| Author |
Date Added (PST) |
Subject |
MonsterThrilla 
|
2/15 8:01pm |
RE: OT: The moon landing probably
*was* fake... |
Try this experiment. Dive into a
big pool with a long rope and a friend. In water, the effects
of gravity seem to be lessened. Ok. NOW, while holding the
rope while it is horizontal, have your friend let go and
quickly create a transverse wave. It moves due to momentum.
Gravity doesn't stop it.
Lead isn't some unique
magical material which is the ONLY thing that blocks
radiation. The material NASA used also blocks radiation.
EDIT: To answer Evil2God (in case he didn't see it),
Do you know what momentum is? It has nothing to do
with gravity. Its mass times velocity. Its ALWAYS conserved. I
don't understand what the moon's gravity has to do with the
flag waving. Explain further.
As for the force of
gravity on the dirt kicked up. Well, acceleration due to
gravity on Earth is 9.8 meters per second, per second. On the
Moon, its 1.6 m/sec per sec. That's still fast, about 3.6
miles/hr. When considering the dust moves about 12 inches, the
video footage was very realistic.
Again, I'm just
using the laws of physics and common sense to debunk all
this...
Date Edited: 2/15
8:03pm (1 edits total) Edited
By: MonsterThrilla
-----signature-----
Webmaster and Owner of http://www.wolfensteinonline.com/ "It's
perfect violent for rape fight."-VenturisXXX "So, fuckface
gona take on my offer or not?" -Gasara to opa-opa |
| Dark-JediKnight
|
2/15 8:02pm |
RE: OT: The moon landing probably
*was* fake... |
| Hmm, interesting. I've never
thought of it that way. But who cares really, all the money
going to NASA could be used making videogames!
-----signature-----
Damn NDA's *&%$%$#$
Brought
to you by the fine people at EACanada
|
| Evil2God
|
2/15 8:03pm |
RE: OT: The moon landing probably
*was* fake... |
If indeed it was a fake it will
be confirmed in 2032. All information must be turned public 50
years after its initial occurence.
JFK assassination
in 2013 baby!!!
PS: Couldn't have said it better
Jedi. :)
Date Edited: 2/15
8:07pm (1 edits total) Edited
By: Evil2God
|
| Unknown_G
|
2/15 8:06pm |
RE: OT: The moon landing probably
*was* fake... |
| Hmmmm...you gotta wonder about
the whole Mars Lunar thing :P
|
| Hitokage
|
2/15 8:19pm |
RE: OT: The moon landing probably
*was* fake... |
ARGH, the incredibly STUPIDITY
presented by some of you people make me SICK.
"About
the stars. We can't see stars during the day BECAUSE of our
ozone layer which the moon lacks."
NO MORON. The ozone
layer has nothing to do with it! The atmosphere isn't
completely transparent. It's like an extremely thin fog, and
it defracts mostly blue light in the day. Thus, we have a blue
sky illuminated with the SUN AND light reflected from the
earth. Stars are simply overpowered in the day.
"The
only source of light why can prevent us from seeing the stars
is not the sun... well not directly anyway. It's the light
which is bounced off of the moon."
There are 4 sources
of incredibly intense light: The sun, which is at a point in
the lunar sky. The earth, which will always be in the sky on
the near side of the moon. The moon, which reflects light as
provable by looking UP at night. The astronauts and lunar
equipment. All of these provide huge ammounts of light
pollution in the scece. Furthermore, stars are faint. Goto a
town, look UP, goto the country, look UP. You see far more
stars in the sky. This is at nightime as well, unlike in the
lunar pictures.
"The human eye adjusts to the
strongest source of light around yet a CAMERA DOES NOT. I've
studied film and the last time I checked the camera does not
adjust automatically to light."
Studying does not equal
experience. I guess you've never used a video camera at all,
or any camera for that matter. Try shooting something in a
dark room with an open window in the shot at daytime. You only
get a shot of a flood of brightness and a washed out darker
area. The light contrast is STILL there. The flash isn't there
just to light up the object, but balance out the illumination
with the surroundings.
Why am I talking about
illumination with somebody obviously as dim as they come...
enough.
-----signature-----
"If you can't tell reality from
imagination, you still have some way to go."
- Kagato,
Tenchi Muyou: RyouOuKi ep 6
GA since July 1999
|
| MonsterThrilla
|
2/15 8:21pm |
RE: OT: The moon landing probably
*was* fake... |
What pisses me off is that
thousands of people worked tirelessly for millions of hours,
three men died, and know we have these conspiracy theorists
looking to make a quick buck by selling a book, or giving
interviews to Fox, or FOX themselves selling ad time, all
looking to make money by discrediting these people who gave
their lives for the Apollo missions. These people working for
NASA were giving America hope. These men worked for their
country and humanity in general, to keep faith and to advance
civilization as a whole, and they're being made out to like
like bullshit artists by Fox and the conspiricy theorists who
are ALL in it for the money.
Just my 2 cents...
-----signature-----
Webmaster and Owner of http://www.wolfensteinonline.com/ "It's
perfect violent for rape fight."-VenturisXXX "So, fuckface
gona take on my offer or not?" -Gasara to opa-opa |
| Hitokage
|
2/15 8:26pm |
RE: OT: The moon landing probably
*was* fake... |
Mons: I think it's a huge case
of penis envy. A bunch of pathetic morons who failed science
are jealous of those who actually achieved the dream and made
it to the moon. I mean, why should the guys who actually DO
something get credit? Of course, the pathetic idiots can't do
much but bitch, so they try to convince people it never
happened.
Yes, I'm a little pissed. No, I don't care
if I'm being harsh.
-----signature-----
"If you can't tell reality from
imagination, you still have some way to go."
- Kagato,
Tenchi Muyou: RyouOuKi ep 6
GA since July 1999
|
| Rainbow
|
2/15 8:28pm |
RE: OT: The moon landing probably
*was* fake... |
| Hehe..
-----signature-----
IMHO,MO are better IMO.
|
| ALIEN
|
2/15 8:30pm |
RE: OT: The moon landing probably
*was* fake... |
I though it was EXTREMELY bad
taste to try and pull in the deaths of those astronauts as
part of their damn "coverup".
Oh and "Explain this: http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/images/nostars.jpg"
Explain what? I see a wrinkly flag. It's always
wrinkly. Even in the videos the wrinkles stay exactly the same
even as it sways. Sue nasa for not bringing an iron.
-----signature-----
E = ps2
Entertainment =
PlayStation Squared
|
| MonsterThrilla
|
2/15 8:41pm |
RE: OT: The moon landing probably
*was* fake... |
I'm comforted by the fact that
these sackless toads are in the minority, and anyone gullible
and ignorant enough to believe them will also always be in the
minority.
What's important is that kids today and in
the future are taught the facts about this great milestone in
human history. They are taught about the heroics and struggles
of these NASA men, and it rightfully tells them that hard,
honest work will get them somewhere in life. I swear to God,
that HBO miniseries about the missions should be required
viewing for every single person in the world. Those men are
modern day Hercules, and they deserve all the admiration and
credit for what they pulled off. The fact that they
accomplished something 30 years ago and some still refuse to
believe it is a testament to how great of an event the Apollo
missions were.
-----signature-----
Webmaster and Owner of http://www.wolfensteinonline.com/ "It's
perfect violent for rape fight."-VenturisXXX "So, fuckface
gona take on my offer or not?" -Gasara to opa-opa |
| Heezzi_Splita
|
2/15 8:48pm |
RE: OT: The moon landing probably
*was* fake... |
Alien: Either you can't read or
you have a bad memory.
You said this:
"Flag was
waving around becuase the astronuats were holding on to it.
Did they ever show it waving when someone was not touching it?
No I didn't think so."
I showed you a picture of the
flag w/o astronuats holding on to it.
FINAL JUDGEMENT!
-----signature-----
- Shin Heezzi
--------------------------------------
Are you Okay ?
Heee zaaaa Splitaaaaa
|
| Thompson
|
2/15 8:49pm |
RE: OT: The moon landing probably
*was* fake... |
Well since you choose to ignore
the other thread....
Stop MonsterTrilla, next thing
you'll be asking us to stand & salute the flag. Like I
said in the other thread I work in a large company, do I know
what go's on all over the place.... no I don't.
But
the gravity is the thing & the amount of thrust required
to get of the lunar surface & back into orbit. There was
no way of knowing what that force was going to be in
calculating the fuel & thrust required to lift off. It was
an unknown. No such thing as blind luck.... think about it.
Thompson
|
| Evil2God
|
2/15 8:49pm |
RE: OT: The moon landing probably
*was* fake... |
Hitokage,
I have to
admit that I was wrong about those things but calling me a
moron is a little overboard don't you think.
2 out 3
things that you pointed out were actually things that I had
not explained properly for the simple reason that my writting
skills in english are how could I say... somewhat very
limited.
1- When I said the ozone I actually meant the
entire series of layers surrounding the earth. That does take
into account the masses of little traces of water which makes
this fog creating a blue sky on a sunny day.
2- I know
how light is reflected off of all the things that we see
(except for unreflective surfaces, the sun and stars which do
not reflect but emit light). All of what you stated does come
into account but I just felt like debating.
3- This is
where you CAN be wrong. The cameras we had for our projects
had no automation what so ever. Everything was done manualy,
from zoom to focus to lightmeter. So for the example of the
dark room with a window... it didn't apply from my experience
but their camera must have been fully automated. It just
slipped my mind.
I know how frustrating it might be
for you to have read so much nonsense but I have to say that I
did not think everything through before I wrote it. Come to
think of it... Moron suits me quite well, afterall thats what
my b*tch... I mean that's what my girlfriend often refers to
me as. :)
BTW , this is more of a question really. If
the camera adjusts to the average of light in front of it,
then when the camera faces the majority of the sky should it
not adjust to the smallest source of light possible which are
the stars. The light would still bounce of the surroundings
but as far as I know the camera does not take into account the
backlighting is the subject is not affected by it. (???)
|
| MonsterThrilla
|
2/15 8:49pm |
RE: OT: The moon landing probably
*was* fake... |
How the hell can you tell if a
flag is waving by a still picture? The only way I can think of
is by blurring, but that flag isn't blurred anywhere.
I'm seriously disappointed by what I've read tonight.
:(
-----signature-----
Webmaster and Owner of http://www.wolfensteinonline.com/ "It's
perfect violent for rape fight."-VenturisXXX "So, fuckface
gona take on my offer or not?" -Gasara to opa-opa |
| ALIEN
|
2/15 8:53pm |
RE: OT: The moon landing probably
*was* fake... |
[quote]I showed you a picture of
the flag w/o astronuats holding on to it.[/quote]
well
yea after looking at that still photo I can see the flag is
waving like crazy, AND I can see the astronaut in the
background is actually doing jumping jacks. Not to mention the
tornado brewing just offscreen.
Don't you think we
need moving pictures to tell if it's still waving?
-----signature-----
E = ps2
Entertainment =
PlayStation Squared
|
| MonsterThrilla
|
2/15 8:57pm |
RE: OT: The moon landing probably
*was* fake... |
Thompson,
I know you're
British so I'm not asking that of you. ;) I ignored the two
other threads because they turned into a) an underwater
submarine thread and b) a thread about who made which rockets.
As for the gravity issue. I'm not sure, but I think
they did know the force of gravity on the moon. At least, I
wouldn't think they'd attempt a landing if they didn't know
the force of gravity. Using some of Newton's laws (F=ma and
F=Gm1m2/r^2) could figure it out. I think its a given that
they knew how much thrust they needed? Why wouldn't it be?
-----signature-----
Webmaster and Owner of http://www.wolfensteinonline.com/ "It's
perfect violent for rape fight."-VenturisXXX "So, fuckface
gona take on my offer or not?" -Gasara to opa-opa |
| Heezzi_Splita
|
2/15 9:01pm |
RE: OT: The moon landing probably
*was* fake... |
Alien: The point was to show you
a picture without an astronuat holdling on to it.
=P
-----signature-----
- Shin Heezzi
--------------------------------------
Are you Okay ?
Heee zaaaa Splitaaaaa
|
| simplee
|
2/15 9:05pm |
RE: OT: The moon landing probably
*was* fake... |
The flag wouldn't be blurred
while waving in a still photo; ASA 1000 film will freeze frame
helicopter blades so that point is moot.
Alot of this
comes down to photography I think (for a layman like me
anyway). I don't know enough about rocket thrusters creating
craters and all that stuff, but I do know enough about film
and lighting to come to the conclusion that it WAS fake.
Many of the photos I can discount because, let's face
it, it was the photo op of all time so if they doctored the
photos to look more media friendly I can understand it.
BUT!
No matter how much light pollution and
reflections from the earth there were, I can't possibally
believe that in an uninterrupted video sequence we can see an
astronaut jumping off the module into complete shadow and just
happen to have enough reflected light from the earth at just
the perfect angle to light him up.
And the still shot
of the astronaut with the intense sunlight behind him would
never have been lighted so well even with reflected light from
earth, especially just at the precise angle to capture that
shot.
too much photographic coincidence for me
And I agree Thompson, people who have such a gung-ho
attitude about the U.S. are scary and brainwashed.
|
| ALIEN
|
2/15 9:10pm |
RE: OT: The moon landing probably
*was* fake... |
| Don't forget to huge fill light
provided by the surrounding MOON! The Astronaut is wearing a
white suit which would be bright enough to cause the shadow of
the lander to appear darker than it normally would do to the
exposure of the camera. Remove the astronaut and then the
lander shadow is mild enough to read the sign posted to it.
Another way would be to move in closer so the shadow fills
more of the camera lens so you could open the exposure more.
Date Edited: 2/15
9:11pm (1 edits total) Edited
By: ALIEN
-----signature-----
E = ps2
Entertainment =
PlayStation Squared
|
| Hitokage
|
2/15 9:10pm |
RE: OT: The moon landing probably
*was* fake... |
Evil: Why should it matter
whether the camera was adjusted automatically or manually. It
still had to be adjusted.
Ok, here's an experiment you
can do right now. I recommend you do so. Take a desk lamp, go
into a darkened room with something to look at. Turn the lamp
on. Look directly into the lamp. Observe how the rest of the
room looks with that lamp in your face. Now have it still in
front of you, but pointing up. Observe.
When you are
viewing objects at a much higher light level, all lower levels
appear less distinguished, sometimes simply black.
THAT is why you don't see stars.
-----signature-----
"If you can't tell reality from
imagination, you still have some way to go."
- Kagato,
Tenchi Muyou: RyouOuKi ep 6
GA since July 1999
|
| MonsterThrilla
|
2/15 9:12pm |
RE: OT: The moon landing probably
*was* fake... |
Get this amazing physics
concept. Light and white colored things reflect light. When
light strikes the moon's surface, light waves reflect off in
ALL directions, and some smack into the "dark side" of the
astronauts or the objects and thus the darker sides aren't so
dark. If the moon's surface was pitch black, then you would
see the total dark spots.
If there were multiple
bright light sources, there would be multiple shadows. And in
NONE of the pictures is there even the faintest hint of a
second shadow on ANYTHING.
-----signature-----
Webmaster and Owner of http://www.wolfensteinonline.com/ "It's
perfect violent for rape fight."-VenturisXXX "So, fuckface
gona take on my offer or not?" -Gasara to opa-opa |
| simplee
|
2/15 9:13pm |
RE: OT: The moon landing probably
*was* fake... |
Oh and whoever said that the
camera would adjust to the average light or the dimest light
has it exactly backwards.
The camera would adjust to
the brightest light source; if it adjusted to the dimest, the
aperature would be wide open and the bright light would
completely wash the negative so that when the negative was
developed you'd have nothing but a white piece of photographic
paper.
|
| ALIEN
|
2/15 9:19pm |
RE: OT: The moon landing probably
*was* fake... |
Is there even a point to this?
If you want to believe it was fake I can't change your mind.
But if you really do believe it's fake, I can't imagine what
kind of proof you need for the every days things like your own
exsitance.
Look at the photo and tell yourself that
wasn't taken on the moon. Don't you feel foolish? At some
point the coverup would have to be even more difficult than
actually going to the moon. I mean how many people are in on
it? Your family too? How much evidence was tampered with? The
moon itself?
-----signature-----
E = ps2
Entertainment =
PlayStation Squared
|
| Thompson
|
2/15 9:21pm |
RE: OT: The moon landing probably
*was* fake... |
MonsterThrilla, Newtons law...
Look at a Earth launch. Not only is the gravitational
pull of the Earth a factor but also the density of the ground.
Which is usually constructed out of materials that will make
the thrust as effective as possible in those 1st few secounds.
None of Newtons theories could work out the
solidity/density of the moon surface, it could have been gray
sand 100 metres deep for all we know.
Not only that, but
the thrusters fire at equal levels on Earth with Equal burn
times etc.
This was not a consideration when the modul
took off from the Luner surface. Try to get that thing
launched on Earth chances are it would have flipped & nose
dive back into the ground, looking at the airodynamic design
of the thing, it stood more chance of doing that than taking
of back into orbit.
Far too many open ends.
Thompson
|
| simplee
|
2/15 9:26pm |
RE: OT: The moon landing probably
*was* fake... |
ALIEN,
I can see your
point but, the light reflecting off the earth and surrounding
moon would be incredibly difracted; It wouldn't be focused
enough to effectively light the figures in the shadow or the
foreground of that one closeup of the astronaut.
I
could buy the idea of reflection off the flat surfaces of the
lander module but, it had a wide base and a narrower top so
all the flat surfaces would reflect light UP not down to the
figure on the ladder near the surface.
Something else
that bugged me though that the show never even considered.....
When the module took off and left, who was staying
behind to film it?
j/k on that last one
lol!
|
