It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Faked Moon Landing - Amazing Documentary

page: 27
67
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 29 2012 @ 06:46 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions




Mod Edit: No Quote/Plagiarism – Please Review This Link.
edit on 6/2/2012 by semperfortis because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 29 2012 @ 07:15 PM
link   
how about the below fact?
CNN did a report in 1998, where the space shuttle flew to a mere 350 mile altitude (this is at least several hundred miles from where the belts begin) and it noted that the astronauts began seeing 'shooting stars' (flashes of light) with their eyes shut - and they had far better shielding both in their craft and in their suits than did the Apollo astronauts. It stated, "The radiation belts surrounding Earth may be more dangerous for astronauts than previously believed. The phenomenon known as the 'Van Allen Belts' can spawn 'Killer Electrons' that can dramatically affect the astronauts' health."



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by mirine
 


Once again, these "reports" to the layperson might seem "significant" but.....well.....the Apollo astronauts also reported similar event, with eyelids closed, as they slept.

Hey!! It happens to us here, on Earth too!! Tell me that "YOU" haven't seen these...or else, lie and say otherwise.....



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by mirine
 


space shuttle flew to a mere 350 mile altitude (this is at least several hundred miles from where the belts begin)

It depends. The inner belt can be found as low as 200 km above the surface (see South Atlantic Anomaly).


and they had far better shielding both in their craft and in their suits than did the Apollo astronauts.

They did? Are you sure about that? Do you have some figures you can provide us? How long were the Apollo astronauts in the Van Allen belts? How much time did the shuttle astronauts spend in high radiation areas like the SSA?



edit on 5/29/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 07:52 PM
link   
reply to post by mirine
 



It is not true that the space shuttle's radiation protection is superior to that of the Apollo capsules. The Apollo spacecraft were designed to operate in and beyond the Van Allen belts. The space shuttle was designed to operate solely within their protection.

The ability to "see" the effects of radiation (i.e., particle impacts on the retina) is not any quantitative indication of the amount of damaging radiation to which they may have been exposed. The astronauts wore radiation dosimeters which gave a much more usable figure.

The lead vest worn during dental x-rays is for legal reasons, not because you would suffer ill effects because of it. Keep in mind that while the vest protects your blood-forming organs -- the most susceptible to radiation -- the x-ray machine is pointed rather directly at your head, exposing it to the brunt of the emitted x-rays. The practice of wearing a lead vest essentially allows you to undergo as many dental x-rays as you need without worrying about cumulative exposure.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by mirine
how about the below fact?
CNN did a report in 1998, where the space shuttle flew to a mere 350 mile altitude (this is at least several hundred miles from where the belts begin) and it noted that the astronauts began seeing 'shooting stars' (flashes of light) with their eyes shut - and they had far better shielding both in their craft and in their suits than did the Apollo astronauts. It stated, "The radiation belts surrounding Earth may be more dangerous for astronauts than previously believed. The phenomenon known as the 'Van Allen Belts' can spawn 'Killer Electrons' that can dramatically affect the astronauts' health."
I will explain some more The comment in parenthesis is not in the original report. It has been added by conspiracists and it changes the meaning.

"More dangerous for astronauts" in this case is interpreted relative to ISS astronauts who spend months on end near the Van Allen belts going in and out of the Southern Magnetic Anomaly. This is a much more dangerous circumstance of radiation exposure than a simple round-trip passage through it.

Conspiracists interpret words like "more dangerous" and "hazardous" as if they somehow mean "instantly deadly", which they do not. The conspiracists cannot provide any quantitative argument for how much they think the Van Allen belts would result in a human absorbed dose. They simply use "scare" words to conjure up a sort of Radiation Boogey Man.

In fact the ISS has been fitted with shielding to protect astronauts from these "killer electrons". Predictably they are not huge thicknesses of lead, but four-inch thick sheets of polyethylene. That is the proper material for such shielding.



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 03:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by vv3vv3vv
 



p.s. I will post some pictures and stuff soon, i need to go over it and get it in order first.


Here's a typical Apollo 11 photograph. Please us it to explain how the foreground objects are used to mask the front projection of the background:



AS11-40-5873


How did that lander get there without stirring up any moon dust? The surface under the lander is smooth and undisturbed, the feet of the lander are not the slight bit buried in the dust they appear to be sitting on top of the dust and there is no dust berms around the feet of the lander. it just looks really odd to me.You can see the astronauts foot prints in the dust so the lander should be heavy enough to leave some type of marks in the dust from it`s weight.



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 04:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by denver22
I am no psychologist, however I have seen and heard enough over the past years to recognize certain reoccurring personality traits in those professing to be hoax believers. Although there are varying degrees of each, I have come to categorize the hoax believers into two generalized types: the Confused and the Hardcore.

The Confused are average people who have seen or heard the claims of the hoax advocates on TV, the Internet, or from friends and associates. They usually lack the scientific knowledge or experience necessary to dispute the claims, so they begin to doubt the authenticity of the moon landings. Despite their doubts, these people tend to be open-minded and willing to listen to varying points of view. When giving the opportunity to study both sides of the argument, they usually agree the moon landings were real.

The Hardcore, on the other hand, are a completely different type of personality. They almost always exhibit strong paranoid tendencies with an extreme distrust and hatred of the U.S. government. Rather than allowing the evidence to speak for itself, they will often begin by assuming a hoax and then search for evidence to support that preconception. When they see something that looks suspicious they immediately accept it as proof of their belief. When someone attempts to offer an alternate explanation they dismiss it as a NASA lie. Any evidence that contradicts their belief is described as an attempt by the government to deceive us. They will say that anyone who believes in the moon landings has been brainwashed or is in denial. They are usually argumentative and often hostile.

The Hardcore also tend to be completely close-minded, refusing to consider alternate possibilities. I have often debated with hardcore individuals over various hoax topics and, to date, I have always been able to completely discredit their claims with arguments that would more than satisfy any open-minded individual. However, they routinely refuse to acknowledge the possibility they could be in error. They will stubbornly cling to their belief in the hoax even when they have no creditable evidence to fall back on. The debate is clearly not just about evidence and physics; there are those who believe in the hoax merely because they want to believe it.

Why do some people choose to believe in the moon-landing hoax? I wish I could provide a definitive answer to that question, however I suspect it is a combination of paranoia and, perhaps more importantly, feelings of inadequacy. The hoax believers create a delusional fantasy in which they are the heroes. Their ability to decipher the subtle clues and uncover the hoax is seen as a demonstration of their intellectual superiority. To the hoax believers the more complex and convoluted the theory, the smarter they feel for having figured it all out. To the rest of us the theory just doesn't make any sense..Wake up my friends shun your shepherds for they have decieved you with lies that anyone can debunk when awakened, when you put your heart to it there is nothing you cannot do to see through the lies they spout..P-E-A-C-E -


You posted 12 consecutive multi-paragraph responses to questions that NOBODY ASKED! Then you put your opinion of the deplorable psychological state of people that still hold open the possibilities in this case? Please moderators, don't allow him to spam non-replies to no one. Or at least take down the last one which contains nothing relating to a discussion or any evidence whatsoever and is a copy of a previous post.


Originally posted by denver22

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
armstrong gave a very rare interview recently and I had to lol at this


Armstrong laughed off the conspiracy theorists who believe the 1969 moon landing was faked, telling CPA Australia's Malley that "800,000 staff at NASA couldn't possibly keep a secret."

"People love conspiracy theories, but it was never a concern to me -- because I know one day someone's going to go fly back up there and pick up that camera I left," he said



This is why they do not want to believe it is real, "conspiracy theorists " .
.

Why do people believe this stuff? I am no psychologist, however I have seen and heard enough over the past years to recognize certain reoccurring personality traits in those professing to be hoax believers. Although there are varying degrees of each, I have come to categorize the hoax believers into two generalized types: the Confused and the Hardcore. The Confused are average people who have seen or heard the claims of the hoax advocates on TV, the Internet, or from friends and associates. They usually lack the scientific knowledge or experience necessary to dispute the claims, so they begin to doubt the authenticity of the moon landings. Despite their doubts, these people tend to be open-minded and willing to listen to varying points of view. When giving the opportunity to study both sides of the argument, they usually agree the moon landings were real. The Hardcore, on the other hand, are a completely different type of personality. They almost always exhibit strong paranoid tendencies with an extreme distrust and hatred of the U.S. government. Rather than allowing the evidence to speak for itself, they will often begin by assuming a hoax and then search for evidence to support that preconception. When they see something that looks suspicious they immediately accept it as proof of their belief. When someone attempts to offer an alternate explanation they dismiss it as a NASA lie. Any evidence that contradicts their belief is described as an attempt by the government to deceive us. They will say that anyone who believes in the moon landings has been brainwashed or is in denial. They are usually argumentative and often hostile. The Hardcore also tend to be completely close-minded, refusing to consider alternate possibilities. I have often debated with hardcore individuals over various hoax topics and, to date, I have always been able to completely discredit their claims with arguments that would more than satisfy any open-minded individual. However, they routinely refuse to acknowledge the possibility they could be in error. They will stubbornly cling to their belief in the hoax even when they have no creditable evidence to fall back on. The debate is clearly not just about evidence and physics; there are those who believe in the hoax merely because they want to believe it. Why do some people choose to believe in the moon-landing hoax? I wish I could provide a definitive answer to that question, however I suspect it is a combination of paranoia and, perhaps more importantly, feelings of inadequacy. The hoax believers create a delusional fantasy in which they are the heroes. Their ability to decipher the subtle clues and uncover the hoax is seen as a demonstration of their intellectual superiority. To the hoax believers the more complex and convoluted the theory, the smarter they feel for having figured it all out. To the rest of us the theory just doesn't make any sense.

edit on 24 4 2012 by denver22 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 04:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Tardacus
 



How did that lander get there without stirring up any moon dust? The surface under the lander is smooth and undisturbed, the feet of the lander are not the slight bit buried in the dust they appear to be sitting on top of the dust and there is no dust berms around the feet of the lander. it just looks really odd to me.You can see the astronauts foot prints in the dust so the lander should be heavy enough to leave some type of marks in the dust from it`s weight.


You're simply not looking closely enough. Note the striations in the dust, caused by it being displaced radially by the lander's exhaust:



AS11-40-5921



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 04:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by syrinx high priest

Originally posted by vv3vv3vv

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
we went

muley
cataracts
larry


does this have any relevance to our discussion? I think it is spam that needs to be cleaned up please moderators! You can take this one too.


big muley was too big for any probe to pick up
many apollo astronauts developed cataracts from exposure in space
Larry Baysinger independetly recorded transmissions from the moon and you can listen to it yourself

3 proofs men went to the moon

you've been powned


powned? (the kids say pwned) I don't think so. And thanks for being as intentionally vague as possible with your first post as you can. I'm sure you think you are more of a person than others that don't know quite as much.

All the astronauts getting cataracts is not proof they went to the moon. It could have happened from a completely different technology or machine that nasa made or used. And many will develop this condition without even going to the moon!

Baysinger was supposedly able to record the return calls of the astronauts in space and on the moon. But as I have stated as another explanation already, is that it could have been some type of signal transmitter that nasa build and launched into space in order to establish legitimacy against the disbelievers. We don't know where the transmissions came from and can't say that they definitely came from precisely the moon only.

And a probe can't pick up a 26 pound rock? And it's on the moon so it should be even easier than if it was on Earth. And even if we don't have the current technology, did you consider that the unreleased technological advances that our military is hoarding as a tactical advantage might make this process even easier.


I feel that I was raising some good questions before denver22 spammed a full page of replies to nobody. Good luck finding those posts now. Anyways, I know that conspiracies are being enacted by many world governments only by the incredible amount of evidence of their activities. So it is only likely that nasa is playing the same game and keeping hidden what they are really doing, as they are only an arm of this overly corrupt government.



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 04:59 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


I don't see it either. I want to, and I looked hard. Could you help identify where that is in the first picture from overhead. What took this picture? Was it as the lander was leaving the moon? I only ask because the shadows seem quite strange, The pointy shadow to the bottom right could be the lander flying, but what is the thicker shadow beneath it? It has to be to the left and out of the picture.



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 05:43 AM
link   
reply to post by vv3vv3vv
 



I don't see it either. I want to, and I looked hard. Could you help identify where that is in the first picture from overhead. What took this picture? Was it as the lander was leaving the moon? I only ask because the shadows seem quite strange, The pointy shadow to the bottom right could be the lander flying, but what is the thicker shadow beneath it? It has to be to the left and out of the picture.


You do have quite an imagination. Click on the link for the full photo. It is the ground underneath the LM. The strange shadows" are streaks caused bt the lander's exhaust blowing the dust away as it landed.



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 08:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by vv3vv3vv


I feel that I was raising some good questions before denver22 spammed a full page of replies to nobody.

Read the posts man , they answer your questions .
You clearly did not read them did you.. do not tell lies to me as if you did, you would not be whining again fact..
I replied to you with the start of my con current posts just because i did not start the rest with replies to you does not mean that they were posts to nobody, jeez man have you by- polar , is it not pretty obvious that they were to you sonny jim?.
They explain your questions that you asked of me and others . but you did not read them, then you shout spam and spread my whole name around with no evidence just you not reading the posts at all..
It mentions all about the cameras you asked as well as other vital things that go along as proof of man landing on the moon.. See if you did in fact read my posts then you would no longer need to ask or have any doubts..
since you ignored the link i posted to give you your answers..
.. this is proof to me that you will never accept the truth will you .. but hey no one is forcing you to change your mind if you want to believe the lies thats your choice buddy boy.. P.S read your posts as they are clearly to you sunshine, by replying with the first post to send to you i would of thought that you would put two an two toghether . 70% of the posts answer your questions... All i was doing was answering what you asked of me along with some other things to help you in your quest for the truth... Do not trash my name for answering your questions ..And the last bit was not aimed at you so stop getting paranoid and judgemental before you know the facts..the last bit was a reference to people when faced with[ FACTS] and not a dig to you at all..i have spoken to a few on here and they knew i was answering your questions ...
edit on 24 4 2012 by denver22 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by vv3vv3vv
 



I don't see it either. I want to, and I looked hard. Could you help identify where that is in the first picture from overhead. What took this picture? Was it as the lander was leaving the moon? I only ask because the shadows seem quite strange, The pointy shadow to the bottom right could be the lander flying, but what is the thicker shadow beneath it? It has to be to the left and out of the picture.


You do have quite an imagination. Click on the link for the full photo. It is the ground underneath the LM. The strange shadows" are streaks caused bt the lander's exhaust blowing the dust away as it landed.


Oh, I thought they were different pictures, and the really zoomed in picture I thought looked like it was zoomed out really far. Thank you for clarifying. I think the lower part of the bigger picture emphasizes your point better, but I am no expert on space propulsion striations on lunar ground.



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by denver22

Originally posted by vv3vv3vv


I feel that I was raising some good questions before denver22 spammed a full page of replies to nobody.

Read the posts man , they answer your questions .
You clearly did not read them did you.. do not tell lies to me as if you did, you would not be whining again fact..
I replied to you with the start of my con current posts just because i did not start the rest with replies to you does not mean that they were posts to nobody, jeez man have you by- polar , is it not pretty obvious that they were to you sonny jim?.
They explain your questions that you asked of me and others . but you did not read them, then you shout spam and spread my whole name around with no evidence just you not reading the posts at all..
It mentions all about the cameras you asked as well as other vital things that go along as proof of man landing on the moon.. See if you did in fact read my posts then you would no longer need to ask or have any doubts..
since you ignored the link i posted to give you your answers..
.. this is proof to me that you will never accept the truth will you .. but hey no one is forcing you to change your mind if you want to believe the lies thats your choice buddy boy.. P.S read your posts as they are clearly to you sunshine, by replying with the first post to send to you i would of thought that you would put two an two toghether . 70% of the posts answer your questions... All i was doing was answering what you asked of me along with some other things to help you in your quest for the truth... Do not trash my name for answering your questions ..And the last bit was not aimed at you so stop getting paranoid and judgemental before you know the facts..the last bit was a reference to people when faced with[ FACTS] and not a dig to you at all..i have spoken to a few on here and they knew i was answering your questions ...
edit on 24 4 2012 by denver22 because: (no reason given)


No. You have consistently posted off-topic and irrelevant data. If you can only answer your own questions then start your own thread where you can debate with yourself. If you had posted a link to these in another thread I might have looked at them more closely. You posting your opinion of the psychology of people that believe different from you TWICE is proof enough that you are just wasting time here and not interested in a real discussion. Start posting responsibly or please stop posting!



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by denver22
Read the posts man , they answer your questions .
.
I replied to you with the start of my con current posts just because i did not start the rest with replies to you does not mean that they were posts to nobody, jeez man have you by- polar , is it not pretty obvious that they were to you sonny jim?.

They explain your questions that you asked of me and others . but you did not read them, then you shout spam and spread my whole name around with no evidence just you not reading the posts at all..

It mentions all about the cameras you asked...

..i have spoken to a few on here and they knew i was answering your questions ...


First off you are calling me bipolar and suggesting that I have a mental disability. This is outright slander and shouldn't be allowed on ATS!

I did not ask you anything about the cameras, so don't say that you were replying to me. You weren't.

You posted TWELVE incredibly long posts that nobody asked for, and when I reply to you, I am the one who is spamming? I think you don't understand the modern definition of spam. Spam is a mass produced meat with little substance to it. So if I post one message it couldn't be "spamming." But if i posted 12 consecutive messages that have no value to the current topic of debate, that WOULD be spamming. Good day, sir!
edit on 30-5-2012 by vv3vv3vv because: .



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by vv3vv3vv
 




The powerful engine of the Lunar Module should have produced a blast crater, yet there is no evidence of a blast crater in any of the Apollo photographs.


Let's consider several facts: (1) Although the Lunar Module descent engine was capable of 10,000 lbs of thrust (the usual hoax advocate's claim), it was throttled down to below 3,000 lbs as it neared the lunar surface. While still several feet above the ground, the descent engine was shut down as probes, extending 5 feet below the footpads, sensed contact with the surface. (2) The LM descended at an angle, moving laterally across the ground. When the astronauts identified a suitable landing site, the LM leveled off and dropped to the surface. The LM did not hover over its final landing site for any significant length of time. (3) The Moon's surface is covered by a rocky material called lunar regolith, which consists of fine dust particles, glass spheres and a jumble of large boulders and rocky debris. Lunar regolith has many unique properties, the most obvious being that the particles are very jagged, which causes them to interlock. When subjected to pressure, the regolith will resist, almost like solid rock. (4) In a vacuum exhaust gases expand rapidly once exiting the engine nozzle.

When one considers these facts the truth becomes obvious - The exhaust stream was not powerful enough or centralized enough to displace the regolith and blast out a crater. In this Apollo 11 photograph
one can see some discoloration and a general lack of dust, which was mostly blown away. After the dust was removed a hard surface was exposed.

R-E-A-D- M-A-N.. IT IS THERE BLACK AND WHITE.. BUT YOU DID NOT R-E-A-D..

You claim irrelevant gee, how stupid do you look now for not reading my posts sonny jim..
But hey if you would of read my posts that you said were not "relevant" then you would of known that wouldn't you my fine friend, the conclusion is they were relevant so you owe me an apology in front of the class of ATS.

Conclusion is if you read my posts then you would not have to ask about the above about the subject.




edit on 24 4 2012 by denver22 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by vv3vv3vv
reply to post by denver22
 



I did not ask you anything about the cameras, so don't say that you were replying to me. You weren't.



That is not true now is it.. look your words below relating to the cameras regarding foreground and background.



Yes that effect could make the background seem much different than the foreground. But not every Apollo picture is taken from a higher ground. And yet almost every one of them has inconsistencies in the front and background. And if they can take a picture that has both the front and background in focus, why don't they do that all the time?
If you bothered to read the posts that is.. just like the lunar post you ignored ..then yet another question you would understand. i explained how the effects appear when on the lunar surface and got some stars for my troubles. It was a classic case of someone not reading the posts which i replied to you
for all to see clear as day hence the stars i got for them...

edit on 24 4 2012 by denver22 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 06:24 PM
link   
I am merely asking sir if you have by- polar .

edit on 24 4 2012 by denver22 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by vv3vv3vv


I feel that I was raising some good questions before denver22 spammed a full page of replies to nobody.

Replying to nobody was i.. look again sir.....

Originally posted by denver22
reply to post by vv3vv3vv
 


On February 15, 2001 the FOX television network aired a program titled Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land On The Moon? This program showed alleged evidence that NASA faked the moon landings. This hoax theory has been around for several years, but this is the first time it has been presented to such a wide audience. Since this Website, Rocket and Space Technology, is dedicated to the men and women who brought the moon landings to fruition, I feel the time is right for me to speak out on this topic.

This TV program capitalizes on America's fixation with government conspiracies by sensationalizing the notion that NASA perpetrated a multi-billion dollar hoax on the world. In my opinion, the FOX network acted irresponsibly by airing this program. What they produced is a TV show filled with sloppy research, scientific inaccuracies and erroneous conclusions. To support such an absurd theory and to cast doubt in the minds of the American public is an insult to the courage of the astronauts and the brilliance of the engineers who worked to achieve mankind's greatest technological feat. FOX is apparently only concerned with ratings while exhibiting total disregard for the integrity of America's true heroes.

Some of the most prominent advocates of the hoax theory are Bill Kaysing, author of We Never Went To The Moon, Ralph Rene, author of NASA Mooned America, David Percy and Mary Bennett, co-authors of Dark Moon: Apollo and the Whistle Blowers and, more recently, Bart Sibrel, producer of A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Moon. These people, and other hoax advocates, usually point to alleged anomalies in the Apollo photo and video record as evidence of their claims. The FOX program featured many of these claims while providing very little refuting evidence or testimony. Below are my comments refuting both the evidence presented in the TV program and many other common hoax allegations. I invite you to draw your own conclusions, but I suspect you will find the facts speak for themselves.



The likelihood of success was calculated to be so small that it is inconceivable the moon landings could have actually taken place.


Bill Kaysing has claimed that the chance of a successful landing on the moon was calculated to be 0.0017% (1 in 60,000). The source of this information appears to be a report prepared by the Rocketdyne company in the late 1950s. This assessment was, of course, based on understanding and technology existing at the time of the report. As tremendous resources were poured into the problem over the next decade, the reliability studies improved dramatically.

During the mid-1960s the Apollo Support Department of the General Electric Company in Florida conducted extensive mission reliability studies for NASA. These studies were based on very elaborate reliability models of all of the systems. A reliability profile over the course of a mission was generated by computer simulation, and a large number of such simulations were carried out for different scenarios. Based on those studies, the probability of landing on the moon and returning safely to earth never dropped below 90%.



Every Apollo mission before number 11 was plagued by about 20,000 defects apiece. Yet, with the exception of Apollo 13, NASA claims there wasn't one major technical problem on any of their Moon missions.


This is the claim of hoax advocate Ralph Rene. Although I am unfamiliar with the source of this information, Mr. Rene's assertion is clear; the early missions had so many insurmountable problems that NASA decided to abandon the moon landings and fake it. Even if the data is accurate, there is a big difference between a "defect" and a "major technical problem". None of the Apollo missions, with the exception of number 13, experienced a major technical problem that prohibited the crews from successfully completing their missions. Also, the early Apollo flights were test missions designed specifically to shake out bugs in the hardware and procedures. Finally, the moon landings were far from flawless. There were numerous technical problems but, thanks to the skill of the flight controllers, engineers and astronauts, the problems were either corrected or circumvented such that the crews were able to complete their missions with amazing success. Part 2 coming up..


So stop being a drama queen and accusing me directly of not replying to you as it makes you look rather stupid.
Also having asked me about camera foreground and background, then claiming you did not ask me while being a drama queen yet again equally makes you look twice as silly.. while you try to set me up to be the bad guy here.. good day sir....

1 fact i replied to you regarding the twelve posts as proof in this one states , the following you should use your noodle to see that they were for you as proof in the first of the twelve.It doesn't take rocket science to work out who they were for as everyone else caught on to it..

2 you say you never asked me about the camera explaining the foreground and the background you asked
well mr i did and half the posts of the twelve explain most of the camera questions you were asking fact..

3 I never said you got bi -polar , i merely asked if you had or not..

4 you suggested that i had some sort of software to edit the pics when i did not post them someone else did WTF.

5 No doubt there will be more paranoid accusations to follow from you.

6 (When faced with facts) you get hostile to the posters on here and go on the defensive with no proof to debunk the posters showing you "proof."

But please feel free to bring along some proof if you have any .Good day sir
edit on 24 4 2012 by denver22 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
67
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join