| Users Online Now: 2,379 (Who's On?) | Visitors Today: 946,614 | |
| Pageviews Today: 1,300,903 | Threads Today: 367 | Posts Today: 6,062 |
| 10:54 AM | ||
| Users Online Now: 2,379 (Who's On?) | Visitors Today: 946,614 | |
| Pageviews Today: 1,300,903 | Threads Today: 367 | Posts Today: 6,062 |
| 10:54 AM | ||
10 Reasons Why the Moon Landing Never Happened | |
BossBattles  User ID: 6464373  United States02/01/2012 09:41 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Uhhhh... As a Catholic, I forgive you. 1) For being horribly misinformed and judgemental 2) For somehow tying in your twisted belief system to the moon landings. Now, concerning the landings. How exactly was / is this all kept a secret after all these years? Wouldn't other governments (namely, Russia) blown the lid off such claims? We were in the space race with them at the time. Wouldn't of they called B.S.? Isn't it possible that guts, determination and good ole American ingenuity were the reasons for successful landings? Oh, and by the way, that's plural. why would they risk a hoax multiple times? Wouldn't that also increase the possibility other countries would call bullsh*t on this? I understand where the denial of the landings come from. There are some pretty good arguments. However, you would think that at least 25 of the thousands of people who worked on these mission would of blown the whistle by now. Think, think, think! To tell you the truth, I am not exactly sold either way. I'd like to believe that it occurred. And if GOD put it there, I would also like to think that he wouldn't mind if we visited. its sad when people avoid reality because they can't believe it is possible to hide a secret from a dumbed down, brainwashed and drugged society. LOL I can say what I want to, even if I'm not serious. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 9107938 United States02/01/2012 09:57 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | OP You might be interested in this. [link to imageshack.us] Taken from this image: [link to imageshack.us] |
| nomuse (not logged in) User ID: 2380183 United States02/01/2012 10:18 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | 11: Catholic Athiests claim that the reason we've never been "back" to the moon is because it's too expensive... WTF? Money is just paper, and NEVER. A. STRAIGHT. ANSWER. can just print MORE if they want. NASA = ECONOMIC FAIL, FACT! Quoting: Anonymous Coward 589518 Catholic Atheists? Is that anything like child seniors, or brave cowards, or well-read illiterates? Germany tried your "just print more money stunt" once. They STILL talk about it in the cafes of Berlin. |
| Whiskey Brother User ID: 9933678 United States02/01/2012 10:22 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| nomuse (not logged in) User ID: 2380183 United States02/01/2012 10:29 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | These are facts? Quoting: nomuse (not logged in) 2380183 They're called the "belts" for a reason. The VARB are a concentrated region of charged particles from the Sun. In ordinary cislunar space, this concentration does not exist. I've shot pictures of the dark side of the Moon myself. Oh...you mean the FAR side? Well, there are numerous pictures of that as well...going all the way back to Apollo 8, but including every lunar mapping mission since from Clementine to the ESA's and Japan's. 8: The shadows in the moon photos go in different directions, BECAUSE THERE WERE MULTIPLE FILM SET LIGHTS! Quoting: Anonymous Coward 589518 They don't have multiple shadows. As much as they might like, Hollywood is unable to violate the laws of physics. And for that matter....you can go outside, find a patch of bare dirt and some sticks, and set up the shadow patterns in every single photograph in question. It isn't a matter of Hollywood (who doesn't light this way anyhow); it is a matter of ignorance of basic geometry on the part of the Apollo Denier. 7: Stanley Kubrick faked it in a studio and Donald Rumsfeld admitted it. ON CAMERA! Quoting: Anonymous Coward 589518 In a clearly labeled spoof. I suppose you think James Bond is real, too. 6: There was a coke camera visible lying on the moon. PEOPLE SAW IT! Quoting: Anonymous Coward 589518 There were people on the Moon? Seriously, you parrot this junk without even understanding the claims you are copying. The claim is that a woman in Australia by the name of Uma saw a coke bottle in the live broadcast. That incriminating tape was later destroyed. It's a nice story, but one look at a CLOCK shows it is impossible. There was no live broadcast at the time she claims. Cameras would melt? Are you a Poe? Or just incompetent? I think you will find the usual claim is that FILM would melt. Me, I'd be more frightened for the astronauts if there was that kind of failure of thermal control. And I wish this was easy to answer, but since you've forgotten high school science there is simply too much material to cover (about the difference between conduction, radiation, and convection, for instance) within a single post. They didn't smile...those were broad GRINS on their faces in a famous photograph taken on the recovery vessel. Plenty of smiling going around. 2: They had no computers in 1969 guide the spaceship. HOW DID THEY PILOT IT? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 589518 There were three on the Saturn V stack alone, plus bigger ones back at Houston. The AGC (the most famous of the former), is extremely well documented. You can download a virtual AGC yourself and run the original software. 1: God would never allow man to walk on His moon. He put it there for us to behold, NOT to jump around on. MOON LANDING IS BLASPHEMY! Quoting: Anonymous Coward 589518 And now we get to the real point of what is either a Poe or a stick-ignorant bible-thumper. What proof do you have that everything you're saying is 100% fact? For all we know it is just another stupid opinion. I don't. I don't expect anyone to trust my word. I expect anyone with intellectual integrity to check. Start at the bottom (ignoring the bible-thumping, that is); look online for the Virtual AGC project. Please verify for yourself, if you would, that such a project exists, and that the software exists for this computer the OP thinks doesn't exist. By then, you will have collected enough links and enough of an understanding to go to photographs of the AGC, circuit diagrams of the AGC, blogs about physical reconstruction of the AGC, histories of the AGC, etc. Or let's go up one again. Are you willing to stake your opinion that, as the OP appears to be claiming, the men returning from Apollo 11 never smiled? Are you willing to look to see if there are indeed pictures of those men, smiling? I know exists because I have seen it. In fact, unless my memory betrays me, there is a copy of the newspaper article in which it appeared posted in the Apollo display at the Hornet Museum. So, go ahead. Investigate what I said. I entirely meant for anyone interested to do so (this leaves out the OP, who is so mired in his particular semi-coherent rant he is not open to learning anything new). What...you think scientific papers, with full citations, experimental results, and statical methodology get posted here? You aren't going to get careful arguments in this format. You will get, at best, information about how to find those arguments. |
| JimWell User ID: 9879374  United Kingdom02/01/2012 10:50 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Thje Van allen belt is the most compelling, with NASA admitting they now need to develop new tech to get past it. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1067599 Yes, you'd need shielding to spend a significant length of time within the belts. However..... It is entirely possible to miss them, or to pass through at a point where they are thin or weak. The VARBs encircle the earth in a kind of torus shape - a bit like a donut - with one above the other - like this... [link to upload.wikimedia.org] They rarely - if ever - get below a few hundred km above the surface. (Check for yourself, if you don't believe me) Now look at the pic linked below - it's quite large hi-def - but worth the download. The Apollo missions typically orbited at around 100 miles (160km), before breaking orbit - They broke orbit - and re-entered - above one pole or the other. Thereby missing most, if not all, of the VA radiation, by going either 'above', or 'below' the main belts. [link to www.nasm.si.edu] |
| 1342725 User ID: 1342725 United States02/01/2012 10:53 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 9240681  Mexico02/01/2012 10:54 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | 4: Rockets need to push away from something, like air, to move. There is no air in space, so what are they pushing against? NASA FAILS AT ROCKET SCIENCE! Quoting: Anonymous Coward 589518 Obviously you ain't no FUCKING ROCKET SCIENTIST, are ya? Fucking dipshit. That doesn't mean the moon landing was not faked. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 9746155 United States02/01/2012 10:57 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | 1 reason we know US landed on the moon: The RUSSIANS never said at any point in time during the entirety of any of the missions, "Hey World, guess what, we triangulated the signal and it is coming from a studio in Burbank, CA... check it out for yourselves! Ha, ha... silly Americans." |
| JimWell User ID: 9879374 United Kingdom02/01/2012 10:58 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | 4: Rockets need to push away from something, like air, to move. There is no air in space, so what are they pushing against? NASA FAILS AT ROCKET SCIENCE! Quoting: Anonymous Coward 589518 Throw mass backwards, you'll be pushed forwards... Regardless of the presence of air. "Equal and opposite reaction....." Kid's level physics. |
| 1342725 User ID: 1342725 United States02/01/2012 10:59 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | OP Quoting: Anonymous Coward 9107938 You might be interested in this. [link to imageshack.us] Taken from this image: [link to imageshack.us] holy shit it's jesus |
| JimWell User ID: 9879374 United Kingdom02/01/2012 11:02 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | 1 reason we know US landed on the moon: Quoting: Anonymous Coward 9746155 The RUSSIANS never said at any point in time during the entirety of any of the missions, "Hey World, guess what, we triangulated the signal and it is coming from a studio in Burbank, CA... check it out for yourselves! Ha, ha... silly Americans." I think that whether or not someone is dumb enough to believe the hoax-theorist's arguments - this is the clincher. The USSR had their own program going, they were even crash-landing their own probes on the Moon at the time. Putting a man there first was a HUGE propaganda win. If the Russians even suspected there was any foul-play, they would have screamed blue-murder. Their silent acceptance speaks volumes. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 9746155 United States02/01/2012 11:03 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | 4: Rockets need to push away from something, like air, to move. There is no air in space, so what are they pushing against? NASA FAILS AT ROCKET SCIENCE! Quoting: Anonymous Coward 589518 Throw mass backwards, you'll be pushed forwards... Regardless of the presence of air. "Equal and opposite reaction....." Kid's level physics. I know, right! We have perfected a basic ion engine at this point, even equipped satellites and probes with them. But fucktard over here thinks that rockets need to "push away from something". Ah, what if they are pushing away from something... THEMSELVES! Out of curiosity, what does a jet engine "push away from"? Thrust... it's a good thing! |
| nomuse (not logged in) User ID: 2380183 United States02/01/2012 11:04 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | 4: Rockets need to push away from something, like air, to move. There is no air in space, so what are they pushing against? NASA FAILS AT ROCKET SCIENCE! Quoting: Anonymous Coward 589518 Obviously you ain't no FUCKING ROCKET SCIENTIST, are ya? Fucking dipshit. That doesn't mean the moon landing was not faked. True. But when every argument for a faked moon landing turns out to be just as stupid as the above, it should tell you something. Maybe there are no good arguments. And maybe the people who believe so strongly the missions were faked are drawing their conclusion on no evidence at all. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 9746155 United States02/01/2012 11:05 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | 1 reason we know US landed on the moon: Quoting: Anonymous Coward 9746155 The RUSSIANS never said at any point in time during the entirety of any of the missions, "Hey World, guess what, we triangulated the signal and it is coming from a studio in Burbank, CA... check it out for yourselves! Ha, ha... silly Americans." I think that whether or not someone is dumb enough to believe the hoax-theorist's arguments - this is the clincher. The USSR had their own program going, they were even crash-landing their own probes on the Moon at the time. Putting a man there first was a HUGE propaganda win. If the Russians even suspected there was any foul-play, they would have screamed blue-murder. Their silent acceptance speaks volumes. Yeppers... the Russians... the high water mark of moon landing conspiracy. |
| Anonymous Coward (OP) User ID: 589518  Australia02/02/2012 01:20 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 1868091 United States02/02/2012 01:33 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | 10: The Van Allen belt will kill anyone in space. FACT! Quoting: Anonymous Coward 589518 9: There are no photos of the dark side of the moon. WHY? 8: The shadows in the moon photos go in different directions, BECAUSE THERE WERE MULTIPLE FILM SET LIGHTS! 7: Stanley Kubrick faked it in a studio and Donald Rumsfeld admitted it. ON CAMERA! 6: There was a coke camera visible lying on the moon. PEOPLE SAW IT! 5: Cameras don't work on the moon. THEY WOULD MELT! 3: The astronauts didn't smile when they got home. WHY NOT? 2: They had no computers in 1969 guide the spaceship. HOW DID THEY PILOT IT? 1: God would never allow man to walk on His moon. He put it there for us to behold, NOT to jump around on. MOON LANDING IS BLASPHEMY! NASA = NEVER A STRAIGHT ANSWER! Find pics of the Apollo craft...and really zoom in on it. Does that look like high tech or foil wrap to you? |
| AWOL User ID: 10014616 United States02/02/2012 01:45 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Well, what we were shown as a "moon landing" is fake. Doesn't mean they didn't go in much more advanced technology. If anyone thinks that we made it to the moon in that tin can, they are under mind control. Quoting: BossBattles No such technology exists that will travel man into space. Radiation and temps are too great. Again another giveaway was the size of planet earth allegedly photographed from the moon. It is far too small. The earth is 4X the size of the moon. Anywho, the reason for the fake? Evolution 'big bang' Theory. You see if earth was created by 'big bag' as they were claiming then there should be other planets with life, and this means life in space is possible--which it is not. There is no life in space anywhere. They've been searching and found none. The Gnostic NASA Nazis read from Genesis. [link to www.youtube.com] |
| Underdog User ID: 5403109 United States02/02/2012 01:45 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 7209547 United States02/02/2012 01:52 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | 10: not if they are shielded properly 9: there are photos but the moon stuff never went there explicitly 8: huh? what are you on 7: more from number 8 6: more from number 7 5: cameras can work when they're part of a multi billion dollar program to film shit in an environment that isn't earth based: ie different pressure. cameras don't melt 4: what what you fourth dumb ass statement again? 3: they dont smile because... well maybe they're just hard asses that never smile? seems more plausible that some crazy no moon landing crap 2: they had computers and when the instruments failed in early testing the awesome astronauts used stellar bodies as navigational tools! 1: you fabricate divine words to support your retarded post. |
| nomuse (not logged in) User ID: 2380183 United States02/02/2012 02:17 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Find pics of the Apollo craft...and really zoom in on it. Does that look like high tech or foil wrap to you? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1868091 You mean this stuff? [link to www.ballaerospace.com] It is both. The thermal cladding is hand-applied high-tech material, but it is not the spacecraft hull. It isn't foil wrap, though. Instead it is vacuum-sputtered aluminized mylar, assembled largely with kapton tape. Today we make party balloons out of the stuff, but back then it was a little more rare! Still used on satellites and space probes today...just look at some pictures of the modern stuff. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 9890630 United States02/02/2012 02:22 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| nomuse (not logged in) User ID: 2380183 United States02/02/2012 02:33 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | What is the temperature of space? Also, where is the Earth? In space, or somewhere else? I haven't noticed the Earth melting recently... Again another giveaway was the size of planet earth allegedly photographed from the moon. It is far too small. The earth is 4X the size of the moon. Quoting: AWOL 10014616 It is the correct size for the lens and format being used. In short form; the Hassie was using a wide-angle lens with a FOV of about 50 degrees. The Earth subtends about 2 degrees. Thus, 25 Earths should fit across the safe area of the picture. Here's one of the pictures (this one from Apollo 17); [link to spaceflight.nasa.gov] I measure about 20 Earth diameters, which is pretty close for a first-order approximation. Hardly 4x too small! Anywho, the reason for the fake? Evolution 'big bang' Theory. You see if earth was created by 'big bag' as they were claiming Quoting: AWOL 10014616 Err, what? The Big Bang is the starting point for modern cosmology but the development of our solar system is more of a local affair. The two are not directly linked in the way you seem to be implying. then there should be other planets with life, and this means life in space is possible--which it is not. There is no life in space anywhere. They've been searching and found none. Quoting: AWOL 10014616 You know this how? We've hardly searched "all of space." We've only (quite literally!) "scratched the surface" of Mars, the nearest world that could potentially have once had similar conditions to our own. We are far, far from being able to directly look for life on other worlds. With the exception of hopeful radio astronomy, but so far no other civilization has seen fit to beam a powerful message out into space just for our benefit. We shouldn't blame them, however -- we haven't done so ourselves, either! Any hypothetical alien SETI project out there is going to have to make do with trying to detect our weak, un-aimed leakage of such things as reruns of "I Love Lucy" -- which would get washed out by background noise before you even got to another G-type star. |
| nomuse (not logged in) User ID: 2380183 United States02/02/2012 02:38 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I should add...we are no more able to declare there is no life elsewhere in the universe than we are able to declare they are no gods. As of this date, neither has compelling evidence for it either -- but there are ongoing experiments for one that may actually produce some concrete results soon. The other seems to be wallowing in the same circuit of empty philosophy and self-referentialism it has been applying since the middle ages. |
| Anonymous Koward User ID: 10035959  India02/02/2012 04:55 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Anonymous Astrophysicist User ID: 1385799 United States02/02/2012 05:20 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 1246800 Australia02/02/2012 05:30 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Anonymous Astrophysicist User ID: 1385799 United States02/02/2012 05:34 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | 1 reason we know US landed on the moon: Quoting: Anonymous Coward 9746155 The RUSSIANS never said at any point in time during the entirety of any of the missions, "Hey World, guess what, we triangulated the signal and it is coming from a studio in Burbank, CA... check it out for yourselves! Ha, ha... silly Americans." The Russians didn't have the ability to track a moon mission. With their own lunar probe missions, they acquired the help of the British to receive the data. Historical fact... and it also proves west and east were not enemies at the time as the pulmulgated cold war suggested and were cooperating in space exploration. . The purpose of the cold war was to keep the populations of both countries fearing an fearsome enemy while their own governments became more and more oppressive, it was about CONTROL. Also there is the matter of the millions of tons of grain sent to Russia free of charge. Why would we send our mortal enemy help ? I have personally roved using NASA's own biometric data and pure empirical scisnce that no Command module ever left Earth orbit, and can do it again and again using the same methodology. The fact is the biometric recordings record radiation readings that would have been exceeded just as the astronauts entered the lower proton belt of the Van Allen radiation belts, given the trajectory necessary to achieve lunar orbit. It is pure science, incontrovertible and easily proved using physics, NASA's own data, and a little calculation. The density and energy of protons in the lower proton belt would have killed the astronauts or rendered then extremely ill on the way out and they would have died during the mission at latest.. |
| Anonymous Astrophysicist User ID: 1385799 United States02/02/2012 05:37 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | :cruise' Al Gore invented human caused global warming and the internet. he ia fraud, a fake and blowhard. If I saw him crossing the street jaywalking I would hit the gas and tell the judge my foot slipped, doing the world a great service. {this is just a joke, BTW, not a credible threat to the lying cocksucker). |
| Anonymous Astrophysicist User ID: 1385799 United States02/02/2012 05:43 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | 41 years later and not a SINGLE independent confirmation of a manned landing on the moon despite numerous missions that tried to image the sites with 6 inch resolution. With NASA's images of the sights, we see astronauts footpaths with 2 meter resolution, but images of the sites with 6 inch resolution show NO FOOTPATHS, indicating not only are NASA's imaging fakers incompetent, but that there ere no men walking around near these unmanned probes. No rpoof, just a NASA declared 'no fly zone' over the alleged landing sights. |
