Moon Landings - Real or Fake? (page 7)

barry

The pictures of them landing on the moon were taken from inside the lunar module and the pictures of the m taking off from the moon were taken from a camera left on the lunar surface and beamed to earth via the command module orbiting the moon.

hillary_step

Mariusuk,

I cannot believe this issue is still debated.

Why the surprise? This is an XJW discussion Board. I am sure that if you dig deep enough you will find threads debating whether Jack the Ripper was actually the Yeti on vacation from Tibet, or whether every active JW elder should have their heads shaved, tatooed with the viewing times of American Idol on their arses and put into concentration camps.

HS

Mariusuk.

I meant this particular issue fullstop, not just on exjw boards. My friend is a conspiracy nut and would rather believe in shadowy corporations than take the time to invest a little effort to find the facts.

Too many hours watching the x files and prison break i guess

funkyderek

Qcmbr:

I'm not sure whether your post deserves a piece-by-piece demolition or just undisguised scorn, so forgive me if I vacillate between the two.

I don't believe in the moon loanding and half the reason is that it winds up purists like AlanF.

There are good reasons for believing and bad reasons for believing. A good reason might be: "Because a close examination of the available evidence points to this conclusion". A bad reason might be: "To annoy somebody I don't like" or "Because the Book of Mormon says so".

1/ Loads of excellent pictures - David Bailey quality - taken from a chest mounted ice cream tub contraption - get away with yourself you prunes - give me some headless pictures, accidental moonboots and a few thumbs over the lens and I might just give you some credence.

Yeah, that's a real mystery. Why on earth would they put a decent photo on the cover of Time when they had so many bad ones to choose from? Even by the embarrassingly low standards of conspiracy theorists, that's a rather feeble argument.

2/ Lack of radiation shielding - I'm probably mistaken but isn't the sun sending a massive stream of charged particles at the earth and the moon with one problem - the moon and its approach are not shielded. The only freckles on those astronauts are from Florida. They'd get bbqd in minutes - their suits are like some crepe paper and tin foil joke kit.

Your guess was right. You are mistaken. But I'm sure that happens to you a lot. At least this time you noticed. It's interesting, if unfortunate that most of the Apollo astronauts have developed cataracts as a result of their exposure to radiation. It wasn't anywhere near enough to kill them, but they didn't come out of the experience unscathed.

3/ Precision engineering with boxing gloves.... never - I've tried to change channel on my tv with practice mits on and believe me its just a disaster - if you're telling me that those geezers had on high pressure ballons on their hands and were able to do more than box each other then I'm at a loss. They wouldn't be able to do anything on the moon once outside the tin can space ship.

Well, that settles it. Of course it also proves that the Hubble telescope and the International Space Station missions are hoaxes as well. And yet I've seen the ISS with my own eyes. Wonder how they did that? Maybe they're just faking the spacewalks for some reason. To pretend their technology isn't as good as it really is, perhaps?

4/ Automatic cameras taking perfect shots of the lunar lander taking off??? You what - where do people get off making stuff up? No - it was a movie crew filming a very poorly done cable hoist on a crane lifting a lunar mock up off the movie floor. You need a hulking huge rocket the size of Al Gores house to take off from the earth but to get off the moon you need a couple of party firecrackers... nawww you are yanking my chain.

The escape velocity from the moon is considerably lower than that of the earth as anyone with an elementary school education should be able to explain to you.

5/ Reflectors on the moon..so what - anyone want to point out that the Russians got stuff onto the moon as well and they sure as heck didn't go.

I suppose in itself all it proves is that the put a reflector on the moon somehow. I guess they could have engineered an elaborate secret unmanned moon mission to coincide with the fake manned mission. That would probably be more difficult than just sending people there, but they could have had their reasons. Any idea what those reasons might have been?

6/ Why haven't they gone again? Cost? My ars*. The NASA set up is a money sink hole - they are so inept and probably corrupt its a joke. Just how many Mars projects have screwed up..? Anyway to get to the moon all you apparently need is a zx-spectrum and a large rocket, firecrackers and several silver foil survival bags to cover the bottom of the lander and to line the boiler suits.

It is quite obviously very expensive to send people to the moon, and there's little scientific or political reason for doing so at the moment.

7/ Too many dead people in suspicious circumstances. Its interesting to see just how many doubters didn't make it. Of course the three astronauts who burnt to death in a freak accident while testing the lunar cockpit was just a mistake - I mean why not make the module highly flammable surely that's OK....? What one of them was expressing public doubts.

Which one, and what doubts did he express? Isn't it at least possible that what appeared to be a tragic accident actually was? Who else died suspiciously? Why were those three astronauts targeted? What about the astronauts who actually went to the moon (or in your demented woldview, pretended to go)? Did none of them ask suspicious questions? You think they've all been in on it and have all managed to keep completely quiet about it (along with the thousands of other people involved) for nearly forty years?

8/ The lunar lander lands like its drunken (if the demo's of the one man test projects are to be believed) - if ever there was a naff piece of precision landing kit that is it. Is anyone really telling me that this lump of metal sporting a huge fart of a booster as its main decelerant landed in the gentle perfect way as shown on the TV... I've seen Harriers landing (and they are a highly efficient bit of kit) and they aren't elegant. Nowadays - rather stupidly one would think - they rely on a huge bouncing bag construction to get kit onto the surface of Mars - no stop - use a lunar lander, you've already solved the problem 'brilliantly' and they are so much easier on the cargo trust me.. Let us reason together and be wise - the lunar lander would have landed like a sack of potatoes driven by a rabid monkey with paper wings strapped to its back.

So the takeoff was obviously fake because it looked fake, and the landing was obviously fake because it looked too real? What would either event have had to look like to convince you?

9/ Ok Ok you convinced me that your egg box with silver foil and sticky tape did manage to land using its main booster to slow descent. Where was all the dust when you landed? Where were the gas outings and smoke - you can't fool me those things are blinkin' noisy (even without atmosphere the lunar lander would be vibrating) and bright - when I saw the 'moon landing' you astronaughties where talking to me and I could see the moon's surface as you approached to land, so no rocket light, sound or smoke - jeepers why bother with all that stuff when you take off because you don't need it in space clearly.

Given the size and mass of the landing module, the speed of descent, the gravitational constant of the moon, the composition of its surface and the dispersion properties of the fuel used in a vacuum, please tell us exactly what you would expect to see and hear. Show us the numbers to prove you understand the physics involved.

Anyway - I'm off to bed so you can call me names and I won't care till tomorrow. Night lovelies:)

Well, it's tomorrow and I'm not going to call you names. I am however going to point out a link between your belief that a 19th century conman who pulled a book of stupendously idiotic nonsense quite literally out of his hat is a prophet of God and your belief that the nonsense you regurgitated from lunatic fringe websites has any merit. You don't like evidence, do you? You seem to prefer the most implausible stories imaginable. But never mind. Reality doesn't require your belief in order to exist. Feel free to continue in your crazy little bubble of ignorance.

jaguarbass

As far as cover ups half the people in the US still believe we invaded Iraq because they had weapons of mass destruction. Its not very hard to misslead the public. They are sheeple.

They have a long term memory of 2 weeks and a attention span of 15 minutes.

Thats how politicians are elected over and over. Your senators and congressmen.

Mariusuk.

ouch

jaguarbass

Conspiracy theories have a tendency to misdirect attention from the real conspiracy. What did they really find when they got there? Maybe they found that we were already there. Some say there was a worldwide flood. And they point to lots of evidence. They say men was more advanced than he is today. The reason the ark was made out of wood is because the trees were bigger before the flood than they are today. And wood is the best material to make a ship out of. Steel cracks under pressure if it is not tempered properly. Any ways the gods destroyed men before the flood. And now we live shorter lives and use less of our brains. At least thats a story thats out there.

Dansk

I am sure that if you dig deep enough you will find threads debating whether Jack the Ripper was actually the Yeti on vacation from Tibet

Damn! Now I don't know what to believe!

Ian

yaddayadda

Both. They did indeed make it to the moon but the photos were so shitty that they faked some when they got back.

This is the truth.

Qcmbr

yahoo ! I got another one.

Moon Landings - Real or Fake?

Share this