Landed on the Moon? Yeah right...

[stinkycheese]

Oh haii Bound ;)

Anyone that believes man has been to the moon is a mong.

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/a-funny-thing-happened-on-the-way-to-the-moon/

[Bound]

Oh haii Bound ;)

Anyone that believes man has been to the moon is a mong.

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/a-funny-thing-happened-on-the-way-to-the-moon/

I believe.

Couldn't help yourself? :D. Genuinely smiling at prospect of this thread.

[sparky771]

i believe it happened too :)

[Bound]

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

Bad: The first bit of actual evidence brought up is the lack of stars in the pictures taken by the Apollo astronauts from the surface of the Moon. Without air, the sky is black, so where are the stars?

Good: The stars are there! They're just too faint to be seen.

This is usually the first thing HBs talk about when discussing the Hoax. That amazes me, as it's the silliest assertion they make. However, it appeals to our common sense: when the sky is black here on Earth, we see stars. Therefore we should see them from the Moon as well.

I'll say this here now, and return to it many times: the Moon is not the Earth. Conditions there are weird, and our common sense is likely to fail us.

The Moon's surface is airless. On Earth, our thick atmosphere scatters sunlight, spreading it out over the whole sky. That's why the sky is bright during the day. Without sunlight, the air is dark at night, allowing us to see stars.

On the Moon, the lack of air means that the sky is dark. Even when the Sun is high off the horizon during full day, the sky near it will be black. If you were standing on the Moon, you would indeed see stars, even during the day.

So why aren't they in the Apollo pictures? Pretend for a moment you are an astronaut on the surface of the Moon. You want to take a picture of your fellow space traveler. The Sun is low off the horizon, since all the lunar landings were done at local morning. How do you set your camera? The lunar landscape is brightly lit by the Sun, of course, and your friend is wearing a white spacesuit also brilliantly lit by the Sun. To take a picture of a bright object with a bright background, you need to set the exposure time to be fast, and close down the aperture setting too; that's like the pupil in your eye constricting to let less light in when you walk outside on a sunny day.

So the picture you take is set for bright objects. Stars are faint objects! In the fast exposure, they simply do not have time to register on the film. It has nothing to do with the sky being black or the lack of air, it's just a matter of exposure time. If you were to go outside here on Earth on the darkest night imaginable and take a picture with the exact same camera settings the astronauts used, you won't see any stars!

It's that simple. Remember, this the usually the first and strongest argument the HBs use, and it was that easy to show wrong. Their arguments get worse from here.

EEEEEEEE TTTTTT CCCCCCCC (http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html)

[Bound]

It does discredit your credibility when you believe all conspiracies :D.

Flying spaghetti monster? Can't prove it doesn't exist, therefore it exists - South Park :D.

[stinkycheese]

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

Bad: The first bit of

blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
It's that simple. Remember, this the usually the first and strongest argument the HBs use, and it was that easy to show wrong. Their arguments get worse from here.

EEEEEEEE TTTTTT CCCCCCCC (http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html)

Watch the documentary, it even explains why there were no stars in the photos. I dont question that.

[Bound]

Watch the documentary, it even explains why there were no stars in the photos. I dont question that.

Well, this is gonna be a long one then :D.

[stinkycheese]

Van Allen belt anyone?

[stinkycheese]

The only thing stopping me from being 1000000% certain it was faked is the Russians havn't called the US out on it.

[sparky771]

Van Allen belt anyone?

That sounds made up lol gonna have to do some research :) Ok so its not made up its here on Wiki (could still be made up there is some shite written on there) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Allen_radiation_belt

My favorite argument is the dust from the lunar rover :) where they can't comprehend why the dust comes back to the surface :panic:

[Bound]

Jews ??

[stinkycheese]

The ONLY manned missions EVER to pass through the belts were the apollo missions (supposedly). No other country has ever sent a man through them, and we never have since 1970 something.
The space stations, and every other manned flight by any country have never left earth's orbit and passed through the belts.

Anything living that enters the Van Allen Belts gets FUCKED UP BITCHES!

[Bound]

Anything living that enters the Van Allen Belts gets FUCKED UP BITCHES!

How do you know? You ever been ya Jew?

[stinkycheese]

How do you know? You ever been ya Jew?

No, but a shit load of monkeys and dogs can vouch for me :D

[Bound]

Srsly though..Need to test it on monkeys, then move on to bigger stuff like horses and whales before we can be sure.. That image from South Park of the whale beached on the moon, lifeless, when it was promised eternal happiness.

Ahahaha.

[sparky771]

lol.....

[K17NEY]

This is going to be interesting,ive never really looked into it but how the fuck does a flag get blown when there is no atmosphere?No atmosphere means no air,no air means no wind!

Bound:fair play your in depth arguments never siese to impress me,your like a font of knowledge.

[sparky771]

did the research and......


Solar cells, integrated circuits, and sensors can be damaged by radiation. Geomagnetic storms occasionally damage electronic components on spacecraft. Miniaturization and digitization of electronics and logic circuits have made satellites more vulnerable to radiation, as incoming ions may be as large as the circuit's charge. Electronics on satellites must be hardened against radiation to operate reliably. The Hubble Space Telescope, among other satellites, often has its sensors turned off when passing through regions of intense radiation.[9]

Missions beyond low earth orbit leave the protection of the geomagnetic field, and transit the Van Allen belts. Thus they may need to be shielded against exposure to cosmic rays, Van Allen radiation, or solar flares. The region between two to three earth radii lies between the two radiation belts and is sometimes referred to as the "safe zone".[10][11]

A satellite shielded by 3 mm of aluminium in an elliptic orbit (200 by 20,000 miles) passing through the radiation belts will receive about 2,500 rem (25 Sv) per year. Almost all radiation will be received while passing the inner belt.

[Chr15]

I dont care tbh

[craig180]

Give me a synopsis so I don't have to sit here for 45 mins

[Bound]

This is going to be interesting,ive never really looked into it but how the fuck does a flag get blown when there is no atmosphere?No atmosphere means no air,no air means no wind!

Bound:fair play your in depth arguments never siese to impress me,your like a font of knowledge.

Lol, in this thread I've blamed Jews and recommended launching a whale into space.

Still underestimated though.

I didn't write that paragraph, lifted that from that website, as I see it's the most popular argument (along with the flag vibrating - I say vibrating, not blowing, because there is no wind, just the resonating energy).

[stinkycheese]

Give me a synopsis so I don't have to sit here for 45 mins

Skip to 32.25 for some unseen footage that convinced me.

[sparky771]

This is going to be interesting,ive never really looked into it but how the fuck does a flag get blown when there is no atmosphere?No atmosphere means no air,no air means no wind!

Bound:fair play your in depth arguments never siese to impress me,your like a font of knowledge.

well the flag was mounted on an 'L' shape pole, so there was a strip on metal to hold the flag out and it was moving because they had just stabbed it into the ground so the pole vibrated as it would and due to the lack of atmosphere there is no air resistance to act against the flags vibrating therefore giving the impression the flag of vibrating ;)

EDIT: Just seen Bounds post i've just elaberated on his post :P

[stinkycheese]

Lol, in this thread I've blamed Jews and recommended launching a Whale into space.

Still underestimated though.

I didn't write that paragraph, lifted that from that website, as I see it's the most popular argument (along with the flag vibrating - I say vibrating, not blowing, because there is no wind, just the resonating energy).

There is cleary footage of it 'Blowing' as well as a distinctly different 'vibrating' as you put it. One was released, one wasnt.

Stop posting, start watching :D

[23carragold]

This could get veeery messy.

Either that or Ill slip into a coma..im fine with both.

[sparky771]

I rate you (stinkycheese) should list all your reasons for not believing the landing and im sure there will be a logical/realistic answer to as of why such events happened e.g

The space dust settling from the Luna rover (Non-believer answer) theres no gravity. (believers answer) There is gravity, how do you think they stayed on the moon?

[Giraffe]

wasn't there something about the video being sped up by x4 or something and it looks like they are just walking around as normal? I found that quite interesting

[Bound]

I rate you (stinkycheese) should list all your reasons for not believing the landing and im sure there will be a logical/realistic answer to as of why such events happened e.g

The space dust settling from the Luna rover (Non-believer answer) theres no gravity. (believers answer) There is gravity, how do you think they stayed on the moon?

Correct, there is gravity, just 6 - 7 times weaker.

The problem I have with most of these conspiracies is the narrators, and 'experts' have a very weak pseudo scientific basis, and questionable/borderline ridiculous ‘evidence’ (unproved/untested theories), they use authority, suggestion, and the unknown to lull the gullible into believing.

I don't think this will be as hotly contested as the 9/11 thread though. That is still fresh and controversial in our minds, this happened before most of us were born, and a lot of people won't care as much, despite what side of the fence they come down on.

[Heliosphan]

Unless we have an expert in Astrophysics in our midst then your best bet is to google the subject and make your own mind up.

I remember looking into the moon hoax theory years ago and from what I can remember every single theory that suggested the landings were faked was categorically disproven.

[sparky771]

Correct, there is gravity, just 6 - 7 times weaker.

The problem I have with most of these conspiracies is the narrators, and 'experts' have a very weak pseudo scientific basis, and questionable/borderline ridiculous ‘evidence’ (unproved/untested theories), they use authority, suggestion, and the unknown to lull the gullible into believing.

HAHA This is sooo TRUE!!!

And i know im right cause ive had this argument soooooo many times at college and school haha

m not astrophysicist but i did get 100% in my physics GCSE hahaI know none of you will care about that but i think that stands me quite high in this argument :p

[craig180]

~Interesting stuff

[stinkycheese]

The Documentary lists far better, more in depth reasons but here are a few quick ones;

1. Van Allen belt.
2. Film doesnt work at the temperature it was supposedly exposed to.
3. No giant fucking hole from the craft landing.
4. Loads of photos have anomalies- 1 light source creating shadows not parallel amoungst loads of other shit.
5. NASA didnt let television companys stream the footage direct.
6. Why was the footage shitty black and white when they had far better quality colour cameras on-board.
7. Footage sped up x2 shows astronauts walking normaly, looks soooo obvious :D
8. Its not fucking true
9. Its not fucking true
10. Why havnt we been back?

[stinkycheese]

~Interesting stuff

Told ya :P

[23carragold]

Have to say, point 9 is what did it for me..

[dav0506]

The Documentary lists far better, more in depth reasons but here are a few quick ones;

1. Van Allen belt.
2. Film doesnt work at the temperature it was supposedly exposed to.
3. No giant fucking hole from the craft landing.
4. Loads of photos have anomalies- 1 light source creating shadows not parallel amoungst loads of other shit.
5. NASA didnt let television companys stream the footage direct.
6. Why was the footage shitty black and white when they had far better quality colour cameras on-board.
7. Footage sped up x2 shows astronauts walking normaly, looks soooo obvious :D
8. Its not fucking true
9. Its not fucking true
10. Why havnt we been back?

We haven't been back because it's just a dried up old rock that orbits Earth. Until they build a Lunar park on it, no-one will be interested.

[stinkycheese]

We haven't been back because it's just a dried up old rock that orbits Earth. Until they build a Lunar park on it, no-one will be interested.

Dont be silly.

Theres fuck all at the top of Everest, doesnt stop people climbing that fucker.

[stinkycheese]

Watch 29.45 to 31.15

If that shit was shown nowdays, we would laugh at it. Its sooooo obvious, its silly.

Looks like some shady special effects shit from an old 60's movie.

[Rogue_Shadow]

8. Its not fucking true
9. Its not fucking true
10. Why havnt we been back?

:y: Good points

I never really believed the Moon landing anyway but points 8 & 9 confirm it for me :panic: lol

The Space race was like any other race before it, including the Arms race.
People cheat and cut corners

There is a reason people don't trust the government you know

[23carragold]

Tbh, I never really gave this subject much thought. I'm not sure what I believe with regards to if they were faked or not, but, I shall delve deep and try and see if there is credible evidence to show the contrary. Note that Bound...I said credible..hope that pleases you good sir.

[Rogue_Shadow]

We haven't been back because it's just a dried up old rock that orbits Earth. Until they build a Lunar park on it, no-one will be interested.

Hasn't stopped them launching countless fucking satellites at it
I think they are very much interested

[Bound]

Dont be silly.

Theres fuck all at the top of Everest, doesnt stop people climbing that fucker.

It doesn't cost billions of pounds and years of planning to climb everest. You'll find that Everest is on planet Earth. The moon, is not.

[stinkycheese]

It doesn't cost billions of pounds and years of planning to climb everest. You'll find that Everest is on planet Earth. The moon, is not.

An Everest Expedition isnt funded by the US Government.

[Bound]

The Documentary lists far better, more in depth reasons but here are a few quick ones;

1. Van Allen belt.

Bad: A big staple of the HBs is the claim that radiation in the van Allen Belts and in deep space would have killed the astronauts in minutes. They interview a Russian cosmonaut involved in the USSR Moon program, who says that they were worried about going in to the unknowns of space, and suspected that radiation would have penetrated the hull of the spacecraft.

Good: Kaysing's exact words in the program are ``Any human being traveling through the van Allen belt would have been rendered either extremely ill or actually killed by the radiation within a short time thereof.''

This is complete and utter nonsense. The van Allen belts are regions above the Earth's surface where the Earth's magnetic field has trapped particles of the solar wind. An unprotected man would indeed get a lethal dose of radiation, if he stayed there long enough. Actually, the spaceship traveled through the belts pretty quickly, getting past them in an hour or so. There simply wasn't enough time to get a lethal dose, and, as a matter of fact, the metal hull of the spaceship did indeed block most of the radiation. For a detailed explanation of all this, my fellow Mad Scientist William Wheaton has a page with the technical data about the doses received by the astronauts (http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/waw/mad/mad19.html). Another excellent page about this, that also gives a history of NASA radiation testing, is from the Biomedical Results of Apollo (http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apollo/S2ch3.htm) site. An interesting read!

It was also disingenuous of the program to quote the Russian cosmonaut as well. Of course they were worried about radiation before men had gone into the van Allen belts! But tests done by NASA showed that it was possible to not only survive such a passage, but to not even get harmed much by it. It looks to me like another case of convenient editing by the producers of the program.

Very, very Bad: Kaysing says that the Apollo 1 fire that killed Roger Chaffee, Ed White and Gus Grissom was no accident. Grissom was ready to talk to the press about the Moon hoax, so NASA killed him. Kaysing says NASA also killed other people who were about to blow the whistle as well.

This is so disgusting I have a hard time writing a coherent reply. Kaysing has no grasp of basic physics, photography or even common sense, but he accuses NASA of killing people to shut them up. That is a particularly loathsome accusation.

3. No giant fucking hole from the craft landing.

Bad: In the pictures taken of the lunar lander by the astronauts, the TV show continues, there is no blast crater. A rocket capable of landing on the Moon should have burned out a huge crater on the surface, yet there is nothing there.

Good: When someone driving a car pulls into a parking spot, do they do it at 100 kilometers per hour? Of course not. They slow down first, easing off the accelerator. The astronauts did the same thing. Sure, the rocket on the lander was capable of 10,000 pounds of thrust, but they had a throttle. They fired the rocket hard to deorbit and slow enough to land on the Moon, but they didn't need to thrust that hard as they approached the lunar surface; they throttled down to about 3000 pounds of thrust.

Now here comes a little bit of math: the engine nozzle was about 54 inches across (from the Encyclopaedia Astronautica) (http://www.astronautix.com/craft/lmdlsion.htm), which means it had an area of 2300 square inches. That in turn means that the thrust generated a pressure of only about 1.5 pounds per square inch! That's not a lot of pressure. Moreover, in a vacuum, the exhaust from a rocket spreads out very rapidly. On Earth, the air in our atmosphere constrains the thrust of a rocket into a narrow column, which is why you get long flames and columns of smoke from the back of a rocket. In a vacuum, no air means the exhaust spreads out even more, lowering the pressure. That's why there's no blast crater! Three thousand pounds of thrust sounds like a lot, but it was so spread out it was actually rather gentle.


4. Loads of photos have anomalies- 1 light source creating shadows not parallel amoungst loads of other shit.

Bad: Another argument by the HBs deals with shadows. Several photos from the Moon are shown where objects on the lunar landscape have long shadows. If the Sun were the only light source, the program claims, the shadows should be parallel. The shadows are not parallel, and therefore the images are fake.

Good: This is an interesting claim on the part of the HBs, because on the surface (haha) it seems to make sense. However, let's assume the shadows are not parallel. One explanation is that there are (at least) two light sources, and that is certainly what many HBs are trying to imply. So if there are multiple light sources, where are the multiple shadows? Each object casts one shadow, so there can only be one light source.

Another explanation is that the light source is close to the objects; then it would also cast non-parallel shadows. However, a distant source can as well! In this case, the Sun really is the only source of light. The shadows are not parallel in the images because of perspective. Remember, you are looking at a three-dimensional scene, projected on a two-dimensional photograph. That causes distortions. When the Sun is low and shadows are long, objects at different distance do indeed appear to cast non-parallel shadows, even here on Earth. An example of that can be found at another debunking site (http://www.apollo-hoax.me.uk/strangeshadows.html). The scene (near the bottom of the above-linked page) shows objects with non-parallel shadows, distorted by perspective. If seen from above, all the shadows in the Apollo images would indeed look parallel. You can experience this for yourself; go outside on a clear day when the Sun is low in the sky and compare the direction of the shadows of near and far objects. You'll see that they appear to diverge. Here is a major claim of the HBs that you can disprove all by yourself! Don't take my word for it, go out and try!

Incidentally, the bright Earth in the sky will also cast shadows, but those would be very faint compared to the ones made by the Sun. So in a sense there are multiple shadows, but like not being able to see stars, the shadows are too faint to be seen against the very bright lunar surface. Again, you can test this yourself: go outside during full Moon and you'll see your shadow. Then walk over to a streetlamp. The light from the streetlamp will wash out the shadow cast by the Moon. You might still be able to see it faintly, but it would difficult against the much brighter landscape.

[Note added June 29, 2001: Again, check out Ian Goddard's work (http://www.iangoddard.net/moon01.htm) for more about this.

4. Loads of photos have anomalies- 1 light source creating shadows not parallel amoungst loads of other shit.

Bad: The next evidence also involves pictures. In all the pictures taken by the astronauts, the shadows are not black. Objects in shadow can be seen, sometimes fairly clearly, including a plaque on the side of the lander that can be read easily. If the Sun is the only source of light on the Moon, the HBs say, and there is no air to scatter that light, shadows should be utterly black.

Good: This is one of my favorite HB claims. They give you the answer in the claim itself: "...if the Sun is the only source of light..." It isn't. Initially, I thought the Earth was bright enough to fill in the shadows, but subsequently realized that cannot be the case. The Earth is a fraction of the brightness of the Sun, not nearly enough to fill in the shadows. So then what is that other light source?

The answer is: The Moon itself. Surprise! The lunar dust has a peculiar property: it tends to reflect light back in the direction from where it came. So if you were to stand on the Moon and shine a flashlight at the surface, you would see a very bright spot where the light hits the ground, but, oddly, someone standing a bit to the side would hardly see it at all. The light is preferentially reflected back toward the flashlight (and therefore you), and not the person on the side.

Now think about the sunlight. Let's say the sun is off to the right in a picture. It is illuminating the right side of the lander, and the left is in shadow. However, the sunlight falling beyond the lander on the left is being reflected back toward the Sun. That light hits the surface and reflects to the right and up, directly onto the shadowed part of the lander. In other words, the lunar surface is so bright that it easily lights up the shadows of vertical surfaces.

This effect is called heiligenschein (the German word for halo). You can find some neat images of it at here, for example (http://www.weatherscapes.com/album.php?cat=optics&subcat=heiligenschein). This also explains another HB claim, that many times the astronauts appear to be standing in a spotlight. This is a natural effect of heiligenschein. You can reproduce this effect yourself; wet grass on a cool morning will do it. Face away from the Sun and look at the shadow of your head. There will be a halo around it. The effect is also very strong in fine, disturbed dust like that in a baseball diamond infield. Or, of course, on the Moon.

[Note added June 29, 2001: A nifty demonstration of the shadow filling was done by Ian Goddard and can be found here (http://www.iangoddard.net/moon01.htm). His demos are great, and really drive the point home.

4. Loads of photos have anomalies- 1 light source creating shadows not parallel amoungst loads of other shit.

Bad: The first bit of actual evidence brought up is the lack of stars in the pictures taken by the Apollo astronauts from the surface of the Moon. Without air, the sky is black, so where are the stars?

Good: The stars are there! They're just too faint to be seen.

This is usually the first thing HBs talk about when discussing the Hoax. That amazes me, as it's the silliest assertion they make. However, it appeals to our common sense: when the sky is black here on Earth, we see stars. Therefore we should see them from the Moon as well.

I'll say this here now, and return to it many times: the Moon is not the Earth. Conditions there are weird, and our common sense is likely to fail us.

The Moon's surface is airless. On Earth, our thick atmosphere scatters sunlight, spreading it out over the whole sky. That's why the sky is bright during the day. Without sunlight, the air is dark at night, allowing us to see stars.

On the Moon, the lack of air means that the sky is dark. Even when the Sun is high off the horizon during full day, the sky near it will be black. If you were standing on the Moon, you would indeed see stars, even during the day.

So why aren't they in the Apollo pictures? Pretend for a moment you are an astronaut on the surface of the Moon. You want to take a picture of your fellow space traveler. The Sun is low off the horizon, since all the lunar landings were done at local morning. How do you set your camera? The lunar landscape is brightly lit by the Sun, of course, and your friend is wearing a white spacesuit also brilliantly lit by the Sun. To take a picture of a bright object with a bright background, you need to set the exposure time to be fast, and close down the aperture setting too; that's like the pupil in your eye constricting to let less light in when you walk outside on a sunny day.

So the picture you take is set for bright objects. Stars are faint objects! In the fast exposure, they simply do not have time to register on the film. It has nothing to do with the sky being black or the lack of air, it's just a matter of exposure time. If you were to go outside here on Earth on the darkest night imaginable and take a picture with the exact same camera settings the astronauts used, you won't see any stars!

It's that simple. Remember, this the usually the first and strongest argument the HBs use, and it was that easy to show wrong. Their arguments get worse from here.

7. Footage sped up x2 shows astronauts walking normaly, looks soooo obvious :D

Bad: When the movies of the astronauts walking and driving the lunar rover are doubled in speed, they look just like they were filmed on Earth and slowed down. This is clearly how the movies were faked.

Good: This was the first new bit I have seen from the HBs, and it's funny. To me even when sped up, the images didn't look like they were filmed in Earth's gravity. The astronauts were sidling down a slope, and they looked weird to me, not at all like they would on Earth. I will admit that if wires were used, the astronauts' gait could be simulated.

However, not the rover! If you watch the clip, you will see dust thrown up by the wheels of the rover. The dust goes up in a perfect parabolic arc and falls back down to the surface. Again, the Moon isn't the Earth! If this were filmed on the Earth, which has air, the dust would have billowed up around the wheel and floated over the surface. This clearly does not happen in the video clips; the dust goes up and right back down. It's actually a beautiful demonstration of ballistic flight in a vacuum. Had NASA faked this shot, they would have had to have a whole set (which would have been very large) with all the air removed. We don't have this technology today!

This is another case of selective vision on the part of the HBs.

There is cleary footage of it 'Blowing' as well as a distinctly different 'vibrating' as you put it. One was released, one wasnt.

Bad: When the astronauts are assembling the American flag, the flag waves. Kaysing says this must have been from an errant breeze on the set. A flag wouldn't wave in a vacuum.

Good: 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.

New stuff added March 1, 2001: Many HBs show a picture of an astronaut standing to one side of the flag, which still has a ripple in it (for example, see this famous image (http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/apollo/apollo11/html/as11_40_5874.html)). The astronaut is not touching the flag, so how can it wave?

The answer is, it isn't waving. It looks like that because of the way the flag was deployed. The flag hangs from a horizontal rod which telescopes out from the vertical one. In Apollo 11, they couldn't get the rod to extend completely, so the flag didn't get stretched fully. It has a ripple in it, like a curtain that is not fully closed. In later flights, the astronauts didn't fully deploy it on purpose because they liked the way it looked. In other words, the flag looks like it is waving because the astronauts wanted it to look that way. Ironically, they did their job too well. It appears to have fooled a lot of people into thinking it waved.

This explanation comes from NASA's wonderful spaceflight web page (http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/flag/flag.htm). For those of you who are conspiracy minded, of course, this doesn't help because it comes from a NASA site. But it does explain why the flag looks as it does, and you will be hard pressed to find a video of the flag waving. And if it was a mistake caused by a breeze on the set where they faked this whole thing, don't you think the director would have tried for a second take? With all the money going to the hoax, they could afford the film!

Note added March 28, 2001: One more thing. Several readers have pointed out that if the flag is blowing in a breeze, why don't we see dust blowing around too? Somehow, the HBs' argument gets weaker the more you think about it.

[Bound]

Done adding hyperlinks.

[stinkycheese]

It seems all of those arguments are way less credible than the TRUTH!

Seen the photo of the fake rock with he letter 'C' written on it. Later photos released have airbrushed it out.

Seen the footage of them faking the shot of earth?

Heard the phone conversation with Armstrong being prompted to speak?

Go watch the Documentary then come back.

[Rogue_Shadow]

What about one of the moon rocks actually being made of wood? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8226075.stm)

[Bound]

It seems all of those arguments are way less credible than the TRUTH!

Seen the photo of the fake rock with he letter 'C' written on it. Later photos released have airbrushed it out.

Seen the footage of them faking the shot of earth?

Heard the phone conversation with Armstrong being prompted to speak?

Go watch the Documentary then come back.

I'm sorry, but I think disproves most of these conspiracies, as said, it is up to the 'conspiracies' to prove themselves, not me, or the official events to explain themselves, prove it didn't happen ;).

Besides, if those arguments haven't swayed you - I can't help you.

I may watch the documentary later to critique it, otherwise, probably not.

Note how those answers, answered all your questions (worthwhile one’s anyway, the rest are garbage)

It seems all of those arguments are way less credible than the TRUTH!

How is what actually happened less credible that some made up conspiracy bullshit? :S :homme:

[Bound]

What about one of the moon rocks actually being made of wood? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8226075.stm)

LOL, that doesn't prove they didn't go to the moon, that proves that that is a piece of wood :D.

In the most sincerely none patronising way possible - That was cute :D. <3.

[stinkycheese]

I'm sorry, but I think disproves most of these conspiracies, as said, it is up to the 'conspiracies' to prove themselves, not me, or the official events to explain themselves, prove it didn't happen ;).

Besides, if those arguments haven't swayed you - I can't help you.

I may watch the documentary later to critique it, otherwise, probably not.

Note how those answers, answered all your questions (worthwhile one’s anyway, the rest are garbage)



How is what actually happened less credible that some made up conspiracy bullshit? :S :homme:

lol at you copy and pasting weak attempts at disproving the TRUTH! I'm basing my opinions on actual real footage, you're copy and pasting false infomation. The shit about the radiation is real!

You need to watch the documentary.

[Bound]

lol at you copy and pasting weak attempts at disproving the TRUTH! I'm basing my opinions on actual real footage, you're copy and pasting false infomation. The shit about the radiation is real!

You need to watch the documentary.

I need to headbutt your face more :hug: :D:D:D:D:D:D:D :heart:

You're basing it on what you want to see (and what the voice over is describing to you at the same time), rather than what is there, e.g. selective vision/hearing, something all conspiracies theorists have ;D.

For example, listen to one of those shitty "If you listen to this song backwards it has a hidden message".. You have no idea when you play it forward... or backwards.. but when the person tells you what it's meant to say, you can hear it ;D.

I'm not saying this is the same, I'm just saying I think you're susceptible to conspiracies, believe what you're told without examining the facts or looking at a balanced argument, and easily influenced.

[stinkycheese]

I love how you take everything the Government says as the gospel. So naive. So cute.

If man never visits the moon again in our lifetime, would you agree that it was faked?

[23carragold]

Will view this documentary tomorrow. Quite interesting this...

[Bound]

I love how you take everything the Government says as the gospel. So naive. So cute.

If man never visits the moon again in our lifetime, would you agree that it was faked?

What I think is more 'cute' (did you use cute because I did? :S) is that you believe every conspiracy blindly without evidence or facts :D.

Rather than basing what I believe on bullshit lies (e.g religion (lol), or conspiracies) made up by some crackpot 'expert' ;D.

Conspiracy theorists are the minority here, but it's not doing anyone a 'favour' trying to oust this great 'secret'. There's nothing there.

Actually, fuck it.

Give me something you believe really happened, but has 'government conspiracy theories' around it. And I'll play the retard (conspiracy theorists), and see if you can disprove me, because no matter what you say, I'll claim 'secret government involvement' and 'government can do/hide/kill anything/anyone' and 'fake' etc etc etc :D.

And no - If man never goes back to the moon in our lifetime I would not believe that, they don't do it to please you. If there are scientific advantages (which I'm sure there are), or a reason to go back quickly, then I hope they do, but I don't know why time is so imperative..

[Bound]

I need to headbutt your face more :hug: :D:D:D:D:D:D:D :heart:

You're basing it on what you want to see (and what the voice over is describing to you at the same time), rather than what is there, e.g. selective vision/hearing, something all conspiracies theorists have ;D.

For example, listen to one of those shitty "If you listen to this song backwards it has a hidden message".. You have no idea when you play it forward... or backwards.. but when the person tells you what it's meant to say, you can hear it ;D.

I'm not saying this is the same, I'm just saying I think you're susceptible to conspiracies, believe what you're told without examining the facts or looking at a balanced argument, and easily influenced.

QFT

[stinkycheese]

Hahaha, I'm definately not susceptible to conspiricy theories. I was 99% troll in the Twin Towers thread.

I'm just open minded, something it seems, you aren't.

[Bound]

Hahaha, I'm definately not susseptable to conspiricy theories. I was 99% troll in the Twin Towers thread.

I'm just open minded, something it seems, you aren't.

LOL, I am totally opened minded.. There's a difference between being retarded and being open minded :D.

I am willing to believe, I am not however, willing to believe in bullshit, and lies.

[stinkycheese]

LOL, I am totally opened minded.. There's a difference between being retarded and being open minded :D.

I am willing to believe, I am not however, willing to believe in bullshit, and lies.

Instead of repeating yourself shouting about stuff you clearly havnt looked into (aside from a few lazy copy paste jobs) watch the documentary.

Not all of the stuff they say is true, however there is very good footage of then FAKING a shot of the Earth.

[dav0506]

If man never visits the moon again in our lifetime, would you agree that it was faked?

That's got me thinking about the moon landing now. If no other Astronauts have actually been onto the surface of the moon since Neil Armstrong, then why not? Granted it's like i said before, i don't think there is anything on the moon of interest for them to actually visit. Surely though as space technology has greatly expanded in the last fourty years, they must have wanted to go back and have another look.

[23carragold]

LOL, I am totally opened minded.. There's a difference between being retarded and being open minded :D.

I am willing to believe, I am not however, willing to believe in bullshit, and lies.

Clearly shows how open minded you are.

You state your views as pure gospel, and any hint of something that goes against them completely you insult/become arrogant and shout from the hills that the other person is a deluded fool, rather than engage properly and with an open mind.

If you're open minded then Jordan has an A cup chest.

[gixerbhoy]

can't wait to read this thread in the morning, there will be bloodshed!:boxing:

[stinkycheese]

That's got me thinking about the moon landing now. If no other Astronauts have actually been onto the surface of the moon since Neil Armstrong, then why not? Granted it's like i said before, i don't think there is anything on the moon of interest for them to actually visit. Surely though as space technology has greatly expanded in the last fourty years, they must have wanted to go back and have another look.

Exactly!! It's ridiculous. The more I think about it, the more I'm certain. It's been 40 years!!

[Peter_D]

Watch this video, it's only 22 seconds long but will explain exactly HOW the moon landing was faked!

Dav0506 will agree!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwQ-W-O0Co8

[harrytool]

Launched from Florida's Kennedy Space Center at 9:32 a.m. ET aboard a Saturn V rocket, Apollo 11 included a command module dubbed Columbia and a lunar lander called the Eagle.

The lander was named after the bald eagle in the mission insignia.

Apollo 11's journey to the moon took three and a half days.

During that time the astronauts "just kind of gazed out the window at the Earth getting smaller and smaller, did housekeeping things, checking the spacecraft," Aldrin recalled.

As the craft passed through the shadow of the moon and started its approach, Aldrin and Armstrong got into the spider-like lunar module and began their descent.

The landing process didn't go flawlessly. Alarms sounded when the computer couldn't keep up with the data stream: "Nothing serious—it was distracting," Aldrin said.

"Neil didn't like what we were heading toward, and we selected a safer spot alongside a crater with boulders in it. We landed with a little less fuel than we would have liked to have had, maybe 20 seconds of fuel left."

Aldrin insists that he felt no real fear about landing on the moon.

Nevertheless, he said, "we kind of practiced liftoff [for] the first two hours. … We both felt that was the most prudent thing to do after touching down, was to prepare to depart if we had to."

Finally, with half a billion people watching on televisions across the world, the astronauts emerged from the Eagle to spend another two hours exploring the lunar surface.

The pair planted an American flag and placed mementos for fallen peers.

Armstrong uttered his famous first words, reportedly unscripted: "That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind."

Armstrong and Aldrin logged 21 hours on the moon—spending the last and longest portion of it trying to sleep in the frigid lander. Then they lifted off to rendezvous with Collins and Columbia for the return voyage.

The crew splashed down in the Pacific Ocean on July 24, 1969—and they were immediately put into a three-week quarantine.

As for their craft, the ascent stage of the Eagle was jettisoned into lunar orbit. Within a couple of years the lander smashed unseen into the moon. Columbia now sits on display at the National Air and Space Museum in Washington, D.C.

[Bound]

Clearly shows how open minded you are.

You state your views as pure gospel, and any hint of something that goes against them completely you insult/become arrogant and shout from the hills that the other person is a deluded fool, rather than engage properly and with an open mind.

If you're open minded then Jordan has an A cup chest.

Instead of repeating yourself shouting about stuff you clearly havnt looked into (aside from a few lazy copy paste jobs) watch the documentary.

As you don't know me, I assume I can expect "I'm sorry I'm a hypocrite for calling you arrogant Bound" in the next post.

How do you know how open minded I am? I can assure you I am more open minded than you, I want balance to arguments, but in the face of common sense, whilst I might still weigh up the possibilities, and negatives/both sides of the argument – come down on one side of the fence when you’ve examined the facts.

Shout from the hills? Wtf. Are you using dragon naturally speaking too?

Good program, but unless you're interpreting what I've typed as 'shouting' then I don't think I am, unless you are a mind reader as well as linked with the terrorists of 9/11 and the US government of the 1960’s (YES CARRAGOLD, PUT ME DOWN FOR USE OF SARCASM AND ARROGANCE ;D)

It makes me laugh how you attack me personally rather than back up your fucking bullshit lies, and yes, that's what they are. You'd have evidence, or proof, or facts if they weren’t.

You have none.

Carragold, you clearly know nothing about this, yet you are lecturing me on it? AND you called me arrogant?

Pure gospel? Wtf, where do you pick up this shit, I'm totally ready for someone to challenge me, I can be dismissive if I back up my argument. That's what arguing is.. refuting their point and reinforcing yours. Christ.

Lazy copy paste jobs? - As opposed to lazily watching a documentary and spewing up some regurgitated pseudo science bullshit? – How come this isn’t mainstream? Why don’t any reputable scientists agree this is so? How was it covered up? By who? Why? (other than – TO BEAT RUSSIA LOL LOL). Why is it that all conspiracies have to take stuff out of context and omit evidence that contradicts apparent 'abnormalities' and have selective sight/hearing to be 'plausible'? ;D.

These are clear, definitive answers to the questions and sceptics, there's nothing lackadaisical about this, those replies, and that website shuts out any hint and categorically explains why, and how each is bullshit, rather than being vague and saying "well.. that might, possibly, be because.. THE US GOVERMENT IS EVIL AND DID 9/11".

Or some shit.

That pissed me off.

[Rogue_Shadow]

LOL, that doesn't prove they didn't go to the moon, that proves that that is a piece of wood :D.

In the most sincerely none patronising way possible - That was cute :D. <3.

I hate you lol

Now I cant possible continue to argue in this thread :clapping:
good tactic


BTW Bound works for NASA
He liessss!!!!!!! Its all a SAXP cover up!
No one is safe!

Ect ect ect

http://brainrender.com/wardlabs/Media/gallery/CheeseMoon.jpg
That Video is a fake...Why didn't they bring back Cheese?

[stinkycheese]

Skip to 32.25 for some unseen footage that convinced me.

Chill Bound.

[Bound]

Once you've read my mind and seen that I'm opened minded (yet opinionated...AS ARE YOU, and in fact, anyone that is off any use to society.. apart from the retards who are just wrong :D), you can tell me where I stand on;

-Homosexuals
-Gay marriage
-Abortion
-Religion (specifically freedom, and right not to be persecuted)
-Capital punishment
-The justice system
-The middle east
-The war in Iraq
-WWII

E. T. C.

..I'll help you out and give you a few, you can remind me my views on the rest yeah? - I'm liberal, and for; all human rights e.g;

-Homosexuals
-Gay marriage

However, even this doesn't make me not close minded, I have also considered as the UK is a Christian state, this may upset the religious population/the church.

-Abortion - tricky, main arguments are religion and human rights, e.g. when does a foetus become a human, Catholics obviously say from conception, but the law says 24 weeks.

[Bound]

Chill Bound.

I'm pissed now.

[Bound]

Think I need to step away from the keyboard.

Gonna give myself a time out.

[Bound]

This nearly turned into angry german kid tbh :S.

[Add91289]

i watched a programm on discovery a few months back and it convinced me that they did go to the moon. as they eliminated conspiracy theroys with different experiments, some in vaccume chambers. they also tried to make a fake moon landing video and failed to make it look real.

[Bound]

they also tried to make a fake moon landing video and failed to make it look real.

Gotta ask if they were being objective though.

Carragold will probably tell me I'm dismissive, then flatarch will bowl in and call me smarmy for what I just said as it was totally 'close minded' ;D.

Think I know the one you're on about actually.

[Bound]

...I'm probably gonna milk this mind reader thing for a while now.

[Add91289]

i cant remember what it was called, but they seemed really thorough in there attempts and tests ect

[23carragold]

As you don't know me, I assume I can expect "I'm sorry I'm a hypocrite for calling you arrogant Bound" in the next post.

How do you know how open minded I am? I can assure you I am more open minded than you, I want balance to arguments, but in the face of common sense, whilst I might still weigh up the possibilities, and negatives/both sides of the argument – come down on one side of the fence when you’ve examined the facts.

Shout from the hills? Wtf. Are you using dragon naturally speaking too?

Good program, but unless you're interpreting what I've typed as 'shouting' then I don't think I am, unless you are a mind reader as well as linked with the terrorists of 9/11 and the US government of the 1960’s (YES CARRAGOLD, PUT ME DOWN FOR USE OF SARCASM AND ARROGANCE ;D)

It makes me laugh how you attack me personally rather than back up your fucking bullshit lies, and yes, that's what they are. You'd have evidence, or proof, or facts if they weren’t.

You have none.

Carragold, you clearly know nothing about this, yet you are lecturing me on it? AND you called me arrogant?

Pure gospel? Wtf, where do you pick up this shit, I'm totally ready for someone to challenge me, I can be dismissive if I back up my argument. That's what arguing is.. refuting their point and reinforcing yours. Christ.



That pissed me off.

Yawn..

I clearly said that I don't have any info on this, and that I would delve into this. Yet, it's funny to notice how you seem to jump on the government bandwagon and insult others straight away if their theories are completely different to yours...."fucking bullshit lies"..? Someone needs a rest...

Actually I don't base it purely on my opnion, many people in the 9/11 thread actually put forward very good points that I also concurred with. Lol quite funny to see how you think I am just some wind up merchant.

Yes I don't know you, I can only go on from what I have seen on your "discussions" with regards to particularly contraversial areas, and you just as I will say again, insult others and generally become Mr Knobhead about it rather than trying to teach others, you shout them down. Just because you type the most/copy/whatever doesn't make you 100% right all of a sudden.

Look, I'm tired of engaging in what feels like personal battles with you. I'm probably at fault for some of it too, I'm big enough to say that. I just want a proper debate about it for once, rather than you saying STFU I'm right....

[Ross]

There's a big laser reflector on the surface of the moon, verified (and used) by multiple countries scientists every day.

Either it got there by luck when a bit of space junk fell off a passing rocket, or we put it there.

The discovery documentary someone mentioned earlier took each claim the non-believers made and refuted it but the reflector (and the fact you can see the descent module on the surface of the moon if you care to use a nice high powered telescope) cinch it for me. We went.

[stinkycheese]

There's a big laser reflector on the surface of the moon, verified (and used) by multiple countries scientists every day.

Either it got there by luck when a bit of space junk fell off a passing rocket, or we put it there.

The discovery documentary someone mentioned earlier took each claim the non-believers made and refuted it but the reflector (and the fact you can see the descent module on the surface of the moon if you care to use a nice high powered telescope) cinch it for me. We went.

I'm not denyng that craft has landed on the moon. But man hasn't. It doesn't need someone to place them there.

[Ross]

but you acknowledge man has been into space presumably? and that craft have handed on the moon. Is it really that big a leap to think man might have landed on the moon?

[stinkycheese]

but you acknowledge man has been into space presumably? and that craft have handed on the moon. Is it really that big a leap to think man might have landed on the moon?

Yes, the difference in distance between the Apollo mission and every other space mission is huuuuge. We have never been past the Van Allen belt before or since. Coincidence? No. It's because we can't.

The distance to the moon is 238,000 miles, yet there is footage timed and dated of Armstrong stating he is only 190,000 miles up. This is just a few hours before he supposedly walked on the moon. This footage was never released. It's in the documentary posted.

**figures may be inacurate, I'm gong off memory. But you get the jist.

[Ross]

Right. So some underground non-believer has footage that NASA slipped up and let out that was never supposed to be released so it must be true.

Perhaps next week they'll release the findings of the "FBI plot to blow up the WTC" or the secret JFK assassination tapes? ;)

On a serious note - people watching Apollo 8 saw the trans-lunar burn (from low earth orbit) from the ground back on earth - the burn went through the Van Allen belt, just like Apollo 11 did (and the subsequent successful Apollo missions, not to mention the millions watch it on TV. Unless you're suggesting that was also somehow faked?

the Van Allen belt / unsafe / radiation argument isn't a great one - it's generally considered that astronauts are pass through it so quickly as to negate the risk when compared to the other risks of the overall mission.

for your viewing pleasure: http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/FAQs4.html#q48

But then, being a conspiracy theorist you'll probably assume that that is also made up ;)

[Lawz]

Armstrong uttered his famous first words, reportedly unscripted: "That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind."



Apparantly he said That's one small step for A man, one giant leap for mankind." but you can't hear it due to interference. The sentence doesn't actually make grammatical sense unless you add the A in either. "man" and "mankind" are essentially the same thing.

I think theres too much physics evidence to dispute that we didnt land on the moon. Like the footage of them dropping a hammer and I think it was a feather at the same time. Due to the lack of air resistance, they both take exactly the same amount of time to fall, only possible in a vaccuum.

If you watch a documentary trying to make you believe something, chances are your going to believe it. I think people need to make their own minds up about something and accept other people, even if you think theyre wrong, think something else.

[savo]

Of course we went to the moon…the reason we didn’t go back though was because the cheese eating moon aliens told us not to, said that if we did they would zap us with their ray guns and use our empty skulls as cheese boards.

Seriously though, I do believe we went to the moon. With this conspiracy, all (or at least most) of the theories can be simply debunked…to the point that those who still think we didn’t go there are left with little to no argument but still 'shouting from the hills' "it was fake…they done it in a studio…I auditioned as an extra" etc etc blah blah blah. Like someone said (probably Bound, my bad if it was someone else but I cba going back to find out) if the footage was faked and filmed on earth and we didn’t go to the moon, then the 'producers' and 'directors' would have had a lot of money (millions of dollars probably) to make sure that it was faked right…without any mistakes. The arguments for this conspiracy seem very futile and have no scientific back up other than the common diy scientist who doesn’t even have the credentials to back himself up, let alone this crackpot conspiracy theory.


This nearly turned into angry german kid tbh :S.

Fucking lol that would have been hilarious.

[Ross]

A site I often frequent (for other purposes) has some excellent articles on the subject:

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread108600/pg1

[dav0506]

Watch this video, it's only 22 seconds long but will explain exactly HOW the moon landing was faked!

Dav0506 will agree!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwQ-W-O0Co8

''There's err time delay and err solar winds''

Classic :y:

[baker556]

That video was well interesting !

Next thread, the assassination of JFK.

[savo]

A site I often frequent (for other purposes) has some excellent articles on the subject:

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread108600/pg1

ATS ftw. Some very very 'out there' theories on that site but can be very interesting. When i got bored in work i would've went to ATS to waste an hour or so...that was before the fucking internet filters in work were updated.

[Bound]

Yawn..

I lol'd.

I do try to 'teach'. But then you tell me I'm 'shouting from the hills' spouting 'pure gospel', generally being arrogant and dismissive...then flatarch bowls in and calls me smarmy :/.

We'll see if we can get back in to this. It's frustrating when I give answers to people's questions, and they don't have the decency to either give me a straight answer back, or tell me how I'm wrong if they want to carry on believing.

[Bound]

Next thread, the assassination of JFK.

..Oh no.

[RichieC]

Watch 29.45 to 31.15

If that shit was shown nowdays, we would laugh at it. Its sooooo obvious, its silly.

Looks like some shady special effects shit from an old 60's movie.

Aint got the time to read the whole thread. This was the point i was about to make. I could make a more realistic video with a few adobe programmes, some mates in space suits and my xm2 :wall:

[Bound]

Aint got the time to read the whole thread. This was the point i was about to make. I could make a more realistic video with a few adobe programmes, some mates in space suits and my xm2 :wall:

I could fake 9/11 with two world trade centres, three planes and 23 hijackers.

[Merrick]

It seems to be that there are two sides to this argument. The scientific side and the retarded side. Who am I to say which is which...

[Rogue_Shadow]

I could fake 9/11 with two world trade centres, three planes and 23 hijackers.

rofl! good one

[Bound]

It seems to be that there are two sides to this argument. The scientific side and the retarded side. Who am I to say which is which...

:hug: :heart:

P.s. I like your car.

[Bound]

That video was well interesting !

Next thread, the assassination of JFK.

Just going back to this (will try and stay on topic) no one actually thinks this was a government conspiracy right? You do believe it was a madman with a gun.

*Awaits Cheeseyjew to watch docubullcrap conspiracy on JFK and report back :hug:*

[Manu]

I could fake 9/11 with two world trade centres, three planes and 23 hijackers.

2 world trade centers equal four buildings. You would need more planes.

[Bound]

2 world trade centers equal four buildings. You would need more planes.

Two individual buildings, by world trade centers, I meant one building/skyscraper. A 'world trade center' is one building to me - Thus there are two :D.

Also, never said I could fake it by knocking down them all ;D. Might of planned to leave one standing for authenticity...

Or maybe... Maybe I do need three planes, so then the US government can't plant explosives in the base of the towers (and tower 7), knock out all the ground floor walls, lay miles of wiring, invent a explosive without a shelf life and without anyone gaining knowledge of planting the bombs anywhere, then clean up the evidence of a controlled explosion before anyone could find it ;D. :wall:

So simple.. It's brilliant.

[RichieC]

I could fake 9/11 with two world trade centres, three planes and 23 hijackers.

My way is much cheaper!

[Bound]

My way is much cheaper!

..But my way is more elaborate and believable right? :D:D:D:D.

[Bound]

Anyone that believes man has been to the moon is a mong.

Lol - You're worse than me :D.

[wadoryu]

why do conspracies exist. oh yeh because some faggot in a chair has nothing better to do. just belive i untill actuall scientific evidense points it to this shit about shadows the moon doesn't have an atmoshpere. it wasn't televised live. ummm what if the camera's didn't work that would be disapointing :homme:. /

[Barry123]

Oh haii Bound ;)

Anyone that believes man has been to the moon is a mong.

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/a-funny-thing-happened-on-the-way-to-the-moon/

There's a reflector type devise on the moon that was put there during the moon landings. They use it to measure the distance the moon is from the earth.

soooo... question is, how did it get there if we'd never been?

[Bound]

If you're open minded then Jordan has an A cup chest.

You do know she had a breast reduction yeah? :D.

Not saying they are A's. But tickled me ;D.

Also, you can't imply I'm obnoxious then call me 'Mr Knobhead' - LOL :D.

[Bound]

Just because you type the most/copy/whatever doesn't make you 100% right all of a sudden.

But it does make me informed, and make my posts more constructive and in depth. Rather than suggesting fleeting vague possibilities.

And as you say;

I will say again, insult others and generally become Mr Knobhead about it rather than trying to teach others.


Try to teach, 99% of the time what I type is my own, I only copied that because that guy is more informed and in a better position to make judgments and give in depth answers. Something these conspiracy theories don't have.

[Bound]

If man never visits the moon again in our lifetime, would you agree that it was faked?

When telescopes get powerful enough to see the flag they placed there, will you believe? Or will that be 'someone dangling a flag in front of the lense' :D.

[dav0506]

When telescopes get powerful enough to see the flag they placed there, will you believe? Or will that be 'someone dangling a flag in front of the lense' :D.

Haha that reminded me of that cow and chicken cartoon. When chicken dangled that golf ball infront of the telescope and made everyone think a comet was going to hit Earth, lmao!

[stinkycheese]

There's a reflector type devise on the moon that was put there during the moon landings. They use it to measure the distance the moon is from the earth.

soooo... question is, how did it get there if we'd never been?

it was put there by a craft. I don't deny that craft have been to the moon. Just not anything living.

When telescopes get powerful enough to see the flag they placed there, will you believe? Or will that be 'someone dangling a flag in front of the lense' :D.
Apparently Japan are sending a telescope into space to take pictures of the moon in better detail next year. I'll be sure to bump this thread when no flag is photographed. :D


You still havnt watched the documentary have you?

[Bound]

Apparently Japan are sending a telescope into space to take pictures of the moon in better detail next year. I'll be sure to bump this thread when a flag is photographed. :D

I'll be sure to bump this too. You'll look like more of a douche than KINGvts.

[Bound]

You still havnt watched the documentary have you?

And you clearly haven't either understood, or comprehended the answers to your own questions.

[stinkycheese]

Go to 32.25 and explain to me whats going on?

[SneakyVTR]

Banterful amounts of informed banter are making this thread bulge at it's seems!

On a side note I hope we did go to the moon but both sides of the argument make sense, much like it was proven/admitted by the U.S government that they had been making up "ufo sightings" to cover their prototype/new aircraft in nevada due to the cold war etc etc etc. It's all interesting stuff but you have to see that both sides will be exaggerated beyond belief

[Rogue_Shadow]

more of a douche than KINGvts.



Too far!


He's not that bad lol

[SneakyVTR]

Too far!

Alt + F4. Never return

[Rogue_Shadow]

Alt + F4. Never return

Nah Im good thanks :y:

[nappert]

Who gives a shit

[Bound]

Who gives a shit

No one, that's why there's no conspiracies on it, and no thread or argument. :wacko:

Actuallly, not quite true - You seem to, seeing as you care enough to post in this thread ;D.

[stinkycheese]

32.25 check it.

[sparky771]

I'll be sure to bump this too. You'll look like more of a douche than KINGvts.

LOL ace comment


I doubt we will be able to make optical telescope powerful enough to survey the earths surface. And even if we did we wouldnt be able to survey the whole surface cause we have only even seen one side of the moon ;)

[Chr15]

its a flag, the moon is huge

needle in a haystack springs to mind

[sparky771]

That video in the first post, I watch from 32 mins and what a shower of shite!!!! The lady talking is trying to tell you want she wants you too see also if she is talking about there being more than one window but where are the other windows? there is only one window in the control module.............


And they kept baffling on about the radiation rings! the craft was goin fast enough through the rings to avoid a leathal dose and also the shuttle its self offered alot of protection from the radiation.

[stinkycheese]

Youve misunderstood. The astronauts are saying they've pulled the blind over the second window. She's just repeating what they say.

[stinkycheese]

How do you explain them faking the earth shot?

[sparky771]

http://i820.photobucket.com/albums/zz128/sparky771/Apollo11recovery.jpg

That window looks square ;) so the whole using the window to fake a circumferance (sp?) of the earth is a load of bullshite :D

[Ross]

There's hundreds of FACTS to prove we went to the moon, and not one FACT to prove we didn't - just unfounded claims. For EVERY argument you can give to say we didn't/couldn't have gone to the moon, I'll debunk it for you.

No doubt when/if they ever get round to building a camera with sufficient resolution to photograph the flag (which no doubt was put there by "a craft" the same as the reflector), or the tracks from the lunar explorer (if solar winds haven't stripped the surface of them - but even if they're still there, presumably this is "the crafts" chosen method of transport when deploying the flag and the reflector) - i assume you'll then say they the photos were faked/photoshopped etc. A visit from us in the future of course will be faked - or the landing modules sent ahead of time to keep up the pretense.

We went to the moon. There's no FACTS to show otherwise.

Photos prove it. Radio transmissions prove it. for gods sake, the moon rock i touched in Kennedy proves it. The astronauts prove it. Unless EVERYONE is lying (thats tens of thousands of people for the record, and they're all STILL keeping a secret 40 years on bless them).

Your argument of the Van Allen belt has already been dis-proven. I note you've glossed over my reply to that. If you believe it impossible to pass through the belt, what did the hundreds of thousands of people who WATCHED (from earth, live, with binoculars or even the naked eye) the trans-lunar burn from close-earth orbit see? And where did the astronauts go? Just chill out in space for a while all the time faking the radio communications to keep up the front?

Seriously - the arguments for a hoax are, when broken down, simply ridiculous. Come back with some FACTS and you might get somewhere. However - you'll need to come back with some NEW claims not presented in the last 40 years because would you believe it, you're not the first to doubt, and you'll not be the last I suspect. All the claims in the last 40 years have been debunked, whilst a select few cling to the tiniest abnormality as a clear sign we didn't go and it's all a conspiracy.

After all - there's one born every minute.

[stinkycheese]

1.There's hundreds of FACTS to prove we went to the moon, and not one FACT to prove we didn't - just unfounded claims. For EVERY argument you can give to say we didn't/couldn't have gone to the moon, I'll debunk it for you.

No doubt when/if they ever get round to building a camera with sufficient resolution to photograph the flag (which no doubt was put there by "a craft" the same as the reflector), or the tracks from the lunar explorer (if solar winds haven't stripped the surface of them - but even if they're still there, presumably this is "the crafts" chosen method of transport when deploying the flag and the reflector) - i assume you'll then say they the photos were faked/photoshopped etc. A visit from us in the future of course will be faked - or the landing modules sent ahead of time to keep up the pretense.

We went to the moon. There's no FACTS to show otherwise.

Photos prove it. 2.Radio transmissions prove it. for gods sake, the moon rock i touched in Kennedy proves it. The astronauts prove it. Unless EVERYONE is lying (thats tens of thousands of people for the record, and they're all STILL keeping a secret 40 years on bless them).

Your argument of the Van Allen belt has already been dis-proven. I note you've glossed over my reply to that. If you believe it impossible to pass through the belt, what did the hundreds of thousands of people who WATCHED (from earth, live, with binoculars or even the naked eye) the trans-lunar burn from close-earth orbit see? And where did the astronauts go? Just chill out in space for a while all the time faking the radio communications to keep up the front?

Seriously - the arguments for a hoax are, when broken down, simply ridiculous. Come back with some FACTS and you might get somewhere. However - you'll need to come back with some NEW claims not presented in the last 40 years because would you believe it, you're not the first to doubt, and you'll not be the last I suspect. All the claims in the last 40 years have been debunked, whilst a select few cling to the tiniest abnormality as a clear sign we didn't go and it's all a conspiracy.

After all - there's one born every minute.

You cant debunk fuck all spaz.

Your whole post is full of shit.

I started picking your post apart but its pointless. Research shit first.

[Ross]

lol. That's the spirit. When you run out of intelligent things to say, result to personal insults. That always makes you look smart and cool. Congratulations kid.

[Heliosphan]

There's hundreds of FACTS to prove we went to the moon, and not one FACT to prove we didn't - just unfounded claims. For EVERY argument you can give to say we didn't/couldn't have gone to the moon, I'll debunk it for you.

Why use 50 words when 500+ will do the job just as well? I posted pretty much exactly what you have about 4 pages ago.

As for debunking the argument, well you won't really do that will you. What you'll do is read something on a website somewhere and then post it on here which will debunk it by proxy. This is why I haven't got involved in this thread because nobody can offer anything new either for or against the landings.

That said, if people want to debate it then fair enough.

[stinkycheese]

lol. That's the spirit. When you run out of intelligent things to say, result to personal insults. That always makes you look smart and cool. Congratulations kid.

You are saying the same stuff that has already been covered. I can't be arsed with page after page of the same shit.

I honestly believe that there are more reasons to suggest we havnt been to the moon that there are to suggest we have.

Believe what you want, I'm just throwing a different view out there.

[dav0506]

Say it was all a big set-up then and man hasn't set foot on the moon, how the hell has everyone involved managed to keep shut about it for the past fourty years? Surley by now someone would have told the whole world it was faked!

[stinkycheese]

Say it was all a big set-up then and man hasn't set foot on the moon, how the hell has everyone involved managed to keep shut about it for the past fourty years? Surley by now someone would have told the whole world it was faked!

Again, you clearly havnt watched the documentary. All that is explained. It could be done with less than 10 people knowing.

[chinkostu]

with less than ten people? Everybody gossips, and you need a lot more than ten people to fake this realistically.

What if someone turned around and said your parents arent and its a cover up, aka the truman show. Would you believe them, even though they had easily refutable proof?

[stinkycheese]

with less than ten people? Everybody gossips, and you need a lot more than ten people to fake this realistically.

What if someone turned around and said your parents arent and its a cover up, aka the truman show. Would you believe them, even though they had easily refutable proof?

Sorry, why are you talking about the Truman Show? :D

[Bound]

As for debunking the argument, well you won't really do that will you. What you'll do is read something on a website somewhere and then post it on here which will debunk it by proxy. This is why I haven't got involved in this thread because nobody can offer anything new either for or against the landings.

The 'Mosque at ground zero' and '9/11' threads were the same, the most you'll get is a new slant, but that doesn't mean the theories haven't been debunked, or what is raised in the debate refutes the points of these conspiracies.

[Bound]

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/apollosites.html

[stinkycheese]

Those photos clear everything up. :S

[rootyboy]

filmed in a warner bros studio - end of

[KamRacing]

what about the russians?

[KamRacing]

have a read of this (http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/08/the-psychology-of-conspiracy-theories/#ixzz0vgBeFmFi)

[Jay_]

they went. Will be a thread on 9/11 next...:S

[Ash1711]

Any news on the Japanese telescope camera thing yet?

[e8_pqck]

Funny reading, you just cant go believing conspiracy theorists - there are so many.

There's a few thrown up around the banking crisis

Afhanistan has thrown a few up too

Admittedly i saw that documentary a few years ago when i was younger and more naiive, now i've heard and read about a few more conspiracy theories i'm a lot more objective instead of getting washed over by it all.

[Prickle]

they went. Will be a thread on 9/11 next...:S

id say so...

[Tringaling]

With every ground breaking story comes a ground breaking conspiracy..

Frankly i couldnt give a fuck if we landed on the moon or not, i would rather go to KFC

[Bound]

Those photos clear everything up. :S

It's a picture of multiple apollo spacecraft on the moon but okay :D.

I'll bump this thread in 10 years when the cameras/image quality has improved and we can see in even more undeniable detail.

[Bound]

they went. Will be a thread on 9/11 next...:S

4 days till the 10 year anniversary and another thread :y:.

[stinkycheese]

Won't be here in 10 years time.


12/12/12- Believe.


:D

[KamRacing]

Did China not map the surface of the moon a few years back? Bet they looked for evidence of Americas landings....