|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
posted October 13, 2008 04:58 AM |
|
|
If you watch the show, they examined the flag waving. You will notice that the flag 'waved' after they turned the pole it was on. They put a flag (with a pole) inside a room that could have a vacuum. First they turned the pole in 'regular' atmosphere. It didn't 'wave' long. When they turned it with the vacuum, it behaved exactly as it did in the video. It was not 'wind' there just was no drag on the cloth because it was in a vacuum. Note: the original 'hoax' (if it is one) could have been done in a 'vacuum' sealed room. SO the flag waving does NOT prove it is a hoax.
They explained ALL the shadow things. The moon is highly reflective and could explain how some of the shadows (or lack thereof) in the photos.
____________
Message received.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted October 13, 2008 09:59 AM |
|
|
How could they "explain" something that makes no sense  The shadows shouldn't be like that, many scientists agree. Period.
Why? Because some shadows are different from others. Someone played with the light, I see 
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted October 13, 2008 10:03 AM |
|
Edited by Mytical at 10:03, 13 Oct 2008.
|
It was the topography of the moon coupled and the reflective nature of the moon's surface. You really have to watch the show to understand, I can not explain it good enough. I am not a scientist.
Again, all this doesn't mean there was not a hoax, just that it is much less likely.
Edit and you can find 10 'scientist' to agree with anything you want if you look hard enough. Or 100, or ..etc.
____________
Message received.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 13, 2008 10:40 AM |
|
|
Please.
12 humans have been on the moon. Not 2, TWELVE. Now, the claim is that they didn't have the technology In 2005 even, to send a man to the moon.
So logically, if everything was a fake they started with APOLLO 10 already (because they orbited the moon), got in a failure mission to make it look, well, more realistically, and continued on to APOLLO 17, piling fake over fake.
To support this theory, fotos are analyzed that may or may not be those originally sent. Whether they really are we don't know, but we are supposed to believe the the waving-flag crap. The flag moves because it was moved, and it continues moving since there is no atmospheric friction to stop the moving AND only 1/6 of Earths Gravity to pull the weave down.
What is actually worse than the complete stupidity of this claim is the stupidity they assume with the supposed makers of that fake. I mean, it's like watching the fabrication, and suddenly the guy in command of all this jumps up and says, "Hey, someone left open a door in that studio! There's a draught because the flagg is waving like mad!" And get's the answer, "well, yes, we had someone go out and buy donuts and some burgers, and that's the moment the guy comes back in with all the stuff."
The fotos can't prove anything because of the possible data spoiling due to the transfer. It's like listening to a radio call, supposedly received from a mission to Mars, and after analyzing the recordings back and forth someone comes up and says, well, listen to that part between second 17.1 and 17.8 of the recording. This sounds as if a church clock chimes half the hour. It must be a fake.
However, IF it really WAS a fake, there must be NUMEROUS people who know it's all been a fake. All the astronauts, of course, all the scientists, all those having part in the fabrication, all those who gave the orders, the radar teams, the scientists examining the stuff brought back from the moon and so on. Thousands. And of course everyone got a fortune for their silence and never was tempted to make the swindle public, earning a possible fame and fortune.
And of course not only the Russians believed everything, accepting defeat, they were of course too dumb to try something like that themselves as well.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted October 13, 2008 11:53 AM |
|
|
Riight. If something makes no sense, it's the corrupted transmition.
Ok. Answer those, mr. It's-not-fake. Have fun.
1. Why do the photos differ from movies supposedly taken at the same moment (additional objects?)
2. How can a plain Hasselblad 500 EL/70 camera survive the 500 degree amplitude lol and make good photos?
3. What are those damned crosses doing BEHIND obstacles?
4. What is that "C" letter doing on a rock?
5. Why are the astronauts illuminated differently than the rest of the scenery (they should look much darker when standing with their backs to the sun)
6. Why the shades go in different directions ? 
7. how can a plain camera make sharper and brighter photos than specialistic stuff with advanced filters used on other missions?
8. Why does Aldrin levitate? 
9. How can you change lenses and film in a camera attached to your suit with your bulky gloves, without even SEEING the camera?
10. And if you even can, why doesn't the film get destroyed after being exposed to extreme temperatures?
11. Where does the halo come from around the sun (no atmoshere!)
12. Why did West Australia get different broadcast (I really can't believe that Armstrong slipped on a cola bottle, but who knows, did it really made the newspapers? Australians give us some insight )
13. Why does it look totally "earthly" when you watch the movies at x2 speed?
14. How can you make a footprint on the moon?
15. Even if you magically can, why do the engines NOT make any craters, why don't they even move moon dust when starting? What a miracle. So you can make a footprint but the engines can't even move dust.
16. 200.000 miles to Earth, and what do we see? Earth shouldn't be that big from there. And where does that frickin halo come from It shouldn't be there.
17. Where do those flashes above astronauts come from? Do their strings used to simulate 1/6 gravity reflect light? whoopsie.
18. Why are the hills always the same in different apollo missions (the ship landed in different places!)? Even the distance between the hills is the same 
They are not the same, nope, no way. XD
19. Why does the formation of rocks look exactly the same on two photos, supposedly taken in totally different places (one 4km farther then the other) !?
If it was just a label mistake, why did nobody correct it after all those years!?
20.Where are the stars? If they aren't visible for whatever reason, what are those bright spots doing on the sky and why are they always in the same place (even in photos taken at different angles and directions..)
21. Where does the FIRE come from? It's MOON. You can't see fire there (see the video of the ship taking off.. lol)
22. What is the source of that bright light wee see when Armstrong descends on moon for the first time? There are no clouds there and there is nobody else than him on the moon at the moment ;p
23. Who on earth uses ZIPPERS on spacesuits?
24. How could they get off their ship if they shouldn't fit in the hatches? There is a exact model of the landing module available and you can see for yourself that it would not be possible to make through those holes in a bulky suit..
25. how could they even survive the space radiation? According to official data on their suits, they should not.
26. How could they LAND these thing so precisely? Using Armstrong's skills and that little view window they had? Don't make me laugh Their CPU had the power of modern calculator. To handle such simulation, you'd need countless times stronger machine.
27. Why can't anobody see the space jeep they left on the moon, along with other stuff using the best telescopes, it should be visible.
All right, that's enough.. well.. if after reading all of this you still believe those photos are true.. oh well..
Perhaps they landed on moon, but they never showed what they saw there. For whatever reasons.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted October 13, 2008 12:18 PM |
|
Edited by Mytical at 12:21, 13 Oct 2008.
|
I'll tackle some of the questions.
1. Why do the photos differ from movies supposedly taken at the same moment (additional objects?) Maybe because they were taken in a vacuum? How many other movies at the time were?
2. How can a plain Hasselblad 500 EL/70 camera survive the 500 degree amplitude lol and make good photos? Not sure tbh.
3. What are those damned crosses doing BEHIND obstacles? IF they are indeed hoaxes, Nasa would not be the only one able to make fake photos. Ever considered the ones with the crosses were made by conspiricy theorist?
4. What is that "C" letter doing on a rock? Havn't seen a rock with a 'c' on it.
5. Why are the astronauts illuminated differently than the rest of the scenery (they should look much darker when standing with their backs to the sun)
6. Why the shades go in different directions ?
These two have been answered.
7. how can a plain camera make sharper and brighter photos than specialistic stuff with advanced filters used on other missions? The reflective nature of the moon? Just a guess.
8. Why does Aldrin levitate? Um 1/6 gravity perhaps?
9. How can you change lenses and film in a camera attached to your suit with your bulky gloves, without even SEEING the camera? Lots and lots and lots of practice?
10. And if you even can, why doesn't the film get destroyed after being exposed to extreme temperatures? Maybe Nasa had access to a type of film you are not aware of?
11. Where does the halo come from around the sun (no atmoshere!) From the camera? I've taken pictures of lamps and had 'halo's' on the picture..let alone the sun.
12. Why did West Australia get different broadcast (I really can't believe that Armstrong slipped on a cola bottle, but who knows, did it really made the newspapers? Australians give us some insight ) Will have to get back to you on that.
13. Why does it look totally "earthly" when you watch the movies at x2 speed? Maybe because that is what you 'expect' to see?
14. How can you make a footprint on the moon? The material that the moon is made up of is a different property then say .. sand. Again, take it with a grain of salt but Mythbusters WAS able to make a footprint in 1/6 gravity.
15. Even if you magically can, why do the engines NOT make any craters, why don't they even move moon dust when starting? What a miracle. So you can make a footprint but the engines can't even move dust. Will have to get back to you on this.
16. 200.000 miles to Earth, and what do we see? Earth shouldn't be that big from there. And where does that frickin halo come from It shouldn't be there. The halo can be explained by the camera. As for the distance..again I am not a scientist.
17. Where do those flashes above astronauts come from? Do their strings used to simulate 1/6 gravity reflect light? whoopsie. Moon dust? (not a scientist, but meh)
18. Why are the hills always the same in different apollo missions (the ship landed in different places!)? Even the distance between the hills is the same Again, maybe that is what you expect to see. Even if identical, go to two beaches. You can set up almost identical shots on two DIFFERNT beaches.
19. Why does the formation of rocks look exactly the same on two photos, supposedly taken in totally different places (one 4km farther then the other) !? Angle? Zoom lens?
20.Where are the stars? If they aren't visible for whatever reason, what are those bright spots doing on the sky and why are they always in the same place (even in photos taken at different angles and directions..) The brightness of the surface and/or moon dust make the stars hard to see? The bright spots could also be the dust.
21. Where does the FIRE come from? It's MOON. You can't see fire there (see the video of the ship taking off.. lol) You've been to the moon to verify that you can not see fire there?
22. What is the source of that bright light wee see when Armstrong descends on moon for the first time? There are no clouds there and there is nobody else than him on the moon at the moment ;p Reflection off the surface. The moon is very reflective, how else do you think we see it from so far away?
23. Who on earth uses ZIPPERS on spacesuits? Might be the best they had at the time?
24. How could they get off their ship if they shouldn't fit in the hatches? There is a exact model of the landing module available and you can see for yourself that it would not be possible to make through those holes in a bulky suit.. Depressurizing? Would make the suits smaller perhaps (again, not a scientist)..oh and also again..lots and lots and lots of practice?
25. how could they even survive the space radiation? According to official data on their suits, they should not. They were hardy people? The data modules were damaged?
26. How could they LAND these thing so precisely? Using Armstrong's skills and that little view window they had? Don't make me laugh Their CPU had the power of modern calculator. To handle such simulation, you'd need countless times stronger machine. Lots and lots and lots of practice?
27. Why can't anobody see the space jeep they left on the moon, along with other stuff using the best telescopes, it should be visible. Actually it is visible..kind of. The jeep was constructed out of a certain metal. It reflects (radio or something like that). There is an observatory that uses these to scan the surface of the moon. The moon itself does not reflect it back, but something up there does. Something that according to that observatory (sorry don't know which) can only be manmade.
Now some of my answers are not 'scientific' but plausable. Havn't answered everything, but answered a LOT of them. I am sure somebody smarter then me would have more 'technical' and 'scientific' answers.
____________
Message received.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 13, 2008 12:21 PM |
|
|
How do you know the people "collecting" all this "data" didn't fake THEM? The fotos and everything else.
More to the point, for example, it's not that no one ever was in space - the Russians were the first who let a man leave their ship in 1965 which means the Russian craft were big enough to leave people in space suits through and they should know as well how a space suit would look like and had zippers or not or how it would look like.
Which means, everyone who'd try to fake something like that would be expected to not blunder in well known departments. What is more, if there were tons of such blunders you'd expect the competition to blow the whistle on them.
So you can present questions until doomsday - they mean nothing until the authenticity of everything presented and claimed there is proven.
I mean, I can take shots taken from concentration camps in Germany 1945, make some slight corrections and then claim, that the people filmed there are too thin to have possibly survived, so everything is a fake, can I?
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted October 13, 2008 12:46 PM |
|
|
JollyJoker: Those are the official photos by NASA. Sorry to burst your bubble 
Mytical:
Quote:
Maybe because they were taken in a vacuum? How many other movies at the time were?
But why the extra objects that appear in photos? No vacuum can ever give that effect. Like on the photo of the astronaut that has a weird triangular thing around his head. In the movie it's mysteriously gone
Quote:
Ever considered the ones with the crosses were made by conspiricy theorist?
Conspiracy in conspiracy, ughhh. No, those are official materials.
Quote:
Havn't seen a rock with a 'c' on it.
Quote:
These two have been answered.
And they were answered incorrectly, I fear. That's why discovery isn't credible. With a 7% dispersion, you can't get such an effect
Quote:
The reflective nature of the moon? Just a guess.
And the reflective nature mysteriously goes away on another missions. Yeah, right.
Quote:
Um 1/6 gravity perhaps?
Nono. At a certain video he levitates. He shouldn't. even 1/6 gravity doesn't allow it
Quote:
Lots and lots and lots of practice?
Where? On earth?
Quote:
Maybe Nasa had access to a type of film you are not aware of?
Maybe.
Quote:
I've taken pictures of lamps and had 'halo's' on the picture..let alone the sun.
Of course.. because you made'em on earth. Without atmosphere you can't get the halo!
Quote:
Maybe because that is what you 'expect' to see?
I don't. I'm not biased. Try the vid on x2 speed.. Pretty enlightening.
Quote:
The material that the moon is made up of is a different property then say .. sand. Again, take it with a grain of salt but Mythbusters WAS able to make a footprint in 1/6 gravity.
That's a cool moonsand then. You can make a footprint but you can't affect it with a rocket engine
Quote:
The halo can be explained by the camera. As for the distance..again I am not a scientist.
There shouldn't be any halo in such a picture again. For the distance, it's either mistyped, or somebody has really failed in imagining how earth looks like from such distance.
Quote:
Moon dust? (not a scientist, but meh)
It looks like a string attached to them. Well, something had to lift them up, anyway..
Quote:
Even if identical, go to two beaches. You can set up almost identical shots on two DIFFERNT beaches.
Perhaps, but come on, those hills are obviously the same ones
Quote:
Angle? Zoom lens?
So I can reproduce my room (with rocks lying on the floor) in another rooms just by changing angle or zooming?
Quote:
You've been to the moon to verify that you can not see fire there?
I thought that is pretty obvious..
Quote:
Reflection off the surface. The moon is very reflective, how else do you think we see it from so far away?
with 7% reflectivity, it can't get that much light.
Quote:
Might be the best they had at the time?
Very risky. Minor damage to it and decompression here we goooo...
Quote:
They were hardy people? The data modules were damaged?
Or they hardly ever left the studio.
Nice try Mytical but I don't think most of that stuff can be explained.. Unless we agree with JollyJoker on the counter-conspiracy theory, of course..
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted October 13, 2008 01:09 PM |
|
|
Hate quote wars..but .
Quote:
But why the extra objects that appear in photos? No vacuum can ever give that effect. Like on the photo of the astronaut that has a weird triangular thing around his head. In the movie it's mysteriously gone.
Editing for astetics? Effects of 500 degrees on the movie film?
Quote:
Conspiracy in conspiracy, ughhh. No, those are official materials.
Unfortunately, I could dress somebody up as a Amazon like warrior, shoot from a low level, and say that I met an 'Venetian' (somebody from Venus) who gave me 'official' photos of something. Does that make it true?
Quote:
And they were answered incorrectly, I fear. That's why discovery isn't credible. With a 7% dispersion, you can't get such an effect.
Ok..so explain why the moon could be so bright in the night sky at the distance it is?
Quote:
And the reflective nature mysteriously goes away on another missions. Yeah, right.
The angle of the moon to the sun was different? There are many reason it could be.
Um 1/6 gravity perhaps?
Quote:
Nono. At a certain video he levitates. He shouldn't. even 1/6 gravity doesn't allow it
Yeah and so does Chris Angel..it is called an optical illusion.
Quote:
Where? On earth?
Yes, but they had to practice somewhere. You don't just hop in a rocket and fly to the moon without prepairing.
Quote:
I've taken pictures of lamps and had 'halo's' on the picture..let alone the sun.
Quote:
Of course.. because you made'em on earth. Without atmosphere you can't get the halo! There shouldn't be any halo in such a picture again. For the distance, it's either mistyped, or somebody has really failed in imagining how earth looks like from such distance.
Again could be a reflection on the lense. Have you been out of the atmosphere to varify no halo?
Quote:
I don't. I'm not biased. Try the vid on x2 speed.. Pretty enlightening.
No, claiming anybody who does not think the photos is a brainwashed nutjob is not biased at all.
Quote:
It looks like a string attached to them. Well, something had to lift them up, anyway..
Unless they were actually in 1/6th atmosphere. In order to achieve the 'gait' the same movement that the astronaughts used, they tested several ways..including wires. Only a 1/6 gravity (they claim) achieved it.
Quote:
So I can reproduce my room (with rocks lying on the floor) in another rooms just by changing angle or zooming?
You couldn't if the rooms were very similar?
Quote:
with 7% reflectivity, it can't get that much light.
Remember that it looses a lot of brightness coming back to earth..right? So imagine that on the surface
____________
Message received.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 13, 2008 01:16 PM |
|
|
I don't find those fotos on the NASA website.
I'm sure you can kindly supply a link?
Correction: I've found some:
http://www.nasa.gov/externalflash/apollo11/index1.html
You mean those?
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted October 13, 2008 01:48 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 13:52, 13 Oct 2008.
|
@Mytical:Quote:
Maybe because they were taken in a vacuum? How many other movies at the time were?
Movies from the Moon? They weren't in vacuum?
Quote:
IF they are indeed hoaxes, Nasa would not be the only one able to make fake photos. Ever considered the ones with the crosses were made by conspiricy theorist?
From official websites or the NASA website? (note: FROM, not necessarily ON)
Quote:
Um 1/6 gravity perhaps?
Why do they jump with not even 1/2 gravity then? And they walk as if the gravity is 1/3 at most.
Quote:
You've been to the moon to verify that you can not see fire there?
Fire is hot oxygen. Fire cannot survive without oxygen. Either that or some mysterious voodoo has taken place 
Quote:
Have you been out of the atmosphere to varify no halo?
Have you been out of the atmosphere to verify halo there?
The burden of proof is not on us because NASA is the one who makes "claims" stuff, so if you want to be scientific, you have to verify it yourself.
@JollyJoker: Also, there haven't been 2 astronauts but 12, like you said. One of them claims he saw aliens (Edgar Mitchell). Why don't you believe him but you believe the others? It seems the "conspiracy theorists" are not only "outsiders" so to speak.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted October 13, 2008 02:07 PM |
|
|
argh what happened to those images  Some ridiculous data protection or? Lol @ attempt to protect images that you can find on 1000 more sites.
JJ: Those photos are included in many historical documents. I don't think they are a random conspiracy boy's doing
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 13, 2008 02:14 PM |
|
|
No, he doesn't.
If you'd watch the thing you'd see that the first thing he says is that he has had no first-hand experience with them, but spoke with a number of people whom he trusts and believes their claims to have actually witnessed that the Roswell incident is in fact alien stuff.
Moreover he believes that there ARE "aliens" (other intelligent species than humans).
In that I agree with him. I'm furthermore inclined to agree that there is a lot more behind the Roswell thing than the officials let out. I've done a bit research about it a couple of years ago and there are too many inconsistencies to believe the official version.
However, Mitchell's website doesn't mention any of the Alien stuff. Mitchell has indeed researched in a field that I find personally one of the most interesting and that deals with quantum physics and consciousness.
Oh, and Mitchell has been on the moon, of course.
So I don't see anything that would support that the moon landing was a fake.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 13, 2008 02:16 PM |
|
|
Quote:
argh what happened to those images Some ridiculous data protection or? Lol @ attempt to protect images that you can find on 1000 more sites.
JJ: Those photos are included in many historical documents. I don't think they are a random conspiracy boy's doing
So you cannot provide a link in the net that is "official"? What about the site you get your knowledge from? What sources do THEY claim and did someone check the validity of the source?
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted October 13, 2008 02:25 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 14:25, 13 Oct 2008.
|
Quote:
So I don't see anything that would support that the moon landing was a fake.
No, the pictures may be fake, because the moon might not be how we think it is (example: aliens) or whatever. So the landing may or may not be fake, but the pictures definitely are.
Also I was talking about this (it was all over the place some time ago, even in local newspapers)
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 13, 2008 02:34 PM |
|
|
Yes, I know what you mean, and I've ven listened to the interview. But if you read it or hear it, you will see that he says he has no first-hand knowledge: for example:
"Dr Mitchell, 77, said during a radio interview that sources at the space agency who had had contact with aliens described the beings as 'little people who look strange to us.'
As I said in my previous post, he says that he knows personally a lot of people who have said something like that WHOM HE TRUST ENOUGH TO BELIEVE WHAT THEY SAY.
That's not QUITE the same and it doesn't have ANYTHING to do with the moon at all.
|
|
Azagal
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Smooth Snake
|
|
posted October 13, 2008 03:35 PM |
|
|
lol now you guys are talking about aliens xD?
____________
"All I can see is what's in front of me. And all I can do is keep moving forward" - The Heir Wielder of Names, Seeker of Thrones, King of Swords, Breaker of Infinities, Wheel Smashing Lord
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 13, 2008 03:49 PM |
|
|
Ok, try this site for your "questions":
http://www.moonhoax.lipi.at/
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted October 13, 2008 04:03 PM |
|
|
Totally loled at the crosshairs' "explanation". Wow, the bright objects make the darker ones disappear on fotos!
rotfl. If I add hard coded spot into a camera, it will be there, no matter what I try to do.
If you have any ideas how old cameras work.. try to go around the crosses, make them fade.. rotfl man. I have an old camera. It never goes off, even if I point it at the sun. Yes its 40 years old (a keepsake of my father).
Someone hasn't got a damn clue how does this thing work
Sorry, but that site is BS.
Quote:
So you cannot provide a link in the net that is "official"? What about the site you get your knowledge from? What sources do THEY claim and did someone check the validity of the source?
Well, I see the same photos in a book I have about moon landing, 20 years old. Those photos were certainly acquired from conspiracy group.
Lol.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 13, 2008 04:27 PM |
|
|
The thing that is really ridiculous is that people actually are believing the complete nonsense those hoaxers are phantasizing about. Most things they claim are actually so dumb and free of any knowledge about physics it's not even funny.
It just goes to show that if a conspiracy theory is appealing enough there will be enough people believing it because they want it to be true, reasonable or not.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
