TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- If you believe they put a man on the moon...
Pages (4): « 1 2 [3] 4 »

quote:

Originally posted by Mebot Good article, I read it last night and it puts most claims against the moon landing at rest, however I think that the article was quite rude and biased. They kept saying that people who think the moon-landing didn't happen are "dumb" or "idiots" Respect first, facts second IMO But still for all you nay-sayers read this article, it explains a lot.

Hmmm I missed that ... yes that does a far better job of dispelling the conspiracy theory.

quote:

Originally posted by Dj_Psygnosis Wrong forum your posting this message, post it in the Humour section.

but they were so honest to us about the war on iraq!

the shadow thing bothers me

if there are multiple sources of light..would the all be the same consistency?

and some photos have only 1 source of light

either way it doesnt matter because they could have accounted for all that when filming it in some wharehouse in hollywood

and moon rocks could have been acquired through a non man based moonlanding that would have cost much less

the thing is, we'll never know 100%

for the record I think they did land...just I dont believe it 100%

since the moon doesn't have any atmosphere, wouldn't the sun be easily able to be tremendously bright and reflected off the ship or even the astronauts white suits?

i think all of this stems from people not wanting to admit that america is DA BOMB hehehehe. thanks occrider for shutting up all the stupid heads...

Couldn't resist...

First of all, I suggest you check out this http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html site because it explains all the things mentioned in that documentary.

quote:

Originally posted by 'mju:zik the shadow thing bothers me if there are multiple sources of light..would the all be the same consistency? and some photos have only 1 source of light

If there were multiple sources of light, then every thing on the picture would have multiple shadows. That is obviously not the case.

quote:

Originally posted by djSlain since the moon doesn't have any atmosphere, wouldn't the sun be easily able to be tremendously bright and reflected off the ship or even the astronauts white suits?

Exactly, that's why you can't see the stars in the background. Because cameras are set on low sensitivity.

now what about the van allen belt?

quote:

Originally posted by Abject Silver now what about the van allen belt?

What about it? Astronauts would receive a whopping 1 rem travelling through it.

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archive...41359.As.r.html

quote:

the shadow thing bothers me if there are multiple sources of light..would the all be the same consistency? and some photos have only 1 source of light

It also depends on the reflectivity of the source. Is light from the sun going to reflect at the same intensity off the surface of the moon as it's going to off of the lunar module? No.

quote:

either way it doesnt matter because they could have accounted for all that when filming it in some wharehouse in hollywood

Ah I see. Ok well let's think of the alternative. Let's suppose it is ALL a hoax. That it was filmed in the studio and that the actual reflective properties of everything on the moon will only cast one shadow. Now are you trying to say that the super-secretive/super-capable powers that be in the American government created this ultra-elaborate hoax that was able to fool not only you the public, but the soviet government, and every single accredited scientist on the planet AND THEY FORGOT TO TURN OFF A SIMPLE STUDIO LIGHT THAT CAST MULTIPLE SHADOWS THEREBY RUINING THE HOAX????

You would think that they would at least correct armstrong's blunder with another shoot ... remember he said "one small step for man" instead of "one small step for a man"?

quote:

and moon rocks could have been acquired through a non man based moonlanding that would have cost much less

Brilliant ... so we WENT to the moon to create a hoax of going to the moon??? And how exactly did we collect over 800lbs of moon rocks in this non man-based landing? Please describe this advanced robotic technology that was capable of collecting lunar samples on its own and returning it to the Earth. Also describe how we were able to do all of this in the 60's whereas we can't even do that on Mars TODAY. It's absolutely amazing to see at what lengths people will believe in the improbable in order to debunk the probable to make the case of improbability.

quote:

the thing is, we'll never know 100%

Yes, yes we will. Here is a photograph of the Apollo 15 landing site taken by a satellite:

http://www.space.com/missionlaunche...tos_010427.html

It's resolution can only make out the disturbances of the site, however, in the year 2005 when the Japanese Selene satellite orbits the moon to take extremely high resolution mapping scans, I will gladly resurrect this thread to laugh and point.

http://www.isas.ac.jp/e/enterp/miss...elene/cont.html

quote:

Originally posted by occrider It also depends on the reflectivity of the source. Is light from the sun going to reflect at the same intensity off the surface of the moon as it's going to off of the lunar module? No.

that's exactly my point. the shadows are the SAME consistency in DIFFERENT directions. but i see yyou feel REALLY strongly about this issue so im not going to argue anymore about any more

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Brilliant ... so we WENT to the moon to create a hoax of going to the moon??? And how exactly did we collect over 800lbs of moon rocks in this non man-based landing? Please describe this advanced robotic technology that was capable of collecting lunar samples on its own and returning it to the Earth. Also describe how we were able to do all of this in the 60's whereas we can't even do that on Mars TODAY. It's absolutely amazing to see at what lengths people will believe in the improbable in order to debunk the probable to make the case of improbability.

ok u want a better answer? they aren't really moonroccks

quote:

Originally posted by 'mju:zik that's exactly my point. the shadows are the SAME consistency in DIFFERENT directions. but i see yyou feel REALLY strongly about this issue so im not going to argue anymore about any more

Nope I'll gladly argue the theory ... no need to back down. Which picture are you looking at?

quote:

Originally posted by 'mju:zik ok u want a better answer? they aren't really moonroccks

So what are they?

And how are they virtually identical to moon rock asteroid fragments that crash onto the Earth?

quote:

Originally posted by occrider So what are they? And how are they virtually identical to moon rock asteroid fragments that crash onto the Earth?

what asteroid fragments...source please

surely there must be pictures of the american flag on the moon today. with the powerful telescopes etc we got now. that would kind of make me more convinced.. or did they take the flags back with them??

quote:

Originally posted by 'mju:zik what asteroid fragments...source please

http://www.solarviews.com/eng/meteor.htm

Edit: Further in-depth detail

http://epsc.wustl.edu/admin/resources/moon/howdoweknow.html

and the provided summary from the geologist:

quote:

Any geoscientist (and there have been thousands from all over the world) who has studied lunar rocks knows that anyone who thinks the Apollo lunar samples were created on Earth as part of government conspiracy doesn�t know much about rocks. The Apollo samples are just too good. They tell a self-consistent story with a complexly interwoven plot that�s better than any story any conspirator could have conceived. I�ve studied lunar rocks and soils for 30+ years and I couldn�t make even a poor imitation of a lunar breccia, lunar soil, or a mare basalt in the lab. And with all due respect to my clever colleagues in government labs, no one in �the Government� could do it either, even now that we know what lunar rocks are like. Lunar samples show evidence of formation in an extremely dry environment with essentially no free oxygen and little gravity. In addition to having craters on the surface, they display evidence for a suite of unanticipated and complicated effects associated with large and small meteorite impacts. They contain gases (hydrogen, helium, nitrogen, neon, argon, krypton, and xenon) derived from the solar wind with isotope ratios different than Earth forms of the same gases. They contain crystal damage from cosmic rays. They have crystallization ages, determined by techniques involving radioisotopes, that are older than any known Earth rocks (anyone who figures out how to fake that is worthy of a Nobel Prize). It was easier and cheaper to go to the Moon and bring back some rocks then it would have been to create all these fascinating features on Earth. [After writing these words I learned that virtually the same sentiments had already been expressed by some of my lunar sample colleagues.]

quote:

Originally posted by tall paul 2 surely there must be pictures of the american flag on the moon today. with the powerful telescopes etc we got now. that would kind of make me more convinced.. or did they take the flags back with them??

Not even hubble has the necessary resolution:

Size of Lunar Module. Let's be really generous and say 10m square.
Distance between Hubble and Moon. About 350, 000km.
This works out as an visual angle of (10m)/(3.5 x 10^8m) * (180/PI) = 1.6 x 10^-6 degrees = 6 milliarcseconds.
The WFPC2 'telescope' on Hubble has the following resolution: 800x800 pixels of a 35 arcseconds field of view with a pixel scale of 46 milliarcseconds. Actually resolution in practice is a little below this.

i dunno, we got pictures of other galaxies, black holes and crap, but cant get pics of a flag on the moon? havent they got telescopes in space that can do it? just curious?

quote:

Originally posted by tall paul 2 i dunno, we got pictures of other galaxies, black holes and crap, but cant get pics of a flag on the moon? havent they got telescopes in space that can do it? just curious?

Galaxies are millions and millions of light years across. Even with as something as close as the moon, the lem is far too small to picture. We can't even image a planet from the closest star ... we can only infer its existence by the gravitational effect on its star.

hmm.. im still unconvinced..

And for what I HOPE is the final straw on the camel's back, let's not forget that Russia DID send 3 seperate spacecraft to the moon on 1970, 72, and 76 to return a whopping 381 grams of lunar material (our "unmanned" probes returned nearly 400kg by 1969 ) which had similar properties to the apollo rocks. So I guess they're in on the conspiracy too? Well, you know ... they would do something like that for us considering what great buddies we were back then.

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/spac...tary_lunar.html

about the 8000 pounds of moon rock. was that 8000 pounds in moon gravity or earth gravity. I would think it'd be way easy to lift off with that much weight, only to come crashing down into the ocean and unloaded for analysis

quote:

Originally posted by djSlain about the 8000 pounds of moon rock. was that 8000 pounds in moon gravity or earth gravity. I would think it'd be way easy to lift off with that much weight, only to come crashing down into the ocean and unloaded for analysis

Roughly 800 pounds ... not 8000. This theory has some notable flaws with it. First, the rocks that reentered the atmosphere in this manner would exhibit the same scorching and oxidation inevitable from their re-entry to Earth through the atmosphere. This is not the case. Secondly, I posed the question before ... what advanced robotic probe possessed the capability of traversing the surface of the moon to acquire hundreds of pounds of samples whereas the Soviets could only acquire 300 grams?






Oh wait ... it's coming to me. They obviously utilized the advanced, anti-matter powered lunar surface traverser/rock collector/hoax enabler. Secret Nasa photo from a fearless whistleblower:





Notice it's complete lack of ANY shadows

Of course we haven't been to the moon...if we had, we would've met the mooninites by now.

check this out :

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/video/moontruth.php

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.