Waspie,
Believe me, I do not think that all Brits and French believe these idiodic things (perhaps the mind-boggler does...but that's another story!).
You're right about Americans...sadly so.

You probably should have kept that video! But on second thought, it wouldn't matter, considering boggle's peculiar stance, and his insistence on ignoring factual information in favor of adherence to an unsubstantiated opinion...

lol, the idiotc things count as being ... documentaries being shown in colleges? could that be one that you could be worrying you so? or is it the fact that people from nasa itself or even people having knowledge and experience working with rocketry are going beyond your expectations? People such as Bill Wood having knowledge in the feild of rocketry, who make public statements that clearly point out descepencies.

All though I quoted you, this was not aimed at you at all MID, but to readers of this thread in general. Sorry if that was the impression I gave.

What?
You are kidding, right?
You really do now how complex a problem radiation exposure is, and that we used dosimeters to record it? Right. You do know that we were actually very safe passing through the van Allen belts, Right?

C'mon, man, stop playin' us.




This person doesn't read what's been written. Case proved.... Thin windows? Does he have any idea of what he's talking about? Steel? No...he doesn't. God almighty...




They did, precisely fly through the thinnest portions of the van Allen belts, as has been explained to our esteemed poster before.


The South Pole?????





OK...it was impossible...we never went to the moon!

Silence is highly preferable in the absolute absence of knowledge....

Good lord..

No Waspie...no problem at all...

I actually gave the impression that I was talking about Brits in general...probably a poor choice of syntax on my part!

Yea...


He doesn't read ...at all.

lol you really dont have a clue as to the radiation's potential do you? i have shown what it can do (ie what it has done to satalites) as well as how small and penetrating that particular radiation area can be, get a clue.

Show us a video from any mission where the flag moves without anyone having touched it. It appears to be waving in still photos because the gravity was not strong enough to overcome the fabric memory from the wrinkles. The wrinkles came from being folded druing transport.

You'll find it here:

http://www.thothweb.com/modules.php?name=G...cat=7&pagenum=2

the last 2 videos (2parts)

"the answer my friend is blowing in the wind, the answer is blowing in the wind".

You point us to a 2+ hour movie and can't even tell us approximately where we should look for your mystery footage? You expect us to sit through the rest of Percy's crap to find some footage that may or may not exist?

the 1st half of the documentary.

Gee, that narrows it down.

Also, while I am not a fan of Percy's research or rather lack of it, I don't think it is right for his copyrighted work to be presented for free on the internet unless Percy himself intended it that way. Would you want something you were trying to sell given away for free? Has he consented to offer it free over the internet or has somebody else done it without permission?

Perhaps they have permisson, at any rate im glad its readily available for everyone to see.

I watched the first part. That's two hours of my life I'll never get back. I saw no video where the flag is moving and an astronaut has not touched it. Perhaps I missed it. Perhaps you could actually refert to a specific time instead of a two hour long video. I did however see multiple videos showing the flag completely stationary when the astronauts were not touching it. It still had the wrinkles and of course the bar at the top holding it out but definitely no movement from wind.

i think you skipped the part where the bottom corner of the flag spontaneously flips up and around, unless there is a ghost playing around i would say that is wind. At one point the astronaut beside the other one who is twisting it around holds the corner and after both of them lets it go, it still flips up and during this clip you can hear one state something regarding the wind hitting the flag. The song playing truly captures what is taking place.

Again, where is this footage?

same place i stated i earlier.

You said

That is over 2 hours long. Again, a time would be nice. As I said, I watched it and didn't see it.

that's funny perhaps you should read the posts regarding that footage and see how many people actually state otherwise there at the site and elsewhere. Those guys there may prescribe a nodoze pill or something, dunno, they might think you had your eyes closed.

I watched it last night...never saw any evidence of wind. What I did see was evidence of inertia. When the flag was touched it moved for quite awhile, this is because on the moon there's no atmosphere to impede this motion. It's simple physics...not wind.

yup i said that

Yep, you sure did...lots of us have. We seem to all be repeating one another here lately.

Ever get the feeling you're.....

yup lol.



its nice to know that some of us tho think on the same wave length

I havent read all the posts, but as for the wind thing, if it was shot in a studio why would there be wind in there? It takes quite a breeze to fly a flag properly as shown in the photos. Also someone mentioned the extreme variations in heat from the sun going from 250 degrees to minus that in the shadows. The suits are sufficient to protect the astonauts - they don't die during space walks do they.

it seems to me that some parts are in an inside set while other parts needed a helo and an outside set. Depending on which mission and the footage that particular mission leaves clues as to the extent of what kind of set. It's not necessary to only be confined to being in an indoor set and one location. As far as the suits go, back in the apollo missions, they had superman suits impervious to everything or so some would like to believe. The gloves had the ability to morph from being inflated looking to resemble gardening gloves.

Maybe a small mechanical device was implimented to create a wave motion for the flag?....

So I yet again ask for a time for this mystery footage and you respond with "Hey look at all these other people that agree with me!" Every single claim in that "documentary" was explained and debunked years ago. Why should I believe all these other people that have fallen for the con? And why can't you just give a time during the two hour long video that this footage supposedly appears? You have been asked multiple times. A less patient person would have given up on you long ago.

I'm watchin that video, hes talkin about lunar luminocity. He's analysing pictures that he believes werent taken on the moon, yet hes usin these as evidence to show how low the moons luminocity is...
But he's unknowingly just presented that the argument of lunar reflection adding light to the photographs is flawed aswell by the fact that most rocks arent illuminated by the lunar reflection.
But...moonlight at night can provide quite a bit of light on earth, so it must be fairly reflective.

you are looking at a bigger surface area from earth, while on the moon... why wouldnt then the small and tiny rocks not be lit up as well? there must be alien ghosts flipping the corner of that flag up and around.

Thats wot im saying:
But he's unknowingly just presented that the argument of lunar reflection adding light to the photographs is flawed aswell by the fact that most rocks arent illuminated by the lunar reflection.
The additional lighting cant be reflections of sunlight because it doesn't appear on the rocks as he says.

The parts he point out though are in shadow so they wouldnt be lit anyway. I was just pointing out his stupidity by using a photo he has claimed is fake to present facts about the real moon!

actually he is using the facts that is already accepted of known physics while describing light projections, shadows, and reflective characteristics which are the same on the moon as well as on earth. The bigger the surface area you are viewing will of course give off a greater reflection coming from the sun vs. a person actually on the surface itself observing shadows shown given by the position and angle of the light source.

He uses what hes just said is a fake photo to present these facts. Its not a big deal, i just thought it was a bit of a stupid thing to do!

Indeed it does. It was a very large outside set and is called the moon.

A little story:

Back in the early days of modern astronomy astronomers refused to accept that the Earth was the centre of the universe and that the planets could have orbits that were anything other than perfect circles. The problem was that the observed planetary motion simply did not agree with their theories. The astronomers, refusing to accept that their conclusions were wrong, added circular orbits within the main orbit and called them epicycles. Unfortunately the facts still did not fit the observations. They added more epicycles and then more. The planetary orbits they suggested became ridiculously complex.

Now another Astronomer by the name of Johannes Kepler had proposed a simple explanation. The planets orbited the sun and did so in ellipses not circles. The theory fitted the observations but was not accepted because the older astronomers refused to let go of their beliefs despite all the evidence to the contrary.

In the moon hoax theories you see an analogue of the epicycles. The hoax believers claim that the light sources are artificial and that there are painted backdrops used in the shots proving that Apollo was shot on a movie set. But they also claim that the landscape resembles the Navada desert so it most have been shot there. Aren't these contradictary you may ask? "No", the HBs will say, "they filmed the landings in lots of different places and then put it all together." Epicycles!

They claim that it was impossible for man to have passed through the van Allen belt, and yet there are laser reflectors on the moon exactly where NASA says the Apollo missions landed. The HBs explain this away by saying that as well as faking Apollo NASA secretly launched unmanned missions to plant this evidence. Epicycles!

And so on. Every time evidence is presented that shows how wrong these silly claims are a bit more complexity is added by the HB. More and more epicycles.

There is a principle in science called Occam's (or Ockham's) Razor:

entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem,

which translates to:

entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity
(source: Wikipedia).

This means that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one.

To make the evidence fit the observations the hoax believers have to add more and more complexity. Just like those astronomers of old they will just not let go of their beliefs despite the fact that the evidence just does not support them.

We probably have been there, but the videos and photos were maybe shot somewhere else. As waspie was implying, isnt the buggy n stuff still up there to see.

lol called the moon recreated scenario

[font=Times New Roman][color=#000066][b]A little story:



back in the ol' days they also believed in invention which this is a classic being the case. Your diversion tactic using misdirection wont help you neither waspie. Speaking of old days... NASA is still using the same old fashion rocket technology that braun is so attached to. So if you are referring to still being stuck on something old, its definitely braun technology. Braun claimed to have built a space rocket ship back in 1942 and that technology has not changed lol, remember challenger?

is NASA devolving statistically?

The thing i always notice is the size of the earth. When you look up at the moon its pretty big in the sky. The eath is bigger than the moon, so if you were to look at it from the moon it would seem pretty big in the sky right?

The footage was shot exactly where NASA says it was shot.

Yes the buggy and stuff are still up there. Unfortunately they are too small to be seen, even with the worlds largest telescope. In 2008 a spacecraft will be sent to lunar orbit called The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO). This will have cameras capable of photographing the descent stage of the lunar modules, which remained on the lunar surface.

boggle repeats (rather like a parrot) that men can not pass through the van Allen belts. Unfortunately the best astronomers and space scientist in Russia, Europe and China do not seem to have his amazing knowledge. As well as NASA, the Russians, Chinese and the European Space Agency (probably in conjunction with Russia) are all planning to send men there within the next 15 years.

The Russians, Japanese and the European Space Agency (India and China will follow next year) have all sent unmanned spacecraft to the moon. Funnily enough none of them noticed these lethal levels of radiation that boggle seems to have knowledge of.

and you like to repeat what earthchick has stated already, lol you are a classic waspie. You go ahead and hold on to braun technology as NASA continues to devolve while crashing and burning. Mabey you like incedents like the challenger and if that is the case then i feel sorry for your line of thinking.

here is something to keep in mind:

1 The Apollo spacecraft had suffered 20,000 system failures by 1967

2. out of 23,000 satalites sent up over 17,000 have malfunctioned and fallen out of orbit due to the Van Allen radiation belts

this is after allegedly going 100,000 miles farther to reach the moon and all that pertains to get there, spend 70 hours there, and come back safely, devolving? yep, sure looks that way while utillzing your von braun beliefs.

Below is every post earthchick has made on this subject. Please point out the one I am copying.
















You are repeatedly making the same mistake in attributing posts to the wrong person so let me give you a little clue: the posters name appears at the top of the post not at the bottom.

no you are making the same mistake since she was the one who initially made references to flat earthists who were the same people who claimed also the same things with the same thinking as you procede, basically you are reiterating what she was getting at and putting it in the same context. Like i said you are a classic waspie, a classic case of misdirection. You are basically making the same statement and even the same time frame, parrot? yep.

I haven't got a clue what that means

OH MY GOSH!!!


I thought this was the moon landing thread but its more like a jerry springer thread.



I have not paid much attention about the moon landing but i would like to believe it is not fake so i think it is not fake i think it was the genuine deal. But since There have been many conspiracy theories flying around i guess One was made up about Nasa and the moon landing.


Cant we all..............just get along

your accusations are in the same context as the statment made by earthchick but you are too busy parroting to notice. That is what i meant. When the next challenger type mishap happens, i'll think of waspie just like you think of me in correlation to your accusation or even as more and more satalites fall out of orbit due to the Van Allen radiation belts .. again.

What accusations boogle? What have I accused you of?

You have claimed that I enjoy watching people die in space accidents. That is to me a particularly hurtful accusation.

You have accused me of clinging on to braun technology. I have a beard I don't use any brand of electric razor.

You have accused me of copying other peoples work.

you know exactly what you are accusing me of, why are you playing stupid? its in the same context as earthchick likes to believe. You dont state any facts other than challenged opinions being given by an opposing source that people like Bill Wood (experienced engineer on icbm's during the same time and use of the same rocket technology) who gives expert testimony that contradicts the claims being made. The only alternative leaves you with trying to attack me as a skeptic and go way off the subject. What if your history lesson actually pertains to you, did that ever occur to you? perhaps von braun technology equates to the same logic as the history lesson you portray and given by the statistics i would state that im right. I have used information even outside of the whistleblower sources but can you state the same in the same context?

ok that is the sillyiest thing I have ever heard I have been reading this thread and biting my tongue, but that statement there I cant let that go. Read what you wrote (At one point the astronaut beside the other one who is twisting it around holds the corner and after both of them lets it go, it still flips up) if he is twisting the flag wouldnt you consider that moving it also if he pulls down on the corner which is attached at the top on the pole it would definately when he lets it go flip the corner up, duh. and I sat and watched that crap 2 hour long video and they didnt say anything about wind its all in your head which I would guess is mostly air so probably a little wind in there. You told us you had a video of the flag moving without anyone touching but that was a lie now wasnt it.

what im saying is:

initially when one astronaut puts the flag into the ground he makes the comment about the flag looking like the wind is blowing the flag so he tries to re-position it so as to try and avoid that effect several times. Meanwhile the other astronaut at certain points tries and holds the bottom end so that he too can divert that effect but none of these actions by either of them prevents the flag's bottom end corner from flipping up and around. When he first repositions it on the ground he lets go and the other astronaut lets go and after a few moments you see the same end corner flip up and around. This is where i mean an alien ghost must be their or wind.

What I see is the pole that is holding the flag out is bouncing up and down causing to corner to flip up, also the flag looks like it is being affected by wind is not the same as saying the wind is moving the flag. What that statement tells me is they were worried that the appearance of the flag might lead someone to beleive there is wind, its like they new the conspiracy nuts would jump on that even though there is nothing there. Your theory has so many holes in it its not even funny

why should it worry them anyways? if they are busy astronots then a simple statement like that should just laugh instead and go about their busy schedule.