| | | Page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144 | APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!??
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 310458
10/10/2007 11:36 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
"The astronauts flew from the earth to the moon, and you would have us believe that the dangers of the lunar rover would be a decisive factor for determining if the whole thing was a hoax?"
Decisive? Maybe not. Everything taken as a whole though, there are some serious problems with the story.
But come to think of it, I would say falling out of the rover would be pretty dangerous. Suppose the helmet visor cracked on a "moon rock"? Fatal. Suppose the suit tore- Fatal?
In your backyard , its maybe not such a big deal, but this is like, er, another planet. (I know its not a planet, technically, but u get the point) |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 132975
10/10/2007 12:19 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Hey, Barls, HAZZARD, whoever,
Got a link or two to videos of happy-camper Apollo astroguys looking proud and happy after the amazing feat of being the first few humans to actually walk on the Moon?
Didn't think so.
There's only that post-mortem vid of Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins looking shifty, guilty and ashamed. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 132975
The crickets are still chirping here.
I would have though Clavius and Bad Astro would be a treasure-trove of links to happy astroguy post-mission videos.
Maybe not ...
  |
| HAZZARD
User ID: 308422
10/10/2007 12:43 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
No doubt you can show us film of them setting up the "retro-reflector display" on the moon from July, 1969? This surely was worthy of film.
This claim is always good.
When you ask for photos or film of the "retro-reflector" display on the moon, all you hear is crickets chirping.
"The undeniable presence of the reflectors on the Moons surface"
Undeniable? I deny it. Show it to me.
This must have been some task on the moon in 1969. No doubt they have film of this reflector being erected.
I mean, come on. They filmed the dune buggy drives, the golf playing, surely they filmed the installation of the "retro-reflectors"?
I mean, like, right? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 260950
Someone mentioned the Russian reflectors on an earlier post.
The unmanned Soviet Lunokhod 1 and Lunokhod 2 rovers carried smaller arrays. Reflected signals were initially received from Lunokhod 1, but no return signals have been detected since 1971.
In November 1969, Apollo 12 astronauts visited the site of Surveyor 3 that had landed on the Moon more than two years earlier. Shown here is the late Pete Conrad posing with Surveyor like a tourist on vacation travel.
[link to www.space.com]
DEPLOYMENT OF THE LRV...
Deployment of the LRV from the LM quad 1 by the astronauts was achieved with a system of pulleys and braked reels using ropes and cloth tapes.
The rover was folded and stored in quad 1 with the underside of the chassis facing out. One astronaut would climb the egress ladder on the LM and release the rover, which would then be slowly tilted out by the second astronaut on the ground through the use of reels and tapes. As the rover was let down from the bay most of the deployment was automatic.
The rear wheels folded out and locked in place and when they touched the ground the front of the rover could be unfolded, the wheels deployed, and the entire frame let down to the surface by pulleys.
The rover components locked into place upon opening. Cabling, pins and tripods would then be removed and the seats and footrests raised.
After switching on all the electronics the vehicle was ready to back away from the LM.
Ill find that video clip for you, both the retroreflectors and the LRV "unloading"...
First, answer my question....Will that convince you that the moonlandings were real!!?? |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 310458
10/10/2007 1:28 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
"First, answer my question....Will that convince you that the moonlandings were real!!??"
Maybe some realistic pictures or film. Be a good start.
But we know thats not going to happen.
That picture is phoney as a 3 dollar bill. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 287683
10/10/2007 1:56 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Someone mentioned the Russian reflectors on an earlier post.
The unmanned Soviet Lunokhod 1 and Lunokhod 2 rovers carried smaller arrays. Reflected signals were initially received from Lunokhod 1, but no return signals have been detected since 1971. Quoting: HAZZARD 308422
Hazzard,
We've already noticed that most of your knowledge comes from wikipedia articles, this one, for instance:
[link to en.wikipedia.org]
The question that you have avoided to answer before in other threads and keep ignoring is, I repeat: "Why did you choose to quote the article so selectively?" Let's see the full quote:
"The unmanned Soviet Lunokhod 1 and Lunokhod 2 rovers carried smaller arrays. Reflected signals were initially received from Lunokhod 1, but no return signals have been detected since 1971, at least in part due to some uncertainty in its location on the Moon. Lunokhod 2's array continues to return signals to Earth".
However, this is not the point that you'd hope we all, including you, miss.
The point is if Lunokhod-1 and Lunokhod-2 on two separate UNMANNED missions managed to deliver and deploy the retroreflectors at least one of which continues to return signals to Earth, then, your argument that the mere presence of such operational retroreflectors on the surface of the Moon constitutes "undisputed evidence" of the Apollo moon landings is evidently wrong.
Or, alternatively, you can admit that the Russians secretly landed on the Moon too. So which option do you prefer?
In fact the Soviet robotic missions including those of Luna-16,20,24 proved that you don't need to have people on the Moon to make pictures, install retroreflectors, return soil samples back to Earth etc.
You should take your sources of "undisputed evidence" with a grain of salt (pun intended, remember, SALT detente treaties and the great grain robbery of 1972? Lol). |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 132975
10/10/2007 3:01 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Someone mentioned the Russian reflectors on an earlier post.
The unmanned Soviet Lunokhod 1 and Lunokhod 2 rovers carried smaller arrays. Reflected signals were initially received from Lunokhod 1, but no return signals have been detected since 1971.
Hazzard,
We've already noticed that most of your knowledge comes from wikipedia articles, this one, for instance:
[ link to en.wikipedia.org]
The question that you have avoided to answer before in other threads and keep ignoring is, I repeat: "Why did you choose to quote the article so selectively?" Let's see the full quote:
"The unmanned Soviet Lunokhod 1 and Lunokhod 2 rovers carried smaller arrays. Reflected signals were initially received from Lunokhod 1, but no return signals have been detected since 1971, at least in part due to some uncertainty in its location on the Moon. Lunokhod 2's array continues to return signals to Earth".
However, this is not the point that you'd hope we all, including you, miss.
The point is if Lunokhod-1 and Lunokhod-2 on two separate UNMANNED missions managed to deliver and deploy the retroreflectors at least one of which continues to return signals to Earth, then, your argument that the mere presence of such operational retroreflectors on the surface of the Moon constitutes "undisputed evidence" of the Apollo moon landings is evidently wrong.
Or, alternatively, you can admit that the Russians secretly landed on the Moon too. So which option do you prefer?
In fact the Soviet robotic missions including those of Luna-16,20,24 proved that you don't need to have people on the Moon to make pictures, install retroreflectors, return soil samples back to Earth etc.
You should take your sources of "undisputed evidence" with a grain of salt (pun intended, remember, SALT detente treaties and the great grain robbery of 1972? Lol).
Thank you.
FULL-CONTEXT quotes are always best.
 |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 183361
10/10/2007 4:22 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
I've only seen one video of an Apollo crew press conference; that of the Apollo 11 crew.
They all looked morose, shady and generally dodgy. You would have thought they would have been elated, "over the Moon", to have survived and triumphed against such adversity, but no.
They all looked like guilty felons.
|
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 183361
10/10/2007 4:42 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Apollo Hoax  |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 310458
10/10/2007 9:14 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
|
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 187192
10/11/2007 3:24 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
I've only seen one video of an Apollo crew press conference; that of the Apollo 11 crew.
They all looked morose, shady and generally dodgy. You would have thought they would have been elated, "over the Moon", to have survived and triumphed against such adversity, but no.
They all looked like guilty felons.
or poor mind-controlled saps. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 287096
10/11/2007 7:31 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
I've only seen one video of an Apollo crew press conference; that of the Apollo 11 crew.
They all looked morose, shady and generally dodgy. You would have thought they would have been elated, "over the Moon", to have survived and triumphed against such adversity, but no.
They all looked like guilty felons.
or poor mind-controlled saps.
Still no helpful links from the debunkers to press conference videos of happy, shiny astronauts (who might have recalled seeing a few stars in the blackness of space).
Wonder why that is?
|
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 310840
10/11/2007 8:00 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
for a link from Clavipus. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 132975
10/11/2007 12:45 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
I've only seen one video of an Apollo crew press conference; that of the Apollo 11 crew.
They all looked morose, shady and generally dodgy. You would have thought they would have been elated, "over the Moon", to have survived and triumphed against such adversity, but no.
They all looked like guilty felons.
or poor mind-controlled saps.
Still no helpful links from the debunkers to press conference videos of happy, shiny astronauts (who might have recalled seeing a few stars in the blackness of space).
Wonder why that is?
I've searched using Google but can't find anything.
|
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 310947
10/11/2007 12:49 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
LOL neither can OP, that's why he hasn't returned to keep spewing his asinine theories about moon dust, oh sorry did i say dust? I meant super jagged moon cement. |
| HAZZARD
User ID: 308422
10/11/2007 1:18 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
I've only seen one video of an Apollo crew press conference; that of the Apollo 11 crew.
They all looked morose, shady and generally dodgy. You would have thought they would have been elated, "over the Moon", to have survived and triumphed against such adversity, but no.
They all looked like guilty felons. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 183361
If that is what you call hard evidence that the moonlandings were faked, that the astronauts didnt act like Ben Afflect winning an accademy award, well, then Im afraid there is nothing I can say or do that will open your pre-set mind.
That evidence has been in the public domain for 30 years now in the form of photographs, images of spacecraft taken by astronauts in other spacecraft as well as images of the spacecraft heading towards the moon by telescope from the Earth, video records broadcast in real-time and seen in real-time, scientific experiments placed on the moon (whose placement was clearly documented by the lunar photography including still photography by the astronauts and video images transmitted in real-time), moonrocks and samples returned from the surface of the moon which scientist and geologists from all over the world support the supposition that they resided on the Moon (by examining the chemical makeup of the rocks, isotopic abundances, cosmic ray exposure ages, radioactive dating techniques, etc.)
But what is all that compared to the HBs pseudoscience and ad hominem routine......
And the "no stars" again...!!!???
We see no stars in the images because the images are exposed for the bright sunlit scenes. The stars are too faint to show up on the images due to their short exposure.
If anyone has a serious question, Im listening. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 308933
10/11/2007 2:53 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
This looks suspicious:
[link to www.cosmosmagazine.com]
---
A rare, golf-ball-sized lunar meteorite recently discovered in the snow fields of Antarctica can tell us more about the Moon than samples taken directly from the lunar surface, according to researchers.
...
Lunar meteorites found on the Earth seem to be more representative of the Moon as a whole, he said.
--- |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 308933
10/11/2007 2:59 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
And how about this claim from NASA's web site?
[link to science.nasa.gov]
---
Atmospheric optics expert Les Cowley explains: "Grains of moondust stick together to make fluffy tower-like structures, called 'fairy castles,' which cast deep shadows." Some researchers believe that the lunar surface is studded with these microscopic towers. "Directly opposite the sun," he continues," each dust tower hides its own shadow and so that area looks brighter by contrast with the surroundings."
--- |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 262563
10/11/2007 3:18 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
This looks suspicious:
[ link to www.cosmosmagazine.com]
---
A rare, golf-ball-sized lunar meteorite recently discovered in the snow fields of Antarctica can tell us more about the Moon than samples taken directly from the lunar surface, according to researchers.
...
Lunar meteorites found on the Earth seem to be more representative of the Moon as a whole, he said.
---
Moron.
****"After the early lunar landings, we gained a much better appreciation of the impact history of the Moon**** … and rocks like MIL 05035 tell us that we are only beginning to fully understand this history. Going to particularly ancient craters, such as the enormous South Pole-Aitken basin, might help us further understand this history."
Read the WHOLE article. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 132975
10/11/2007 3:31 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
I've only seen one video of an Apollo crew press conference; that of the Apollo 11 crew.
They all looked morose, shady and generally dodgy. You would have thought they would have been elated, "over the Moon", to have survived and triumphed against such adversity, but no.
They all looked like guilty felons.
If that is what you call hard evidence that the moonlandings were faked, that the astronauts didnt act like Ben Afflect winning an accademy award, well, then Im afraid there is nothing I can say or do that will open your pre-set mind.
That evidence has been in the public domain for 30 years now in the form of photographs, images of spacecraft taken by astronauts in other spacecraft as well as images of the spacecraft heading towards the moon by telescope from the Earth, video records broadcast in real-time and seen in real-time, scientific experiments placed on the moon (whose placement was clearly documented by the lunar photography including still photography by the astronauts and video images transmitted in real-time), moonrocks and samples returned from the surface of the moon which scientist and geologists from all over the world support the supposition that they resided on the Moon (by examining the chemical makeup of the rocks, isotopic abundances, cosmic ray exposure ages, radioactive dating techniques, etc.)
But what is all that compared to the HBs pseudoscience and ad hominem routine......
And the "no stars" again...!!!???
We see no stars in the images because the images are exposed for the bright sunlit scenes. The stars are too faint to show up on the images due to their short exposure.
If anyone has a serious question, Im listening. Quoting: HAZZARD 308422
It's not "hard evidence" at all, but is very telling, nonetheless.
Yes, the post-mission press conference shows the Apollo 11 astronauts looking very uncomfortable and shifty indeed. Why? Why wouldn't they be elated, whooping, high-fiving? They were the most famous men in the world, and had carried off a technical miracle.
Yet tjey all look like sullen, guilty schoolboys, caught spying in the girls' changing room.
Also, they "didn't recall" seeing any stars, at any time. Never mind that no stars show up in any photographs taken on Apollo missions. They "didn't recall". Give me a fucking break.
Yuri Gagarin, among others, certainly "recalled" how magnificent the starscape was in Earth orbit, let alone thousands of miles from Earth.
This is STRONG circumstantial evidence that the whole thing was a charade, as far as I'm concerned. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 311039
10/11/2007 3:51 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
and whats the phenomenon called again.. when solar particles cause flashes in the eyes.. hrm.. if I recall correctly the astronauts in the apollo missions counted far less than the normal rate reported by everyone else thats been up there..
and proponents do realize that the knights in white are all soldiers, and not civs right? |
| Lt.
User ID: 287683
10/11/2007 4:45 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
If anyone has a serious question, Im listening. Quoting: HAZZARD 308422
Hazzard,
you don't strike as a person who is really listening and who is really trying to find and maintain the truth.
It appears that your definition of a "serious question" is the one that you can answer in a fashion that supports your agenda. Otherwise, why would you ignore repeatedly asked questions such as "why do you quote wikipedia articles selectively? Why do you choose the parts of the same article that seem to be in favor of your opinion, yet cutting the quotes in the middle of a sentence where it goes against your pre-conceived outlook ?
You said that the presence of retroreflectors on the Moon surface is "undisputed evidence for the landing on the moon". Well, not only it was disputed many times, it was shown that you are wrong or you have to admit that this would be "undisputed evidence" of the Russian landings as well. You did not bother to answer the question - "Which option do you prefer?"
You asked a question "The only way Apollo could possibly be faked is if the Soviet Union was part of the cover up, but as the Soviets were trying to beat the USA why would thet lie?", and the answer was provided to you. Did you make an effort to acknowledge the answer and admit that you don't have a point there? No, you ignored it. Why?
You are saying that the Soviets confirmed the success of the Apollo program. Can you read and understand Russian investigative reports on Apollo missions? Do you know what they say? Please enlighten us.
Answer one simple question. How many grams of lunar soil samples brought by Apollo astronauts were given to the Soviet Union for their research as opposed to the other way around? Any comments? |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 311055
10/11/2007 5:52 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
I've only seen one video of an Apollo crew press conference; that of the Apollo 11 crew.
They all looked morose, shady and generally dodgy. You would have thought they would have been elated, "over the Moon", to have survived and triumphed against such adversity, but no.
They all looked like guilty felons.
If that is what you call hard evidence that the moonlandings were faked, that the astronauts didnt act like Ben Afflect winning an accademy award, well, then Im afraid there is nothing I can say or do that will open your pre-set mind.
That evidence has been in the public domain for 30 years now in the form of photographs, images of spacecraft taken by astronauts in other spacecraft as well as images of the spacecraft heading towards the moon by telescope from the Earth, video records broadcast in real-time and seen in real-time, scientific experiments placed on the moon (whose placement was clearly documented by the lunar photography including still photography by the astronauts and video images transmitted in real-time), moonrocks and samples returned from the surface of the moon which scientist and geologists from all over the world support the supposition that they resided on the Moon (by examining the chemical makeup of the rocks, isotopic abundances, cosmic ray exposure ages, radioactive dating techniques, etc.)
But what is all that compared to the HBs pseudoscience and ad hominem routine......
And the "no stars" again...!!!???
We see no stars in the images because the images are exposed for the bright sunlit scenes. The stars are too faint to show up on the images due to their short exposure.
If anyone has a serious question, Im listening. Quoting: HAZZARD 308422
Question. You telling us all that NASA could not take any, zero, pictures of stars?
Wouldnt the "moon mission" be the best chance for NASA to take star photos?? I mean, dude, they are the "SPACE ADMINISTRATION".
And all we hear is " sorry, uh, the film and stuff and the stars were, like, not compatible and stuff".
How bout some space shuttle star pictures? Never seen a space shuttle pic with stars in it, no matter where it was. Never.
Yuri Gagarin, the first man in orbit, said the stars were amazingly bright, yet with the shuttle dudes, the stars disappear.
It sounds more like a bad episode of the Simpsons; Bart Simpson in Orbit. Stars? Well they were there when Gagarin went up, but, shyt man, they just aint there anymore.
NASA was using those throw away cameras, maybe.
The stars are faint?? They dont exist, big guy. When the astronuts are asked about them, they act like a child caught cutting class; they look at each other and start saying "stars, hmm, Neil, did you see stars"?
Neil: "Buzz, come to think of it, by golly, I sure didnt see no stars"
Buzz: "Dang, me neither. But it never ocurred to me till now. Stars, huh, go figure".
And we are expected to believe this. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 311055
10/11/2007 6:04 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
This looks suspicious:
[ link to www.cosmosmagazine.com]
---
A rare, golf-ball-sized lunar meteorite recently discovered in the snow fields of Antarctica can tell us more about the Moon than samples taken directly from the lunar surface, according to researchers.
...
Lunar meteorites found on the Earth seem to be more representative of the Moon as a whole, he said.
---
Moron.
****"After the early lunar landings, we gained a much better appreciation of the impact history of the Moon**** … and rocks like MIL 05035 tell us that we are only beginning to fully understand this history. Going to particularly ancient craters, such as the enormous South Pole-Aitken basin, might help us further understand this history."
Read the WHOLE article.
Looks like Barls is going incognito!
 |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 132975
10/11/2007 6:07 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
I've only seen one video of an Apollo crew press conference; that of the Apollo 11 crew.
They all looked morose, shady and generally dodgy. You would have thought they would have been elated, "over the Moon", to have survived and triumphed against such adversity, but no.
They all looked like guilty felons.
If that is what you call hard evidence that the moonlandings were faked, that the astronauts didnt act like Ben Afflect winning an accademy award, well, then Im afraid there is nothing I can say or do that will open your pre-set mind.
That evidence has been in the public domain for 30 years now in the form of photographs, images of spacecraft taken by astronauts in other spacecraft as well as images of the spacecraft heading towards the moon by telescope from the Earth, video records broadcast in real-time and seen in real-time, scientific experiments placed on the moon (whose placement was clearly documented by the lunar photography including still photography by the astronauts and video images transmitted in real-time), moonrocks and samples returned from the surface of the moon which scientist and geologists from all over the world support the supposition that they resided on the Moon (by examining the chemical makeup of the rocks, isotopic abundances, cosmic ray exposure ages, radioactive dating techniques, etc.)
But what is all that compared to the HBs pseudoscience and ad hominem routine......
And the "no stars" again...!!!???
We see no stars in the images because the images are exposed for the bright sunlit scenes. The stars are too faint to show up on the images due to their short exposure.
If anyone has a serious question, Im listening.
Question. You telling us all that NASA could not take any, zero, pictures of stars?
Wouldnt the "moon mission" be the best chance for NASA to take star photos?? I mean, dude, they are the "SPACE ADMINISTRATION".
And all we hear is " sorry, uh, the film and stuff and the stars were, like, not compatible and stuff".
How bout some space shuttle star pictures? Never seen a space shuttle pic with stars in it, no matter where it was. Never.
Yuri Gagarin, the first man in orbit, said the stars were amazingly bright, yet with the shuttle dudes, the stars disappear.
It sounds more like a bad episode of the Simpsons; Bart Simpson in Orbit. Stars? Well they were there when Gagarin went up, but, shyt man, they just aint there anymore.
NASA was using those throw away cameras, maybe.
The stars are faint?? They dont exist, big guy. When the astronuts are asked about them, they act like a child caught cutting class; they look at each other and start saying "stars, hmm, Neil, did you see stars"?
Neil: "Buzz, come to think of it, by golly, I sure didnt see no stars"
Buzz: "Dang, me neither. But it never ocurred to me till now. Stars, huh, go figure".
And we are expected to believe this. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 311055
Yes, we are expected to believe this.
We are expected to gulp down this ludicrous tissue of horseshit without so much as a murmur of protest.
Do you Apollo bunkers SERIOUSLY expect us to accept "uh, I don't recall seeing any stars" when we have prior testimony from such as Yuri Gagarin, which completely invalidates the shifty bullshit mumbled by the Apollonauts?
Well, DO YOU? |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 311055
10/11/2007 6:29 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
"That evidence has been in the public domain for 30 years now in the form of photographs, images of spacecraft taken by astronauts in other spacecraft as well as images of the spacecraft heading towards the moon by telescope from the Earth, video records broadcast in real-time and seen in real-time, scientific experiments placed on the moon (whose placement was clearly documented by the lunar photography including still photography by the astronauts and video images transmitted in real-time)"
The evidence does not stand up. Because you choose to believe it does not make it "evidence".
"images of spacecraft taken by astronauts in other spacecraft "
So now you are saying there was at some time, more than one "spaceship", taking photos of another "spaceship"?
"video records broadcast in real-time and seen in real-time"
Err, no. You were told it was real time. I saw Forrest Gump talking and shaking hands with JFK and Nixon. In 1996. It was not real. In the 1930's, gullible folks might believe what they were seeing is real.
"scientific experiments placed on the moon (whose placement was clearly documented by the lunar photography including still photography by the astronauts and video images transmitted in real-time)"
What you are claiming is "documented" is easily faked.
There is no real time in moon situations. Its all Disney Time. You believe its real, so to you, it is real.
Its like Santa Claus. Since gifts appear under your tree on Dec 25, that means Santa came in "real time".
One gullible dude. |
| SpaceCadet
User ID: 16644
10/11/2007 7:09 PM
 | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
And the "no stars" again...!!!???
We see no stars in the images because the images are exposed for the bright sunlit scenes. The stars are too faint to show up on the images due to their short exposure.
If anyone has a serious question, Im listening.
Question. You telling us all that NASA could not take any, zero, pictures of stars?
Wouldnt the "moon mission" be the best chance for NASA to take star photos?? I mean, dude, they are the "SPACE ADMINISTRATION".
And all we hear is " sorry, uh, the film and stuff and the stars were, like, not compatible and stuff". Quoting: Anonymous Coward 311055
I can understand no pictures of the Stars being taken on the Moon because of your quote, "We see no stars in the images because the images are exposed for the bright sunlit scenes. The stars are too faint to show up on the images due to their short exposure."
However on their way to the Moon and even back again from the Moon, as Apollo 11 rotates with the window facing away from the direct sunlight streaming through it(the sun being on the opposite side of Apollo 11 from the window). The lights inside Apollo 11 could have been turned off, then a multitude of stars should have been seen, and also able to be photographed in all of their shining glory, however not 'one' pic was taken of this beautiful heavenly site.
Also don't give any of that bullshit about it not being a 'high priority' to take any pics of stars, because those military astronauts were twiddling their thumbs, having nothing to do most of the time to the Moon and back to Earth again! |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 311055
10/11/2007 7:18 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
"Also don't give any of that bullshit about it not being a 'high priority' to take any pics of stars, because those military astronauts were twiddling their thumbs, having nothing to do most of the time from the Moon and back again!"
Dude, they were playing cards and stuff on the way up, and on the way back from their "moon mission". 250,000 miles is a long way to go.
Checking for stars never occurred to them. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 3222
10/11/2007 7:36 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
However on their way to the Moon and even back again from the Moon, as Apollo 11 rotates with the window facing away from the direct sunlight streaming through it(the sun being on the opposite side of Apollo 11 from the window). The lights inside Apollo 11 could have been turned off, then a multitude of stars should have been seen, and also able to be photographed in all of their shining glory, however not 'one' pic was taken of this beautiful heavenly site [sic]. Quoting: SpaceCadet
The number of stars visible would not have been different.
A long exposure would still have been needed to capture the stars. Thus a steady (mounted?) camera would have been needed - and the roll of the craft would have had to be stopped. This would have been an unecessary waste of fuel.
This whole argument is meaningless; they didn't do it, and there is no compelling reason to have done it. |
| SpaceCadet
User ID: 16644
10/11/2007 7:41 PM
| | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
However on their way to the Moon and even back again from the Moon, as Apollo 11 rotates with the window facing away from the direct sunlight streaming through it(the sun being on the opposite side of Apollo 11 from the window). The lights inside Apollo 11 could have been turned off, then a multitude of stars should have been seen, and also able to be photographed in all of their shining glory, however not 'one' pic was taken of this beautiful heavenly site [sic].
The number of stars visible would not have been different.
A long exposure would still have been needed to capture the stars. Thus a steady (mounted?) camera would have been needed - and the roll of the craft would have had to be stopped. This would have been an unecessary waste of fuel.
This whole argument is meaningless; they didn't do it, and there is no compelling reason to have done it. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 3222
Excuse me, how slow do these cameras take pics? and whats the shutter speed here? Were talking way less that 1 second, for taking pics of very, very bright stars! And just why would a slow "roll of the craft" affect the taking of any star pics?
Your reply is pure and utter bullshit, and you know it. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 262563
10/11/2007 7:45 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Not the least of which **IT WAS FREEKIN DAYTIME, and nearly ALWAYS IS when you're in space.**
They weren't in Earth's shadow, the sun was UP the entire trip except where Apollo was behind the Moon -- and maybe not even then, depending. There's tis big ball of light, all the time. Sure, it isn't diffuse, as it is on Earth, but it's there and bright and constant.
It isn't like nightime on Earth, when the Earth is conveniently in the way of the Sun. It doesn't work like that hen you're not on the Earth.
Sheesh. |
| | Page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144 | |
|
