uh huh
-
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 -
greybabydaddy-1 — 17 years ago(June 22, 2008 08:26 PM)
so i can get on the good grabbin' here on this thread, i'll say the followingi HAVE a letter from Van Allen saying that the moon landing never took place. and i have a letter here from a science fiction author from 1912 that says he crashed a rocket into the moon's big blue cheese eye. but DO I REALLY!?? i MIGHT have a BIG macaroni and glue art project from NASA that says that ALL conspiracy theorists are nutbags! maybe i do and maybe i don't! it won't do me much good here, cuz y'all are either some conspiracy wacks OR y'all some disinformationistists! who KNOWS who you are?? lemme continue. (i do NOT TOTALLY agree with any of the possiblities that people DO have this stuff! - i'm just another guy here. with some FACTS -??)
or ARE they falsities? who knows right now?
from what i've read, and watched and found out myself, it is impossible to travel to the surface of another planet or satellite in our particular galaxy.
at least it is from from THIS planet. um, all waving flags, rocks with "C" on em and bad camerawork on vid and NOT with stills aside. aren't we forgeting the BEST smoking guns here!? it seems most people always do.
first of all, the reason, or the MOTIVE for the possible fakery was and STILL is the idea that we MIGHT have won the Cold War right then and there. Russia DIDN'T out us cuz they had spent billions in a COMMUNIST society to perfect an undo-able action. that would've been ANARCHY in a poor, and obviously dying country, at the time. They had been spending hard worked for income on a FALACY!! there have been a few to come out and point their citizens in the right direction over this issue, stating that the US couln't do it, so WHY keep trying?
the reason why the THOUSANDS of people who were "involved" never outed us were for the reason i LOVE "Capricorn One". it pointed me in the direction that for the same reason when you work in close quarters with someone for 2 years and then all of a sudden they're gone and never show up again. you didn't care enough to get their number while you were with them to talk to them OUTSIDE of work. why start now?! they disappear and then there's someone new at your side soon. we, americans, are selfish, yet proud with our jobs. WELL - to a point. we want to maintain our idea of the American Dream. i LOVE living and working in the US! there were NO thousands! just a couple of hundred, at best. ONLY the ones IMMEDIATLY involved.
but what if, you were offered a BIG sum of money to keep "your damn mouth shut!!"?? even $100,000 would do that for most people, NOW! and in the late 60's when $50K was a BIG lump sum, why wouldn't MANY, if not most just take the money and shut the **** up!?? we're dealing with BILLIONS of taxpayer's dollars here.
the problem with the cover-up is with it there were NOT THOUSANDS of people involved. it was like a 100 person thing! ONLY the "needed-to-know", well, needed to know.
the other two reasons i DON'T believe the moon landing is golf and science, which y'all seem to toss around on IMDB like volleyballs.
IF Van Allen wasn't concerned by the radiation of the belts, then WHY did they EVEN this named after him? NOTHING gets named after someone unless a SIGNIFICANT discovery is found. what i've read is, the Van Allen belts is a belt of radiaton that can murder a person in a few moments. and they are not just a FEW miles long! it's like driving through opposing traffic, for a hundred miles where the cars coming in the opposite direction aren't quite cars, but GHOST cars that melt you from the inside out. not to mention the threat of SOLAR FLARES! which NEVER come up. they can KILL us on earth! in deep space, they are deadly! (and i don't care about his political affiliation, he deemed DEEP space an impossiblity. his numbers shouldn't be weakened by that. that's what y'all forget!! numbers don't change in an absolute. they stay the same in 1965 as they do in 2005!)
and WHY did the astronauts, who didn't KNOW at the time (in the late 60's and VERY early 70's), speak about NOTHING abnormal when THEY were in deep space, but when the astronauts who DID know about Van Allen's discovery, in the early to late 70's, say they saw flashes when their eyes were closed?? "atomic flashes"? doesn't make sense..
and my FINAL arguement, yet NOT my ONLY!!
when a man hits a golf ball on THIS planet, there's a chance that he might "slice" it. we've ALL seen Tiger Woods do it! THAT particlar action is due to the uneven airflow over the golfball in question.
that CANNOT happen on the moon due to the LACK of atmosphere that is up there. or we're told to believe
BOTTOM line.
if you think you CAN walk on the moon, i don't hate you. i won't judge you. i just ask that you give the ACTUAL science a chance and PLEASE don't let FOX (who are FINALLY on my side!!?!) or anyone else tell you a BAD arguement and have you believe it.
and by the way, we most certainly (WE probably repaired a VERY necessary toilet up there, in what we call "space", but REMEMBER that tho -
lseybold-2 — 17 years ago(June 23, 2008 11:25 AM)
and WHY did the astronauts, who didn't KNOW at the time (in the late 60's and VERY early 70's), speak about NOTHING abnormal when THEY were in deep space, but when the astronauts who DID know about Van Allen's discovery, in the early to late 70's, say they saw flashes when their eyes were closed??
Actually, the Apollo astronauts did see flashes when their eyes were exposed. There was an experiment about it called the "Apollo light flash moving emulsion detector" (ALFMED).
http://ares.jsc.nasa.gov/HumanExplore/Exploration/EXlibrary/docs/Apoll oCat/Part2/ALFMED.htm
If you read this Apollo 16 transcript about the experiment, you'll see that the astronauts go into a lot of detail about the light flashes.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/pao/History/ap16fj/08_Day3_Pt1.htm
"I am a collage of unaccounted for brush strokes, and I am all random!"
