeld than asking a serious question. Thanks.

boogblaster
01-26-2009, 06:27 PM
Some lead some follow ... others just believe ... how easily fooled ....

Adept Havelock
01-26-2009, 06:35 PM
It was people from the future, working with the denziens of Atlantis.

****in n00bs.

Nah. If Jewel Staite had a hand in the construction, the Valley of the Kings would be populated with statues of Dr. Simon Tam.

KCChiefsMan
01-26-2009, 06:35 PM
I only voted so I can lose that $50 in the casino

Buck
01-26-2009, 06:37 PM
I don't what makes you the bigger idiot, the fact that you believed it in the first place, or you were so easily swayed the other way after reading a few things.

Well my big issue was the radiation belts, but after I read about what really happened, I don't really have much of an argument anymore.

They said that the amount of radiation those guys were exposed to is the same amount as I am exposed to over the course of 3 years at sea level.

kstater
01-26-2009, 06:45 PM
Well, each person has his/her flaws.

I just don't see how they made it all the way to the moon using the equipment they were using. That's all.

I mean, look at the shitty computers we used 25 years ago compared to today. This was 40 years ago.

I just cant see us getting to the moon w/ the technology we had.

Well before computers, calculations were made using this thing called math(you know Trigonometry, Calculus etc). You might have heard about it.

DJ's left nut
01-26-2009, 06:46 PM
If theres one thing that pisses off your-guys' generation, its a 23 year old kid doubting the moon landing.

While I honestly don't think we did it, I think its funnier seeing everybody call me a jackass.

If there's anything that pisses my generation off, its when fellow members of it don't bother to do any homework before spewing uneducated, unadulterated garbage and thus making making jackasses of the rest of us.

--Sincerely, a 27 year old that isn't a flat-earth, misinformed, ignorant retard.

For the love of God, get at least a modicum of understanding of basic physics before shitting on the work of some of the most brilliant minds our nation has produced.

Over-Head
01-27-2009, 01:11 PM
<EMBED src=http://www.youtube.com/v/mouUUWpEec0&hl=en&fs=1 width=425 height=344 type=application/x-shockwave-flash allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></EMBED>

ROFLROFLROFL


But realy, try this link
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/moon.htm

Donger
01-27-2009, 01:59 PM
Seriously though, has anyone ever seen the footage of the ascent stage of the LM taking off from the Moon? I believe it was Apollo 15. The camera shows the ascent engine firing and then pans up to follow the LM's ascent.

How did they do that, unless it really was a sound stage?

And, yes, I know the answer.

StcChief
01-27-2009, 02:19 PM
I just can't figure out how they would actually take off from the moon if they landed on it.


I hope one day my thoughts are proven untrue to me because I really WANT to believe we have been to the moon but I just don't believe it.


RRdo you understand that the gravity on the moon

The moon is 1/4 the size of Earth, so the moon's gravity is much less than the earth's gravity, 83.3% (or 5/6) less to be exact.
http://www.moonconnection.com/moon_gravity.phtml

paging Tiptap to fully inform you on science.

orange
01-27-2009, 02:44 PM
Bullshit. One of four things happens -

1) You turn to rock and get really strong

2) You can become invisible AND create/manipulate forcefields

3) You burst into flames without dying and can fly

4) You become really stretchy

Fantastic!

Bowser
01-27-2009, 04:23 PM
Seriously though, has anyone ever seen the footage of the ascent stage of the LM taking off from the Moon? I believe it was Apollo 15. The camera shows the ascent engine firing and then pans up to follow the LM's ascent.

How did they do that, unless it really was a sound stage?

And, yes, I know the answer.

They had a string tied from the LM to the camera?

Paniero
04-29-2012, 12:16 AM
Nope. But the astronauts have.

kysirsoze
04-29-2012, 12:36 AM
:facepalm:

ChiefsNow
04-29-2012, 01:03 AM
Sure we have, Pink floyd wrote some of their music up there.

KurtCobain
04-29-2012, 01:04 AM
Sure we have, Pink floyd wrote some of their mucic up there.

Makes sense!

Lumpy
04-29-2012, 01:11 AM
http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/12/2010/04/500x_honeymooners_kramden_alice_cotd.jpg

ChiefsNow
04-29-2012, 01:15 AM
Whyyyyyy II aughta

Pawnmower
04-29-2012, 01:26 AM
remake this poll , and public so the 17 can be shamed

Pablo
04-29-2012, 06:31 AM
LMAO

R8ers sure does make some solid threads.

BoneKrusher
04-29-2012, 06:52 AM
sure, several times a year.

Dave Lane
04-29-2012, 07:39 AM
R8ers really is an epic idiot. This thread pretty makes the conclusion easy.