So the moon landing was faked!

Glaucus said:
10, is not proof of anything, you are just reading into it, your own viewpoint.
How about a simple explanation, that he's just done the best most amazing thing he will ever do in his life and he knows the chance of him ever doing anything remotely similar is nill.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Can you imagine the comedown? I have a bad enough comedown from having a great weekend to waking up on a Monday in a job I don't enjoy. :p
 
Armstrong's famous words, One small step for man, one giant lie for mankind.

ISS could very well be in orbit, i just question whether their are people in it and whether the shuttle can dock it with it.

I will accept high resolution no edit footage of docking as proof that the ISS has people in it. If you can find me a clip that shows the docking without using camera/studio tricks to try their best to not actually show the docking, then ill be the first to admit i was wrong on the ISS.
 
groen said:
Armstrong's famous words, One small step for man, one giant lie for mankind.

ISS could very well be in orbit, i just question whether their are people in it and whether the shuttle can dock it with it.

I will accept high resolution no edit footage of docking as proof that the ISS has people in it. If you can find me a clip that shows the docking without using camera/studio tricks to try their best to not actually show the docking, then ill be the first to admit i was wrong on the ISS.
Click to expand...

You can't even spell correctly let alone provide credible proof that we never set foot on the moon.
 
Zatoichi.uK said:
I suppose we never fixed Hubble during orbit too and that all the images it has produced are just creative art?
Click to expand...

It is accepted that all the deep space images are post processed one way or another. We rarely see the original images, especially in the media. You might get them if you look for them online. But the ones in the media are all artist colourised afterwards.

We can stick to apollo. I am done with this thread now, nothing more to say.
 
groen said:
It is accepted that all the deep space images are post processed one way or another. We rarely see the original images, especially in the media. You might get them if you look for them online. But the ones in the media are all artist colourised afterwards.

We can stick to apollo. I am done with this thread now, nothing more to say.
Click to expand...
Typical response, evidence that easily proves we have been to the moon is posted and instead of proving it is wrong the people saying the moon landing is fake ignore it and leave the thread.Talk about being closed minded.
 
Im going to go for Neil Armstrong was assassinated because he was going to speak out about how the landing was just a hoax.
 
neodude said:
Originally Posted by Dictionary
An atmosphere (New Latin atmosphaera, created in the 17th century from Greek ἀτμός [atmos] "vapor"[1] and σφαῖρα [sphaira] "sphere"[2]) is a layer of gases that may surround a material body of sufficient mass,[3] and that is held in place by the mavity of the body.
Click to expand...

Oh, a gas you say. Like Helium, Hydrogen, Radon, Argon, Methane, Oxygen, Carbon Monoxide, Carbon Dioxide....I see.

But also a tenuous atmosphere of electrostatically levitated dust.
 
Last edited:
Glaucus said:
Which produced how much gas?
And in a vacuume how fast does it dissapte?

It's not going to produce a local atmosphere that will spread out dust and keep it aloft.
Click to expand...

All true. Still, if you blow on something usually it's going to spread out. Even in a vacuum, and especially with a mavity of 1.6 ms-2 and no air friction to boot.

Still, no need to fire them directly at the moons surface to control the motion of the craft. It would need to be a decent blast to impart enough impulse though. M (Craft) v(Craft) = m (Propellant) V (Propellant)
 
Last edited:
Robosapien said:
All true. Still, if you blow on something usually it's going to spread out. Even in a vacuum, and especially with a mavity of 1.6 ms-2 and no air friction to boot.
Click to expand...

Which is what happens and what you see I videos. It doesn't get suspended in the atmosphere and blowen about on earth.

The rockets produced little gas, there is very little for those gas molecules to bump into and there's nothing to keep blowing on the dust, there's no atmosphere and then that dust falls back under moon mavity with no friction, which is exactly what is in the videos and what physics predicts.
 
Glaucus said:
Strings have been debunked so many times.
Click to expand...

What about the wire flashes, has that been explained?

Glaucus said:
As for the first point. Russians didnt claim to do something they didnt, so why would Americans call them out? This is totally backwards thinking. Oh wait Russians where even more advance than us, this is again the total opposite of calling something fake out.
Click to expand...

I don't follow your point here, can you clarify please?

Glaucus said:
The van Allen belt myth, again has been debunked so many times, I can't believe you even posted it.

http://spacemath.gsfc.nasa.gov/weekly/3Page7.pdf
Click to expand...

I posted it for two reasons. One because I find it odd that Van Allen stands by his original findings and secondly that no manned mission since Apollo has left low Earth orbit.

Do you have a non NASA source for evidence?

Glaucus said:
As for 18 that's also rubbish and be debunked so many times. If you work out the angles and sizes the maths comes in that the astronaught did indeed brush passed the flag, so there was contact.
Click to expand...

I will investigate this.
 
Russians did not claim to do something they didnt.
They did send a man to space. There for there is nothing for USA to claim, unless they want to claim Russia sent a man even erlier in history to space. Wich makes Russia even more technically advanced.

So it is utterly different to apollo. As Russia would be claiming nasa didn't do something and show that USA was not technically more superior.

So that whole point really is rubbish.

Wires, there is no wires, every now and then in videos you get some disturbances from photographic anomalies, that are very normal and happen on earth. Like the crosshairs being behind an object, these are normal photographic anomalies.

On top of that plenty of people have tried filming it with wires and/or slowing the videos down. Not one has gotten the movements of astronaught a seen in the apollo missions.

You need to actually read what van Allen has said, and not take out of context sentences.
He's also said you can fly through it and survive easily. This is balsa backed up by satelite data and simple maths. It's also out of data info.
USA sent up to satelites that recorded I of on the van Allen belt, in 1958. Explorer 1 and explorer 3
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explorer_1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explorer_3

You haven't brought anything new, half off it has been debunked and brought up so many times in these threads, some like van Allen belt, flags etc have even been talked about in this thread itself.

As for the computer stuff it is not evidence at all, neither of us understand it. And who's it made by? Using which plans? Backed up by what systems actually in apollo machinery.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom