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.
Oct-28-2003 16:29
Stéphanie
Supreme tranceaddict
Registered: Dec 2002
Location: Laval
Good article.
I didnt know there was a conspiracy surrounding a man landing on the moon
i still wonder how they get the caramel in the caramilk bars
I think we should study that!
Oct-28-2003 16:43
occrider
Traveladdict
Registered: Oct 2000
Location: New York
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.
___________________
Retro ...
Oct-28-2003 17:07
djSlain
[Suspended]
Registered: May 2001
Location: San Diego CA
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!
___________________
Thank You and Goodnight
Oct-28-2003 18:34
'mju:zik
boomchikhaboom
Registered: Apr 2003
Location: Orangethumb Land, currently TO
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%
Oct-28-2003 21:27
djSlain
[Suspended]
Registered: May 2001
Location: San Diego CA
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?
___________________
Thank You and Goodnight
Oct-28-2003 21:57
Floorfiller
Girl + Sweater = Hotness
Registered: Apr 2002
Location: Illegal Pete's
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...
Oct-28-2003 21:58
DigiNut
You kids get off my lawn!
Registered: Dec 2002
Location: Toronto, Self-proclaimed Centre of the Universe
Couldn't resist...
___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here
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.
___________________
1+1=10
Oct-28-2003 23:05
Abject Silver
Senior tranceaddict
Registered: Oct 2002
Location: Ottawa, Canada
now what about the van allen belt?
___________________
You're like a sight for sore eyes, lyrical and gentle, borderlining sentimental...
Oct-28-2003 23:23
occrider
Traveladdict
Registered: Oct 2000
Location: New York
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.
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:
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.
Registered: Apr 2003
Location: Orangethumb Land, currently TO
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