Users Online Now:
1,164
(
Who's On?
)
Visitors Today:
255,437
Pageviews Today:
324,869
Threads Today:
64
Posts Today:
1,022
02:50 AM
Directory
Adv. Search
Topics
Forum
Back to Forum
Back to Thread
REPLY TO THREAD
Subject
Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
User Name
Font color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Indigo
Violet
Black
Font:
Default
Verdana
Tahoma
Ms Sans Serif
In accordance with industry accepted best practices we ask that users limit their copy / paste of copyrighted material to the relevant portions of the article you wish to discuss and no more than 50% of the source material, provide a link back to the original article and provide your original comments / criticism in your post with the article.
[quote:Astromut:MV8xNzkwNzAxXzI5ODQ3MDMwX0MyQTlEMjlG] [quote:ZIPUX:MV8xNzkwNzAxXzI5ODQ2OTg2XzdGNTNGMjhC] [quote:Astromut:MV8xNzkwNzAxXzI5ODQ2Nzk1X0Y1REZCRjdB] [quote:ZIPUX:MV8xNzkwNzAxXzI5ODQ2NTkyXzY4M0ZGRUI3] [quote:Astromut:MV8xNzkwNzAxXzI5ODQ2Mzk3XzFDRDg3NjhB] [quote:Astromut:MV8xNzkwNzAxXzI5ODM5MTQwX0RFRDU4NTRD] LOL, found your "well presented" video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yo5w0pm24ic They start off interviewing Bill Kaysing http://www.clavius.org/kaysing.html He mentions among other bullshit reasons of why we couldn't land on the moon, micrometeoroid threats. Oh really bill? How in the hell did we ever overcome the EVA wall on ISS construction if that was a problem on the lunar surface where half the sky is blocked from presenting a micrometeroid threat and the total time spent performing EVAs is orders of magnitude shorter? Oh and there's your "deadly radiation": http://i319.photobucket.com/albums/mm477/ngchunter/apollodosegcm3-1.jpg Yeah, between .3 and .4 REMs, real frickin deadly. Yet that's the dose you would receive on the trajectory the Apollo spacecraft (which was rated at between 7-8gm/cm^2 areal density) took through the van allen belts to the moon, under stormy geomagnetic conditions. So then they play video of the flag waving AS THEY MANHANDLE IT. Yes, vibrations will still travel through a flag pole and cause a flag to sway in a vacuum. In fact, it'll sway more and longer in a vacuum because there's no air resistance to slow it down. So now we come to Percy. The only mission that had to be converted from slow scan to broadcast format using a camera filming the screen showing the slow scan image was Apollo 11. Now, as for his "discontinuity," you can clearly see the flap flapping in the video. The flap is on the astronaut's side of the PLSS, not the top, but nontheless you CAN see the top of that flap in the video and it is anything but motionless. Last, but not least, Persy outright lies when he says it was the top flap you see in the picture. It's the front flap just behind the astronaut's head. http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/AS16-113-18339HR.jpg Whoopsie, Percy's a little liar... and you bought it. So then he shows the zoomed in view of the earth... and you see the edge of the window as they shoot it. So what? Talk about utterly meaningless. That doesn't mean they aren't near the window, and it sure as hell doesn't fit with Sibrel's claim that they were using a "cutout" while orbiting in LEO. For one thing, if you attempted to use a "cutout," the features of earth would not look correct and would be constantly changing. For another, you wouldn't see the edge of the window if the camera moved to the left, you'd simply see the "cutout earth" move to the right in the frame. In fact the earth itself doesn't move much, but the window starts to intrude. Know what that means? The window is very close to the camera, the earth is far away, and the astronaut drifted a bit too far to the left for a moment. Furthermore, the earth is sharply in focus, the window's edge is fuzzy, further proving that he's close to the window and far from the earth. Then he jump cuts to a later scene showing the camera farther from the window. This was AFTER the astronauts reported moving back from the window (at houston's request), so yes now it's from further back in the capsule. 034:10:36 Armstrong: Unfortunately, we only have one window that has a view of the Earth and it's filled up with the TV camera, so your view now is probably better than ours is. 034:10:47 Duke: Roger. We copy. 034:10:51 Duke: 11, Houston. If you could comply, we'd like to see little smiling faces up there, if you could give us some interior views. I'm sure everybody would like to see you. Over. 034:11:06 Armstrong: Okay. We'll reconfigure the TV for that. ... 034:12:31 Duke: Apollo 11, Houston. It appears to us that we're seeing a view from outside plus a little of the inside. It appears you've taken the camera away from the left window now. Over. 034:12:45 Armstrong: That's correct. We're moving it back and reconfiguring for interior lighting. Here's a picture sequence that really takes the pants off Sibrel's claims being repeated here by Percy the Liar: http://apollo-history-and-hoax.com/Apollo11/index.html Oh, and is that a "large earth" in the window, no, that's glare: http://apollo-history-and-hoax.com/Apollo11/A11-3-009.jpg The windows naturally fogged up a bit after launch as the gaskets between the panes of glass outgassed a bit with the same type of chemical that you find in new cars. With new cars you can simply wipe off the interior of the window as it builds up, but that's not an option here since the interior panes are not "user accessible." I'll do more later if I feel like it, that's already 17 minutes of video watching that I want back. I could spend several days debunking every single point in the whole 4 hour video. It's all the same crap I've already heard before. [/quote] So do tell us Zippy, why were you presenting lies? [/quote] Another derogatory reply..... [/quote] You didn't answer my question. You decided to stake your credibility on the content of that video. So again I ask, why are you presenting lies? [/quote] ...lies Hmm, this is NASA footage of men on the moon.....do explain 2:10 for me please because I have no idea what I am seeing here.....as you 'seem' to know so much about this topic, your mature insightfulness would be most appreciated http://m.youtube.com/index?desktop_uri=/&gl=GB#/watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUE [/quote] Another broken link. I don't even have a title this time. Let me guess, you'll now claim it's not broken. Whatever. You're not even trying to address anything I already said, so tell me, why should I feel motivated to once again try to find the working link myself, this time without even the title to go on? [/quote]
Original Message
This blows every other moon-hoax documentary out of the water.
Man went
230,000+ miles
(460,000+ miles round trip!) into space in the 1960's. Since then, no country in the world has "had the budget" to go more than
400
miles into space. Are you effing kidding me??!!
Apollo Zero
Did you ApolloTards realize that lasers can be reflected off the natural lunar surface?
Where is your proof that the lasers are actually hitting retro-reflectors and not just bouncing off the surface?
PIN THIS
Pictures (click to insert)
General
Politics
Bananas
People
Potentially Offensive
Emotions
Big Round Smilies
Aliens and Space
Friendship & Love
Textual
Doom
Misc Small Smilies
Religion
Love
Random
View All Categories
|
Next Page >>