stripeyfox Posted 23 May 2012 Posted 23 May 2012 Really?! I think Apollo 13 passed through the Van Allen belt on their trip around the moon. Or is that a hoax as well??? I suppose for those who buy the "hoax" theory is that they not only hoaxed the one moonlanding, but six "successful" landings and the "failed" one. Which makes you wonder why hoax it multiple times if they got away with hoaxing it the once?
Zingari Posted 23 May 2012 Posted 23 May 2012 I suppose for those who buy the "hoax" theory is that they not only hoaxed the one moonlanding, but six "successful" landings and the "failed" one. Which makes you wonder why hoax it multiple times if they got away with hoaxing it the once? Surely if it really is impossible to go through the van allen belt in little more than a tin can , then obviously the implication is that they were all faked , including 13. I really don't know if they can be traversed safely or not , but no man has gone anywhere near them since which does seem odd considering the are only a few thousand miles out . And surely the simple answer as to why they would have kept on with the program of 6 moon landings ( real or faked) is because it was a very lucrative cash cow for NASA .
Bobcat Posted 23 May 2012 Posted 23 May 2012 You make it sound very easy to land a man the moon and bring him back alive . It really isn't , and has not been attempted again for 40 years , Why when it was so easy in the late 60's early 70's ? Surely the major cost of getting to the moon was the research and development of the technology and that has already been proven to be very simple , hasnt it ? Did you read the post? There was a war on, and that was the main front of it. billions was poured into nasa then and after the war ended it was no longer needed so it was scaled back to simpler things such as the international space station and such, so the taxes could be spent on the public again instead of publicly warning off the russians. If the government was pouring that much money into nasa again, i'm sure they would happily send another man to the moon.
Babylon Posted 23 May 2012 Posted 23 May 2012 And why can nobody reproduce Do you know anyone has tried?
Zingari Posted 23 May 2012 Posted 23 May 2012 Did you read the post? There was a war on, and that was the main front of it. billions was poured into nasa then and after the war ended it was no longer needed so it was scaled back to simpler things such as the international space station and such, so the taxes could be spent on the public again instead of publicly warning off the russians. If the government was pouring that much money into nasa again, i'm sure they would happily send another man to the moon. Surely if winning a war with Russia was the priority , then wasting billions on men prancing about on the moon doesn't help much . Wouldn't that money have been better spent on amassing greater military strength and hi tech weaponry ?
ithuriel Posted 23 May 2012 Posted 23 May 2012 I would love it to be all true, i'm hoping man did go there and waltz around. The moon would be a radioactive place yes or no, since it has no atmosphere and would over the years be showered in solar radiation. I've asked this question on other boards about radiation, and a NASA spokesman was asked about radiation on a TV program and gave an answer that the module would turn its engine compartment towards a radiation burst from the sun to protect the astronauts and that was all he would say.
Zingari Posted 23 May 2012 Posted 23 May 2012 [media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOo6aHSY8hU[/media] I was unconvinced before , but now I've seen Aldrin punch Bart Sbrel it must mean they definitely went .
OzFox Posted 23 May 2012 Posted 23 May 2012 I suppose for those who buy the "hoax" theory is that they not only hoaxed the one moonlanding, but six "successful" landings and the "failed" one. Which makes you wonder why hoax it multiple times if they got away with hoaxing it the once? Yeah but these are the people that bothered to demolish WTC7 hours after knocking down the twin towers. If a jobs worth doing, they'll do it properly. Just ask Zingari.
Captain... Posted 23 May 2012 Posted 23 May 2012 Did you read the post? There was a war on, and that was the main front of it. billions was poured into nasa then and after the war ended it was no longer needed so it was scaled back to simpler things such as the international space station and such, so the taxes could be spent on the public again instead of publicly warning off the russians. If the government was pouring that much money into nasa again, i'm sure they would happily send another man to the moon. Surely if winning a war with Russia was the priority , then wasting billions on men prancing about on the moon doesn't help much . Wouldn't that money have been better spent on amassing greater military strength and hi tech weaponry ? But it wasn't a real war, it was all macho posturing, what better way to show how great you are than to set foot on the moon, faked or otherwise. If everyone believed it then it did its job.
Zingari Posted 23 May 2012 Posted 23 May 2012 Yeah but these are the people that bothered to demolish WTC7 hours after knocking down the twin towers. If a jobs worth doing, they'll do it properly. Just ask Zingari. Don't keep asking me i really don't "know" anything for sure but some questions about the moon landings do seem very pertinent, such as why was the LEM was never successfully tested on earth and flew wildly out of control almost killing Armstrong , but he then just shrugged his shoulders and willingly got into again to land it on the moon without a hitch of any kind in a sort of " oh well, it'll be alright on the night" fashion . i
Zingari Posted 23 May 2012 Posted 23 May 2012 But it wasn't a real war, it was all macho posturing, what better way to show how great you are than to set foot on the moon, faked or otherwise. If everyone believed it then it did its job. surely posturing with a massive arsenal of powerful weapons would work just as well , if not better.
OzFox Posted 23 May 2012 Posted 23 May 2012 Don't keep asking me i really don't "know" anything for sure but some questions about the moon landings do seem very pertinent, such as why was the LEM was never successfully tested on earth and flew wildly out of control almost killing Armstrong , but he then just shrugged his shoulders and willingly got into again to land it on the moon without a hitch of any kind in a sort of " oh well, it'll be alright on the night" fashion . i That's just the way he is. An All American hero. Ripped his own finger off once, and still didn't bat an eyelid.
Guest BlueBrett Posted 23 May 2012 Posted 23 May 2012 I believe the moon landing happened and I'm not sure why so many people doubt it. When you look at all the crazy shit modern science can do it seems to me that flying out to an orbiting rock and back would hardly tax these guys at all.
purpleronnie Posted 23 May 2012 Posted 23 May 2012 Don't keep asking me i really don't "know" anything for sure but some questions about the moon landings do seem very pertinent, such as why was the LEM was never successfully tested on earth and flew wildly out of control almost killing Armstrong , but he then just shrugged his shoulders and willingly got into again to land it on the moon without a hitch of any kind in a sort of " oh well, it'll be alright on the night" fashion . i Surely your not saying the astronauts took risks?..or theres a element of luck with any mission into space. crazy talk fool.
Captain... Posted 23 May 2012 Posted 23 May 2012 surely posturing with a massive arsenal of powerful weapons would work just as well , if not better. They did that with the nukes, although they could be fake, I mean we have seen footage of them drop two, but that was over 60 years ago and they have never done it again... Do they really have nuclear war heads, or is it all just a big conspiracy? Were the Japanese paid off to blow up 2 of their own cities to make it appear that the americans had nuclear cpabilities, I mean something like that could devastate a country for decades, but somehow Japan quickly became the most technologically advanced nation after that catastrophe.
Zingari Posted 23 May 2012 Posted 23 May 2012 That's just the way he is. An All American hero. Ripped his own finger off once, and still didn't bat an eyelid. Yes but surely even Armstrong must have realised that he couldn't bail out onto the moon if anything went wrong . It would be like test driving an F1 car that burst into flames when you were testing it , but you could get out. Then being told that the next time you drive it they've assured you it's ok but you are going to be strapped in with no escape . Surely no one is that mad ! Are they ?
OzFox Posted 23 May 2012 Posted 23 May 2012 Yes but surely even Armstrong must have realised that he couldn't bail out onto the moon if anything went wrong . It would be like test driving an F1 car that burst into flames when you were testing it , but you could get out. Then being told that the next time you drive it they've assured you it's ok but you are going to be strapped in with no escape . Surely no one is that mad ! Are they ? I think most of those guys were already test pilots, and enjoyed sitting on top of flying bombs. They had the "right stuff". Or maybe they were just a bit thick.
Zingari Posted 23 May 2012 Posted 23 May 2012 I think most of those guys were already test pilots, and enjoyed sitting on top of flying bombs. They had the "right stuff". Or maybe they were just a bit thick. I saw an interview with Alan Bean once and I really believe he is as thick as a plank He was asked what it was like flying through the VA belts and he replied something like "I'm not sure we went through them , where are are they ?" Then on being told they were a few thousand miles out and he must have flown 250 thousand miles out if he'd been to the moon and he just said "oh then we must have gone through them but they'd probably not been discovered then"
AdamN Posted 23 May 2012 Posted 23 May 2012 surely posturing with a massive arsenal of powerful weapons would work just as well , if not better. Why not do both?
OzFox Posted 23 May 2012 Posted 23 May 2012 I saw an interview with Alan Bean once and I really believe he is as thick as a plank He was asked what it was like flying through the VA belts and he replied something like "I'm not sure we went through them , where are are they ?" Then on being told they were a few thousand miles out and he must have flown 250 thousand miles out if he'd been to the moon and he just said "oh then we must have gone through them but they'd probably not been discovered then" NASA probably didn't tell the astronauts. I'm no expert, but weak radiation is only a problem if you're exposed to it for a long time. These guys were just passing through. And by the sounds of it, Apollo 11 had bigger things to worry about, like running out of gas.
Zingari Posted 23 May 2012 Posted 23 May 2012 NASA probably didn't tell the astronauts. I'm no expert, but weak radiation is only a problem if you're exposed to it for a long time. These guys were just passing through. And by the sounds of it, Apollo 11 had bigger things to worry about, like running out of gas. yes that's probably a big worry too , cuz i do't think esso have got any filling stations out that way OK so we've got safely through the VAB and head off to the moon and plonk ourselves down and jump out for a stroll . The Moon has no atmosphere and the surface temperature varies greatly depending on whether it is in sunlight or not. The average daytime temperature on the Moon is around 107°C (225°F), but can be as high as 123°C (253°F). When an area rotates out of the sun, the "nighttime" temperature falls to an average of -153°C (-243°F). Seems like those PLIS back packs have got an awful lot to do to stop old Buzz Lightyear from frying or freezing. They would have needed an awful lot of power to work them .
BoneDog Posted 23 May 2012 Author Posted 23 May 2012 [media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mefEKqzq8cg[/media] David starts off part 9 of 'Wagging the Moondoggie' with a mention of this episode of Mythbusters. It turns out to have been made by a pedo, and some liars who didn't even do the few experiments in the correct conditions. Interestingly enough, one of the guys had also "sat on the board of the False Memory Syndrome Foundation (alongside a truly vile collection of CIA-funded psychiatrists and people accused by their own children of being pedophiles)". He also mentions Windley and Plait, and their ridiculous claims, a few times throughout the earlier parts. http://davesweb.cnchost.com/Apollo9.html Part Nine - 'Before moving on to some of the other amazing technology allegedly developed for the Apollo missions, I must digress here to discuss a screamingly funny episode of a ridiculous little show known as Mythbusters that my DVR obligingly recorded for me the other day. In this particular episode, the hosts took a look at the Apollo Moon landings – with some help behind the scenes from none other than Phil Plait and Jay Windley, who were thanked in the closing credits. Have I mentioned, by the way, that Plait currently serves as president of the James Randi Educational Foundation, helmed by the very same James Randi who sat on the board of the False Memory Syndrome Foundation (alongside a truly vile collection of CIA-funded psychiatrists and people accused by their own children of being pedophiles), and who was once caught on tape soliciting sexual favors from young boys? Randi is, in other words, just the kind of guy who should be running an educational foundation, and just the kind of guy you would expect someone like Phil Plait to cozy up to. Anyway, the two jokers who co-host the Mythbusters show took on five of what were purported to be the most common claims of ‘conspiracy theorists’: non-parallel shadows appearing in NASA’s Moon photos; objects in the shadows of those photos appearing to be lit with a secondary light source; the astronauts’ boot prints being too well defined to have been left in dry soil; the video footage appearing to have been faked by altering the playback speed; and, of course, the flag appearing to wave. Though the ‘debunkers,’ as I’ve mentioned before, just can’t get enough of the waving flag, I am pretty sure that I have already stated that I don’t really care so much about it, so I am going to skip it once again. As for the boot prints, the Mythbusters gang ‘debunked’ the claims of skeptics by producing a distinct print in ‘simulated’ lunar soil that was provided to the show specifically for this little demonstration by the helpful folks at – where else? – NASA. Unfortunately, this demonstration taught us nothing about the Apollo missions, but it did conclusively prove that NASA has a synthetic material that will produce a boot print in a vacuum chamber. In attempting to ‘debunk’ the claim that, in the alleged Moon photos, there are objects lying in the shadows that are far too well lit, the hosts cynically proclaimed their experiment to be a success despite the fact that the results clearly indicated that their demonstration had actually failed. And they had failed in spite of the fact that they had given themselves two huge, and entirely unmentioned, advantages: the reenactment was photographed here on Earth, where air causes light to scatter, and the image was deliberately overexposed. This seems like a good time to note that HJP Arnold, who provided the Kodak film for the mission cameras and later created a photo library devoted to space photography, said that on the Moon, “where you have no atmosphere, shadow is very black and highlight is really violent highlight, so you have an enormous contrast problem.” I have to keep throwing those quotes in, you see, because if I say stuff like that, then for some unexplained reason a cabal of ‘debunkers’ will quickly form a circle and begin furiously jerking each other off (if you need a laugh, by the way, their stuff is funnier than mine, and they’re not even trying to be funny). *the forum he links to at this point is no longer available. Anyway, the point here is that the Mythbusters gang had the advantage of scattered light. And as is clearly visible in the screen-cap below, they also deliberately overexposed the photo in an obvious attempt to further lighten the shadows. Even so, the astronaut in the Mythbusters’ image is significantly less illuminated than is NASA’s astronaut. NASA’s astronaut, though standing completely within the shadow of the lander, is nearly as bright as the sunlit background of the image. In the Mythbusters’ image, on the other hand, the astronaut is nowhere near as bright as the overexposed background. Had the guys taken the shot in NASA’s vacuum chamber, which they had access to but chose not to use in their demonstration, their astronaut would have been even darker. To claim then that a ‘myth’ has been ‘busted’ when the results of their own biased demonstration clearly suggested otherwise says much about the integrity of this show and the ‘consultants’ behind the scenes. And since we’re on the subject of curiously illuminated shadows, take a look at the shot below and to the right, which was allegedly taken moments before the shot used by Mythbusters........' It doesn't seem like a reliable episode to me and should be discarded.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.