How many times does Neil Armstrong lie to us in this 1970 BBC interview.

reply to post by thesneakiod

Haha I did make points, and yet you still didn't answer my question of why they were in the same locations when we're told they're meant to be miles apart? It's a blatant lie from NASA which you, as per usual gloss over with your usual panache.

I thought I did explain. Perhaps if you gave a more specific example I could give you a more specific answer.

Same again with the fact that Russia have never been there and the USA have never been back. It's doesn't make sense why it hasn't happened, and there's been no real argument for it. Yet you just passed it off as something I will or won't believe. Hardly a debate that is it?

It's certainly not a debate if all you can contribute is variations on "I don't believe it." Now you don't believe it because no other country had the money and engineering skill to do it. Guess what? Vladimir Putin has decided to assert Russia's national prestige, and thus his personal power, by challenging the United States in space. Russia will have a manned cis-lunar flight in about three years and a landing in about five. This will really get the Chinese going. There was no point in taking second place in the race to the Moon, but plenty of prestige in being the first one back!

And being a winning Olympian, I'm sure the thousands that watched me win my event will vouch for me... Last time I recalled, there was no one on the moon watching them.

Sure they saw you win. That's why they think you must have cheated. No-one can perform like that without drugs, right? Who do you think you are? Are you better than us because you can run so fast or jump so high? No-one can do what you did. You must have cheated, 'fess up!

You may not find it odd that he has the most famous name ever yet owns an unknown face. But I do, and millions of others also do.

More famous than Jesus? Now you're just exaggerating.

reply to post by thesneakiod

It's funny though, that no way did NASA expect their footage to be put under so much scrutiny now, I believe they never thought that today's computers would be as advanced to pick their whole program apart.

Please provide a concrete example of computers "picking it apart."

Can someone explain to me in laymans terms, how theres no spec of dust on the feet of the landers? Plus no blast crater underneath it? Cos the lander couldn't have just been placed there could it.....?

There is no air on the Moon, so the dust did not billow. The exhaust swept the dust sideways, not up. You can see this clearly in the films.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by thesneakiod

 

It's funny though, that no way did NASA expect their footage to be put under so much scrutiny now, I believe they never thought that today's computers would be as advanced to pick their whole program apart.

Please provide a concrete example of computers "picking it apart".

Aww c'mon DJ that's nit picking, you know full well what I meant

To the example you wanted me to specify, it was the documenrty "it was only a paper moon" no doubt it's heresy to you but in the sixth instalment (there are only six) it's shows the Astros in apparently different places, yet they are clearly in the same place. The rest of the doc is good, not your usual moon hoax stuff. If you've seen at all what's your opinion on it...??

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by thesneakiod

 

It's certainly not a debate if all you can contribute is variations on "I don't believe it." Now you don't believe it because no other country had the money and engineering skill to do it. Guess what? Vladimir Putin has decided to assert Russia's national prestige, and thus his personal power, by challenging the United States in space. Russia will have a manned cis-lunar flight in about three years and a landing in about five. This will really get the Chinese going. There was no point in taking second place in the race to the Moon, but plenty of prestige in being the first one back!

And being a winning Olympian, I'm sure the thousands that watched me win my event will vouch for me... Last time I recalled, there was no one on the moon watching them.

Sure they saw you win. That's why they think you must have cheated. No-one can perform like that without drugs, right? Who do you think you are? Are you better than us because you can run so fast or jump so high? No-one can do what you did. You must have cheated, 'fess up!

You may not find it odd that he has the most famous name ever yet owns an unknown face. But I do, and millions of others also do.

More famous than Jesus? Now you're just exaggerating.

When the USA landed Russia must've been very close, so in forty years they still can't do what the USA done in ten years? You really believe that? Regardless of who's first, they still would've went. Russia have spent more time in space than any other nation. it's preposterous to think they wouldn't have put men and a base on the moon by now. Or at least tried.

And your olympian analogy is mute. The athlete, regardless of drugs etc, won, and people physically watched him do it. The Olympic committee didn't fake it for the viewers back home because they couldn't....

Oh yeh, and show me a real picture of Jesus please...

I can not wait until someone goes back. Then that should once and for all close this silly conspiracy topic.
People just want to believe whAt they want to believe. I enjoy the fact that I believe we went there. Can - prove it?
Not really,
I do look up at the moon on a clear night and I do think it really can't be that hard to go there. It is not that far really.

Originally posted by magma
I can not wait until someone goes back. Then that should once and for all close this silly conspiracy topic.
People just want to believe whAt they want to believe. I enjoy the fact that I believe we went there. Can - prove it?
Not really,
I do look up at the moon on a clear night and I do think it really can't be that hard to go there. It is not that far really.

If its not that hard, why hasn't anyone been back?

Originally posted by thesneakiod
Plus no blast crater underneath it? Cos the lander couldn't have just been placed there could it.....?

There's no reason for the engine to be going a full throttle when they landed. As they approach the surface that engine is throttled down so when the LEM touches down on the surface the engine is hardly expending any energy at all. Most of the energy is expended much farther above the surface as the de-accelerate. The only energy they need at that point is just enough to ensure a soft landing during the final few feet. There just woudn't be enough force from the engine at that point to leave a crater.

Originally posted by Junkheap

Originally posted by thesneakiod
Plus no blast crater underneath it? Cos the lander couldn't have just been placed there could it.....?

There's no reason for the engine to be going a full throttle when they landed. As they approach the surface that engine is throttled down so when the LEM touches down on the surface the engine is hardly expending any energy at all. Most of the energy is expended much farther above the surface as the de-accelerate. The only energy they need at that point is just enough to ensure a soft landing during the final few feet. There just woudn't be enough force from the engine at that point to leave a crater.

edit on 31-8-2012 by Junkheap because: (no reason given)

I must be stupid, but 1/6 gravity aside, and if hardly any energy is being used from the engine, why didn't the lander just crash to the ground?

Originally posted by thesneakiod

I must be stupid, but 1/6 gravity aside, and if hardly any energy is being used from the engine, why didn't the lander just crash to the ground?

considering that gravity is the only force that is pulling the LM down, why would you put it aside?

the engines only need to compensate for the apparent weight of the LM which is dependant on the gravity of the moon, so the lowered gravity means lower power output.

Originally posted by thesneakiod
If its not that hard, why hasn't anyone been back?

its not hugely difficult not with today technology, but they will want to do it bigger and better, so a new rocket with more thrust will need to be designed. but thats not so much of a problem. problems is more to do with money and support.

theres already people whining about how curiosity is a waste of money from ill-informed people, and launching a rover will cost much much less than launching a human to another planet/moon.

Originally posted by choos
[theres already people whining about how curiosity is a waste of money from ill-informed people, and launching a rover will cost much much less than launching a human to another planet/moon.

The only thing 'real' about the so-called "Curiosity" mission is how faked it is. And of course its a lot easier to pull off than the moon fakery.

Recall the name of the first porno movie released in the US a Swedish production - "I Am Curious (Yellow)" - how apropos to the Mars spectacle put on by the big boys at NASA/CIA headquarters

BTW - why is half of the imagery on the porn - 0 - rama scene blacked out? What is it - top secret ? Or does NASA have something to hide?

Panorama source - for a more complete view of video fakery

reply to post by OutonaLimb


Thanks for posting that link. Amazing site.

reply to post by de_Genova


Do you even know what a panorama is? Read here.

Thanks everyone , I have read through a significant part of this thread and have educated myself on this fascinating subject, also it is good to see someone accusing a dead man of been a liar, actually make the man even more respected ,via the truth that those who are knowledgeable supplied when responding to the OP .

So basically Neil Armstrong is not a liar , but only a man who walked on the moon, and perhaps we are all just a little envious of that perhaps OP?

Originally posted by PsykoOpsreply topost by de_Genova

 

Do you even know what a panorama is? Read here.

So much for your silly directions



But you were asked to explain this image - not to resort to meaningless distractions:

Are you serious? That's a composite panorama. As in stiched together from multiple images. Some of them +100 of images. The black areas are where there are no images off.

reply to post by de_Genova


do you seriously believe curiosity is fake?? given the technology that we have available today, do you seriously believe that we cannot send a rover to mars??

how incompetent do you think the human race is?

Haha DJW001 I knew you wouldn't reply to my question on the same terrain when in apparently different locations...

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Are you serious? That's a composite panorama. As in stiched together from multiple images. Some of them +100 of images. The black areas are where there are no images off.

My major in undergrad art school was photography.........I taught the subject on the college level...............I took pictures for a living.............I am not in need of any silliness from you regarding what is - and what is not - as composite image. In fact I have even made some over the years. I even have a panoramic camera..............

The image in question (Mars panoramic) is nothing short of bizarre. Your explanation sounds similar to one we might hear from a NASA/CIA spokesperson...............

reply to post by de_Genova

My major in undergrad art school was photography.

And yet you have apparently never heard of Hokusai. Really?