Moon landings information

I think you meant to label this "Moon landings musings from ignorance".

I'll tell ya what, every single thing on all three of those sites that is pointed to as evidence of a hoax is wrong. If those people knew anything about photography, they would know that everything they've pointed out is exactly as it should be. That's what happens when people try to analyze something they don't know anything about.

If any of those examples were the way those retards say they should be, THAT would be anomalous, and then THAT would be evidence of tampering.

So, no dice.

And I'm serious when I say EVERY LAST POINT they make with regards to the photos is ignorant. Not that you have to be a moron to be intrigued by a couple of them -- I've heard a couple of my friends remark on a few of them -- but you do have to be ignorant. I proceeded to swat them upside the head and tell them it's stupid. STUPID.

Guest, please be aware that you provided no arguments, only verbal abuse.

I had always wondered why we have not "gone back" to the moon in 35 years, or have people live there on a permanent basis.

Guest, please be aware that you provided no arguments, only verbal abuse.

I had always wondered why we have not "gone back" to the moon in 35 years, or have people live there on a permanent basis.

Telling you bluntly that those sites are full of ignorance is not verbal abuse. And there is such a thing as a stupid notion, and thinking the moon landings were faked is one of them.

Here ya go: http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

I'd be interested to hear what you think of the explanations, but, no hostility intended here, if you believe that the earth is flat because of, I don't know, something you read in a religious codex or the fact that the horizon looks flat to you, then I doubt you'll be convinced.

And as to why "we" haven't gone back, well, why would we? Even shuttle flights are few and far between because there's little to gain from the lame little experiments they do up there. There's no atmosphere on the moon, and a lot of harmful radiation from the sun beating down on the barren surface. Besides, there's not much to do on the moon that would call for a settlement. And a settlement's a whole 'nother problem... all raw materials would have to be shipped there, and it's simply not worth doing for no good reason. There wasn't even a great reason to begin with, other than to win a prestige contest with the USSR! Yeah, it would have been cheaper to fake it, but they obviously didn't. Do you really think arrogant figures like Werner von Braun would stand by and let his career be capped by a hoax? NO.

But you don't even have to go that far. There is nothing wrong with those photos. Why don't you tell me an example of one that you find to be a strong piece of evidence, and I'll tell you in my own words why it should be that way.

Moon Landings
Why have there not  been any alleged moon landings since the launch of the Russian space station Mir and why have the USA been pratting around just outside the Earth's atmosphere in space shuttles (two have which have exploded) ever since?
Methinks that the visitor to the site is either brainwashed by Uncle Sam,
a member of NASA or the CIA or just someone with blinkered vision and a strong sense of  misguided patriotiosm. We all know that Dr Samuel Johnson described parriotism as "The Last Refuge of the Scoundrel" This dismisses visitors thoughts to the garbage bin to which they belong
Gran the Man

Although I think the theory of a flat earth is the most ridiculous thing that I've ever heard, I truly believe we did not land on the moon.

The one and only peice of evidence that I've seen that can't be debunked, is the fact that there is footage of a flag waving around on the moon. Even after the astronaut releases the flag, it's still moving. That's not possible. There's no atmosphere on the moon.

The one and only peice of evidence that I've seen that can't be debunked, is the fact that there is footage of a flag waving around on the moon. Even after the astronaut releases the flag, it's still moving. That's not possible. There's no atmosphere on the moon.

Probably you just haven't read the explanation.  It's pretty simple.

The footage is not of the flag waving on its own.  The flag wiggles a bit while the astronaut puts the pole in the ground.  Afterwards, it may move under its own momentum until the damping forces in the fabric take over... this happens within a few seconds, if not immediately.  The flag is held up by a horizontal bar connected to the top of the flagpole, not by a breeze.

Probably what you have seen is photographs -- not video -- of the flag looking like it is in mid-wave.  In fact, it is frozen in that position, at least until it gets hit by a meteorite.

A simple search on google for "flag waving on moon" will give you the same explanation.

Also, google video has NASA stock footage of the flag not waving: click here

Lastly, it's not really accurate to say that the moon has *no* atmosphere.  It has a very tenuous one, in fact, because trace amounts gasses are constantly being released from its surface.

-Erasmus

I suggest anybody interested about the moon landing "hoax" read this by Keith Mayes.  Also, there is an entire thread dedicated to him and his writings in Alternative Sciences.

http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Did%20we%20land%20on%20the%20Moon.htm

Hi
I am not a believer that the earth is flat but I think that this is a very good site on which to challenge long established assumptions and to express individuality and challenge deep-seated predudices
Gran the Man

Hi
I am not a believer that the earth is flat but I think that this is a very good site on which to challenge long established assumptions and to express individuality and challenge deep-seated predudices
Gran the Man

That's great!  Which ones would you like to challenge today?

The current hot debate (says me) starts on Page 7 "Disproval of the RE model" thread in the General Discussion section.

Anyway, welcome to a world of insanity.

-Erasmus

[
Anyway, welcome to a world of insanity.

Correction, welcome to a flat world of insanity. :p

Quote from: "Erasmus"

[
Anyway, welcome to a world of insanity.

Correction, welcome to a flat world of insanity. :p

Probably because I am 6 foot 4 inches tall and an ex pro boxer
If I need to get a grip it will be around your throat. I am not allowed to use my fists!"!!!!
Gran the Man

gran the man i somehow dont think you were a boxer, i think you made that up to pretend you life is better than it is

GoD
Bolton is less than 45 minutes drive from my manor. If you want proof of my boxing abilities set up a time and place and we will see !!!! Your call
Gran the Man

Stop spamming or your posts will be deleted
An enraged
Cinlef

This not spamming just a fair comment in reply to my boxing abilities !!!!

lol I suppose but why is that relevant to moon landing ?
An mildly amused
Cinlef

No relevance to the the "Moon Landings" just a knee jerk reaction to an ill informed comment to someone who does not know me. nor my boxing expertise. I trust that you have reprimanded the other person.
On the subject of alleged moon landings, could you explain why American billionaires have to go into space with Russian Astronauts rather than Americans if the USA did put a man on the moon? Mmmm
Gran the Man

to gran:

The reason is economics: The Russians are willing to "send somebody up to space" for about 2 US$million, while NASA needs one US$billion for each space shuttle launch, and refuses to take anyone but trained people doing actual semi-valuable work (very few of which has resulted in anything worth the investment).

Of course, the reason that Russian price is so relatively low is that their equipment is even older than the US space shuttles, which were designed over 30 years ago.  They are also much less concerned with this concept called Safety.  Let's not even mention "comfort".

Oh yeah, and also, apparently their definition of "send somebody up to space" is the same as "Oh the rockets aren't ready today.  We'll send you in 10 years, if we haven't spent all the money on other infrastructure or sold our rockets to Iran... what?  You already paid?  Too bad!" :p

Although I think the theory of a flat earth is the most ridiculous thing that I've ever heard, I truly believe we did not land on the moon.

The one and only peice of evidence that I've seen that can't be debunked, is the fact that there is footage of a flag waving around on the moon. Even after the astronaut releases the flag, it's still moving. That's not possible. There's no atmosphere on the moon.

Ugh, you make people who listen to good rock look like morons... Ok this is how the flag could have possibly waved. The moon spins therefore one side of the moon is closer to s=the sun and hotter, the movement of hot air and cool air is coused by the sun and hence a nit of wind, not astronomically strong but with the low gravity it's enouh to make a flag waver, and the flag is not being blown around its simply slowly moving back into place, when you move something you make wind.

Ok this is how the flag could have possibly waved. The moon spins therefore one side of the moon is closer to s=the sun and hotter, the movement of hot air and cool air is coused by the sun and hence a nit of wind, not astronomically strong but with the low gravity it's enouh to make a flag waver, and the flag is not being blown around its simply slowly moving back into place, when you move something you make wind.

Lots of air on the moon, is there?

the

Quote from: "I are a believer"

Ok this is how the flag could have possibly waved. The moon spins therefore one side of the moon is closer to s=the sun and hotter, the movement of hot air and cool air is coused by the sun and hence a nit of wind, not astronomically strong but with the low gravity it's enouh to make a flag waver, and the flag is not being blown around its simply slowly moving back into place, when you move something you make wind.

Lots of air on the moon, is there?

Air? Yes. Oxygen? no. and theres not a vast supply of air I know, But say you went into space swinging a flag around, would you suppose the flag would waver of stay completely in place?

Air? Yes. Oxygen? no. and theres not a vast supply of air I know

You're saying that there is air on the moon?!  That's new information to me.  I think you should do a little bit of reading.

Quote

Air? Yes. Oxygen? no. and theres not a vast supply of air I know

You're saying that there is air on the moon?!  That's new information to me.  I think you should do a little bit of reading.

Yes, as in the sence if there was nothing you couldnt be there. Air as in the blank clear space around you. well an atmosphere. The moon has one, just on an extremely small scale.

Yes, as in the sence if there was nothing you couldnt be there. Air as in the blank clear space around you. well an atmosphere. The moon has one, just on an extremely small scale.

Air is the name given to the atmosphere on Earth.

The moon does have it's own atmosphere, it's just smaller than the Earth's.

However, according to the site posted earlier:

"Of course a flag can wave in a vacuum. In the shot of the astronaut and the flag, the astronaut is rotating the pole on which the flag is mounted, trying to get it to stay up. The flag is mounted on one side on the pole, and along the top by another pole that sticks out to the side. In a vacuum or not, when you whip around the vertical pole, the flag will ``wave'', since it is attached at the top. The top will move first, then the cloth will follow along in a wave that moves down. This isn't air that is moving the flag, it's the cloth itself."

So the atmosphere doesn't matter anyway.

Quote from: "I are a believer"

Yes, as in the sence if there was nothing you couldnt be there. Air as in the blank clear space around you. well an atmosphere. The moon has one, just on an extremely small scale.

Air is the name given to the atmosphere on Earth.

The moon does have it's own atmosphere, it's just smaller than the Earth's.

However, according to the site posted earlier:

"Of course a flag can wave in a vacuum. In the shot of the astronaut and the flag, the astronaut is rotating the pole on which the flag is mounted, trying to get it to stay up. The flag is mounted on one side on the pole, and along the top by another pole that sticks out to the side. In a vacuum or not, when you whip around the vertical pole, the flag will ``wave'', since it is attached at the top. The top will move first, then the cloth will follow along in a wave that moves down. This isn't air that is moving the flag, it's the cloth itself."

So the atmosphere doesn't matter anyway.

Exactly right.

Anyway, the moon has a ridiculously thin atmosphere.  Thin doesn't mean "close to the ground"; it means "very rareified."  Its atmosphere is made of ejected gasses and solar wind.

Little known fact: Those flags... they fold up to take up little room on the ship. Well, they first one didn't unfurl all the way. The little telescoping bar that had its end attatched to the end of the flag  got stick with around three inches left to go, giving the flag a wavy appearence.

Furture flags worked perfectly, but astronauts liked the way the wavy one looked. The purposely didn't extent the telescopic pole all the way to simulate it waving in the wind.

I will now take this site and debunk everything I can. Ha-ha.

http://batesmotel.8m.com/

Exibit A: This is a new one for me. I don't have an answer, but I'm sure there is one. Besides, it is totally possible to have one lightsource and that be true. Or, how could it be true with multiple light sources?

Exibit B: Ha! Familiar territory!

On earth, there is only one lightsource in the desert (during the day). And yet, when I cast a shadow there, the ground under my hand doesn't turn pitch black. You know why? Because light bounces around. On earth, on moon.

Exibit C: I assume that they are near the line of termination.

Exibit D: This is where I go ape and start throwing feces.

To get to the moon, you need a spaceship. If you walk out of your spaceship around ten feet, turn around to face your buddy near the spaceship with his camera, wouldn't your ship be reflected?

Exibit E: This was a low def camera. It needs to be exposed for a long time to capture the intricasies of a shadow. The shadow cast by the Lunar Excursian Modual.

Section 3: Pretty damning! Oh wait! Take a picture of the night sky from the desert. Use medium film designed for taking pictures of astronauts and not stars. You won't see a thing in the camera, even under the glowing sky.

6, J, K: All these phenomena have been dealt with.

L: I bend down when I pick up something...

M: On earth there is One True Light source (the sun). Yet the poles that hold powerlines up in the (yet again) desert cast shadows that do not run parralell. Instead, they slant like they should. It is called perspective.

N: Dealt with

7: It was strapped to his chest. Perhaps a part of his arm or helmet? Eh? Never though of that, did you bitch?!

Circled bit: Lunar dust is different from earth dust. Earth dust is subject to erosion. This makes our dust round and fluid. Moon dust is not. Moon dust is angly, and tends to stay where it was put.

R: This is 1960's camera technology. They still had little black lines that wern't in the original image. These lines make old movies fuzzy.

P: The harsh white "bled" though the crosshairs. Repeat first line of "R"...

From the site:

"Facts about the Moon"
With my comments in italics
An average days temperature on the moon ranges from 260° F to 280° F, too for film to survive. At those temperatures, film crinkles up into a ball.
Oddly, the film was inside a camera designed to protect it from these things...
About 20 miles about the Earth, there is a radiation belt named the Van Allen belt. No human can get through this belt, If you try than you get hit with 300+ rads of radiation. Unless they are surrounded on each side by 4 feet on lead.
First of all, they spent less than a minute there. Second of all, they were very well shielded. Third of all, we timed the launches for when they were at a very low radiation level.
There are millions of micro-metors traveling at speeds up to 6000 MPH, which would tear the ship to pieces.
There are also a huge amount of dust particles in the world. Quite simply, they are so damn small they are totally harmless
If you look at the pictures/video of people on the moon, you will never see more than 3 stars.
I have covered this. Use your own film camera to take a picture of the night sky. OMGZ, 1337!!!111
When the LEM set down on the Lunar surface, it gave out 3000 lb. worth of thrust. This would have created a massive hole underneath the Lunar Module, but in pictures of the Lunar Module, the ground underneath is untouched.
The engine spread out the force enough to merely kick up some dust

 -Kevin Overstreet
You itiot

This wasn't hard for me. I applied my knowledge of the world and my observations to royally fuck Kevin Overstreet through the ass. There were no brains to fuck out however.

Hello, my name is Occam's Razor and I cut things to pieces.

I actually have a revision. After sleeping on it, then accessing an computer, I have a really good answer for exibit A...

The guy with the shorter shadow is bending. LOL!!!