uh huh
-
cntzero — 18 years ago(July 19, 2007 06:08 PM)
Why did NASA try and ban this film?
Who says that they did? No wait - let me guess: "Some guy". You don't remember his name.
Where are the 'close up photos' of the 'entire moons surface' from the Japanese space mission a few years ago?
You obviously didn't look, otherwise you would have found out that the Kayuga (a.k.a. SELENE) probe was delayed several years (after its predecessor, Lunar-A was cancelled) and hasn't launched yet. It's currently scheduled for August 13. A little bit more digging (which hoax believers rarely do, except for google and YouTube) would tell you that its camera resolution is 10 meters/pixel. This is excellent for mapping, but not enough to resolve any of the artifacts left behind (though it will probably be able to see the disturbed soil around the landing sites).
http://www.isas.ac.jp/e/enterp/missions/selene/index.shtml
As always, I shall leave you to your own conclusions
I conclude that Maviarab does not know what he's talking about. -
creedrock2003 — 18 years ago(July 27, 2007 03:42 PM)
Awesome cntzero! I love the whole "hoax" thing, considering hte thousands of people who worked on the lunar landings over several decadesnot one single person has ever come forward to blast open what would be the most amazing coverup in US history? What about the other nations? Russia never disputed the validity of the program. What about the lunar samples we have here on earth? Not a single scientist has ever said that those were anything but genuine. And, yes, the resolution on the cameras on orbiting probes cannot see objects the size of a car,a nd why would they bother spending valuable minutes (which in space missions are measured in thousands of dollars), to try to find objects left behind by astronautsit would take dayslike finding a needle in a stack of needles. What would be the purpose of it? There are also reflecting units left on the lunar surface (by humans who placed them there manually) which to this day are used by earth lasers to measure seismic activity on the lunar surface.
So Maviarab, it is good to see you once again posting nonsense on the site. Oh, and Mavi baby, the earth is flat. -
The_Celluloid_Sage — 18 years ago(August 11, 2007 12:18 PM)
cntzero
If you had been awake at the time, it was public knowl;edge widely avaialbe through the media (of dubatable credit I may tend to agree but not from so many sources)
As for the Japanese, thanks for bit of information. Have been very ill of late and had not looked further into it. Thanks for the insight.
(though it will probably be able to see the disturbed soil around the landing sites).
Umm, what disturbed soil would that be? Thats part of the problem. Even in the live recordings, there is no 'disturbed soil'
Who cares what I think -
flyingswan — 18 years ago(October 03, 2007 12:57 PM)
Here's a picture of the earth from Kaguya's HDTV camera:
http://www.jaxa.jp/press/2007/10/img/20071001_kaguya.jpg
Arrival in lunar orbit is scheduled for tonight. -
WWu777 — 17 years ago(April 23, 2008 05:47 PM)
I don't know if anyone has mentioned it yet, but you can now watch the whole Fox Special "Conspiracy Theory Did we really land on the moon?" on Google Video, at this link:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1138935117048624484
In it, you can see a press conference where Neil Armstrong says that he could not see any stars with the naked eye. Can anyone explain why not? Shouldn't the exact opposite be true? -
lseybold-2 — 17 years ago(April 24, 2008 10:26 AM)
Question: How come NASA has never been able to explain what caused the fire that killed Gus Grissom and two other astronauts? Grissom's family is still convinced that it was no accident.
Also, how do you explain why Thomas Baron died in a car hit by a train just before he was about to testify to Congress on NASA's wrongdoings with a 500 page report, which has been missing since he got killed?
As far as I know, the Apollo 1 fire was caused by a short circuit somewhere that sparked and caused a fire that raged out of control in the high pressure pure oxygen atmosphere. Also the spacecraft had more flammable items (like velcro) inside it than was recommended. The astronauts (Gus Grissom, Ed White, and Roger Chaffee) tried to open the hatch and get out, but the hatch wasn't designed to be opened quickly and they suffocated before they could get out. It was very gruesome and afterwards people at NASA, like Gene Kranz for example, said it shouldn't have happened and that they had overlooked signs of trouble because they didn't want to get behind schedule. But that doesn't mean the fire was deliberate. Not all of Grissom's family thinks it was.
If NASA was so desperate for public approval that they faked six moon landings, why were they willing to have the Apollo 1 crew die a terrible death and cause bad publicity, Congressional investigations, etc.?
Thomas Baron actually died a few weeks after he testified before Congress; if NASA killed him to stop him from testifying, they didn't do a good job of it.
"I am a collage of unaccounted for brush strokes, and I am all random!" -
WWu777 — 17 years ago(April 23, 2008 05:51 PM)
About why the Russians didn't expose us, well maybe they have an agreement with the US government not to expose each other since both sides practice in hoaxes and propaganda? Or maybe the whole cold war thing was a public relations sham and the US and Russia conspired together? You never know.
-
NotMoreMovies — 18 years ago(September 18, 2007 10:06 AM)
I know for a fact the moon landings were faked, and here's undeniable proof
One sec, some guys in all back suits/white shirts are at the door. Probably selling something, I'll get rid of them, brb.
HElPp HELLLPP,mdha.jsa,d dchj hvbn
[oi50pwrfv -
huckones — 17 years ago(April 13, 2008 05:14 PM)
I know this is an old post and someone else may have already posted this but I'll refresh the thread with some old words - Ask The Russians whether the landings were faked. In other words they'd have been the first to reveal if the landing were a hoax.
I think my cell phone was tapped by the Russians so I have to make it sound good. -
tim-wilde-1 — 17 years ago(May 15, 2008 10:15 PM)
It' a source of amazement that there are still people who, against all reason, want to believe such a load of tripe regarding the supposed hoaxing of the moon landings.
Instead of doodling around swallowing all this garbage, try doing some basic research on any number of legitimate sites that will happily and accurately disprove and debunk all the conspiracy theories related to the landings. Most of it is simple common sense that doesn't even require scientific proof.
One of the classics is the supposed multiple light sources on the moon's surface that 'prove' the whole thing was set up in a large sound stage. The theory goes that the sun could have been the only source of light, so why aren't the shadowed areas black, and why do the flags, astronauts, etc show multiple shadows going in different directions? How incredibly stupid can you get? Next time these naysayers walk outside on a moonlit night, do you think they might just wonder why they can see there way around without a flashlight? Could it be that the moon has its own inbuilt light source shining down upon their heads, or maybe it's just that the moon has a HIGHLY REFLECTIVE SURFACE bouncing the rays of the sun back down to Earth? Why do you think the astronauts had to wear special sun visors on their helmets?
Another dopey point. Why aren't the stars apparent - oh my gosh, it must be fake, or they'd be there, right? Wrong. Anyone who knows even the mere basics of photography would be aware that film is incapable of matching the human eye when it comes to processing highly disparate sources of light. Ever shot a picture of someone's shadowed features with a bright background in place? You either get a blown and washed out background, or a severely underexposed image of the figure. On the moon's surface, with the exceptionally bright and reflective conditions on hand, it's a no brainer that the dim stars in the background would have been severely underexposed in a situation where the Hasselblads were set up to deal with local light conditions approximating a white sandy beach on a bright sunny day - the kind of conditions that would normally set your eyes watering unless you were wearing sunglasses.
Photography comes into play again with regard to the notorious prop rock that the boys at NASA foolishly left lying around in the foreground with a big 'C' marked on it. How dumb can those guys get, right? The truth is much simpler, but not as sexy. Anyone who has done their own processing and printing is well aware of how easy it is to lose an eye-lash or eye brow hair on to a negative, where it naturally curls up into a nice 'C' shape with a little bit of heat to help it along. It then happily transfers on to the print, unless you're vigilant or diligent enough to dust your negatives prior to printing.
Of course, the easiest way to prove the moon landings to these clods would be to sashay them along to an appropriate observatory, one equipped with the kind of laser that can bounce a beam off the mirror left behind on the moon for scientific purposes. Still, with the kind of blinkered and paranoid perspectives on show here, such evidence would only serve to prove that the moon landing conspiracy is so widespread that they've even roped in the entire scientific community to help perpetuate the myth. -
unixadmin1 — 17 years ago(May 15, 2008 10:45 PM)
Correct. The Russians actually tracked the Apollo missions from the time they took off until they landed on the moon. Like you said, they (Russians) would've been all over it if they could've proved the moon missions were faked.
Those people who believe that the moon landings were staged are the same group that thinks the U.S government had something to do with 9/11. -
dalbrech — 17 years ago(June 12, 2008 12:46 PM)
I enjoyed Capricorn One, but I admit I do hold it against the film that it..however inadverntlyit helped perpetuate the whole Moon Landing Hoax crap.
I'll Teach You To Laugh At Something's That's Funny
Homer Simpson
