They faked it ! The Moon Landing !!

That question was specifically for another poster who clarified what he meant.

You're just looking to attack someone.

Meaning- it's all been right over your head. How does it feel to constantly reinforce the perception that you are an idiot?

It is called Dunning-Kruger effect. A documented congnitive bias.

You are kinda dumb.

Just a reminder: BITE ME.

Sorry? What? BITE ME.

What are you saying? Or don't you know yourself?


The Rover EVAs were conducted not in a straight line, but in a drunkard's walk; at no time was the Rover ever further than the astronauts could walk before their consumables ran out.

Each station was recorded with both multiple photographs (including at least one full panoramic study) and video (broadcast live but most of the public was more interested in Cher's navel or whatever had grabbed their attention THAT week, so few networks covered the later missions). Several of the trips from station to station were recorded in amusing fashion by a series of hand-held hassie shots -- these have been strung together by third parties to reproduce a rather silent-movie looking impression of the drive.

And, yeah, although it could burn some aluminum when opened up (as they showed in the "Grand Prix" exercise), the average page was more 10-15 MPH. Which since some of the later EVAs were over 7 hours, is plenty of time to make 100 miles.

Ah, you admit it. Thanks for being honest.

Now, how about you?

My post was meant for 11330901, not you.

Since the thread is claiming it was a hoax, I'm asking those who disagree why.

If the thread was called "it really happened," I'd ask the hoaxers why they thought otherwise.

Actually, I hope in the future when hoaxers bring up certain points, there'll be plenty of material for rebuttal.

Sorry- wasn't sure. You got caught in the crossfire.

Plenty has been presented which would demonstrate the disingenousness of the hoaxies. Read the thread.

Out.

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled."
- Mark Twain


Lunar Rover Had An Engine Muffler

Ran on Fuel in The Fake Moon Bay

An Engine Needs Oxygen To Burn The Fuel

It Will Not Work in A Vacuum Environment As On The Real Moon.


[link to www.youtube.com]



The Apollo Lunar Rover and dust arcs


[link to www.youtube.com]




Stanley Kubrick: The Moon Landing (1/5)

"HIDE IN PLAIN SIGHT"


[link to www.youtube.com]

(2/5)
[link to www.youtube.com]

(3/5)
[link to www.youtube.com]

(4/5)
[link to www.youtube.com]

(5/5)
[link to www.youtube.com]

Last Edited by RoXY on 03/09/2013 07:18 PM

The big question for me is why none of the astronauts who say they've been on the moon don't wanna lay their hand on the bible and swear that they've been there.

Superstition...

M'kay..

M'kay..

Prove it is none. I'll bet you can't. Sibrel just doesn't like to show you the ones that did. Doesn't make for entertaining film making that way and all he really wants is to sell you something. Besides, Sibrel admitted that whether they swore on the bible or not he would accuse them of lying. The astronauts know this. They know Sibrel is scum. Why should they want to play his game? He's just a troll in real life.

M'kay....

Wrong again

[link to www.youtube.com]

My father worked for Bendix. They tracked the birds..we watched this launch, and many others, from the roof of our house...the Saturn did launch and the guys did walk on the moon...when Saturns flew, we had to move stuff from the shelves...or they would vibrate off...sometimes thought the window glass would break...and btw,we HAVE made contact...we just don't know with who/whom... I know many astronauts, and have friends that know the guys that I don't know...put this puppy to bed...move along

My father, my brother and my uncle worked for Bendix too...

Do you know what a planetarium is?

Since the star sky on the Moon is IDENTICAL to the star sky on Earth faking it would be no problem whatsoever.


Of course you don't know.


Proof it.


Wrong.
You are now claiming Earth's atmosphere blocks more than 50 percent of visible light.

Where do you keep finding these wonderful nuggets of nonsense?


To reaffirm that the Leader of the Free World had the wherewithal needed for that and to ensure that position for generations to come.

What the hell!!! Why do you need to ask?
A little history lesson you seem to have missed during your extensive and exhaustive study of Apollo:
[/sarc]

When the Soviet Union orbited Sputnik 1 they demonstrated the capability of nuking American cities by unstoppable means.
The Americans seriously freaked out over this.
The dread of living under the permanent threat of thermonuclear annihilation is seriously under-appreciated by the generations that didn't experience it.
It was an existential crisis.

For its own peace of mind, as well as to reassert itself as the leader of the free world, it needed to demonstrate that their way of life was not only superior, but provided the means to defend it self and the West.

To do so a country needs a strong economy, top-notch scientists and engineers, cutting-edge technology (civil and military), a big, strong, world-class industrial base, and superior organisational skills.
A Space Race was the ideal non-aggressive way to not only demonstrate that the US had these things, but to also massively invest in these things, to enthusiast people about science and technology, so America would remain a strong leader for generations to come.
The American leadership understood that it would be hard and would require immensely vast resources, but that it was necessary if they didn't want to lose the Cold War.
It was a multi-faceted battle in a war for national survival.
You can always get funding for a war.

Landing a Man On The Moon, and Returning Him Safely, was picked as the finishing line of the Space Race because the Americans were confident they could not only do it, but do it before the Soviets.


The sponsors insisted that their logo would be displayed.
They're weird like that.
The whole thing prolly masses less than a kilo.


Golf club head.
A geology tool from the kit was used as handle.

An ounce?
Carried in the astronaut's private baggage allotment.


You don't understand why a telescope would be useless AND you don't understand why a rover would be very useful for a selenological expedition.
Is there anything you do understand?

Masses 210 kg.
Only carried on the J-missions which used a more advance version of the LM.
It was 1800 kg heavier than previous models, most of that fuel and batteries.


Troll.


You were never on.


No need to estimate.
The numbers are very well known.
They all match known physics.


No, you won't.


Than put some effort in it.

Pretty much everything about Apollo had to be explained to you.


Last Edited by Halcyon Dayz, FCD on 03/10/2013 06:30 PM

Geez, I leave you guys alone for a few hours...


I don't deny any disputes.
I deny any of these disputes are based on fact.


We know for a fact the Apollo artefacts are there.
From the retroflectors, the ALSEP telemetry, and the LRO images.


That's some nice circular reasoning you've got going there there, son.

Since you can't afford even the 50 million a seat on a lunar fly-by would cost its a moot point.
[link to www.spaceadventures.com]
But sending your own probe into the belts should not be beyond a private organisation's capabilities.
So why don't you guys get organised and start pooling funds.
Put your money where your mouth is.




Send a letter to your congress critter telling him/her you are desperate to pay more taxes so you can watch a desert in full-colour HD.

BTW, the cameras on the Mars rovers are only a minor part of the scientific instrument suits they carry.
It's only the MTV and YouTube generations that are obsessed with pretty pictures.

Nothing moved the ladder. The CAMERA moved. When it moved its view of the Moon changed. The ladder being far closer to the camera than the surface in the background appears to move far more due to perspective. Don't believe me? Hold your hand up about a foot in front of your face. Now close one eye, now open it and close the other. Notice your hand APPEARS to move a heck of a lot more than the wall on the other side of the room? Same thing with the camera.

Last Edited by LHP598 on 03/09/2013 08:32 PM

The sad thing about claims like this is this is something they can test in their own backyard. All they need to do is find a star that is directly above them (the sun will do nicely). Observe the brightness. Now wait a few hours and observe that same star when it is about 30 degrees above the horizon. At that time the light from that star is passing through twice as much atmosphere. If the atmosphere blocked as much visible light as they like to think it does then when it is 30 degrees above the horizon you would hardly see a thing. But it isn't that way. As said before light is only dimmed by about 15 to 20 percent by the atmosphere.

You not understanding the answers is nobody's problem but yours.

I'm deeply deeply ashamed.
You are a true embaressment to one of the finest education systems in the world.
Your educators truly failed you.



On a clear day.
There's of course quite a difference between "Moscow on a cloudy day" and, let say, Antarctica which is high, dry, and nearly dust-free.

these halcions and weasels are bigger dummies than that dummy strapped to the golf cart filmed zippin around nasa's earth-bound studio. ha ha funny stuff that was

Your rebuttal was tremendously well reasoned and solidly supported by undeniable evidence.
You win the thread.

[/sarc]