Moon Landings

Sciences, Space Exploration, Cosmic Charts and Horoscpoes. Did Man really walk on the moon? Everything you need to know and more.

Re: Moon Landings

Postby eric144 » Wed Feb 13, 2008 8:44 am

Arbiter wrote:
eric144 wrote:What I mean in very simple terms is that you don't have the education or intelligence to understand third year school science never mind the optical properties of glass spherules or anything else that relates to this discussion.


Ad hominem.

No need for that.

refute what I say.. don't attack me or my perceived intelligence.


You have been insulting mine and and other people's intelligence since the start because not only have you been copying information you don't understand, like numerous other clones you have been copying the personality and writing style of Plait and Windley who are nasty, repuslive techno geek fuckwit yanks (with phds).


If you are too stupid to understand what an expert witness is, then you shouldn't be debating technical issues. I am not insulting you when I say you don't understand, I am stating a fact. That is the whole point.

Do you understand photography?


Yes, you are creepy little geek, I already knew that.

I don't know whether the photos were possible because I have a physics degree and understand the complexity, you don't. I do know that the argument concerning backscattering is basically correct (which you don't) but it doesn't apply to either of the situations Plait is applying them to.

In the ladder case, it's obvious other photographs show darkness on the side away from the sun. In the other photograph, it's even simpler. Aldrin isn't down sun. You won't have noticed that your argument has changed from backscattering to exposure but it has. You have to provide the exact details about exposure to prove the case, not me. In any other circumstances an expert would see the specular mark on the boot and say it was secondary lighting.
User avatar
eric144
Been Cautioned
 
Posts: 412
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2007 8:07 pm

Re: Moon Landings

Postby Arbiter » Wed Feb 13, 2008 9:26 am

eric144 wrote:In the ladder case, it's obvious other photographs show darkness on the side away from the sun. In the other photograph, it's even simpler. Aldrin isn't down sun. You won't have noticed that your argument has changed from backscattering to exposure but it has. You have to provide the exact details about exposure to prove the case, not me. In any other circumstances an expert would see the specular mark on the boot and say it was secondary lighting.


I'll ignore your resort to futher ad hominem.. there's no need for it.. really.. its a sure sign you've losing the argument.

Anyway... you don't seem to understand what I've said about the exposure settings on a Hasselblad moon camera and the choices faced by people who produce pictures from the source material.

My argument hasn't changed at all, it's a combination of backscattering light and exposure levels.. its always has been... any photo has to have exposure settings taken into consideration.. it's a given.

And as for expert witnesses... did you ever appeal to an "expert" that wrote a book about the supposed Apollo hoax? Did you ever use a Bart Sibrel argument? Bart Sibrel is a PROVEN liar, he was found out a long time ago being economic with the truth about paper pictures of the Eerth stuck on the window of the Apollo capsule.

Now eric44 me old conker... you have to tell us if you believe that it is impossible that these pictures were taken on the moon and you have to tell us why.

Well?
User avatar
Arbiter
On Parole
 
Posts: 1119
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 9:50 pm

Re: Moon Landings

Postby Arbiter » Wed Feb 13, 2008 9:57 pm

Are there any hoax believers prepared to admit that they can't prove these pictures couldn't possibly have been taken on the moon?

Once we get a bit of honesty perhaps we can move onto whatsupdoc's second point.
User avatar
Arbiter
On Parole
 
Posts: 1119
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 9:50 pm

Re: Moon Landings

Postby eric144 » Thu Feb 14, 2008 2:03 am

My argument hasn't changed at all, it's a combination of backscattering light and exposure levels.. its always has been... any photo has to have exposure settings taken into consideration.. it's a given.


No it hasn't you numpty. I gave you the link to Clavius because you were too stupid to have a debate with. You didn't mention exposure before that.

If I prove to you that you are wrong on this one single point will you promise to shut up about the 'hoax' forevermore?

I CAN prove it.


All it proves is that you are a tube.
User avatar
eric144
Been Cautioned
 
Posts: 412
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2007 8:07 pm

Re: Moon Landings

Postby Arbiter » Thu Feb 14, 2008 8:16 am

More ad homiem... ah well..

So are there any hoax believers out there prepared to change their position on this first subject so we can move on to the next point on whatupdoc's list?

Just one person will do.
User avatar
Arbiter
On Parole
 
Posts: 1119
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 9:50 pm

Re: Moon Landings

Postby eric144 » Thu Feb 14, 2008 8:30 am

If you really are channeling George Harrison, I think you should let us know. It's an unfair advantage.
User avatar
eric144
Been Cautioned
 
Posts: 412
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2007 8:07 pm

Re: Moon Landings

Postby Ricado » Fri Feb 15, 2008 11:40 am

yeahbutno wrote:A few years back, I remember watching a documentary about the "faked" moon landings, and for quite a long time I was absolutely convinced that they were indeed faked, and never happened in reality.

More recently, I saw another TV programme which de-bunked the theory, and left me feeling that the USA did in fact land on the moon in 1969 after all. :?

I must be honest and say I never really looked into it other than watching these TV shows, but I wondered if anyone here has examined the case in more detail, and if so, what conclusions you drew?

Debunking is a common thing in the media yeahbutno, and an important part of the overall subterfuge to keep ordinary people under control. I can't now remember which of any doccos I may have actually seen (I tend to keep away from the television to avoid being turned into a mindless robot), but I have been discussing this subject for years, and took the trouble of twice going to lectures by respected photographer David Percy, back in the early nineties.

I watched every one of the moon landings, and like millions didn't doubt what I was seeing at the time, though I did register some of the "How can they have just done that?" comments from resident space experts in the studio.

Even some of the 'pro-the Yanks really did it camp' harbour doubts that all the photos and film footage could have been genuine :wink:

I've thought about this long and hard over the years (and if I find time I'll read all the posts in this thread), and I've come to one inescapable conclusion...

Look at the facts; not of the moon landings, but of the lack of any attempt by NASA even to take the shuttle out of Earth orbit. THEY CAN'T DO IT NOW! So how could they have done it thirty years ago?

The evidence however, strongly suggests that they did actually succeed, despite using a spaceship that no sane person would now attempt to get to the local supermarket and back in, without fear of losing their life! :shock:

Want my opinion? The Yanks were foolhardy enough to believe they could do it, and they did. Not because it was possible with the technology they had, but because an unseen hand guided that biscuit tin every inch of the way there and back, and preserved the lives of those that were stupid enough to fly in it.

Why? I'm not exactly sure, but it's my belief that The Man Up There didn't want the U.S. to be disgraced at least not yet 8)
Ricado
New In Town
 
Posts: 85
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 4:18 am

Re: Moon Landings

Postby Arbiter » Fri Feb 15, 2008 12:33 pm

Look at the facts; not of the moon landings, but of the lack of any attempt by NASA even to take the shuttle out of Earth orbit. THEY CAN'T DO IT NOW! So how could they have done it thirty years ago?


It's not a case of "CAN'T"... there has been no imperitive to do it since... there was not much political will after 1972 to carry on once the American public got bored with and were questioning the expense of the Moon shots.

The Space Shuttle was designed for Earth Orbit not for Moon trips.. why would they take the shuttle to the moon? It would serve ZERO purpose. They've already done that.
User avatar
Arbiter
On Parole
 
Posts: 1119
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 9:50 pm

Re: Moon Landings

Postby Ricado » Sat Feb 16, 2008 12:00 am

Arbiter wrote:
Look at the facts; not of the Moon landings, but of the lack of any attempt by NASA even to take the shuttle out of Earth orbit. THEY CAN'T DO IT NOW! So how could they have done it thirty years ago?


It's not a case of "CAN'T"... there has been no imperative to do it since... there was not much political will after 1972 to carry on once the American public got bored with and were questioning the expense of the Moon shots.

The Space Shuttle was designed for Earth Orbit not for Moon trips.. why would they take the shuttle to the Moon? It would serve ZERO purpose. They've already done that.


I'm sorry Arbiter, I think that's just the 'stock answer', and I'm not trying to argue with you personally. I don't accept that answer. I've heard it before, years ago.

The Space Shuttle was not designed for Earth Orbit; one only has to look at it to see that. The Space Shuttle is a spaceship; the name 'shuttle' is part of the subterfuge. It was designed to go up into space, manoeuvre about / dock with other spaceships, and it does all those things very well; much better in fact, than the tin boxes that were sent to the Moon.

Yes, those expeditions were expensive, and the Yanks did it so many times in quick succession Рapparently Рthat people started to get bored with it, and I suspect that people began to worry that NASA couldn't keep on doing it without a disaster being played out on prime time TV before too long. Astronauts stranded on the Moon, and no way of getting them home!

We have a new generation that never saw the Moon landings live, but are beginning to dream of going there themselves. The shuttle could leave Earth orbit – which it does every time it returns to Earth – and go to the Moon. It wont need much power / fuel to do that (the 1960s expeditions didn't have that luxury), and if it can orbit the Earth, it can orbit the Moon a few times, even easier. If a lunar orbiter could launch a lander in the 1960s, and that lander could safely blast off from the surface and return, then the shuttle could certainly drop a powered probe, that could return and be recaptured.

Look at the fun, look at the masses of different samples, look at the HD photos! Importantly; look at the PR! And the public approval of $$$$ future spending on near space exploration and tourism!

The reality is actually they can't do it! No, not even with the technology developed over the last 40 years. And considering the rate at which technology is advancing, 40 years represents some advance!

Let's be more accurate. NASA could do it. They could send the next scheduled shuttle mission to the Moon, orbit the Moon a few, times and come back.

Overlooking the fact that without a couple of years spent building and equipping a lander, there would be far less achieved than if they had planned a mission several years ago, and got everything together for it. The reason they CAN'T is because it's too risky. There were so many 'unknowns' encountered the first few times, that by logical extrapolation, there will be others next time. In the late sixties / early seventies they were finding the unexpected all the time (the far greater-than-expected gravitational pull of the Moon, for a start), but because they succeeded in getting there and back, they were oblivious to the risks. By 1972 they realised that they had been extremely lucky.

With all respect Arbiter, the problem is not a lack of imperative, it's the presence of danger. NASA are little surer of how the shuttle would behave in Moon orbit, or in breaking free of it, than they were 40 years ago with the spaceship they sent on the first Moon mission. Unmanned probes are expendable, lives on prime time global television are not.

Ricado
Ricado
New In Town
 
Posts: 85
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 4:18 am

Re: Moon Landings

Postby Tripz » Sat Feb 16, 2008 3:19 am

Where you people been? Never archived the CCCP accounts? Well you who believe this tosh of moon landings better read up after having stiff drink..Faux the whole set-up. Propaganda that only the Us is capable of;
For the sake of reason the USA hadn't a stronger enough rocket to achieve that quest..5grade physics being debated here methinks! :roll:
Tolkin
Pearl harbour
numerous dead presidents
100's of False Flags/black ops around the world
piece de resistence 911

WAKEY WAKEY!!!
how far down the rabbit hole are you willing to go..hmmm?

blue pill you fall asleep and wakeup in wonderland

red pill ===TRUTH! :?: :?: :?:
TRUTH & JUSTICE
"IL FAUT MENTIR POUR ETRE VRAI"
User avatar
Tripz
Lifer
 
Posts: 5311
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 12:47 pm
Location: MAGIK ROUNDABOUT

Re: Moon Landings

Postby Ricado » Sat Feb 16, 2008 11:32 am

...and a bunch of young Muslims that had failed their tests on flying light aircraft, flew airliners into the twin towers, destroying three buildings at the WTC, and flew another into the Pentagon after skimming across the lawn breaking off car aerials :shock:

The story would be funny if it weren't so tragic :cry:

Ricado
Ricado
New In Town
 
Posts: 85
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 4:18 am

Re: Moon Landings

Postby Arbiter » Sun Feb 17, 2008 12:19 pm

Ricado wrote:I'm sorry Arbiter, I think that's just the 'stock answer', and I'm not trying to argue with you personally. I don't accept that answer. I've heard it before, years ago.


Stock answer or not (it was all my own words like most of my posts) it's the truth.

The Space Shuttle was not designed for Earth Orbit;


Does it have an engine capable of a trans-lunar injection, lunar insertion, trans earth injection? Nope.

Why would the americans want to fly people around the moon? What purpose whould it serve? Been there done that, public got bored.. there is no scientific or political imperitive for putting people in orbit around the moon.

Code: Select all
one only has to look at it to see that.  The Space Shuttle is a spaceship; the name 'shuttle' is part of the subterfuge.  It was designed to go up into space, manoeuvre about / dock with other spaceships, and it does all those things very well; much better in fact, than the tin boxes that were sent to the Moon.


Earth orbit and that's it.. see previous response.

Yes, those expeditions were expensive, and the Yanks did it so many times in quick succession Рapparently Рthat people started to get bored with it, and I suspect that people began to worry that NASA couldn't keep on doing it without a disaster being played out on prime time TV before too long. Astronauts stranded on the Moon, and no way of getting them home!


Yes a disaster was waiting.. it always will be.

We have a new generation that never saw the Moon landings live, but are beginning to dream of going there themselves. The shuttle could leave Earth orbit – which it does every time it returns to Earth – and go to the Moon.


Why put people in orbit around the moon.. even if the shuttle could do it (which it can't)?

It wont need much power / fuel to do that (the 1960s expeditions didn't have that luxury), and if it can orbit the Earth, it can orbit the Moon a few times, even easier.


See previous response.. engine required to carry out trans-lunar injection, lunar insertion, trans-earth injection and earth insertion... or do you think reentry into the earths atmosphere would be like Apollo.. slam right into it.. (clue no)... the Space shuttle renters at a slower speed than the Apollo capsule did.


If a lunar orbiter could launch a lander in the 1960s, and that lander could safely blast off from the surface and return, then the shuttle could certainly drop a powered probe, that could return and be recaptured.


Er.. they could do that now if they wanted with a completelly unmanned mission... they do it on other planets.. the reason they don't is because they've been there done that, got the samples (lots of them)... no scientific imperitive.

Look at the fun, look at the masses of different samples, look at the HD photos! Importantly; look at the PR! And the public approval of $$$$ future spending on near space exploration and tourism!


No political will.. end of story.

The reality is actually they can't do it!


They have already done it.

No, not even with the technology developed over the last 40 years. And considering the rate at which technology is advancing, 40 years represents some advance!


They landed on the moon in 1969, there is zeo doubt... please prove to me they didn't.

Let's be more accurate. NASA could do it. They could send the next scheduled shuttle mission to the Moon, orbit the Moon a few, times and come back.


No scientific imperitive or political will for manned moon missions (from the USA anyway).

With all respect Arbiter, the problem is not a lack of imperative, it's the presence of danger. NASA are little surer of how the shuttle would behave in Moon orbit, or in breaking free of it, than they were 40 years ago with the spaceship they sent on the first Moon mission.


You don't seem to understand orbital mechanics nor politics.

Unmanned probes are expendable, lives on prime time global television are not.


Political will. The Apollo missions were dangerous.. those astrounauts had real guts. The political imperitive justified the risk in the 1960's.. it doesn't now (for the USA anyway), China and Japan seem to have some political will right.. the imperitive is a kind of muscle flexing to send a message to the world (like the USA in the 60's).
User avatar
Arbiter
On Parole
 
Posts: 1119
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 9:50 pm

Re: Moon Landings

Postby Arbiter » Sun Feb 17, 2008 12:26 pm

[quote="Tripz"]For the sake of reason the USA hadn't a stronger enough rocket to achieve that quest..[quote]

Hi Tripz,

You can backup this claim? I'd be really interested to know why you think this.

Ta,

Arbiter.
User avatar
Arbiter
On Parole
 
Posts: 1119
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 9:50 pm

Re: Moon Landings

Postby Tripz » Sun Feb 17, 2008 7:11 pm

Moon Landing Hoax - Wires Footage - InfoDebug.com

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUE

fake moon landing

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuwyY2DzO2I

Was Moon Landing Faked?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxdPP7DdieI


In this film, when the Lunar Module lands, it touches down violently rocking to the left. However, the moon's surface remains in the same place [to understand this, keep your eyes fixed on the craters seen through the dust]. This is not possible, since the camera was on the LM itself.

But let's assume that the moon's surface remains in absolute sync with the shadow's movement - which it MUST DO. Let's assume that is true. THEN HOW IN THE HECK DOES THE OBJECT IN THE TOP RIGHT-HAND CORNER NOT STAY IN SYNC WITH THE SHADOW??!! Whatever that is, it is not mounted to the LEM, because it doesn't turn with the LEM's shadow and the distance between it and the shadow is not constant during this violent touchdown. So this is FAKE, FAKE, FAKE.

Also, there is no indication by the astronauts of this violent touchdown. None whatsoever.



MOON LANDING HOAX - Faked Moon Landing Footage . Cernan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ByqHJnT0iVg


Giant Spotlights instead of "Suns" for Apollo missions film and photo shoots.

One Giant Spotlight For Mankind

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EaV7QB_ReTw
TRUTH & JUSTICE
"IL FAUT MENTIR POUR ETRE VRAI"
User avatar
Tripz
Lifer
 
Posts: 5311
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 12:47 pm
Location: MAGIK ROUNDABOUT

Re: Moon Landings

Postby Tripz » Sun Feb 17, 2008 10:24 pm

Arbiter wrote:
Tripz wrote:For the sake of reason the USA hadn't a stronger enough rocket to achieve that quest..

Hi Tripz,

You can backup this claim? I'd be really interested to know why you think this.

Ta,

Arbiter.


My my Arbiter asking me his fellow information desk operator to prove it. No you prove to me the evidence that irrefutable evidence that those X amount of moon landings actually were real. How many was it again? In how many years? What again was the US wrapped up in which war they started but were learning the hard way don't sit at the table and act hard with real warriors? So how could they afford such extravagant expense when the socio-econ of the USA was at breaking/tipping point? Come on Arbiter you ain't really a moonphile are you? LOL!
TRUTH & JUSTICE
"IL FAUT MENTIR POUR ETRE VRAI"
User avatar
Tripz
Lifer
 
Posts: 5311
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 12:47 pm
Location: MAGIK ROUNDABOUT

PreviousNext

Return to Sciences - Space, Moon Landings - Astronomy - Astrology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest