An End To The Moon Conspiracy!

page: 5
29
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by livenlearn
I've got a question. I've read that some of the conspiracy is due to the dust being kicked up by the vehicle on the moon. Then there was the fact that when so and so hit a golf ball on the moon it didn't go as far as it should have. If a golf ball tee'd up on the moon and hit should go a long ways, then why couldn't dust from the groud be kicked up a long ways?


Look back over ALL of this thread and you will find links to loads of sites debunking all of the Moon myths, including the dust one!

Mic


[edit on 1/7/2005 by MickeyDee]




posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 07:19 PM
link   
'Look back over ALL of this thread and you will find links to loads of sites debunking all of the Moon myths, including the dust one!'

Some people will believe just about anything!

Please! How can anyone possibly offer up that point of view or support 'the Apollo Moon landings were real!' with anything approaching a straight face?

Go rent the attack piece video against NASA/Apollo program. The 'official' record supporting the 'Moon landing' is beyond amusing!


With regards to 'debunking'... Please, let's not confuse 'list making' or some google indexed text parked somewhere with reasoning.

(Psst! Did it ever occur to anyone to ask why the subjects in the pictures coming from a 'fixed' camera always so well centered? )


apc

posted on Jul, 2 2005 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by golemina
Some people will believe just about anything!

Yes. Yes they will.
Thank you for proving your own point.


jra

posted on Jul, 2 2005 @ 03:42 PM
link   
Ah the Moon hoax believers are starting up again eh? Been a while.

To the person who mentioned the waving flag, well firstly your video link didn't work. Secondly, the flagpole is being twisted into the ground, thus causing the flag to move. If you paid attention in Science in highschool, you'll probably remember hearing, "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction."

The reason why we haven't gone back is simple. Money (or lack there of). I think a lot of people forget about that. It costs a lot of money to develop and build the equipment to get there. Money is something NASA seriously lacks incase some of you haven't been paying attention. Also, after the Apollo missions, NASA began to focus on missions that were in Earth orbit and they lost there abillity to go back to the Moon with the development with the shuttle. I don't see why this is so hard for some people to understand. Give NASA an unlimited budget or a really high budget and they could go do some amazing things i'm sure. But they just can't afford anything these days.

As far as using telescopes and satillites to take pics, well I don't think we have satellites that are capable of seeing "a pimple on Madonna's butt" as one person put it. I'm sure there are some really advanced spy satellites, but I don't think they are as good as that. There is an ESA probe mapping the moon currently. I haven't seen anything from it yet, but it should be much higher res then the old Clementine photos for sure. I don't know how much detail we'll be able to see though. I'm sure it won't satisfy those who don't believe we landed anyway.



posted on Jul, 3 2005 @ 09:39 PM
link   
My question is this which is more dangerous flying an F-15/16/18 of flying in the rocket going to the Moon? I need an answer from some one then you'll understand wha I'm meaning?



posted on Jul, 3 2005 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by SiberianTiger
My question is this which is more dangerous flying an F-15/16/18 of flying in the rocket going to the Moon? I need an answer from some one then you'll understand wha I'm meaning?


Gee, let's see: how many accidents have occured with moon exploration? 2. How many accidents have occured during flight of a US Jet Fighter?Hundreds.



posted on Jul, 3 2005 @ 10:42 PM
link   
IIJM, but why do I think the we REALLY went to the moon 'true believers' haven't even looked at the flick in question... It does a fairly good job of summarizing many of the problems with the official 'visual record'. To anyone with a half-open mind (or half a something
), the official 'visual record' is like a really bad spoof.

To anyone that has actually seen the flick, what was your favorite flaw?

Mine, was the oops layering that left the 'object' in FRONT of the lens crosshairs.

Now keeping in mind that I ain't too smhart... Don't use them rael beg words APC when youall xxplain it me...


I started reading this thread (all five pages!), cuz I bought into the title of the thread.

I'm really sorry! I didn't realize I had somehow stumbled into one of the religious forums.

I've really GOT to apologize! I was somehow under the mistaken impression that this would be a factual discussion.

To you we REALLY went to the moon 'true believers', just stick your heads back in the sand and say three Hail Apollos...

'I am a scientist. We REALLY went to the Moon!, I am a scien...'

To anyone else


jra

posted on Jul, 3 2005 @ 10:44 PM
link   
But you also probably have to take in account that there have been millions of flights with aircraft, where as their have been only 6 flights to the Moon. If flights to the Moon were as common as F-15/16 flights, i'm sure there would be more accidents.


jra

posted on Jul, 3 2005 @ 11:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by golemina
IIJM, but why do I think the we REALLY went to the moon 'true believers' haven't even looked at the flick in question... It does a fairly good job of summarizing many of the problems with the official 'visual record'. To anyone with a half-open mind (or half a something
), the official 'visual record' is like a really bad spoof.


From what I can tell. It does a really good job at showing how badly educated some people are.


To anyone that has actually seen the flick, what was your favorite flaw?

Mine, was the oops layering that left the 'object' in FRONT of the lens crosshairs.


You know, if you learnt about how light exposes on film, you wouldn't even consider this as a flaw or goof up. The crosshairs are etched onto a glass plate, so when a bright amount of light shines though it and exposes onto the film, it 'bleeds' over the thin lines. It's simply how light and film works. For example, the US flag and it's red and white stripes. The white being brighter then the red will reflect more light back and overexpose a bit on the film, causing the light to 'bleed' over the hairs.

I'd like to know why having parts of the crosshairs covered over would mean it's fake anyway. I never understood that reasoning behind that. The explination as to why it happens is really quite a simple one.


I've really GOT to apologize! I was somehow under the mistaken impression that this would be a factual discussion.


Really? me too, but too bad one side just never has any facts to begin with. Some can't even seem to grasp some basic science.


To you we REALLY went to the moon 'true believers', just stick your heads back in the sand and say three Hail Apollos...


It's not my head that's in the sand. I have yet to see any solid 'facts' that show that the moon landings were faked. If real factual evidence came out that showed they were faked, i'd believe it, but since the eveidence that is out there now is so bad and just plain pathetic, I tend to believe that they were real.

[edit on 3-7-2005 by jra]



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 07:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by golemina
To anyone that has actually seen the flick, what was your favorite flaw?

Mine, was the oops layering that left the 'object' in FRONT of the lens crosshairs.


There are no flaws in any of the footage or photographs from the Moon!

Come on this is NASA!!! The largest space exploration company on Earth, do you really think they would forget something so stupid on their footage from the Moon?

IF it was all staged and we really hadnt been to the Moon, im sure NASA would want the photographs and video footage to be 100% perfect so there would be no doubters, and im also sure the Soviets examined the footage very carefully to see if they truly had been beatenin the race to the Moon!

Mic



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 07:41 AM
link   
Are you guys serious? No, really.

There are still people out there who claim that the moon landings were just a hoax? Look, if you want to challenge everything as a conspiracy, well be my guest--but a word of advice for you: do a better job of picking your targets. This is NASA. Not your middle school class treasurer.



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 08:05 AM
link   


I've really GOT to apologize! I was somehow under the mistaken impression that this would be a factual discussion.


Someone's ignoring facts, that's a certainty.....


You mean like facts of the Apollo project placing laser reflectors on the moon, that we still use to this day.

Facts like Clementine pics showing the landing site blastmark from the capsule.

Facts like the very reasonable and scientific explanations of EVERY single point the hoax proponents try to make. (visit badastronomy.com or even nasa.gov and type in "moon landing hoax")

Those facts?



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 09:25 AM
link   
Sounds like a lot of closed minds.


The truth is I am a sceptic. The problem is, I HAVE examined some of the claims in the attack piece against NASA/Apollo, and the plain truth is there seems to be lots of merit to their allegations/observations.

'You know, if you learnt about how light exposes on film, you wouldn't even consider this as a flaw or goof up. The crosshairs are etched onto a glass plate, so when a bright amount of light shines though it and exposes onto the film, it 'bleeds' over the thin lines. It's simply how light and film works. For example, the US flag and it's red and white stripes. The white being brighter then the red will reflect more light back and overexpose a bit on the film, causing the light to 'bleed' over the hairs.'

I've only got one answer... Baaaahhhnnn! Wrong answer, get real.

'Come on this is NASA!!!'...
Are you saying NASA doesn't keep anything from the public? You do realize NASAs primary role is military, right? How about their close working relationship with the Air Force? No secrets, there right? No offense to any of you NASA supporters (of which I am one), but institutions do make mistakes, do make bad decisions, do make questionable judgements, some of them fueled by an almost obsessive compulsion not to 'lose face' in the eyes of the public.

Look at the last lost space shuttle. We lost that shuttle because of pure and simple institutional arrogance. I find it mind boggling that no attempt was made to visually verify the condition of the tiles. A SIMULATION was considered more relevant than a good old fashioned visual observation. That, my friends, is the poster child of dogmatic.

'If it was all staged'...
That's quite the leap in logic. Pay attention (cuz this is subtle
). Hey we could have gone to the moon... Totally possible. A guy with a more interdisciplanary background (even photography JRA
), might say possible by an alternate transportation. What I am saying is that the official 'visual record' is totally bogus and hack amateurish at best.

I am also saying that parroting the 'official position' the way most pro-Apollo supporters are just makes most of you come off dogmatic, we can't be bothered to get out and go look at the heat shield... I mean after all, our simulations shows... or refusing to even look/discuss at the so called 'evidence' put forth by the 'hoaxers' makes you come off like the orange leather clad orangutans.

'visit badastronomy.com or even nasa.gov'
Once again, get real. Or is the Age of Reason totally dead?

Just because there is some text on a web page somewhere (its on Google, it HAS to be true!), has absolutely NOTHING to do with reason, validity or advancing the point of view so many seem to be so dogmatically putting forth.

Wake up people, science has become the Religion of Science. Look at some of the incredible BAD things it brings to us... SETI, the Big Bang, Dark Matter, we are ALONE in the Universe, etc, etc.

Please! Are we THINKING people or just orange leather clad parroting hairless monkeys?

[edit on 4-7-2005 by golemina]



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dallas

Perhap's when China get's there they can confirm the landing happened.

Dallas


Lil note on this.
You think any american would believe it if the Chinees said "we went to the coordinates the US lander should have been and found nothing"

They'd probably say the Chinees didn't really go either XD


jra

posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by golemina
Sounds like a lot of closed minds.


The truth is I am a sceptic. The problem is, I HAVE examined some of the claims in the attack piece against NASA/Apollo, and the plain truth is there seems to be lots of merit to their allegations/observations.


How can you say my mind is closed? I consider myself to have an open mind. I also have examined the claims and havn't found a single one to have any merit at all.


'You know, if you learnt about how light exposes on film, you wouldn't even consider this as a flaw or goof up. The crosshairs are etched onto a glass plate, so when a bright amount of light shines though it and exposes onto the film, it 'bleeds' over the thin lines. It's simply how light and film works. For example, the US flag and it's red and white stripes. The white being brighter then the red will reflect more light back and overexpose a bit on the film, causing the light to 'bleed' over the hairs.'

I've only got one answer... Baaaahhhnnn! Wrong answer, get real.


Get real? Care to explain why that's the wrong answer? Don't tell me to 'get real' buddy. Give me an explination. If these photo were forged, things like the crosshairs would have been perfect and flawless. Please give me your explination as to how these photos were edited and how parts of an object get placed overtop of a crosshair then. Please explain the photo editing technique as to how one places an object, say a flag, into a photo and how that would cause a crosshair to be partly covered by it.

Don't say 'wrong answer' without giving one yourself.


'Come on this is NASA!!!'...
Are you saying NASA doesn't keep anything from the public? You do realize NASAs primary role is military, right? How about their close working relationship with the Air Force? No secrets, there right? No offense to any of you NASA supporters (of which I am one), but institutions do make mistakes, do make bad decisions, do make questionable judgements, some of them fueled by an almost obsessive compulsion not to 'lose face' in the eyes of the public.


Yes NASA has made mistakes and bad decisions. What company or organization hasn't? NASA has made some big ones though for sure. But what does this have to do with the Moon landings being fake? NASA doesn't seem to hide from it's mistakes, they admit them and try to fix it.


'If it was all staged'...
That's quite the leap in logic. Pay attention (cuz this is subtle
). Hey we could have gone to the moon... Totally possible. A guy with a more interdisciplanary background (even photography JRA
), might say possible by an alternate transportation. What I am saying is that the official 'visual record' is totally bogus and hack amateurish at best.


hahaha... Amateurish at best? Yeah again, please explain how and why it's amateurish. I have yet to see any holywood movie come close to looking as real as the moon landings. Please try to give more reasons why you thinks it's bogus.


'visit badastronomy.com or even nasa.gov'
Once again, get real. Or is the Age of Reason totally dead?


Yes it does seem like the age of reason is dead, as well as common sense and logic, it's pretty sad.


Just because there is some text on a web page somewhere (its on Google, it HAS to be true!), has absolutely NOTHING to do with reason, validity or advancing the point of view so many seem to be so dogmatically putting forth.


I'm sure you'll find more people here would agree that a lot of things on the web are not true. There's a lot of stupid # on the web that's for sure.


Wake up people, science has become the Religion of Science. Look at some of the incredible BAD things it brings to us... SETI, the Big Bang, Dark Matter, we are ALONE in the Universe, etc, etc.

Please! Are we THINKING people or just orange leather clad parroting hairless monkeys?


And look at all the great things it's brought us. You wouldn't be sitting there typing on your computer if it wasn't for science, nor driving a car, hell or even riding a bike. We'd all be living in caves or really primitive huts if it wasn't for science.

How is SETI bad? I don't think it's really going to find anything, but i don't get your reasoning.

How is the Big Bang theory bad? It's not the official explination of how the universe started, it's just a theory. That's how science works, you come up with theories and then try to disprove them. A lot of theories turn out to be wrong, but slowly we begin to figure things out.

What scientist has claimed we're alone in the universe? Not all scientists would agree with that. I would think you'd find that most scientists would agree that there should be other forms of life out there. I believe there has to be.

We're all defiantely thinking people. We just don't all agree. Just because I don't agree with you, it doesn't make me a close minded, orange leather claded monkey.



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by golemina
Mine, was the oops layering that left the 'object' in FRONT of the lens crosshairs.



So, if I took aphoto here on earth with the same malfunctions, you are telling me that this is proof that I am not on earth? Makes no sense.

PTBarnum once said, "There is a sucker born every minute."


apc

posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 03:46 PM
link   
Seems evident that the old saying, "Whatever happened before I was born never existed," is quite dominant here.

And apparently watching the movie 'Apollo 13' makes one an expert on the missions.

I hope the next person who shoves a camera in Aldrins face gets much more than a broken nose.

And I hope the grandchildren of the Apollo-1 crew piss on the graves of those who question the nature of their fate.

These brave men risked their lives so that these tyrants of truth could call them liars, when they werent even ovum when the maneuvers were being made. Get real? How about getting a few books and a pot of coffee, cus you've got a lot of catching up to do.



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 03:54 PM
link   
It is amazing to me that any evidance you show Golemina is disrgarded and ignored, so I am left to wonder what is the point in continuing a discussion on this.

Or I will directly go to golemina, what evidance would prove to you that the apollo landings are real? There is tons of video, and pictoral evidance, as well as numerous interveiws of the astronauts. Not to metion recent evidance of the retro-relectors place there decades ago, and blast craters.



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 04:59 PM
link   
we did not have the technology in the late 1960,s and early 1970,s to send anyone to the moon and return them, i have seen more and more evidence to suggest that it was all fake and was just a ploy to scare the russians during the cold war as if too say....look at the technology we have dont mess with us,i suppose if it saved us from world war 3 then it was worth the lie.



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by coffeeaddict
we did not have the technology in the late 1960,s and early 1970,s to send anyone to the moon and return them


Of course we did! Are you forgetting the 60's also brought us things like the SR-71?

And we still have the tech now, its just not prepared for a Moon mission!
If it was of massive importance for us to return to the Moon in a month i bet the US could do it at a push!

Mic



new topics
top topics
 
29
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join