Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 1,889 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 784,618
Pageviews Today: 1,009,804Threads Today: 227Posts Today: 3,648
06:46 AM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax

 
Burt Gummer

User ID: 7702124
United States
02/28/2012 08:17 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
i'll simplify it as some people are to stupid to grasp this simple problem.


apollo spacesuit working temperature range -156 °C to 121 °C


actual moon temperature cold -183.333333 °C to 123°C


so not only did these suits work outside their range they worked at 100% extreme capacity all of the time they were on without a single problem , really ????
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 11551180


Your numbers are off from whatever source you got that from.
Suggest you read.........

[link to books.google.com]

Last Edited by Useless Cookie Eater on 02/28/2012 08:18 AM
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 11551180
United Kingdom
02/28/2012 08:40 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
i'll simplify it as some people are to stupid to grasp this simple problem.


apollo spacesuit working temperature range -156 °C to 121 °C


actual moon temperature cold -183.333333 °C to 123°C


so not only did these suits work outside their range they worked at 100% extreme capacity all of the time they were on without a single problem , really ????
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 11551180


Your numbers are off from whatever source you got that from.
Suggest you read.........

[link to books.google.com]
 Quoting: Burt Gummer


my numbers are accurate here are the sources

apollo suit

[link to en.wikipedia.org]

moon temperature

[link to www.sciencedaily.com]

check it yourself !!!
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 11551180
United Kingdom
02/28/2012 08:45 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
apollo suit

[link to en.wikipedia.org]

This spacesuit is capable of protecting the astronaut from temperatures ranging from -156 °C to +121 °C.
Burt Gummer

User ID: 7702124
United States
02/28/2012 08:50 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
i'll simplify it as some people are to stupid to grasp this simple problem.


apollo spacesuit working temperature range -156 °C to 121 °C


actual moon temperature cold -183.333333 °C to 123°C


so not only did these suits work outside their range they worked at 100% extreme capacity all of the time they were on without a single problem , really ????
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 11551180


Your numbers are off from whatever source you got that from.
Suggest you read.........

[link to books.google.com]
 Quoting: Burt Gummer


my numbers are accurate here are the sources

apollo suit

[link to en.wikipedia.org]

moon temperature

[link to www.sciencedaily.com]

check it yourself !!!
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 11551180


Thanks but no thanks.
I'm not a moontard.
...and I know people who designed some of the thruster systems for the Apollo program.

Enjoy your invented conspiracy. hf
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 8597527
United States
02/28/2012 08:59 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
Thanks but no thanks.
I'm not a moontard.
...and I know people who designed some of the thruster systems for the Apollo program.

Enjoy your invented conspiracy. hf
 Quoting: Burt Gummer


byekitty

cruisecruisecruise
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 11551180
United Kingdom
02/28/2012 09:38 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
i'll simplify it as some people are to stupid to grasp this simple problem.


apollo spacesuit working temperature range -156 °C to 121 °C


actual moon temperature cold -183.333333 °C to 123°C


so not only did these suits work outside their range they worked at 100% extreme capacity all of the time they were on without a single problem , really ????
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 11551180


Your numbers are off from whatever source you got that from.
Suggest you read.........

[link to books.google.com]
 Quoting: Burt Gummer


my numbers are accurate here are the sources

apollo suit

[link to en.wikipedia.org]

moon temperature

[link to www.sciencedaily.com]

check it yourself !!!
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 11551180


Thanks but no thanks.
I'm not a moontard.
...and I know people who designed some of the thruster systems for the Apollo program.

Enjoy your invented conspiracy. hf
 Quoting: Burt Gummer



I provided real factual data and you won't even check it , why did u even bother posting !!!!
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 8597527
United States
02/28/2012 09:45 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
I provided real factual data and you won't even check it , why did u even bother posting !!!!
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 11551180


Obviously because he "knows someone who designed thruster systems"...

Debunked!

cruise
ZIPUX

User ID: 4394297
United Kingdom
02/28/2012 10:02 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
"Twenty-eight percent of all Americans, according to a Gallup poll cited in the Los Angeles Times on October 13, 1976, have seen through the sham and now believe the moon landing to be a fake"

That was 1976....sheesh wonder what the figure is today?


[link to krishna.org]
AstromutModerator
Forum Moderator

User ID: 4211721
United States
02/28/2012 10:21 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
i'll simplify it as some people are to stupid to grasp this simple problem.


apollo spacesuit working temperature range -156 °C to 121 °C


actual moon temperature cold -183.333333 °C to 123°C


so not only did these suits work outside their range they worked at 100% extreme capacity all of the time they were on without a single problem , really ????
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 11551180


Your numbers are off from whatever source you got that from.
Suggest you read.........

[link to books.google.com]
 Quoting: Burt Gummer


my numbers are accurate here are the sources
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 11551180

No, they're not.
moon temperature

[link to www.sciencedaily.com]

check it yourself !!!
 Quoting: AC


"Equatorial and mid-latitude nighttime temperatures are -298 degrees Fahrenheit (-183 celsius)"

Did they land in the middle of the night? No, they didn't, they landed in the daytime. Nice deception, too bad I didn't buy it. The daytime temperatures are much warmer even in shadow:
[link to www.nasa.gov]
[link to pds-geosciences.wustl.edu]
Notice that the shadows of the craters (not the permanently shadowed polar craters) have a temperature of about 120 kelvin or -153 Celsius. Even then you don't see that until you get to very extreme latitudes.
astrobanner2
AstromutModerator
Forum Moderator

User ID: 4211721
United States
02/28/2012 10:26 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
Kodak produced what was even today an extraordinary emulsion, that could tolerate temperatures of +-200 degrees f. that's a 400 degree temperature range.
 Quoting: ZIPUX


No, the film never assumed such extreme temperatures. The temperature of the film is completely independent of the temperature of the lunar surface. The cameras were designed to maintain a safe operating temperature, no different from the cameras they still use in space today. Even the good old 70mm hasselblad saw service in the "extreme temperatures of space" in the early shuttle program.
astrobanner2
ZIPUX

User ID: 4394297
United Kingdom
02/28/2012 10:27 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
i'll simplify it as some people are to stupid to grasp this simple problem.


apollo spacesuit working temperature range -156 °C to 121 °C


actual moon temperature cold -183.333333 °C to 123°C


so not only did these suits work outside their range they worked at 100% extreme capacity all of the time they were on without a single problem , really ????
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 11551180


Your numbers are off from whatever source you got that from.
Suggest you read.........

[link to books.google.com]
 Quoting: Burt Gummer


my numbers are accurate here are the sources
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 11551180

No, they're not.
moon temperature

[link to www.sciencedaily.com]

check it yourself !!!
 Quoting: AC


"Equatorial and mid-latitude nighttime temperatures are -298 degrees Fahrenheit (-183 celsius)"

Did they land in the middle of the night? No, they didn't, they landed in the daytime. Nice deception, too bad I didn't buy it. The daytime temperatures are much warmer even in shadow:
[link to www.nasa.gov]
[link to pds-geosciences.wustl.edu]
Notice that the shadows of the craters (not the permanently shadowed polar craters) have a temperature of about 120 kelvin or -153 Celsius. Even then you don't see that until you get to very extreme latitudes.
 Quoting: Astromut


.....but are you not forgetting that due to the moon not having an atmosphere, unlike the earth where the angle of the sun, when low in the sky has to penetrate 'x' more atmosphere at a given point on earth, hence it is cooler at low angle, hotter when the sun is higher in the sky. On the moon the angle of the sun and subsequent temperature wouldn't be affected at all in the same way.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 11601721
Portugal
02/28/2012 10:39 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
Why is so hard to tell the Truth?cool2
ZIPUX

User ID: 4394297
United Kingdom
02/28/2012 10:41 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
Here's some definitive video proof that not all the film we have from the moon landings is real.

Please go to 2:10

If that's not a wire, let the NASA shills begin....suspect they will shut up on this one....or at least be cool to hear their explanation of this, and what of the pings of light in earlier section of that short 3 minute clip.

[link to m.youtube.com]
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 7105498
Korea, Republic of
02/28/2012 10:44 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
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
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 8597527


Yeah, the greatest achievement of a generation was a propaganda hoax. It was cold war and they needed to show they where winning the race. As easy as that. No man has stepped ever on the moon. I mean in the 60s we didnt even had the technology for that feat, not even close. So this is a propaganda hoax. Period.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 7105498
Korea, Republic of
02/28/2012 10:49 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
[link to disinfo.s3.amazonaws.com]


No man has set foot on the moon. We dont have the technology yet.
AstromutModerator
Forum Moderator

User ID: 4211721
United States
02/28/2012 10:53 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
.....but are you not forgetting that due to the moon not having an atmosphere, unlike the earth where the angle of the sun, when low in the sky has to penetrate 'x' more atmosphere at a given point on earth, hence it is cooler at low angle, hotter when the sun is higher in the sky. On the moon the angle of the sun and subsequent temperature wouldn't be affected at all in the same way.
 Quoting: ZIPUX


Wow, you demonstrate even more ignorance, amazing! Yes, atmospheric attenuation does play a role on earth where it does not on the moon, but the solar lighting angle is still extremely important. That's why ISS' solar panels must track the sun to keep it perpendicular to the panels. Failure to do so dramatically lowers the collecting ability of the array since fewer of the sun's rays are spread out over the same collecting area. This is true even on earth if you take a solar cell and alter the angle relative to the sun, regardless of how high the sun is in the sky.
astrobanner2
AstromutModerator
Forum Moderator

User ID: 4211721
United States
02/28/2012 10:54 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
Here's some definitive video proof that not all the film we have from the moon landings is real.

Please go to 2:10

If that's not a wire, let the NASA shills begin....suspect they will shut up on this one....or at least be cool to hear their explanation of this, and what of the pings of light in earlier section of that short 3 minute clip.

[link to m.youtube.com]
 Quoting: ZIPUX


Your link's broken. Again. I predict you're watching flashes off the PLSS antenna and calling them wires. It fits with the rest of your ignorance level.

Last Edited by Dr. Astro on 02/28/2012 10:54 AM
astrobanner2
AstromutModerator
Forum Moderator

User ID: 4211721
United States
02/28/2012 10:55 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
LOL, found your "well presented" video.
[link to www.youtube.com]
They start off interviewing Bill Kaysing
[link to www.clavius.org]
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":
[link to i319.photobucket.com]
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.
[link to www.hq.nasa.gov]
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:
[link to apollo-history-and-hoax.com]
Oh, and is that a "large earth" in the window, no, that's glare:
[link to apollo-history-and-hoax.com]
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.
 Quoting: Astromut


So do tell us Zippy, why were you presenting lies?
astrobanner2
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 7105498
Korea, Republic of
02/28/2012 10:56 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
check this out

[link to moonfaker.com]

refute this points... i know i hard to accept the fact that no man has ever been to the moon, it was just a propaganda show.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 7105498
Korea, Republic of
02/28/2012 10:57 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
and the astromut astronomer wanna be cant handle this simple facts.. well we all know he is a disinfo agent
AstromutModerator
Forum Moderator

User ID: 4211721
United States
02/28/2012 10:58 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
and the astromut astronomer wanna be cant handle this simple facts.. well we all know he is a disinfo agent
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 7105498


Prove it or retract your defamatory statement.
astrobanner2
ZIPUX

User ID: 4394297
United Kingdom
02/28/2012 11:06 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
.....but are you not forgetting that due to the moon not having an atmosphere, unlike the earth where the angle of the sun, when low in the sky has to penetrate 'x' more atmosphere at a given point on earth, hence it is cooler at low angle, hotter when the sun is higher in the sky. On the moon the angle of the sun and subsequent temperature wouldn't be affected at all in the same way.
 Quoting: ZIPUX


Wow, you demonstrate even more ignorance, amazing! Yes, atmospheric attenuation does play a role on earth where it does not on the moon, but the solar lighting angle is still extremely important. That's why ISS' solar panels must track the sun to keep it perpendicular to the panels. Failure to do so dramatically lowers the collecting ability of the array since fewer of the sun's rays are spread out over the same collecting area. This is true even on earth if you take a solar cell and alter the angle relative to the sun, regardless of how high the sun is in the sky.
 Quoting: Astromut


Why do you keep on about the ISS? And why are you calling me ignorant here? Name calling is always the last resort of a shill.

I am an ordinary person, trying to make sense of very contradictory evidence and data, that's all, there is no need to use derogatory language, we're both on the same side one would hope, and that is truth.
ZIPUX

User ID: 4394297
United Kingdom
02/28/2012 11:08 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
LOL, found your "well presented" video.
[link to www.youtube.com]
They start off interviewing Bill Kaysing
[link to www.clavius.org]
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":
[link to i319.photobucket.com]
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.
[link to www.hq.nasa.gov]
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:
[link to apollo-history-and-hoax.com]
Oh, and is that a "large earth" in the window, no, that's glare:
[link to apollo-history-and-hoax.com]
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.
 Quoting: Astromut


So do tell us Zippy, why were you presenting lies?
 Quoting: Astromut




Another derogatory reply.....
ZIPUX

User ID: 4394297
United Kingdom
02/28/2012 11:09 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
Here's some definitive video proof that not all the film we have from the moon landings is real.

Please go to 2:10

If that's not a wire, let the NASA shills begin....suspect they will shut up on this one....or at least be cool to hear their explanation of this, and what of the pings of light in earlier section of that short 3 minute clip.

[link to m.youtube.com]
 Quoting: ZIPUX


Your link's broken. Again. I predict you're watching flashes off the PLSS antenna and calling them wires. It fits with the rest of your ignorance level.
 Quoting: Astromut


Another derogatory reply.....
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 7105498
Korea, Republic of
02/28/2012 11:16 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
and the astromut astronomer wanna be cant handle this simple facts.. well we all know he is a disinfo agent
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 7105498


Prove it or retract your defamatory statement.
 Quoting: Astromut


astronomer wanna be. Prove the man went to the moon and returned. All the authored pictures and videos. Damn even they look like weird low budget startrek movies!!

can you refute all this fact that it was all hoax???

[link to moonfaker.com]

if you can be my guest... else you will still be considered a disinfo agent and propagandist.
AstromutModerator
Forum Moderator

User ID: 4211721
United States
02/28/2012 11:21 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
LOL, found your "well presented" video.
[link to www.youtube.com]
They start off interviewing Bill Kaysing
[link to www.clavius.org]
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":
[link to i319.photobucket.com]
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.
[link to www.hq.nasa.gov]
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:
[link to apollo-history-and-hoax.com]
Oh, and is that a "large earth" in the window, no, that's glare:
[link to apollo-history-and-hoax.com]
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.
 Quoting: Astromut


So do tell us Zippy, why were you presenting lies?
 Quoting: Astromut




Another derogatory reply.....
 Quoting: ZIPUX


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?
astrobanner2
AstromutModerator
Forum Moderator

User ID: 4211721
United States
02/28/2012 11:24 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
can you refute all this fact that it was all hoax???

[link to moonfaker.com]
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 7105498


Since you're just going to toss out a link and not actually even try to debate anything, so will I.
[link to www.clavius.org]
astrobanner2
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 11198416
Germany
02/28/2012 11:24 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
here's some interesting article from Astronomy News, a bit offtopic but it's the moon so what



Lunar scientists shed light on Moon’s impact history

Analysis shows that craters formed near the Nectaris impact basin were created by projectiles hitting twice as fast as those found on more ancient terrains.

A team of researchers from the NASA Lunar Science Institute (NLSI) at NASA’s Ames Research Center in Moffett Field, California, has discovered that debris that caused a “lunar cataclysm” on the Moon 4 billion years ago struck it at much higher speeds than those that made the most ancient craters. The scientists found evidence supporting this scenario by examining the history of crater formation on the Moon...


ReadMore:

[link to www.astronomy.com]
AstromutModerator
Forum Moderator

User ID: 4211721
United States
02/28/2012 11:30 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
Why do you keep on about the ISS?
 Quoting: ZIPUX

Because it's a brilliant example of the various concepts involved which you clearly fail to understand.
And why are you calling me ignorant here?
 Quoting: Zippy

It's a statement of fact, you are ignorant of very basic concepts involved with space and astronomy. Nothing personal.
Name calling is always the last resort of a shill.
 Quoting: Zippy

Good to know.
[link to www.godlikeproductions.com]
[link to www.godlikeproductions.com]
[link to www.godlikeproductions.com]
"You're surely deluded, as the information is so well presented within this documentary, you'd be pretty stupid to actually believe in the reality of NASA and the Apollo missions afterwards."
[link to www.godlikeproductions.com]
[link to www.godlikeproductions.com]
[link to www.godlikeproductions.com]

Last Edited by Dr. Astro on 02/28/2012 11:31 AM
astrobanner2
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 11601721
Portugal
02/28/2012 11:33 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
the iss is inside the Van Allen radiation bel, aka Low Earth orbit, so you fail, the moon is outside.

News








We're dropping truth bombs like it's the end of days!