Moon landing 'hoax'

[xane]

Originally posted by Maljonic
Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins are not actors... and I find it frankly disgusting that people can belittle the achievments of these three outstanding heros of the 20th century when they are still alive and available to speak to.

There's a video clip of one of the hoax theorists approaching Aldrin and accusing him of lying, Buzz then wacks him in the face, it's very funny.

 

[Will]

Now I really really want a link for that.

 

[Embattle]

Originally posted by ECA
Bah i have 3-4 paper IQ test results lying around stating between 120 and 154 :-]

Although first time in someones sig i think

Thanks for proving how utterly useless IQ tests are...........

They did go to the moon, it was an amazing feat that was achieved through guts/stupidity and absolute shit loads of money.....which is why it hasn't been repeated in recent times.

 

[old.Fweddy]

You must try and realize the truth. There is no moon.

 

[mank!]

There is no one at home when ParcelForce come, but it doesn't mean that it's true.

 

[Embattle]

You're mistaken (<---Missed n)....there is no Earth.

 

[old.Fweddy]

I never said there was.

 

[ECA]

Originally posted by Embattle
You're mistake....there is no Earth.

GRAMMAR NAZI INCOMING.

 

[Clowneh!]

I think Embattle flicks a coin to decide whether to use "your" or "you're"

 

[Will]

Originally posted by Clowneh!
I think Embattle flicks a coin to decide whether to use "your" or "you're"

I have reviewed his most recent posts, and I think he changes depending on which spelling is what we in the grammar business call "correct".

 

[Tom]

The camera thing is absolutely correct, there is no way of exposing for sunlight and starlight in the same image, electronically, or chemically.

People who say that the shadows should be parallel are ignoring their own experiences on this planet - when have you ever seen a shadow that does not point directly at the source of light that causes it? If you're looking at two sundials, both with shadows, those shadows will each point to the sun, but the shadows will certainly not be parallel, unless you are standing directly above them, looking down.

The + + + things on some pictures appearing to be masked out by objects behind them, well thats the same as the first point, notice that they only disappear when crossing bright objects. They are still there, but the bleed from the bright object masks them.

For me the most telling proof is the way the dust interacts with the surroundings. It proves they are in a vacuum, as the dust does not cloud around their legs when they move, it just flicks up and falls right back down again. And it is still technically impossible to build a large vacuum of the size they would have needed, to fake it all.

People who think the moon landings were faked are morons, plain and simple. Now the Kennedy assassinations, thats another story.....

 

[mank!]

Who wants to design a desktop with the correct usage of 'your' and 'you're' written all over it for Emb?

 

[Embattle]

Originally posted by Clowneh!
I think Embattle flicks a coin to decide whether to use "your" or "you're"

I flip a coin in between the million others thing I tend to be doing at the time of a post, the same way God did when deciding your looks, as we can tell tales was the loosing side

 

[old.Fweddy]

You're right. He was grammatically correct, he just spelt 'mistaken' wrong.

And I didn't know you're in the grammar business Will. What do you do there?

 

[Embattle]

Originally posted by Clowneh!
I think Embattle flicks a coin to decide whether to use "your" or "you're"

BTW I wasn't wrong on your/you're....I missed the n of mistaken

 

[Will]

Originally posted by old.Fweddy
And I didn't know you're in the grammar business Will. What do you do there?

Nothing. I just passed Higher English and love to abuse sarcasm.

 

[mank!]

Does that mean you're in the sarcasm business?

 

[Gumbo]

Originally posted by Embattle
I flip a coin in between the million others thing I tend to be doing at the time of a post, the same way God did when deciding your looks, as we can tell tales was the loosing side

I flip a coin in between the million other(s) things I tend to be doing at the time of a post, the same way God did when deciding your looks, as we can tell tails was the losing side.

 

[Will]

Originally posted by mank!
Does that mean you're in the sarcasm business?

I work in customer services...so yes.

 

[Embattle]

Originally posted by Gumbo
I flip a coin in between the million other(s) things I tend to be doing at the time of a post, the same way God did when deciding your looks, as we can tell tails was the losing side.

SO fast you missed it

 

[mank!]

Originally posted by Will.
I work in customer services...so yes.

touché

 

[Clowneh!]

my mum said i look better than brad pitt..

(if i cared how i looked i wouldnt have used my face as an avatar?)

 

[Embattle]

Originally posted by Clowneh!
my mum said i look better than brad pitt..

(if i cared how i looked i wouldnt have used my face as an avatar?)

Luckily for you that your mums guide dog can't speak English eh

 

[Jonny_Darko]

I've only read the first post, which said something like "How can people be so stupid as to believe the moon landings were fake?".

Well, considering this is 40 years ago we're talking about, I find it highly more probable they were faked than not. It's not a common sense competition, and if it were, it would make far more sense that the US set it up to win a very important political battle than actually went to the moon. Surely?

Think about what technology was like in the 60s man, think about cars, medicine, war technology...could man really have made it to the moon in 69?

Plus, ppl laugh at stuff as the ramblings of paranoid idiots, but when, for example, one of the world's leading experts on cameras, says there's absolutely no way that someone who wasn't a professional photographer could take pictures that clear with the camera they used, without factoring in the tiny, fiddly buttons and the fact that the crew were operating them with huge spacesuit gloves, why can't that be taken seriously.

Ppl are so quick to go "Oh shut up, that's ridiculous" when these things are said, but is it really?

I don't have an opinion, but I close my mind off to neither possibilty, and like it said, if it's likelihoods we're talking, it's infinitely more likely they didn't go.

 

[Any]

Why has noone that actually worked on the moon landings ever said they are fake? How do you keep something that big a secret for such a long time?

The people at NASA were some of the cleverest people around. If they were fake then do you really think that they would make any mistakes in the photgraphs?

ECA, you are a moron if you belive they faked the landings. If you would like to post some of the 50-200 unanswerable questions ill be happy enough to answer them for you

 

[Daffeh]

Originally posted by Any
Why has noone that actually worked on the moon landings ever said they are fake? How do you keep something that big a secret for such a long time?

The people at NASA were some of the cleverest people around. If they were fake then do you really think that they would make any mistakes in the photgraphs?

ECA, you are a moron if you belive they faked the landings. If you would like to post some of the 50-200 unanswerable questions ill be happy enough to answer them for you

According to some theories anyone who tries to say anything mysteriously disappears. One even claimed the Apollo 1 astronauts were killed because they were gonna spill the beans on how unsafe and impossible the whole programme was.

I think its perfectly possible that a secret could be kept for 30-40 years, as people say before they believe a Kennedy cover-up yet thats been secret longer.

 

[Big G]

Originally posted by Any
How do you keep something that big a secret for such a long time?

That's what goes through my head every time this comes up - how could so many people keep it quiet for so long.

I'd say that there is quite a lot of evidence to make you think "hmmm, it's possible they faked it" - but tbh, whos gives a fuck?

Another thing, seems bizzare the Russians were first in space but never sent anyone to the moon. Apparently, they say that you would be cooked by radiation going through the van allen belts. either the Russians were wrong, or the Americans faked it.

Gaz

 

[Embattle]

The Van Allen belts are full of deadly radiation, and anyone passing through them would be fried.

Needless to say this is a very simplistic statement. Yes, there is deadly radiation in the Van Allen belts, but the nature of that radiation was known to the Apollo engineers and they were able to make suitable preparations. The principle danger of the Van Allen belts is high-energy protons, which are not that difficult to shield against. And the Apollo navigators plotted a course through the thinnest parts of the belts and arranged for the spacecraft to pass through them quickly, limiting the exposure.

The Van Allen belts span only about forty degrees of earth's latitude -- twenty degrees above and below the magnetic equator. The diagrams of Apollo's translunar trajectory printed in various press releases are not entirely accurate. They tend to show only a two-dimensional version of the actual trajectory. The actual trajectory was three-dimensional. The highly technical reports of Apollo, accessible to but not generally understood by the public, give the three-dimensional details of the translunar trajectory.

Each mission flew a slightly different trajectory in order to access its landing site, but the orbital inclination of the translunar coast trajectory was always in the neighborhood of 30°. Stated another way, the geometric plane containing the translunar trajectory was inclined to the earth's equator by about 30°. A spacecraft following that trajectory would bypass all but the edges of the Van Allen belts.

This is not to dispute that passage through the Van Allen belts would be dangerous. But NASA conducted a series of experiments designed to investigate the nature of the Van Allen belts, culminating in the repeated traversal of the Southern Atlantic Magnetic Anomaly (an intense, low-hanging patch of Van Allen belt) by the Gemini 10 astronauts.

 

[Testin da Cable]

Originally posted by xane
They were not that "special" actually, the only real modification was the special casing, because the normal casing tended to evaporate into a toxic gas when exposed to a vacuum, inside it was more or less a basic Hasselblad.

I've been to the Hasselblad factory in Sweden and seen them being made (by hand), I've seen one there that was used on a few moon missions.

This was back in the early 1980s, whilst we were being shown around someone ushered us into a cinema there and we got to see some slides of the recent first Space Shuttle flight, fresh back from the developers before they were released, pretty cool !

oho, that's cool indeed! to be a smidgin pedantic though, I'd argue that a Hasselblad is a very special camera in it's own right d'you happen to know what lenses they took with them?

 

[xane]

Originally posted by Jonny_Darko
Think about what technology was like in the 60s man, think about cars, medicine, war technology...could man really have made it to the moon in 69?

Actually many technological advancements have slowed down since the moon landings ended, in the example of warfare, most of the aircraft used in the last Gulf War were designed 25 years ago.

Originally posted by Jonny_Darko
Plus, ppl laugh at stuff as the ramblings of paranoid idiots, but when, for example, one of the world's leading experts on cameras, says there's absolutely no way that someone who wasn't a professional photographer could take pictures that clear with the camera they used, without factoring in the tiny, fiddly buttons and the fact that the crew were operating them with huge spacesuit gloves, why can't that be taken seriously.

Perhaps a link to this "world leading expert" who has never used a Hasselblad.

Hasselblads are traditionally supplied without a viewfinder, you hold the camera at chest height and look down into the view screen. The astronauts had the camera permanently mounted on the chest, with crosshairs inside the helmet. The camera was fixed infinite focus and fixed exposure and the shutter button, the only one needed, was on the glove or arm.

I've used a camera at fixed focus, it works, anywhere from 3' out to infinity, how do you think pinhole cameras work, they haven't even got a lens ?

BTW you often see all the "good" photos, you never see all the hundreds of rejected ones with heads chopped off and out blurry due to movement.