Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * - 9 votes

moon landing


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
4059 replies to this topic

Poll: moon landing (231 member(s) have cast votes)

do you believe that people landed on the moon.

  1. yes (157 votes [67.97%])

    Percentage of vote: 67.97%

  2. no (74 votes [32.03%])

    Percentage of vote: 32.03%

Vote

#91    AROCES

AROCES

    Forum Divinity

  • Banned
  • 16,312 posts
  • Joined:07 Apr 2006

Posted 21 June 2006 - 08:37 PM

Quote


Now here is the next puzzle in this game.
The Apollo mission conducted from 1969 to 1972 were a period of solar maximum where an average 15 solar flare with varies magnitude are emitted. These solar flares would sometime last for few hours to a couple of days.  
Although you could predict solar flares, I find it NASAís decision to send these men to moon during maximum highly unethical (canít find the right word right now), risking the lives of the astronauts.
What is even more disturbing is why they would risk sending Apollo 17 after the 1972 August M class solar flare. Why were they taking such a high risk, incase of unpredictable solar that could end lives of these men.

Rohn
IPB Image


  NASA did not think it is such a risk, mission accomplished and they were correct.
That is pretty simple


#92    MID

MID

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,490 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2005

Posted 21 June 2006 - 11:35 PM

S3...

I believe you have proved yourself here.

I had a feeling you'd bite, and paint a picture of yourself that is rather clear.  You succeeded.

I will address a few of your points, however. I am hoping you will recover from your emotional tirade and get with the program, as-it-were.


Clavius is a site painstakingly researched and written by a space scientist who happens to know alot about the subject matter.  It is accurrate, and explains things rather clearly.  Lots of people refer to it as a source for Apollo information, because it is so well written and concise.  You may be sick of it, but that's because you wish to hold on to your dearest illusions in the face of the facts, which just happen to be the opposite of the truth of the matter.

I did not in any way cheap shot you, nor did I assail your character or persona.   That is an emotional and immature reaction on your part. I merely pointed out the facts of the matter, and what I am willing to accept in the form of discussion.  What you decided to do was ignore that and go off on a bold type tirade.   That doesn't inspire much in the way of discussion.   I alse asked you, as I've asked others, to take it one step at a time, so as to promote discussion and learning.  You seem to ignore that,  and instead prefer to inflate yourself with statements like:

[quote]Do you see yourself as the almighty disseminator of all knowledge in these matters? Please, tell me you are Einstein or Tesla. Otherwise, I cannot accept your credentials. [/quote]

To answer, no, I do not.  That has never been implied.  However, if you bother to read what's actually here, you will see that I have just a little background in the subject matter, and do in fact know more about it than you do, despite your "common sense".
___________________________________________________________________________

[/quote]Well, since it 'was' going to be my last post, I wanted you to have just a bit of what I have been exposed to. This is why the moon shots are so suspect. There is just too many things that are way to hinky. You know what hinky means right? Old Air Force talk. Yeah, I'm a VET. Could that perhaps convince you to stop your continual barrages on my character and persona. [quote]

(...I know exactly what you have been exposed to.  But that information doesn't make the moon shots suspect.  It makes the authors of that  material suspect.  That is what this thread is supposed to be about...giving you the complete and actual picture...)

You are a VET.
Great.  That fact gets you respect in my book.  
However, being a VET does not automatically embue one with knowledge in the subject matter which we are attempting to discuss.   It also does not entitle you to flame out without recourse.  Your service to this country is appreciated (or, at least it should be) by all, but you are not automatically entitled to be accepted as an authority on Apollo in the face of facts to the contrary of your position.  Nore does it entitle you to immunity from anyone who wishes to point out that you're being obstinate in the face of those facts.   That Apollo is "hinky", or FUBAR, as you indicate, means only one thing...

You buy what you've been exposed to (I've read just about every hoax page on the Web, including the links you refer to) and as I've said many times before, that is what these sources are designed to exploit, a large scale ignorance of the facts, sciences, and mechanics which produced the successful Apollo Program.  

The point here is to show you the whole picture, so that you can research the actual facts, and learn something.  



Now, you are exhibiting the emotions of someone who is hell-bent on believing rather than someone who is hell-bent on learning.  You do not read carefully, and you mis-interpret thus:

[/quote]Now wait a second MID. THEY STILL DON'T UNDERSTAND THE FUNCTION OF THE VAN ALLEN BELTS. UNBELIEVABLE. I CAN JUST IMAGINE THEM TELLING THAT TO THE ASTRONOTS BACK IN "68. CAN YOU HEAR AT LEAST ONE OF THEM? "NOT SURE? WELL, I AIN'T RISKING MY LIFE FOR UNCERTAINTIES. AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED, YOU CAN FAKE IT AS HAS BEEN SUGGESTED TIME AND AGAIN."[quote]


The reference was to the purpose of the belts (what they do, what their purpose is...that should've been clear, if your emotions weren't clouding the issue).  They understood all about what they were, and the hazards present in them.  To be honest, the astronauts couldn't have cared less.  They were confident that adequate provisions had been made, and of course they were.   Read in context to your own question and you'll see clearly (at least I hope so) that you've made an error in judgement here.

...also, your use of the term "astronots", robbed from one of the notoriously silly HB sites, doesn't do you much credit...


You are painting yourself into a corner when you make statements such as the one's that follow:

[/quote]Don't try using their dosimeter as proof since they never left the Earth with them. Sheesh, that's like saying, look at my scar, not too bad after my fight with Zues! LOL. More [quote]

Well, that says a bunch, eh?   They never left the Earth with them.  Don't try using the data derived from the five separate dosimeters used on all Apollo lunar flights? rofl.gif

It's almost becoming  a moot point at this juncture with you now, I'd think.  

And you ask about my credentials?  
It doesn't really matter does it?   If I told you I was Neil Armstrong, that wouldn't make a difference to you.  You think he was part of the fake!  It's really a rather lunatic point.  


You mention that Jay over at Clavius said there was a detectable solar flare recorded during Apollo 16.  I'd be willing to bet that Jay is correct.   The solar flare issue was thorougly explained to you, however, and you didn't bother to read the part about the directionality of solar flares, and that detectable does not mean major.  The flare recorded during Apollo 16 was not major...

And I guarantee you, back in April 1972 that people like myself, and Charlie Duke, John Young, Ken Mattingly, all the guys in the MOCR, and certainly most all of the guys in the back rooms,  had no idea about that flare, and could've cared less.  If it was major, action would've been taken in advance of it (I told you these events were forecastable as to intensity and timing), and an abort could've been ordered if it posed any safety hazard. I told you that the crews had protection in the CM for a couple days against a major solar flare event, providing them a cusion... you missed that, and its implications if a major event was forecast during an Apollo mission.

I also told you it was a risk, but an acceptable risk (that's not just a nebulous declaration.  It is a scientifically calculated probability), since the odds were against it (and of course, the odds were in our favor, and the fact that there was no major flare activity recorded during Apollo tends to prove those odds.  You wish to make a major issue about a word or two of my usage.  That is a tell tale sign of someone who does not want to do any substantive research into the matter.

I explained to you, in as simple terms as I could, all about the solar radiation protection designed into the Apollo lunar garments, and what do you do with that?   Do you check into it?  No.  You come back with:

[/quote]NOMINAL SOLAR RADIATION? [quote]  ...and a dissertation about the Apollo 16 solar flare, and all the other flares that occurred during the time period.  The August 1972 flare was an M class flare.  No one was flying then, and it was forecast.  I explained that. There were plenty of other ones.  They happened frequently.  None of them was "major" save that one, and none of them had any effects on Apollo as the records clearly show.

Yes, nominal.  In the language of engineeering, "nominal" means normal (it means, "minimal" in regular colloquial usage).  There was nothing abnormal anout the solar radiation experienced on any Apollo mission.   You can easily find this out for yourself.

Radiation, solar and van Allen, has been discussed ad-nauseam in these threads.  It was never an operational problem in Apollo.  The record is absolutely clear on this.  

___________________________________________________________________________

  [/quote]QUOTE(MID @ Jun 19 2006, 04:58 PM)
I am not here to shatter your illusions. I am here to guide you to an understanding of that which you do not understand.

Open your mind, and allow something in.

One thing at a time. It's much easier that way.



This is completely inflammatory and you should think twice before using such comments. Illusions? Open my mind and allow something in? Come on MID. As you began in the beginning of the post, so do you end. Character assassignations

If you think that was a character assasination, you are twisted.  That's not character assasination, it's a simple observation, and a rather nice request in the interest of discussion, and hopefully, learning.

If you cannot see that your answer was inflammatory, and completely missed the point, then you may be beyond reach.

This thread, and all the others, are about discussions.  They all have the potential to be beneficial.

You believe that "common sense", and of course, your exposure to the crafty productions produced by those with just a little knowledge, and an agenda ($$)... makes you think they have something.  Paper Moon, Barty Sibrel, Bill Kaysing?   All of that presents the facts out of context, illustrates a profound lack of basic knowledge in the subject matter, and is deliberately designed to paint a picture that neglects the truth in favor of a wacky conspiracy.

Belief is not knowledge.  Knowledge is the product of experience.   I asked for a question, not a tirade of already thoroughly debunked ideas.  

I don't want you to sit here and argue twenty points that have been thoroughly debunked already.   I am looking for a question.

You're admittedly willing to learn.  But if you're thinking that "Paper Moon" is providing you with factual learning, you're mistaken.   It's providing you with exactly what it wants to...a position based upon lack of knowledge and a desire to sell a book or a "documentary" film to a generation or so of people who may be gullible enough to believe them, because they weren't around when Apollo  happened.  I was, and I know better.

That's not an ego-enhancement.  It's simply a fact.

Knowledge, and science, is about the pursuit of knowledge through experience.  I have mentioned Johannes Kepler before, a man who spent years attempting to prove his dearest beliefs about the cosmos, and who had the courage to abandon them in the face of the facts, when he finally discovered them.   His laws of motion were the result of his relentless pursuit of the truth.  His grandest illusions were shattered, but he accepted the truth.

(...and we all thank him for his courage, since his laws of motion, and an understanding of them, allowed us to do Apollo...)

Now, this "discussion"(if we have one...and that's up to you) certainly doesn't rise to the level of Kepler's struggle, since Apollo is the most thourougly documented scientific and technical accomplishment in human history, but the principal is the same.

Relax, stop flaming away about your cherished beliefs, and ask a question.  


And, I repeat:  one at a time please.  The answer may be lengthy, will probably be referenced to the scientific documentation, and will require effort on your part.

No one expects you to believe anyone (I don't know why, since you believe upstarts and people with virtually no knowledge of the subject matter, and wish to present that as "evidence" and "research", and make blanket statements of falsehoods as if they were facts).   If you've read other posts I've made, I expect you to investigate for yourself what is said, and learn about it on your own.

But if you decide not to accept the invitation, and decide to flame in bold type and make all sorts of accusations that have no merit, you will likely be ignored here.




#93    MID

MID

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,490 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2005

Posted 21 June 2006 - 11:52 PM

Quote



Armstrong, not giving interviews, not wanting pictures, not wanting to be too associated with a hoax, he surely knew would be uncovered one day in the near or far off future.  That is exactly why he has, to date, never given an interview about his experiences on the MOON!  PERIOD!  LOOK IT UP.  The claim of this by Sibrel is clearly backed up by evidence I provide four posts ago.  LOOK IT UP!  And if you refuse to believe me, offer up proof to the contrary.  I DARE YOU!

And while your debating common sense on picture taking, ask yourself why they didn't take way more pictures of the Earth in all her distant glory.  Can either of you tell me how many pictures were taken of Earth from the moon?  COMMON SENSE:  If I was up there seeing Earth in all her glory, I would shoot tons of pictures of her!  Why didn't they you might ask?  Too many chances for even the amatuer astronomer to notice the Earth appears four times smaller than it should!




Read Armstrong's biography, "First Man", published recently.
All you have to do is search on the Web and you'll find plenty of interviews with Neil.  He discussed his experiences on the Moon in detail with Dora Jane Hamblin and Gene Farmer in 1970's,  "First on The Moon".  

I dare you?  
No...I dare you to read a liitle.

And I see your scientific knowledge is profound, claiming that the earth in the photos is 4 times smaller than it should be.  (what???)  

I would shoot tons of pictures of her too, as did all of the Apollo crews.  That is indeed "COMMON SENSE".

For instance, Apollo 11 took 214 photographs during the mission which featured the Earth.

2 1 4.  That's alot.   Especially given the fact that their photographic priority was the lunar surface.  They took 339 exposures on the moon.  Their percentage of shots of mother Earth  might make one think they were smitten with that little blue globe.


Duh...Why didn't they take MORE?  How many did you expect them to take?

C'mon.  You had no idea that they took that many photos of the Earth.   And that was just one of the six lunar landing flights.  




#94    MID

MID

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,490 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2005

Posted 21 June 2006 - 11:54 PM

Quote



You can delete the truth guys.  But you'll never be able to hide from it!



You are doing a very good job of doing just that...


#95    boggle

boggle

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 599 posts
  • Joined:23 May 2006

Posted 22 June 2006 - 06:03 AM

[quote]I believe you have proved yourself here.[/quote]

yes actually i believe he's proved numerous points

[quote]I had a feeling you'd bite, and paint a picture of yourself that is rather clear.  You succeeded.[/quote]

he didnt paint a picture he acurrately describes what you do which is the basic tactic of phil plait.

[quote]I will address a few of your points, however. I am hoping you will recover from your emotional tirade and get with the program, as-it-were.[/quote]

get with agreeing with your program?

[quote]Clavius is a site painstakingly researched and written by a space scientist who happens to know alot about the subject matter.  It is accurrate, and explains things rather clearly.  Lots of people refer to it as a source for Apollo information, because it is so well written and concise.  You may be sick of it, but that's because you wish to hold on to your dearest illusions in the face of the facts, which just happen to be the opposite of the truth of the matter.[/quote]

painstakenly researched? why then does even waspie claim its opinions?

I[quote] did not in any way cheap shot you, nor did I assail your character or persona[/quote]

sometimes it takes someone actually describing what you do to get to the truth.

[quote]That is an emotional and immature reaction on your part. [/quote]

i could state the same for you

[quote]I merely pointed out the facts of the matter, and what I am willing to accept in the form of discussion. [/quote]

facts of the matter? you state opinions based on what you wont accept to believe and that is how you present your posts.

[quote]What you decided to do was ignore that and go off on a bold type tirade. [/quote]

when did he do that?

[quote]That doesn't inspire much in the way of discussion. [/quote]

the same could said about you

[quote]I alse asked you, as I've asked others, to take it one step at a time, [/quote]

he has stated this and conveyed in the same manner before you, are you now just catching on?

[quote]so as to promote discussion and learning.  You seem to ignore that,  and instead prefer to inflate yourself with statements like:[/quote]

once again your reversal isnt working here, you are the one who ignores what he posts



[quote]To answer, no, I do not.[/quote]

that pretty much sums it up

[quote]That has never been implied.  However, if you bother to read what's actually here, you will see that I have just a little background in the subject matter, and do in fact know more about it than you do, despite your "common sense".[/quote]

if this is what you are trying to convey then you are wasting alot of time beating around the bush while trying to give a resume.

[quote]Knowledge, and science, is about the pursuit of knowledge through experience[/quote]

exactly and what he is showing covers those areas.

[quote]I have mentioned Johannes Kepler.[/quote]

you identify with him then you must know what is actually in store for you then?

[quote]Relax, stop flaming away about your cherished beliefs, and ask a question.
[/quote]

here is another reversal, he has asked already for you to ask him a question but you ignore it once again.

[quote]since Apollo is the most thourougly documented scientific and technical accomplishment in human history, but the principal is the same[/quote]

Well if you feel so adamant about it then what is the problem with you then asking him questions like he has already done?

[quote]No one expects you to believe anyone (I don't know why, since you believe upstarts and people with virtually no knowledge of the subject matter, and wish to present that as "evidence" and "research[/quote]

well lets see if your questions can actually reverse his beliefs then shall we?

Edited by boggle, 22 June 2006 - 06:16 AM.


#96    boggle

boggle

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 599 posts
  • Joined:23 May 2006

Posted 22 June 2006 - 06:20 AM

regarding the 'shielding' that was once considered useful:
the typical missions was primarily 5 g/cm2 aluminum shielding.  (not lead)

In a discussion towards a manned flight towards mars it then becomes a concern regarding radiation since "when different particles hit the shields, they of course produce secondary radiation that will penetrate into the spacecraft, and which must also be taken into account when estimating radiation doses to the astronauts. The shielding material of the spacecraft is also a somewhat open question.  Whereas aluminum was considered a useful shield material in the early 90s, it is now considered a very poor material for these types of missions." (going beyond the Van Allen radiation belts)

wanna see something funny? MIT ion propulsion proposals balked in the year 2000
by the Van Allen radiation belts:  Trajectory
Concerns Regarding the Van Allen Radiation Belts

http://web.mit.edu/12.000/www/finalpresent...onconcerns.html

here is an example of the "fiction" that waspie regards as being:

Adeos-1 - On September 20, 1997, the $474 million Adeos research
satellite launched by Japan a year earlier into an 803-km orbit, began to malfunction. According to a report in Space News, "...Cosmic rays were found to have damaged the main onboard computer, which caused it to shut down all nonessential systems, including the sensors, forcing scientists to reprogram its software"

Herbert Friedman, in his book Sun and Earth, describes Van Allen's
global survey of cosmic-ray intensity: "The results from Explorer I,
launched on January 31, 1958, were so puzzling that instrument
malfunction was suspected. High levels of radiation intensity
appeared interspersed with dead gaps ... Explorer III succeeded fully,
and most important, it carried a tape recorder. Simulation tests with
intense X rays in the laboratory showed that the dead gaps represented
periods when the Geiger counter in space had been choked by radiation
of intensities a thousand times greater than the instrument was designed
to detect. As Van Allen's colleague Ernie Ray exclaimed in disbelief:
'All space must be radioactive!'." Herbert Friedman later explains that
"Of all the energy brought to the magnetosphere by the solar wind, only
about 0.1 percent manages to cross the magnetic barrier."

the following source shows the solar minium and solar maximum given from
1870-1995. These characteristics determine the intensity of solar flares.

http://www.ofcm.gov/nswp-sp/text/c-sec1.htm

The late Professor Sydney Chapman, President of the IGY Special Committee,
who was one of the world's foremost physicists, wrote in 1959:
"[The Van Allen inner belt] is a hazard to space travelers in this region. Its
dangers are analogous to those suffered by unshielded workers on x-rays
or radium, or to those caused by nuclear fallout from atomic and hydrogen bombs".

Edited by boggle, 22 June 2006 - 06:35 AM.


#97    S3th

S3th

    Apparition

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 250 posts
  • Joined:14 Jun 2006

Posted 22 June 2006 - 04:35 PM

Well, it seems MID will continue to try and bait me with his comments meant to try discredit me as some sort of emotional individual unable to deciminate information in a rational way.  Well, I'm done trying to impress upon MID that sarcasm and humor are a part of deflecting potshots such as he continues to use.  Please MID, desist with the psychobabble.  PLEASE!  Just answer the questions.  As a show of good faith and a desire to have you enlighten me, I will keep future posts direct and focused on one point at a time.  MID, please answer them with some form of proof to the contrary or scientific fact.

Thank you in advance.  And a big shout out to boggle for seeing MID's post for what it was.

MID, and anyone who wants to explain this next one for me...

Cliok here and explain please!

In this video of Neil Armstrong stepping onto the 'moon' for the first time.  You will see two different camera angles.  NASA has already explained about some sort of arm mechanism that swung out to capture this historic moment.  One camera.  As you will see in the footage you will watch when you click on the above link, there are two cameras at work here.  One of which appears to be ground level and some distance away from the LEM.  You will see it as it shoots and on a monitor that a man is watching from Houston.

Watch this carefully MID and explain it away please.

I anxiously await your discourse!  

S3


#98    Waspie_Dwarf

Waspie_Dwarf

    Space Cadet

  • 34,215 posts
  • Joined:03 Mar 2006

Posted 22 June 2006 - 04:49 PM

I fail to see a problem here. The angle from above is clearly taken from inside the LEM, I would assume by Buzz Aldrin. The ground level footage is from a remotely operated camera attached to the outside of the LEM.

How does 2 cameras angle prove the moon landing fake? It just proves there was more than one camera.

This clip of film has clearly been edited after the return of Apollo 11 to earth, as is obvious from the inclusion of the still photo of the first footprint so it is obviously not the live footage transmitted at the time. From the quality of the images it is clear that the shots from above are from a film camera whilst the ground level is from a TV camera.

"Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-boggingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the street to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space." - The Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy - Douglas Adams 1952 - 2001

Posted Image
Click on button

#99    S3th

S3th

    Apparition

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 250 posts
  • Joined:14 Jun 2006

Posted 22 June 2006 - 07:35 PM

Sorry, but the 'television camera' still appears entirely too far away from the LEM to be attached to it.  Not only that, it is so low, it could only have been attached to the legs of the lander.  This is impossible as you should well understand.   Can you show me some schematics from of the LEM that show's how this 'magical arm' which was suppose to swing away and down from the LEM and get this infamous shot.

Before you try to find the schematics/developmental paperwork, let me tell you what Frank Hughes told James Collier when asked for aforementioned schematics/paperwork explaining how the LEM was able to fly sideways above the surface of the moon with three tiny thrusters keeping a ten thousand pound thrust rocket from tipping the entire contraption over.  Frank Hughes told James Collier that all the paperwork was destroyed.

That's right, the people from Grumman Aircraft Engineering told James Collier, all the paperwork about the development of the LEM was destroyed.  Incredulous isn't it.  Well, I don't know about you, but if I was the creator of a device as wonderful as the LEM was suppose to be, I'd secure that kind of paperwork.  Wouldn't you?  It should have been on display at a NASA musuem.  Hell, any musuem for that matter.  Not only that, but the scientific community should be outraged the creator of the LEM wasn't awarded a Nobel Prize for the amazing creation of such a magnificient vehicle.  And yet this is not the case.  Destroyed.  Well, I think rational people can understand why they were destroyed. It never flew on Earth.  Would you test the reliability of a craft such as the LEM without the benefit of having had a successful flight on Earth? I think not.
Watch 'Was it only a Paper Moon.  I have left the link.  It is a very convincing investigation proving the moon landings were a complete hoax!  And yet you and MID have yet to inform me of your having watched it.  Not one bit of contradictory proof to what Mr. Collier provides in his investigation.  

I myself have gone to Wikipedia and found some schematic examples of the LEM.  Not one of them show where the 'TV camera' was suppose to be, or the arm that was 'suppose' to extend out to take that historic footage.  STRANGE.

Can you, or MID, or anyone find one single schematic which shows not only where the arm/camera was located on/in the LEM, but also how it was extended out by the astronots from inside the LEM in preparation for Armstrongs exit.  Perhaps NASA has had enough time to come up with that particular dealio eh?

Okay, so there were arguments for why the LEM's footpads had not one spec of dust on them after blowing up all the dust.  Right.  Well, it was explained thusly...

Picture taken from this LINK

user posted image

Quote

Well think for a moment; how could the dust be above the lander feet to settle on it? Any blast from the lander's rocket would throw the dust down and to the side,very little would land on the feet. There is no air disturbance for the dust to billow around in. Throw the dust to the side and it will go that way, it won't come back to land on the feet.


Quoted from This site

Now, in their desire to explain away the lack of moon dust/sand from the movie set, they forget this from this LINK

user posted image

Sorry, but I had to crop the above image as it stretched the page beyond it's original size.

Dirt, and lots of it underneath the LEM.  There was much concern that the LEM might fall into the blast crater created by the blast of the 10,000 pound thrust rocket.  The lack of a blast crater is explained away as a result of the limited thrust used on descent.  Okay, but how about a dent in the dirt underneat the center of the LEM.  There is none.  Not even a dent.  Sheeesh, talk about miracles.

Picture from following LINK
user posted image

Again, no crater in the picture I found at this LINK
user posted image

Okay.  So I found pictures where there are no blast craters, however minimul they might have been.  And of course the picture with the dirt all around and under the LEM, although it was suppose to have been blown away by the thrust of the rocket.  You can't have it both ways people.  Was it blown away, or did it stay around and have tea with the astronots?  And if it stayed, why didn't it land on the perfectly clean landing pads?

In the future you will see NASA's own photographs as evidence to make my points.  When you try to DEBUNK them, please remember, I am no one's fool, and either is anyone else at this site.  So be thorough in your debunking.  I'd prefer a little proof and links as I have supplied here.

EDIT:  Thanks to Aroces I will edit references to craters to include before it, blast.  BLAST CRATERS!

Edited by S3th, 22 June 2006 - 10:44 PM.


#100    Waspie_Dwarf

Waspie_Dwarf

    Space Cadet

  • 34,215 posts
  • Joined:03 Mar 2006

Posted 22 June 2006 - 08:07 PM

Quote



This is impossible as you should well understand.



You demand that everything be substantiated yet counter with unsubstantiated comments like the one above. Double standards my friend.

So I turn it around to you. Provide evidence that a camera could not have been fitted to the leg. Show me schematics that prove your point.

If you are going to apply double standards then it is impossible to have arational debate with you. Already I suspect from your behaviour that this is the case. You claim that Armstrong refuses to be interviewed. I provide you with three examples that show you are wrong. So you claim that he won't talk about the moon landings. I give you an example that proves you are wrong. So you move the goal posts again, "he doesn't use the actual word moon".

No, I doubt that a true debate is possible with you.

Edited by Waspie_Dwarf, 22 June 2006 - 08:11 PM.

"Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-boggingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the street to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space." - The Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy - Douglas Adams 1952 - 2001

Posted Image
Click on button

#101    S3th

S3th

    Apparition

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 250 posts
  • Joined:14 Jun 2006

Posted 22 June 2006 - 08:08 PM

Take a good look at this picture.  Now, as far as I can tell there are only two possibilites here.  One is that the photo was doctored inserting the flag into it.  And the other is that the American flag has the magical properties of casting its shadow towards a light source.

Now, which is it.  As you can see, no visible shadow is stretching away from the flag in the same direction as the astronot.  Or the shadow to the left side of the flag, is it's shadow and casted in completely the opposite direction of the astronots shadow.  

Spooky how magical our flags are once they are erected eh?

user posted image

Above picture taken from this[LINK


#102    S3th

S3th

    Apparition

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 250 posts
  • Joined:14 Jun 2006

Posted 22 June 2006 - 08:45 PM

Quote


You demand that everything be substantiated yet counter with unsubstantiated comments like the one above. Double standards my friend.

So I turn it around to you. Provide evidence that a camera could not have been fitted to the leg. Show me schematics that prove your point.

If you are going to apply double standards then it is impossible to have arational debate with you.


Of course I demand you substantiate your claims.  I am substantiating mine.  You maintain we went to the moon?  Yes?  MID intimated that I have not done my research.  Have you done yours?  I maintain that once you do, you will have far more doubt and perhaps even come to the same conclusion as I.  We never went to the moon.

So start doing something to prove your point like I have.  Not just try and turn it around on me when you are unable to find an adequate answer.  Perhaps our good friend MID can help you out here?  MID?

While you guys are at it, please explain the scientific principle making what is occuring in this picture possible.  Do you see it.  Picture taker is being lit from the front, casting his shadow behind him while the subject is sunlit from his left side.  Isn't that a bit odd?  Oh, I am sure you'll have some explanation.  Maybe the man taking the picture is standing next to a large mirror, reflecting the sunlight sideways instead.  Right?  Reach now, reach!  

user posted image


Your quote here Waspie

Quote

The angle from above is clearly taken from inside the LEM, I would assume by Buzz Aldrin.


Have you proof that Aldrin filmed Armstrong from inside the LEM's window?  Do not assume.  Want to debate this in a convincing manner?  Then start proving your assumptions with research and documentation.  I am even providing links for you.  NASA pictures.  Not mine or some other schmuck.  

By the way, since you have the knack for pointing out mispelled words for us.  IRRATIONAL.  Yes, your spelling of irrational was arational...LOL

EDIT:  While your at it can you explain what appears to be a spotlight and partial roof beam off to the upper left hand corner of the picture.  This should be interesting.

Edited by S3th, 22 June 2006 - 08:47 PM.


#103    AROCES

AROCES

    Forum Divinity

  • Banned
  • 16,312 posts
  • Joined:07 Apr 2006

Posted 22 June 2006 - 08:53 PM

Quote


Take a good look at this picture.  Now, as far as I can tell there are only two possibilites here.  One is that the photo was doctored inserting the flag into it.  And the other is that the American flag has the magical properties of casting its shadow towards a light source.

Now, which is it.  As you can see, no visible shadow is stretching away from the flag in the same direction as the astronot.  Or the shadow to the left side of the flag, is it's shadow and casted in completely the opposite direction of the astronots shadow.  

Spooky how magical our flags are once they are erected eh?

user posted image

Above picture taken from this[LINK


   You are looking at the wrong spot for the shadow of the pole that is why you don't see it. The Flag's shadow itself can't be seen because of the very low angle of the light source, the astronaut legs confirms that. If you look at a magnified picture of it you can see just above the shadow of the leg of the astronaut is the shadow of the thin pole.


#104    S3th

S3th

    Apparition

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 250 posts
  • Joined:14 Jun 2006

Posted 22 June 2006 - 08:55 PM

Okay, I admit it.  I am providing many more questions for you MID.  Take your time.  One a day, if need be.  Just, please, have the courtesy to provide more proof than assumptions.

Thank you.

I can't recall which 'Apollo moon landing' this picture was taken during, but I find it strange they forgot to pack the flags crossbar.  Don't you?

user posted image



#105    S3th

S3th

    Apparition

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 250 posts
  • Joined:14 Jun 2006

Posted 22 June 2006 - 09:01 PM

Quote


You are looking at the wrong spot for the shadow of the pole that is why you don't see it. The Flag's shadow itself can't be seen because of the very low angle of the light source, the astronaut legs confirms that. If you look at a magnified picture of it you can see just above the shadow of the leg of the astronaut is the shadow of the thin pole.


Edit:  Go outside when the sun is low in her skies Aroces.  Now, look down at your shadow.  It still starts at the foot of your foot.  Right?  I don't see how the shadow of the pole can long jump all the way over to the astronot.  Perhaps the 1/6th gravity helps?

Edited by S3th, 22 June 2006 - 09:04 PM.