RE: Did We Really Land On The Moon???

RE: Did We Really Land On The Moon??? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

thornhappy -> RE: Did We Really Land On The Moon??? (9/10/2010 6:26:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or FR I have only heard one minute piece of credible (but not proven) evidence that the moonshot may have been a hoax. Some claim that the flag planted there moved, which is assumed to be impossible without an atmosphere, however........ One, ever hear of a radioscope (IIRC) ? It has a needle bearing and thin leaves which are shiny on one side and black on the other. You shine light at it and it turns. It is of course in a vacuum. With the probable light weight of the fabric of the flag, and the fact that there is only about one sixth of the gravity there, if true, it could have been caused by a solar flare. There is also the possiblility of some minor seismic activity which might have been undetectable to the astronauts in their suits, also owing it's presence to the flag's light weight and low gravity of the moon. T Mythbusters debunked a whole host of moon hoax theories, and this was one of them. In a vacuum, the flag oscillates a bit just from the force of moving it.

Termyn8or -> RE: Did We Really Land On The Moon??? (9/10/2010 9:13:54 AM)
Hadn't thought of that, but another possibly valid explainaition. I don't always go with the debunkers, although many times they do clear things up. In this case though, I've given it some thought and I still conclude that we did actually put a Man on the moon. My reasoning has been stated, but thanks for the extra "nail in the coffin" so to speak. Really I am more concerned with the lies and hoaxes which are much closer to home. I haven't researxhed it, but even if the moonshot was a hoax, did it cost more than all these "oil wars" ? Hmmmm, I wonder just what searxh terms I would have to use to find out. I'll think about it. T

FirmhandKY -> RE: Did We Really Land On The Moon??? (9/10/2010 9:22:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: domiguy I landed squarely in Uranus. domi, Because I like you, I'm not going to touch this one. But damn, I'm holding back some really good smartass replies! [:D] Firm

cuckoldmepls -> RE: Did We Really Land On The Moon??? (9/10/2010 9:25:00 AM)
I'm not saying we didn't land on the moon. What I said was how many of you automatically believe we landed on the moon without questioning it, more or less. That's the problem with people these days, is that they don't question anything that people in charge tell them. It's the same with Obama's citizenship. You have to be a moron if you automatically believe what they tell you. Personally, i believed all along that he probably was born in Hawaii, but if the mainstream media is successful in making it look like people are idiots for questioning authority, then we are in real trouble folks. We have every right to question everything, and we should. Interesting fact here. 10 years ago I remember the Japanese saying they were going to build a space telescope, and the first thing they were going to do was verify our moon landing. I haven't heard anything since then. Sounds like someone got to them too.

domiguy -> RE: Did We Really Land On The Moon??? (9/10/2010 9:28:17 AM)
Cuck, give it a rest. This is coming from a guy that accepts any source or story as being the "truth" as long as it supports his extremely twisted political views.

cuckoldmepls -> RE: Did We Really Land On The Moon??? (9/10/2010 9:35:25 AM)
Hmmm... I thought everyone had watched the special on the possible moon hoax. Let me go down the list off the top of my head of questionable evidence. 1) Shadows were not consistent indicating multiple light sources such as cameras. 2) There was no concavity blown out from beneath the lander. 3) There was no dust that settled back down onto the lunar lander legs. 4) In videos of the moon walks, you can actually see light reflecting off of something directly above and behind the astronauts helmet, indicating wires holding them up. 5) In videos I've actually seen where an astronaut fell down, and you could tell by the way he got up which was at a severe angle, there was no possible way he could have gotton up without a wire pulling him up. 6) I've seen nasa footage where the astronauts are actually practicing how to take pictures of the moon from the other side of the darkened cabin, to make it look like they are hundreds of thousands of miles away. 7) When the top half of the return module blasted off there was no visible jet blast. 8) I've also seen pictures where they are on the moon, and the earth is huge in the background, but at the same time there are pictures of them halfway to the moon and the earth seems small. Now which is it??? The size of the earth should get smaller the further you get away from it. There are many more pieces of evidence like this.

Hillwilliam -> RE: Did We Really Land On The Moon??? (9/10/2010 12:25:28 PM)
Only cucky could segue so easily from "moon landing hoax" to "Birther" arguments.

cuckoldmepls -> RE: Did We Really Land On The Moon??? (9/10/2010 12:51:12 PM)
People use analogies and examples to make their point all the time. In fact, that is a hallmark of good writers. The reason I posted this subject is not only because it is interesting to contemplate, it is also to get people to question authority. Otherwise you are just a mindless slave, and that's fine as far as relationships go, but not fine if you allow government to do what ever they want.

AquaticSub -> RE: Did We Really Land On The Moon??? (9/10/2010 12:59:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cuckoldmepls People use analogies and examples to make their point all the time. In fact, that is a hallmark of good writers. The reason I posted this subject is not only because it is interesting to contemplate, it is also to get people to question authority. Otherwise you are just a mindless slave, and that's fine as far as relationships go, but not fine if you allow government to do what ever they want. Actually it makes me question the people who are always questioning authority with poor evidence and veiled intentions, makes me dismissive of them and lends more crediblity to the government.

Lordandmaster -> RE: Did We Really Land On The Moon??? (9/10/2010 1:05:11 PM)
You're right! We never actually landed on the moon. The whole thing was a hoax concocted by that evil Communist, Richard M. Nixon. Not many people are aware of this. quote: ORIGINAL: cuckoldmepls How many of you actually believe everything the government tells you, and you believe that we really did land on the moon???

DarkSteven -> RE: Did We Really Land On The Moon??? (9/10/2010 2:29:02 PM)
I remember a feminist saying: "If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we put all of them there?"

Aneirin -> RE: Did We Really Land On The Moon??? (9/10/2010 6:06:21 PM)
The moon landing hoax conspiracy is just like any other conspiracy, the more people that are involved, are all of them going to accept the party line and tell the lie all their lives. The more people involved, the harder it is to keep the secret, which makes me think America did put a man on the moon, but it was so darned expensive later administrations would not risk their political career to go further than getting a picture of the US flag on the moon and an astronaut waving 'Hi' at the camera, which I understand was a Nikon camera. Perhaps what the moon explorers brought back made it not worth going again. Now if those rocks that came back were lumps of solidified oil, then maybe there might be more activity with regards to moon exploration and development, moves to suck the inside out of that astral body as well, the cost of doing so offset by the revenue made as usual and the lie that says it's good for the country, so those that die in the process, they died for something, a something which transpires as making rich men richer. It either all happened, or those involved were given a useful diet of 1960'S hallucinatory medication that made them believe it happened.

thornhappy -> RE: Did We Really Land On The Moon??? (9/10/2010 7:14:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cuckoldmepls Hmmm... I thought everyone had watched the special on the possible moon hoax. Let me go down the list off the top of my head of questionable evidence. 1) Shadows were not consistent indicating multiple light sources such as cameras. 2) There was no concavity blown out from beneath the lander. 3) There was no dust that settled back down onto the lunar lander legs. 4) In videos of the moon walks, you can actually see light reflecting off of something directly above and behind the astronauts helmet, indicating wires holding them up. 5) In videos I've actually seen where an astronaut fell down, and you could tell by the way he got up which was at a severe angle, there was no possible way he could have gotton up without a wire pulling him up. 6) I've seen nasa footage where the astronauts are actually practicing how to take pictures of the moon from the other side of the darkened cabin, to make it look like they are hundreds of thousands of miles away. 7) When the top half of the return module blasted off there was no visible jet blast. 8) I've also seen pictures where they are on the moon, and the earth is huge in the background, but at the same time there are pictures of them halfway to the moon and the earth seems small. Now which is it??? The size of the earth should get smaller the further you get away from it. There are many more pieces of evidence like this. I know a bunch of these were debunked. Have you checked? I never figured NASA was such an authority figure. Just out of curiosity, have you always "questioned authority", or just in the last few years?

thishereboi -> RE: Did We Really Land On The Moon??? (9/11/2010 5:03:24 AM)
quote: I'm not saying we didn't land on the moon. What I said was how many of you automatically believe we landed on the moon without questioning it, more or less. That's the problem with people these days, is that they don't question anything that people in charge tell them. Well considering I was 10 years old at the time, yea, I believed it without question. Did you question the things your parents told you when you were 10?[8\|]

Termyn8or -> RE: Did We Really Land On The Moon??? (9/11/2010 6:53:03 AM)
boi, I was thinking of responding to that phase of the OP's statement(s) but wasn't quite sure how to do it. I was about the same age at the time and really, back then our innocence did was not .....ummmm conducive to much questioning. I questioned, but about the next piece of information, not the validity of the first. If that' what this thread is really about, there are other examples. Cold fusion. The people who supposedly did it were all agog about it, but in that case a segment of the scientific community had their doubt. It does seem though that the public bought it hook line and sinker. I really don't even know what the final verdict was, was it actually fusion or not ? Too much detail on the ensuing debates would make your head spin, but the point is there were probably quite a few laymen shouting "Hallelujah ! ". Another is the subject of the "perpetual" generator. I myself brought it up here for comment because I was just as skeptical. In fact I plain old did not believe it, that is until I did a bit of research, and that is hard science. The thing does exist but it is not perpetual because it has a finite life of perhaps five years. Yes it works, on the principle of using permanent magnets to aid electromagnets, which can result in an apparent efficiency of over 100% for a motor/generator combo. It is not majic or trickery, it is based on sound scientific principles. However once the permanent magnets lose their field you have a pile of junk on your hands. Knowing what I know, a rebuild or rework would be practically impossible. What's more the cost is so prohibitive that you will never have one in the backyard, just amortizing the cost of the machine per kwh excluding any maintainence or breakdowns for five years, nobody in their right mind would buy one. So, if that was the true intent of this thread, this is not a hijack. The saying "Don't believe anything you hear and only half of what you see" originated long before the advent of the modern day conspiracy theorist. T

DCWoody -> RE: Did We Really Land On The Moon??? (9/11/2010 7:36:22 AM)
"If they can take a satelite picture of the shed in your backyard" They can't. Unless you have a particularly large shed, it'd be barely 1-2 pixels, which isn't a picture in anyones book. You're confusing ariel photography with satelites "why haven't we ever seen telescopic pictures of our equipment left behind on the moon? Hubble is far more powerful than satellite photos" "From cornell.edu website... Yes, the flag is still on the moon, but you can't see it using a telescope. I found some statistics on the size of lunar equipment in a Press Kit for the Apollo 16 mission. The flag is 125 cm (4 feet) long, and you would need an optical wavelength telescope around 200 meters (~650 feet) in diameter to see it. The largest optical wavelength telescope that we have now is the Keck Telscope in Hawaii which is 10 meters in diameter. The Hubble Space Telescope is only 2.4 meters in diameter - much too small! Resolving the larger lunar rover (which has a length of 3.1 meters) would still require a telescope 75 meters in diameter. Even barely resolving the lunar lander base, which is 9.5 meters across (including landing gear), would require a telescope about 25 meters across. And in reality you would want a couple (or a few) resolution elements across the object so that it's possible to identify it. (Otherwise it'll look like a one pixel detection, not an image, and I don't think people would be convinced by a couple pixels!) In addition, with a ground based telescope, you have to deal with distortion by the atmosphere as well, so you'll probably want something considerably larger than 25 meters if you want a good, believable, image of the lander. We don't have anything that big built yet! So there's really no way to image equipment left behind by the astronauts with current telescope technology." I think Hubble can (and has) display(ed) the moon at a level of ~80000 square feet per pixel.

cuckoldmepls -> RE: Did We Really Land On The Moon??? (9/11/2010 7:40:36 AM)
Yes, they can take a picture of my shed in the backyard from outer space because I saw it on google earth. Don't tell me they can't.

ScaryJello -> RE: Did We Really Land On The Moon??? (9/11/2010 7:43:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or FR I have only heard one minute piece of credible (but not proven) evidence that the moonshot may have been a hoax. Some claim that the flag planted there moved, which is assumed to be impossible without an atmosphere, however........ One, ever hear of a radioscope (IIRC) ? It has a needle bearing and thin leaves which are shiny on one side and black on the other. You shine light at it and it turns. It is of course in a vacuum. With the probable light weight of the fabric of the flag, and the fact that there is only about one sixth of the gravity there, if true, it could have been caused by a solar flare. There is also the possiblility of some minor seismic activity which might have been undetectable to the astronauts in their suits, also owing it's presence to the flag's light weight and low gravity of the moon. In effect, the only piece of evidence of a hoax that I could begin to accept is quite disputable, so my conclusioon is that we did indeed put a Man on the moon. T The only problem with that theory is inertia. When the Astronaut planted the flag the force rippled through the flag and flagpole causing the rippling motion that people say. Much the same way you can poke jello and it jiggles.

cuckoldmepls -> RE: Did We Really Land On The Moon??? (9/11/2010 7:44:27 AM)
Another good question. Why did Buzz Aldrin sock the snot out of a guy when he asked him to swear on the bible that he actually stepped foot on the moon. Most people would do it without even thinking twice about it. But for Buzz Aldrin, he didn't like the idea that someone was questioning him.

cuckoldmepls -> RE: Did We Really Land On The Moon??? (9/11/2010 7:49:14 AM)
In fact, spy satellites are so good now, that they have pretty much eliminated the high altitude spy plane programs other than the drones used to tactical purposes.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625