361 replies to this topic

[MID]

Quote

The picture is available under the topic starter.
Well the poeple who put up reasons that the lunar landings were faked are usually fairly intelleigent poeple. In my opinion, they are just looking for a little attention from the general public. I was probably being a little mean by implying that thier Daddies may have wanted a real man, not some sissy space loving wimp. Daddy didn't love them, now they need attention any way they can get it.

OK!    

[WoDoByMe]

I believe in the possibility of the American government staging the moon landing.

[boggle]

Quote

I believe in the possibility of the American government staging the moon landing.

i would agree with that theory since all of the pictures submitted by nasa are all undeniably questionable.  i dont see anyone scrutnizing the freeze frames but rather more of the same ol' diversion into flat earth or some other off hand topic.   Who cares about flat earth, there even some evolutionists today who still believe the earth is flat.

take a look at exhibit a:

http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/FlatHome.htm

Edited by boggle, 23 May 2006 - 10:48 PM.

[MID]

Quote

how dnow, ow could they have passed in this, when there is no room in the tiny thing to be insulated. how were they insulated?? if you can explain this to me, i would be suprised. how can you explain the footprints on the "moon's surface" when WE were the first on the moon?

and WHY dont we see the stars in the backround?? and im sur the russians would have tracked it, if we didnt SEE the ship go into space, i think what happened is we went into space, orbited the moon for several days, and went back, because how could the have done this correctly when there was footage of Niel armstrong eject the spacecraft right before it explodes at the cause of spinning and crashing? hmmm?
i have another little theory too, "it is called we need a better government because these people lie alot" theory

OK, I'll try to address these well articulated thoughts...at least some of them!

There was plenty of room in this "tiny thing" to be protected, and insulated.  The CM hull was designed to protect and insulate...otherwise these men would not have survived their journey.   It's spacecraft design 101.  Thick walls, multi-layered, pressure hull, etc...The CM's walls tapered from around an inch and a half thick to almost 4 inches thick at the base end.   There was plenty of insulation, and protection from the short exposure to van Allen radiation that the Apollo crews would endure.

I would explain the footprints on the moon as being the impressions of the treads of the lunar overshoes that the 12 men who landed there wore when they traversed out onto the lunar surface.  It's really rather simple, and yes, "we" did this.

We do not see stars in the backgrounds of the lunar photos because of the shutter speeds used when photographing very brightly lit objects as the subjects of our photographs.   The exposure time is designed to clearly expose the objects of the pictures, which were exposed to brilliant sunlight in broad daylight.   Objects like stars aren't visible because they cannot be seen in the exposures of the relatively high shutter speeds used for daylight photography.   The human eye couldn't see them either in that environment.   This is basic photography 101.

Your last paragraph, I am afraid, makes no sense whatsoever, so I cannot address it.

"...how could the have done this corrtectly when there was footage of Neil armstrong eject the spacecraft right before it explodes at the cause of spinning and crashing?"

You'll have to translate that one for me  

[MID]

Quote

i would agree with that theory since all of the pictures submitted by nasa are all undeniably questionable.

Really?

How are they questionable?  They all show precisely what one would expect them to show.

[boggle]

Quote

Really?

How are they questionable?  They all show precisely what one would expect them to show.

do you know anything about creating shadows from light sources? or do you just spout off uncontrollably? precisely is correct if they were to mean in a tv studio. Can you recreate a scenario where a flag will take on charicteristics of blowing around as if the flag itself is in an oxygen rich envirenment?  Your statement doesnt show an obvious counter to the argument but rather more towards pointing at something only you've seen and stating there, you see? your wrong in ever detail.

Edited by boggle, 23 May 2006 - 11:21 PM.

[Waspie_Dwarf]

Quote

do you know anything about creating shadows from light sources? or do you just spout off uncontrollably? precisely is correct if they were to mean in a tv studio. Can you recreate a scenario where a flag will take on charicteristics of blowing around as if the flag itself is in an oxygen rich envirenment?

It would be a sign that the moon landings were faked if that happened. The fact is that the flag never blows around as if it is in any sort of atmosphere (what the oxygen content has to do with anything I don't know). This point has been answered over and over again in the many MANY topics about the moon landing on this site. The Flag is held out by a wire to prevent it hanging limply (there being no air on the moon) When the flag was placed in the ground the flag pole and hence the wire holding the flag up vibrated. Simple.

As for shadows that has been explained in several of the other threads as well. I can't be bothered to repeat it all again, but is you want to read the correct explaination go to the Space & Astronomy forum. There you will finded a pinned topic marked (if my memory serves me right) Moon Landing conspiracies - please read before posting, there you will find links to 6 threads on this subject. As MID said,

Quote

This is basic photography 101.

Edit: The pinned post now his links to 7 threads on the moon landing conspiracies, I've now included this one.

Edited by Waspie_Dwarf, 23 May 2006 - 11:48 PM.

[boggle]

Quote

It would be a sign that the moon landings were faked if that happened. The fact is that the flag never blows around as if it is in any sort of atmosphere (what the oxygen content has to do with anything I don't know). This point has been answered over and over again in the many MANY topics about the moon landing on this site. The Flag is held out by a wire to prevent it hanging limply (there being no air on the moon) When the flag was placed in the ground the flag pole and hence the wire holding the flag up vibrated. Simple.

As for shadows that has been explained in several of the other threads as well. I can't be bothered to repeat it all again, but is you want to read the correct explaination go to the Space & Astronomy forum. There you will finded a pinned topic marked (if my memory serves me right) Moon Landing conspiracies - please read before posting, there you will find links to 6 threads on this subject. As MID said,

The fact of the matter is that the flag DOES blow around as a gust of wind has somehow managed to find its way on the alleged moon's surface.  The fact of the matter is that the idiots back then who didnt take into consideration the blatant mistakes made while portraying a fake as being valid.  You cant change the images submitted from Nasa with just words and stories, it must be scrutnized and show for what it is, a grand fake.  Nice job on the commentary, xfile's skinner.

Edited by boggle, 23 May 2006 - 11:38 PM.

[Waspie_Dwarf]

Never let minor inconvieniences such as evidence, facts, truth or logic get in the way of a good conspiracy theory.

[boggle]

Quote

Never let minor inconvieniences such as evidence, facts, truth or logic get in the way of a good conspiracy theory.

never let the freeze frames and still photo's speak for themselves, who can resist topping it off with paragraphs full of stories.

[Waspie_Dwarf]

Quote

"...how could the have done this corrtectly when there was footage of Neil armstrong eject the spacecraft right before it explodes at the cause of spinning and crashing?"

You'll have to translate that one for me  

I suspect this is referrence to the LLRV's and LLTV's from another thread, but with a major slice of confusion between those craft and the LEM.

Edited by Waspie_Dwarf, 23 May 2006 - 11:47 PM.

[Waspie_Dwarf]

Quote

The Soviets just had a hell of a time clustering a bunch of rockets, and had no von Braun to do the job...and no F-1 either...

I suspect that the lack of the F-1 was the key. Every thing I have read suggests that Korolev was at least von Braun's equal.

What machines they could have designed if only politics had allowed them to work together...

Edited by Waspie_Dwarf, 24 May 2006 - 12:10 AM.

[boggle]

Quote

I suspect that the lack of the F-1 was the key. Every thing I have read suggests that Korolev was at least von Braun's equal.

What machines they could have designed if only polotics had allowed them to work together...

well most of their ideas come from underwater simulations and perhaps they would adopt dive bells as templates in like manner.  The Solviets at one time had the biggest navy if not currently, they would certainly join together in this area.

Edited by boggle, 24 May 2006 - 12:05 AM.

[Waspie_Dwarf]

Quote

well most of their ideas come from underwater simulations and perhaps they would adopt dive bells as templates in like manner.  The Solviets at one time had the biggest navy if not currently, they would certainly join together in this area.

I'm a bit confused as to what dive bells and the Soviet Navy have to do with large rocket boosters.

[boggle]

Quote

I'm a bit confused as to what dive bells and the Soviet Navy have to do with large rocket boosters.

i was referring to a combination between the moon landing and underwater simulations but as for the rockets i would read up on Robert Goddard.

Edited by boggle, 24 May 2006 - 12:24 AM.