| | | Page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 | Myth Busters is doing a show on the Moon Landing.
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 341923
8/28/2008 6:23 PM | | Re: Myth Busters is doing a show on the Moon Landing. | Quote |
Have you looked? I've seen plenty of pics showing distant mountains. A quick image search comes up with a few just on the first page.
[ link to images.search.yahoo.com]
God, did you even look at those pics?
Thank you for proving my point. You'd think the entire moon was inside of a small valley, or the side of a hill with a back drop of space. Why don't you do yourself a favor and compare it with the mars lander pics.
Proving your point? You implied there were no pics with distant mountains. I did a 30 second search and found some. How is proving you wrong proving your point? |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 341923
8/28/2008 6:27 PM | | Re: Myth Busters is doing a show on the Moon Landing. | Quote |
MOON LANDING A FRAUD........
Using planetary logic: In outer-space the nothingness of space is weightless, the Moon's mass creates gravity.
Earth's atmospheric pressure allows our gravity to be at this level, it would have been heavier for us to walk around if we did not have the air and all its gases to buffer the nothingness of space.
If you lift 10 pounds in a pool of water, the water creates a buffer between the air outside and the solid surface of the pool, the 10 pounds is lighter then if you lifted it out of the water and into open air, because air too has weight but weighs less then water and creates less of a buffer between the solid ground of the Earth and the nothingness of space, but if you lifted the same 10 pounds on the Moon it would weigh even more because the nothingness of space weighs nothing (no buffer) between the solid ground of the Moon.
Apollo Mission would have crashed on the Moon, its a fake, those astronauts would be stuck incapable of walking, they took those pictures in Hollywood like the rest of the fakes that live there. They have been lying to us, science is a fake, most of it.
WAKE UP!
One small post for man, one Giant post for Mankind!
[ link to www.godlikeproductions.com]
Laughable.
Good luck defending youserlf in the times ahead.
he never worries about defending himself. He'll spout nonsense for hours no matter how many times he's been refuted. He is immune to logic. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 341923
8/28/2008 6:43 PM | | Re: Myth Busters is doing a show on the Moon Landing. | Quote |
Re: The reflector.
1. Did they have advanced laser technology in 1969? Enough to know they could shoot a laser from Earth at that reflector?
2. I expected the reflector to act as a mirror, and by looking in the telescope they would see a little green flash on the surface of the moon when the laser hit the reflector, like a flash of reflected sunlight in a mirror. Instead it was a chart on a computer screen? 
yes, I believe they did have the lasers.
The laser, even though tightly focused and very powerful, is still miles wide when hitting the Moon. Part of it is reflected and spreads out more on the return trip. The result is that what is detected is a handful of photons. Far less than what would be visible.
From here
[link to en.wikipedia.org]
At the Moon's surface, the beam is only about 6.5 kilometers (four miles) wide[2] and scientists liken the task of aiming the beam to using a rifle to hit a moving dime 3 kilometers (two miles) away. The reflected light is too weak to be seen with the human eye, but under good conditions, one photon will be received every few seconds (they can be identified as originating from the laser because the laser is highly monochromatic). This is one of the most precise distance measurements ever made, and is equivalent to determining the distance between Los Angeles and New York to one hundredth of an inch. |
| Punisher
User ID: 492742
8/28/2008 6:56 PM | | Re: Myth Busters is doing a show on the Moon Landing. | Quote |
MOON LANDING A FRAUD........
WAKE UP!
One small post for man, one Giant post for Mankind!
[ link to www.godlikeproductions.com]
Laughable.
Good luck defending youserlf in the times ahead.
he never worries about defending himself. He'll spout nonsense for hours no matter how many times he's been refuted. He is immune to logic.
You keep believing the pictures of your beloved astronauts, here's one of the Aurora as seen from outside their space ship, outside the atmophere like a comic-book photo.
[link to eol.jsc.nasa.gov]
But this is how it really looks like from WITHIN our atmosphere.
[link to upload.wikimedia.org] |
| Punisher
User ID: 492742
8/28/2008 7:30 PM | | Re: Myth Busters is doing a show on the Moon Landing. | Quote |
The gases of our atmosphere help produce these colours along with the magnetic pull of the Abyss (North Pole), having said this occurrence is between the Earth and the Atmosphere, not thousands of mile up nowhere.
Just like these bogus SHOTS.
[link to eol.jsc.nasa.gov]
The Sun's rays are only possible after the Sun's light is filtered thru the GASEOUS atmosphere, not before, these are computer generated LIES for the DUMMIES of the new religion called SCIENCE. |
| Gazmik
User ID: 487277
8/28/2008 7:57 PM | | Re: Myth Busters is doing a show on the Moon Landing. | Quote |
...the Abyss (North Pole)... Quoting: Punisher
The abyss is between your ears. |
| Veritas
User ID: 492919
8/28/2008 7:59 PM | | Re: Myth Busters is doing a show on the Moon Landing. | Quote |
Here is the explanation that the mainstream world is not yet ready to hear but which is true and unequivocal anyway:
The Apollo mission did go to the moon; several times. They were able to do that because they were protected from the harm that exists in outer space and escorted to the moon and back by intelligences not of our known reality (note I didn't use the word "aliens"). After several trips their escorts decided that the missions posed a threat to the moon and potentially other parts of space and hence banned them from returning to the moon. Subsequently, the moon missions folded, never to be revisited to this day.
I know this sounds bizarre and some will howl it down. However, a day will come when this explanation will be an accepted part of our knowledge set. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 341923
8/28/2008 9:38 PM | | Re: Myth Busters is doing a show on the Moon Landing. | Quote |
Here is the explanation that the mainstream world is not yet ready to hear but which is true and unequivocal anyway:
The Apollo mission did go to the moon; several times. They were able to do that because they were protected from the harm that exists in outer space and escorted to the moon and back by intelligences not of our known reality (note I didn't use the word "aliens"). After several trips their escorts decided that the missions posed a threat to the moon and potentially other parts of space and hence banned them from returning to the moon. Subsequently, the moon missions folded, never to be revisited to this day.
I know this sounds bizarre and some will howl it down. However, a day will come when this explanation will be an accepted part of our knowledge set. Quoting: Veritas 492919
Any proof for this at all? |
| Veritas
User ID: 493065
8/29/2008 12:58 AM | | Re: Myth Busters is doing a show on the Moon Landing. | Quote |
Here is the explanation that the mainstream world is not yet ready to hear but which is true and unequivocal anyway:
The Apollo mission did go to the moon; several times. They were able to do that because they were protected from the harm that exists in outer space and escorted to the moon and back by intelligences not of our known reality (note I didn't use the word "aliens"). After several trips their escorts decided that the missions posed a threat to the moon and potentially other parts of space and hence banned them from returning to the moon. Subsequently, the moon missions folded, never to be revisited to this day.
I know this sounds bizarre and some will howl it down. However, a day will come when this explanation will be an accepted part of our knowledge set.
Any proof for this at all? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 341923
Ask Ed Mitchell and anyone else who is willing to tell the truth on this matter. Get the facts from those who went... at least those who are not afraid to tell all. |
| sat
User ID: 493072
8/29/2008 1:08 AM | | Re: Myth Busters is doing a show on the Moon Landing. | Quote |
i saw the show last night and it was FULL of shit
they dint even mentioned the edited pictures
then at the end they go on about the reflector thats on the moon so conclusive we had to have been there. compleet bollox i say did they ever heard about a probe ?
i mean they can send probes to europa(anouther moon) so they deffo can send one to our moon init?
and common consider the source they did all they experiments with nasa like nasa would allow them to prove them wrong
nasa had 40 years to cover it up fuck it hated the show
compleet waste of time
oh btw blast crater not mentioned ? if the footprint stayed dont u think the blast crater would stay aswel . |
| Barls Knarkley
User ID: 401789
8/29/2008 1:55 AM | | Re: Myth Busters is doing a show on the Moon Landing. | Quote |
i saw the show last night and it was FULL of shit Quoting: sat 493072
Because they didn't cover every single theory in a single show? Give me a break. By all accounts they did a pretty good job on the ones they did cover.
they dint even mentioned the edited pictures Quoting: sat 493072
Which edited pictures? Name one, and we'll look at it together.
then at the end they go on about the reflector thats on the moon so conclusive we had to have been there. compleet bollox i say did they ever heard about a probe ? Quoting: sat 493072
Easy to handwave, harder to substantiate. The Soveit mirrors are nowhere near as well aligned as the Apollo ones, to the point where one of them hasn't returned a signal in several decades. The one that does returns a very weak signal and is not often used for this reason.
Then you have to explain how the supposed automated corner reflector delivery system worked - who launched it? When? Using what hardware? You can't just continue to wave your hands and talk about "secret" launches, as there are only a small number of sites worldwide that were capable of launching rockets big enough for the job, and all launches from those sites can be accounted for.
i mean they can send probes to europa(anouther moon) Quoting: sat 493072
Uh...no, they can't. At least, not yet. There has never been a landing on Europa.
and common consider the source they did all they experiments with nasa like nasa would allow them to prove them wrong Quoting: sat 493072
They did the test in plain sight. What part of it do you think was trickery? A vacuum chamber is a vacuum chamber, a vomit comet is a vomit comet. Whether you think the agency who owns them is trustworthy or not, the results stand alone.
Again, unless you can point to a bit of their experiments that was obviously faked, this is just empty rhetoric.
nasa had 40 years to cover it up Quoting: sat 493072
Why would it take them that long? What was it about the contemporaneous evidence that is invalid?
oh btw blast crater not mentioned ? if the footprint stayed dont u think the blast crater would stay aswel . Quoting: sat 493072
Again, you seem to want to believe that they didn't address this point because they couldn't, rather than the fact they could only cover a few of the many vacuous claims that have been made over the years.
You are once again just handwaving on this claim. How much force do you think the rocket plume exerted on the lunar surface? Don't just say "a lot", that just shows you don't know. The fact is that just before engine cutoff it exerted about as much force per square inch as a leaf blower. This was sufficient to blow away much of the loose dust layer immediately under the engine bell, but nowhere near enough to dig a hole in the compacted regolith underneath. You can see the dust streams during the landing video, and the patterns blown into the regolith in some of the surface photos. How can you compare this to the clear footprints made away from the engine bell where the loose layer was still intact? |
| sat
User ID: 493072
8/29/2008 6:56 AM | | Re: Myth Busters is doing a show on the Moon Landing. | Quote |
i saw the show last night and it was FULL of shit
Because they didn't cover every single theory in a single show? Give me a break. By all accounts they did a pretty good job on the ones they did cover.
they dint even mentioned the edited pictures
Which edited pictures? Name one, and we'll look at it together.
then at the end they go on about the reflector thats on the moon so conclusive we had to have been there. compleet bollox i say did they ever heard about a probe ?
Easy to handwave, harder to substantiate. The Soveit mirrors are nowhere near as well aligned as the Apollo ones, to the point where one of them hasn't returned a signal in several decades. The one that does returns a very weak signal and is not often used for this reason.
Then you have to explain how the supposed automated corner reflector delivery system worked - who launched it? When? Using what hardware? You can't just continue to wave your hands and talk about "secret" launches, as there are only a small number of sites worldwide that were capable of launching rockets big enough for the job, and all launches from those sites can be accounted for.
i mean they can send probes to europa(anouther moon)
Uh...no, they can't. At least, not yet. There has never been a landing on Europa.
and common consider the source they did all they experiments with nasa like nasa would allow them to prove them wrong
They did the test in plain sight. What part of it do you think was trickery? A vacuum chamber is a vacuum chamber, a vomit comet is a vomit comet. Whether you think the agency who owns them is trustworthy or not, the results stand alone.
Again, unless you can point to a bit of their experiments that was obviously faked, this is just empty rhetoric.
nasa had 40 years to cover it up
Why would it take them that long? What was it about the contemporaneous evidence that is invalid?
oh btw blast crater not mentioned ? if the footprint stayed dont u think the blast crater would stay aswel .
Again, you seem to want to believe that they didn't address this point because they couldn't, rather than the fact they could only cover a few of the many vacuous claims that have been made over the years.
You are once again just handwaving on this claim. How much force do you think the rocket plume exerted on the lunar surface? Don't just say "a lot", that just shows you don't know. The fact is that just before engine cutoff it exerted about as much force per square inch as a leaf blower. This was sufficient to blow away much of the loose dust layer immediately under the engine bell, but nowhere near enough to dig a hole in the compacted regolith underneath. You can see the dust streams during the landing video, and the patterns blown into the regolith in some of the surface photos. How can you compare this to the clear footprints made away from the engine bell where the loose layer was still intact? Quoting: Barls Knarkley 401789
Because they didn't cover every single theory in a single show? Give me a break. By all accounts they did a pretty good job on the ones they did cover.
thats your point of vieuw
what about the rest they just picked the ones they could that guy from mytbusters is blatently a believer he even has moon suits as a hobby
Which edited pictures? Name one, and we'll look at it together.
the ones where the crosshair is behind the the model
blatently edited
IMAGE ( [link to i36.tinypic.com] )
IMAGE ( [link to i33.tinypic.com] )
these are only 2 picture do some research you d way more
Easy to handwave, harder to substantiate. The Soveit mirrors are nowhere near as well aligned as the Apollo ones, to the point where one of them hasn't returned a signal in several decades. The one that does returns a very weak signal and is not often used for this reason.
Then you have to explain how the supposed automated corner reflector delivery system worked - who launched it? When? Using what hardware? You can't just continue to wave your hands and talk about "secret" launches, as there are only a small number of sites worldwide that were capable of launching rockets big enough for the job, and all launches from those sites can be accounted for.
yea sure like you know it all
Uh...no, they can't. At least, not yet. There has never been a landing on Europa.
yes they can and yea your right they never landed on europa butt they did a flyby so if they can make it so far they deffo can make it to the moon dont u rcon
They did the test in plain sight. What part of it do you think was trickery? A vacuum chamber is a vacuum chamber, a vomit comet is a vomit comet. Whether you think the agency who owns them is trustworthy or not, the results stand alone.
Again, unless you can point to a bit of their experiments that was obviously faked, this is just empty rhetoric.
course not like they would air it if it wasnt perfect
Again, you seem to want to believe that they didn't address this point because they couldn't, rather than the fact they could only cover a few of the many vacuous claims that have been made over the years.
well explain em all then
you cant can you .?
since your so good at this explain those questions then
1) Sceptics argue that the lack of stars on Moon photographs is acceptable, despite zero atmosphere to obscure the view. Yuri Gagarin, pronounced the stars to be "astonishingly brilliant". See the official NASA pictures above that I have reproduced that show 'stars' in the sky, as viewed from the lunar surface. And why exactly do you think there are hardly any stars visible on Apollo films taken from the Moon? The answers simple - Professional astronomers would quickly calculate that the configuration and distances of star formations were incorrect and so NASA had to remove them to make sure they could keep up the scam.
2) The pure oxygen atmosphere in the module would have melted the Hasselblad's camera covering and produced poisonous gases. Why weren't the astronauts affected?
3) There should have been a substantial crater blasted out under the LM's 10,000 pound thrust rocket. Sceptics would have you believe that the engines only had the power to blow the dust from underneath the LM as it landed. If this is true, how did Armstrong create that famous boot print if all the dust had been blown away?
4) Sceptics claim that you cannot produce a flame in a vacuum because of the lack of oxygen. So how come I have footage on this page showing a flame coming from the exhaust of an Apollo lander? (Obviously the sceptics are wrong or the footage shows the lander working in an atmosphere)
5) Footprints are the result of weight displacing air or moisture from between particles of dirt, dust, or sand. The astronauts left distinct footprints all over the place.
6) The Apollo 11 TV pictures were lousy, yet the broadcast quality magically became fine on the five subsequent missions.
7) Why in most Apollo photos, is there a clear line of definition between the rough foreground and the smooth background?
8) Why did so many NASA Moonscape photos have non parallel shadows? sceptics will tell you because there is two sources of light on the Moon - the Sun and the Earth... That maybe the case, but the shadows would still fall in the same direction, not two or three different angles and Earth shine would have no effect during the bright lunar day (the time at which the Apollo was on the Moon).
9) Why did one of the stage prop rocks have a capital "C" on it and a 'C' on the ground in front of it?
10) How did the fibreglass whip antenna on the Gemini 6A capsule survive the tremendous heat of atmospheric re-entry?
11) In Ron Howard's 1995 science fiction movie, Apollo 13, the astronauts lose electrical power and begin worrying about freezing to death. In reality, of course, the relentless bombardment of the Sun's rays would rapidly have overheated the vehicle to lethal temperatures with no atmosphere into which to dump the heat build up.
12) Who would dare risk using the LM on the Moon when a simulated Moon landing was never tested?
13) Instead of being able to jump at least ten feet high in "one sixth" gravity, the highest jump was about nineteen inches.
14) Even though slow motion photography was able to give a fairly convincing appearance of very low gravity, it could not disguise the fact that the astronauts travelled no further between steps than they would have on Earth.
15) If the Rover buggy had actually been moving in one-sixth gravity, then it would have required a twenty foot width in order not to have flipped over on nearly every turn. The Rover had the same width as ordinary small cars.
16) An astrophysicist who has worked for NASA writes that it takes two meters of shielding to protect against medium solar flares and that heavy ones give out tens of thousands of rem in a few hours. Russian scientists calculated in 1959 that astronauts needed a shield of 4 feet of lead to protect them on the Moons surface. Why didn't the astronauts on Apollo 14 and 16 die after exposure to this immense amount of radiation? And why are NASA only starting a project now to test the lunar radiation levels and what their effects would be on the human body if they have sent 12 men there already?
17) The fabric space suits had a crotch to shoulder zipper. There should have been fast leakage of air since even a pinhole deflates a tyre in short order.
18) The astronauts in these "pressurized" suits were easily able to bend their fingers, wrists, elbows, and knees at 5.2 p.s.i. and yet a boxer's 4 p.s.i. speed bag is virtually unbendable. The guys would have looked like balloon men if the suits had actually been pressurized.
19) How did the astronauts leave the LEM? In the documentary 'Paper Moon' The host measures a replica of the LEM at The Space Centre in Houston, what he finds is that the 'official' measurements released by NASA are bogus and that the astronauts could not have got out of the LEM.
20) The water sourced air conditioner backpacks should have produced frequent explosive vapour discharges. They never did.
21) During the Apollo 14 flag setup ceremony, the flag would not stop fluttering.
22) With more than a two second signal transmission round trip, how did a camera pan upward to track the departure of the Apollo 16 LEM? Gus Grissom, before he got burned alive in the Apollo I disaster A few minutes before he was burned to death in the Apollo I tragedy, Gus Grissom said, 'Hey, you guys in the control center, get with it. You expect me to go to the moon and you can't even maintain telephonic communications over three miles.' This statement says a lot about what Grissom thought about NASA's progress in the great space race.
23) Why did NASA's administrator resign just days before the first Apollo mission?
24) NASA launched the TETR-A satellite just months before the first lunar mission. The proclaimed purpose was to simulate transmissions coming from the moon so that the Houston ground crews (all those employees sitting behind computer screens at Mission Control) could "rehearse" the first moon landing. In other words, though NASA claimed that the satellite crashed shortly before the first lunar mission (a misinformation lie), its real purpose was to relay voice, fuel consumption, altitude, and telemetry data as if the transmissions were coming from an Apollo spacecraft as it neared the moon. Very few NASA employees knew the truth because they believed that the computer and television data they were receiving was the genuine article. Merely a hundred or so knew what was really going on; not tens of thousands as it might first appear.
25) In 1998, the Space Shuttle flew to one of its highest altitudes ever, three hundred and fifty miles, hundreds of miles below merely the beginning of the Van Allen Radiation Belts. Inside of their shielding, superior to that which the Apollo astronauts possessed, the shuttle astronauts reported being able to "see" the radiation with their eyes closed penetrating their shielding as well as the retinas of their closed eyes. For a dental x-ray on Earth which lasts 1/100th of a second we wear a 1/4 inch lead vest. Imagine what it would be like to endure several hours of radiation that you can see with your eyes closed from hundreds of miles away with 1/8 of an inch of aluminium shielding!
26) The Apollo 1 fire of January 27, 1967, killed what would have been the first crew to walk on the Moon just days after the commander, Gus Grissom, held an unapproved press conference complaining that they were at least ten years, not two, from reaching the Moon. The dead man's own son, who is a seasoned pilot himself, has in his possession forensic evidence personally retrieved from the charred spacecraft (that the government has tried to destroy on two or more occasions). Gus Grissom was obviously trying to make a big statement as he placed a lemon in the window of the Apollo I spacecraft as it sat ready for launch!
27) CNN issued the following report, "The radiation belts surrounding Earth may be more dangerous for astronauts than previously believed (like when they supposedly went through them thirty years ago to reach the Moon.) The phenomenon known as the 'Van Allen Belts' can spawn (newly discovered) 'Killer Electrons' that can dramatically affect the astronauts' health."
28) In 1969 computer chips had not been invented. The maximum computer memory was 256k, and this was housed in a large air conditioned building. In 2002 a top of the range computer requires at least 64 Mb of memory to run a simulated Moon landing, and that does not include the memory required to take off again once landed. The alleged computer on board Apollo 11 had 32k of memory. That's the equivalent of a simple calculator.
29) If debris from the Apollo missions was left on the Moon, then it would be visible today through a powerful telescope, however no such debris can be seen. The Clementine probe that recently mapped the Moons surface failed to show any Apollo artefacts left by Man during the missions. Where did the Moon Buggy and base of the LM go?
30) In the year 2005 NASA does not have the technology to land any man, or woman on the Moon, and return them safely to Earth.
31) Film evidence has recently been uncovered of a mis-labelled, unedited, behind-the-scenes video film, showing the crew of Apollo 11 staging part of their photography. The film evidence is shown in the video "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon!". and appears above in the 'Why Did Apollo 11 Astronauts Lie About Being In Deep Space?' section.
32) Why did the blueprints and plans for the Lunar Module and Moon Buggy get destroyed if this was one of History's greatest accomplishments?
33) Why did NASA need to airbrush out anomalies from lunar footage of the Moon if they have nothing to hide? |
| Barls Knarkley
User ID: 395921
8/29/2008 8:29 AM | | Re: Myth Busters is doing a show on the Moon Landing. | Quote |
thats your point of vieuw
what about the rest they just picked the ones they could that guy from mytbusters is blatently a believer he even has moon suits as a hobby Quoting: sat 493072
Empty rhetoric. They covered a few of the most common topics in the short time they had available. Apparently there is more available on their website. An inability to cover everything in no way invalidates the topics they did cover. I note you have not said one word to specifically address any of that. I wonder why.
Yawn. That's a well known photographic phenomenon in which a thin dark line can become washed out when it passes in front of a bright white object. It's known as "emulsion bleed". The examples presented by hoax proponents are quite selective, and for some reason ignore shots that show the bleed for what it is - for example, a shot of the US flag, in which you can see the crosshairs (known in the business as "fiducials") on the alternate red stripes, but not on the white. How do you explain that in terms of the fiducials being "behind" the object in question?
yea sure like you know it all Quoting: sat 493072
Well, I've got no comeback in the face of such stunning rebuttal. How about "I'm rubber, you're glue?"
yes they can Quoting: sat 493072
No, they can't land on Europa at present. Not for reasons of delta-v requirements, nor radiation hardening. You know nothing about the current state of spaceflight capabilities.
and yea your right they never landed on europa butt they did a flyby so if they can make it so far they deffo can make it to the moon dont u rcon Quoting: sat 493072
That was never in dispute. I'm just pointing out how little you know about the specifics. Of course they can go to the Moon, they were doing that before Apollo. Irrelevant and inaccurate points about landing on Europa (or flybys, which says nothing about landing capability) add nothing to the discussion.
course not like they would air it if it wasnt perfect Quoting: sat 493072
Ah. So, as I suspected, you're going for the empty rhetoric gambit. When you can point out how what they did could in any way be falsified, get back to me. A vacuum chamber is a vacuum chamber. Address what they actually did.
well explain em all then
you cant can you .? Quoting: sat 493072
Uh..yeah, I can.
since your so good at this explain those questions then Quoting: sat 493072
Hoo boy, the Hufschmidt list. Been a while since I've seen that used in anger.
Tell you what - Your rebuttal so far lacks a certain...specificity. I've rebutted this entire list more times than I can count. I'll do the first few, but if you want me to do the rest, you have to reply to what I've written. Not "neener neener, you're a dumb shill" or anything of that nature - if you think these are convincing points, then respond to what I write about them. Otherwise, why should I bother?
Here goes.
1) Sceptics argue that the lack of stars on Moon photographs is acceptable, despite zero atmosphere to obscure the view... And why exactly do you think there are hardly any stars visible on Apollo films taken from the Moon? The answers simple - Professional astronomers would quickly calculate that the configuration and distances of star formations were incorrect and so NASA had to remove them to make sure they could keep up the scam. Quoting: sat 493072
Absolute nonsense for several reasons. Lets start with the supposed rationalization for this one - that astronomers would "quickly calculate" the stars were in the wrong place. How much difference do you think would be visible? The Moon is several hundred thousand kilometers away from the Earth. The Earth's orbit around the Sun moves it over a distance of hundreds of millions of kilometers. The parallax change over that distance needs large, specialized equipment to see, and even then only in the closest stars. This supposed reason is simply nonsense.
As for the lack of stars in the photos - try going to a night baseball game and try taking a photo of both the stars and the players on the field without either overexposing the players or having the stars be too underexposed to see.
2) The pure oxygen atmosphere in the module would have melted the Hasselblad's camera covering and produced poisonous gases. Why weren't the astronauts affected? Quoting: sat 493072
Because that's complete nonsense. The same cameras were used on other missions such as Skylab without this being a problem. This is simply unsupported rubbish. What in the photographic film would spontaneously react with oxygen, particularly low pressure oxygen like in the capsule?
3) There should have been a substantial crater blasted out under the LM's 10,000 pound thrust rocket. Sceptics would have you believe that the engines only had the power to blow the dust from underneath the LM as it landed. If this is true, how did Armstrong create that famous boot print if all the dust had been blown away? Quoting: sat 493072
The allegation that there should have been a deep crater is presented without any corroboration. The lunar surface consists of a loose layer covering a compacted hardpan. The loose layer directly under the engine bell was indeed blown away by the engine plume, as is visible in numerous photos, but there was not enough force to dig a crater into the hardpan. The bootprint photos, surprisingly enough, come from areas away from the lander where the loose layer hasn't been disturbed.
4) Sceptics claim that you cannot produce a flame in a vacuum because of the lack of oxygen. So how come I have footage on this page showing a flame coming from the exhaust of an Apollo lander? (Obviously the sceptics are wrong or the footage shows the lander working in an atmosphere) Quoting: sat 493072
Uh...or alternatively, like every single rocket that has ever been used in space, it carried its own oxidizer. Duh.
So, there ya go. Every single other point is as easily dismissed as these ones. Do you have any comment, or am I just wasting my time? |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 493204
8/29/2008 9:03 AM | | Re: Myth Busters is doing a show on the Moon Landing. | Quote |
So, there ya go. Every single other point is as easily dismissed as these ones. Quoting: Barls Knarkley 395921
Not even Nasa know as much as you.
|
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 493204
8/29/2008 9:07 AM | | Re: Myth Busters is doing a show on the Moon Landing. | Quote |
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 447638
WOW 10 pages of posts over this pos tv show? You people are truly sick, except the guy above, who's apparently a genius. |
| Barls Knarkley
User ID: 395921
8/29/2008 9:21 AM | | Re: Myth Busters is doing a show on the Moon Landing. | Quote |
WOW 10 pages of posts over this pos tv show? You people are truly sick, except the guy above, who's apparently a genius. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 493204
Why, thank you. I'm not, though, I'm just educated and have made the choice to inform myself of the actual facts, rather than rely on empty, pointless trolling. How about you? |
| antwan
User ID: 492035
8/29/2008 9:38 AM
 | | Re: Myth Busters is doing a show on the Moon Landing. | Quote |
well notice how well done the pictures of the mythbusters are and thoose of nasa are .
then imagine this dont you think nasa did the same thing ? when taking the pictures ! and giving them to the audience afterwards !
i say its still a hoax
[link to video.google.com] |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 493229
8/29/2008 9:39 AM | | Re: Myth Busters is doing a show on the Moon Landing. | Quote |
WOW 10 pages of posts over this pos tv show? You people are truly sick, except the guy above, who's apparently a genius.
Why, thank you. I'm not, though, I'm just educated and have made the choice to inform myself of the actual facts, rather than rely on empty, pointless trolling. How about you? Quoting: Barls Knarkley 395921
Trolling.
But seriously, "Nasa is wrong" dude come on. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 435650
8/29/2008 9:57 AM | | Re: Myth Busters is doing a show on the Moon Landing. | Quote |
well notice how well done the pictures of the mythbusters are and thoose of nasa are .
then imagine this dont you think nasa did the same thing ? when taking the pictures ! and giving them to the audience afterwards !
i say its still a hoax
[ link to video.google.com]
LOL You say the moon landing is a hoax yet on another thread you claim to be a time traveler???? |
| Barls Knarkley
User ID: 395921
8/29/2008 10:16 AM | | Re: Myth Busters is doing a show on the Moon Landing. | Quote |
Trolling. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 493229
Natch.
But seriously, "Nasa is wrong" dude come on. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 493229
Who's "NASA"? Is everybody who works there in complete mental lockstep, never capable of individual thought or action? No, please, don't answer that.
I assume you're talking about the "radioactive" stuff. Here's the thing - if someone, an individual, capable of all the range of human frailties, who happens to work for, say, whatever government department is responsible for the environment in the US (sorry, I don't know off the top of my head), and they publicly say (thinking they are helping make a point) that global warming will result in the complete melting of the icecaps and the drowning of all life on Earth in the next twelve months - does that mean A) global warming is nonsense and will never, ever happen, B) the government is running a disinfo campaign to deliberately make GW look like nonsense, or C) one single guy, not a part of some departmental groupthink, got carried away and said something rather hyperbolic, then what are you going to believe? No, don't answer that, either.
Individuals say things that may not be entirely true. The truth of what they say can, however, be evaluated independently, in the light of what the rest of the world knows to be true.
Don't let that get in the way of the trolling, though. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 493332
8/29/2008 12:42 PM | | Re: Myth Busters is doing a show on the Moon Landing. | Quote |
Trolling.
Natch.
But seriously, "Nasa is wrong" dude come on.
Who's "NASA"? Is everybody who works there in complete mental lockstep, never capable of individual thought or action? No, please, don't answer that.
I assume you're talking about the "radioactive" stuff. Here's the thing - if someone, an individual, capable of all the range of human frailties, who happens to work for, say, whatever government department is responsible for the environment in the US (sorry, I don't know off the top of my head), and they publicly say (thinking they are helping make a point) that global warming will result in the complete melting of the icecaps and the drowning of all life on Earth in the next twelve months - does that mean A) global warming is nonsense and will never, ever happen, B) the government is running a disinfo campaign to deliberately make GW look like nonsense, or C) one single guy, not a part of some departmental groupthink, got carried away and said something rather hyperbolic, then what are you going to believe? No, don't answer that, either.
Individuals say things that may not be entirely true. The truth of what they say can, however, be evaluated independently, in the light of what the rest of the world knows to be true.
Don't let that get in the way of the trolling, though. Quoting: Barls Knarkley 395921
I don't know about any of that( Global fucking warming?)but the link says quite clearly that Nasa need to know more about Lunar radiation & they are even paying for shields for space flight. Now that sounds like more than "just one guy" to me & if I have to choose between Nasa or some guy on GLP, well only a complete fool would chooser the latter. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 493369
8/29/2008 1:44 PM | | Re: Myth Busters is doing a show on the Moon Landing. | Quote |
That these threads go on for so many pages is the best evidence that it's a hoax.
Truth needs no defense, only lies do.
That the shills are so desperate to defend this fairy tale says it all. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 493369
8/29/2008 1:47 PM | | Re: Myth Busters is doing a show on the Moon Landing. | Quote |
rather than rely on empty, pointless trolling. How about you? Quoting: Barls Knarkley 395921
Barls always sreams "trolls!" when the curtain starts to fall on all the lies.
It's his fallback. Anyone who sees thru the BS, he accuses of being a "troll". |
| nomuse (NLI)
User ID: 491453
8/29/2008 3:07 PM | | Re: Myth Busters is doing a show on the Moon Landing. | Quote |
So, there ya go. Every single other point is as easily dismissed as these ones.
Not even Nasa know as much as you.
No, the answer is simpler. Your questions are so simple that NASA is not needed to answer them. They are of such appalling simplicity most of them could be solved by a bright teen working from first principles -- without even any specific knowledge of the space program to guide her.
You can't rebut a single rebuttal, can you?
I'd love to hold your feet to the fire on just one question. Say, that NASA was unable to put stars in the background because a professional astronomer would be able to tell they were wrong.
First, do you understand and can you make any reasonable objection to the point that the distance between Earth and Moon is much SMALLER than the distance the Earth itself moves over the course of a year? Or that even the nearest stars are so distant the change in them even over this Earthly year is barely detectable (it needs a larger telescope to measure -- it would be completely invisible in even a high-resolution photograph of the sky)?
And what would be your rebuttal to Jay Whindley's answer; "Why doesn't NASA hire that professional astronomer to direct the painting, then?" |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 493369
8/29/2008 3:20 PM | | Re: Myth Busters is doing a show on the Moon Landing. | Quote |
And what would be your rebuttal to Jay Whindley's answer; "Why doesn't NASA hire that professional astronomer to direct the painting, then?" Quoting: nomuse (NLI) 491453
It needs no rebuttal. No one needs to explain why Nasa screwed things up so bad. They did, and thats the way it is. The fact that you are here defending this Wizard of Oz BS is the best evidence that its all a fraud. Remember, truth needs no defenders. |
| nomuse (NLI)
User ID: 491453
8/29/2008 3:21 PM | | Re: Myth Busters is doing a show on the Moon Landing. | Quote |
I don't know about any of that( Global fucking warming?) Quoting: Anonymous Coward 493332
Trolls are confused by analogies. Unlike students, who actually attempt to understand a subject, trolls merely wield sound-bytes as weapons in order to prove their mastery over whatever sordid little corner of the internet they have staked out. Understanding is neither necessary nor desired.
Unfortunately, analogies are one of the great teaching tools. They are also one of the few tools still available for introducing concepts to someone unwilling or unable to learn any of the underlying science.
but the link says quite clearly that Nasa need to know more about Lunar radiation Quoting: Anonymous Coward 493332
We've been able to see the Sun for longer than we've been a species. We've been studying the Sun scientifically since as long as there has been Science. Does that mean we stop now? Does that mean we've learned everything there is to learn?
Off the top of my head, I can't think of a single subject in the natural world that more useful work could not be done on in order to add to our knowledge. We've been working iron for 1,500 years, and there are still things to learn -- about some of the less common allotropes, for instance, and their crystalline structure and metallurgical properties.
& they are even paying for shields for space flight. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 493332
Cars were on the highways for twenty years before any of the modern safety systems were introduced; collapsible steering columns, padded dashboards, shoulder belts, safety glass. It was another decade before air bags. Does that mean that car travel did not take place before any of these measures? Does it mean it was impossibly unsafe? Neither. It means that, as in many fields, work is constantly done to improve safety (and performance, and economy, and environmental impact).
Now that sounds like more than "just one guy" to me & if I have to choose between Nasa or some guy on GLP, well only a complete fool would chooser the latter. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 493332
Then learn how to read the primary sources. Don't be a captive audience. Don't be a passive participant. Learn how to learn. |
| nomuse (NLI)
User ID: 491453
8/29/2008 3:25 PM | | Re: Myth Busters is doing a show on the Moon Landing. | Quote |
It needs no rebuttal. No one needs to explain why Nasa screwed things up so bad. They did, and thats the way it is. The fact that you are here defending this Wizard of Oz BS is the best evidence that its all a fraud. Remember, truth needs no defenders. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 493369
This is nonsensical.
You can't explain why an obvious step wasn't taken, so to support your previously formed conclusion all you have to do is assume "they screwed up?"
Your guess about why NASA "left the stars out" is debunked; they could have gotten the stars right. You can't opt out by saying, "oh, but they didn't think of that."
How about; "you screwed up?" You don't understand basic photography, and you are too lazy to get up, go outside, and point a camera up. You have failed to make even the slightest effort to test if your assumptions are wrong. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 493369
8/29/2008 3:41 PM | | Re: Myth Busters is doing a show on the Moon Landing. | Quote |
You can't explain why an obvious step wasn't taken, so to support your previously formed conclusion all you have to do is assume "they screwed up?"
they could have gotten the stars right. Quoting: nomuse (NLI) 491453
There is no burden on us to explain why they sscrewed up things so bad.
They didnt get it right, along with many other things.
That you are here, well, that is THE best evidence. Truth needs no defenders. |
| nomuse (NLI)
User ID: 491453
8/29/2008 3:44 PM | | Re: Myth Busters is doing a show on the Moon Landing. | Quote |
There is no burden on us to explain why they sscrewed up things so bad. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 493369
There is no burden, but there is also no case.
Remember, nobody came up to you and said "The Moon Landings were real because NASA hired an astronomer."
YOU said "The Moon Landings were fake because there were no stars, and NASA COULD NOT HAVE DONE THE STARS."
NASA _could_ have done the stars. You have no argument. You were wrong. |
| nomuse (NLI)
User ID: 491453
8/29/2008 3:45 PM | | Re: Myth Busters is doing a show on the Moon Landing. | Quote |
Truth needs no defenders. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 493369
Ignorance, however, always needs detractors. |
| | Page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 | |
|
