| | | 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 !!??
| McKracken
User ID: 41594
9/29/2007 6:30 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
makes him look guiltier than OJ! Quoting: Anonymous Coward 276554
The last serious movie, and quite a good one, OJ did was "Capricorn One", about a faked mission to Mars...
After that one, he had to do silly comedy flicks. |
| Barls Knarkley
User ID: 177477
10/2/2007 1:51 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
1) NASA wants to measure radiation on the moon
...
What did the probe determine? Were the solar protons and cosmic rays at such a low level that the astronauts would be safe? Why is NASA so secretive about radiation levels in outer space? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 276554
They aren't secretive about their findings. You can find datasets for any relevant mission at the National Space Science Data Center website. You obviously didn't bother looking.
After discovering that the moon was safe to walk on, NASA claims to have sent six teams of astronauts to the moon. They landed in six different locations. However, none of them bothered to measure the radiation. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 276554
Incorrect. The ALSEP experiment package measured the solar wind, and the astronauts carried dosimeters. Did you do any reasearch at all?
NASA claims that the Apollo astronauts never bothered to measure radiation levels because they were on the moon for only a couple days. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 276554
Given what I mentioned above, it is obvious that NASA never claimed any such thing. Either you misunderstood what someone else has told you, you were given incorrect information, or you are just making stuff up off the top of your head.
Perhaps NASA classified all the radiation measurements as “Top Secret” so that we do not realize that outer space is dangerous. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 276554
Or perhaps you didn't do any reasearch before making that claim. There are large amounts of data available on the radiation readings.
As to why they would want to take further measurements given they had already made some, why do you think that they have learned absolutely everything? Scientists are still doing research on radiation exposure effects here on Earth, let alone in space. For example, the following paper looks at the cancer risk from low-level ionizing radiation exposure, and was written in 2003. Given that this has direct relevance to industries such as nuclear medicine and power generation, are you going to argue that the percieved need for further research clearly means that these industries are hoaxes?
[link to www.pnas.org]
2) The 1969 press conference was psychotic
These three men just accomplished the most incredible feat the human race has ever achieved. If you had been in their position, wouldn't you have been excited, proud of America, and happy to describe your trip to the moon?
The facial and body expressions of the astronauts suggest that they are suffering from extreme emotional stress.
Why would they appear to be so nervous and awkward? NASA wants us to believe that all of the astronauts are extremely introverted. But watch the first few minutes of their interview, and ask yourself, are they really introverted? Or are they suffering stress because they are lying about going to the moon?
[ link to www.EricHufschmid.net] Quoting: Anonymous Coward 276554
Oh dear, this hoary old chestnut.
For a start, the press conference took place after they had emerged from quarantine, so any initial eupohoria felt in the first couple of days will have had time to abate. Secondly, they were test pilots, a breeed that is definitely not known for being extroverted media personalities. Thirdly, they were tired after a prolonged series of tests.
Also, have you watched the entire press conference from beginning to end, or just the bits you have been told to look at by Sibrel? They do smile, just not all the time. This doesn't make them dishonest, it just means they aren't manic.
This will, of course, not be good enough for you. But given that this is the most subjective of all hoax claims, and that's really saying something, I doubt you'll find that this will sway the undecided in the absence of any firm proof that your interpretation is the only possible one.
As with so many other hoax claims of supposedly 'obvious' incompetence on the part of the conspiracy - given that they had supposedly limitless resources, and the whole point of the putative hoax was as a public relations exercise, why didn't they choose more personable fake astronauts to present a more peppy front? Since the missions are fake, it's not like they have to choose someone purely on their merits as a pilot.
[ link to www.pnas.org]
All 21 Apollo astronauts remained hidden from the public after coming back from the moon. NASA wants us to believe that all 21 astronauts are too shy to give interviews.
Again, have you done any research on this, or are you just parroting what Sibrel told you? Most of the astronauts have given numerous interviews over the years, and Ed Mitchell has his own blog. Al Bean is available for booking through AllAmericanSpeakers.com and I'm pretty sure others are too. But you knew all this, having bothered to check for yourself, right?
What are the chances that 100% of the Apollo astronauts are so introverted that they are incapable of visiting children in school, going onto television shows to talk about the moon, and giving interviews to reporters? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 276554
Asolutely zero percent chance. Because that's not what happened.
5) The technology was too primitive in the 1960's
The computers of the 1960's would not qualify as computers by today's standards. Rather, they were “electronic adding machines”. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 276554
I'm just going to cut and paste my response to this point from the other thread, since you have done the same.
How much computing power does it take to land on the Moon? Please be specific in detailing the processor-intensive calculations that needed to be done in the lander as opposed to on the ground and then uplinked.
There's a fair chance you'll come out with the standard line about how it takes a Pentium to do a simulation today, so therefore a real mission would need even more processing power. In fact, the opposite is the case. A simulation has to generate all the graphics, while a real mission pilot just has to look out the window to see the real thing. There are modern WW2 flight simulators that need serious computing grunt to play due to the high quality graphics, does this mean that Spitfires were a hoax as they didn't have any computers at all?
Manufacturing technology was horrible by comparison to what we have today because they did not have computer-controlled milling machines or lathes. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 276554
Analog milling machines were capable of working within micrometer tolerances. Can you tell me which Apollo technology this would be insufficient for? How were the SR-71 and Concorde built if technology was so unbearably primitive back then?
I'll tackle the seconf half of your post later this afternoon, I have to get back to work for a while. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 276554
10/2/2007 2:15 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Hey debunkobot, you only tried to debunk three out of ten points.
You've got a lot more shilling to do.
Get cracking! |
| BarlsKnarkley
User ID: 177477
10/2/2007 2:17 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
I said that I had to get back to work for a whle. I'll address your other points when I have a bit more time in a few hours.
Why don't you fill in the gap by responding to the points I've already covered? |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 276554
10/2/2007 2:24 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
...makes him look guiltier than OJ!
The last serious movie, and quite a good one, OJ did was "Capricorn One", about a faked mission to Mars... Quoting: McKracken
I agree, excellent film, especially for those who argue that NASA couldn't stage such a huge coverup. They could and they did. Check it out:
[link to video.google.com] |
| Barls Knarkley
User ID: 177477
10/2/2007 3:00 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Okay, I've got time for another quick one before I really do have to disappear for a while.
You don't seem to be in a hurry to reply to any of the points I've already raised. Tell you what - I'll answer one additional point for every one you respond to that I've already covered. Because otherwise it really does look like you are just trolling, throwing this stuff out there for your own amusement with no intention of actually backing up your assertions.
7) NASA wants to crash a probe into the moon
In April 2006 NASA announced a plan to send a probe to the moon in 2008 to determine if there is water on the moon.
Didn't NASA already analyze the 400 kilograms of moon rocks that 6 teams of astronauts brought back to the earth from 6 different locations on the moon? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 276554
Yes, you're right. Given that geologists have obtained numerous samples from around the globe, there is no further need for them to take any more samples at all. All ore bearing bodies have already been identified, all questions about Earth processes have already been answered.
Furthermore, this latest probe will crash into the moon, not land gently! Quoting: Anonymous Coward 276554
Well, given the Lunar Reconnaisance Orbiter is a, you know, orbiter, we should perhaps not expect it to have much of a soft landing capability. Instead, the majority of its science will be conducted from orbit, like a lunar version of an Earth resources satellite. You do know that scientists can work stuff out about the ground from orbit, don't you?
I wasn't aware that they were planning to use the orbiter as an impactor at the end of its orbital mission. Can you quote your source on that? I wouldn't be surprised to find out that this is the case, however. The European SMART-1 probe did the same thing at the end of its mission. Scientists can observe the debris plume to try and determine characteristics about the impact site that can't be obtained from orbit. This then helps plan lander missions that can take a closer look.
NASA claims to have the technology to put men on the moon, and bring them home again, so why are they planning a primitive, destructive crash? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 276554
Because the crash is just a bonus method of wringing a bit of extra science out of an orbiter that was never intended to land. If you had actually done any reading about NASA's plans, you would see that they are intending to follow up the LRO with at least one lander. You have invented a really shoddy straw man here.
8) Hubble telescope looks at moon
In this amazing report, we discover that NASA is using the Hubble telescope to look at ultraviolet light reflected from moon in order to determine what type of minerals are on the surface of the moon.
Do I have to repeat this:
Didn't NASA already analyze the 400 kilograms of moon rocks that 6 teams of astronauts brought back to the earth from 6 different locations on the moon? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 276554
I've already answered this point. Do you honestly believe that six sample sites is enough to characterise the entire lunar surface? Again, if you honestly believe this, can you explain why geologists are still bothering to collect samples from here on Earth?
NASA wants us to believe that those 400 kilograms is not enough; that the experiments conducted by the astronauts is not enough. Do you believe that looking at the moon with a telescope does a better job than 12 men on the moon? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 276554
Well no, clearly samples returned from the surface provide much more information. But remote sensing data from orbiters or telescopes is much, much cheaper. to contine with the Earth geology comparison, why would geologists order satellite scans or aerial surveys when they have already taken a few samples? The answer is that the scans allow the gathering of useful data from a very wide area. It would be prohibitively expensive to samples every square meter of a survey site, so they use the information from the scans to work out which areas are worth investigating more closely.
So there ya go. I've now answered five of your points. I'll get around to responding to the rest when you make an effort to extending me the courtest of doing the same with the bits I've already covered. Because that would be the non-trollish thing to do, right? You are intestested in defending your positions, aren't you? |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 276554
10/2/2007 3:11 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Hey Barls, have the boys found any of those 26,000 boxes of "missing" Apollo tapes yet?
Does anyone really believe this "Barls Knarkley" character would spend so much time and effort desperately trying to make us believe the Apollo lunar missions weren't faked if he wasn't a paid government shill?
Anyone? |
| Barls Knarkley
User ID: 177477
10/2/2007 3:18 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
So I take it that you are incapable of defending 'your' position, then. All you can do in response to a direct challenge is to change the subject. I believe that I said I would answer one additional point from your '10 reasons' post for each already answered one that you responded to. Given that all you have done is to ignore my efforts, raise yet another point that you will of course also refuse to back up, and engage in ad hominems, I think we can dismiss you as a juvenile troll.
Unless you would care to prove me wrong by having enough cojones to actually stand and fight rather than run and hide. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 276554
10/2/2007 3:49 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Your "answers" are nothing more than lame excuses along the lines of, well of course NASA needs more lunar radiation data, of course NASA needs more than 400 kg. of rock samples from six different locations, of course all the astronaughts were tired, introverted and not interested in giving interviews for the rest of their lives, of course NASA needs to crash a lunar orbiter that was never intended to land (even though it was supposedly easily done 40 years earlier), of course NASA needs to analyze mineral content of lunar rocks through the Hubble telescope (even though they supposedly already have 1000 pounds of real samples.)
In other words Barls, it's just the same old, same old.
Now tell me how the search is going for those 26,000 boxes of "missing" original Apollo videotapes. |
| Barls Knarkley
User ID: 177477
10/2/2007 4:13 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Your "answers" are nothing more than lame excuses along the lines of, well of course NASA needs more lunar radiation data, Quoting: Anonymous Coward 276554
And I've explained why. You haven't provided any answer as to why you find that unacceptable.
of course NASA needs more than 400 kg. of rock samples from six different locations, Quoting: Anonymous Coward 276554
And I've explained why. You haven't provided any answer as to why you find that unacceptable.
of course all the astronaughts were tired, introverted Quoting: Anonymous Coward 276554
And I've explained why. You haven't provided any answer as to why you find that unacceptable.
and not interested in giving interviews for the rest of their lives, Quoting: Anonymous Coward 276554
No, I demonstrated that that assertion is completely incorrect.
of course NASA needs to crash a lunar orbiter that was never intended to land (even though it was supposedly easily done 40 years earlier), Quoting: Anonymous Coward 276554
And I've explained why. You haven't provided any answer as to why you find that unacceptable.
of course NASA needs to analyze mineral content of lunar rocks through the Hubble telescope (even though they supposedly already have 1000 pounds of real samples.) Quoting: Anonymous Coward 276554
And I've explained why. You haven't provided any answer as to why you find that unacceptable.
In other words Barls, it's just the same old, same old. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 276554
And you haven't answered one single one of the above points. All you have done is restate them. You have provided not one single word of analysis. This is clearly becuase you are incapable of doing so. Putting "of course" in front of every single point doesn't count as refutation, it's just a snide, content-free dismissal of my arguments becuase you lack the ability to provide anything deeper. You'll have to do better than that.
Now tell me how the search is going for those 26,000 boxes of "missing" original Apollo videotapes. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 276554
First you have to actually say something about what I've already written, I've explained that. You have made it abundantly clear that you think my arguments are rubbish, you just haven't explained why. Once you have demonstrated that you are not a preadolescent troll by bringing something substantial to the table, then we can move on. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 276554
10/2/2007 4:39 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Now tell me how the search is going for those 26,000 boxes of "missing" original Apollo videotapes.
First you have to actually say something about what I've already written, I've explained that. You have made it abundantly clear that you think my arguments are rubbish, you just haven't explained why. Once you have demonstrated that you are not a preadolescent troll by bringing something substantial to the table, then we can move on. Quoting: Barls Knarkley 177477
Your arguments are indeed rubbish, even laughable. NASA has supposedly done all these things 40 years ago, yet they're either incapable of doing them today or need to re-do the analyses and experiments. That says it all.
And your lack of response about what happened to EVERY original tape of EVERY Apollo mission is duly noted.
That REALLY says it all. |
| Bars Knarkley
User ID: 28648
10/2/2007 10:30 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
One final time...
Your arguments are indeed rubbish, even laughable. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 276554
So refute them, then. Because your continued and quite conspicuous failure to do so clearly shows that you can't. I don't think you actually care about the content of your argument, anyway - it's just a means to an end, namely your desire to troll.
I answered more than half of your ten points. I asked you to comment on what I had already provided. You have point blank refused to do so, instead repeatedly trying to change the subject. Well, tough. Why should I be led by the nose into answering your new questions, when it is obvious you will just call my response 'rubbish' without explaining why, and then change the subject yet again? You're just a troll. Prove me wrong by engaging me on any one of your points that I have responded to. We both know you will just respond with more juvenilia.
NASA has supposedly done all these things 40 years ago, yet they're either incapable of doing them today or need to re-do the analyses and experiments. That says it all. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 276554
You're simply restating your original arguments yet again. I get it. I know what you are claiming, you have made it quite clear. Are you going to respond to my answers to your questions or not?
And your lack of response about what happened to EVERY original tape of EVERY Apollo mission is duly noted. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 276554
Sorry, it doesn't work like that. I have talked about the tapes before, and I'm sure I will again. But I stated my point-for-point condition before you raised it. I am under no obligation to respond to you when you clearly ignore everything I actually say. If anybody who bothers to read this thread looks back at our exchange, it's pretty clear which person they will think has made the best effort to respond meaningfully to the other, and which has just been a juvenile troll. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 276554
10/2/2007 10:42 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Your questions have been asked and answered. Keep repeating the same lies over and over while evading tough questions like "what happened to EVERY original tape of EVERY Apollo mission?"
I'm sure they were just mislaid somewhere.
Of course you're under no obligation to respond, just like NASA's under no obligation to find the original video tapes of "man's greatest achievement."
But we all know what it means when questions like this are ignored and those "missing" tapes are never found. |
| FreshLaundry
User ID: 306627
10/2/2007 12:30 PM | | Anonymous Coward
User ID: 268079
10/2/2007 1:03 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
And whats the ridiculous part!??
Alllow me to reiterate:
[ link to www.hq.nasa.gov]
For those of you who haven't bothered to click on the above, that would be landing on the moon and hanging out for a day in 250 degree heat without a powered cooling system in this warped-walled, duct-taped, aluminum foil and papier-mâché contraption that couldn't make it as a prop in a grade C Hollywood sci-fi flick.
That looks like something put together by Mrs. Fenwicks 3rd grade class. |
| FreshLaundry
User ID: 306627
10/2/2007 3:25 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
That looks like something put together by Mrs. Fenwicks 3rd grade class. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 268079
So does the landing footage.
It's embarrassing really.
This post pending review.
[link to kindagamey.com] |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 276554
10/2/2007 9:34 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
The whole friggin' thing is embarrassing.
How the hell did we ever fall for this bullshit? |
| Barls Knarkley
User ID: 177477
10/2/2007 9:34 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Has anyone done a crater-by-crater comparison of the official landing movies with the large spherical moon model in Flagstaff, Arizona? Quoting: FreshLaundry
No, not so far as I am aware. Let me know what conclusions you come to once you have done it.
(The model that, I believe, they used to fake the lunar module approaching the surface.) Quoting: FreshLaundry
Given you have just asked if anyone had tried to connect the model with the movies, the only logical conclusion is that you have arrived at this belief without the seemingly unnecessary intermediate step of actual proof. If it's that easy to leap to conclusions, why bother asking for proof in the first place? |
| sparkie
User ID: 272605
10/2/2007 10:00 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
to all you smart people__do you remember the (first 12min.)of the first moon landing?What happened?does anyone of you remember?or even care? |
| FreshLaundry
User ID: 304962
10/2/2007 10:19 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Given you have just asked if anyone had tried to connect the model with the movies, the only logical conclusion is that you have arrived at this belief without the seemingly unnecessary intermediate step of actual proof. If it's that easy to leap to conclusions, why bother asking for proof in the first place? Quoting: Barls Knarkley 177477
I'm saying 'I believe' this to be so -- that means that my spiritual proclivity is pointing in that direction, not that it is actually so. Unlike you I don't have to instantiate a single belief in lieu of all others. I can actually hold several contradictory beliefs at once, accept that any one could be proven real with more evidence, and keep them all close in case I might need them. That is what science used to be, sorry you missed it. You wouldn't understand this because you have accepted your role as a defender of commonly accepted theory; aka. the educational system's afterbirth; aka. the status quo.
I would like to see this research done because it may provide a piece of the puzzle that we are missing. You would not understand this because you think that you and the history of men who have declared themselves right throughout our past have already finished the puzzle and therefore no more knowledge is necessary. Sadly, or rather not so sadly, science is proven wrong, arrogant, and naive again and again and again throughout time and when this happens they sweep up the shambles of whatever fallacy they worshiped previously and reconstruct a new belief system in its place.
In case you aren't a shill and don't already know the moon landings were faked. Just because you know people, possibly a relative that you look up to that made you want to study science too, that may have worked on a compartmentalized system that contributed to this fake monument to human greatness, just because you read in a book the technical details which were all fabricated as delicately and realistically as possible with the billions of dollars fed to this project (well, except for radiation shielding and air conditioning/heating systems in the suits... hell, why bother with faking that when people are so dumb about such things?)... you are wrong Knarls. I don't give a shit if you know it or not because I've moved on to bigger questions -- like the implications of a government, or elements within, that would do such a thing. But I declare to you now that you are wrong. This shit is a lie. One of many. And tugging on any one of these strings will unravel the whole sweater. We shall watch in awe as you strain to hold all these fantasies together.
This post pending review.
[link to kindagamey.com] |
| FreshLaundry
User ID: 304962
10/2/2007 10:30 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Before you bitch about "if you're so objective how can you judge"... Because I've always been intuitive as fuck. I know the moon landings were faked.
This post pending review.
[link to kindagamey.com] |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 142537
10/2/2007 10:31 PM | | Barls Knarkley
User ID: 177477
10/2/2007 10:35 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
I was less than a year old when it happened. I can remember the last landing, but not the first. I've watched it repeatedly since, of course.
If I had been watching it live and understood what was happening, then it would have been an absolute nailbiter. The bit right at the end when Armstrong had to pilot over a crater with very little fuel remaining would have been agony. No wonder Charlie Duke talks about mission control tunring blue from holding their breath. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 276554
10/2/2007 10:41 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
If they had very little fuel remaining before landing, what did they use to lift off from the moon? (which they didn't show even though they supposedly left a camera on the lunar surface.) |
| Barls Knarkley
User ID: 177477
10/2/2007 11:00 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
I'm still waiting for you to reply to any of my previous answers. I'll give you one freebie for today, but then I'm not going to dance your dance unless you make some effort to make it a two way discussion.
If they had very little fuel remaining before landing, what did they use to lift off from the moon? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 276554
If you don't know this, which even Bart Sibrel knows, then how can you honestly expect your opinion on this issue to be worth anything? Any serious hoax proponent like David Percy or even Jack White would, while denying it ever happened, be able to tell you that the LM was a two stage craft - it had a landing stage with its own fuel supply, and an ascent stage with its own fuel that lifted off leaving the descent stage behind.
(which they didn't show even though they supposedly left a camera on the lunar surface.) Quoting: Anonymous Coward 276554
Your level of ignorance on the missions is truly incredible. Like I say, even Sibrel, Percy, Ralph Rene and the other main offenders know enough about the mission plan to be able to answer this, whether they believe it happened or not. How can you ask such basic questions and still believe that you know with certainty that it was all fake? It wouldn't be because it just reinforces your comfortable prejudices, would it?
The liftoff was recorded on Apollo 15, 16 and 17 which left a camera behind on the lunar rover. The cameras that were deployed from the earlier missions got their power from the LM, and thus obviously could not continue recording when the LM left. |
| SunSpot
User ID: 240713
10/2/2007 11:16 PM
 | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
3) All Apollo astronauts act psychotic
All 21 Apollo astronauts remained hidden from the public after coming back from the moon. NASA wants us to believe that all 21 astronauts are too shy to give interviews. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 276554
Not too shy to be interviewed for a movie currently in theaters:
[link to www.imdb.com]
"Between 1968 and 1972, nine American spacecraft voyaged to the Moon, and 12 men walked upon its surface. They remain the only human beings to have stood on another world. In the Shadow of the Moon brings together for the first, and very possibly the last, time surviving crew members from every single Apollo mission which flew to the Moon, and allows them to tell their story in their own words." |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 177477
10/3/2007 1:39 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
I'm saying 'I believe' this to be so -- that means that my spiritual proclivity is pointing in that direction, not that it is actually so. Quoting: FreshLaundry
Let's just snip out all this "I believe whatever I want and any poopyhead scientist that says otherwise is an opressive idiot who's wrong just because I say so" stuff.
You obviously don't really believe it, for a start, toherwise there would be no point in doing the 'research' you have proposed. If you want to convince someone else of your position, you probably won't make much headway if you just say "You should believe this because I feel it should be right". Most people demand evidnece, which is what the scientifi method is all about. I'm sorry if you missed that.
Let's move on to any actual adressable points in your burbling.
that may have worked on a compartmentalized system that contributed to this fake monument to human greatness, Quoting: FreshLaundry
Ooh, look, you've read your Sibrel too. The whole project was 'compartmentalised', so nobody knew what anybody else was doing.
Why don't you ask someone who actually works on big engineering projects if this is the way things are done? There are plenty of multi-billion dollar projects out there - pick one, and try to find out is this high degree of compartmentalisation can actually work. You'll be laughted at. Every single part of a big project impacts on every other part. If one subsystem needs to draw more power, then this will affect numberous other system's power. There will also be heat dissipations issues, space and weight constraints, and so on. The design process is very dynamic, and it required that design teams be in intimate contact with each other.
just because you read in a book the technical details which were all fabricated as delicately and realistically as possible Quoting: FreshLaundry
I guess this is one of those things you take such pride in believing without any form of proof. Good for you. If you get tired of masturbatory solipsism, let me know when you want to actually defend your assertions.
Apollo was not designed in a vacuum. Much of the technology went on to be used in the Space Shuttle, or eslewhere in the space industry. Despite what Sibrel and others may want to tell you, there are copious quantities of documentation available. Given that you clearly know nothing technical, why shoulf we believe you when you say that all thsi data was faked?
(well, except for radiation shielding and air conditioning/heating systems in the suits... hell, why bother with faking that when people are so dumb about such things?) Quoting: FreshLaundry
What evidence do you have that these systems didn't work? Given that the same systems, or derivatives of them, are used on the Shuttle and Space Station, are you claiming that they are hoaxes too?
But I declare to you now that you are wrong. Quoting: FreshLaundry
And I declare that you are coming across as a petulant child stamping his foot and demanding that he is too right, mister poopyhead. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 304075
10/3/2007 1:52 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
I've given this subject a lot of thought and have concluded that the public view of the Apollo program from the 60s and early 70s is entirely different than the REAL lunar program which has been ongoing since the 60s and continues covertly through the 80s and 90s.
It's probable that some aspects of the Apollo program were faked in a studio, in fact this has pretty much been official admitted if you know where to look.
But men have been to the Moon, maybe as early as the 1980s. |
| Barls Knarkley
User ID: 177477
10/3/2007 2:09 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
It's probable that some aspects of the Apollo program were faked in a studio, in fact this has pretty much been official admitted if you know where to look. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 304075
Bulldust. Complete rubbish. If you know where to look, why not show us? |
| FreshLaundry
User ID: 304962
10/3/2007 2:22 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
poopyhead Quoting: Anonymous Coward 177477
Why would I desire that the moon landings were faked? This was a difficult thing for me to come to grips with and it took a long time for me to finally accept it -- I was ridiculing the subject and refused to even look at the evidence; just like you. Whether the different departments went to lunch together or not is really a strawman argument don't you think? Anyway, I could give a shit if you live in ignorance. I wasn't trying to convince anyone, I was just suggesting a testable experiment.
This post pending review.
[link to kindagamey.com] |
| | 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 | |
|
