bigsteff Posted March 27, 2003 #76 Share Posted March 27, 2003 the question we should be asking is what kind of cheese is it made out off Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bizarro Posted March 27, 2003 #77 Share Posted March 27, 2003 sometimes, i wonder about these morons that inhabit the world. im going to come up with a theory that the oceans are not real, they just are wave pools that all the governments of the world have along their shores Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HD Posted April 6, 2003 #78 Share Posted April 6, 2003 It could be a hologram, projected from various government installations throughout the world. It could be a large, crudely painted balloon, held in place by helium and propelled by tiny sails and rudders There are some fruit cakes out there! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueDarkness Posted June 25, 2003 #79 Share Posted June 25, 2003 EEEhhh...well there are those people that think the whole world is fake and they have "proof" it's just a holographic projection.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djdodo Posted June 26, 2003 #80 Share Posted June 26, 2003 Although I believe it that humans have reached the moon ... I found this web site with these faked photos ... it might help to support this topic ... http://batesmotel.8m.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dust19 Posted June 26, 2003 #81 Share Posted June 26, 2003 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. found this on the site DJDODO just linked.....i think this guy isn't taking into consideration the aperature on the camera. In order to llet in the most light (probably needed on the MOON!) the aperature must be open on the way. This extremely limits your DOF (depth of field) thus resulting in the "fading" effect... also about the "no stars in the pictures" deal. I just don't see that as a big deal. I have taken pictures here on a clear night with many manymanymany stars visible, they never appear in the picture. They are still too dim compared to the illuminated foreground. Star pictures only turn out if your main purpose is to capture them on film. You must use longer exposure times. For the stars to show up in the moon pictures, the astonauts would be very very blurred from motion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djdodo Posted June 26, 2003 #82 Share Posted June 26, 2003 Well ((Dust19)) ... I did not believe the theory of that web site too ... but i only put it ... lol .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ansemheart Posted August 11, 2003 #83 Share Posted August 11, 2003 if it was a hoax, then it was probably to gets the hundreds of millions of dollars of donation. The american gov. could be just using it people to get a lot of cash! I'm glad im in the UK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snuffypuffer Posted August 12, 2003 #84 Share Posted August 12, 2003 He doesn't believe in the moon? Odd duck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Posted August 12, 2003 #85 Share Posted August 12, 2003 I'm glad im in the UK. We in America are also glad you live in the UK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bounty-hunter Posted August 12, 2003 #86 Share Posted August 12, 2003 Exactly how can any one be sure that we have or will ever land on the moon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaj Posted August 14, 2003 #87 Share Posted August 14, 2003 I have no comments about the theories you posted, interesting reading anyway. I want to make another input: Look at our technology, how it was back then. How the heck could enyone get to the moon with that?????? If we did go to the moon, Is it possible that other intelligences technologies were used??? Only being openminded about this too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phantom Posted August 14, 2003 #88 Share Posted August 14, 2003 sometimes, i wonder about these morons that inhabit the world. im going to come up with a theory that the oceans are not real, they just are wave pools that all the governments of the world have along their shores *dialing* Hello Kofi? He knows... I'm telling you he knows... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lil_kanga77 Posted August 18, 2003 #89 Share Posted August 18, 2003 I recently read in "Investigating the Unexplained" by Paul Roland the following: "it is not unreasonable to assume that the extreme temperatures would have made it impossible to load the film which would have been fused into a sticky morass" "the astronaut's shots should have been adversely affected by the sun's radiation in a similar way during the journey behind the Belt, but they were all perfect. Perhaps too perfect" "one theory that no one seems to have considered is the possibility that the landings did take place, by that NASA was embarrassed when its film did not survive the journey for reasons already stated. In it's desperation to satisfy public expectation, exploit it's propaganda coup and secure its future funding it foolishly faked photographs in a studio, perhaps where the landing had previously been rehearsed. Or maybe photographs taken during those rehearsals were used" Another point made in the book is: "by the end of the decade, we are led to believe that men landed on the moon in a rocket whose computer had less processing power than a modern pocket calculator" If that is true, then why now (with all the technology and funds) are we not diving deeper into space? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saru Posted August 19, 2003 #90 Share Posted August 19, 2003 "by the end of the decade, we are led to believe that men landed on the moon in a rocket whose computer had less processing power than a modern pocket calculator" If that is true, then why now (with all the technology and funds) are we not diving deeper into space? Hi Lil_Kanga, It's not really a matter of computer processing power, manned space flight further afield is severely limited by current propulsion systems, fuel types etc. It wouldn't matter if a spacecraft had the most sophisticated computer in the world, if it used the same fuel and propulsion system as Apollo 11 used to get to the moon, you still wouldn't be able to get there any faster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exeter Posted August 19, 2003 #91 Share Posted August 19, 2003 If the race to see who gets to the moon first was such a big deal, what happened to the Russians? Are we to believe that because the US got to the moon first (hoax or not) the Russians simply gave up and said, "That's it! I don't want to play anymore!"??? If the race to the moon was indeed such an important issue back then (as the US made it out to be), Russia would have continued in their attempts at getting a cosmonaut on the lunar soil, US flag or not. I tend to agree with an earlier post that theorized that the Lunar missions were nothing more than propaganda, as well as a distraction from the conflict in Vietnam. That could explain why we haven't gone back since. Sorry if this was a bit off topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lil_kanga77 Posted August 19, 2003 #92 Share Posted August 19, 2003 Hi Saruman, Thanks for your reply. I guess I just wonder why, given the decades that have passed since this "event" that we haven't been there more times or done more in outer space than build a space station. It's like we discovered something yet left it alone once we discovered it. I can't think of something else we've discovered that we've "forgotten" about, can you? Btw, this is a really great forum. I'm new and already learning lots! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lung Posted August 21, 2003 #93 Share Posted August 21, 2003 Did man ever go to the moon or was it the biggest hoax ever created. evidence: 2.These shots of John Young and James Irwin - like many Apollo photos - show a lunar sky without stars. Yet with no atmosphere on the moon, stars should be visible - a fact confirmed by Maria Blyzinsky, Curator of Astronomy at the Greenwich Observatory, London. It's understandable to be ignorant of space, considering how few of us who have ever been there. What's unforgivable, however, is you ignorance of photography, a subject mastered by a great many more right here on good ol' earth Stars, due to their relative dullness, require a lot of exposure. However, to photograph an astronaut in direct sunlight on the moon where there is no atmosphere to diffuse light, obviously requires a very short exposure. 1/500th of a second should be ample. So, how many stars do you think are going to be visible at that exposure? Ironically, if the photos had stars in them, they would have had to have been doctored, not the other way around! Before you make assumptions based upon your own ignorance, i suggest that you learn some simple facts And as for Maria Blyzinsky, stars not appearing in the photos does not contradict her correct statement that stars would indeed be visible on the moon in sunlight. It looks as though you've used a strawman argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thanatos Posted September 4, 2003 #94 Share Posted September 4, 2003 I'm fond of the school of thought that man made it too the moon, but the radiation in space and heat of reentry fried all the film, and so then they made all the fake footage based on the experiences of the astronauts so that they wouldn't look like a bunch of fools Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lung Posted September 5, 2003 #95 Share Posted September 5, 2003 That sounds more plausible, but transmitting footage live would circumvent that problem, wouldn't it? Besides, radiation in general doesn't destroy film, only certain wavelengths, such as x-rays. Even then, you can put your film through airport x-rays many times before the film gets washed out. As for heat on re-entry, i think the astronauts would suffer before the film! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkyWatcher Posted September 5, 2003 #96 Share Posted September 5, 2003 Honestly? I don't know what to think of the moon missions...but some of the photos give food for thought. Like the layout where ALL the shadows are wrong, coming from 3 different sources. NASA said they had only one light source up there. Plus there was a landscape comparison of the appollo missions and the arizona desert, and they weren't only similar, they matched up perfectly, hill for hill, rock for rock. And the flag and the wind thing.....i don't know what to think for sure. lol I do believe that we were told not to come back, after we set the Van Allan belt on fire. We needed to grow up and think about the repercussions of our actions on a galactic scale, and thusly, were told "Stay in your own region until you advance, or there will be hell to pay....stoopid earthlings." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkyWatcher Posted September 5, 2003 #97 Share Posted September 5, 2003 Just found this. It could be that we were told not to come back, or are hiding something of major importance from the masses. Moon Cities Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Krow Posted September 6, 2003 #98 Share Posted September 6, 2003 thank you sky watcher...that was a great piece of reading...very...interesting...to say the least Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PurpleStuart Posted September 6, 2003 #99 Share Posted September 6, 2003 Skywatcher - if you follow the the links earlier in this thread you'll find that all those points are explained fully. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tupac-lives Posted September 9, 2003 #100 Share Posted September 9, 2003 Explain this: we allegedly landed on the moon several times, between 1969 to the early 70's, when technology was not as improved as we are today, so how come now for thirty odd years we have not been able to land man back onthe moon or even on another planet. technology keeps on moving forwards, but space technology has from my point of view moved backwards, 30 years is a very long time and surely before now we would of had the means to venture man further and further into space. Questions have to be raised, did we ever land on the moon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts