Bogeyman Posted April 10, 2006 #1 Share Posted April 10, 2006 What kind of Astronaut wouldnt know how far up the Van Allen Belt begins and ends ? Why would one Astronaut say the Lunar Module Rocket is loud and the other say say you cant hear it in the vacuum of space ? Why do they get so upset when asked to swear on the bible that they actually went to the moon ? Check it out on this video ......Hmmmmmmm http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=57...ronauts&pl=true Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cinders Posted April 10, 2006 #2 Share Posted April 10, 2006 I am just watching a bit of this now and REALLY shocked at how they are behaving! BUT I might not know the "whole" reason behind this though. I mean, if they have been bugged like this for YEARS, I can understand their reactions to this. I'd probably get sick and tired of the BS and act the same way and tell him to shove his bible up where the sun don't shine. However, I am not so sure I'd get physical like a few did (but then again, I am not a man) but I definately would mouth off a bit. Going to watch the rest --- thank you for finding this Bogeyman! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bogeyman Posted April 10, 2006 Author #3 Share Posted April 10, 2006 I am just watching a bit of this now and REALLY shocked at how they are behaving! BUT I might not know the "whole" reason behind this though. I mean, if they have been bugged like this for YEARS, I can understand their reactions to this. I'd probably get sick and tired of the BS and act the same way and tell him to shove his bible up where the sun don't shine. However, I am not so sure I'd get physical like a few did (but then again, I am not a man) but I definately would mouth off a bit. Going to watch the rest --- thank you for finding this Bogeyman! No problem I dont really think that this proves anything really....except that it's funny to see them all getting so irked by the guy...But if you've got a guy asking you to swear on the Bible that you actually did go to the moon all the time....i think you'd get p***ed off . If anything after watching the whole thing, i felt that enough of them said the right things to show that his evidence is at best ....Flimsy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waspie_Dwarf Posted April 10, 2006 #4 Share Posted April 10, 2006 Having just wasted 53 minutes of my life watching this video my main thought was that Aldrin should have hit the gut harder. If someone called you a liar and a thief what would you do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cinders Posted April 10, 2006 #5 Share Posted April 10, 2006 Ok, I watched the whole thing... I retract what I said previously.. because I WOULD HAVE done what the astronauts said and did, but probably MUCH more to this guy! and I am a female! The ending was like WTH?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pax Unum Posted April 10, 2006 #6 Share Posted April 10, 2006 Having just wasted 53 minutes of my life watching this video my main thought was that Aldrin should have hit the gut harder. If someone called you a liar and a thief what would you do? New imagery of old Apollo touchdown spots, from the European Space Agency’s (ESA) SMART-1 probe, might put to rest conspiratorial thoughts that U.S. astronauts didn’t go the distance and scuff up the lunar landscape. Foing told SPACE.com that the SMART-1 orbiter circling the Moon has already covered the Apollo 11, 16, 17 landing sites, as well as spots where the former Soviet Union’s Luna 16 and Luna 20 automated vehicles plopped down. The images have not yet been released. End of Conspiracy Theories? It would be nice if they released the images... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bogeyman Posted April 10, 2006 Author #7 Share Posted April 10, 2006 Having just wasted 53 minutes of my life watching this video my main thought was that Aldrin should have hit the gut harder. If someone called you a liar and a thief what would you do? The same as they did....no doubt ! Agreed that this video serves no purpose ....save to see the Astro's getting annoyed :angry2: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rd rock resident alien Posted April 10, 2006 #8 Share Posted April 10, 2006 All apollo pictures of the moon does not bear any signs of a star! A stage moon and a blank blanket behind it? Year 2010 China will verify if USA went to the moon. If there's no US flag, they'll re-write history when it transmit a first man on the moon as One China One moon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waspie_Dwarf Posted April 10, 2006 #9 Share Posted April 10, 2006 All apollo pictures of the moon does not bear any signs of a star! A stage moon and a blank blanket behind it? Year 2010 China will verify if USA went to the moon. If there's no US flag, they'll re-write history when it transmit a first man on the moon as One China One moon. Go to this thread Did we land on the Moon? and read all the posts and you will see that there are very good reasons why there are no stars, it just needs a very basic understanding of elementary photography. China are aiming for a landing on the Moon in 2017, which is only one year before the USA aims to be back. What's more it now seems likely that the 2017 date is the date for China's first un-manned landing. It is unlikely that the Chinese will be in any position to prove / disprove Apollo any time soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bogeyman Posted April 10, 2006 Author #10 Share Posted April 10, 2006 (edited) Found this 2 hour documentary also http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=19...he+moon&pl=true Whether we like it or not ...there are some very intrigueing questions that haven't been answered satisfactorily IMO . The Photographic anomalies do raise some very good points. About 54 minutes into this you'll hear how on the first broadcast of the moon landing in western australia ...people saw a Coke bottle being kicked out of the way by an astronaut....for the re-broadcast the next day everyone tuned in to see it again ...but the bottle had mysteriously vanished ... Edited April 10, 2006 by Bogeyman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rd rock resident alien Posted April 10, 2006 #11 Share Posted April 10, 2006 IMO, it was done for the best interest of the United States of America. More especially, it was done to fool the russian to scrub whatever plans they for the moon and space technology. The sputnik spook USA that made NASA to do anything. USA found a wormhole to the moon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waspie_Dwarf Posted April 10, 2006 #12 Share Posted April 10, 2006 Either read through the Did we land on the Moon? thread or go to Phil Plaits Bad Astronomy website and you will see that virtually every claim of discrepancies are 100% false. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MID Posted April 10, 2006 #13 Share Posted April 10, 2006 Found this 2 hour documentary also http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=19...he+moon&pl=true Whether we like it or not ...there are some very intrigueing questions that haven't been answered satisfactorily IMO . The Photographic anomalies do raise some very good points. About 54 minutes into this you'll hear how on the first broadcast of the moon landing in western australia ...people saw a Coke bottle being kicked out of the way by an astronaut....for the re-broadcast the next day everyone tuned in to see it again ...but the bottle had mysteriously vanished ... I see you have discovered one of the most thoroughly debunked pieces of trashy tabloid journalism yet put out regarding this so-called moon hoax business. Indeed, it was made by none other than Bart Sibrel, an imbecilic 2nd rate film maker who employs immature, even childish methods, edits terrifically, takes statements out of context deliberately, and does so with the express intent of making a small fortune on the ignorant regarding space flight...and oddly enough, he is one of them. ...he has also been embroiled in several lawsuits as the result of his idiotic antics, and has been arrested for harrasment at least once, when he forced his way into Neil Armstrong's home when the only person who was there was his somewhat terrified wife... The photographic anomalies you mention raise nothing except a bit of the ire of those who actually understand that all one is seeing in Apollo photographs are perfectly natural photographic effects, all of which can, and are observed in many earth photographs. And, as to the famed (and equally debunked) "coke bottle" incident, there is no evidence whatsoevber that a coke bottle was observed anywhere during the broadcast of Apollo 11's EVA. The "coke bottle" being kicked accross the screen appears to have been a mis-interpretation (probably induced by alcohol) of a reflection cast in the camera lens, a reflection coming off off Buzz Aldrins suit which appeared to bounce accross the surface. A small analysis shows quite clearly that this reflection moved accross the screen at precisely the frequency that Aldrin was bouncing along as he moved toward the camera. It repeated itself again as he bounced away from the camera. The "coke bottle" incident is a non-incident. It never happened. Everyone in the world saw the Apollo 11 EVA as it happened at the same time, and no one, save one woman in Australia, ever claimed to have seen a coke bottle bouncing accross the "set", and this woman has never been heard from again...if she was ever really heard from in the first place. Now, it is very true that some intriguing question may present themselves in the minds of some people who weren't around back then, or who do not understand much about space flight, Apollo in general, or the nature of the lunar environment, basic photographic principals, etc. The supposed conflicts put forth by the unknowledgable (i.e., Sibrel, Kaysing, et. al.) can be explained by those who do understand quite easily. This might be the place to get those answers, should you be of a mind to place your concerns right here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalker Posted April 10, 2006 #14 Share Posted April 10, 2006 You guys really think the Soviets would have let us get away with a hoax? You think they weren't watching us? The only way a hoax MIGHT have been possible would have been if we had sent an Apollo capsule and lunar module into orbit, landed the lunar module, shot the upper half away, sent the capsule back to earth, landed it in the ocean, put astronauts in it, THEN started filming, with all the stuff occuring on the moon being done REMOTELY. Look, if we had sent people in orbit around the moon once or twice before the Armstrong flight, wouldn't it just have been simpler to, instead of filming a hoax to, I dunno, ACTUALLY LAND?!?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waspie_Dwarf Posted April 10, 2006 #15 Share Posted April 10, 2006 You guys really think the Soviets would have let us get away with a hoax? You think they weren't watching us? The only way a hoax MIGHT have been possible would have been if we had sent an Apollo capsule and lunar module into orbit, landed the lunar module, shot the upper half away, sent the capsule back to earth, landed it in the ocean, put astronauts in it, THEN started filming, with all the stuff occuring on the moon being done REMOTELY. You forgot to mention that as well as landing the LM on the moo you would somehow have had to put the laser reflectors (which are still in use by astronomers around the world) onto the surface. You would also have to have faked moon rock (or somehow returned it remotely) which would not only fool the best minds on the planet but be of similar composition to the moon rock that the Soviets would return by Unmanned spacecraft several years later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stellar Posted April 10, 2006 #16 Share Posted April 10, 2006 What kind of Astronaut wouldnt know how far up the Van Allen Belt begins and ends ? Why would he? The astronaut isnt necessairly an astrophysicist. Why would one Astronaut say the Lunar Module Rocket is loud and the other say say you cant hear it in the vacuum of space ? Because you cant hear it in the vacuum of space. Remember how the first one said its hard to explain the difference between hearing the sound and feeling the sound, btw? Why do they get so upset when asked to swear on the bible that they actually went to the moon ? You wouldnt? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waspie_Dwarf Posted April 10, 2006 #17 Share Posted April 10, 2006 (edited) Why would he? The astronaut isnt necessairly an astrophysicist. Very true Stellar. Of the 12 men to walk on the moon only one, Harrison Schmidt of Apollo 17, was a scientist. Schmidt was a geologist. All the others were test pilots. Also they are being asked questions 30 years after the event. It is only 16 years since I left my first job and if you asked me questions about it I'm sure I'd make mistakes... and I'm in my 40's not my 70's. Edited April 10, 2006 by Waspie_Dwarf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cinders Posted April 10, 2006 #18 Share Posted April 10, 2006 Found this 2 hour documentary also http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=19...he+moon&pl=true Whether we like it or not ...there are some very intrigueing questions that haven't been answered satisfactorily IMO . The Photographic anomalies do raise some very good points. About 54 minutes into this you'll hear how on the first broadcast of the moon landing in western australia ...people saw a Coke bottle being kicked out of the way by an astronaut....for the re-broadcast the next day everyone tuned in to see it again ...but the bottle had mysteriously vanished ... I just watched the "coke bottle" bit now... all I can say is HOLY CRAP! Too bad back then, average folk did not own VCR's or tv recording devices. This was mentioned in the paper.. I would LOVE to get my hands on reading the articles that reported this in Australia because obviously, the US papers never mentioned it. And this is the first I've ever heard of this bit. I've read things about the "analysis" of the pictures and videos but NEVER this "coke bottle" bit. I am going to watch the rest of this.. If ANY of this is true about being faked.. then there's no telling what ELSE they've lied to us about for ALL these years. I wonder if that's partly why Kennedy was shot.. he missed out on this.. and was all for going to the moon.. was he going to come out with the truth? Ahhh the imagination runs wild watching these vids! LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graylady Posted April 10, 2006 #19 Share Posted April 10, 2006 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5...he+moon&pl=true that should be part 2... thanks bogeyman for this wonderful video.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waspie_Dwarf Posted April 10, 2006 #20 Share Posted April 10, 2006 How could Kennedy have been about to have come out with the "truth"? He was assassinated 4 years before the first scheduled flight of Apollo and 6 years before the Apollo 11 landing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cinders Posted April 11, 2006 #21 Share Posted April 11, 2006 How could Kennedy have been about to have come out with the "truth"? He was assassinated 4 years before the first scheduled flight of Apollo and 6 years before the Apollo 11 landing. I recently read something somewhere.. I think it was regarding Serpo regarding bits of something and Kennedy? And now after watching Part 1.. well, like I said earlier, my imagination runs wild. It just sort of "sparked" some thoughts. Anyway, it would be the biggest "slap" in the face to the American public if ANY of the Apollo missions were "faked" ... No, what I really mean is that it would the the BIGGEST SLAP in the face TO THE WORLD if any of the Apollo Missions were "faked" On to part 2.. and thank you for providing this as well Graylady! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bogeyman Posted April 11, 2006 Author #22 Share Posted April 11, 2006 (edited) Why would he? The astronaut isnt necessairly an astrophysicist. Are you seriously trying to tell me an Astronaut wouldn't know where the Van Allen belt is ????....anyone else agree with this ???? Because you cant hear it in the vacuum of space. Remember how the first one said its hard to explain the difference between hearing the sound and feeling the sound, btw? But in that case why would one say it was loud and the other say ...no sound ?? You wouldnt?...Probably not no I think also that people are mixing the two clips i posted ...The second long documentary raises some very intrigueing questions.....dont take my word for it.....How is it that the photographs could not have been taken in the conditions they were supposed to have been taken....Height distance etc ......Watch the 2nd video before coming back with a preconceived answer please !!!! I'm not saying they didnt go to the Moon ......Yet ! I am saying there are questions that need answering ....definitely .....whats wrong with asking for instance "why is the Astronauts life support flap open in this picture.....and closed in the tv version of the same moment ?"...and more questions like this ! Edited April 11, 2006 by Bogeyman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stellar Posted April 11, 2006 #23 Share Posted April 11, 2006 I think also that people are mixing the two clips i posted ...The second long documentary raises some very intrigueing questions.....dont take my word for it.....How is it that the photographs could not have been taken in the conditions they were supposed to have been taken....Height distance etc ......Watch the 2nd video before coming back with a preconceived answer please !!!! I posted that before I even knew of the 2nd video... But in that case why would one say it was loud and the other say ...no sound ?? Where is the point of reference? An astronaut inside the lander could hear/feel (like he said, its hard to explain the difference between hearing and feeling sound) it loudly, while the other could be talking about you not being able to hear the lander from outside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bogeyman Posted April 11, 2006 Author #24 Share Posted April 11, 2006 I posted that before I even knew of the 2nd video... Where is the point of reference? An astronaut inside the lander could hear/feel (like he said, its hard to explain the difference between hearing and feeling sound) it loudly, while the other could be talking about you not being able to hear the lander from outside. Okay Stellar...i take your point but now i'm asking you to watch the second video, and if you can truely honestly come back and say there are no questions to be answered....well then i just plain give up ! If some of it was staged and they really did go well why not just say that some of the shots were representations of the truth. I find it hard to believe that they could keep it a secret for so long if they didn't go !!! But hell that still leaves these puzzling questions to be answered. For example ...they took NO artificial light sources with them ...The refractiveness of the Moon is less than asphalt ...so if you take a picture of an Astronaut with his back to the sun......why would the front of his suit be lit up ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feanor Posted April 11, 2006 #25 Share Posted April 11, 2006 (edited) I think the guy deserved that punch in the face from Buzz Aldrin. I think the way he spoke to that guy was disrespectful. But yes, they act weird when questioned about the missions... Edited April 11, 2006 by Feanor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now