Take a close look at the Lunar Lander

As far as I'm concerned, those pictures clinch it. That is the saddest contraption duct-taped together and wrapped in tinfoil I have ever seen. There is no way that could support even a single person for the space of ten seconds, let alone what NASA claimed it did.

They probably didn't even build it themselves. For all of their penny-pinching, they could very well have simply nabbed it from a Buck Rogers convention.

As far as I'm concerned, those pictures clinch it. That is the saddest contraption duct-taped together and wrapped in tinfoil I have ever seen. There is no way that could support even a single person for the space of ten seconds, let alone what NASA claimed it did.

They probably didn't even build it themselves. For all of their penny-pinching, they could very well have simply nabbed it from a Buck Rogers convention.

Now it is penny pinching? I thought they charged as much as possible so those couple of people that are "in on it" could make lots and lots of money

Quote from: Cheryl Wiesbaden on January 09, 2009, 07:25:16 PM

As far as I'm concerned, those pictures clinch it. That is the saddest contraption duct-taped together and wrapped in tinfoil I have ever seen. There is no way that could support even a single person for the space of ten seconds, let alone what NASA claimed it did.

They probably didn't even build it themselves. For all of their penny-pinching, they could very well have simply nabbed it from a Buck Rogers convention.

Now it is penny pinching? I thought they charged as much as possible so those couple of people that are "in on it" could make lots and lots of money

Once again, you fail to make sense.

Quote from: Trekky0623 on January 09, 2009, 07:14:13 PM

Tom, you wanna provide a link to the source?

just delete the last part of the URL and it will take you to the site.

Have you tried it?  The site's a fucking maze.

What is so hard about believing that NASA lied?  The Chinese did it, so why not the US?  Even Nixon decided on staging the first steps on the moon if the 'real attempt' didn't work.(Thanks for the link Tom)

Quote from: cbarnett97 on January 09, 2009, 07:19:36 PM

Quote from: Trekky0623 on January 09, 2009, 07:14:13 PM

Tom, you wanna provide a link to the source?

just delete the last part of the URL and it will take you to the site.

Have you tried it?  The site's a fucking maze.

Yeah it is but they have some great photographs

http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/
go here and then choose image library and they have tons of photographs from the beginning to the end of the mission

And what about this one:


Many claim that proof the landing was faked because the rocket did nothing to the ground but it sure looks like the ground was affected by the rocket here

You know what tom I just found that they have the radio transmissions that were given while the pictures were taken so here is what Buzz Aldrin had to say about this picture: "Aldrin: (Going east of the strut) I'll get a picture of the plus-Y strut taken from near the descent stage, and I think we'll be able to see a little bit better what the thermal effects are. Seem to be quite minimal. (Long Pause, then turning to look under the spacecraft) There's one picture taken (pause) in the right rear of the spacecraft looking at the skirt of the descent stage, shows a slight darkening of the surface color, a rather minimal amount of radiating or etching away or erosion of the surface. On descent, both of us remarked that we could see a large amount of very fine dust particles moving out. (Pause) It was reported beforehand that we would probably see an outgassing from the surface after actual engine shutdown, but as I recall, I was unable to verify that. (Long Pause)"

Many claim that proof the landing was faked because the rocket did nothing to the ground but it sure looks like the ground was affected by the rocket here

Granted it wasn't one of the stronger arguments, but I believe the argument was why the rocket didn't leave a crater in the lunar dust. And if it "blew it all way," which it should have if it was powerful enough to etch the rock like in that image, then how did Armstrong make his big heavy first footprint on the surface of the moon right at the base of the lander?

As far as I'm concerned, those pictures clinch it. That is the saddest contraption duct-taped together and wrapped in tinfoil I have ever seen. There is no way that could support even a single person for the space of ten seconds, let alone what NASA claimed it did.

Speaking of Armstrong, Cheryl, have you seen the press conference the astronauts did after they returned to earth?



Very unsettling to watch.

What is so difficult to grasp about Tom's point? It is hardly one of NASA's better hoaxes. Even a round earther should be able to admit this.

Nothing. I'm with Tom, the picture is from NASA therefore the picture is fake

Quote from: Cheryl Wiesbaden on January 09, 2009, 07:16:34 PM

As far as I'm concerned, those pictures clinch it. That is the saddest contraption duct-taped together and wrapped in tinfoil I have ever seen. There is no way that could support even a single person for the space of ten seconds, let alone what NASA claimed it did.

Speaking of Armstrong, Cheryl, have you seen the press conference the astronauts did after they returned to earth?



Very unsettling to watch.

You shouldn't be afraid an watching an man being emotional. It doesn't mean you're a gay if it chokes you a bit as well

Are you saying that if you had just traveled away from the Earth, to the moon, you wouldn't be emotional?

Quote

Many claim that proof the landing was faked because the rocket did nothing to the ground but it sure looks like the ground was affected by the rocket here

Granted it wasn't one of the stronger arguments, but I believe the argument was why the rocket didn't leave a crater in the lunar dust. And if it "blew it all way," which it should have if it was powerful enough to etch the rock like in that image, then how did Armstrong make his big heavy first footprint on the surface of the moon right at the base of the lander?

Dust settles?  They didn't come out right after the landing.

This is a better picture of the lander

Quote from: markjo on January 09, 2009, 04:53:04 PM

I'm still not sure that I see what your point is, however.

My point is that NASA spent six billion dollars building a LEM from cardboard paper, scotch tape, old shower curtain rods, and aluminum foil. Ridiculous.

Tom, have you ever physically examined an actual lunar module?  Have you analyzed any of the materials used in the construction of an actual LEM?  Or are you just looking at a photograph and crying "fake" without any  physical analysis of an actual LEM?

All of nasa photos are, according to Tom, fake. So it's a moot point.

You guys only attack the lunar landing. What about all of the missions to Mars up to this date. Please reply, I want to see how fast you guys can make stuff up.

Let's see.  Tom has made a claim about the construction of the LEM.  Normally the burden of proof would be on him to back up his claim with some sort of evidence (besides pictures which he doesn't accept as evidence anyways).  But since this is Tom that we're talking about, he will of course say that NASA claims that LEM was made out of the materials that were supposed to be used (even though NASA contracted Grumman to build the LEM) and therefore the burden of proof is ours. 

All of nasa photos are, according to Tom, fake. So it's a moot point.

no kidding, ive never seen a picture that a REer tried to use ever even taken seriously because they are all faked, but Tom has the nerve to use a picture to try and prove that the thing was a fake made of tape and cardboard, and a NASA photo at that.  can we say hypocrites?

Well it's official, Tom is a hypocrite.

No surprise there.

Agreed, the burden of proof is on Tom to prove that the LM is incapable of landing on the Moon in RE theory.

I still don't see any cardboard paper or duct tape.  Where is that assumption coming from?

You guys only attack the lunar landing. What about all of the missions to Mars up to this date. Please reply, I want to see how fast you guys can make stuff up.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=25214.msg561596#msg561596

Agreed, the burden of proof is on Tom to prove that the LM is incapable of landing on the Moon in RE theory.

So you want me to prove that a prop made out of construction paper, aluminum foil, roofing paper, and scotch tape to hold it all together couldn't land on the moon?  

That's appears to be negative. You're the one here claiming a positive. You'll have to prove that a LM made out of stationary supplies and old junk could land on the moon.

Quote from: Trekky0623 on January 10, 2009, 04:59:26 PM

Agreed, the burden of proof is on Tom to prove that the LM is incapable of landing on the Moon in RE theory.

So you want me to prove that a prop made out of construction paper, aluminum foil, roofing paper, and scotch tape to hold it all together couldn't land on the moon?  

That's appears to be negative. You're the one here claiming a positive.

Could you show us where all those materials are located?

Quote

You guys only attack the lunar landing. What about all of the missions to Mars up to this date. Please reply, I want to see how fast you guys can make stuff up.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=25214.msg561596#msg561596

Quote from: Trekky0623 on January 10, 2009, 04:59:26 PM

Agreed, the burden of proof is on Tom to prove that the LM is incapable of landing on the Moon in RE theory.

So you want me to prove that a prop made out of construction paper, aluminum foil, roofing paper, and scotch tape to hold it all together couldn't land on the moon? 

That's appears to be negative. You're the one here claiming a positive.

I've asked you before Tom, have you physically examined an actual lunar module to determine what materials it's made of?  Or are you just making wild accusations as usual?

Could you show us where all those materials are located?

The locations are obvious. Perhaps you should point out to me where NASA's space-age materials are.

It's utterly ridiculous that you apologists are continually disillusioned with the belief that NASA spent six billion dollars to build that Lander, that two men lived in it in a pressurized environment, and that it landed and launched from the surface of the moon. Pure and complete fantasy.

I've asked you before Tom, have you physically examined an actual lunar module to determine what materials it's made of?  Or are you just making wild accusations as usual?

NASA won't let anyone physically dissect the lunar module.

Quote

Could you show us where all those materials are located?

The locations are obvious. Perhaps you should point out to me where NASA's million dollar space materials are.

It's utterly ridiculous that you apologists are continually disillusioned with the belief that NASA spent six billion dollars to build that Lander, that two men lived in it in a pressurized environment, and that it landed and launched from the surface of the moon. Pure and complete fantasy

Just show us the locations of the cardboard, and tape and then show us how you know that is what it is and not the insulation and shielding over the structure that NASA says it is.

I've asked you before Tom, have you physically examined an actual lunar module to determine what materials it's made of?  Or are you just making wild accusations as usual?

NASA won't let anyone physically dissect the lunar module.

Especially since they were left in space

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Lunar_Module



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LM_illustration_02.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LunarLander.JPG

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lunar_Module_diagram.jpg

Lookie

Quote

You guys only attack the lunar landing. What about all of the missions to Mars up to this date. Please reply, I want to see how fast you guys can make stuff up.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=25214.msg561596#msg561596

Quote from: Trekky0623 on January 10, 2009, 04:59:26 PM

Agreed, the burden of proof is on Tom to prove that the LM is incapable of landing on the Moon in RE theory.

So you want me to prove that a prop made out of construction paper, aluminum foil, roofing paper, and scotch tape to hold it all together couldn't land on the moon?  

That's appears to be negative. You're the one here claiming a positive. You'll have to prove that a LM made out of stationary supplies and old junk could land on the moon.

Umm, what? You claimed the shuttle was made out of these so-called household materials. Sounds like a positive to me, genius. Prove that. It's pretty simple, really.