Heroes of Might and Magic Community
visiting hero! Register | Today's Posts | Games | Search! | FAQ/Rules | AvatarList | MemberList | Profile

<a href='http://www.game-advertising-online.com/' target='_blank'>Game Advertising Online</a><br> banner requires iframes

Age of Heroes Headlines:  
16 Dec 2014: Introducing Shapers of Lore, Academy Line-Up Detailed - read more
10 Dec 2014: Heroes III HD Remake Announced for January 29th! - read more
5 Dec 2014: Website Update delayed, Community Q&A, new Vote on the way! - read more
24 Nov 2014: The Wizardsí Armies Have Arrived! - read more
14 Nov 2014: Dungeon Line-up Vote #2 Results! - read more
11 Nov 2014: HC Icon Contest, Sylvan Townscreen Vote #2 - read more
7 Nov 2014: Dungeon Line-up Vote Round 2, Sylvan Townscreen Part 1! - read more
2 Nov 2014: Dungeon wins, line-up vote starts! - read more
18 Oct 2014: Tidbits of Information from Twitch.tv Stream! - read more
9 Oct 2014: Heroes 7 Wiki is Open, HC Design & Games - read more
16 Dec 2014: Introducing Shapers of Lore, Academy Line-Up Detailed - read more
[X] Remove Ads
LOGIN:     Username:     Password:         [ Register ]
HOMM1: info forum | HOMM2: info forum | HOMM3: info forum | HOMM4: info forum | HOMM5: info forum | MMH6: wiki forum | MMH7: wiki forum
Heroes Community > Other Side of the Monitor > Thread: Moon Landing
Thread: Moon Landing [ This thread is 11 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 (6) 7 8 9 10 11 ]
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted October 13, 2008 06:34 PM

Quote:
Quote:
No, it doesn't. The youtube thing is a fake. There is neither a Dr. namend so nor a corp of that name. TRy to find them. You'd think that such a expert in such a leading corp would be mentioned in the internet somewhere. But there IS NOT!
IT'S A FAKE!

So much for your experts.
You could pay attention to what he said and probably calculate the stuff yourself.

No, I couldn't. Because I generally don't listen to people who lie with the sole intention to give themselves more credibility. In gerenal it's con artists who use such tactics. In fact I think it speaks volumes that you don't believe REAL doctors like Edgar Mitchell, saying inherently he's a liar, while you are prepared to believe the nonsense of someone who is PROVEN to be a liar.

It looks like people NOWADAYS want to believe that the landing was a hoax because NOW the revelation that ist was one would be much more of a sensation NOW than the fact of the landing.
It's actually pretty disgusting.



 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
TheDeath
TheDeath


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
posted October 13, 2008 06:54 PM

Quote:
while you are prepared to believe the nonsense of someone who is PROVEN to be a liar.
What Proof? Another video? Some article by someone else? Why would that be more "true" than the above video?

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted October 13, 2008 07:15 PM

There is no person of that name and there is no corp of that name - try finding it. So the whole video is a lie.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Baklava
Baklava


Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
posted October 13, 2008 07:29 PM

According to FindPeopleFree.co.uk, Quantec Image Processing is located at 184 Tower Street, Brunswick Business Park, Liverpool.

And WhitePages.com claims there are 155 David Groves's in the USA only. That doesn't include Great Britain.

Not implying anything. Merely... opening possibilities.
Just because someone's a doctor doesn't mean his name needs to be sprayed all over the internet. I know a shyteload of doctors who are pretty much anonymous.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Mytical
Mytical

Hero of Order
Chaos seeking Harmony
posted October 14, 2008 03:59 AM

What somepeople fail to realise is, people can take 'original' (if they were even original' and doctor them many ways.  I could take an original photo of say Chuck Norris, put him in a dress, and claim he was a cross dresser.  Doesn't make it true.  Now it is claimed these were original photos, but where is the proof they are?  Even if similar to ones found inhistory books or on the nasa website does not mean they have not been doctored.

Prove to me they are the original.
____________
Message received.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
Azagal
Azagal


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Smooth Snake
posted October 14, 2008 07:10 AM

You guys are hillarious xD.

Anywayssssss to finally be on topic here:
During the (fake?! omg omg omg omg) moonlandings the astronauts used battery driven cars to navigate on the moon (studio?! omg omg omg omg). So by now there should be three of them on the moon if they really were on the moon.
So if I can prove to you guys that there are three such cars on the moon it means that the moonlandings weren't fake right (and lol don't give me that bullpoop that they were "planted" there when man was on the moon the first "real" time lol.)
____________
"The superior man is modest in
his speech but exceeds in his
actions." Confucius

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
Mytical
Mytical

Hero of Order
Chaos seeking Harmony
posted October 14, 2008 08:28 AM

Here is the thing.  The defendent in a case (in this case Nasa) does not have the burden of proof.  The prosecuter (the people who think it is a hoax) does.

Think about this, however, please.  Nasa has some of the best and brightest working for them, and did even then.  IF they really wanted to make a hoax, don't you think it would be harder to tell, if not near impossible?  If they really did not go to the moon, they could have made the 'fakes' any time.  Could have had months, or maybe even years to make sure there was zero discrepencies.  Why wouldn't they?
____________
Message received.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
Doomforge
Doomforge

Hero of Order
Mayhem Elemental
posted October 14, 2008 08:39 AM

Wasn't necessary, 95% of the world believes in their every word anyway.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Mytical
Mytical

Hero of Order
Chaos seeking Harmony
posted October 14, 2008 08:44 AM

Ok, so instead of taking no chances, with some of the best and brightest at their beck and call..they just say "Huk, dem der peoples is eediots, wen gonna make dis here sloppy stuff'n not fix it.  Huk." Sorry, don't buy it.

Now if there was no flaws..I might be more open to the idea that it was a hoax.
____________
Message received.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted October 14, 2008 09:09 AM

There is even more: you need a reason to pull a swindle, and the only reason to actually do it is (apart from being willing to do it) that you CANNOT do the real thing for whatever the reason (not enough money, time, technology, whatever).
However, obviously everyone is interested in the real thing since it offers a lot more perspectives than just a swindle - don't forget that they all assumed the space activities and research would further a lot of other things (which was of course correct).
The plan was exactly that: to put an man on the moon within ten years.

The necessary prerequisite to pull a swindle would have been the realization that they cannot do it. That is, you need A FAILURE.
Which means, a failure in any of the tests they made.
However, there was no failure. Or better, the only failure for the US happend on Earth with Apollo 1. Everything else worked. each test went as planned.
So why would people have thought that the real thing was not possible? Except, of course, all tests were fake as well, which cannot be.

So, frankly, there just was no reason to try a fake. NONE. Especially since Apollo 12 was the planned reserve mission in case Apollo 11 would have gone wrong.
See it this way: if Apollo 11 had been a spectacular failure with no landing and so on - wouldn't THAT have made it much more likely then, to fake a successful Apollo 12 Landing?
On the other hand the last Apollo mission before moon landing was Apollo 10 which ended May 26.
Apollo 11 started July 16.

So. If ANYTHING had happened in the course of the test missions before 11 (that would have had ro be successfully covered up as well), they would have had some 50 days to plan and produce a fake. However, a lot more probable would have been half a year, since they were under no pressure to start Apollo 11 in July.

If on the other hand something had suggested a bigger problem right before the scheduled start of Apollo 11, they could have simply rescheduled it, claiming soe minor problem with the fuel or whatever.

Which leads to the following conclusion: If the landing on the moon has to be a fake, the fake itself either took place at a time everyone was happy with - which would suggest a less rushed job with the pictures and so on to make it airtight - or it was indeed a kind of improvised rush job which would suggest a last minute problem that appeared after the start.

This ain't working either, because in that case - for example if something was wrong with the landing gear - they would just have aborted to try and solve the problem and do it again with 12 or to have more time for a better fake instead of rushing something.

And if there had been another problem, for example aliens that you couldn't show, said Aliens would have to have been detected surprisingly on the 11 mission, because otherwise they would have known a lot longer and would have done a better job.

In that case they might just have aborted as well to try something more sophisticated with 12.


 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Doomforge
Doomforge

Hero of Order
Mayhem Elemental
posted October 14, 2008 09:23 AM

Then why are those pictures a pile of BS.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Mytical
Mytical

Hero of Order
Chaos seeking Harmony
posted October 14, 2008 09:31 AM

Again, you havn't proven they are the originals from Nasa.  Just similar to the ones at Nasa.  Go to Nasa, get the originals, then we can talk
____________
Message received.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted October 14, 2008 09:42 AM

Quote:
Then why are those pictures a pile of BS.

Because they were made with an optics system designed for light conditions within an atmosphere? Because there is no sky? Because therefore day looks like bright night? What do I know about the dynamics of taking pictures with a camera on a skyless rock? What does ANYONE know about it?

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
TitaniumAlloy
TitaniumAlloy


Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
posted October 14, 2008 09:42 AM

Quote:
I may be a retard but I do not see how that could happen. I think it's impossible for it to wave in vacuum without any external forces (and gravity is constant).



Because they dig and twist the flag into the ground as it unfurls... you can't just place a flag into the moon surface. This would set up ripples in the flag with no air resistance and low gravity.


It would take alot of people to stage a moon landing. That many people can't stay quiet for that long.




Also, what about moon rocks
____________
John says to live above hell.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
Azagal
Azagal


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Smooth Snake
posted October 14, 2008 10:13 AM

Quote:
Anywayssssss to finally be on topic here:
During the (fake?! omg omg omg omg) moonlandings the astronauts used battery driven cars to navigate on the moon (studio?! omg omg omg omg). So by now there should be three of them on the moon if they really were on the moon.
So if I can prove to you guys that there are three such cars on the moon it means that the moonlandings weren't fake right (and lol don't give me that bullpoop that they were "planted" there when man was on the moon the first "real" time lol.)


I'd really like a conspiracy theory guy to answer me that.
____________
"The superior man is modest in
his speech but exceeds in his
actions." Confucius

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
Mytical
Mytical

Hero of Order
Chaos seeking Harmony
posted October 14, 2008 10:15 AM

If you can prove it please do so Azagal.  I for one would be interested.
____________
Message received.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
Doomforge
Doomforge

Hero of Order
Mayhem Elemental
posted October 14, 2008 10:34 AM

how many times do I have to repeat myself!?!?!?!?!!

it's tiresome.

ITS NOT ABOUT FAKE MOONLANDING, ITS ABOUT FAKE PHOTOS AND VIDEOS!!!

do CAPITALS sound more MEANINGFULLY to you guys ?

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
TitaniumAlloy
TitaniumAlloy


Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
posted October 14, 2008 10:43 AM
Edited by TitaniumAlloy at 10:48, 14 Oct 2008.

No, I'm pretty sure it's about a fake moon landing.



Here's a fake photo:


No big deal.





Quote:
Then why are those pictures a pile of BS.

There is an explanation for every one of those points on that page you linked.
The crosshairs? When an object is bright white on those films often the saturation will make it 'bleed' onto other parts of the image.
The fact that photographic film makes it difficult to depict clearly light and dark situations also explains the fact that you can't see the stars.
Ask any photographer.


Of course you have to look at the original images.
For instance that 'C' on the rock does not appear on the original nasa image, only on the recoloured print.
____________
John says to live above hell.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
Mytical
Mytical

Hero of Order
Chaos seeking Harmony
posted October 14, 2008 10:48 AM

Quote:
how many times do I have to repeat myself!?!?!?!?!!

it's tiresome.

ITS NOT ABOUT FAKE MOONLANDING, ITS ABOUT FAKE PHOTOS AND VIDEOS!!!

do CAPITALS sound more MEANINGFULLY to you guys ?


About as many times as we have to explain that without a reliable source the photos you have could be phonies made using the real pictures by a bunch of people who have nothing better to do?  Or that there is reasonable explinations for some of the questions raised?  Or ask you to provide proof that the photos are authentic?  Remember, as you are the one raising the questions, just as in a court of law the burden of proof is on you.
____________
Message received.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
Doomforge
Doomforge

Hero of Order
Mayhem Elemental
posted October 14, 2008 10:58 AM

Great. So I am supposed to believe that there are original ones, reworked ones, and we're all a part of some international paranoia.. I'm feeling a bit confused now.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
[ This thread is 11 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 (6) 7 8 9 10 11 ] < Prev Thread . . . Next Thread >
Post New Poll †† Post New Topic †† Post New Reply

Page compiled in 0.0989 seconds