I can prove that the Apollo "lunar missions" were faked

[Dual867PowerMac]

This is conclusive and it can't be explained away! NASA is completely and utterly BUSTED!!! :twisted:

At about the 2:37 mark, the flag noticeably moves when the astronaut hops by closer to the camera than the flag. The astronaut doesn't even touch the flag, yet it moves!

See for yourself:

*** OBLIGATORY YOUTUBE WARNING ***

Link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1UEv2PIzl4)

The astronaut moves by and disrupts the air enough to make the flag wave in an airless environment? How is this possible?

[Finality]

You must be the first one who has ever seen this! :lol:

[PredFan]

Seriously!

I didn't think there were any more of those people around.

LOL!

[BostonPatriot]

In those days, the USSR was not exactly our friend. You can believe that they monitored all of the NASA frequencies... If any of it was fake, do you really think the Kremlin wouldn't have called us out on it?

[CID_0687]

Of course it's a hoax!! My Uncle Bill let them use his garage in Ft. Lauderdale to film the whole thing. :lol:

[BostonPatriot]

Of course it's a hoax!! My Uncle Bill let them use his garage in Ft. Lauderdale to film the whole thing. :lol:

You mean it wasn't the Arizona desert?!? :mrgreen:

[Finality]

In those days, the USSR was not exactly our friend. You can believe that they monitored all of the NASA frequencies... If any of it was fake, do you really think the Kremlin wouldn't have called us out on it?
Shhh, shhh! If you let us do this, then we'll give you Yugoslavia. OK?

[Dual867PowerMac]

Seriously!

I didn't think there were any more of those people around.

LOL!
Yes... There's a few of "us" left.

[Dual867PowerMac]

In those days, the USSR was not exactly our friend. You can believe that they monitored all of the NASA frequencies... If any of it was fake, do you really think the Kremlin wouldn't have called us out on it?
Irrelevant to the evidence. Since the camera does not lie, we can deduce that NASA fooled the Soviets, too.

[CID_0687]

You mean it wasn't the Arizona desert?!? :mrgreen:
Nah, Uncle Bill's garage was pretty big and it was right there on the beach so it was easy access for all that sand...the "hills" you see in the background are nothing more than prop screens...look closely at the video you can see the wires that make the astronauts have that "semi-weightless" bounce about them.

He rigged the whole thing, Uncle Sam paid him a very nice chunk of change for his service of fooling the world.

He and Aunt Francine were able to retire early, they sold the home in Florida and moved to Minnesota...don't ask why...that was when the "lunar landings" had to cease...The gubmint didn't trust anyone else with this Top Secret Classified information.

[BostonPatriot]

Nah, Uncle Bill's garage was pretty big and it was right there on the beach so it was easy access for all that sand...the "hills" you see in the background are nothing more than prop screens...look closely at the video you can see the wires that make the astronauts have that "semi-weightless" bounce about them.

He rigged the whole thing, Uncle Sam paid him a very nice chunk of change for his service of fooling the world.

He and Aunt Francine were able to retire early, they sold the home in Florida and moved to Minnesota...don't ask why...that was when the "lunar landings" had to cease...The gubmint didn't trust anyone else with this Top Secret Classified information.

Of course! Now I understand!

They should have moved to Roswell. Imagine how they could have helped out there :mrgreen:

[Hadassah]

OK, guys, how about giving the man a reasonable explanation of why this wasn't faked instead of all the sarcasm? :razz: :mrgreen:

[CID_0687]

Of course! Now I understand!

They should have moved to Roswell. Imagine how they could have helped out there :mrgreen:
Uncle Frank already had that covered.

[CID_0687]

OK, guys, how about giving the man a reasonable explanation of why this wasn't faked instead of all the sarcasm? :razz: :mrgreen:
Killjoy. :snooty:

[BostonPatriot]

OK, guys, how about giving the man a reasonable explanation of why this wasn't faked instead of all the sarcasm? :razz: :mrgreen:

Fair enough. But read this (http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html#flag) first. This is from Bad Astronomy. It's all been explained.

[BostonPatriot]

Uncle Frank already had that covered.

So THAT's who was behind all those UFOs:mrgreen:

[CID_0687]

So THAT's who was behind all those UFOs:mrgreen:
Yep, guess who was behind Sasquatch.

[Hadassah]

Killjoy. :snooty:



It's my job. :twisted:
















besides, I know someone who believes that the lunar landing was faked and I really want a good rebuttal, but I'm too lazy to look it up. :angel:

[Hadassah]

Fair enough. But read this (http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html#flag) first. This is from Bad Astronomy. It's all been explained.

Oooohhh, that's good. Thanks. :mrgreen:

[Dual867PowerMac]

I guess no one want to discuss the evidence?

[BostonPatriot]

I guess no one want to discuss the evidence?

See post #15

[BostonPatriot]

Yep, guess who was behind Sasquatch.

And the Loch Ness monster? :))

[CID_0687]

I guess no one want to discuss the evidence?
Mythbusters proved that the flag could have the appearance of waving in a vacuum....doesn't really seem like there's much to discuss.

[CID_0687]

And the Loch Ness monster? :))
Cousin Fergus McLame. ;)

[gdoane]

Air isn't the only thing that can move objects.

Light can do it too, in fact I've got a couple of radiometers which are colored vanes (black and white) in a vacuum glass atmosphere which spin like crazy when the photons bounce more off of one side of the vanes than the other.

Pure vacuum. Major motion. Caused by light, photons. If you'd like to see a radiometer in action...

See for yourself:

*** OBLIGATORY YOUTUBE WARNING ***

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cey-JBeHrww&NR=1


When photons hit an object, they impart energy. Trust me on this, I'm a radio technician and no antenna on the planet would work if this were not totally and completely true.

I actually got bored one evening and used my Class III He-Ne Laser (very dangerous, do not try this at home, I'm an idiot with an industrial class laser in the house) to see if it would spin the radiometer faster than the sunlight but it didn't and I think it's because the laser's photons are only 780 nanometers while the sunlight goes clean from Infrared to UV. It's a pretty red He-Ne laser but even though it's thousands of times brighter than the sun it doesn't have the right frequency of photons to spin a radiometer very well.

Maybe if the colors were different the laser would work better on the vanes. I digress.

The point is, you're asserting that air moved the object. I've seen light move an object too, pretty much every day with my radiometers and I do believe that changing light hitting a color reflective surface can cause motion, and I can prove that too.

[khigh]

And the Loch Ness monster? :))

Nessie was my doing, but I'm really sorry she ate Scully's dog. :(

*had to throw in an X-files reference in this thread*

[Dual867PowerMac]

Fair enough. But read this (http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html#flag) first. This is from Bad Astronomy. It's all been explained.
Phil Plait? He's not discussing the events in the video I've provided.

[BostonPatriot]

Phil Plait? He's not discussing the events in the video I've provided.

I saw the video. The guy walks by and obviously hits the flagpole, causing the ripple.

[BostonPatriot]

Nessie was my doing, but I'm really sorry she ate Scully's dog. :(

*had to throw in an X-files reference in this thread*

So now we have two people claiming responsiblity for Loch Ness? :mrgreen:

[Dual867PowerMac]

I saw the video. The guy walks by and obviously hits the flagpole, causing the ripple.
Baloney! He doesn't get anywhere near it.

[Dual867PowerMac]

Air isn't the only thing that can move objects.

Light can do it too, in fact I've got a couple of radiometers which are colored vanes (black and white) in a vacuum glass atmosphere which spin like crazy when the photons bounce more off of one side of the vanes than the other.

Pure vacuum. Major motion. Caused by light, photons. If you'd like to see a radiometer in action...

See for yourself:

*** OBLIGATORY YOUTUBE WARNING ***

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cey-JBeHrww&NR=1


When photons hit an object, they impart energy. Trust me on this, I'm a radio technician and no antenna on the planet would work if this were not totally and completely true.

I actually got bored one evening and used my Class III He-Ne Laser (very dangerous, do not try this at home, I'm an idiot with an industrial class laser in the house) to see if it would spin the radiometer faster than the sunlight but it didn't and I think it's because the laser's photons are only 780 nanometers while the sunlight goes clean from Infrared to UV. It's a pretty red He-Ne laser but even though it's thousands of times brighter than the sun it doesn't have the right frequency of photons to spin a radiometer very well.

Maybe if the colors were different the laser would work better on the vanes. I digress.

The point is, you're asserting that air moved the object. I've seen light move an object too, pretty much every day with my radiometers and I do believe that changing light hitting a color reflective surface can cause motion, and I can prove that too.
Totally irrelevant. When the astronaut skips by he's nowhere near the flag and yet it moves like curtains would move when you walk by at a brisk pace.

Discuss that please.

[CID_0687]

So now we have two people claiming responsiblity for Loch Ness? :mrgreen:
That's Cousin Fergus.

Hey cuz!!

[CID_0687]

Baloney! He doesn't get anywhere near it.
You don't know the distance between the camera, him when he walks by and where the flagpole are...it's probably only a few feet.

[BostonPatriot]

That's Cousin Fergus.

Hey cuz!!

And I suppose you're behind the hoax of the earth being round? It's really flat, isn't it? :)

[BostonPatriot]

Totally irrelevant. When the astronaut skips by he's nowhere near the flag and yet it moves like curtains would move when you walk by at a brisk pace.

Discuss that please.

It looks like he touched the flag. Mythbusters video, which includes the one in your OP is here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCPIchZDSr4&feature=related).

[gdoane]

Totally irrelevant. When the astronaut skips by he's nowhere near the flag and yet it moves like curtains would move when you walk by at a brisk pace.

Discuss that please.

Light can move objects. That's not a maybe, that's a totally proven fact.

An astronaut is dressed in a silvery space suit designed to reflect light energy. The reason why is obvious, solar energy on the moon makes temperatures on the bright side of the moon reach 212° F, hot enough to boil water.

The moon has an amazing amount of energy hitting it. Without any meaningful atmosphere, the solar winds can tear it up.

You're looking at an energy reaction and assuming that it must be atmospheric energy that you see. I'd rethink that assumption because there is a lot more to energy than a puff of air in my experience.

[AutoRacer55]

My proof that the moon landings weren't faked.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that the whole thing was done in a sound studio. For 40 years now, the sound crew, props crew, directors, producers, janitors, actors, writers, lighting crew, and stage crew would have to be kept quiet. Do you honestly think all those people would be able to keep that quiet for over 40 years now?

Not to mention, if there is no air, there is no air resistance. There would be no force opposing the flag fluttering except for any friction on the pole.

[Dual867PowerMac]

Light can move objects. That's not a maybe, that's a totally proven fact.

An astronaut is dressed in a silvery space suit designed to reflect light energy. The reason why is obvious, solar energy on the moon makes temperatures on the bright side of the moon reach 212° F, hot enough to boil water.

The moon has an amazing amount of energy hitting it. Without any meaningful atmosphere, the solar winds can tear it up.

You're looking at an energy reaction and assuming that it must be atmospheric energy that you see. I'd rethink that assumption because there is a lot more to energy than a puff of air in my experience.
I guess I'm seeing things because it looks to me that when the astronaut skips by the flag moves in a manner consistent with disruption of the air.

In an airless environment, how can there be disruption of air?

Prove that to me and I'll believe anything you say about light moving objects. Deal?

[BostonPatriot]

I guess I'm seeing things because it looks to me that when the astronaut skips by the flag moves in a manner consistent with disruption of the air.

In an airless environment, how can there be disruption of air?

Prove that to me and I'll believe anything you say about light moving objects. Deal?

Read this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_sail).

[gdoane]

I guess I'm seeing things because it looks to me that when the astronaut skips by the flag moves in a manner consistent with disruption of the air.

It would. Photons are pesky little things, sometimes acting like waves and sometimes acting like particles, really sort of writing their own rules as they go (they can travel at the speed of light too and nothing else can) so if a photon is acting as a particle, then it would certainly look like a breeze hitting a sheet.

In an airless environment, how can there be disruption of air?

I'm not saying there's a disruption of air. I'm saying that there's a disruption of photons which could look to an observer like a disruption of air.

Photon sails, light sails are a currently credible method for a vessel to achieve near light speed velocities. If you can harness the photon wind, then your speed is pretty much limited only by the Theory of Relativity.

Prove that to me and I'll believe anything you say about light moving objects. Deal?

I did that. A radiometer is motion in an airless environment. I've got two of the things in my house right now. Motion of an object in a vacuum while disturbed by light is a very real possibility. The most likely colors to demonstrate the effect are Black and White. I'm pretty sure at least one of those colors are on the flag in question.

[notluzn]

All space travel is faked. Hubble is Fake too. Are all Liberals this you know.......?

[Dual867PowerMac]

Read this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_sail).
Not convinced. The flag clearly moves as a direct result of the astronaut's quick movement by it. It does not move between the time it is planted and untouched and the astronaut skips by.

All this other stuff you and Gene are throwing at me about solar sails and photons and light making stuff move may be actual phenomena, but they have no bearing here.

[Dual867PowerMac]

All space travel is faked. Hubble is Fake too. Are all Liberals this you know.......?
Space travel is possible. I've never said it wasn't. But it's just not possible above the Van Allen belts.

[PredFan]

Totally irrelevant. When the astronaut skips by he's nowhere near the flag and yet it moves like curtains would move when you walk by at a brisk pace.

Discuss that please.

Soooo....let's see.

There's this Everest-sized mountain of evidence to back up the legitimate stance that we landed on the moon, and you have a tiny piece of evidence the size of a turd. And you want us to believe you?

[Spaceman Spiff]

Totally irrelevant. When the astronaut skips by he's nowhere near the flag and yet it moves like curtains would move when you walk by at a brisk pace.

Discuss that please.

Okay, at the beginning of the video the astronaut swung the flag around putting it closer to the camera. When he hopped by there is a good chance he blushed against it with that huge space suit.

And did you happen to notice how long the flag kept moving? If you gave the flag a little brush here in the atmosphere of Earth it wouldn't move nearly as long due to the friction of the air.

[CID_0687]

Not convinced. The flag clearly moves as a direct result of the astronaut's quick movement by it. It does not move between the time it is planted and untouched and the astronaut skips by.

All this other stuff you and Gene are throwing at me about solar sails and photons and light making stuff move may be actual phenomena, but they have no bearing here.
How do they have no bearing?

Light bouncing off the space suit could have caused this to happen.

As the astronaut skipped by he may have touched the flag...can't tell because he's blocking the shot.

I wish Uncle Bill was still alive, I could ask him what happened.

[Dual867PowerMac]

When he hopped by there is a good chance he blushed against it with that huge space suit.
He didn't "blush" against anything. ;)

I know you meant "brush."

The hopping astronaut didn't touch the flag. In fact, he was closer to the camera than the flag.

[notluzn]

Space travel is possible. I've never said it wasn't. But it's just not possible above the Van Allen belts.
Yeah because we know you're so much smarter than the people at NASA. Oh and the SR71 that was designed over 50+ years ago is still the fastest plane. Yeah they were so stupid back then. Must be a bunch of Retards that worked for NASA. Those rockets never left the Earth. I think George Lucas made the Apollo movies before thinking of Star Wars. The reflectors on the moon that helps scientist measure distance is a natural rock formation. You should work for NASA and make the moon landing happen.

[CID_0687]

He didn't "blush" against anything. ;)

I know you meant "brush."

The hopping astronaut didn't touch the flag. In fact, he was closer to the camera than the flag.
How do you know the distance from the flag to the camera?

[Spaceman Spiff]

He didn't "blush" against anything. ;)

I know you meant "brush."

The hopping astronaut didn't touch the flag. In fact, he was closer to the camera than the flag.

Yes, "brushed'. Good catch. Anyway, he did swing the flag closer, but we can't be sure how close. Now, how do explain how the flag kept moving for the rest of the video?

[PredFan]

I'm astounded that we're having this discussion.

Really.

[notluzn]

I'm astounded that we're having this discussion.

Really.Oh come on... We all know that those people back then were stupid. We didn't discover the Sun until 1974

[CID_0687]

I'm astounded that we're having this discussion.

Really.
+1

But it's a great way to spend a Friday evening with a few drinks. :)

[Dual867PowerMac]

I'm astounded that we're having this discussion.

Really.
Not the usual boring stuff, huh?

[notluzn]

Not the usual boring stuff, huh?
You know, they were so close in that capsule that they had Gay Sex.. I also heard that it was Powered by a Mac computer. So you might be right that they never made it to the moon. :) :) I need a Beer but I don't drink :(( :((

[Dual867PowerMac]

You know, they were so close in that capsule that they had Gay Sex.. I also heard that it was Powered by a Mac computer. So you might be right that they never made it to the moon. :) :) I need a Beer but I don't drink :(( :((
:wall:

[ImNewHere]

:wall:

Buy silver, gold, food and ammo. We'll have to fight these clowns off when they realize they've been duped. By Bush, by Clinton, by Bush again and now by Obama.

[notluzn]

I wonder how much fun Sex would be in Space or on the moon.

[PredFan]

Seriously,

you could argue all day that it was wind in some soundstage in some secret location and i have a feeling you'd never change your mind.

There is a mountain of evidence, much of it repeatable, that shows we actually did land on the moon. You ignore all of that evidence and base your entire theory on one that that can actually be explained away?

The astronauts placed a reflector on the moon's surface and the coordinates can be obtained from NASA and any college or company with a lazer can shine a beam on it and recieve that beam back. NASA astronauts put that mirror there.

Do you know that it is in fact true that man and spacecraft CAN go safely through the Van Allen Belt?

[ImNewHere]

I wonder how much fun Sex would be in Space or on the moon.

Dude. You're married now. You're just wondering how much fun any sex would be.

[khigh]

So now we have two people claiming responsiblity for Loch Ness? :mrgreen:


There's room for 2 Nessies. I'm also going to go ahead and take credit for the sludge monster, creature from the deep, and the alien conspiracy. Someone else can have Big Foot. No way am I connecting myself with that hoax. :razz:

[notluzn]

Dude. You're married now. You're just wondering how much fun any sex would be.
:)) :)) :)) naw shes a maniac. Im the one that says no often.:)) My Mojo is gone I think :(( :(( :((

[notluzn]

No Body will make me think that Bigfoot isn't real.

[khigh]

Dude. You're married now. You're just wondering how much fun any sex would be.

Hey now, married people have sex too. When there is time, and the wife is feeling up to it, and the kids are asleep, and all the chores are done. Okay, maybe married people don't have sex...:))

[AutoRacer55]

My proof that the moon landings weren't faked.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that the whole thing was done in a sound studio. For 40 years now, the sound crew, props crew, directors, producers, janitors, actors, writers, lighting crew, and stage crew would have to be kept quiet. Do you honestly think all those people would be able to keep that quiet for over 40 years now?

Not to mention, if there is no air, there is no air resistance. There would be no force opposing the flag fluttering except for any friction on the pole.

:whistle:

[ImNewHere]

:)) :)) :)) naw shes a maniac. Im the one that says no often.:)) My Mojo is gone I think :(( :(( :((

Oh, dude. TOS violation if I imply what I'm thinking about posting. ... :lol:

[notluzn]

Oh, dude. TOS violation if I imply what I'm thinking about posting. ... :lol:

You know, everytime I see your Avatar, I think
MORE COW BELLS

[ImNewHere]

You know, everytime I see your Avatar, I think
MORE COW BELLS

Sometimes that's the only reason I post here. I want to give you all more cowbells. It's a burden sometimes, but a very worthwhile endeavor.

[StoneScratcher]

There is one thing I refuse to believe, despite others who fall into believing it happened because they either need to believe it happened or they don't understand that, at the time of the supposed moon landing, the technology was at the level of having a Texas Instruments Calculator which could do basic math and it was the size of a phone book.

And for those who believe it happened, the way this moon landing history goes, is that in truth the Russians were the first to land on the moon. But they used a robotic device similar to the Mars Rover. The Russians made the first tracks on the moon, however, not via hopping and skipping men.

[CaptainPike]

This is conclusive and it can't be explained away! NASA is completely and utterly BUSTED!!! :twisted:

At about the 2:37 mark, the flag noticeably moves when the astronaut hops by closer to the camera than the flag. The astronaut doesn't even touch the flag, yet it moves!

See for yourself:

*** OBLIGATORY YOUTUBE WARNING ***

Link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1UEv2PIzl4)

The astronaut moves by and disrupts the air enough to make the flag wave in an airless environment? How is this possible?

Here's a pretty good explination of what might have happened:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCPIchZDSr4

But, here's my own conspiracy theory...

I think what happened is that some smarty pants working at a dry cleaners gave birth to this whole fake moon landing. Why? Probably because he used far too much starch. That's right. Starch. So they figure they can just starch up a flag and make it look like it's in a vacuum. You following me camera guy? I thought not.

[PredFan]

There is one thing I refuse to believe, despite others who fall into believing it happened because they either need to believe it happened or they don't understand that, at the time of the supposed moon landing, the technology was at the level of having a Texas Instruments Calculator which could do basic math and it was the size of a phone book.

And for those who believe it happened, the way this moon landing history goes, is that in truth the Russians were the first to land on the moon. But they used a robotic device similar to the Mars Rover. The Russians made the first tracks on the moon, however, not via hopping and skipping men.

I've tried to read this a few times, thinking, this has to be a joke right?

If this is a joke, it's humor is lost to me.

OTOH, you can't seriously believe they didn't land on the moon can you?

[StoneScratcher]

I've tried to read this a few times, thinking, this has to be a joke right?

If this is a joke, it's humor is lost to me.

OTOH, you can't seriously believe they didn't land on the moon can you?

I, personally, do not believe there was a moon landing where USA men hopped on the moon.

HOWEVER:

The RUSSIANS, were, in FACT, the first to make tracks on the moon. They did this BEFORE any USA technology made any mark on the moon. The Russians launched and landed a Moon Rover. They did this FIRST. The Russians were technologically more advanced than America. This is a historical fact, however, you're not going to hear it with all the bleeting about the USA men hopping on the moon.

I believe the Russian scenario (Moon Rover landing).

I refuse to believe the USA men landed and walked on the moon. To date, no man has EVER walked on the moon.

The reflective device on the moon is there...but NO MAN placed it there.

By the way, that Russian moon rover is still on the moon....

[CaptainPike]

There is one thing I refuse to believe, despite others who fall into believing it happened because they either need to believe it happened or they don't understand that, at the time of the supposed moon landing, the technology was at the level of having a Texas Instruments Calculator which could do basic math and it was the size of a phone book.

And for those who believe it happened, the way this moon landing history goes, is that in truth the Russians were the first to land on the moon. But they used a robotic device similar to the Mars Rover. The Russians made the first tracks on the moon, however, not via hopping and skipping men.

I guess computer technology was limited back then. But keep in mind that just one year before the first moon landing, the first computer mouse was born. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MPJZ6M52dI

If I'm not mistaken, that computer was running Unix or something like it.

[StoneScratcher]

Here's a pretty good explination of what might have happened:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCPIchZDSr4

But, here's my own conspiracy theory...

I think what happened is that some smarty pants working at a dry cleaners gave birth to this whole fake moon landing. Why? Probably because he used far too much starch. That's right. Starch. So they figure they can just starch up a flag and make it look like it's in a vacuum. You following me camera guy? I thought not.

The humidity in the studio had to be high so that the "moon dust" would not kick up and billow.

This caused the heavily starched flag to wilt.

[StoneScratcher]

I guess computer technology was limited back then. But keep in mind that just one year before the first moon landing, the first computer mouse was born. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MPJZ6M52dI

If I'm not mistaken, that computer was running Unix or something like it.

But the size of it was huge and not small enough to launch. The smallest "computer" was only able to do basic math.

[PredFan]

I, personally, do not believe there was a moon landing where USA men hopped on the moon.

HOWEVER:

The RUSSIANS, were, in FACT, the first to make tracks on the moon. They did this BEFORE any USA technology made any mark on the moon. The Russians launched and landed a Moon Rover. They did this FIRST. The Russians were technologically more advanced than America. This is a historical fact, however, you're not going to hear it with all the bleeting about the USA men hopping on the moon.

I believe the Russian scenario (Moon Rover landing).

I refuse to believe the USA men landed and walked on the moon. To date, no man has EVER walked on the moon.

The reflective device on the moon is there...but NO MAN placed it there.

By the way, that Russian moon rover is still on the moon....

Oooooohhhh kaaaaaaaaayy......

[StoneScratcher]

Oooooohhhh kaaaaaaaaayy......

During the 1960s, the United States and the Soviet Union were engaged in a feverish competition to be the first to set foot on the moon. We know who won this race, but less about a secret chapter. The Soviets many not have sent a man to the moon, but they successfully guided two small robots by remote control from the earth. For 16 months between 1970 and 1973, these "Lunokhods" traveled more than thirty miles over the moon's surface. With the declassification of the former USSR space archives, along with recollections by several of the key participants in the Lunokhod program, the true story of the Russian lunar robots can finally be told.

http://science.discovery.com/tv/tank/tank.html

Edited to include link to video:

http://science.discovery.com/videos/tank-on-the-moon-lunokhod.html

[CID_0687]

:))

You guys are a riot.

[PredFan]

:))

You guys are a riot.

I'm just so astounded that I can't laugh!

[Finality]

:))

You guys are a riot.
This is ******almost******* better than the RF. But not quite. :)

[Techgod]

5. The flag placed on the surface by the astronauts flapped despite there being no wind on the Moon.[64] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_moon_landing_hoax_accusations#cite_note-63) Sibrel said "The wind was probably caused by intense air-conditioning used to cool the astronauts in their lightened, uncirculated space suits. The cooling systems in the backpacks would have been removed to lighten the load not designed for Earth’s six times heavier gravity, otherwise they might have fallen over".


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_moon_landing_hoax_accusations#Photographs_a nd_films


Are you contending all the lunar landings including unmanned where faked including the rocks we still have? or was it just impossible for men to visit the Moon then?

Seems like we have made remarkable steps since then. Either we did it or we skipped that crucial step to get where we are now.

Or are we faking it all now as well?

[waynevan]

This is conclusive and it can't be explained away! NASA is completely and utterly BUSTED!!! :twisted:

At about the 2:37 mark, the flag noticeably moves when the astronaut hops by closer to the camera than the flag. The astronaut doesn't even touch the flag, yet it moves!

See for yourself:

*** OBLIGATORY YOUTUBE WARNING ***

Link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1UEv2PIzl4)

The astronaut moves by and disrupts the air enough to make the flag wave in an airless environment? How is this possible?

One problem. If THEY WERE doing that on Earth, hopping by would not disturb the air enough to move a rigid flag like that. He would have to be hopping at like 25 or 30 mph.

[Techgod]

So smart they can fake a moon landing , so dumb they leave all the good evidence out there for anyone to find.

It was like they did not even care that it waved. Where is the director saying "Cut! The damn flag moved again!"


I like the conspiracy that they took too many images and evidence.

[SFC(R)L]

someone just discover the internet?

What's next? It was a missile at the Pentagon?

[foxgurrrl]

I think it's possible it was faked. It would not surprise me. I am not willing to say I believe 100% in anything these days. It might be legit, it might not. I'll keep an open mind and look at all sides to the story.

I do believe that we are lied to all the time by people who are supposedly looking out for us. Our leaders are being led. So, might they lie and deceive average Americans? Yep.

[foxgurrrl]

So smart they can fake a moon landing , so dumb they leave all the good evidence out there for anyone to find.

It was like they did not even care that it waved. Where is the director saying "Cut! The damn flag moved again!"


I like the conspiracy that they took too many images and evidence.
Sure. The elite throw "evidence" out there all the time and laugh their butts off because they know people are (right now at least) powerless to do anything about it. And if we are not essentially powerless to change anything, we are (in vast numbers anyway) willfully ignorant and just accept whatever is handed to us. Most people, if their routine is not interrupted, will just ignore the evaporation of liberties. So long as the Big Macs and internet keeps flowing, and American Idol can still be watched, they'll become slaves and won't even notice.

So, I don't doubt there is a lot of evidence showing all kinds of things people wouldn't believe. It's a game. The elite knows it's out there, but knows people won't believe or care because it's not part of what their mass programming is... if you don't see it on tv or your favorite celebrity isn't hawking it, it's to be ignored, and so it is.

[MrDuffy]

Whew!:redface: I'm glad we got all that figured out!
Now does someone care to explain the "magic bullet" theory?

Ha! this is so fun I think I'll go watch a couple of ShamWow commercials.

Have fun, Y'all.:))

[notluzn]

Yes the Gov will lie to you but this couldn't have been Faked. They had a job to do. They left stuff there that had to be placed. Brought back rocks and soil to study. They were not lazy back then like we are today. They had a goal of getting there and cost peoples lives. Myth busters even tried to fake it and couldn't and these guys are pros with the highest tech avalible today.

There are too many people that were a part of it and no one could keep a secret that long and someone would have said something before they died. Most people admit stuff before dying.I think it's possible it was faked. It would not surprise me. I am not willing to say I believe 100% in anything these days. It might be legit, it might not. I'll keep an open mind and look at all sides to the story.

I do believe that we are lied to all the time by people who are supposedly looking out for us. Our leaders are being led. So, might they lie and deceive average Americans? Yep.

[foxgurrrl]

Anyone read "Dark Mission" by Richard Hoagland and Mike Bara? Some interesting theories. Hoagland has some cool ideas about the face on mars and ancient artifacts on the moon. He alleges NASA doctors photos released to the public, hiding these things. "The lie is different at every level."

http://www.enterprisemission.com/

Anything is possible.

[foxgurrrl]

Yes the Gov will lie to you but this couldn't have been Faked. They had a job to do. They left stuff there that had to be placed. Brought back rocks and soil to study. They were not lazy back then like we are today. They had a goal of getting there and cost peoples lives. Myth busters even tried to fake it and couldn't and these guys are pros with the highest tech avalible today.

There are too many people that were a part of it and no one could keep a secret that long and someone would have said something before they died. Most people admit stuff before dying.

I definitely see your point, and it's a strong one. However, I believe that even tv shows like Mythbusters could have the agenda to prove a moon landing. Who controls that show, who produces it? I'm just saying that there are powerful people who could control info like this.

And look at what happens to people who question it. They are labeled kooks and tin foil hat people. They don't need to worry about people blowing their cover.

Just my view - and again, I'm not saying I believe it was faked. I just think anything's possible.

[LouC]

This is conclusive and it can't be explained away! NASA is completely and utterly BUSTED!!! :twisted:

At about the 2:37 mark, the flag noticeably moves when the astronaut hops by closer to the camera than the flag. The astronaut doesn't even touch the flag, yet it moves!

See for yourself:

*** OBLIGATORY YOUTUBE WARNING ***

Link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1UEv2PIzl4)

The astronaut moves by and disrupts the air enough to make the flag wave in an airless environment? How is this possible?

Oh goody a new Tin Foil Chapeau thread, haven't had a good one in a while.

[James Juno]

I definitely see your point, and it's a strong one. However, I believe that even tv shows like Mythbusters could have the agenda to prove a moon landing. Who controls that show, who produces it? I'm just saying that there are powerful people who could control info like this.

And look at what happens to people who question it. They are labeled kooks and tin foil hat people. They don't need to worry about people blowing their cover.

Just my view - and again, I'm not saying I believe it was faked. I just think anything's possible.

There you have it. Mythbusters is in on it, too. It was faked, QED. I always suspected Adam Savage was hiding something. ;)

This thread is the best.

[ImNewHere]

someone just discover the internet?

What's next? It was a missile at the Pentagon?

You don't think it's odd that a couple of titanium engines just disappeared and that the wings of the plane wouldn't do any damage at all to the walls of the Pentagon?

You're drinking the Kool-Aid, you know. If you believe your government tells you the truth, then you're going to be very disappointed when you find out how things really work.

[BostonPatriot]

Oh goody a new Tin Foil Chapeau thread, haven't had a good one in a while.

Get yer tin foil hats here (http://zapatopi.net/afdb/)!:mrgreen::mrgreen:

Yes, apparently you can't trust tin foil hats made by others. Best way to make sure is to roll your own!

[Cav Scout]

This is conclusive and it can't be explained away! NASA is completely and utterly BUSTED!!! :twisted:

At about the 2:37 mark, the flag noticeably moves when the astronaut hops by closer to the camera than the flag. The astronaut doesn't even touch the flag, yet it moves!

See for yourself:

*** OBLIGATORY YOUTUBE WARNING ***

Link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1UEv2PIzl4)

The astronaut moves by and disrupts the air enough to make the flag wave in an airless environment? How is this possible?

:)):)):)):))

[Cav Scout]

Must be a relative of my neigbor, he thinks the blue reflector posts that the county put out to mark his drive way were put there so that the UN Troops know he is a gun owner....

[notluzn]

You don't think it's odd that a couple of titanium engines just disappeared and that the wings of the plane wouldn't do any damage at all to the walls of the Pentagon?

You're drinking the Kool-Aid, you know. If you believe your government tells you the truth, then you're going to be very disappointed when you find out how things really work. Well thank God I have family in the Pentigon and I got to enjoy the nice pictures of the piece of plane sitting in there. You must believe that elvis is still alive as well.

[LouC]

I love how people run around claiming to have discovered evidence that NASA is hiding the moon landings as hoaxes albeit with micro bits of alleged smoking gun proof.

Someone should tell NASA about this flag flap.

Oh wait, they already knew.


NASA LINK (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/frame.html)

148:57:05 Irwin: Okay.

148:57:07 Scott: You like that flag there, Joe?

148:57:10 Allen: It's beautiful.

148:57:15 Scott: Yeah. We think it's pretty nice, too. (Long Pause)

[Dave crosses in front of the TV, headed for the LM.]

[Note the slight motion of the lower righthand corner of the flag after Dave passes. Journal Contributors have suggested a number of possible causes: (1) Dave could have brushed against the flag with his left arm as he went by; (2) he could have kicked some dirt with his boot that hit the bottom of the flag; (3) he could have pushed a mound of soil sideways with his boot that pushed against the flagstaff ; (4) the impact of his boots on the ground as he ran past could have shaken the flagstaff; (5) he might have been carrying a static charge which attracted the flag material; (6) the flag could have been disturbed by emissions from the backpack.]

[In thinking about these possibilities, numbers 5 and 6 are very unlikely, since there is no evidence of similar flag motions during the Apollo 14, 16, and 17 deployments for which we have good video or - in the case of Apollo 14 - film coverage. With regard to foot impacts, we can certainly see the ground move when flagstaffs and cores are hammered into the ground, but the motions extend only a few centimeters outward and, because the Apollo 14 flag points at the LRV TV camera, Dave problably doesn't get close enough to the flagstaff for his footfalls to have any noticeable effect. Similarly, it doesn't seem likely that he got close enough to the flagstaff to have moved it with a displaced mound of dirt.]....

....[A likely explanation is that Dave brushed the flag with his arm as he went running past. As can be seen in the TV, he is carrying the Hasselblad camera that he just got from Jim and it looks as though, if he brushed the flag at all, he did so with his left elbow. To check this possibility, I have compared three views of the scene: (1) Jim's fourth tourist picture of Dave, AS15-92-12451; (2) the TV view of Dave while Jim was taking that picture; and (3) the TV view of Dave as he went past the flag after the picture taking was complete. The results are summarized in a labeled detail from 12451.]

[Because the TV camera is not visible in 12451, I have estimated its location from Dave's fourth photo of Jim, AS15-92-12447. Using that estimated camera location, the four green lines show the relative vertical locations of the top of the flag where is is tied to the flagstaff, the top of the main body of Dave's PLSS, the bottom of the flag where it is attached to the flagstaff, and the bottom of Dave's PLSS. Relative vertical locations can be measured as the intersections of the lines with any vertical plane such as the left edge of the image.]

[Although Fendell moves his aim to the right and then up by small amounts between the time Jim takes 12451 and the time Dave crosses between the camera and the flag, the relative locations and spacing of the top and bottom of the flag do not change and, conseuqently, these can be used to place the top and bottom of Dave's PLSS as seen in the TV image onto 12451. Because Dave stood with his PLSS erect while Jim was then taking his picture but then assumed a more normal posture by leaning forward about 10 degrees while he was running, I have adjusted the apparent locations of the top and bottom of the PLSS (red lines) so show where the PLSS would have been had it been perfectly vertical.]

[Finally, I placed the PLSS (red rectangle) where it would have been in 12451 had Jim taken the picture at the moment Dave was running past the flag. There are two ways the PLSS can be placed. In the first, I measured the apparent height of Dave's PLSS as seen in 12451 and found the place the top and bottom red lines are that far apart. This marked the location of the side of the PLSS nearest to the TV camera. The rest of the PLSS outline was then drawn to scale. Alternatively, we note that, in the TV record, the apparent long dimension of Dave's PLSS - measured along a line titled 10 degrees to vertical - when he ran past the flag was 2.4 times the apparent long dimension of his PLSS when JIm was taking 12451. This means that the near face of the PLSS at the former time is 2.4 times as far from the TV as it was at the latter time. This would put the PLSS a bit closer to the TV camera than I have placed it in the labeled detail.]

[The result is not clear-cut. The estimated PLSS locations makes it possible that Dave's elbow could have touched the flag; but just barely, if at all. This may be consistent with the low amplitude of the observed motion, in that the low amplitude suggests only a slight perturbation, as might have happen if Dave barely brushed the flag with his elbow.]

[Hoobeedoo Bejesus]

I wonder how much fun Sex would be in Space or on the moon.

Not very...

http://gizmodo.com/5246288/sex-in-space-whens-someone-gonna-get-freaky-in-zero-g

WARNING: Adult language.

[CaptC]

The hopping astronaut didn't touch the flag. In fact, he was closer to the camera than the flag.
With that camera angle, it's impossible to tell the distance between the astronaut and the flag. Show me a video taken from an angle that shows the spacing between the astronaut and the flag and I MIGHT give you the benefit of the doubt.

[King Cantona]

Yawn............

I have ABSOLUTELY no doubt that the moon landings were not faked, was everyone in the world in on the cover up?...

Because Jodrell Bank and every other radio telescope in the world must have known as well, have you seen that movie 'The Dish', they had to be in on it too and the more people you let in on a secret the more likely it is to be found out....

And yet still no one has come forward to admit they lied, you are relying on some spurious photography image to make your case. I think you've seen another movie once too often, 'Capricorn One'......

[LouC]

Frankly I think the ground the pole was in was unstable and susceptible to the impact of the astronauts moving nearby.

I watched some additional footage of Apollo 15 and the vertical arm of the flag support seems to waver and bounce ever so slightly as one of them is bounding by it in another direction.

There were 6 different landings in 6 differently diverse locations so the odds of getting an area where the pole would be easily disturbed by footfalls was fairly good.

They may have planted that pole in a flexible plate of lunar material, it is not out of the realm of possibility that the bounce was the result of the astronauts movements.

[CaptainPike]

Frankly I think the ground the pole was in was unstable and susceptible to the impact of the astronauts moving nearby.

I watched some additional footage of Apollo 15 and the vertical arm of the flag support seems to waver and bounce ever so slightly as one of them is bounding by it in another direction.

There were 6 different landings in 6 differently diverse locations so the odds of getting an area where the pole would be easily disturbed by footfalls was fairly good.

They may have planted that pole in a flexible plate of lunar material, it is not out of the realm of possibility that the bounce was the result of the astronauts movements.

Or it was the padded studio floor causing the pole to move!

[LouC]

Or it was the padded studio floor causing the pole to move!

No there was no padded studio floor.

Although if anyone would know about padded floors it would be the HB crowd, and padded walls, and padded ceilings... :)):)):))

[foxgurrrl]

The responses here just show how well the controllers manipulate the masses. Anyone who questions is nuts. Anyone who dares make a theory that goes against the consensus reality is wearing a tin foil hat. Because we all know anything the government or the media puts out is infallible fact.

[BostonPatriot]

The responses here just show how well the controllers manipulate the masses. Anyone who questions is nuts. Anyone who dares make a theory that goes against the consensus reality is wearing a tin foil hat. Because we all know anything the government or the media puts out is infallible fact.

Nobody is saying you can't question the government. But *IN THIS CASE* the scientific evidence is overwhelming. The "moon landing was fake" stuff just doesn't hold up.

[CID_0687]

Nobody is saying you can't question the government. But *IN THIS CASE* the scientific evidence is overwhelming. The "moon landing was fake" stuff just doesn't hold up.
So thou sayest...I've given you documented family history, yet you refuse to believe. :snooty:

[BostonPatriot]

So thou sayest...I've given you documented family history, yet you refuse to believe. :snooty:

Well I've never SEEN your uncle Bill ...:confused: How do I know he exists?

[CID_0687]

Well I've never SEEN your uncle Bill ...:confused: How do I know he exists?
pfffftttt...I've never seen any of you people, how do I know any of you exist? Maybe these Hannity forums are just a figment of my imagination...or maybe I'm the only live human on here, the rest of you are just computer programs.


:lol:

[PredFan]

The responses here just show how well the controllers manipulate the masses. Anyone who questions is nuts. Anyone who dares make a theory that goes against the consensus reality is wearing a tin foil hat. Because we all know anything the government or the media puts out is infallible fact.

Careful there foxgurl.

You say you like to keep an open mind. Well, the problem with keeping an open mind is that anyone can dump any garbage they want to into it.

Instaed of just keeping an open mind, investigate, learn, and think. If you do that, I think you'll find that this particular conspiracy theory is full of more holes than your pasta strainer.

[CID_0687]

Okay, but only for BP's benefit...this is Uncle Bill.

[Talk2Bill]

if the moon landing was faked then how do you explain Michal Jackson?

[BostonPatriot]

Okay, but only for BP's benefit...this is Uncle Bill.

Nice hat! :)) :))

[hatman]

The responses here just show how well the controllers manipulate the masses. Anyone who questions is nuts. Anyone who dares make a theory that goes against the consensus reality is wearing a tin foil hat. Because we all know anything the government or the media puts out is infallible fact.

I'm guessing, but you may not have even been born at the time. I was.
The landings happened. They really did.
My dad was a major player in the Apollo Program. We lived less than a mile from the Johnson Space Center (aka Manned Spacecraft Center) at the time. Apollo astronauts were our neighbors.
There were upwards of 50,000 people (possibly more) working in one way or another on the Apollo Program.

If you question the actual landings, do you question the Apollo launches? If you had seen one, you would have no doubt whatsoever that American ingenuity could get us to the Moon.

It's so much easier to doubt if one hadn't lived through the reality.

[CID_0687]

Nice hat! :)) :))
Yeah, he never was one for fashionally acceptable.

[khigh]

Yeah, he never was one for fashionally acceptable.

I have a tin foil wallet and purse....Does that count as fashionable?

[CID_0687]

I have a tin foil wallet and purse....Does that count as fashionable?
You and Uncle Bill would have gotten along magnificently.

[BostonPatriot]

I have a tin foil wallet and purse....Does that count as fashionable?

So the gov't can't see how much money you have :mrgreen:

[ChrisRP]

Frankly I think the ground the pole was in was unstable and susceptible to the impact of the astronauts moving nearby.

I watched some additional footage of Apollo 15 and the vertical arm of the flag support seems to waver and bounce ever so slightly as one of them is bounding by it in another direction.

There were 6 different landings in 6 differently diverse locations so the odds of getting an area where the pole would be easily disturbed by footfalls was fairly good.

They may have planted that pole in a flexible plate of lunar material, it is not out of the realm of possibility that the bounce was the result of the astronauts movements.

This is precisely what happened as far as I'm concerned.

The writer of the opening post make a claim that the flag moves in a manner consistent with curtains being moved by a breeze generated when you walk by them.

Look at that video again- the flag isn't moving because of a breeze generated by the passing astronaut's wake.

The flag rocks. It continues it's rocking movement for over 10 seconds after the astronaut passed.

That would not happen if it was generated by a breeze from a passing astronaut. At least, not for that long.

The astronaut either hit it, or his bouncing disturbed the ground in which the pole was planted.

These are equally plausible explanations.

They are more plausible when one considers all the other factors that would come into play if this was a giant conspiracy.

if you are going to claim a conspiracy, you will have to show us a phenomenon that admits of only one explanation.

This video does not show such a phenomenon.

[khigh]

So the gov't can't see how much money you have :mrgreen:

Exactly. Might be a very marketable product around tax time.

[Dual867PowerMac]

I see no one's able to disprove my contention that the lunar landings were a hoax.

What if I were able to show you evidence?

I've been looking for a full video of A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon and I've found it.

LINK (http://pdl.stream.aol.com/netscape/us/video/2006/12/Netscape-Funny_thing_happened_on_the_moon_dl.avi).

Pay particular attention to the 32:00 mark.

[James Juno]

I see no one's able to disprove my contention that the lunar landings were a hoax.

What if I were able to show you evidence?

I've been looking for a full video of A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon and I've found it.

LINK (http://pdl.stream.aol.com/netscape/us/video/2006/12/Netscape-Funny_thing_happened_on_the_moon_dl.avi).

Pay particular attention to the 32:00 mark.

Your "contention" is your choice and your disbelief has no bearing on the fact that it happened. Who among the sane are to deny you your fantasy? Carry on! :mrgreen:

[PredFan]

I'm guessing, but you may not have even been born at the time. I was.
The landings happened. They really did.
My dad was a major player in the Apollo Program. We lived less than a mile from the Johnson Space Center (aka Manned Spacecraft Center) at the time. Apollo astronauts were our neighbors.
There were upwards of 50,000 people (possibly more) working in one way or another on the Apollo Program.

If you question the actual landings, do you question the Apollo launches? If you had seen one, you would have no doubt whatsoever that American ingenuity could get us to the Moon.

It's so much easier to doubt if one hadn't lived through the reality.


Saw a couple of the launches myself. Orlando is about an hour away from the Cape.

[PredFan]

This is precisely what happened as far as I'm concerned.

The writer of the opening post make a claim that the flag moves in a manner consistent with curtains being moved by a breeze generated when you walk by them.

Look at that video again- the flag isn't moving because of a breeze generated by the passing astronaut's wake.

The flag rocks. It continues it's rocking movement for over 10 seconds after the astronaut passed.

That would not happen if it was generated by a breeze from a passing astronaut. At least, not for that long.

The astronaut either hit it, or his bouncing disturbed the ground in which the pole was planted.

These are equally plausible explanations.

They are more plausible when one considers all the other factors that would come into play if this was a giant conspiracy.

if you are going to claim a conspiracy, you will have to show us a phenomenon that admits of only one explanation.

This video does not show such a phenomenon.

I'm so disappointed that no one saw my Everest vs Turd explanation. I thought it was so funny!

There is a mountain of evidence the size of Everest saying we went to the moon, and the OP has one piece the size of a turd that might say we didn't, and he believes that his proves it.

[Samm]

Get yer tin foil hats here (http://zapatopi.net/afdb/)!:mrgreen::mrgreen:

Yes, apparently you can't trust tin foil hats made by others. Best way to make sure is to roll your own!

The problem is that too many people are using aluminum foil... it has to be genuine tin foil to work. :shifty:

[Samm]

I see no one's able to disprove my contention that the lunar landings were a hoax.

What if I were able to show you evidence?

I've been looking for a full video of A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon and I've found it.

LINK (http://pdl.stream.aol.com/netscape/us/video/2006/12/Netscape-Funny_thing_happened_on_the_moon_dl.avi).

Pay particular attention to the 32:00 mark.

If you seriously think we are going to watch 32 minutes of a crackpot conspiracy video just to see some nonsense that "proves" your OP you really might be nuts. :razz:

Why do you do this to yourself? :eh:

[PredFan]

I continue to be astounded that we are actually arguing this.

[Samm]

I continue to be astounded that we are actually arguing this.

Whose arguing? :eh:

[ChrisRP]

If you seriously think we are going to watch 32 minutes of a crackpot conspiracy video just to see some nonsense that "proves" your OP you really might be nuts. :razz:

Why do you do this to yourself? :eh:

To me, it seems this poster is having a little fun with us.

I don't think he really believes this...he's just acting like he does.

[LouC]

To me, it seems this poster is having a little fun with us.

I don't think he really believes this...he's just acting like he does.

No I think it is terminal HB-ism...

No one pulling a jape could keep it as tight as the OP has for as long as he has.

[LouC]

I see no one's able to disprove my contention that the lunar landings were a hoax.

What if I were able to show you evidence?

I've been looking for a full video of A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon and I've found it.

LINK (http://pdl.stream.aol.com/netscape/us/video/2006/12/Netscape-Funny_thing_happened_on_the_moon_dl.avi).

Pay particular attention to the 32:00 mark.

Actually your "contention", aka mistaken opinion, had been soundly trashed a long time ago by the avalanche of irrefutable evidence that the moon landings were real.

[StoneScratcher]

Never to go back? Never to build on this Moon-hopping, flag-planting, rock gathering mission? Just go there, the moon, shoot some golf pictures and some wallabee footage and then leave?

What was the reason, logical reason to supposedly land MEN on the moon?

Why did MEN have to land there, when the Russians could use robots and were further advanced?

Why MEN? When machines could do the same thing? Gather rocks, take samples, make tracks, take pictures, plant a flag?

Get ready though. Soon MEN will land on the moon again...soon, from the USA.

We need some more footage, this time planting a big Obama Logo.

[StoneScratcher]

Actually your "contention", aka mistaken opinion, had been soundly trashed a long time ago by the avalanche of irrefutable evidence that the moon landings were real.

I agree. Moon landings were real.

But none were real that had MEN there.

[StoneScratcher]

Japan and China are currently in a Lunar race to land a man on the moon.

Maybe it'll happen in 2015, maybe 2017.

There, in 2015 or 2017, as we all are driving our Made in China toaster-sized "cars", if we're lucky enough to get an "approved" radio station to listen to, and if a radio is even allowed in this government approved toaster, we'll hear, perhaps of Japan or China finally landing a man on the moon.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119308504660267440.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

[LouC]

I agree. Moon landings were real.

But none were real that had MEN there.



The Apollo landings were all real and all had men there.

[StoneScratcher]

The Apollo landings were all real and all had men there.

Yes, they were real missions.

And it was real reels of footage.

Let me put it this way, pretend you and I are a married couple with three kids. We tell our kids we're going to the moon. We go into the garage, shutting the door, and all our kids look out the window and see our car drive away. The next day they look on the TV and there you and I are, playing bocce ball on the moon. We wave at our darlings and hop around like Peter Rabbit and plant a USA flag on the moon and gather some rocks to bring back.

YAY! We did it.

Sure the car drove away. The car was unmanned and drove even to the moon.

About us and our moon footage? The garage is a studio. The feed of our footage came from a studio, not the moon.

Our kids' dreams were fulfilled. And they haven't let that fantasy go.

Meanwhile, I realized something. In one article I read it said Japan hoped to have an UNMANNED mission to the moon by 2015.

But in the Wall Street Journal link I provided in my prior post, Japan is hoping for a MANNED landing by:

2025

====
Edited to include the UNMANNED 2015 Japan mission hopes:

Japan plans an unmanned moon landing by 2015

Posted in: Science (general) (http://blogs.inquirer.net/insidescience/category/science-general/), Space (http://blogs.inquirer.net/insidescience/category/space/)
By Associated Press

TOKYO, Japan–Japan plans to follow up its first lunar satellite orbit this month by sending an unmanned probe to land on the moon by 2015, news reports said Saturday.

http://blogs.inquirer.net/insidescience/?p=135&akst_action=share-this

[LouC]

...Let me put it this way, pretend you and I are a married couple with three kids...

:)) :)) :)) :))

Let me put it this way, I don't have to make up "made up" HB scenarios.

[obomanation]

The truth is, all we know is based on a system of beliefs, whether that belief is scientific, religious, social.

We are being socially engineered to NOT QUESTION certain propositions. We are all being truth coded.

You can't prove that the earth is flat or round. Neat pictures is not proof. Looks flat outside my window. Oh yes, we went to school. And they were never wrong about how to code us, were they?

With all our scientific knowledge twisting in the wind, we are looking for loch ness, Sasquatch, and UFO's. BTW, we got neat pictures of all those.

[StoneScratcher]

:)) :)) :)) :))

Let me put it this way, I don't have to make up "made up" HB scenarios.

I want a divorce! You never told me you were married before...

I'm crushed! (You were a crummy bocce player anyway...) :razz:

[StoneScratcher]

The truth is, all we know is based on a system of beliefs, whether that belief is scientific, religious, social.

We are being socially engineered to NOT QUESTION certain propositions. We are all being truth coded.

You can't prove that the earth is flat or round. Neat pictures is not proof. Looks flat outside my window. Oh yes, we went to school. And they were never wrong about how to code us, were they?

With all our scientific knowledge twisting in the wind, we are looking for loch ness, Sasquatch, and UFO's. BTW, we got neat pictures of all those.

Great post, imo. :clap:

I guess the best thing to is to question everything.

[Creefer]

I don't buy the vibration explanation, as prior to the flag moving, the astronauts bound to the flag to pose for pictures, and don't cause the stir despite being much closer.

I think it's much simpler in that he brushed the flag pole. That's already been postulated by NASA, and shown to be possilbe based on real estimates of all positions using 3 different angles from multiple video and still shots. Howerever, the OP will maintain that no one has refuted his "proof."

Further, the OP's posit is contradictory in and of itself. If the flag is moved by air, why does the flag wave consistent with being in an environment without air? How do you use an illogical, nay, impossible hypothesis to prove anything?

..and StoneScratcher...why didn't the Soviets make some mention of being on the moon with rovers? Where they in on the NASA conspiracy too?? lol

[StoneScratcher]

I don't buy the vibration explanation, as prior to the flag moving, the astronauts bound to the flag to pose for pictures, and don't cause the stir despite being much closer.

I think it's much simpler in that he brushed the flag pole. That's already been postulated by NASA, and shown to be possilbe based on real estimates of all positions using 3 different angles from multiple video and still shots. Howerever, the OP will maintain that no one has refuted his "proof."

Further, the OP's posit is contradictory in and of itself. If the flag is moved by air, why does the flag wave consistent with being in an environment without air? How do you use an illogical, nay, impossible hypothesis to prove anything?

..and StoneScratcher...why didn't the Soviets make some mention of being on the moon with rovers? Where they in on the NASA conspiracy too?? lol

You didn't click the link to the documentary, did you...

[LouC]

...With all our scientific knowledge twisting in the wind, we are looking for loch ness, Sasquatch, and UFO's.

We are doing no such thing.

BTW, we got neat pictures of all those.

No we don't.

I have witnessed the curvature of the earth, I know it is not flat as once believed.

Can I convince a flat earther they believe wrongly?

Not likely but I will always hope.

[LouC]

Great post, imo....

:doh: For obomanation's sake.

[Creefer]

You didn't click the link to the documentary, did you...

No, hell no, I don't waste my time with junk. I do know I lived through the 70's, and the Soviets were definately not yelling from rooftops that they had just put lunar landers on the moon, and oh guess what, they found no evidence of the Americans having ever been there. At the time, they really weren't too fond of us.

[StoneScratcher]

No, hell no, I don't waste my time with junk. I do know I lived through the 70's, and the Soviets were definately not yelling from rooftops that they had just put lunar landers on the moon, and oh guess what, they found no evidence of the Americans having ever been there. At the time, they really weren't too fond of us.

Here're the links:

During the 1960s, the United States and the Soviet Union were engaged in a feverish competition to be the first to set foot on the moon. We know who won this race, but less about a secret chapter. The Soviets many not have sent a man to the moon, but they successfully guided two small robots by remote control from the earth. For 16 months between 1970 and 1973, these "Lunokhods" traveled more than thirty miles over the moon's surface. With the declassification of the former USSR space archives, along with recollections by several of the key participants in the Lunokhod program, the true story of the Russian lunar robots can finally be told.

http://science.discovery.com/tv/tank/tank.html

Edited to include link to video:

http://science.discovery.com/videos/...-lunokhod.html

And some more "junk" (as you call it) from NASA:

Lunokhod: Moon Robot
Credit: Courtesy Lavochkin Association (http://www.berc.rssi.ru/more_ab.htm#REALISED PROGRAMS) Explanation: On November 17, 1970 the Soviet Luna 17 (http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/database/www-nmc?70-095A) spacecraft (http://www.ccas.ru/~chernov/vsm/main.htm) landed the first roving remote-controlled robot on the Moon (http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/lunartimeline.html). Known as Lunokhod 1, it weighed just under 2,000 pounds and was designed to operate (http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/image/spacecraft/lunokhod-mission.jpg) for 90 days while guided in real-time by a five person team at the Deep Space Center near Moscow, USSR, Planet Earth. The futuristic looking eight wheeler (http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/database/www-nmc?73-001A) rode on top of a descent module which extended ramps from both sides (http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap970707.html) offering alternative routes to the surface in case one side was blocked by boulders. Lunokhod 1 actually toured the lunar Mare Imbrium (http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/vwdocs/planet_volcano/lunar/mare/mlm.html) (Sea of Rains) for 11 months in one of the greatest successes of the Soviet lunar exploration program (http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/lunarussr.html). This Lunokhod's operations officially ceased on October 4, 1971, 14 years after the launch of Sputnik (http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap981003.html).

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap990109.html

[StoneScratcher]

:doh: For obomanation's sake.

:snooty: You can't have the kids tomorrow...

[notluzn]

I also believe that the Voyager 1 and 2 are fake as well.

[LouC]

Here're the links...

Got any links to pictures the rovers transmitted to earth?

[StoneScratcher]

Got any links to pictures the rovers transmitted to earth?

I'm sure you can find some.

But here's an interesting article, which I suppose could link you to some scholars' interpretations of the images:

Topographic surveys on the lunar surface from Soviet automatic space vehicles

RODIONOV, B N | NEPOKLONOV, B V | KISELEV, V V | SELIVANOV, A S | GOVOROV, V M | ZASETSKII, V V | IVANOV, O G | BABKOV, F I | MIKHAILOV, R M | RESHETOV, E A

Geodeziia i Kartografiia , pp. 29-41. Oct. 1973

Review of information on lunar topography transmitted from the lunar surface by the Soviet unmanned lunar landers and rovers Luna 9 (February, 1966), Luna 13, Lunokhod 1 (November, 1970, through September, 1971), and Lunokhod 2 (January through May, 1973). Details are provided on the performance and equipment of the landers, covering their TV systems and panoramic cameras. Panoramic pictures were obtained when the scanner of a TV camera projected an image onto a virtual spherical surface and a recorder converted the spherical surface into a plane in a panoramic coordinate system. The theory of the applied panoramic pointing and projection techniques is discussed. Topographic surveys of the Luna 9 and 13 landing sites in scales of 1:20 and 1:40 and of the traveling paths of the Lunokhods in a scale of 1:7500 were obtained as well as maps of some lunar surface areas.

http://md1.csa.com/partners/images/question.gif (http://md1.csa.com/partners/viewrecord.php?requester=gs&collection=TRD&recid=A7417827AH&q=Lunokhods&uid=787209762&setcookie=yes#)Descriptors: LUNAR PHOTOGRAPHY | LUNAR TOPOGRAPHY | LUNIK LUNAR PROBES | LUNOKHOD LUNAR ROVING VEHICLES | PANORAMIC SCANNING | TELEVISION SYSTEMS | LUNAR CRATERS | MAPPING | PANORAMIC CAMERAS | TELEVISION CAMERAS | U.S.S.R. SPACE PROGRAM

http://md1.csa.com/partners/viewrecord.php?requester=gs&collection=TRD&recid=A7417827AH&q=Lunokhods&uid=787209762&setcookie=yes

[Cygnus X-1]

Fake this:

Lunar Legacy Episode 1, Part 2 (Did we land on the moon?)
(3:46)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrI3iQqTdns&feature=related

The OP proves NOTHING!

:wall:

[CaptainPike]

We are doing no such thing.



No we don't.

I have witnessed the curvature of the earth, I know it is not flat as once believed.

Can I convince a flat earther they believe wrongly?

Not likely but I will always hope.

You can convince them. But only in certain parts of the country. You can see the curve in the clouds.

[LouC]

I'm sure you can find some....

No.

I went through all of my closets and all of my drawers and even checked that old trunk in the rafters in the garage and I couldn't find any Soviet Lunar Rover transmitted to earth pics.

[ChrisRP]

Never to go back? Never to build on this Moon-hopping, flag-planting, rock gathering mission? Just go there, the moon, shoot some golf pictures and some wallabee footage and then leave?

What was the reason, logical reason to supposedly land MEN on the moon?

Why did MEN have to land there, when the Russians could use robots and were further advanced?

Why MEN? When machines could do the same thing? Gather rocks, take samples, make tracks, take pictures, plant a flag?

Get ready though. Soon MEN will land on the moon again...soon, from the USA.

We need some more footage, this time planting a big Obama Logo.

Why did men climb Mt. Everest?

Because they could.

There doesn't have to be a "logical reason" for everything.

The US sent men to the moon because they wanted to be the first to send men to the moon.

Since then, we've squandered our resources in an inflationary economy producing junk- that's why we haven't been back.

It's simple, really...without having to imagine a giant conspiracy.

[James Juno]

I continue to be astounded that we are actually arguing this.

It's fascinating in an oh-there's-a-wreck-slow-down-so-I-can-see kind of way.

Although it's also disappointing that actual human beings believe this conspiracy ********. Many, many men and women worked hard, some even giving their lives, to put us on the moon.

[terri910]

I'm not inclined to read through everything that's been added since I read this thread yesterday.....what I want to know is:

Dual -- what do you think? Still think it was a fake, or do any of the arguments here make you think it was real?

[hatman]

Saw a couple of the launches myself. Orlando is about an hour away from the Cape.

I'm very very jealous.
It was part of the deal with dad when we moved to Houston that he'd take us to a launch, but sadly it didn't happen.
I did get to tour the Michoud plant outside New Orleans where the S1C was built. That was more than 40 years ago and something I'll never forget.

I'd like to watch a shuttle launch in person, but time is running out. :(

[StoneScratcher]

Why did men climb Mt. Everest?

Because they could.

There doesn't have to be a "logical reason" for everything.

The US sent men to the moon because they wanted to be the first to send men to the moon.

Since then, we've squandered our resources in an inflationary economy producing junk- that's why we haven't been back.

It's simple, really...without having to imagine a giant conspiracy.

So Japan is planning on landing men on the moon it in 2025...

And the Russians, well, they just said: "No biggie. We're not sending any of our men there. Let the US be the first and ONLY ones to do this."

Makes alot of sense.

[StoneScratcher]

It's fascinating in an oh-there's-a-wreck-slow-down-so-I-can-see kind of way.

Although it's also disappointing that actual human beings believe this conspiracy ********. Many, many men and women worked hard, some even giving their lives, to put us on the moon.

I don't think there has been any conspiracy. At all. In fact, the entire event is out in the open.

It reminds me of how some follow what the government says is the okay percentage of bull crapola a citizen can eat--just as long as the crap-burger is cooked at 160 degrees or so to kill the ecoli in it.

The crap is there. I'm just not eating it.

Where's the conspiracy in that?

[Dual867PowerMac]

Dual -- what do you think? Still think it was a fake, or do any of the arguments here make you think it was real?
The former.

[James Juno]

I don't think there has been any conspiracy. At all. In fact, the entire event is out in the open.

It reminds me of how some follow what the government says is the okay percentage of bull crapola a citizen can eat--just as long as the crap-burger is cooked at 160 degrees or so to kill the ecoli in it.

The crap is there. I'm just not eating it.

Where's the conspiracy in that?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9tjK_nvOtA

[Cav Scout]

The responses here just show how well the controllers manipulate the masses. Anyone who questions is nuts. Anyone who dares make a theory that goes against the consensus reality is wearing a tin foil hat. Because we all know anything the government or the media puts out is infallible fact.

:)):))

[Cav Scout]

It's fascinating in an oh-there's-a-wreck-slow-down-so-I-can-see kind of way.

Although it's also disappointing that actual human beings believe this conspiracy ********. Many, many men and women worked hard, some even giving their lives, to put us on the moon.

Yep.

and

Yep.

And it really is a wreck...:))

[ChrisRP]

So Japan is planning on landing men on the moon it in 2025...

And the Russians, well, they just said: "No biggie. We're not sending any of our men there. Let the US be the first and ONLY ones to do this."

Makes alot of sense.

Sure it makes sense.

Because for all that it did technologically, the USSR was just a Third World country with nuclear weapons.

And countries like Japan and China are just now starting up their space programs. Not surprised it will take until 2025 for them to get to the moon.

[gdoane]

Sure it makes sense.

Because for all that it did technologically, the USSR was just a Third World country with nuclear weapons.

And countries like Japan and China are just now starting up their space programs. Not surprised it will take until 2025 for them to get to the moon.

The nation that invented the Kamikaze Mission is sending men to the Moon? And they've got volunteers for this?

What are they going to name their rocket?

Won-Way?
Pay First Then You Fly?
No Deposit, No Return?
Kamikaze Posse?

I wouldn't get in on that mission for love or money. Kamikaze rocketman. Nice place to be buried is about the only benefit.

[PredFan]

Japan and China are currently in a Lunar race to land a man on the moon.

Maybe it'll happen in 2015, maybe 2017.

There, in 2015 or 2017, as we all are driving our Made in China toaster-sized "cars", if we're lucky enough to get an "approved" radio station to listen to, and if a radio is even allowed in this government approved toaster, we'll hear, perhaps of Japan or China finally landing a man on the moon.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119308504660267440.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

And how will you guys react when the Chinese land on the moon and are photographed standing next to the landing pods from the old US missions? Will you claim that the Chinese are in on the scam too?

[PredFan]

I'm very very jealous.
It was part of the deal with dad when we moved to Houston that he'd take us to a launch, but sadly it didn't happen.
I did get to tour the Michoud plant outside New Orleans where the S1C was built. That was more than 40 years ago and something I'll never forget.

I'd like to watch a shuttle launch in person, but time is running out. :(

When the first 3 shuttles took off, I was dating this chick who worked at the Cape. I got to be with her on the grandstands near that giant digital clock. It was awesome. I dated her a year after I knew I didn't love her enough to marry her because I wanted access to the 3rd shuttle launch. :redface:

[Cav Scout]

And how will you guys react when the Chinese land on the moon and are photographed standing next to the landing pods from the old US missions? Will you claim that the Chinese are in on the scam too?

That is exactly what they will say, though with it being the Chinese, I am wondering what basement it will be filmed in, as Arkansas is out of the question for the Chinese...:))

[PredFan]

There is this mountain of evidence, evidence from all walks of science. There were monitors from several different countries, some of which were our strong enemies. All saw what happened, none even proposed the possibility that they were faked.

The conspiracy theorists have one or two weak, already debunked theories to support them, yet they still believe.

Fascinating.

[notluzn]

The Space Shuttle is a fake and didn't just land today in California. All fake

[Samm]

To me, it seems this poster is having a little fun with us.

I don't think he really believes this...he's just acting like he does.

You are new here... I can see why you might think that. But this is by no means the first time he has tried to promote this ridiculous conspiracy.

[gb2004]

:confused:

[hatman]

I've got proof of the moon-landing for you - go to your local universty and ask when they allow public use of the telescope, then ask which part of the month the lunar landing site would be most visable. Then return to the telescope, have someone help you calibrate it to the spot ...AND LOOK AT THE HURKIN FLAG YOURSELF.

Hows that for proof ?
I'd love to see a picture like that.
I googled and couldn't find one.

[Cygnus X-1]

I've got proof of the moon-landing for you - go to your local universty and ask when they allow public use of the telescope, then ask which part of the month the lunar landing site would be most visable. Then return to the telescope, have someone help you calibrate it to the spot ...AND LOOK AT THE HURKIN FLAG YOURSELF.

Hows that for proof ?

That's impossible. There is no telescope invented with enough resolution to do that...but, this will put an end to this non~sense...

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/atlas/av020/090521imaging.html

Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter to peer into history
BY CRAIG COVAULT
SPACEFLIGHT NOW
Posted: May 21, 2009

Factors of time and distance have obscured from view the winners and losers that remain across one of the great battlegrounds of the Cold War - the Moon.

Those interfering veils are about to be lifted by NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO), set for liftoff June 17 on the most ambitious lunar mission since Apollo 17 in 1972.

LRO is a science mission with tremendous implications for future manned and unmanned missions to the Moon.

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/atlas/av020/images/landingsites.jpg

The LRO team has been developing a computerized target list "with coordinates on about 50 high priority locations that involve all six Apollo landing sites and dozens of U. S. and Soviet robotic spacecraft touchdown points," says Benjamin J. Neumann director for advanced capabilities at NASA Œs Exploration Mission Directorate.

"We will be in a polar orbit that will overfly everything that has ever landed on the Moon at only 50 km. (31 mi.) altitude," says Cathy Peddie the LRO deputy project manager at Goddard.

[...]

Key targets involve:


*Apollo landing sites: LRO's imagery will help show detail on the condition of all six Apollo landing sites and the Apollo flight hardware left on the moon by 12 American astronauts between 1969-72.

The LRO mission is launching just as the 40th anniversary of Apollo 11's first manned lunar landing approaches on July 20.

~Whether images of the Sea of Tranquility site explored by Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin in 1969 will be taken by then, will depend on many LRO mission timing events yet to be determined. But the Goddard team is going to try to obtain such imagery in time for the Apollo 11 anniversary if that can be done without disrupting primary LRO mission operations.

*Lunar Mission Mysteries: LRO's new images should help solve some old mysteries, like where did the first Soviet Lunokhod rover end up. The eight wheeled, 1 ton marvel drove for 322 Earth days and about 6.5 miles before dying so suddenly that its control team was unable to configure its laser retorreflector that would have yielded an exact location.

The images may also show what ever happened to the U. S. Surveyor 4 lander that in July 1967 stopped transmitting just before landing and presumably crashed-but nobody knows...

(con't)
___________________________________

This mission will, of course...

be fake.

:drool:

[Cygnus X-1]

The Space Shuttle is a fake and didn't just land today in California. All fake

LMAO!!!:))

Check~out this fake Shuttle launch...

http://mfile.akamai.com/18566/wm.nasa-global/sts-121/right_forward_srb_camera.asx (http://mfile.akamai.com/18566/wmv/etouchsyst2.download.akamai.com/18355/wm.nasa-global/sts-121/right_forward_srb_camera.asx)

[Cygnus X-1]

Here's a REAL fake Saturn V...and it's REALLY cool!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHnk6ulSNSo

[Dual867PowerMac]

I've never said the launches of the seven Apollo missions were faked.

Yes... seven. There's Apollo 13. That mission could comprise a huge chapter in the book of hoaxery. But I digress...

The launches were real. The splashdowns were real. But in reality, the six missions which allegedly landed on the moon simply orbited the earth and during their absence, the footage which had been shot out in the high desert or on soundstages (possibly at Area 51) was broadcast to the world.

[Samm]

I've got proof of the moon-landing for you - go to your local universty and ask when they allow public use of the telescope, then ask which part of the month the lunar landing site would be most visable. Then return to the telescope, have someone help you calibrate it to the spot ...AND LOOK AT THE HURKIN FLAG YOURSELF.

Hows that for proof ?

You cannot see any of the objects left on the Moon by the Apollo Astronauts with Earth based telescopes. You cannot even see them with the Hubble. The objects, even the base of the Lunar Module, all too small to be seen.

But you can get the coordinates of the three laser reflectors set up and left behind during Apollo 11, 14 & 15, and bounce laser light off of them.

[Samm]

But I digress...

The most intelligent words you have posted in the thread... :razz:

[Dual867PowerMac]

You cannot see any of the objects left on the Moon by the Apollo Astronauts with Earth based telescopes. You cannot even see them with the Hubble. The objects, even the base of the Lunar Module, all too small to be seen.

But you can get the coordinates of the three laser reflectors set up and left behind during Apollo 11, 14 & 15, and bounce laser light off of them.
Allegedly "left by Apollo 11, 14 & 15" (sic).

[Finality]

Everything is photoshopped. Always. There is no spoon.

[Samm]

Allegedly "left by Apollo 11, 14 & 15" (sic).

And I guess the laser light just allegedly reflects off of them... :rolleyes:


And before you make a fool of yourself by saying they were placed robotically... research what it takes to set up and aim laser reflectors.

[StoneScratcher]

And I guess the laser light just allegedly reflects off of them... :rolleyes:


And before you make a fool of yourself by saying they were placed robotically... research what it takes to set up and aim laser reflectors.

The robotic Soviet Lunokhud 2 moon rover, which is still on the moon, has mirrors on it (still).

The 2-foot wide mirror Armstrong left there (ahem) is only two feet wide, right?

[StoneScratcher]

Laser ranging of the reflector mounted on Lunokhod 1 (Nighttime laser ranging of French reflector for Soviet Lunokhod, discussing universal-ephemeris time difference determination)
KOKURIN, I U L | KURBASOV, V V | LOBANOV, V F | SUKHANOVSKII, A N | CHERNYKH, N S
Kosmicheskie Issledovaniia. Vol. 9, pp. 912-919. Nov.-Dec. 1971

The reflector made in France for the Soviet automatic lunar roving vehicle is described, together with the optical scheme of the laser employed in the ranging experiment. The techniques developed to enable laser ranging during nighttime on the earth and on the moon are discussed. It is shown that the range error does not exceed plus or minus 3 m. It is suggested that the nature of the variation of the distance with time may be used to determine the difference between the universal and ephemeris time.

http://md1.csa.com/partners/viewrecord.php?requester=gs&collection=TRD&recid=A7216771AH&q=Soviet+Lunokhod&uid=787209762&setcookie=yes

[StoneScratcher]

Here's a picture of what Armstrong left on the moon, in link below.

Now? How do you suppose he placed it there with so few foot prints of hard labor around it?

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2004/images/llr/A11_LRRRfull.gif

[spinach]

This is conclusive and it can't be explained away! NASA is completely and utterly BUSTED!!! :twisted:

At about the 2:37 mark, the flag noticeably moves when the astronaut hops by closer to the camera than the flag. The astronaut doesn't even touch the flag, yet it moves!

See for yourself:

*** OBLIGATORY YOUTUBE WARNING ***

Link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1UEv2PIzl4)

The astronaut moves by and disrupts the air enough to make the flag wave in an airless environment? How is this possible?


Well this proves that this particular video was faked.
Actually you can tell it's fake right away by the way the dirt behaves when he kicks a little up running around. it falls back down too fast.
On the moon dirt [and anything else] falls dramatically slower-

about 2.45 times slower than on earth.


If you spend time watching enough NASA videos, looking for specific things that CANNOT be faked, which I have done quite a lot, you can find problems with almost every video.

One of the biggest ridiculous things shown on moon video is astronauts hopping around, building up speed, and then slowing back down really quick. Can't be done on the moon. You just don't weigh enough to counter the inertia built up when you were moving. Your body wants to "keep on going in that direction", and with a low mass, the result of stopping too fast would be to fall flat on your face, quite often.

IOW, you would fall down a LOT on the moon, unless you moved like a snail.

the lunar rover has the same problem-[and one of "bumps"] and there's no way that vehicle would be usable on the moon. NONE of the video I have seen of the rover is "genuine".

[spinach]

Totally irrelevant. When the astronaut skips by he's nowhere near the flag and yet it moves like curtains would move when you walk by at a brisk pace.

Discuss that please.


there is no way light would move the flag. At least not more than one micron.

the force applied would not overcome the inertia, and the actual stiffness of the material. And any motion would be so incredibly slow it would not be perceptible if you were measuring it.

It appears the flag is about 8-10 feet from the camera.
the man hops by about in the middle of that range.
So unless he is about 7 feet wide, there is no way he brushed the flag.

And yes, the flag does move consistently with how it would be expected if a large flat object went by fairly quickly at a course parallel to the flag itself.

[snagswolf]

there is no way light would move the flag. At least not more than one micron.

the force applied would not overcome the inertia, and the actual stiffness of the material. And any motion would be so incredibly slow it would not be perceptible if you were measuring it.

It appears the flag is about 8-10 feet from the camera.
the man hops by about in the middle of that range.
So unless he is about 7 feet wide, there is no way he brushed the flag.

And yes, the flag does move consistently with how it would be expected if a large flat object went by fairly quickly at a course parallel to the flag itself.
Uh oh. Our resident moon math genius is back.

In a thread discussing this same subject a couple of months ago, here's an exchange we had. After his bad math was pointed out, he disappeared.


you can do it all yourself.
lunar gravity is 1/6 that of earth.
that means an object falls on the moon at 1/6 the acceleration as on earth.

the formula for falling on the earth is s=-16t^2

so in 1 second an object falls 16 feet, on 2 seconds it has fallen 64 feet, and so on

on the moon, the gravity is 1/6 that of earth, so the fall formula would be s=-2.45t^2

so on the moon, in one second, an object will fall 2.45 feet, and after two seconds, it has fallen 9.8 feet or so.

the baggies fell from the guys backpack top, and would be about 5.5 feet-- plus, when he moves his lurch throws the baggie UP first, a little bit.

but we won't bother with that. on the moon, that baggie should take about a second and a half to fall 5.5 feet. When you watch the clip, it falls pretty darn fast, less than half a second. earth gravity. And as the baggie falls the astronauts are talking to each other in real time, and they talk about the baggies falling-- so there is NO way the film is sped up or slowed down.

The point is, that on the moon an object tends to fall fairly slow. The baggies in the video fell earth-gravity fast.

I've argued this before. Anyone can go and look at the apollo films and do the math themselves.

what does it mean?
well it means that footage is faked. Does that mean they did not go to the moon? NO it just means that THAT particular video was faked.
Um, Earth's gravitational acceleration is 32 ft per second squared, not 16.

You may want to start over with correct numbers. You're not coming off as very believable here.

[snagswolf]

There is one thing I refuse to believe, despite others who fall into believing it happened because they either need to believe it happened or they don't understand that, at the time of the supposed moon landing, the technology was at the level of having a Texas Instruments Calculator which could do basic math and it was the size of a phone book.
I agree. Moon landings were real.

But none were real that had MEN there.
I'm curious how you come to the conclusion that we had the technology to put an unmanned lander on the Moon, but not a manned lander?

Do you believe it's possible to place an unmanned lander on the moon with the technology of a Texas Instruments Calculator?

And why do you think a manned lander would need any more calculation power? Since the astronauts (supposedly) piloted the LEM down to the Moon's surface, wouldn't it be logical that more calculating power would be required for an unmanned mission, where a computer would have to perform that feat instead of a human?

[spinach]

Uh oh. Our resident moon math genius is back.

In a thread discussing this same subject a couple of months ago, here's an exchange we had. After his bad math was pointed out, he disappeared.


you are in error.

It is true that the earth's acceleration is 32 ft/sec squared, and my formulas use that figure for acceleration.

my math is perfect, and all the formulas are sound.

It is YOU who have the bad math and criticize that which you do not know.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equations_for_a_falling_body


secondly, you are also in error about me "disappearing". I stand by my figures, and have no problem defending anything I have said.

I await your admission that you have made these errors.
And I await you admitting that my figures are correct, and that my logic is sound.

[Techgod]

So we could send men into space and orbit the Earth but just not land on the moon quite yet?


What was the huge hurdle at that point? We could control and do good enough to launch, orbit and return but...


Which way to the egress?

[EmmanuelGoldstein]

I guess no one want to discuss the evidence?

I'm not reading through 20 pages...

Has anyone asked if you happened to have clicked the link on your own video?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMBCfuKs9i8

[waynevan]

Not very...

http://gizmodo.com/5246288/sex-in-space-whens-someone-gonna-get-freaky-in-zero-g

WARNING: Adult language.

Some people like all those straps and ropes and restraints............

[Cygnus X-1]

That's impossible. There is no telescope invented with enough resolution to do that...but, this will put an end to this non~sense...

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/atlas/av020/090521imaging.html

Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter to peer into history
BY CRAIG COVAULT
SPACEFLIGHT NOW
Posted: May 21, 2009

Factors of time and distance have obscured from view the winners and losers that remain across one of the great battlegrounds of the Cold War - the Moon.

Those interfering veils are about to be lifted by NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO), set for liftoff June 17 on the most ambitious lunar mission since Apollo 17 in 1972.

LRO is a science mission with tremendous implications for future manned and unmanned missions to the Moon.

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/atlas/av020/images/landingsites.jpg

The LRO team has been developing a computerized target list "with coordinates on about 50 high priority locations that involve all six Apollo landing sites and dozens of U. S. and Soviet robotic spacecraft touchdown points," says Benjamin J. Neumann director for advanced capabilities at NASA Œs Exploration Mission Directorate.

"We will be in a polar orbit that will overfly everything that has ever landed on the Moon at only 50 km. (31 mi.) altitude," says Cathy Peddie the LRO deputy project manager at Goddard.

[...]

Key targets involve:


*Apollo landing sites: LRO's imagery will help show detail on the condition of all six Apollo landing sites and the Apollo flight hardware left on the moon by 12 American astronauts between 1969-72.

The LRO mission is launching just as the 40th anniversary of Apollo 11's first manned lunar landing approaches on July 20.

~Whether images of the Sea of Tranquility site explored by Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin in 1969 will be taken by then, will depend on many LRO mission timing events yet to be determined. But the Goddard team is going to try to obtain such imagery in time for the Apollo 11 anniversary if that can be done without disrupting primary LRO mission operations.

*Lunar Mission Mysteries: LRO's new images should help solve some old mysteries, like where did the first Soviet Lunokhod rover end up. The eight wheeled, 1 ton marvel drove for 322 Earth days and about 6.5 miles before dying so suddenly that its control team was unable to configure its laser retorreflector that would have yielded an exact location.

The images may also show what ever happened to the U. S. Surveyor 4 lander that in July 1967 stopped transmitting just before landing and presumably crashed-but nobody knows...

(con't)
___________________________________

This mission will, of course...

be fake.

:drool:

Man, this Mission can't come soon enough....

:rolleyes::doh::wall:

[Alan P. Halbert]

Why do most people jump right to the implausible, one very logical explanation is vibrations being transmitted through the ground and being shown through the flimsy FLAGPOLE!

[LouC]

Why do most people jump right to the implausible, one very logical explanation is vibrations being transmitted through the ground and being shown through the flimsy FLAGPOLE!

I feel that is the likely explanation.

I mentioned that earlier in the thread.

I watched another extended version of the video in the OP and the pole bounces again as the astronaut moves by behind it at a different angle.

NASA knew about this movement, if they were faking it they would not have put the video out for the public and certainly wouldn't have commented on it themselves.

Would they? :think:

[LouC]

Why do most people jump right to the implausible....

I wouldn't say most people, just the Foil Chapeau crowd.

There is a plethora of psychological reasons why they can't or won't believe.

I think the HB people are amusing to watch. :clap:

[EmmanuelGoldstein]

I feel that is the likely explanation.

I mentioned that earlier in the thread.

I watched another extended version of the video in the OP and the pole bounces again as the astronaut moves by behind it at a different angle.

NASA knew about this movement, if they were faking it they would not have put the video out for the public and certainly wouldn't have commented on it themselves.

Would they? :think:
Mornin' Lou :hug:

Watch the mythbuster's video I posted.

[MrShotShot]

Apparently the Mythbusters were in on it too. Wait, I bet being pawns of the government entitles them to free rent at the old Alameda Naval Station. Yeah, that's it.

I've also heard that the Ghost Hunters, Monster Garage, and Gordon Ramsey are also on the government payroll - just to keep the disinformation flowing to the sheep. bwahahahahahaha

[muhadeeb99]

Here's a picture of what Armstrong left on the moon, in link below.

Now? How do you suppose he placed it there with so few foot prints of hard labor around it?

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2004/images/llr/A11_LRRRfull.gif

There is also the placement of laser reflectors that are used to measure the ever increasing distance of the moon, I believe about an inch or so each year. In a few thousand years, we will not have spectacular views of eclipses, instead the viewers in the future would see a halo of fire as a replacement of the "Ring of Pearls" we see now.

[snagswolf]

you are in error.

It is true that the earth's acceleration is 32 ft/sec squared, and my formulas use that figure for acceleration.
Here is your 'calculation':

you can do it all yourself.
lunar gravity is 1/6 that of earth.
that means an object falls on the moon at 1/6 the acceleration as on earth.

the formula for falling on the earth is s=-16t^2

so in 1 second an object falls 16 feet, on 2 seconds it has fallen 64 feet, and so on

on the moon, the gravity is 1/6 that of earth, so the fall formula would be s=-2.45t^2

so on the moon, in one second, an object will fall 2.45 feet, and after two seconds, it has fallen 9.8 feet or so.
You took your 16 feet mistake, and then divided that by 6, and got 2.45.

If you start off with 16 instead of 32 (the correct number), your math is going to be wrong.

YOU are in error.

my math is perfect, and all the formulas are sound.
:)) :)) :)) :))

Obviously not. Gravitational acceleration on the Moon is about 5.32 feet per second squared, not the 2.45 number you came up with.

It is YOU who have the bad math and criticize that which you do not know.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equations_for_a_falling_body
:)) :)) :))

You've been proven to be clueless.

secondly, you are also in error about me "disappearing". I stand by my figures, and have no problem defending anything I have said.
After I pointed out your error, you disappeared from thread.

That's a FACT.

I await your admission that you have made these errors.
And I await you admitting that my figures are correct, and that my logic is sound.
:))

You're obviously confused.

It's easy to see now why you fall so easily for dumbass conspiracy theories.

[spinach]

Here is your 'calculation':


You took your 16 feet mistake, and then divided that by 6, and got 2.45.

If you start off with 16 instead of 32 (the correct number), your math is going to be wrong.

YOU are in error.


:)) :)) :)) :))

Obviously not. Gravitational acceleration on the Moon is about 5.32 feet per second squared, not the 2.45 number you came up with.


:)) :)) :))

You've been proven to be clueless.


After I pointed out your error, you disappeared from thread.

That's a FACT.


:))

You're obviously confused.

It's easy to see now why you fall so easily for dumbass conspiracy theories.


you are proving yourself to be ignorant, and completely rejecting fact.

on earth, an object does fall 32 ft/sec/sec. that is the acceleration.

but in one second, an object falls 16 feet.

the formula for a falling object is Distance= 0.5*acceleration*time^2


Apparently you are too lazy to go to a science site to see that this is true. Apparently you are too lazy to go see that indeed, in the first second of fall, an object falls 16 feet.

You don't know what you are talking about, and when you finally come to your senses, and get your facts straight, you can come back and beg for forgiveness for being so clueless.


GO TO A SCIENCE SITE. OPEN A FLIPPING BOOK.
then come back and admit you are wrong. Don't "run away" either. I challenge you by your own standards.
Go find the formula for a falling object.

[spinach]

link here (http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geu6tj1RpKmncAzFBXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEydjYzaDZ tBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDNQRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkA0gyNjFfNzc-/SIG=12dak1h5o/EXP=1243358947/**http%3a//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equations_for_a_falling_body)

there's a site for you to READ.
get educated.

if you won't accept that, open a physics book.
Get educated.

:whistle:

I posted it once already, and you ignored it.
another "crime of ignorance" on your part.

[chip]

I've never said the launches of the seven Apollo missions were faked.

Yes... seven. There's Apollo 13. That mission could comprise a huge chapter in the book of hoaxery. But I digress...

The launches were real. The splashdowns were real. But in reality, the six missions which allegedly landed on the moon simply orbited the earth and during their absence, the footage which had been shot out in the high desert or on soundstages (possibly at Area 51) was broadcast to the world.

The gift that just keeps giving.

[spinach]

Actually, going to the moon does not take a lot of computing power, really. The laws of motion make it rather simple once you are pointed in the right direction, and get there at the right speed.

The real problem with a "man on the moon" is that a man will indeed weigh 1/6 as much as normal, but will still have the same mass, and therefore the same inertia as on earth. This would make any sort of movement extremely hazardous, because it would be hard to 'start walking' and hard to 'stop moving'.

When I see videos, I don't see them moving as one would expect in low gravity, at all.

[Samm]

Here's a picture of what Armstrong left on the moon, in link below.

Now? How do you suppose he placed it there with so few foot prints of hard labor around it?

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2004/images/llr/A11_LRRRfull.gif

Perhaps he knew what he was doing? :rolleyes:

[snagswolf]

My apologies. You're correct about the numbers.

Now all we need from you is a link to the video which you claim breaks the rules of lunar gravity.

[snagswolf]

Actually, going to the moon does not take a lot of computing power, really. The laws of motion make it rather simple once you are pointed in the right direction, and get there at the right speed.

The real problem with a "man on the moon" is that a man will indeed weigh 1/6 as much as normal, but will still have the same mass, and therefore the same inertia as on earth. This would make any sort of movement extremely hazardous, because it would be hard to 'start walking' and hard to 'stop moving'.

When I see videos, I don't see them moving as one would expect in low gravity, at all.
Please provide your calculations on how one is 'supposed' to move in low gravity.

Also, provide the empirical tests you used to come to the conclusions you've come to.

Also, please explain how thousands of scientists have looked at these videos and have come to a different conclusion than you have.

[Samm]

Man, this Mission can't come soon enough....

:rolleyes::doh::wall:

It won't make a bit of difference to Dual and his wacko conspiracy minded buddies. They will just point out that it is easier to fake video pictures from a satellite today than it was to fake the moon landings back in 1969. They are hopelessly committed to this; nothing will convince them otherwise. Not even a trip to the moon.

[spinach]

Please provide your calculations on how one is 'supposed' to move in low gravity.

Also, provide the empirical tests you used to come to the conclusions you've come to.

Also, please explain how thousands of scientists have looked at these videos and have come to a different conclusion than you have.


already been done on other threads.
and I just said some of the same things here.

motion in low gravity is all NUMBERS, and completely objective.
What it boils down to is astronauts weighing 1/6 normal weight,
but still having normal mass.
Thus, the apparent inertial effect would be 2.45 times as great as that on earth.

it would be 2.45 times as hard on the moon to 'start moving' and 2.45 times as hard to 'stop moving'.
[because the leverage to move a man is solely derived from his footing alone]

IOW, no sudden stops. You plant those feet, and your body will want to just keep on going.

worse, with all that extra weight from the equipment, the problem is magnified. The astronaut now has even less strength in proportion to the mass and inertia. And worse than that, the center of gravity is higher than normal.

What we see in the videos is impossible, in most cases.
the astronauts would be tumbling and falling a LOT.

NO sudden stops or starts, no sudden turns, and no "lunging".

[snagswolf]

already been done on other threads.
and I just said some of the same things here.

motion in low gravity is all NUMBERS, and completely objective.
What it boils down to is astronauts weighing 1/6 normal weight,
but still having normal mass.
Thus, the apparent inertial effect would be 2.45 times as great as that on earth.

it would be 2.45 times as hard on the moon to 'start moving' and 2.45 times as hard to 'stop moving'.
[because the leverage to move a man is solely derived from his footing alone]

IOW, no sudden stops. You plant those feet, and your body will want to just keep on going.

worse, with all that extra weight from the equipment, the problem is magnified. The astronaut now has even less strength in proportion to the mass and inertia. And worse than that, the center of gravity is higher than normal.

What we see in the videos is impossible, in most cases.
the astronauts would be tumbling and falling a LOT.

NO sudden stops or starts, no sudden turns, and no "lunging".
So, in other words, all you have is B.S.

No experiments you've done yourself. No proof of your claims. Just B.S.

No link to a video. Just your B.S. about some vague video out there, that you obviously don't want us to see.

You can talk about 'center of gravity' until you're blue in the face, but that doesn't prove anything. Where are your experiments? Where are your calculations? Where's the video we can all put a stopwatch on?

Still waiting.

[Cav Scout]

Boy Heston must have been so disapointed....

Crash landing here to find that the Ape's really were real.

[Cav Scout]

It won't make a bit of difference to Dual and his wacko conspiracy minded buddies. They will just point out that it is easier to fake video pictures from a satellite today than it was to fake the moon landings back in 1969. They are hopelessly committed to this; nothing will convince them otherwise. Not even a trip to the moon.

That is becuase deep down they know that NASA is just driving across Texas and filming in an Arkansas basement....:))

[CrusaderFrank]

I always thought that the "manned" Lunar missions were unmanned just to drop off equipment.

[spinach]

......<rant deleted>...


I see you have copped an attitude.
maybe its because you have already been demolished once for your rants. I don't need to prove anything to you.

Do a thread search on moon landings.
Have fun.
and now, you are invisible.
Have a crappy day, person who is perpetually wrong.

[waynevan]

already been done on other threads.
and I just said some of the same things here.

motion in low gravity is all NUMBERS, and completely objective.
What it boils down to is astronauts weighing 1/6 normal weight,
but still having normal mass.
Thus, the apparent inertial effect would be 2.45 times as great as that on earth.

it would be 2.45 times as hard on the moon to 'start moving' and 2.45 times as hard to 'stop moving'.
[because the leverage to move a man is solely derived from his footing alone]

IOW, no sudden stops. You plant those feet, and your body will want to just keep on going.

worse, with all that extra weight from the equipment, the problem is magnified. The astronaut now has even less strength in proportion to the mass and inertia. And worse than that, the center of gravity is higher than normal.

What we see in the videos is impossible, in most cases.
the astronauts would be tumbling and falling a LOT.

NO sudden stops or starts, no sudden turns, and no "lunging".

Bah.

It would only be 2.45 times harder to stop if you were going 2.45 times faster.

[Cygnus X-1]

already been done on other threads.
and I just said some of the same things here.

motion in low gravity is all NUMBERS, and completely objective.
What it boils down to is astronauts weighing 1/6 normal weight,
but still having normal mass.
Thus, the apparent inertial effect would be 2.45 times as great as that on earth.

it would be 2.45 times as hard on the moon to 'start moving' and 2.45 times as hard to 'stop moving'.
[because the leverage to move a man is solely derived from his footing alone]

IOW, no sudden stops. You plant those feet, and your body will want to just keep on going.

worse, with all that extra weight from the equipment, the problem is magnified. The astronaut now has even less strength in proportion to the mass and inertia. And worse than that, the center of gravity is higher than normal.

What we see in the videos is impossible, in most cases.
the astronauts would be tumbling and falling a LOT.

NO sudden stops or starts, no sudden turns, and no "lunging".

What's impossible is the behavior of the lunar dust when kicked about by the astronauts if they were on the Earth. If it were not in a vacuum, in an atmosphere like on Earth, there would be suspended dust...like a puff of smoke. Instead, the lunar dust ONLY spreads in a ballistic manner as seen in this video...

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a16/a16v.1665755.mov

btw, the astronauts DID tumble and fall A LOT during their missions.

:confused:

[Samm]

already been done on other threads.
and I just said some of the same things here.

motion in low gravity is all NUMBERS, and completely objective.
What it boils down to is astronauts weighing 1/6 normal weight,
but still having normal mass.
Thus, the apparent inertial effect would be 2.45 times as great as that on earth.

it would be 2.45 times as hard on the moon to 'start moving' and 2.45 times as hard to 'stop moving'.[because the leverage to move a man is solely derived from his footing alone]

IOW, no sudden stops. You plant those feet, and your body will want to just keep on going.

worse, with all that extra weight from the equipment, the problem is magnified. The astronaut now has even less strength in proportion to the mass and inertia. And worse than that, the center of gravity is higher than normal.

What we see in the videos is impossible, in most cases.
the astronauts would be tumbling and falling a LOT.

NO sudden stops or starts, no sudden turns, and no "lunging".

Which is exactly why the astronauts quickly developed that odd two footed hop. Had this been done in a studio, nobody would have thought of that.

[Samm]

I always thought that the "manned" Lunar missions were unmanned just to drop off equipment.

Yeah... just long term preparation to give the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter something to take pictures of. :rolleyes:

[snagswolf]

I see you have copped an attitude.
maybe its because you have already been demolished once for your rants. I don't need to prove anything to you.

Do a thread search on moon landings.
Have fun.
and now, you are invisible.
Have a crappy day, person who is perpetually wrong.
Translation: "I'm full of ****, so don't ask me for any real proof."

And you only wish I was invisible. But I'm still here, laughing at you.

[Dual867PowerMac]

What's impossible is the behavior of the lunar dust when kicked about by the astronauts if they were on the Earth. If it were not in a vacuum, in an atmosphere like on Earth, there would be suspended dust...like a puff of smoke. Instead, the lunar dust ONLY spreads in a ballistic manner as seen in this video...

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a16/a16v.1665755.mov

btw, the astronauts DID tumble and fall A LOT during their missions.

:confused:
Excellent video. Why didn't the dust they kicked up just remain suspended?

I invite everyone to take a look at this brief footage of an astronaut driving a lunar rover. It's been sped up to 2x.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRSpntQ-VtY

The "rooster tails" tell the truth.

[snagswolf]

Excellent video. Why didn't the dust they kicked up just remain suspended?
Why would the dust remain suspended?

It's been sped up to 2x.
How do you know that?

The "rooster tails" tell the truth.
And what 'truth' do you think these rooster tails are telling?

[Cygnus X-1]

Excellent video. Why didn't the dust they kicked up just remain suspended?

I invite everyone to take a look at this brief footage of an astronaut driving a lunar rover. It's been sped up to 2x.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRSpntQ-VtY

The "rooster tails" tell the truth.

For the same reason it's not suspended in your video link...in a vacuum environment all things fall at the same rate. Notice in that rover footage how uniform the "rooster tails" fall back to the Lunar surface.

On Earth, AIR restricts the lighter particles...that's why you get a "puff" of dusty "smoke" when ripping up a dusty trail with a dirt bike or whatever. There is NO AIR on the Moon, therefore, all particles fall at the same rate in accord with Lunar gravity.

This is basic stuff here...it seems you're thinking of a "weight~less" environment like aboard an orbiting Shuttle. In that case, all things on board are in "free~fall" and the illusion of "zero~gravity" is observed. You can get the same effect if you free~fall in a refrigerator box from 50,000 ft. heading straight down to the ground.

Give it up, Mac. The LRO Mission is going to prove you HB's to be very WRONG.

[Cav Scout]

And what 'truth' do you think these rooster tails are telling?


Why did you ask that?

[Cygnus X-1]

Actually, going to the moon does not take a lot of computing power, really. The laws of motion make it rather simple once you are pointed in the right direction, and get there at the right speed.

The real problem with a "man on the moon" is that a man will indeed weigh 1/6 as much as normal, but will still have the same mass, and therefore the same inertia as on earth. This would make any sort of movement extremely hazardous, because it would be hard to 'start walking' and hard to 'stop moving'.

When I see videos, I don't see them moving as one would expect in low gravity, at all.

Well I guess you haven't seen this one...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ciStUEZK-Y&NR=1

You simply cannot do that on Earth unless you're underwater, and it would be much harder.

[gdoane]

Excellent video. Why didn't the dust they kicked up just remain suspended?

It's 1/6th Earth's gravity, not zero gravity.

I invite everyone to take a look at this brief footage of an astronaut driving a lunar rover. It's been sped up to 2x.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRSpntQ-VtY

The "rooster tails" tell the truth.

So where's the Lunar Rover at now? I think it's on the Moon but if it were on Earth somebody would be able to produce it.

The main problem I have with buying a coverup is our stupid pathetic incompetent moron government isn't capable of keeping a secret. They're too stupid to keep a secret.

For example, the United States of America detonated the first Atomic Bomb on Hiroshima August 6th, 1945. By August 29th, 1949, the USSR detonated their first nuclear bomb with stolen secrets from the USA.

Every military veteran in the USA got a letter from our utterly incompetent and stupid Federal Government informing us that they've "lost" a hard drive with our personal information on it, things like our names, dates of birth, Social Screwity numbers, pretty much everything an identity thief would need. Oops. Oh, but we get a free year of credit monitoring service. All we need to do is give the credit monitoring service all of that info.

Bill Clinton couldn't even keep a stain on Monica's little blue dress a secret.

What you're asking me to believe is that my government has the competence to pull off a hoax of this magnitude and I don't believe those worthless idiots who can't even catch Osama Bin Laden are capable of such a sophisticated operation.

They can't even balance a budget. They're stone cold stupid. The government which supposedly pulled off this hoax LOST A WAR TO VIETNAM. Do you know how pathetically incompetent you have to be to lose a war with a rice farming commie? If you can't beat Vietnam then there's pretty much nobody you could win a war against.

I don't believe the moon landing was a hoax because I don't think our government has the brainpower and organization it would take to pull it off.

[Cygnus X-1]

"Twinkle~Toes"...

LOL!!!:))

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZP7AVBdJYOg&NR=1

Try doing this "dance" at your local sand dune!

:razz:

[spinach]

Well I guess you haven't seen this one...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ciStUEZK-Y&NR=1

You simply cannot do that on Earth unless you're underwater, and it would be much harder.


1. at the 15 second mark he falls over. right when he falls, rather that going straight down, its as though his waist is suspended by a wire, because as his upper body falls, the middle part is "held up" abnormally.

2. the dirt isn't right when he kicks it up, several times

3. at the 45 second mark, he kicks some dirt up, and the 'dust' goes off to the right, and you can see the shadow of the dirt as it moves all the way off camera to the right. On the moon, there is nothing to suspend dust. It should fall back to the ground, slowly- but no so slowly that it would make it off camera.

4. it also appears to be that once he has fallen down, the camera has been slowed down, until he is fully upright.

5. when he is trying to get up, he pushes with his arms the first time hardly at all-- which is an indicator it has been slowed down when he fell. there's no reason for him to push that slow, it wouldn't do anything.

This video is most certainly a fraud.

[spinach]

"Twinkle~Toes"...

LOL!!!:))

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZP7AVBdJYOg&NR=1

Try doing this "dance" at your local sand dune!

:razz:


at the 57 second mark he drops a bag. watch how fast it hits the ground. Earth fast.

on the moon, object should fall 2.45 times slower than on the earth. that one's a fraud as well.

no matter what, an object on the moon will fall at "moon rate" when dropped.


also, at the first part, when he falls down, they have slowed the camera down. when he "leaps back up" backwards, he looks like the six million dollar man, slow motion. Leaping up would be a LOT faster.

[Cygnus X-1]

1. at the 15 second mark he falls over. right when he falls, rather that going straight down, its as though his waist is suspended by a wire, because as his upper body falls, the middle part is "held up" abnormally.

2. the dirt isn't right when he kicks it up, several times

3. at the 45 second mark, he kicks some dirt up, and the 'dust' goes off to the right, and you can see the shadow of the dirt as it moves all the way off camera to the right. On the moon, there is nothing to suspend dust. It should fall back to the ground, slowly- but no so slowly that it would make it off camera.

4. it also appears to be that once he has fallen down, the camera has been slowed down, until he is fully upright.

5. when he is trying to get up, he pushes with his arms the first time hardly at all-- which is an indicator it has been slowed down when he fell. there's no reason for him to push that slow, it wouldn't do anything.

This video is most certainly a fraud.

Delusion.

Think center~of~gravity....just like you argued earlier in this thread. There is an OBVIOUS maneuver to incorporate it to gain a footing after falling. How can you not see that?

You predicted it! :confused:

[snagswolf]

Why did you ask that?
Because I wanted to know what 'truth' he thought the rooster tails were telling.

[Cygnus X-1]

at the 57 second mark he drops a bag. watch how fast it hits the ground. Earth fast.

on the moon, object should fall 2.45 times slower than on the earth. that one's a fraud as well.

no matter what, an object on the moon will fall at "moon rate" when dropped.

Yeah there should have been a ton of dust in the AIR, right?

Too bad there was none available[AIR].

You don't know if there was downward motion from his hand when he droped the bag, so that is frivolous.

:doh:

[spinach]

Delusion.

Think center~of~gravity....just like you argued earlier in this thread. There is an OBVIOUS maneuver to incorporate it to gain a footing after falling. How can you not see that?

You predicted it! :confused:


I am talking about when he first falls over.
it's like his legs and waist are held up momentarily.

on the moon, a falling person experiences the same gravity on the upper body as on the lower. they will always fall at the same rate.

like on earth, when you fall over, your legs don't float as you fall.
they fall just as you fall.

think about it.

[spinach]

Yeah there should have been a ton of dust in the AIR, right?

Too bad there was none available[AIR].

:doh:

what are you talking about?

'dust' is not relevant to
a bag dropping on the moon.

an object on the moon falls 2.45 times slower than an object falls on earth. Watch when the bag falls. It goes down at "earth speed".

[Cygnus X-1]

Sorry, spinach, there is no "slow~motion", or time deviation observable in that video.

:snooty::naughty::wall:

[snagswolf]

1. at the 15 second mark he falls over. right when he falls, rather that going straight down, its as though his waist is suspended by a wire, because as his upper body falls, the middle part is "held up" abnormally.
Held up abnormally? He's leaning against the rod he's pushing into the ground.

So much for your observational skills.

2. the dirt isn't right when he kicks it up, several times
Is 'isn't right' your scientific determination?

3. at the 45 second mark, he kicks some dirt up, and the 'dust' goes off to the right, and you can see the shadow of the dirt as it moves all the way off camera to the right. On the moon, there is nothing to suspend dust. It should fall back to the ground, slowly- but no so slowly that it would make it off camera.
The 'dust' moves in a perfect parabola path, exactly as it should. And exactly how it wouldn't if there were an atmosphere present.

Simple science.

4. it also appears to be that once he has fallen down, the camera has been slowed down, until he is fully upright.
Based on what? Your imagination?

5. when he is trying to get up, he pushes with his arms the first time hardly at all-- which is an indicator it has been slowed down when he fell. there's no reason for him to push that slow, it wouldn't do anything.
Seriously, where do you come up with this B.S.?

Please show your experiments and calculations that prove that pushing slow 'wouldn't do anything'?

This video is most certainly a fraud.
:)) :)) :)) :))

Well, at least we now have some proof that your 'scientific' analysis is nothing by B.S.

I can see why you were reluctant to post the other video where you 'proved' the bag fell faster than Moon gravity allowed.

[chip]

LOL

"Earth speed"

Tell us o enlightened one. Whats in the bag and how much does it weigh?

[snagswolf]

I am talking about when he first falls over.
it's like his legs and waist are held up momentarily.

on the moon, a falling person experiences the same gravity on the upper body as on the lower. they will always fall at the same rate.

like on earth, when you fall over, your legs don't float as you fall.
they fall just as you fall.

think about it.
Good lord, would you open your eyes?

He's leaning on that pole he's pushing into the ground.

Are you admitting you can't see that?

[spinach]

Yeah there should have been a ton of dust in the AIR, right?

Too bad there was none available[AIR].

You don't know if there was downward motion from his hand when he droped the bag, so that is frivolous.

:doh:


you didn't listen to what the man said.

"if you fix that camera bracket so that the bags don't fall off, i will be a lot better off"

he himself said it fell off.

secondly-- why is he telling then he will be better off if they fix the bracket? they are on "earth" supposedly, and have no way to fix the bracket, if he's on the moon-
and he would not be 'better off' because he's supposedly on the moon with other astronauts.

So even his comment is suspect.

[spinach]

LOL

"Earth speed"

Tell us o enlightened one. Whats in the bag and how much does it weigh?


it makes no difference.

a feather and an anvil fall at the same rate on the moon.

[spinach]

Sorry, spinach, there is no "slow~motion", or time deviation observable in that video.

:snooty::naughty::wall:


It's there.
they switch the speed when he's fallen down.

watch how slow they 'try to get back up'
yet, they always move 'fast' when they are standing.

[snagswolf]

at the 57 second mark he drops a bag. watch how fast it hits the ground. Earth fast.

on the moon, object should fall 2.45 times slower than on the earth. that one's a fraud as well.

no matter what, an object on the moon will fall at "moon rate" when dropped.
Please show us your calculations.

How far did the bag drop? How long did it take for the bag to hit the ground? How much intial velocity was imparted to the bag by the motion of the astronaut's hand (which is hidden by the astronaut's body)?

I'm sure you made these calculations since you're a 'scientist' who wouldn't just make such claims without them.

:)) :)) :))

[chip]

it makes no difference.

a feather and an anvil fall at the same rate on the moon.

Then how on earth, pardon the pun, are you making this laughable claim that its falling at "earth speed".

How about you putting up some actual facts instead of your opinions.

[snagswolf]

It's there.
No, it isn't.

they switch the speed when he's fallen down.

watch how slow they 'try to get back up'
yet, they always move 'fast' when they are standing.
Do you think it might be he's taking his time because he's an astronaut on the moon, in a spacesuit that's keeping him alive, and any damage to it might kill him?

No, that would make too much sense. Of course the reason must be someone slowing the film down.

Crazy.

[Cygnus X-1]

I am talking about when he first falls over.
it's like his legs and waist are held up momentarily.

on the moon, a falling person experiences the same gravity on the upper body as on the lower. they will always fall at the same rate.

like on earth, when you fall over, your legs don't float as you fall.
they fall just as you fall.

think about it.

But just like you said earlier, the center of gravity is not that which the astronaut would experience on Earth. For them, it was towards the upper~half of their back~pack...in affect, bring the COG away from their backs, and just above their shoulders.

You can see their maneuver: Leaning forward, then thrusting back to gain footing. It seems two times does it...

How you don't see this, based on my opinion that you are an asset to this board, and seem very intelligent (and funny as hell!!)...

confounds me...:confused:

[James Juno]

Why do you guys bother with this nonsense? Seriously.

[chip]

Why do you guys bother with this nonsense? Seriously.

Thanks for reminding me. I dont want people wondering who the real fool is.

[spinach]

Then how on earth, pardon the pun, are you making this laughable claim that its falling at "earth speed".

How about you putting up some actual facts instead of your opinions.

look, it's not that hard to drop an object from waist height yourself.

time it.

then watch the video.

:rolleyes:

Dropped objects on the moon fall NOTICEABLY much slower.

[Cav Scout]

Because I wanted to know what 'truth' he thought the rooster tails were telling.

You are gonna be sorry for that...:))

[spinach]

But just like you said earlier, the center of gravity is not that which the astronaut would experience on Earth. For them, it was towards the upper~half of their back~pack...in affect, bring the COG away from their backs, and just above their shoulders.

You can see their maneuver: Leaning forward, then thrusting back to gain footing. It seems two times does it...

How you don't see this, based on my opinion that you are an asset to this board, and seem very intelligent (and funny as hell!!)...

confounds me...:confused:

i'm not talking about when he's getting up.
I'm talking about as he falls for the first time. Right when he FIRST falls. Wires- is the only way to explain his waist and legs floating.