So the moon landing was faked!

gillywibble said:
Doesn't that alone make you think about Apollo 11 to Apollo 17 and how ludicrously successful it was?
Click to expand...

Yes that question was answered by Neil Armstrong in the interview autobiography I was reading, in short, he said, in those days, when there was a clear goal, when they were competing in the cold war, the whole USA got stuck in with the hard work...........he also said in those days, unlike today, when the 'end of the day' bell rang, everyone just carried on working because they were:

1) Dedicated
2) Interested
3) Motivated

He also said it was successful because everyone on every part and every nut and bolt on the entire system made it better than they could have done.........because no one wanted their particular assignment to fail and be the cause of a mission failure, the entire system was designed to be 99.9996% reliable (which is plausible on an 'unlimited' budget), also as said, everyone was ON IT, so to speak.

Apparently in the amount of parts the entire Saturn V stack, an acceptable mission was 1000 component failures, post Apollo it was concluded on average on each mission approx 150 failures occured.

1) Dedicated
2) Interested
3) Motivated

Does a lot.

I think the Apollo was the greatest organisational and managerial feat ever done by humans - it showed.
 
groen said:
Have you actually compared the original surveyor 3 footage with the apollo 12 footage to see if there are any discrepancies with regards to the layout? Is it not feasible, in your opinion, that they could have just looked at the surveyor 3 footage and tried to recreate them in the studio for apollo 12?
Click to expand...

19945827.jpg
 
I wonder if the likes of Groan and others who so fervently believe the moon landings were all a hoax actually work for NASA who then spread out into the internet and post such blatant drivel that it only serves to strengthen our conviction that the moon landings actually happened.






:p
 
groen said:
I never said they marked it with a matching serial number i said they could have faked the serial numbers. Which means they could have easily modified the historic records of the serial numbers that were on the probe to match the new replica that they created or they could have just created a new device with the same serial numbers. How is anyone going to confirm that the serial numbers on the probe are the ones that nasa claim are on the probe?

Have you actually compared the original surveyor 3 footage with the apollo 12 footage to see if there are any discrepancies with regards to the layout? Is it not feasible, in your opinion, that they could have just looked at the surveyor 3 footage and tried to recreate them in the studio for apollo 12?

Robert M Walker received an award from nasa in 1970 "NASA Exceptional Scientific Award (1970)", I can not find much information on Robert M Walker but I doubt he could be considered independent. While I am not taking anything away from Robert Walker, he known to be a great physicist and had some amazing ideas.



I don't think we can get away with calling him independent on the topic of apollo.

Jarah white has about 30 videos on the moon samples that i am yet to find the time to listen to. But if you are interested, might be worth a listen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ucc_AXP7F8g (8 parts)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyzUEC_Mg3Q (6 parts)
There is more episodes as well.



No the original audio was a seperate track that was added later to edited video. With a multi-track sequencer you can just make a video and then get actors in to a studio and record the voices to match the video. They then just took still images during production and when the audio was added and the transcript was made they then put time stamps on the video and images. How many still images do we have with the earth in the background, while they are standing on the moon? Of course the commonly known argument that lack of stars in all the nasa images. Did they even try to take an image of the stars from the moon?

@dimple image. hahah
Click to expand...

Good grief, do you listen to yourself?! "Just" make a video, "just" take thousands of images...

And you've REALLY brought up the "no stars in the photos" argument?! Again. It was debunked five minutes after whatever crackpot with zero knowledge of photography thought it up. Go outside the next time it's sunny during the day. Look up. Do you see stars? No. Same process on the moon.

I'm done. Assuming you're not just trolling and laughing at the amount of time we've all wasted, I actually feel a bit sorry for you.
 
groen said:
[..] Did they even try to take an image of the stars from the moon?
Click to expand...

No, because unlike you they weren't utterly ignorant of everything of any relevance to a moon landing.

On second thought, that's unreasonably flattering to you. You're not merely utterly ignorant. You have managed to attain negative levels of knowledge by "knowing" untrue things, e.g. you "know" that constant net force is necessary to maintain constant velocity (in reality, constant net force will cause constant change in velocity - zero net force is required to maintain constant velocity).
 
Blue160 said:
No they weren't :rolleyes: they were in 1/6 mavity.

That gif actually is a good example of how dust behaves in a low G vacuum. Have a look at the astronauts feet rather than look for wires that aren't there.
Click to expand...

I believe that was said tongue in cheek, and only posted up as a reason to post it up (I think anyway . . . . ;))
 
PhillyDee said:
I believe that was said tongue in cheek, and only posted up as a reason to post it up (I think anyway . . . . ;))
Click to expand...

Ah, yes you're probably right.......

Anything is possible in the context of the idiocy shown in this thread though. I think I should stop reading it because it's just winding me up.
 
Blue160 said:
Ah, yes you're probably right.......

Anything is possible in the context of the idiocy shown in this thread though. I think I should stop reading it because it's just winding me up.
Click to expand...

I know exactly what you mean. Getting into space is the hard part, after that, landing on the moon is relatively easy. The only thing that is in the way is a very very empty gap in the middle.

For groen to say that he has all the research done, and yet still understand nothing at all about basic principles means he has only read the titles, clearly left school at the age of 9 and just makes anything up he does not even know about (planets photosynthesising? whut?).

And still believes 95% that the moon landings never happpened?
 
Is it me or has this thread gone full circle several times?

It should really be locked now, the conspiracy nuts have been proved wrong for every point, multiple times.
 
It has gone full circle - and the same things are being repeated. I don't like the witch hunting either. I do find some of the view points and assumptions and "facts" (stated as such) ridiculous, but that's not to say this is now getting rather tedious.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom