We Never Went to the Moon

Welcome!

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

Pages:
1
2
3
…
42

We Never Went to the Moon; It looks like we got fooled
Topic Started: Jan 20 2008, 12:52 PM (28,018 Views)
David C	Jan 21 2008, 03:59 PM Post #26
Posts: 341 Group: Members Member #145 Joined: 01/20/08	Quote: This is indicative of another great misunderstanding of moon landing CTers. Dust does not swirl without an atmosphere! For example, take this youtube video. The rover clearly kicks up dust from its wheels but the dust simply raises into the air and then falls, it does not form any sort of cloud or swirl or anything. Then take for example this video quite clearly filmed on earth. This isn't even a perfect example as the surface of the moon was extremely fine dust but it serves the point. Dust on the earth forms vortexes due to the atmosphere, dust on the moon does not. It's possible to treat sand to make it dust-free by sifting and washing it. They could have laid out a swath of it just for the rover and left some finer stuff for the footprints next to it. Quote: Regardless it's not 'space radiation' it is van allen belt radiation and is stopped by a millimetre or so of aluminium. Solar flares were and are a serious concern to space travellers, but they do not occur constantly, there was quite a large flare during one of the lunar missions and it was frankly just luck that saved their lives. You're just parroting the official version. How do you know you have the right data? Quote: As you've said that retroreflectors can be placed by unmanned craft, it would appear there's no level of proof that would satisfy you. That's a plausible scenario so it can't be ruled out. Any argument with several other plausible scenarios can't be used as proof. Quote: Tell me, what evidence would you expect to see if humanity had visited the moon? Video and still pictures with no anomalies would help. Why don't you post just one piece of evidence that you consider to be conclusive proof that they went? Quote: 15 of the 19 were Saudi, and of course they did! So you think 9/11 wasn't an inside job.
Posts: 341 Group: Members Member #145 Joined: 01/20/08


exponent	Jan 21 2008, 04:18 PM Post #27
Posts: 196 Group: Members Member #77 Joined: 01/16/08	David C It's possible to treat sand to make it dust-free by sifting and washing it. They could have laid out a swath of it just for the rover and left some finer stuff for the footprints next to it. This is true, but of course the dust also falls at less than 9.81m/s/s. This is simply rationalising however, and you would have to believe that they had specially prepared all of this knowing what people would attack in advance. It seems unlikely. David C You're just parroting the official version. How do you know you have the right data? The right data for what? Van Allen belts? Well the initial mapping was partially done by russian satellites if I remember correctly and has been accepted ever since. If you believe the particle energies to be higher than officially reported then why has no other country in the world seen fit to test this? How the hell do satellites penetrating the belts even survive? No offence, but you're just parroting the conspiracy version! David C That's a plausible scenario so it can't be ruled out. Any argument with several other plausible scenarios can't be used as proof. It depends how plausible we're talking about here. There are pictures of these reflectors on the surface of the moon, eyewitness accounts of them being placed there and measured results from their reflectance. Yes it's plausible they could have secretly been placed by unmanned craft but it is completely unsupported by any evidence. It's entirely plausible you are a disinformation agent planting these theories here to discredit the wider movement, of course I have no evidence of this but by your logic we can take nothing you say as proof? David C Video and still pictures with no anomalies would help. Ok, here is a high resolution scan of the image discussed before with no anomalies: David C So you think 9/11 wasn't an inside job. If you don't know me I am e^n from the old forum. Yes I do believe the 'official story' but that is irrelevant. Even if you believe in conspiracy claims we have passenger manifests including the terrorists, videos of them checking in, martyrdom videos of them, reports from stewardesses as to their description and location, broadcast warnings to passengers and Saudi Arabia has formally admitted that 15 of the hijackers were from their country. You cannot seriously be contending that the hijackers did not exist or did not hijack the planes? What is your alternate scenario?
Posts: 196 Group: Members Member #77 Joined: 01/16/08


Mumin	Jan 21 2008, 04:28 PM Post #28
Posts: 199 Group: Members Member #79 Joined: 01/16/08	I've seen NASA photos of the surface of Neptune's moon. I'm sure a photo of the American flag planted on the moon's surface will end this argument. And if the flag doesn't exist, then neither did our moon landing.
Posts: 199 Group: Members Member #79 Joined: 01/16/08


exponent	Jan 21 2008, 04:32 PM Post #29
Posts: 196 Group: Members Member #77 Joined: 01/16/08	Mumin Jan 21 2008, 04:28 PM I've seen NASA photos of the surface of Neptune's moon. I'm sure a photo of the American flag planted on the moon's surface will end this argument. And if the flag doesn't exist, then neither did our moon landing. There's no telescope that exists yet to get a good picture of the landing site, although one's coming along next year I think: http://lunar.gsfc.nasa.gov/
Posts: 196 Group: Members Member #77 Joined: 01/16/08


Mumin	Jan 21 2008, 04:38 PM Post #30
Posts: 199 Group: Members Member #79 Joined: 01/16/08	Who said anything about a terrestrial telescope? There are satellites over the moon. The satellite imagery of earth used by Google maps are taken from a satellite.
Posts: 199 Group: Members Member #79 Joined: 01/16/08


exponent	Jan 21 2008, 04:42 PM Post #31
Posts: 196 Group: Members Member #77 Joined: 01/16/08	Mumin Jan 21 2008, 04:38 PM Who said anything about a terrestrial telescope? There are satellites over the moon. The satellite imagery of earth used by Google maps are taken from a satellite. Nobody, there is no telescope space based or otherwise that can resolve that level of detail. The hubble can see things which are about 0.05 arcseconds across, I think the largest object we put on the moon is 0.005 arcseconds across, an order of magnitude lower. Give it a year or so and we will have enough resolution to prove it once and for all (to only a few people unfortunately). There is a japanese (I think) telescope which has resolved some small dots corresponding with the lander locations on the moon but they're really just a pixel or so of blackness, hardly enough to make a solid identification.
Posts: 196 Group: Members Member #77 Joined: 01/16/08


dylan avery	Jan 21 2008, 04:42 PM Post #32
Posts: 108 Group: Admins Member #2 Joined: 12/21/07	I just wanted to try that out. Haha.
Posts: 108 Group: Admins Member #2 Joined: 12/21/07


exponent	Jan 21 2008, 04:46 PM Post #33
Posts: 196 Group: Members Member #77 Joined: 01/16/08	dylan avery Jan 21 2008, 04:42 PM <br /><br />I just wanted to try that out. Haha. By the way if you have a second please see here
Posts: 196 Group: Members Member #77 Joined: 01/16/08


Kaiya	Jan 21 2008, 08:11 PM Post #34
Posts: 147 Group: BANNED! Member #104 Joined: 01/17/08	David C; I have a request to make of you. I want you to try and do something I have never seen HB (Apollo hoax believer) do. I would like you to tell us what the radiation exposure rates are in space between the Earth and the Moon. Then tell us what radiation level an astronaut can be exposed to for short trips (like 14 day lunar misisons) and long trips (to Mars) and not become sick or have any appreciable increase in the risk of cancer. Please do not use any links. Just type in the numbers yourself. Feel free to use any units you want as long as they are in rad, rem, gray, or sievert. Thank you. Kaiya
Posts: 147 Group: BANNED! Member #104 Joined: 01/17/08


NK-44	Jan 21 2008, 08:47 PM Post #35
Posts: 160 Group: Members Member #16 Joined: 01/14/08	AS11-42-6211 (from Lunar and Planetary Institute): That there were no stars in the background doesn't mean that there was nothing in the background. Oops, you couldn't find the picture anymore here. Quote: NK-44 See how it is made of one of the most robust materials: styrofoam. See also how the footpad is covered by moon-dust, swirled by the landing turbine. What? Don't see any...maybe this should tell you something: styrofoam scares off all dust! This is indicative of another great misunderstanding of moon landing CTers. Dust does not swirl without an atmosphere! For example, take this youtube video. The rover clearly kicks up dust from its wheels but the dust simply raises into the air and then falls, it does not form any sort of cloud or swirl or anything. Then take for example this video quite clearly filmed on earth. This isn't even a perfect example as the surface of the moon was extremely fine dust but it serves the point. Dust on the earth forms vortexes due to the atmosphere, dust on the moon does not. Due to my lack of English, I used the word 'swirl'. You're right, swirl is not the right expression. You're also right that the landing turbine would not form a sort of cloud, but how does this change the fact that LEM should have been covered by dust (forming vortexes or not), and not have been made out of styrofoam? Sorry, but I find my explanation, that the styrofoam scared off the fine dust, more likely...
Posts: 160 Group: Members Member #16 Joined: 01/14/08


exponent	Jan 21 2008, 10:19 PM Post #36
Posts: 196 Group: Members Member #77 Joined: 01/16/08	NK-44, I appreciate you posing more questions but you have yet to respond to the originals. Do you believe that I have shown sufficient evidence to suggest that the artefact you identified was a scanning error? How about the amount of data on exactly how far away the moon is? I will try to answer the questions you have posed in this latest topic but please respond to the original points also NK-44 AS11-42-6211 (from Lunar and Planetary Institute): That there were no stars in the background doesn't mean that there was nothing in the background. Oops, you couldn't find the picture anymore here. No that's true, there were other things in the background. This picture was taken from the command module "Columbia" and what you see in that image is a panel of the lunar lander. Had you looked back a few images this would have been obvious: With regards to your accusations about the construction of the lunar module's landing pad, all I can say is what makes you think it was styrofoam? There certainly seems to be a ring of some sort of foamy material but also obviously a ball and socket joint and a metal base plate and supporting ring, why also should it be dusty? Like I said on the moon the dust would not form any sort of cloud and I believe the engines are shut off before the feet hit the ground as a small rod sticks down from each about a foot to let them know they have made contact. Lets examine the opposite case, assuming it is faked for a moment. Why would it be perfectly clean? They would have needed some heavy plant equipment to move even a model of the LEM about and that would have left tracks, they couldn't have cleaned said tracks without at least creating some dust. Do you think they would have wiped the dust off? Please address these points before posting any more images with something that doesn't look right to you in it. I could not find any images from magazine 42 available anywhere but the site you linked, but you can certainly try making a request for them at http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/, it seems they simply haven't scanned in the originals yet. I couldn't find any evidence the magazine used to be available at the apollo archive but if you know otherwise have you emailed them?
Posts: 196 Group: Members Member #77 Joined: 01/16/08


Kaiya	Jan 21 2008, 10:39 PM Post #37
Posts: 147 Group: BANNED! Member #104 Joined: 01/17/08	NK-44 Jan 21 2008, 02:19 PM See how it is made of one of the most robust materials: styrofoam. See also how the footpad is covered by moon-dust, swirled by the landing turbine. What? Don't see any...maybe this should tell you something: styrofoam scares off all dust! Surely you do not actually believe you can call that styrofoam just because of the way it looks? You're kidding right? Any chance it was something more sturdy like aluminum? Kaiya
Posts: 147 Group: BANNED! Member #104 Joined: 01/17/08


jim76	Jan 21 2008, 10:43 PM Post #38
Posts: 303 Group: BANNED! Member #172 Joined: 01/21/08	Did the Soviets know the moon landings were faked? Or did the US completely fool them too? Or did they not care? What do you think?
Posts: 303 Group: BANNED! Member #172 Joined: 01/21/08


nrmis	Jan 22 2008, 10:59 PM Post #39
Posts: 24 Group: Members Member #189 Joined: 01/22/08	Kaiya Jan 21 2008, 02:10 PM Gideon524 Jan 21 2008, 01:34 AM alexvegas I'm normally very sceptical about moon fakery theories, but there is some convincing footage there! Watch this one from 2:07 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUE That's interesting and I remember thinking that the last time I saw this video. I was not able to watch the entire video, it kept stopping. I think it is the same one that shows an astronaut falling then getting up with. Some people claim that it obviously shows the effect of wires attached to the astronaut. A close look at the video shows that the fallen astronaut pushes up with his hand on the lunar surface and is also helped by pushing with his other arm on his fellow astronaut. The person editing this clip is a moron or a liar. Kaiya Quote: A close look at the video shows that the fallen astronaut pushes up with his hand on the lunar surface and is also helped by pushing with his other arm on his fellow astronaut. Really? That is what you see is it? This would seem a fairly important point, is that what most of you can see? I take it you have all seen 'A funny thing happened on the way to the moon' Did we go to the moon? fuctifino. Are the astronauts faking (badly) their distance from earth? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HT3_X9Suec I remember seeing this footage as 6 or 7 year old and saying something about it to my older brother that just made him laugh nervously. Lol, its not f'kin rocket science is it?
Posts: 24 Group: Members Member #189 Joined: 01/22/08


DocMercury	Jan 23 2008, 06:45 AM Post #40
Posts: 1 Group: Members Member #163 Joined: 01/21/08	jim76 Jan 21 2008, 10:43 PM Did the Soviets know the moon landings were faked? Or did the US completely fool them too? Or did they not care? What do you think? The Russians landed a small remote controlled vehicle on the moon, actually I think there was 2, called Lunakhod. You would think that if the Apollo landings were faked the Russians would have the motivation and resources to reveal them as such considering they spent a decade in a frantic race to reach the moon first.
Posts: 1 Group: Members Member #163 Joined: 01/21/08


tower	Jan 23 2008, 09:52 AM Post #41
Posts: 233 Group: Members Member #121 Joined: 01/18/08	Quote: we have passenger manifests including the terrorists, videos of them checking in, martyrdom videos of them Not only that, we also have them speaking after they've smashed into the towers at around 600 miles per hour! Anyway, this is going off topic and I'm not going to continue this. Feel free to think that we didn't land on the moon if that makes you happier.
Posts: 233 Group: Members Member #121 Joined: 01/18/08


Domenick DiMaggio	Jan 23 2008, 12:04 PM Post #42
Posts: 1,979 Group: Members Member #22 Joined: 01/14/08	This is one of the reasons I believe we went .......
Posts: 1,979 Group: Members Member #22 Joined: 01/14/08


noeffects	Jan 23 2008, 01:32 PM Post #43
Posts: 798 Group: Members Member #178 Joined: 01/22/08	hey dominique thats good sarcasm i hope.
Posts: 798 Group: Members Member #178 Joined: 01/22/08


noeffects	Jan 23 2008, 01:46 PM Post #44
Posts: 798 Group: Members Member #178 Joined: 01/22/08	Bill Cooper has some interesting takes on the moon. he talks about how air conditioners cant work in a vacuum and other neat things to look into . vacuumhoax.http://www.williamcooper.com/majestyt.htm Another revelation to those who understand the symbolic language of the Illuminati is the hidden meaning of the names of the Space Shuttles, "A Colombian Enterprise to Endeavor for the Discovery of Atlantis... and all Challengers shall be destroyed." - Bill Cooper
Posts: 798 Group: Members Member #178 Joined: 01/22/08


noeffects	Jan 23 2008, 03:57 PM Post #45
Posts: 798 Group: Members Member #178 Joined: 01/22/08	tower Jan 23 2008, 09:52 AM Quote: we have passenger manifests including the terrorists, videos of them checking in, martyrdom videos of them Not only that, we also have them speaking after they've smashed into the towers at around 600 miles per hour! Anyway, this is going off topic and I'm not going to continue this. Feel free to think that we didn't land on the moon if that makes you happier. Tower. Do u have a link about the terrorists speaking after the impacting the towers? I take it's on a FDR or something.
Posts: 798 Group: Members Member #178 Joined: 01/22/08


noeffects	Jan 23 2008, 04:20 PM Post #46
Posts: 798 Group: Members Member #178 Joined: 01/22/08	Well if the Russians put an unmanned remote controlled vehicle (Lunakhod) on the moon. Whats stopping the US form doing it as well? How about a remote vehical with a nice US flag to stick in the ground, tada, proof we went. My op is that the early Apollo missions were to get data, they would later send that info back to Houston and dupe all the controllers that were not in on it. Example. Astronauts putting templates on the cabin window to make earth look smaller. For me, the NASA symbology and ties to paperclipped Nazi rocketeers and Freemason astronauts donning their aprons on the moon is enough to be a hoax to me.
Posts: 798 Group: Members Member #178 Joined: 01/22/08


Lin Kuei	Jan 23 2008, 04:26 PM Post #47
Posts: 1,298 Group: Admins Member #5 Joined: 12/22/07	noeffects Jan 23 2008, 01:32 PM dominique no name calling or labelling includes redesigning member's names in a way which offends them. noeffects next time there will be a 7 day suspension.
Posts: 1,298 Group: Admins Member #5 Joined: 12/22/07


Roxdog	Jan 23 2008, 04:36 PM Post #48
Posts: 597 Group: Members Member #80 Joined: 01/16/08	Hum....so, talking about uncomfortable current political issues is a no-no but keeping the moon thread at the top of the forum for all the new readers to see is fine. Noted. Edited by Roxdog, Jan 23 2008, 04:40 PM.
Posts: 597 Group: Members Member #80 Joined: 01/16/08


Lin Kuei	Jan 23 2008, 04:52 PM Post #49
Posts: 1,298 Group: Admins Member #5 Joined: 12/22/07	Roxdog Jan 23 2008, 04:36 PM Hum....so, talking about uncomfortable current political issues is a no-no but keeping the moon thread at the top of the forum for all the new readers to see is fine. Noted. Roxdog I have tried to be as careful as possible with this please do not push it. a) the thread was closed - NOT because it is an 'uncomfortable' issue but because it had run its course. b) this thread is about a topic completely unrelated and I bumped it simply in response to another user's report. Please leave it at that. thankyou.
Posts: 1,298 Group: Admins Member #5 Joined: 12/22/07


noeffects	Jan 23 2008, 06:03 PM Post #50
Posts: 798 Group: Members Member #178 Joined: 01/22/08	Lin Kuei Jan 23 2008, 04:26 PM noeffects Jan 23 2008, 01:32 PM dominique no name calling or labelling includes redesigning member's names in a way which offends them. noeffects next time there will be a 7 day suspension. hey i just misrecollected his name. i'm truly sorry if that offended someone. I just didn't think about dominick or was it dominique ooops my bad.
Posts: 798 Group: Members Member #178 Joined: 01/22/08


1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)


Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Skeptics · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
2
3
…
42