View Full Version : Proof: Moon Landing Fake
>> >> Scientists and engineers figuring out how to return astronauts to the moon, set up habitats, and mine lunar soil to produce anything from building materials to rocket fuels have been scratching their heads over what to do about moondust. It's everywhere! The powdery grit gets into everything, jamming seals and abrading spacesuit fabric. It also readily picks up electrostatic charge, so it floats or levitates off the lunar surface and sticks to faceplates and camera lenses. It might even be toxic. >>
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/09nov_lawnmower.htm
The electrostatically charged moon dust once disturbed would not settle for a very long time
So a soft landing craft would kick up large amounts of dust
However the fake photos showed no dust..... contrary to reality.....
The same goes for supposed moon walking...
a very dusty place for anyone, and yet photos were crystal clear.
I think it has been admitted that the "photos" were faked, becaue the camera technology was no out there enough.
The second reason against a man landing is the L1 and L2 points of the Moon show that any orbit around the Moon is highly elliptical..... making a controlled landing way beyond the technology of the day...
cover blown !
The electrostatically charged moon dust once disturbed would not settle for a very long time
So a soft landing craft would kick up large amounts of dust
However the fake photos showed no dust..... contrary to reality.....
The same goes for supposed moon walking...
a very dusty place for anyone, and yet photos were crystal clear.
This assumes that Moon "dust" is strongly charged in the first place.
The fact that they weren't in any of the lunar highlands / cratered regoliths is consistent with the footage. Apollo 11 landed in the Mare Tranquilitatis, the Sea of Tranquility, which is maria. Can't expect a lot of dust there.
But let's assume that was false anyways. Can you still give me convincing evidence that it is easy to charge basaltic silicate minerals under strong sunlight until it resembles the behavior of salt powder under a charged balloon?
The second reason against a man landing is the L1 and L2 points of the Moon show that any orbit around the Moon is highly elliptical..... making a controlled landing way beyond the technology of the day...
This is again misleading. The Lagrange points are indeed elliptical, but that wasn't the intended orbit. Are any flybys or visits geostationary? I don't think so, unless you want GPS on the moon.
Fact: You can orbit any planet however you want to, as long as you have sufficient power and don't get in the atmosphere's way. Parabolic and hyperbolic trajectories are also possible.
James R
11-10-05, 11:52 PM
The electrostatically charged moon dust once disturbed would not settle for a very long time ... However the fake photos showed no dust..... contrary to reality.....
There is no air on the moon to support dust when it is kicked up, so it doesn't hang in the air like it does on Earth. Instead, gravity pulls it back to the ground. Gravity on the moon is 1/6 as strong as on Earth, so the dust falls a little slower, but it still settles reasonably rapidly.
Many amateur radio astronomers tracked the Apollo craft on its way to and from the moon. How did NASA fake those signals?
>> >> Scientists and engineers figuring out how to return astronauts to the moon, set up habitats, and mine lunar soil to produce anything from building materials to rocket fuels have been scratching their heads over what to do about moondust. It's everywhere! The powdery grit gets into everything, jamming seals and abrading spacesuit fabric. It also readily picks up electrostatic charge, so it floats or levitates off the lunar surface and sticks to faceplates and camera lenses. It might even be toxic. >>
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/09nov_lawnmower.htm
The electrostatically charged moon dust once disturbed would not settle for a very long time
So a soft landing craft would kick up large amounts of dust
However the fake photos showed no dust..... contrary to reality.....
The same goes for supposed moon walking...
a very dusty place for anyone, and yet photos were crystal clear.
I think it has been admitted that the "photos" were faked, becaue the camera technology was no out there enough.
The second reason against a man landing is the L1 and L2 points of the Moon show that any orbit around the Moon is highly elliptical..... making a controlled landing way beyond the technology of the day...
cover blown !
Ho-hum. Yawn...
And admitted by whom that the photos were faked?
Double yawn... ZZZZZZzzzzzzz...
>> You can orbit any planet however you want to, as long as you have sufficient power and don't get in the atmosphere's way. >>
LOL, power ! very short on that.
The surface of the Moon would be charged by high levels of UV light
Once a "craft landed" the dust would be stirred up, and yes weak gravity and no atmosphere would see uncharged particles settle somewhat quickly
but charged particles (from exhaust gases, heat, friction, UV etc) would be repelled somewhat and settle very slowly in the near vacuum of the Moon........
LOL, power ! very short on that.
I didn't get too technical on that. If you wanted me to say thrust, velocity, momentum or specific impulse, then you are being rather defensive of whatever amount of knowledge you may have.
Not to mention that the term power is even "short" in the sense you would like to think. Or are we talking about asteroids and flying wrenches?
>> >> Scientists and engineers figuring out how to return astronauts to the moon, set up habitats, and mine lunar soil to produce anything from building materials to rocket fuels have been scratching their heads over what to do about moondust. It's everywhere! The powdery grit gets into everything, jamming seals and abrading spacesuit fabric. It also readily picks up electrostatic charge, so it floats or levitates off the lunar surface and sticks to faceplates and camera lenses. It might even be toxic. >>
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/09nov_lawnmower.htm
I'm going to make a sceond pass at this because the article in your link is actually pretty interesting.
But as far as your "fake landing" business, please! That whole conspiracy business was settled long ago. Only the fringe idiots and some very silly people believe it was faked. Let's just drop the stupidity and move along to the next topic.
>> Only the fringe idiots
anything useful to say.
I am very serious on this.......... where there is smoke there is fire, I intend to turn up the heat on the fire.
Dust
see pic
http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/as11-40-5902.jpg
fake pictures (yes) .... no dust, not even in the landing gear.....
none on ??? astronaut model..... The space is devoid of dust.... considering a recent "landing" this is strange ?
You can even see the horizon !.....
I do not need to go any further.... the whole is a fraud.
Blindman
11-11-05, 01:53 AM
You kook..
How would you know there is no dust, did you do a spectral analysis of the parts, did you have a reference spectrum. The amount of dust would have been very small and directed away from the ship by the pressure of the exhaust gas.
The horizon in the bit between the dark sky and the gray moon. You are even blinder then me.
It is also interesting that astronauts reported a faint glow on the horizon at sunset and sunrise. At first scientist did not know what it was, only after the last landing did they work out that it is the suspended electro static dust particles scattering the sunlight.
Is this not proof for the kook that the moon landing happened. If it was so carefully scripted the astronauts would not have reported something the scientist of the day knew nothing of.
Moderators, this thread has a much better home.;) Please send it home.
>> Only the fringe idiots
anything useful to say.
I am very serious on this.......... where there is smoke there is fire, I intend to turn up the heat on the fire.
Dust
see pic
http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/as11-40-5902.jpg
fake pictures (yes) .... no dust, not even in the landing gear.....
none on ??? astronaut model..... The space is devoid of dust.... considering a recent "landing" this is strange ?
You can even see the horizon !.....
I do not need to go any further.... the whole is a fraud.
P.T. Barnum once said there was one born every minute. So please tell us that you do not intend to reproduce (when you get old enough). :mad:
What you're pushing is pure junk - and yes, just fringe idiots and the like. There's absolutely nothing useful to say about foolishness and stupid people.
Next subject, please?
Communist Hamster
11-11-05, 02:41 AM
URI is right. The landings never happened. Proof is here : http://www.stuffucanuse.com/fake_moon_landings/moon_landings.htm
Orbiting the Moon and landing on the Moon are two completely different matters. We could have just orbited and not landed at all.
I am very serious on this.......... where there is smoke there is fire, I intend to turn up the heat on the fire.
When the flame turns blue, the smoke disappears.
Hamster, that link is quite something. Now even I am starting to doubt the moon landings.
eburacum45
11-12-05, 07:28 AM
The second reason against a man landing is the L1 and L2 points of the Moon show that any orbit around the Moon is highly elliptical..... making a controlled landing way beyond the technology of the day...
This is nonsense. The L1 and L2 points of the Earth/Moon system are sixty thousand kilometers from the Moon; any orbit between the Moon's surface and (say) fifty-five thousand kilometers in radius should be stable. In fact the Apollo missions orbited about a hundred kilometers above the moon, in a circular orbit, so were well within the stable zone.
>> orbited about a hundred kilometers above the moon, in a circular orbit >>
so energy was used to slow down and land ( 2 men) against gravity and take off and gain escape velocity from the Moon.... more that was ever available... and then output energy to return and land on Earth.
But you are right, the L1 and L2 points of the Moon are from my calculations and do not agree with published values..... however my logic is correct.
(I know this because the parameters integrate with all other celestial parameters)
Without this knowledge a user friendly landing upon the Moon would have been a tragedy.
>> We could have just orbited and not landed at all >>
most likely.... and dumb landings... indeed
This is nonsense. The L1 and L2 points of the Earth/Moon system are sixty thousand kilometers from the Moon; any orbit between the Moon's surface and (say) fifty-five thousand kilometers in radius should be stable. In fact the Apollo missions orbited about a hundred kilometers above the moon, in a circular orbit, so were well within the stable zone.
The stability zone is much smaller than 55,000 km -- more like 5,000. Nonetheless, the Apollo missions were indeed well within the stability zone.
The whole idea that the moon landings were faked is ludicrous. The only way two people can keep a secret is if one of them is dead. I can't even begin to imagine the number of dead people that would be needed to keep the fake moon landings secret.
KennyJC
11-12-05, 01:13 PM
I'd like to know how this is proof since the video that showed the famous moon buggy driving round clearly showed how dust should behave in a vacuum. Unless they managed to somehow vacuum a whole studio, it showed how dust should behave in a vacuum since it is not kicked around by an atmosphere and simply gets pulled back down to the surface by the moons gravity.
If the moon landings were really fake, then the tires kicking up the dust on Earths atmosphere would have all the dust hanging around the air and getting blown around.
[QUOTE=URI
But you are right, the L1 and L2 points of the Moon are from my calculations and do not agree with published values..... however my logic is correct.
(I know this because the parameters integrate with all other celestial parameters)
[/QUOTE]
BWAHHHH!!!! :D Right! The same way you "calculated" there not being a black hole at the center of the galaxy.
Care to show us your "calcualtions", Uri? I seriously doubt you could calculate the volume of a breakfast-cereal box. :bugeye:
this is some 99th fake moon landing thread in sciforums
every time a new crackpot comes on board there appears such a thread
maybe we could ban these, or use as an early moron warning system
KennyJC
11-12-05, 01:50 PM
I don't know, sometimes you just get people who are attracted to conspiracy theories, and people who join religions :)
They like fantasy.
KennyJC
11-12-05, 04:22 PM
What a bunch of knee-jerk idiots! Is no-one capable of scientific thought
The conclusions you draw are not logical and based on poor understanding of scientific principles.
Ho Ho Ho. That's funny, considering you probably got your scientific facts from an ABC entertainment program. All of the popular 'facts' spouted by conspiracy theorists can be proven wrong in detail by people who know what they're talking about - photographers, scientists etc.
The best place to read these is probably the Bad Astronomy website.
I'm just curious: Why are there no stars when we see photo's from such missions? Just a question and nothing more.
Because the cameras are adjusted so that they detect very little light (low light sensitivity) or otherwise it would be too blinding, thus making pictures quite useless,
there is no atmosphere that absorbs the light of the sun and other objects
I thought that might be the case. Thank you :)
the L1 and L2 points of the Moon are from my calculations and do not agree with published values..... however my logic is correct.
What calculations?
Those that were in the golden leaf Book of Mormons, that the beautiful alien angel took away.
James R
11-13-05, 12:40 AM
I'm just curious: Why are there no stars when we see photo's from such missions?
Because the foreground objects are so bright that short exposures were used to take the shots. That meant that starlight was not captured on the film.
You can test this yourself:
Try taking a photo of somebody outside at night with the camera flash on. Make sure you get the person framed against the sky, and make sure there are stars out. See if there are any stars in the photo, or if the sky just looks black.
>> Because the foreground objects are so bright
yes that is true.
I woke up ridiculously early this morning. Lacking anything better to do, I watched a replay of Dr. Griffin's Nov. 3 testimony before Congress on NASA TV. He stated an interesting fact that bears to this thread: in the 1960s, the number of people working for NASA (civil servants, contractors, university researchers, ...) was 400,000. Today that number is only 75,000. This is one of the main reasons NASA is doing a lot less today than it was during the Apollo era.
Crazy-ass 1960s. We need another golden age, but then we'd also need to resuscitate the USSR as well. Or maybe we already have China.
Despite computer advances, manpower might still count.
Hercules Rockefeller
11-13-05, 08:45 PM
cover blown !
Troll. <img src="http://www.fadzter.com/smilies/finger.gif">
James R, why haven't you permanently banned URI (aka Nero, aka Zarkov)?<P>
James R
11-13-05, 10:14 PM
What makes you think URI is either Nero or Zarkov? Where is the trolling you're referring to?
Whonell said anything about
"trolling"? Was I napping again when it happened?
Hercules Rockefeller
11-14-05, 02:38 PM
Where is the trolling you're referring to?
Oh c’mon! :eek:
Anyone starting a thread stating that the Moon landings were faked is obviously deliberately attempting to stimulate arguments and cause trouble. Isn’t that the definition of an internet troll? Doesn’t that warrant moderation?
What makes you think URI is either Nero or Zarkov? Where is the trolling you're referring to?
As for URI’s identity, you obviously don’t spend much time at the SSSF any more. Zarkov has been posting as “Zeno” over there for a while and there have been at least half a dozen instances where he has posted the exact same trolling threads on both the SSSF and Sciforums. He posted this exact same topic on SSSF (11/11/2005 2:22:37 PM
Subject: Moonwalk Fake post id: 1913440). Even without the dual postings, it is completely obvious who URI is – exact same posting style, exact same subject matter, exact same nutball trolling - every time. There is no doubt whatsoever.<P>
James R
11-14-05, 06:27 PM
Anyone starting a thread stating that the Moon landings were faked is obviously deliberately attempting to stimulate arguments and cause trouble.
Believe it or not, some people actually believe the moon landings might have been faked.
Isn’t that the definition of an internet troll? Doesn’t that warrant moderation?
Only if the same person keeps up with the same thing over and over again, with no apparent recognition of past threads on the same topic. Now that is trolling.
As for URI’s identity, you obviously don’t spend much time at the SSSF any more.
Actually, I've been unable to access SSSF from home for most of this year. Finally, with a little help from somebody at the ABC, I sorted out what the problem was. Nevertheless, since I've popped back in there a few times it doesn't look to me that the forum is much different than it was a year or two ago, so I can't see myself spending a lot of time there.
Zarkov has been posting as “Zeno” over there for a while and there have been at least half a dozen instances where he has posted the exact same trolling threads on both the SSSF and Sciforums. He posted this exact same topic on SSSF (11/11/2005 2:22:37 PM
Well, there is there. Here is here. One reason I don't visit SSSF as often any more is that I think it is a little under-moderated. On the other hand, here I get to make some decisions on that kind of thing.
Even without the dual postings, it is completely obvious who URI is – exact same posting style, exact same subject matter, exact same nutball trolling - every time. There is no doubt whatsoever.
URI, Zarkov and Nero all have different IP addresses. It is always possible that Zarky is using an anonymizer, but until I'm sure they are all the same person, I will treat them as different. Anonymizers slow down your internet connection anyway, so if somebody is using one, it's really their loss, and quite pathetic. I almost feel sorry for them.
c7ityi_
11-14-05, 08:15 PM
If it wasn't a fake, why is there so much discussion about it being a fake?
If it wasn't a fake, why is there so much discussion about it being a fake?
For precisely the same reason that there are people who believe aliens are flying UFOs, believe in ghosts, goblins, fortune-tellers, mystics, healing power of copper bracelets and magnets, and any other kind of absurdity you care to name.
Communist Hamster
11-15-05, 02:51 AM
You forgot about the Illuminati lying about plate tectonics to cover up their biggest conspircy: evolution.
No joke, MattMarr said that once.
You forgot about the Illuminati lying about plate tectonics to cover up their biggest conspircy: evolution.
No joke, MattMarr said that once.
Har!
Yeah, coming from him, I can believe that. Sounds just like him. :rolleyes:
c7ityi_
11-15-05, 06:27 AM
For precisely the same reason that there are people who believe aliens are flying UFOs, believe in ghosts, goblins, fortune-tellers, mystics, healing power of copper bracelets and magnets, and any other kind of absurdity you care to name.
But most of those things are actually real, even though there are fake fortune tellers also for example.
john smith
11-15-05, 06:47 AM
Yes exactly, i agree with c7ityi, how can you be so arogant to assume that there is no "Aliens flying UFOs"? Youve travelled the universe have you, seen every 'corner'?
Ghosts, you do not belive in ghosts? I have personally witnessed spiritual activity,your now going to say 'it was a trick of the light' or 'you were seeing things', the classical denial.
You seem to be the kind of person that denies things he doesnt understand, or has a fear of.
The healing 'power' of copper bracelets is well known fact, ridiculousness to relate it to any point you were attempting to make.
How about when male sperm fertilises the females egg, you have a pregnancy, this is how babies are born....is that other kind of absurdity you care to name.
Hard to comprehend isnt it??????????? :eek:
john smith
11-15-05, 06:54 AM
I have a question, How many times, in the history of space exploration, has Man set foot on the moon? *(If infact he has :D ) :m:
c7ityi_
11-15-05, 07:15 AM
Americans went to the moon 6 times. It's kind of weird that russians have never went to the moon, they seemed to have more advanced technology back then, but I heard China and Japan are gonna land on the moon in some years... 2007, I think, if everything goes right.
for communist hamster etc
"To make interstella travel believeable NASA was created...Every Apollo mission was carefully rehearsed and then filmed in large sound stages.....All names, missions, landing sites, and events in the Apollo Space Program echoed the occult metaphors, rituals and symbology of the Illuminati's secret religion.......
Any intelligent high school student with a basic physics book can prove NASA faked the Apollo moon landings" http://www.mt.net/~watcher/masonapollo.html
"JULY 16, 1969 saw the LUNAR flight of Apollo 11 take off..." http://www.mt.net/~watcher/dualism.html
Yes exactly, i agree with c7ityi, how can you be so arogant to assume that there is no "Aliens flying UFOs"? Youve travelled the universe have you, seen every 'corner'?
Ghosts, you do not belive in ghosts? I have personally witnessed spiritual activity,your now going to say 'it was a trick of the light' or 'you were seeing things', the classical denial.
You seem to be the kind of person that denies things he doesnt understand, or has a fear of.
The healing 'power' of copper bracelets is well known fact, ridiculousness to relate it to any point you were attempting to make.
How about when male sperm fertilises the females egg, you have a pregnancy, this is how babies are born....is that
Hard to comprehend isnt it??????????? :eek:
Don't be foolish, no one is disputing sexual reproduction.
But I can see that you are an older adult who has had plenty of time to study and understand all of those other things.
How can I tell that about you? Because you believe it and because you use the very childish mixing of upper and lower case letters - like your "FreEyoURmInDfREeyOUrsPi RIt".
Yes sir, that certainly demonstrates a HIGH degree of maturity and intelligence! :rolleyes:
But most of those things are actually real, even though there are fake fortune tellers also for example.
Right! Easy for you to say , but impossible for you to prove. And that means they must be real, correct? :bugeye:
Communist Hamster
11-15-05, 03:31 PM
for communist hamster etc
"To make interstella travel believeable NASA was created...Every Apollo mission was carefully rehearsed and then filmed in large sound stages.....All names, missions, landing sites, and events in the Apollo Space Program echoed the occult metaphors, rituals and symbology of the Illuminati's secret religion.......
Any intelligent high school student with a basic physics book can prove NASA faked the Apollo moon landings" http://www.mt.net/~watcher/masonapollo.html
"JULY 16, 1969 saw the LUNAR flight of Apollo 11 take off..." http://www.mt.net/~watcher/dualism.html
That proves nothing.
for communist hamster etc
"To make interstella travel believeable NASA was created...Every Apollo mission was carefully rehearsed and then filmed in large sound stages.....All names, missions, landing sites, and events in the Apollo Space Program echoed the occult metaphors, rituals and symbology of the Illuminati's secret religion.......
Any intelligent high school student with a basic physics book can prove NASA faked the Apollo moon landings" http://www.mt.net/~watcher/masonapollo.html
"JULY 16, 1969 saw the LUNAR flight of Apollo 11 take off..." http://www.mt.net/~watcher/dualism.html
Duendy, it's difficult to believe just how gullible you really are. Did you fall off the turnip truck just yesterday?????
Take a look at the first few words you quoted above: "To make interstella travel believeable NASA was created..."
Interstellar travel? Interstellar???? NASA only has the very vaguest of dreams even today of interstellar ambitions. What a whining fool you and that site both are!!!!!!!!!
c7ityi_
11-15-05, 06:18 PM
Right! Easy for you to say , but impossible for you to prove. And that means they must be real, correct? :bugeye:
i meaN thAt i tHink there is telePathy and you Can knoW the futur3 and $tuff but i'm nut sure y i believe that. i know it. the egyptians could communicate with telepathy and know the future and form energies make matter appear from sunlight and they often used the staff of life, the kind which ra and many other egyptian gods have in their hand, and they controlled weather and made rain and thunder was heard near the pyramids don't you remember+ http://www.ancientegypt.co.uk/gods/explore/images/rahora.gif and that's why the staff, rod... has become a symbol of power and kings use it but it has no power today
Duendy, it's difficult to believe just how gullible you really are.
it's fun to be gullible because the word sounds pretty cute but i'm not sure wut i neans. intestella yea he was kidding with u.
john smith
11-16-05, 05:13 AM
But I can see that you are an older adult.
try looking at my personal profile, before dropping yourself init. :p
But I can see that you are an older adult who has had plenty of time to study and understand all of those other things.
Why thank you for the compliment 'sir.
How can I tell that about you? Because you believe it and because you use the very childish mixing of upper and lower case letters - like your "FreEyoURmInDfREeyOUrsPi RIt".
Because of my beliefs, you belive you can label me, who the fucks given you that kind of power? Certainly not me. Yes yes, your right, if i was an 'older adult', i would definatly be using the text on my Kung fu certificate,wouldnt i? Why does this offend you so? If each of us was more 'in touch' with the child 'inside', belive you me, the world would be a better place.
Yes sir, that certainly demonstrates a HIGH degree of maturity and intelligence! :rolleyes:
My sinature has nothing to do with the argument in hand, you have not adequatly responded to my afor-mentioned post, and have resorted to petty name calling and disparetry remarks. Therefore i have won this argument. :D
Because of my beliefs, you belive you can label me, who the fucks given you that kind of power? Certainly not me.
Pardon me, but once again your lack of experience with life is showing. Most of us understand clearly that people ARE labeled because of their beliefs. That's simply the way the world works.
My sinature has nothing to do with the argument in hand, you have not adequatly responded to my afor-mentioned post, and have resorted to petty name calling and disparetry remarks. Therefore i have won this argument. :D
You've "won" nothing as there wasn't even a chance for you. ;)
Very well, let's go to the subject of copper bracelets that you seem to have so much blind faith in. Can you show me a single study that indicates they have any "healing power?" I read about one study, eight or maybe 10 years ago that involved about 250 test subjects. The results showed no greater effectiveness than that of placebo along with two other minor findings: discoloration of the skin in constant contact with the bracelet and a very mild form of copper toxicity.
So why do you believe they "work?"
looks like real discussion is over.
bye
c7ityi_
11-16-05, 06:09 PM
yup, i'm the ultimate thread destroyer!!
looks like real discussion is over.
bye
Yeah, I guess so. Especially since you can't show us your so-called "calculations", eh? Time to tuck your tail and run away?
Communist Hamster
11-17-05, 02:46 AM
Game set, and match to Light.
>> so-called "calculations"
what sort of calculations do you want to see ?
Game set, and match to Light.
Thank you, Master Revolutionary Rodent. :)
I like your reference to a game of tennis and it could also be termed a "strike." (If you'll pardon the pun.) As in igniting a small incendiary device. ;)
But if we're talking about overwhelming Uri and John Smith, I can't claim too much of victory since both are such... ahem!... "intellectual giants." :D
>> "intellectual giants." >>>
do you think you would understand the calculations ?
or are you sure that they are contrived ?
I will not waste my time if you already know the answers...... and it seems you do.
bwhahaha!
just like a little, dumb schoolkid
age 10?
seems so
show the calculations or rot in your dumb misery
do you think you would understand the calculations ?
If you are hypocritical enough to respond to this thread after saying not to do so, and saying a bunch of infantile stuff like a 10-yr-old, then sure we should understand them.
Let's see your "calculations" or nobody will believe what you're capable of.
Do you even know algebra?
>> show the calculations or rot in your dumb misery
LOL
the tone of this communication has just fallen through rock bottom..
Once your argument is blown, insults show the proof.
You show your proof OK..... I don't care to be stood over
*gone*
>> show the calculations or rot in your dumb misery
LOL
the tone of this communication has just fallen through rock bottom..
Once your argument is blown, insults show the proof.
You show your proof OK..... I don't care to be stood over
*gone*
Right! When you call a kid's hand on something he can't do he simply becomes "*gone*." :D (What a dummy!)
URI - screw you guys, I'm going home :D
* Avatar smears URI into the ground like a smoked cigaret.
john smith
11-17-05, 04:44 AM
Well Mr Light, you confuse me first you say
But I can see that you are an older adult who has had plenty of time to study and understand all of those other things.
And then you say
But if we're talking about overwhelming Uri and John Smith, I can't claim too much of victory since both are such... ahem!... "intellectual giants." :D
Rather a contradiction, but whatever. I admit that i cant find information on thw whole copper bracelet thing, and im sorry my argument was so attacking. But then again i cant find evidence, actual 'hard' evidence for the existence of ghosts, but we all know about them, and some of us have seen them, so i suppose i cant 'prove' them to you, i can merely say ive had an 'experince' of them, wether you belive me or not is another matter. With the copper bracelet thing, i think people who wear them wear them because their bodies are naturally low in copper, therefore the skin obsorbes the copper, thats why when you wear a copper bracelet for a prolonged period of time, you get this kind of green 'stain' to your skin.
Pardon me, but once again your lack of experience with life is showing. Most of us understand clearly that people ARE labeled because of their beliefs. That's simply the way the world works.
I can admit when im wrong, and i was wrong with this, obviously people are 'labeled' because of their beliefs. With the whole experince thing, i know this that is why i join sci, to learn from more experinced people than myself, i will do so. :m:
Rather a contradiction, but whatever. I admit that i cant find information on thw whole copper bracelet thing, and im sorry my argument was so attacking. But then again i cant find evidence, actual 'hard' evidence for the existence of ghosts, but we all know about them, and some of us have seen them, so i suppose i cant 'prove' them to you, i can merely say ive had an 'experince' of them, wether you belive me or not is another matter. With the copper bracelet thing, i think people who wear them wear them because their bodies are naturally low in copper, therefore the skin obsorbes the copper, thats why when you wear a copper bracelet for a prolonged period of time, you get this kind of green 'stain' to your skin.
I can admit when im wrong, and i was wrong with this, obviously people are 'labeled' because of their beliefs. With the whole experince thingbelieveabsorbsI'mbelieve, i know this that is why i join sci, to learn from more experinced people than myself, i will do so. :m:
Sorry, didn't mean to confuse you.
Also, don't mean to blow your theory but finding anyone with a copper deficiency is very, very rare. And that's exactly why in the study I mentioned to you that they found a mild form of copper poisoning (that's what toxicity means).
While it's true that I don't believe in ghosts and know a couple of hundred people that don't either, I also know four that - like yourself - believe in them. I don't doubt that you're being honest about it and that you actually saw something. I just don't think it was a ghost.
I'll also give you the full credit you deserve for wanting to learn! :) Congratulations. That puts you ahead of several people here who just seem to ramble on and on about nonsense and never seem to learn anything.
And I agree wholeheartedly with the desire to learn. I happen to be 60+, retired, taught in college for several years, worked for a first-class R&D company and still learn three or four new things every single day. And I have no intention of stopping. ;)
john smith
11-17-05, 05:34 AM
Sorry, didn't mean to confuse you.
No need for an apology, i was being thick headed! :)
While it's true that I don't believe in ghosts and know a couple of hundred people that don't either, I also know four that - like yourself - believe in them. I don't doubt that you're being honest about it and that you actually saw something. I just don't think it was a ghost.
Well thankyou for believing me, may i ask what it is you do think it was, if not a ghost? Im really quite interested in the subject as it facinates me, i belive it was a ghost i saw because i live in an old 'ramshackle' farm house, on top of a hill, in the middle on nowhere, in Wales.The house has a lot of history, and dates back 276 years, so when i see 'things' in the house im quite happy to believe that it is spiritual activity. I would be arrogant to assume that the only explanation was ghosts, but i sort of want to believe that it is in a weird kind of way, know what i mean?
Also thanks for giving me a chance to explain myself, and except my explanation, :D :m:
Well thankyou for believing me, may i ask what it is you do think it was, if not a ghost? Im really quite interested in the subject as it facinates me, i belive it was a ghost i saw because i live in an old 'ramshackle' farm house, on top of a hill, in the middle on nowhere, in Wales.The house has a lot of history, and dates back 276 years, so when i see 'things' in the house im quite happy to believe that it is spiritual activity. I would be arrogant to assume that the only explanation was ghosts, but i sort of want to believe that it is in a weird kind of way, know what i mean?
Also thanks for giving me a chance to explain myself, and except my explanation,
I honestly can't say, John. I once thought I saw something when I was much younger but it never happened again. Perhaps I was just dreaming, I really don't know. All I can say about your instance and mine is that we both believe we saw something.
Not that it really means anything but I happen to be of Welsh decent (father's side). :)
And I want to thank you for being so honest as to say something that most people who believe in such things usually will not admit - that you "sort of want to believe." And yes, I know what you mean. For far too many people it's that "want" (our member Duendy has that problem very badly) that blinds them to any other possibility. Someone like yourself who is willing to accept that it may have been caused by something else is much, much smarter than the type I just mentioned.
You're always welcome to explain why you think what you do. And yes, I accept what you've said. :)
Pennarin
11-20-05, 04:47 AM
This is my first post and I seem to resurect a dead thread with it. Heh, maybe in the process I'll spare everyone another round of musical Did-They-Land-On-The-Moon-Or-Not. ;)
I want to share - in a few words (I hope!) - an experience of mine with...anyone who might read this, that might help shed some light on how someone can come to see ghosts.
A few weeks back I drove a friend to a deserted cottage house in the middle of the forest, a few feet next to a small river. The night was nearly pitch black, no stars or moon, sky covered with clouds, and only some faint glow from the faraway lights of the city allowed our eyes to adapt enough so we wouldn't fall down when coming out of the car.
It still took many minutes for us to see anything, and even then the ground was distinguishable only through the slightly more reflective dead leaves on it. Spookiest place I ever was in: no wind, invisible noisy river, mixed with the impression of walking on a transparent material sprinkled with dead leaves and covering a black abyss freaked us out. And the trees and outdoor stove, oh yes! More about those below.
An object in the middle of the grass was to me a total unknow: blacker than the near-black grass around it, it seemed to oscillate between coming closer and going farther away from me. When I turned around it to try and determine its shape and thus what it was I was spooked out by finding it had no solid shape: angles in its structure kept appearing following an unpredictable pattern. More about that in a second.
Other spooky thing was staring in the forest's edge for any length of time: dark shapes that appeared to be made of solid darkness kept appearing for minutes at a time and changing shape continuously and rapidly.
The dark shape on the grass, after some exploration, revealed itself to be a massive stove of very irregular shape, why turning around it reaveled a continuously changing outline. The shapes in the trees were, I can only assume, patterns generated by my brain to account for differences in the shades of black I saw in the hollows of the forest, and since those hollows were irregular and poorly defined due to the darkness, so were the patterns.
In the end I can say my rational mind freaked out a bit because it was fun to do so, I was with a friend after all, and because my senses - specifically my sight - was pushed to the very limit of its resolution.
So here's the point of this post: 5-10% of people* who had been put in my situation that night, friend or no friend along, would have concluded that the shapes were spirits or other-worldly entities of some sort.
Does this post help understand how someone would come to believe he saw ghosts or is it just a really long post?! :p :D
Most rational people, like me, never put themselves in spooky, sense-deprived environments during their adult lives. Wild campers are maybe the only ones who do that.
* Those with no extensive life-long scientific training or its equivalent, i.e. long-time readers of the sciences, people who've studied in a scientific field, most photographers and journalists, etc...
Penn that was a extremely good post! "my senses - specifically my sight - was pushed to the very limit of its resolution." Does any remember when there were a whole string of photos with so called "UFO's" in them. And with the advanced camera technology of today these pictures are almost non existant. I would beleive in ghosts if there was more than visual evidence pointing to their existance because the eyes cannot be trusted in low light conditions.
soits now about ghosts...already? whathappened to the moon landing?? listen bring this to below parapsychology...theres a debate about ghosts and ting
just to say. fine....you had an experience in te woods where your perception was doing weird things........with YOUR experiencxes there you now seek to explain the whole phenomea of ghosts.....? dont THINK so. you are tring to explain away....generalize. come down to other forum and i'll explain why...
Pennarin
11-20-05, 01:44 PM
whathappened to the moon landing??
Those who are scientifically trained know and understand how limited such a claim, and the person making it, is. More than that, it reveals the person making such a claim is willing to believe often extremely complex and unlikely alternative concepts instead of ordinary events. Yes, a moon landing, a trip to mars, all are ordinary events in a sense. A shuttle crash is poignant, yes, and certainly crippling for NASA, but just as ordinary as any plane crash we have every few years; no need to claim death rays from outer space shut it down.
<snip>
with YOUR experiencxes there you now seek to explain the whole phenomea of ghosts.....? dont THINK so. you are tring to explain away....generalize. come down to other forum and i'll explain why...
Our modern occidental society is built around, and functions around, some cornerstone concepts like reasoning, experimentation, demonstrability, repititivability (note that I might be listing the wrong words, as I don't know the exact ones in english), and after several hundred years of this our society is now mostly purged of supernaturalism, and our science has determined the supernatural is firmly outside the sphere of its influence, like religion, and that its concepts cannot be scientifically proven. Those of us that know what "scientifically proven to be unexistant" mean know the supernatural is material best reserved for certain forums, the inside of a church, or for a tradition-based oriental society.
I won't be joining you on that forum duendy, sorry.
2inquisitive
11-20-05, 02:51 PM
So here's the point of this post: 5-10% of people* who had been put in my situation that night, friend or no friend along, would have concluded that the shapes were spirits or other-worldly entities of some sort.
* Those with no extensive life-long scientific training or its equivalent, i.e. long-time readers of the sciences, people who've studied in a scientific field, most photographers and journalists, etc...[/QUOTE]
First, welcome to sciforums, Pennarin.
Now, where did you get your statistics that 5-10% of people with no life-long scientific training WOULD HAVE CONCLUDED the shapes were spirits, etc?
I would think 90-95% of people, even with no life-long scientific training, would have thought to bring a light of some type along for a trip to a deserted house on a moonless night. Are you sure that wasn't a strawman in your eloquent post instead of a stove?
Those who are scientifically trained know and understand how limited such a claim, and the person making it, is. More than that, it reveals the person making such a claim is willing to believe often extremely complex and unlikely alternative concepts instead of ordinary events. Yes, a moon landing, a trip to mars, all are ordinary events in a sense. A shuttle crash is poignant, yes, and certainly crippling for NASA, but just as ordinary as any plane crash we have every few years; no need to claim death rays from outer space shut it down.
me:::what about the claim that any phsyics
student would know you cant go so far away from earthwithout serious radiation catastrophe?
Our modern occidental society is built around, and functions around, some cornerstone concepts like reasoning, experimentation, demonstrability, repititivability (note that I might be listing the wrong words, as I don't know the exact ones in english), and after several hundred years of this our society is now mostly purged of supernaturalism, and our science has determined the supernatural is firmly outside the sphere of its influence, like religion, and that its concepts cannot be scientifically proven. Those of us that know what "scientifically proven to be unexistant" mean know the supernatural is material best reserved for certain forums, the inside of a church, or for a tradition-based oriental society.
I won't be joining you on that forum duendy, sorry.
if it is too 'below' yu...dont say sorry, cause i wont accept!....
i will say this tho...te very term 'super-natrual' is aterm i dont like. and is not a word really familar wit Indigenous peoles neither. te idea of supernatural comes from mysticism, and the Church, and materialistic science. tey view Nature and matter energy as --with patrarchal religion as creted by a creator,and so in itself 'mechanical'....the mystics schools are mainly dualist. forexample Orphism which saw Nature as a trap of te 'divine spark', and sought to return to the 'spirit' and materialistic science beliefves matter/energy to be 'dead'--not sentient
your poistion apparently falls into the latter category. but mine is that all tose world views are flawed, precisly because they psychologically divide matter/energy from consciousness/spirit
Pennarin
11-22-05, 01:00 AM
First, welcome to sciforums, Pennarin.
Now, where did you get your statistics that 5-10% of people with no life-long scientific training WOULD HAVE CONCLUDED the shapes were spirits, etc?
I would think 90-95% of people, even with no life-long scientific training, would have thought to bring a light of some type along for a trip to a deserted house on a moonless night. Are you sure that wasn't a strawman in your eloquent post instead of a stove?
LOL
First, thanks for the welcome!
Second, about that flashlight...heh, it ended up being that a city-folk like me didn't think first to look at the sky to see if it was clear. In the city everything is lighted, and you kinda assume its gonna be so everywhere else, even if just by the stars and moon. Stupid is all I can say! ;) (Hey, stuff happens.)
Don't search for a statistical study, there ain't! :p
The 5-10% is what I imagine...what I feel in my bones - to quote a few dozen movies - is about right for that number.
Why would that number seem right to me?
Having never asked my friends if they believed in ghosts, and having never witnessed a group discussion on that subject from among the people I know, I get the impression either A) most people don't believe in ghosts, or B) they would believe in ghosts if they ever had the right experience to push them along that way, but never had said experience.
Like I said in my first post, the experience I related to you all was the first time in my life that I saw things I could not identify, and I'm 26 years old. I thus already have a good background of what I consider, and know to be, real, and ghosts are not in there. If I'd had that experience at 12, maybe I would have believed in an otherwordly explanation, but now I know enough to understand the nature of what I saw.
P.S. What does the strawman reference mean?
2inquisitive
11-22-05, 02:41 AM
Sorry, my comment about a light wasn't an attempt to emphasize your oversight. I was
referring to assigning personal 'statistics' as if they were fact. That's why I stated 'I would think' regarding my guess of the 90-95% figure. IMHO, I would think 5-10% of
people in a situation as you described would imagine the undefined shapes as bears, angry bulls, or whatever animals might be appropriate for the given locality.
A 'strawman' is the construction of an example that can easily be shown false. You seemed to think a certain percentage of 'not highly educated people' would assume
the dark, fleeting shapes would be ghosts and goblins instead of more mundane fears of the unknown. I think many people would feel a certain anxiety in such a situation, but I would think very, very few would imagine ghosts, educated or illiterate.
Pennarin
11-22-05, 03:20 AM
Ah, thank you 2inquisitive for the clarification.
I thought I was more clear than that in my first post: the objects were not moving per say but rather were constantly changing shape, some had no depth, they made no noise, there was no wind to speak of, and they also had zero albedo.
The objects were as follow:
- One was composed of several parallelogrammes* linked together to form a black iron stove. As such it was an object of pure darkness that, when one moved slightly towards or around it, appeared to be constantly changing shape, sometimes appearing to come closer or farther away (or grow bigger or smaller, same thing).
- One was a patch of darkness several meters in width, static in place, whose edges kept flickering. That object was indeed no object, but rather a void delineated by trees and their leaves. At the distance i was from it, maybe 20 meters, simply breathing was enough to move your head sideways so as to cause leaves with more albedo to be revealed or hidden, effectively shrinking or enlarging the patch of darkness, creating a flickering edge.
My brain lashed on both those "objects" and kept telling me they were real, yet could not decide what their size or shape was.
Heh, nothing that looked like bears or bulls! Such objects would quickly have been identified as animals, or possibly a person.
When its really dark, like that night was, dark objects appear to have no depth, and that includes the ground and all its pumps and crevasses, making just walking a battle with your inner ear...
* I think this is a french word...I mean a box with irregular angles.
Communist Hamster
11-22-05, 03:30 AM
http://thesaurus.maths.org/dictionary/images/Parallelogram.png
A parallelogram: A 4 sided shape in which all sides are parallel with another.
Pennarin
11-22-05, 06:26 AM
And how would you name a three-dimensional parallelogram?
Communist Hamster
11-22-05, 11:44 AM
Fairly simple really, just think about it. Except it would be called a parallelogon.
Fairly simple really, just think about it. Except it would be called a parallelogon.
A parallelogon is a 2-D shape in which opposite sides are parellel; a parallelogram is a special case of a parallelogon. A parallelogram generalized to three dimensions is a parallelepiped, and to n-dimensions, a parallelotope.
Communist Hamster
11-22-05, 01:51 PM
Ah, my mistake.
allisone417
11-22-05, 02:29 PM
Is there a high-res photo that you can clearly see the reflection on his face shild?
qwerty mob
01-27-06, 07:25 PM
Proof: Moon Landing Fake
LOL- Which one?
...
Buzz Aldrin was my neighbor and attended my parent's church in Houston, Texas (Webster Presbyterian); I had spoken with him on a couple occasions as a boy in the mid-1970's, and I recall him being very open and forthcoming about his missions and the Space Program in general.
The one question he was ever "guarded" about was that of extraterrestrial life; he'd said on more than occasion that "he wished he could say"- which (looking back) seems to be a slight double-entendre, which he was famous for.
Another example, when asked what it was like to walk on the Moon, he'd invariably say "like nothing on this world."
I admire Buzz's courage, he made it through the program and NASA's treadmill, but his greatest accomplishment (and often unwritten Human interest story) was that of "beating depression."
Greetings
WhitePhoenix
02-10-06, 12:52 AM
Hi all. I would love more than anything to believe the moon landing really happened. If your argument is that NASA didn't have the technology at the time..well we all know that most of our current technology that we use today was developed by NASA years before the general public even knows it exists. Here is an article from Science at NASA regarding MOON FOUNTAINS...it's pretty simple but interesting with diagrams etc.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/30mar_moonfountains.htm
There's also talk about the radioatctive magnetic belt (Forgive my forgetfullness but I forget the name) That states something along the lines if we were to fly outside the Earths orbit the radiation would be too extreme. The only way we can sheild ourselves from the radiation would be lead. So my question is what is it that they use to protect from the radiation?
Sorry all I don't feel I have an opinion yet as to whether or not it happend but I do have questions... Thanks for reading.
"Space.com is reporting the beginning of construction on the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Which is scheduled for launch in late fall of 2008. It will orbit the moon at fifty kilometers and image the entire surface at high resolution. A far Ultraviolet instrument will enable it to see into areas permanently in shadow and see if there is indeed ice there. LRO will count craters and image American and Soviet landing sites."
http://space.com/businesstechnology/060207_lro_technology.html
leopold99
02-10-06, 12:55 AM
There's also talk about the radioatctive magnetic belt (Forgive my forgetfullness but I forget the name)
they are called van allen belts
there are 2 of them
WhitePhoenix
02-10-06, 12:58 AM
Thanks for the response ....thats it Van Allen Belts...so how does that effect anything flying outside of Earths orbit? Or does it?
Hi WhitePhoenix,
Phil Plait (http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html#radiation) has an extensive page about the Fox TV program: "Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?", including a brief take on the Van Allen belts and links to more authoritative information.
See also Van Allen Belts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Allen_Belts) at Wikipedia.org
Not that I normally quote people on my ignore list, but here goes:Henry accepets that one theory could be that some of the photos could either have been tinkered with, enhanced or faked. In addition to an over-zealous CIA, trying to prove 110% that it really did happen (and hence doing the opposite), tehre's also... HASSELBLAD themselves. Handling what were argujably the most important photos in man's history, the down side for a cock-up by HASSLEBLAD would not have just been getting sued into the ground, but the possibility of angry crowds chucking bricks through their windows. If their equipment did not work or they lost or messed up the pics, it is quite possible that they would have faked them realistically to evade catastrophy. By doing this, it would have had the result of bypassing NASA and so NASA officials would be quite genuine when they insist that they were the real thing. I've noticed quite a lot of moon hoax advocates tend to use arguments extrapolating bizarre scenarios if things were seen as going wrong - here, it is large scale rioting, if Hasselblad's cameras failed. In fact the most important thing as far as the public were concerned was the TV coverage. And for Apollo 12, they didn't get any. Alan Bean, Lunar Module Pilot, set up the TV camera, pointed it at the sun, fried the receptors and that was that, no TV coverage of Apollo 12.
I've never heard that they stepped in with replacement coverage from Area 51 (:P), nor that the citadel of Nasa's offices were stormed by angry viewers (who were in fact already so bored with the moon by the time 12 finished, that the networks didn't even bother showing the mid-flight broadcast by 13, prior to the explosion).
Dust
see pic
http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/as11-40-5902.jpg
fake pictures (yes) .... no dust, not even in the landing gear.....
none on ??? astronaut model..... The space is devoid of dust.... considering a recent "landing" this is strange ?
You can even see the horizon !.....
I do not need to go any further.... the whole is a fraud.
Now, it has to be said, that does look like one damn faked photograph! The dust in the foreground actually looks like damp sand!
But (as ever in these moon hoax questions) the points Uri was trying to make are actually contradicted in the photograph he's using as illustration. "none on the astronaut model". But there is clearly moondust around the knee area, and his boots are absolutely covered in it! "no dust, not even in the landing gear...." But on the side of the footpad facing the camera, the gold clearly cuts off with what looks like more than shadow - ie dust.
But the strangest claim is - never mind that with no atmosphere the dust settles straight away and doesn't float on air that isn't present - that Uri seems to think that as soon as the craft touched down, the astronauts were out the door and taking photographs. I can't remember how long it was before Neil and Buzz stepped out (though I know it was several hours ahead of schedule), but it was certainly not less than an hour after landing. Even if they'd actually landed in the Mohave desert, the dust kicked up by the landing would have settled by then!
WhitePhoenix, please rest assured. Man has walked on the moon. We went far too soon, and going was the result of some bizarre collective madness on the part of the Americans and the Soviet Union, but it happened. About that there can be no doubt. Or just call Armstrong, Aldrin, Conrad (dec), Bean, Shepard (dec), Mitchell, Scott, Irwin (dec), Young, Duke, Cernan and Schmitt liars.
leopold99
02-10-06, 12:18 PM
about faked moon landings
first of all i am a sceptic. second i have never been to the moon
but given those two points i can say with certainty that we indeed landed a man on the moon and brought him back safely
now why am i certain?
first of all there are the russians
they have not provided one scrap of dissenting evidence
second, the conspiracy itself
this conspiracy theory falls under two scenarios
there was a massive conspiracy
nasa somehow managed to silence everyone involved
do you realize the number of people involved in the moon landing? 1,000s
the second senario is a few insiders pulled it off
but in this instance we have the rocket makers and all the quality assurance people
in short the rocket makers had to build a rocket that would work
it actually had to do the job
if they built the rocket why not use it to go to the moon
therefor i am certain that we went
Froogle King
02-14-06, 04:25 PM
EVERYBODY!!!!! GO TO THIS WEBSITE!!!! YOU ALL THINK YOU "KNOW" THE MOON LANDING WAS A HOAX? WELL I WOULD LIKE TO SEE WHAT YOU SAY TO THIS!
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html
Froogle King
02-14-06, 04:32 PM
Yeah! We'll See How Many Of You Conspiracy People Are Brave Enough To Even Check It Out! Whoops Looks Like Your Fun Is Over!
It Really Irratates Me To See You People Undermining Real Accomplishments Done By Real People. They Had To Work For Their Results And Many Good People Died In The Procces. I Wonder How They Would Feel If About 30 Years Later They Are Remembered As "fakes". It Makes Me Sick.
qwerty mob
02-18-06, 10:38 AM
We could always round up the "Moon Landing was Hoaxed" crowd and cram them into a cage on top of a Titan III. Problem solved. :)
Walter L. Wagner
05-06-06, 02:52 PM
Now why would we send Apollo 13 to the moon with a moon-lander pod (that served as the rescue pod for the crew following the explosion on their way to the moon), if we didn't intend to land on the moon? We kept doing that afterwards as well. Did we just intend to send moon-lander pods to the moon, to orbit the moon, just to pretend that they were going to land? That's nuts.
No one is debating that we went to the moon and orbited it. That was the hard part! Once in orbit about the moon, with a moon-lander, actually landing was not that much extra technologically (yeah, I know, we had to have enough fuel to land, and then to get back into orbit - not an easy task, but easier than actually getting to the moon in the first place).
I happened to be hiking in the Sierras as a teenager when Armstrong landed in 1969, and I listened to it on the radio (I didn't pack a TV, which were bulky back then). I followed every Apollo launch with keen interest (as well as every predecessor lauch of the Mercury and Gemini programs). Clearly, it doesn't make sense to believe that we would have gone to all that trouble to create a moon-lander, and send it to the moon, only to have it simply orbit, but not actually land!
What this thread does represent, however, is the fact that a large factor of our society are technological idiots, more interested in their superficial needs to look for 'ill' in society, than doing anything positive themselves to make society better.
Walter
Ophiolite
05-20-06, 08:00 AM
What this thread does represent, however, is the fact that a large factor of our society are technological idiots, ....I suggest the adjective technological is superfluous in the above sentence.
I'm not voting in the "Is the moon landing hoax a hoax" issue.
But, if I were the head hoaxer, and wanted to tip my hand to as few detectives as possible, would I publicly exhibit and launch a rocket WITHOUT the lander module?
Ophiolite
05-21-06, 08:13 AM
But, if I were the head hoaxer, and wanted to tip my hand to as few detectives as possible, would I publicly exhibit and launch a rocket WITHOUT the lander module?I don't follow your logic on this one. Can you expand and expound?
Oh for moon's sake. Is anybody here old enough to remember the moon landing broadcasts?
Ophiolite
05-21-06, 01:07 PM
Yes, but that hardly proves anything, except that some of us are old.
MetaKron
05-21-06, 03:24 PM
Same "moon hoax" picture as just a few messages ago (http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/as11-40-5902.jpg)
The shadows diverge because the leg of the LEM is slanted, but the astronaut looks way too small in relation to the LEM. Maybe it's all exactly right, but the thing to question is whether the legs of the LEM are about a foot wide as they seem to be, whether the pad under them is really about three to six feet in width, or whatever. I think there is exaggerated foreshortening in that picture.
It is really hard for anyone, even experts, to reliably take something like this apart forensically and arrive at what really happened. If you very carefully draw your lines of perspective, you can see that the astronaut is enough further from the camera to look significantly smaller than he would if he were standing exactly the same distance away as the leg of the LEM.
I'm going for the idea that we really did go and if it can be proven that anything was staged, we still went. Someone staged something to revise something, that's nothing new.
Yes, but that hardly proves anything, except that some of us are old.
apart from the fact that most (all?) of those questioning it weren't around to see it happening with their own eyes. It's much harder to fake moving images than it is stills. I saw em and they were pretty believable.
NASA would have to have bought off thousands of people and if there were any real evidence (ergo the roswell crew) some of those people would have come forward at the lure of cash if not their own consciences. i don't see thousands of scientists up in arms over the 'fake' moon landings. Indeed if you listen closely - silence!
Oh do i feel old now
I saw the live tv coverage. What an extremely interesting era to have experienced.
Foreshortening in photographs is directly related to the lens focal length and the film format (film size). It is not possible to critique foreshortening properly without knowing these parameters.
I think I remember that the moon pictures were claimed to have been snapped by Hasselblads on 2 1/4" film but do not remember the critical factor of the lens focal length.
My old man memory seems to think it was shorter than "normal", meaning apparently wide angle. So, foreshortening would have been exaggerated. Objects in the foreground would have appeared larger than usual.
But, it depends on how reliable the disinformation was, given to us by the hoaxers.
And what was the motive for this 'hoax' again? If to score points on the Russsians wouldn't it be to their advantage to prove the landings a hoax and yet to my knowledge....silence again. How many photographers/camera specialists have come forwards with helpful info?
Who actually cares? Jolly good wheeze if it was a hoax!
leopold99
05-23-06, 05:41 AM
If to score points on the Russsians wouldn't it be to their advantage to prove the landings a hoax and yet to my knowledge....silence again.
this right here is the number one reason that i believe it was not a hoax
Communist Hamster
05-23-06, 11:11 AM
BUT RUSSIA IS ALL ILLUMINATI AND STUFF! WITH NASA! COVERING UP THE UFOS!!
Yes, that point is unshiftable, proving we went to the moon almost 40 years ago, yet it is inevitable that there will be more "zomg faek" claims when we return to the moon.
Russia, with all due respect, has not been driving the bus since long before the alledged landings.
Sometimes the one holding the worst hand chooses to fold.
It seems everyone here supports the fact that the moon landings were real.
Who doesn't? Name yourselves.
MetaKron
05-24-06, 03:27 AM
I saw the live tv coverage. What an extremely interesting era to have experienced.
Foreshortening in photographs is directly related to the lens focal length and the film format (film size). It is not possible to critique foreshortening properly without knowing these parameters.
Pretty much what I said, I can't be sure what the foreshortening should be. Just mentally drawing perspective lines, I could see that the astronaut was further away from the camera and the leg of the ship was closer than you would think at first glance, so the difference in size is exaggerated.
MetaKron
05-24-06, 03:28 AM
Why would Van Allen say that the astronauts couldn't survive the trip through the Van Allen belts, anyway?
The Russians are on record as saying that they were extremely doubtful that cosmonauts could be safely shielded against the charged particle radiation agents trapped magnetically in the Van Allen belts.
I have never carefully studied the moon photos for apparent perspective so should'nt comment. If you are familiar with 35mm photography, a 28mm or 35mm focal length wide angle lens on a 35mm camera would give roughly the same apparent perspective as the Hasselblad cameras used on the moon photos, if my old man memory is roughly correct about the setup claimed to have been used. The perspective effect is noticeably different than what the human eye normally sees.
leopold99
05-27-06, 04:24 AM
The Russians are on record as saying that they were extremely doubtful that cosmonauts could be safely shielded against the charged particle radiation agents trapped magnetically in the Van Allen belts.
you are forgetting something.
the russians have no doubt photographed the landing sites.
leo:
Your post has got to be some kind of an ultimate non sequiter.
I have already stated that I have no ax to grind in the moon landing hoax issue. I have simply stated the historical fact that Russians feared the radiation in the Van Allen belts.
The point of your post is????
As if you had one.
And as if you could remember it.
leopold99
05-28-06, 01:06 AM
I don't follow your logic on this one. Can you expand and expound?
as you can see cangas i am not the only one who has trouble following your logic.
the point of my original post is that the russians have the means to prove once and for all whether the moon landing happened.
they have not provided one scrap of evidence that it did not.
Ophiolite
05-28-06, 06:55 AM
Cangas may not have seen that Leo. I am periodically rude to him when I think he is being an ass. He may well have put me on Ignore. [By the way, why can't we put ourselves on Ignore? It isn't right.]
And my point is that, for many, many decades the Russians have not been in anything resembling a powerful position with respect to America. The powers that be (were) in Russia have not been idiots. If they rocked our boat, what would they expect their more powerful adversary to do in retribution? So, if a Russian astronomer saw no moon landing artifacts, he or she may have been easily persuaded to be quiet.
Oph.:
When a man walks through the jungle and the cute little mingkees jibber jabber and throw their own turds at him, like they do at any visitor they do not know or understand, why should the man not ignore them and give their stupid actions much attention? They are rude to everyone except the grooming partners they already daily lick and groom from head to toe.
Sci-Phenomena
05-29-06, 08:14 AM
Since the moon landing cost so many American dollars I wouldn't doubt that it was faked, however, I don't really know if the U.S. Govt was a scammer all back then.... nowadays its a different story...
(they are forcing us to sell our nation to the banks through the national debt, I imagine they will be calling the loan in once our debt reaches 10 trillion, on the upside, the constitution forbids the use of any fiat money system, such as the one we have to today, so technically the loan is null and void.)
While I have never given much attention to the moon landing hoax, I keep on being gnawed with doubt about the gravity thing.
There is an account of a moon naut having fallen to the ground and asking his fellow moon naut for help to get up. The moon team was in the very peak of physical fitness. On Earth, every one would have had no trouble doing a one hand push up. If the information is true that moon gravity is 1/6 Earth gravity, a 200 pound moon naut wearing a 1000 pound moon suit would weigh, on the moon, 200 pounds. So, a man in the peak of fitness, needing to push his total effective weight of 200 pounds up off the moon dust, needs to get help from his buddy?
Lance Armstrong has fallen off his bike. And he can't get up unless Mark Maguire gives him a hand?
Sounds interesting. Who fell over? Forward or backward? Flat or rocky ground?
I last read of it some while back and now don't remember. It is one of the popular issues raised by the pro hoax faction and can probably be fairly easily dug up on one of the hoax web sites.
leopold99
05-30-06, 04:31 AM
While I have never given much attention to the moon landing hoax, I keep on being gnawed with doubt about the gravity thing.
There is an account of a moon naut having fallen to the ground and asking his fellow moon naut for help to get up.
we are both in the same boat.
i also have never given the landings much thought nor have i really doubted we went but i do remember an interveiw answer given by one of the astronauts.
the question was "did you go to the moon"
astronauts answer "i don't know what these other guys said but i know i went"
WOW. That's provocative.
And that reminds me of an interview in which astronaut A clearly spoke of astronaut B having walked on the moon. The records showed that B had NOT walked on the moon. There were not that many atronauts in the moon landing program. I think it would be hard for one of them to make a mistake about something like that.
I'm too lazy to get started doing calculations, but I keep thinking that the landers didn't have big enough fuel tanks. I can't remember at this moment ever even noticeing where they were.
There is an account of a moon naut having fallen to the ground and asking his fellow moon naut for help to get up. The moon team was in the very peak of physical fitness. On Earth, every one would have had no trouble doing a one hand push up. If the information is true that moon gravity is 1/6 Earth gravity, a 200 pound moon naut wearing a 1000 pound moon suit would weigh, on the moon, 200 pounds. So, a man in the peak of fitness, needing to push his total effective weight of 200 pounds up off the moon dust, needs to get help from his buddy?
Flexibility (or more accurately lack of) in the suits would account for that. NASA went for hard suits (compared to some of the proposals/ options, very hard) that have limited movement at the joints.
The flexibility issue sounded good for a minute. But, would the astronauts have agreed to use a suit that be a death trap if they fell down? All that had to happen to kill the landing team is for both to fall at the same time. NASA surely would not have neglected such a possibility. Can you imagine the worldwide publicity of losing two men on the moon because they fell and couldn't get up? The astronauts surely would not have agreed to such avoidable danger.
Besides, I made up the moon suit weight to present a worst case scenario. I vaguely remember that they were possibly 400 pounds or so, which would mean a moon weight of maybe 100 pounds total. So we have a man in peak physical condition weighing half of his Earth weight total. I personally seriously doubt that even very limited flexibility would have forced him to get help.
In my opinion something is just not adding up about the episode.
IIRC the astronauts were over-ridden on several issues by the "suits" in charge - not least being "spam in a can" as opposed to pilots...
If you can't bend your knees far enough to get your feet under you then how are you going to get up? A push up hard enough to get yourself vertical may be a proposition on the moon without a suit, but if you're without a suit then getting upright is going to be low on your list of priorities :D
As for "would the astronauts have agreed to use a suit that be a death trap if they fell down", bwahaha.
Try "hey guys, how would you like to sit on top of 4.5 million pounds of liquid oxygen and kerosene, and we'll set light to it, throw you out of the atmosphere, you go to the moon, land and then come back in a ball of plasma"
The whole mission was a risk full of potential death traps, and there were more volunteers than places.
I last read of it some while back and now don't remember. It is one of the popular issues raised by the pro hoax faction and can probably be fairly easily dug up on one of the hoax web sites.
Have you tried?
This is the nearest I can find on a hoax site Conspiracies and Underdogs (http://www.erichufschmid.net/Conspiracies11.htm):
The astronauts fell down several times while on the moon, but they showed no regard to whether the broken rocks on the ground were capable of tearing a hole in a pressurized space suit. They never bothered to look at themselves to see if there were any tears, and the other astronauts did not bother to check one another to see how their suits were holding up.
I also found some specific stories elsewhere.
Apollo 11 (http://www.clavius.org/gravleap.html):
The EVA videos show the astronauts falling and landing on their knees. Wouldn't this risk puncturing the space suit?
There's always a risk, of course. The Apollo 11 astronauts were not allowed to kneel down except in an emergency because of this [Reports11b, 79]. Armstrong and Aldrin reported that they had difficulty reaching items they had dropped without the ability to kneel. It was also not known if an astronaut wearing a lunar space suit (EMU) would be able to get back up again if he knelt or fell down. Apollo 11 astronauts helped verify that this was possible.
When the space suits were brought back and examined, it was decided that they were durable enough to allow the astronauts to casually kneel. Apollo 11 was really the final experiment and so they had to act conservatively. As the equipment was examined and modified, more roughness became allowable [Ibid., 79].
Apollo 12 (http://www.pcug.org.au/~jsaxon/space/book/After11.htm)
What would happen to an astronaut if he fell down on the moon? This was one of the worries of the mission planners. Conrad was the first astronaut to be able to answer that question in the first astronaut news conference from space: "I was trying to pick up something and I was just standing there next to Al. It was a rock that was just too big to go into the tongs. We had a sort of game we played there of leaning on tongs and sort of doing a one arm jabber-doo (a Conrad one-arm push up) all stretched out...... I just sort of rolled over on my side down there on the ground and Al, before I got all the way down, just gave me a shove back up again. I don't think it will be any problem, the business of falling against a rock and cutting your space suit. You don't fall that fast. You wouldn't hit a rock hard enough."
Bean backed him up: "When you start, you fall so slowly that it gives you plenty of time almost to turn around or catch your footing before you get low enough down before it's too late. I can recall a number of times when I lost my balance. If I had lost my balance that much on Earth, I would probably have fallen down. Now on the moon, since you start moving so slowly, you're usually able to spin around, bend your knees and recover."
Here's the most like suspect, in a NASA journal of Apollo 12, and mentioning an incident on Apollo 17:
Apollo 12 Lunar Surface Journal (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/a12.head_bench.html)
[Bean - (Returning to the subject of going into steep-sided craters like Bench) "First of all, you could easily slip and fall. And if you did and ever got in funny positions in that spacesuit, you couldn't get up. Let's say you fell and you got on your back with your head downslope. You're not going to get up. I mean, you can't get up from that position, in my opinion. You barely can get up from on your back on a level surface. So here's the guy up at the top looking down at you and you're laying down upside down, kind of, with your head down and maybe pushed against a rock. You're laying there. You're conscious but how the hell are you going to get your act together to get the guy back up? So I think it would be tremendously dangerous. Even if you could walk down and stand up and then couldn't get up the side. The problem with going in craters is you don't have any way to know that it's too steep until you're down in it and it's too steep and then you can't - like you can on Earth - say 'Well, I'll take off my coat or we'll call a crane or get the rescue guys to get us.' You're stuck. So it would be crazy to go in those craters."]
[On Apollo 17, Gene Cernan got himself into a position very much like the one Al describes. He and Jack Schmitt had been working at Station 8 on a hillside, with the Rover parked angled into the hill with Gene's side slightly uphill. Gene jumped up to get into his seat, fell short, and landed on his back, with his head downslope and - to make matters worse - lying next to the Rover so that, without Jack Schmitt's help, it would have been all but impossible for him to turn around and get his feet downslope. However, rather than being a crisis, it was a problem to solve and, although Cernan, Schmitt and I were unable to reconstruct the details of how he got up, in essence, Jack literally lent a hand so that Gene could get into a face-down position so that, with a little help from Jack pushing backwards on Gene's helmet, he was able to rotate back over his knees and onto his feet. What is most telling about the incident is that, nineteen years after the fact, neither of them remembered it. When we came upon it in our review (done a few weeks after my meeting with Pete and Al) and finally realized that Gene had fallen, it came as a complete surprise to all of us. Of course, there is an important psychological difference between working on a hillside and walking into a steep crater. In the hillside cases, the LM was always at the bottom.]
Right, here's the transcript and commentary of what I think is the incident in question, from the Apollo 17 Lunar Surface Journal (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/):
167:33:28 Schmitt: Yep. (Pause) (To Gene, who has fallen) Hang on. Need some help?
167:33:39 Cernan: (Nonchalant) Nope.
167:33:41 Schmitt: Go downhill. Get your feet downhill.
167:33:43 Cernan: Yep. (Pause) Okay.
167:33:50 Schmitt: Let me help you.
167:33:51 Cernan: (Laughs)
167:33:56 Schmitt: Watch it, there's a crater right behind you.
167:33:58 Cernan: I got it. I got it. (Pause)
167:34:03 Schmitt: Here. Here. Grab my hand.
167:34:07 Cernan: Okay, now, just push up on my head.
[By pushing back on the front of Gene's helmet, Jack can get
him rotating back over his knees.]
167:34:10 Schmitt: Okay. I'm not going to do it too hard. Going
backwards.
167:34:14 Cernan: It's all right; just push up. Okay. Okay.
167:34:19 Schmitt: (Chuckling) Boy, are you...(Chuckling) You('ve)
got your pockets completely filled with dirt.
167:34:23 Cernan: Well, extra sample.
167:34:25 Schmitt: Do we throw those pockets away this time around?
167:34:28 Cernan: (Laughing) Extra sample. (Pause)
167:34:30 Schmitt: Are you a mess!
167:34:31 Cernan: (Laughs) Well, that one was coming for a long time!
167:34:33 Schmitt: My hands are already tired from dusting you.
167:34:37 Cernan: That one was coming. I keep trying to blow the
dust off my camera, which is very frustrating.
167:34:42 Schmitt: Very ineffective, too. (Pause)
[Cernan - "At least I fell
off-camera."]
167:34:50 Cernan: (Preparing to mount the Rover again) Okay. Do we try that trick again? (Long Pause) You know that happened on an upslope getting on the Rover. Okay. I'm all locked in. Let me know when you are. How come we haven't deployed any charges? I guess the last one...I remember when that one is. Okay.
167:35:20 Parker: We'll deploy one at Station 10.
167:35:23 Schmitt: Okay. I'm in. (Pause)
[Cernan - "I don't remember this particular event but..."]
[Schmitt - "I can't believe I don't remember it."]
[Cernan - "It may be that I just fell on my ass trying to get on the Rover. But I never had problems getting up, and that's why I'm confused as to what this is."]
[Gene takes a moment to re-read the dialog starting at 167:33:28.]
[Schmitt - "The thing I don't understand is why you couldn't do a
push-up."]
[Cernan - "I don't understand either. I just don't recall that at
all."]
[Schmitt - "You know what it may have been? You may have started to
kick to get on the Rover, then fell, and you were lying next to the
Rover..."]
[Cernan - "Caught by the slope against the Rover."]
[Schmitt - "Yes. Which meant you couldn't rotate backwards. And my gratuitous advice was to get your feet downhill! (General laughter) And you must have had a feeling at some other time - probably Station 6 or 7 - that you were coming close to missing (the seat)."]
[The dialog at 166:48:26 and following indicates that Gene parked the Rover pointed into the hill and without much of a sideslope. This suggests that Gene fell with his feet uphill. To get up by himself, he had to get his feet pointed downhill - as Jack suggested - and, because he had the Rover next to him, getting turned around would have been difficult.]
Sci-Phenomena
05-30-06, 10:02 AM
CANGAS:
While I have never given much attention to the moon landing hoax, I keep on being gnawed with doubt about the gravity thing.
There is an account of a moon naut having fallen to the ground and asking his fellow moon naut for help to get up. The moon team was in the very peak of physical fitness. On Earth, every one would have had no trouble doing a one hand push up. If the information is true that moon gravity is 1/6 Earth gravity, a 200 pound moon naut wearing a 1000 pound moon suit would weigh, on the moon, 200 pounds. So, a man in the peak of fitness, needing to push his total effective weight of 200 pounds up off the moon dust, needs to get help from his buddy?
Lance Armstrong has fallen off his bike. And he can't get up unless Mark Maguire gives him a hand?
You've convinced me... what a scam that one, was it 4 billion dollars or 7? (back then the inflation was not nearly as insane, so they raped the American people pretty hard with that Moon Landing Hoax)(anyone here know anything about the Roswell Alien Crash Hoax? (which was used to coverup Secret Government technology))
If that was the particular event, it sounds like some disorientation and some unseen obstacle(s) were the important factors, not any problem of weight or strength.
My memory is even worse than I remembered it being. NASA information is that the complete moon suits weighed just under 200 pounds Earth weight. On the moon a 200 pound astronaut would have weighed in at 400/6 pounds, not quite 70 pounds, and should have been able to easily handle any situation that he could understand.
The moon suits were indeed hard, however with attention having been given to design in ample flexibility, as is obvious in the photos.
The lander is said to have weighed 17 tons, Earth weight, unstated if that included fuel. Without yet having done any numbers, it just really looks like that little thing didn't have enough of a gas tank. The landing was not nearly as fuel efficient as the launch, so getting down from orbit and then back up was more than equal to two launches. And I have looked at dozens of photos and still can't even figure out where the gas tank was. It sure had a little one.
Wikipedia says (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Lunar_Module):
The landers were in two stages, the ascent stage separated for the return journey to the orbiter. Only a third of the mass that descended lifted off again. Over half the mass of the lander was fuel and oxidiser.
The landing mass was 14,696kg plus crew and cargo, including 8,165kg of propellant (Aerozine 50 + oxidizer).
The ascending mass was 4,547kg plus crew and cargo, including 2,353kg of propellant.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4a/LM_illustration_02.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b6/Apollo_16_LM.jpg
I used to say that the F4 Phantom was the ugliest thing that has ever flown (I mean that as a compliment. The Phantom is perhaps my favorite airplane.).
This afternoon, sipping tea in my garden (with only lemon juice), I stared off into space and did some virtual back-of-the-envelope calculations. They looked about right to give the alledged landing and relaunch a certificate as having been maybe possible. The reminder, and new information about the weights, makes it even more certain that it might have happened.
However. One more of the hoax accusations has concerned the claim that moon gravity is actually much stronger than the standard disinformation. The claim is that moon gravity is at least .5gee up to 1gee, surface gravity. This thought was in my mind when remembering the fallen astronaut incident. (Incidently, it vaguely seems, to my decrepit old man memory, that the one I remember(?) was when a moon walker had only stumbled to his knees, not gone flat down.) Such higher gravity would make it impossible to get off the moon into orbit (or down in the first place, safely) in such a tiny little hot rod.
When I saw the helium tanks in the picture, I knew what had been done! FLY ME AWAY, IN YOUR BEAUTIFUL BALOON!
However. One more of the hoax accusations has concerned the claim that moon gravity is actually much stronger than the standard disinformation. The claim is that moon gravity is at least .5gee up to 1gee, surface gravity.
Wow, your bullshit filter is badly misaligned if you take that one seriously!
When I saw the helium tanks in the picture, I knew what had been done! FLY ME AWAY, IN YOUR BEAUTIFUL BALOON!
Ha! Very funny :)
baumgarten
05-31-06, 03:08 AM
Wow, your bullshit filter is badly misaligned if you take that one seriously!
If only you weren't blinded by your beloved Law of Gravitation, you could see through the lie that is reality!
(Note: I was originally going to cite the theory of relativity here, but it just didn't feel right. And besides, I have nothing against Tor that I would libel her like that.)
Sci-Phenomena
05-31-06, 08:15 AM
Relativity!?!?!? Don't give me that bullshit.
"The universe is winding down, winding down, winding down, the universe is winding down, my fair lady." (The highly innacurate song of the relativists, energy is neither created nor destroyed, thus the universe could not possibly "run out of energy," and thus it couldn't have "blown up" from one point in space to have "beginning")
baumgarten
05-31-06, 09:16 AM
You bore me with your simple-minded notions and lack of understanding of the term "energy density." Good day!
Sci-Phenomena
05-31-06, 01:53 PM
Good day!
baumgarten, do you believe the Moon landing was real?
I can't believe this thread is still running.
Sci-Phenomena
05-31-06, 07:06 PM
Well put Facial, well put.
baumgarten
05-31-06, 07:17 PM
baumgarten, do you believe the Moon landing was real?
I can't believe this thread is still running.
No, it was an obvious conspiracy to justify the introduction of secret alien technology such as velcro and pressurized pens.
Jaster Mereel
05-31-06, 07:26 PM
Conspiracy theory threads should be in Pseudoscience. If any moderators come across this, can you please move it?
Sci-Phenomena
06-01-06, 08:04 AM
Jaster:
Conspiracy theory threads should be in Pseudoscience.
CONSPIRACY DEFINITION: An illegal agreement between two or more people
That is outright stupid Jaster... criminals conspire constantly, thats what makes them criminals, if you say conspiracy theory threads should be in pseudoscience then you are saying criminals don't exist, or "may not exist."
Don't lose your sanity Jaster, its not a good idea
Ophiolite
06-01-06, 11:32 AM
You gave the definition of conspiracy , not of conspiracy theory. There is a significant difference that renders your subsequent remarks irrelevant.
baumgarten
06-01-06, 01:25 PM
Don't lose your sanity Jaster, its not a good idea
I'm reminded of glass houses and hard projectiles... ;)
Sci-Phenomena
06-01-06, 02:13 PM
Then it there should consequently be a new catagory for threads called "conspiracy theories." Since a theory on criminal activity is not really a theory on any science. Forgive me if I am wrong.
Well put Ophiolite.
Jaster Mereel
06-01-06, 02:30 PM
What I was saying, manmadeflyingsaucer, was that the idea that the moon landing was fake is a conspiracy theory because it is believed that the government conspired to trick everyone into thinking that the moon landing occurred when it did not. That qualifies it for the Pseudoscience section of SciForums, I believe, because it falls under the label of a "Conspiracy Theory".
A scorecard is needed.
1. Landings real. Photos real.
2. Landings real. Photos from A51.
3. Landings real. Who cares about photos. Lots of flying saucers, so cover up.
4. Landings hoax. Photos A51.
5. I probably missed another one.
vBulletin® v3.8.1, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.