Did The Moon Landing Occur - Yes or No? [Archive]

Singularity

04-09-07, 09:10 PM

I'm going to err on the side of reason here and opine in my awkward way that the moon landing did indeed happen.

I note also from the poll that only two people thought it didn't happen: one of whom is a certifiable lunatic.

The other, of course, is Singularity.

Are u in the medieval era or what ?

Whatever the priest told u is the right thing ?

What the polls show is the opinion , not facts.

It doesnt matter who thinks what,
what actually happened counts.

And there is more than enough evidence to prove that man never made it to the moon, instead they faked it. :shrug:

Thats how USSR was destroyed. They even attempted second time to destroy USSR, by faking WMDs in the space, but those plans were exposed before they took off and nor were they needed later.

EmptyForceOfChi

04-09-07, 09:27 PM

GeoffP

04-09-07, 09:29 PM

Well how about that.

There were two loonies after all. :eek:

Singularity

04-09-07, 09:50 PM

...i would like to say they did make it to the moon. but i trust the government as far as i can throw a sumo, so i might have to side with the lunatic and the....

Forget the sumo http://home.versatel.nl/beranek/sumo.jpg

Ask how did they got the whole buggy inside the Lander.
did they have enough time to remove it from the never before seen place where they had kept it ?

Singularity

04-09-07, 10:00 PM

http://batesmotel.8m.com/nasa8.gif

Can u see any flaws in this pic or
u just wana ignore them.

I had tried to open your eyes in another thread but it was a total waste of time. Now i wont do that mistake.

Hence , Lets play a game.
Now u people tell me only then i will comment in the next post.

There is no need for me to tell morons what is right, so if u dont want to see the truth, u all majority can go fuck in hell.

In the future you will be remembered as cattle for the illuminati.

iceaura

04-09-07, 11:21 PM

In the future you will be remembered as cattle for the illuminati. I thought illuminati was goat cheese ? Maybe sheep.

Which moon landing was the faked one? I need to know before I answer the poll.

James R

04-10-07, 01:05 AM

Moon landing conspiracy

orcot

04-10-07, 01:15 AM

singularity you know verry well that the moon landing occured. Those flaws that you mention are yust curiosities that can't be completly explainend.
There have been some desent arguments abouth the inpact crater of the lander and due to the situation it yust can't be explanained any better way.

Perhaps you can explain this then?
http://www.msss.com/earth/earth.gif
this is ironacly the most known foto of the apollo missions

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/9908/eclipse99_mir_big.jpg
This is a picture of the old mir (during eclips). Skylab was pretty much in the same orbit. So it would have been inpossible with 1970's photoshop versions to make such a image from the earth

Read-Only

04-10-07, 05:03 AM

Singularity, you must not know how silly that makes you look to believe all that.:D

You are probably MUCH to young to have witnessed any of the Apollo missions but I personally got to see ( along with several thousands of others from the coast on the mainland across from the Cape) the launch of the first one in July, 1969.

Every single country in the whole world that had the ability - including Russia - tracked the ship with radar and they know where it went. Not only that but they also used radio direction-finding to monitor the transmissions from the Moon back to Earth.

If it had been a scam, the Russians would have screamed LOUDLY because they desperately want to be the first there!! Yet they didn't make a whimper about it. Know why not? Because they knew it was real.

Singularity

04-10-07, 07:36 AM

RoyLennigan

04-10-07, 07:41 AM

with powerful telescopes you should be able to see the flag they left on the moon or the left over vehicles or parts, or something they left to prove it right?.

i would like to say they did make it to the moon. but i trust the government as far as i can throw a sumo, so i might have to side with the lunatic and the ........ well ok there is no word in the english dictionary to describe him so,,, singularity.

the next time we go to the moon we need to leave proof behind to prove it so we can see it from earth.

peace.

its ok chi, I don't trust the government either. But you don't have to to know we went to the moon. The people I trust are the ones directly involved, the ones whose life mission and own personal motivation was to get man to the moon. They would never lie nor be lied to. They were the ones who made it happen. They knew more than any government arm could possibly be able to cover up.

You can silence or pay off a few people, but you can't silence or pay off the thousands working to get man to the moon.

RoyLennigan

04-10-07, 07:47 AM

1) Foot print near the lander are impossible due to lack of crater.

2) Crater has to be there below the lander if foot prints exists.

3) The speed of Astronauts jumps (ascent and descent) are not consistent with 1/6 gravitational acceleration. They were jumping too quickly.
And the inertia of the the suit and backpack would prohibit such quick movements in low gravity.

4) The lunar lander was impossible as it had no jet nozels to maintain vertical balance, they had only side way nozels. A grave mistake by the hoaxers.

Anyway vertical landing is still not possible.

5) Alien foot prints are visible in may photos (search the web, time mongers).

6) The photos are impossible , the frame accuracy is too good without a view finder. The height of the photos is inconsistent with regards to the camera mounted on chests.

7) They used too many lunar mockups, the original moon model photos are overwhelmingly pointing at fakery.

How do you know? Have you been to the moon?

Singularity

04-10-07, 08:01 AM

How do you know? Have you been to the moon?

Dont worry about it, u wont understand it, since it requires Common Sense to understand these things.

Your question is a measure of your lack of common sense.

Anyways i dont except anyone to match my common sense, since it bloated up due to genetic mutations.

Nikelodeon

04-10-07, 08:04 AM

i dont except anyone to match my common sense,
Then its not really common sense is it? More likely nonsense.

RoyLennigan

04-10-07, 08:15 AM

Dont worry about it, u wont understand it, since it requires Common Sense to understand these things.

Your question is a measure of your lack of common sense.

Anyways i dont except anyone to match my common sense, since it bloated up due to genetic mutations.

:D U'r funy can u b my jestur?

I liek ppeeple who r samrt and spell goud.

Ps plz teatch me comon senze?

Singularity

04-10-07, 08:24 AM

Then its not really common sense is it? More likely nonsense.

Hmm , your definition of common sense seem to say that this sense is common for all, but my definition says it so obvious that it must be common in all, but i know that it isnt.

orcot

04-10-07, 10:23 AM

I'm not going to quote but that are yust stabs to each other.

In my defense to the moon hoax people I like to say that the apollo program was yust plain silly to the point that considering the mission even I could have done a far better job. Also the fact that if anything chould be learned from it is that you would first need a purpose to travel to the moon and only then consider traveling to it. Hence nobody traveled to the moon in 35 years and the world was a better place.

Singularity

04-10-07, 10:49 AM

1) Foot print near the lander are impossible due to lack of crater.

2) Crater has to be there below the lander if foot prints exists.

3) The speed of Astronauts jumps (ascent and descent) are not consistent with 1/6 gravitational acceleration. They were jumping too quickly.
And the inertia of the the suit and backpack would prohibit such quick movements in low gravity.

4) The lunar lander was impossible as it had no jet nozels to maintain vertical balance, they had only side way nozels. A grave mistake by the hoaxers.

Anyway vertical landing is still not possible.

5) Alien foot prints are visible in many photos (search the web, time mongers).

6) The photos are impossible , the frame accuracy is too good without a view finder. The height of the photos is inconsistent with regards to the camera mounted on chests.

7) They used too many lunar mockups, the original moon model photos are overwhelmingly pointing at fakery.

Janus58

04-10-07, 11:28 AM

Dont worry about it, u wont understand it, since it requires Common Sense to understand these things.

The kind of "Common Sense" that said that the Earth was flat.
The kind of "Common Sense" that said the Sun Went around the Earth.
The kind of "Common Sense" that said manned flight was impossible.
The kind of "Common Sense" that said that rockets wouldn't work in a vacuum because there was nothing for them to push against.

Appeals to "Common Sense" are, at best, a sign of lazy thinking, and most often are mis-guided due to lack of proper understanding of the subject at hand.

GeoffP

04-10-07, 11:37 AM

Dont worry about it, u wont understand it, since it requires Common Sense to understand these things.

Your question is a measure of your lack of common sense.

This is awesome! I love the ad hominem and especially the whacky style. This is great. I wish I'd got in on the argument prior to this.

Anyways i dont except anyone to match my common sense, since it bloated up due to genetic mutations.

Well, this may not be far wrong, at least.

Now, I'm not a physicist, or rocket jockey, but here's what concerns me about Singularity's little thesis, and that of Happehs everywhere:

1) Foot print near the lander are impossible due to lack of crater.

2) Crater has to be there below the lander if foot prints exists.

Could you clarify these comments? Why need crater?

3) The speed of Astronauts jumps (ascent and descent) are not consistent with 1/6 gravitational acceleration. They were jumping too quickly.
And the inertia of the the suit and backpack would prohibit such quick movements in low gravity.

...how heavy were the suits and backpacks? You do realize that at 1/6g a 200 lb setup is only 33 lbs?

4) The lunar lander was impossible as it had no jet nozels to maintain vertical balance, they had only side way nozels. A grave mistake by the hoaxers.

Anyway vertical landing is still not possible.

Why not? How do you know vertical nozzles didn't exist? Why were they necessary? Couldn't the same engine that was used for thrust out of moon atmosphere be used to slow descent?

5) Alien foot prints are visible in many photos (search the web, time mongers).

All right: make up your mind, please. Are they really alien footprints? Your thesis is that they didn't get to the moon, so why would there be alien footprints in the photos? Did the aliens visit them at the staged photo site? Were they supplying the Americans with advice about the surface of the moon? ("Dude, your rocks are all wrong.") Did one of them accidentally wander over some untouched dirt during coffee break? It's so hard to find good interstellar help these days, even for us Illuminati. We really have to post on some decent job boards when we fake that Sun landing in 2050.

6) The photos are impossible , the frame accuracy is too good without a view finder.

Because, prior to 1970, no photos were good.

The height of the photos is inconsistent with regards to the camera mounted on chests.

Because there were no handhelds brought, and the surface of the moon has no rocks to stand on.

7) They used too many lunar mockups, the original moon model photos are overwhelmingly pointing at fakery.

I'm not sure what this means, but I suspect it's something to do with an idea that you think there were too many backgrounds. I would like to know how you justify this conception.

Singularity

04-10-07, 12:51 PM

This is awesome! I love the ad hominem and especially the whacky style. This is great. I wish I'd got in on the argument prior to this.

Well, this may not be far wrong, at least.

I was laughing for one hour reading your comments. :D

Could you clarify these comments? Why need crater? The dusty area create craters when blasted with powerful jet engines. The foot prints are the proof of the dust.

...how heavy were the suits and backpacks? You do realize that at 1/6g a 200 lb setup is only 33 lbs? Whatever. They were heavy and hence had lot of inertia and low gravity gives u a lesser grip on foot. And the Gravitational acceleration i guess must be 1/6 th so jumping on Moon will be visually quite stunning.

Why not? How do you know vertical nozzles didn't exist? Why were they necessary? Couldn't the same engine that was used for thrust out of moon atmosphere be used to slow descent? U tell me , i know i have done lot of web searching on this topic in past.

The answer lies in the same reason why a top cant stand straight without spinning.

All right: make up your mind, please. Are they really alien footprints? Your thesis is that they didn't get to the moon, so why would there be alien footprints in the photos? Did the aliens visit them at the staged photo site? Were they supplying the Americans with advice about the surface of the moon? ("Dude, your rocks are all wrong.") Did one of them accidentally wander over some untouched dirt during coffee break? It's so hard to find good interstellar help these days, even for us Illuminati. We really have to post on some decent job boards when we fake that Sun landing in 2050. Please, by alien i didnt mean extra terrestrial. What i meant was this.

http://www.geocities.com/nasascam/APOLLOSCAM/SCAM_files/02272310.jpg

http://www.aulis.com/jackimages/15alienbootprint.jpg

http://www.conspiracy-theories-hoax.com/images/c.jpg

Because, prior to 1970, no photos were good.

Because there were no handhelds brought, and the surface of the moon has no rocks to stand on. Hmm, very funny, as if that was their motive to photo everything. Now, can u tell me why were they always climbing rocks each time to get an photo ?

I'm not sure what this means, but I suspect it's something to do with an idea that you think there were too many backgrounds. I would like to know how you justify this conception.

Do some research, before that do some soul searching. http://www.geocities.com/apolloreality/

Singularity

04-10-07, 12:59 PM

http://www.astronautix.com/graphics/d/dcxaflt2.jpg

Vertical landing requires lots of jets at corners of the base to balance (Look your feet are not cones). And lot of computing to calculate how much thrust to generate so that it doesnt topple over.

The above rocket though 27 years later moon missions, finally toppled over and the program came to an end.

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/dcx.htm

1996 July 31 - 19:15 GMT - Launch Site: White Sands. Launch Vehicle: DC-X. Model: DC-XA. FAILURE: Landing strut 2 failed to extend; vehicle tipped over and LOX tank exploded; vehicle destroyed.

http://www.spacedaily.com/images/dc-xa-bg.jpg

Oli

04-10-07, 01:54 PM

Vertical landing requires lots of jets at corners of the base to balance
Quite simply - not true. Take a look various VTOL aircraft, for example...
And lot of computing to calculate how much thrust to generate so that it doesnt topple over.
And again, not true, for one thing more (or less) thrust wouldn't cause toppling, that would be caused by unaccounted-for asymmetric thrust or mass distribution.
And finally, the LEM did not land vertically, in came in on a spiral descent...

GeoffP

04-10-07, 02:04 PM

I was laughing for one hour reading your comments.

Then, you probably didn't understand them. Did the men in white coats have to give you the needles when you didn't stop laughing?

The dusty area create craters when blasted with powerful jet engines. The foot prints are the proof of the dust.

Did the lander in fact use "powerful jet engines" right prior to landing? In 1/6g, there's not that much downward acceleration and I seem to recall seeing their lander come down the last 30 ft at least without any blasting below it. This isn't frigging Star Rangers (or whatever) you know.

Whatever. They were heavy and hence had lot of inertia and low gravity gives u a lesser grip on foot. And the Gravitational acceleration i guess must be 1/6 th so jumping on Moon will be visually quite stunning.

Speaking of stunning..."lesser grip on foot"?

...Happeh?

U tell me , i know i have done lot of web searching on this topic in past.

The answer lies in the same reason why a top cant stand straight without spinning.

You have perhaps forgotten the horizontal nozzles?

Please, by alien i didnt mean extra terrestrial. What i meant was this.

http://www.geocities.com/nasascam/APOLLOSCAM/SCAM_files/02272310.jpg

Well, let me see. I'm no NASA techician and, being an Illuminati Lizardoid, I was secretly hatched from an egg sat on by Karl Rove and the head of the Mossad, but on first glance that looks a bit to me like ONE OF THE ASTRONAUT'S OWN BOOTPRINTS ON A FRIGGING ANGLE. But I could be wrong, of course.

http://www.conspiracy-theories-hoax.com/images/c.jpg

Hmm, very funny, as if that was their motive to photo everything.

Yes; it is always best if one goes all the way to the moon and photographs nothing. That way, when one returns from the moon and is asked to justify the time and money spent getting there, one can just tell them: "The moon? Meh. It was ok. Buzz played golf!"

Now, can u tell me why were they always climbing rocks each time to get an photo ?

I submit that it was done to attain the abstract and suspicious goal of "a better view".

Do some research, before that do some soul searching.

I looked for soul, and it wasn't there. :eek: Am I a Lizardoid?

GeoffP

04-10-07, 02:05 PM

I note:

FAILURE: Landing strut 2 failed to extend; vehicle tipped over and LOX tank exploded; vehicle destroyed.

Oli, good points.

Singularity

04-10-07, 02:20 PM

http://www.aviapress.com/engl/amo/amo7257.jpg

Guys ,
How many jets can u see in this pic ?

GeoffP

04-10-07, 02:43 PM

Well it's Russian-designed. That's why so many are necessary.

Any response on the other points?

Oli

04-10-07, 02:51 PM

In point of fact there's one JET - Yak-38 Forger. There are four exhausts from the three jet engines, two (one engine behind the other) just below the "07" bort number and two (one each side; from the single engine) on the fuselage just behind the wing. Not"at each corner".
Presumably you googled and picked the first thing available. Okay, try looking for Yak -36 Freehand that had TWO (and only two) exhaust nozzles from the engine, that had few problems with getting on or off the ground. If you really look you'll find that very few VTOL aircraft have the exhausts "at the corners", many had them in-line down the fuselage, or in pods on the wing... Or even try finding a photo of say BAC/ EE Lightning, McDD F-15 Eagle, Sukhoi Su-27 (and variants) climbing vertically - sustained in that flight regime by engine thrust only - and strangely enough, none of them topple.
All that is required is that the line of action of total thrust acts through the centre of gravity.
But please don't let that stop your ridiculously uninformed assertions.

EmptyForceOfChi

04-10-07, 03:12 PM

its ok chi, I don't trust the government either. But you don't have to to know we went to the moon. The people I trust are the ones directly involved, the ones whose life mission and own personal motivation was to get man to the moon. They would never lie nor be lied to. They were the ones who made it happen. They knew more than any government arm could possibly be able to cover up.

You can silence or pay off a few people, but you can't silence or pay off the thousands working to get man to the moon.

good point, but howcomes we cant see anything man left on the surface from telescopes?

peace,

GeoffP

04-10-07, 03:22 PM

Because the telescopes aren't powerful enough to resolve the image? Because the moon's reflectiveness prevents visualization? Those would be my bets.

EmptyForceOfChi

04-10-07, 03:55 PM

ok if thats true then fair enough,

peace.

D H

04-10-07, 05:09 PM

Because the telescopes aren't powerful enough to resolve the image? Because the moon's reflectiveness prevents visualization? Those would be my bets.

Your first guess is correct. Even Hubble does not have the power to see the Lunar landing sites.

From the Hubble FAQ, http://hubblesite.org/reference_desk/faq/all.php.cat=topten
Can Hubble see the Apollo landing sites on the Moon?
No, Hubble cannot take photos of the Apollo landing sites.
An object on the Moon 4 meters (4.37 yards) across, viewed from HST, would be about 0.002 arcsec in size. The highest resolution instrument currently on HST is the Advanced Camera for Surveys at 0.03 arcsec. So anything we left on the Moon cannot be resolved in any HST image. It would just appear as a dot.

GeoffP

04-10-07, 05:13 PM

That's interesting. Wonder if they'll make a telescope powerful enough to resolve it. Of course, that would really be a kind of lunar navel-gazing.

Janus58

04-10-07, 05:37 PM

1) Foot print near the lander are impossible due to lack of crater.

2) Crater has to be there below the lander if foot prints exists.

You have not presented any evidence to support this stance. How much thrust was the LEM producing at touchdown? How much dust would it have moved? How much dust was there to begin with, What pattern would this movement take under the conditions of a vacuum? You haven't considered any of these. Relying on "common sense" doesn't cut it. Too often common sense is just completely wrong.
If NASA wanted to fake it, they could just as easily faked a crater if one were required to maintain the hoax.
These footprints are "proof" of nothing.

3) The speed of Astronauts jumps (ascent and descent) are not consistent with 1/6 gravitational acceleration. They were jumping too quickly.
And the inertia of the the suit and backpack would prohibit such quick movements in low gravity.
According to what? Your "common sense" interpretation of how it "should" look?

4) The lunar lander was impossible as it had no jet nozels to maintain vertical balance, they had only side way nozels. A grave mistake by the hoaxers.

Anyway vertical landing is still not possible.
The descent engine was mounted on gymbals so that the direction it pointed could be changed. Constant adjustments kept the LEm balanced the same way that you can balance a upended stick on the palm of your hand. On top of that, the ascent stage had attitude rockets that could be used to help maintain stability.

5) Alien foot prints are visible in many photos (search the web, time mongers).

6) The photos are impossible , the frame accuracy is too good without a view finder. The height of the photos is inconsistent with regards to the camera mounted on chests.

7) They used too many lunar mockups, the original moon model photos are overwhelmingly pointing at fakery.

All of the rest fall in the catagory of assumed gross imcompetence on the part of the alleged Hoaxers.
As far as the photos go, you use the word "impossible" way too freely. How many Photos were actually taken? How many out-of-frame shots were just discarded? The astronauts also likely had quite a bit of practice with the cameras before the mission. It is also just silly to think that "faked" pictures wouldn't have been taken the same way as the real pictures were taken.

If NASA were have to faked it, you can be sure that they would have been thorough about it; everything would have been checked, double-checked and triple-checked. The types of mistakes that you point to as give-aways to a Hoax would have never made it through the screening process if that were what they actually were.

Pete

04-10-07, 08:01 PM

That's interesting. Wonder if they'll make a telescope powerful enough to resolve it. Of course, that would really be a kind of lunar navel-gazing.

It would need to be in Lunar orbit, like the Clementine orbiter (http://www.tass-survey.org/richmond/answers/lunar_lander.html#clem), which apparently spotted the Apollo 15 landing site.

James R

04-10-07, 08:12 PM

Singularity:

You're not actually serious about the moon landings being faked, are you? Would you really believe that thousands of people could keep that kind of secret for 30 years?

Anyway...

1) Foot print near the lander are impossible due to lack of crater.

2) Crater has to be there below the lander if foot prints exists.

The thrust from the lander's engines was nowhere near sufficient to create a crater. Foot prints in dust are not unusual.

3) The speed of Astronauts jumps (ascent and descent) are not consistent with 1/6 gravitational acceleration. They were jumping too quickly.

Low gravity doesn't affect the speed you can take off at when you jump. It only affects the rate of fall once you're in the air. Astronauts' muscles don't get weaker in low gravity, and that is what determines jump "speed".

And the inertia of the the suit and backpack would prohibit such quick movements in low gravity.

As I said, the gravity is irrelevant. Inertia is another matter, but you're simply wrong about that, as is evidenced by the film and TV footage.

4) The lunar lander was impossible as it had no jet nozels to maintain vertical balance, they had only side way nozels. A grave mistake by the hoaxers.

The lunar lander was festooned with nozzles pointing in all directions. Take a look at a diagram or photo of it.

5) Alien foot prints are visible in many photos (search the web, time mongers).

Aliens wearing spacesuit boots, with human-shaped feet? Funny that.

6) The photos are impossible , the frame accuracy is too good without a view finder.

Many photos were cropped by NASA prior to publication.

7) They used too many lunar mockups, the original moon model photos are overwhelmingly pointing at fakery.

You'll need to be more specific.

Want to add your comments to Moon landing conspiracy?

Read-Only

04-10-07, 08:42 PM

You have not presented any evidence to support this stance. How much thrust was the LEM producing at touchdown? How much dust would it have moved? How much dust was there to begin with, What pattern would this movement take under the conditions of a vacuum? You haven't considered any of these. Relying on "common sense" doesn't cut it. Too often common sense is just completely wrong.
If NASA wanted to fake it, they could just as easily faked a crater if one were required to maintain the hoax.
These footprints are "proof" of nothing. According to what? Your "common sense" interpretation of how it "should" look? The descent engine was mounted on gymbals so that the direction it pointed could be changed. Constant adjustments kept the LEm balanced the same way that you can balance a upended stick on the palm of your hand. On top of that, the ascent stage had attitude rockets that could be used to help maintain stability.

All of the rest fall in the catagory of assumed gross imcompetence on the part of the alleged Hoaxers.
As far as the photos go, you use the word "impossible" way too freely. How many Photos were actually taken? How many out-of-frame shots were just discarded? The astronauts also likely had quite a bit of practice with the cameras before the mission. It is also just silly to think that "faked" pictures wouldn't have been taken the same way as the real pictures were taken.

If NASA were have to faked it, you can be sure that they would have been thorough about it; everything would have been checked, double-checked and triple-checked. The types of mistakes that you point to as give-aways to a Hoax would have never made it through the screening process if that were what they actually were.

All very well said, Janus. I find it to be both amazing and amusing that people who claim to be thinkers cannot seem to think with any real depth or clarity and thus wind up accepting the absolute absurd.

Singularity, I honestly doubt you are old enough to have actually witnessed any of the Apollo missions. It was a simple matter of luck, but I along with many thousands of others had the privilege of seeing that very first launch in July, 1969. We were all standing on the mainland and could see the Cape clearly across the water.

While I fully realize the foregoing will mean absolutely nothing to you, the following should be enough to convince you how foolish your position on the matter really is.

The moment that craft rose high enough, every single country in the world - including the Russians - that was able to started tracking it. And they all knew exactly where it went. Not only that, but they also used radio direction-finding to monitor the transmissions coming to the Earth form the Moon. There was no faking that, either.

And if there had been even the slightest hint of a scam, the Russians would have SCREAMED bloody murder because they wanted very much to be the first there. But they immediately gave up their plans and never said one word about what the US had done. Do you know why? Because they observed it real time, KNEW it was real and knew that they had been beaten.

Regardless of all your photos and other arguments, it shouldn't take any more than the two paragraphs above to settle the whole issue.

Roman

04-11-07, 01:31 AM

How could these cosmonauts traverse the ether? What would protect from the harmful radiation and devouring beasts of madness that haunt between the spheres?

Singularity

04-11-07, 02:07 AM

....

And if there had been even the slightest hint of a scam, the Russians would have SCREAMED bloody murder because they wanted very much to be the first there. But they immediately gave up their plans and never said one word about what the US had done. Do you know why? Because they observed it real time, KNEW it was real and knew that they had been beaten.
....

Now this is really sad, i have already told u the answer so stop wasting time. USSR was controlled by illunimati, the idea is to make u people pay your taxes from both sides.

War on terror, whats that for, to use u like a milking cattle,
you do the job of grazing and keep paying taxes.

Communist Hamster

04-11-07, 02:20 AM

So in other words, the only way your conspiracy about the moon landing is real requires there to be another, far larger conspiracy? Occams razor anyone?

Singularity

04-11-07, 02:29 AM

You have not presented any evidence to support this stance. How much thrust was the LEM producing at touchdown? How much dust would it have moved? How much dust was there to begin with, What pattern would this movement take under the conditions of a vacuum? You haven't considered any of these. Relying on "common sense" doesn't cut it. Too often common sense is just completely wrong.

U r a free woman and u r free to choose to ignore facts.

If NASA wanted to fake it, they could just as easily faked a crater if one were required to maintain the hoax. Fortunately the arrogance of illuminati finally got them.

These footprints are "proof" of nothing. According to what? Your "common sense" interpretation of how it "should" look?

When u run the video twice the speed its clear that they are using rope/rubbers to make look things light. They should be 1/6 the slower.

The descent engine was mounted on gymbals so that the direction it pointed could be changed. Constant adjustments kept the LEm balanced the same way that you can balance a upended stick on the palm of your hand. On top of that, the ascent stage had attitude rockets that could be used to help maintain stability. Easier said than done, there were no vertical stabilizing jet nozels.

All of the rest fall in the catagory of assumed gross imcompetence on the part of the alleged Hoaxers.
As far as the photos go, you use the word "impossible" way too freely. How many Photos were actually taken? How many out-of-frame shots were just discarded? The astronauts also likely had quite a bit of practice with the cameras before the mission. It is also just silly to think that "faked" pictures wouldn't have been taken the same way as the real pictures were taken.

If NASA were have to faked it, you can be sure that they would have been thorough about it; everything would have been checked, double-checked and triple-checked. The types of mistakes that you point to as give-aways to a Hoax would have never made it through the screening process if that were what they actually were. Who had dreamed that time about a revolution called torrent technology could sweep humanity a thousand years in to the future in just 30 to 40 years.

Forget that, before 2001 9/11 there were no torrent, it was invented in 2002, now they are regretting killing 3000 own Americans. No not out of remorse, but due to the Exposze resulting from COLLECTIVE CONSCIOUSNESS on internet through torrent technologies. This is just the beginning.

Singularity

04-11-07, 02:36 AM

Moon mission minutes,

Apollo 11........1 EVA .....2 hours, 31 minutes......(151 minutes)
Apollo 12........2 EVAs.....7 hours, 50 minutes......(470 minutes)
Apollo 14........2 EVAs.....9 hours, 25 minutes......(565 minutes)
Apollo 15........3 EVAs...18 hours, 30 minutes....(1110 minutes)
Apollo 16........3 EVAs...20 hours, 14 minutes....(1214 minutes)
Apollo 17........3 EVAs...22 hours, 04 minutes....(1324 minutes)

Astoundingly high number of photos,

Apollo 11........... 121
Apollo 12........... 504
Apollo 14........... 374
Apollo 15..........1021
Apollo 16..........1765
Apollo 17..........1986

Just compare number of minutes and photos.

http://216.109.125.130/search/cache?p=moon+hoax+number+of+photos&ei=UTF-8&fr=moz2&u=www.aulis.com/skeleton.html&w=moon+hoax+number+photos+photo&d=eqm8_PmdOluY&icp=1&.intl=us

Seems like a vacation on moon but only for photo sessions. :D

Vega

04-11-07, 03:35 AM

Thought there were pyramids on the moon?

Singularity

04-11-07, 03:38 AM

Thought there were pyramids on the moon?

No thats on the other side of the moon , the Alien stuff.

In this thread we are discussing about human trips to moon.

Now think why there is no low orbit imaging satellite around moon and give us google.moon.com. And why is Russia too not doing it.

Singularity

04-11-07, 03:43 AM

...

The lunar lander was festooned with nozzles pointing in all directions. Take a look at a diagram or photo of it.

...

Fortunately they forgot the important one, ie. vertical nozels. No wonder Armstrong nearly died testing it on earth. The damn thing couldnt stay upright. Though the side nozels were useful to maneuver side ways.

What Diagram ?

Pete

04-11-07, 06:30 AM

Please, Singularity, you're embarrassing yourself. Why do you insist on regurgitating half-remembered factoids when you can easily check the real facts for yourself? Google is your friend.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/4a/LM_illustration_02.jpg/457px-LM_illustration_02.jpg
The Descent engine is probably what you're looking for. As well as the four sets of four reaction control thrusters.

The vehicle that crashed when Armstrong lost control due to low propellent pressure in the control thrusters and ejected was quite different. It was LLRV-1, a Lunar landing research vehicle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Landing_Research_Vehicle), essentially a flying simulator designed to provide practice for controlling a lander in Lunar conditions. It wasn't a test LEM, it was a training vehicle. A flight simulator, if you like.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/images/content/110132main_LLRV_pilotflight.jpg
LLRV-1 had at least 198 successful flights before its accident. Four other LLRVs and three LLTVs (training vehicles) were also flown many times.

NASA fact sheet (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/FactSheets/FS-026-DFRC.html)

Pete

04-11-07, 06:58 AM

This 1963 NASA document is interesting:
Application of LEM technology to NASA lunar landing research program (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19790076676_1979076676.pdf)
It's long, but worth reading, or at least skimming.

It implies that the LEM design was largely complete before the LLRVs were designed, and describes the reaction control thrusters:
3.1.1 Attitude Control System
The LEM attitude control system comprises 16 rocket nozzles arrayed 45 degrees from the principal horizontal plane axes as shown in Figure 4.2, and it is recommended that an equivalent arrangement be installed on the LLRV. While LEM handling characteristics could be achieved with a number of arrangements, assuming all the rockets worked, the LEM arrangement provides a high degree of redundancy. Present work indicates that adequate flying qualities are retained with certain nozzles inoperative and it is necessary to verify these conclusions under realistic conditions. Hence, an LLRV nozzle array equivalent to the LEM together with LEM jet command logic equations would permit flight checks with selected nozzles out.
The preliminary LEM logic equations are given in Reference 7.

There's lots more great stuff about the lander and the LLRV in that document. Read it!

Figure 4.2
http://pete.wildit.net.au/images/sciforums/Figure4_2.gif

D H

04-11-07, 07:10 AM

Now think why there is no low orbit imaging satellite around moon and give us google.moon.com.

http://www.cmf.nrl.navy.mil/clementine/clib/

Singularity

04-11-07, 09:01 AM

http://www.cmf.nrl.navy.mil/clementine/clib/

Excellent man, this is excellent. Thanks.

Singularity

04-11-07, 09:03 AM

Please, Singularity, you're embarrassing yourself. ...

Thanks for that greate info.

Its better to be embarrassed than to be an oblivion.

RoyLennigan

04-11-07, 09:28 AM

Now this is really sad, i have already told u the answer so stop wasting time.

Now this is the difference between us and you. We will not take anyone's word on the matter as truth, we have to find out for ourselves objectively. You, being the rebel adolescent most likely, seem have heard one or two dissenting amateur theorists and immediately agreed without looking further. Do you agree simply because you want to feel like you are smarter than someone?

Now that is sad. I really do feel sorry for you, Singularity.

Janus58

04-11-07, 10:19 AM

U r a free woman and u r free to choose to ignore facts.
Present some and I'll look at them.

Fortunately the arrogance of illuminati finally got them.
Pliable entity your "illuminati" , efficient enough to secretly control world governments when it convenient to your argument, yet bumbing fools when that is convenient to your argument.

When u run the video twice the speed its clear that they are using rope/rubbers to make look things light. They should be 1/6 the slower.
Just to make sure I'm following the argument. You're saying that, for instance, it should take 6 times longer for someone to jump to a given height and return to the ground on the moon, and that by running the video at double speed you can see that this didn't happen?

Easier said than done, there were no vertical stabilizing jet nozels.

Because none were needed, regardless of what your "common sense" tells you.

Pete

04-11-07, 11:12 AM

Its better to be embarrassed than to be an oblivion.

That's very commendable.

Singularity

04-11-07, 11:43 AM

Now this is the difference between us and you.

Oh, U mean u dont believe in boundaries, hey just stay away buddy , dont u try to stick to me, okay.

We will not take anyone's word on the matter as truth,

U mean not even NASA ?

we have to find out for ourselves objectively. Who do u think U r PETE ?

You, being the rebel adolescent most likely, seem have heard one or two dissenting amateur theorists and immediately agreed without looking further.

Nope i think there were 10293 theories to be precise.
Are u afraid of Rebels U son of illuminati. :D

Do you agree simply because you want to feel like you are smarter than someone?

What do u mean "want to feel", i dont have to do anything to feel that, thats why i come here in search of people who would put me down, Like James R, Janus58 or Pete now.

U have no idea man how dementing it feels to be among APEs all the time.

Now that is sad. I really do feel sorry for you, Singularity.

I agree, its sad, i hope there were more smart people around.

Singularity

04-11-07, 11:54 AM

Present some and I'll look at them.Pliable entity your "illuminati" , efficient enough to secretly control world governments when it convenient to your argument, yet bumbing fools when that is convenient to your argument.

No way , they are not fools, they are among the smartest people in the world, the only problem is that they are a breed thats Einsteins in matters of money, and thats a danger to good of the world. So when it comes to science or thinking of the future of planets well being or other peoples well being they always choose to remain at the top of the food chain instead.

Just to make sure I'm following the argument. You're saying that, for instance, it should take 6 times longer for someone to jump to a given height and return to the ground on the moon, and that by running the video at double speed you can see that this didn't happen?Because none were needed, regardless of what your "common sense" tells you.

This is why one must watch all those most downloaded torrent videos. When u run moon videos at double speed u will be amazed how earth real they look. U will have no doubt about their earthyness.

So i asumed that the video should be 6 times faster for the jumps to look earth like.

GeoffP

04-11-07, 12:05 PM

Fortunately the arrogance of illuminati finally got them.

I already told you that there was no such thing as us. I mean: them.

When u run the video twice the speed its clear that they are using rope/rubbers to make look things light. They should be 1/6 the slower.

? Based on what analysis?

Easier said than done, there were no vertical stabilizing jet nozels.

How do you know?

Who had dreamed that time about a revolution called torrent technology could sweep humanity a thousand years in to the future in just 30 to 40 years.

Forget that, before 2001 9/11 there were no torrent, it was invented in 2002, now they are regretting killing 3000 own Americans. No not out of remorse, but due to the Exposze resulting from COLLECTIVE CONSCIOUSNESS on internet through torrent technologies. This is just the beginning.

...Happeh?

Janus58

04-11-07, 01:04 PM

No way , they are not fools, they are among the smartest people in the world, the only problem is that they are a breed thats Einsteins in matters of money, and thats a danger to good of the world. So when it comes to science or thinking of the future of planets well being or other peoples well being they always choose to remain at the top of the food chain instead.
So just fools when it came to faking the Moon landing. Again, how convenient for you.

This is why one must watch all those most downloaded torrent videos. When u run moon videos at double speed u will be amazed how earth real they look. U will have no doubt about their earthyness.

So i asumed that the video should be 6 times faster for the jumps to look earth like.

This is what I meant by common sense being a sign of lazy thinking. If you had taken the time to study the matter rather than jumping to the conclusion that common sense led you to, you would have discovered that the time it takes to fall a given distance(starting at rest) on the Moon is only 2.45 times that of on the Earth, not 6 times.
The time it takes to fall from said height is proprotional to the squareroot of the acceleration due to gravity and is not directly related to said velocity.
So yes, if you double the speed of the video of someone on the moon, it will look a lot like someone on the Earth.

You are making the same type of "common sense" errors in your crater assertion and in your belief that the LEM, as designed, was unstable.

Singularity

04-11-07, 02:43 PM

...
If you had taken the time to study the matter rather than jumping to the conclusion that common sense led you to, you would have discovered that the time it takes to fall a given distance(starting at rest) on the Moon is only 2.45 times that of on the Earth, not 6 times.

This was not my conclusion, this was the analysis of many people, and the hoax related video that i have seen.

The time it takes to fall from said height is proprotional to the squareroot of the acceleration due to gravity and is not directly related to said velocity.
So yes, if you double the speed of the video of someone on the moon, it will look a lot like someone on the Earth.

Hmm, i take your word on this one, based on my previous experience on other issues. But the hoax video makers seems to be interested in selling the videos then.

You are making the same type of "common sense" errors in your crater assertion and in your belief that the LEM, as designed, was unstable.

Nope, its not only the common sense, theres also the sixth sense called the gut feeling.

I still believe that the LEM was faked, due to the way it ascends from moon in the Apollo 11 video. I still believe that a nozzle at the center wont work as we think it should.
And the reason is that there has to be an onboard computer installed to control those side nozzles. And i think they were hand controlled.

Oli

04-11-07, 02:52 PM

I still believe that a nozzle at the center wont work as we think it should.
Which shows that you know very little... It's already been explained to you.
And the reason is that there has to be an onboard computer installed to control those side nozzles. And i think they were hand controlled.
You THINK? Have you checked, asked, tried to find out? Nah, you go by "gut feeling" because then you don't have to think.

Oli

04-11-07, 03:16 PM

Less than five minutes on Google:

http://history.nasa.gov/computers/Ch2-3.html

NASA referred to this system with its two computers, identical in design but with different software, as the Primary Guidance, [31] Navigation, and Control System (PGNCS pronounced "pings"). The LEM had an additional computer...

darksidZz

04-11-07, 04:14 PM

I luV this thread, it's lasted longer than I expected.

Janus58

04-11-07, 06:04 PM

This was not my conclusion, this was the analysis of many people, and the hoax related video that i have seen.

But you bought it, didn't you? And you repeated here. You didn't bother to check it out because it supported something you already believed in. Where was your "gut-feeing" then?

Hmm, i take your word on this one, based on my previous experience on other issues. But the hoax video makers seems to be interested in selling the videos then.

No need to take my word, here's the math:
With 'D' being the distance traveled, 'a' the acceleration and 't' the time, you can find the distance traveled by
D= at²/2
this can be solve for t to get
t = sqrt(2D/a) = sqrt(2D)/sqrt(a)

And, yes, they are most likely just interested in your money.

Nope, its not only the common sense, theres also the sixth sense called the gut feeling.
Gut feeling is only reliable if you already understand the subject at hand. It's caused by half-remembered knowledge. And even then, it needs to be double-checked by doing actual research or math. Gut feeling by itself just doesn't cut it.

I still believe that the LEM was faked, due to the way it ascends from moon in the Apollo 11 video. I still believe that a nozzle at the center wont work as we think it should.
And the reason is that there has to be an onboard computer installed to control those side nozzles. And i think they were hand controlled.

Here, read this:

http://www.clavius.org/techlmstab.html

Pete

04-11-07, 06:47 PM

Who do u think U r PETE ?
Hi Singularity,
That was Roy, not me.
I don't mean to put you down. I know I have in the past, and I apologize. In future, I'll try to focus on what you say, and not make judgements about who you are.

navigator

04-11-07, 09:52 PM

Not only did they land on the moon, there is some evidence extraterrestrials met them on the moon. Google 'shadow government' or 'mj-12' or 'haarp'.;)

Singularity

04-12-07, 01:20 AM

...
And, yes, they are most likely just interested in your money.
....

Here, read this:

http://www.clavius.org/techlmstab.html

Thanks, its an excellent link.

They had computers back then is really impressive.

Singularity

04-12-07, 01:27 AM

Not only did they land on the moon, there is some evidence extraterrestrials met them on the moon. Google 'shadow government' or 'mj-12' or 'haarp'.;)

I will be back in a few days with this arsenal, http://www.meganova.org/details/145836.html

Singularity

04-12-07, 01:33 AM

Hi Singularity,
That was Roy, not me.
I don't mean to put you down. I know I have in the past, and I apologize. In future, I'll try to focus on what you say, and not make judgements about who you are.

Now, can u use your google skills and show me where they had kept that Land Rover, hope they didnt missed it.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/4a/LM_illustration_02.jpg/457px-LM_illustration_02.jpg

orcot

04-12-07, 01:41 AM

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/nl/thumb/3/33/Apollo_maanlander1.jpg/600px-Apollo_maanlander1.jpg
here you go. (so what it's in dutch ges 3 times what rover means)

I also found this on the loading of a rover (http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/a16.lrvload.html)

orcot

04-12-07, 01:50 AM

youtube link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gC0mON5aQ3c)
I gues there are more but you'l have to look for yourself for the exact one

Singularity

04-12-07, 02:25 AM

Well,

Thank you all.

Singularity

04-12-07, 03:00 AM

Hey just read the comment in this link,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuhdRjxxvrY&mode=related&search=

I was non stop laughing all the while i was checking those videos.

Orcot, good u r feeding the conspiracies.

Singularity

04-12-07, 03:09 AM

Janus58 this video is a treat for u.

I hope the video is real.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycYrcEEBIwM&mode=related&search=

John99

04-12-07, 03:31 AM

Hi thare,

earwg is a Russian site, i offer this for your personal education. DO NOT deface this site Singularity.

John99

04-12-07, 03:59 AM

look i posted this and singularity took off.

Oli

04-12-07, 06:41 AM

there is some evidence extraterrestrials met them on the moon.
No there isn't.

Google 'shadow government' or 'mj-12' or 'haarp'
Google the fruitcake sites and you can find anything you're dumb enough to believe in.

Janus58

04-12-07, 07:33 AM

Now, can u use your google skills and show me where they had kept that Land Rover, hope they didnt missed it.

Here's a video of a demo of the rover deployment.

http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/DukeParker.mov

navigator

04-12-07, 08:59 PM

No there isn't.

Google the fruitcake sites and you can find anything you're dumb enough to believe in.

Another arrogant government puppet.:rolleyes:

Singularity

04-13-07, 02:36 AM

http://www.cmf.nrl.navy.mil/clementine/clib/

Can u tell me why they are afraid to place a imaging satellite thats say, just 10 miles high from surface of the moon ?

D H

04-13-07, 06:06 AM

Can u tell me why they are afraid to place a imaging satellite thats say, just 10 miles high from surface of the moon ?

Lunar Prospector was in a low lunar orbit: 20 miles above the surface. Low lunar orbits are problematic, however: they aren't stable. Lunar Prospector had to do a orbit stabilization maneuver more often than once a month when it was orbiting at 20 miles altitude.

The Moon has been hammered by asteroids since its inception. Because the Moon doesn't have plate tectonics, these asteroids stay on the surface of the Moon. These mass concentrations ("mascons") make the Moon's gravitational field very lumpy.

From http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/06nov_loworbit.htm:
Near the end of the mission of Apollo 16, on April 24, 1972, just before returning back home to Earth, the three astronauts released one last scientific experiment: a small "subsatellite" called PFS-2 to orbit the Moon about every 2 hours.

The intention? Joining an earlier subsatellite PFS-1, released by Apollo 15 astronauts eight months earlier, PFS-2 was to measure charged particles and magnetic fields all around the Moon as the Moon orbited Earth. The low orbits of both subsatellites were to be similar ellipses, ranging from 55 to 76 miles (89 to 122 km) above the lunar surface.

Instead, something bizarre happened.

The orbit of PFS-2 rapidly changed shape and distance from the Moon. In 2-1/2 weeks the satellite was swooping to within a hair-raising 6 miles (10 km) of the lunar surface at closest approach. As the orbit kept changing, PFS-2 backed off again, until it seemed to be a safe 30 miles away. But not for long: inexorably, the subsatellite's orbit carried it back toward the Moon. And on May 29, 1972—only 35 days and 425 orbits after its release—PFS-2 crashed.

"Lunar mascons make most low lunar orbits unstable," says Konopliv. As a satellite passes 50 or 60 miles overhead, the mascons pull it forward, back, left, right, or down, the exact direction and magnitude of the tugging depends on the satellite's trajectory. Absent any periodic boosts from onboard rockets to correct the orbit, most satellites released into low lunar orbits (under about 60 miles or 100 km) will eventually crash into the Moon. PFS-2 released by Apollo 16 was simply a dramatic worst-case example. But even its longer-lived predecessor PFS-1 (released by Apollo 15) literally bit the dust in January 1973 after less than a year and a half.

Ophiolite

04-13-07, 09:10 AM

Can u tell me why they are afraid to place a imaging satellite thats say, just 10 miles high from surface of the moon ?What makes you feel they are afraid to do so? Why should they use any method of targeting the lunar landing sites just to satisfy the interests of groups of brain dead individuals whose personal lives is so bereft of meaning they have to find a conspiracy behind every door?

You have a problem believing we landed on the moon? I'll tell you what, that is your loss. You miss out on the greatest engineering achievement of all time, and on one of the greatest adventures that mankind has been involved in. And, in addition, you earn the contempt and pity (or more likely the indifference) of the rest of us.

Singularity

04-13-07, 09:19 AM

...

"Lunar mascons make most low lunar orbits unstable," says Konopliv. As a satellite passes 50 or 60 miles overhead, the mascons pull it forward, back, left, right, or down, the exact direction and magnitude of the tugging depends on the satellite's trajectory. Absent any periodic boosts from onboard rockets to correct the orbit, most satellites released into low lunar orbits (under about 60 miles or 100 km) will eventually crash into the Moon. PFS-2 released by Apollo 16 was simply a dramatic worst-case example. But even its longer-lived predecessor PFS-1 (released by Apollo 15) literally bit the dust in January 1973 after less than a year and a half.[/INDENT][/FONT]

Interesting, no wonder why only one side of the moon faces us all the time.

Hmm, this is an evidence of at least something indeed was send to Moon.

orcot

04-13-07, 11:19 AM

perhaps a future orion space ship will be able to make the pictures I doubt that NASA is going to go back to a previous landing site but the orbiter might have the equipment to make a picture.

D H

04-13-07, 12:14 PM

perhaps a future orion space ship will be able to make the pictures I doubt that NASA is going to go back to a previous landing site but the orbiter might have the equipment to make a picture.

The LRO will take high-resolution pictures of the Moon. The primary purpose of this mission is to accurately map potential Orion landing sites. Since it will fly over the old Apollo sites, it will capture images of those as well.

From http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/11jul_lroc.htm
In 2008 NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter will carry a powerful modern camera into low orbit over the Moon's surface. Its primary mission is not to photograph old Apollo landing sites, but it will photograph them, many times, providing the first recognizable images of Apollo relics since 1972.

The spacecraft's high-resolution camera, called "LROC," short for Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera, has a resolution of about half a meter. That means that a half-meter square on the Moon's surface would fill a single pixel in its digital images.

Apollo moon buggies are about 2 meters wide and 3 meters long. So in the LROC images, those abandoned vehicles will fill about 4 by 6 pixels.

orcot

04-13-07, 12:30 PM

a 4x6 pixels of white on a grey surface besides who know how much dust got kicked up and covers the hardware it could be tricky to spot. Annyway it will be somewhat nice to have men back on the moon if they have a good surface program. Somewhow I hope singularity would voluntair for the mission.

Singularity

04-13-07, 10:45 PM

...
Apollo moon buggies are about 2 meters wide and 3 meters long. So in the LROC images, those abandoned vehicles will fill about 4 by 6 pixels.

NASA technologies are pathetic.

Read-Only

04-13-07, 11:20 PM

NASA technologies are pathetic.

Really? Just remember that they didn't design the cameras for the purpose of satisfying the kook crowd - they have much better uses for them.:rolleyes:

Singularity

04-14-07, 01:03 AM

Really? Just remember that they didn't design the cameras for the purpose of satisfying the kook crowd - they have much better uses for them.:rolleyes:

Hey, google satellites are far far away compared to the moons, just look at the images of google maps.

TW Scott

04-14-07, 01:34 AM

Hey, google satellites are far far away compared to the moons, just look at the images of google maps.

What kook told you that? The Satellites that Googles uses for Google Earth are actually quite close to Earth. As in barely out of our atmosphere close.

Read-Only

04-14-07, 01:39 AM

Hey, google satellites are far far away compared to the moons, just look at the images of google maps.

Oh, wow!!!! Talk about completely ignorant!

Why don't you check into that little "mis-fact" on your own???

Singularity

04-14-07, 02:06 AM

What kook told you that? The Satellites that Googles uses for Google Earth are actually quite close to Earth. As in barely out of our atmosphere close.

So u mean moon has 50 miles thick atmosphere ?

TW Scott

04-14-07, 02:14 AM

So u mean moon has 50 miles thick atmosphere ?

Where did you get that? Oh right you took a word and played with it. Look at my statement again, read it, have your teacher read it and after they explain it to you you can apologize for such an ignorant post.

John99

04-14-07, 02:19 AM

Singularity is trolling.

Singularity

04-14-07, 04:02 AM

Singularity is trolling.

If i am trolling then y dont u BUMBLE head tell me why can we have more hires images of moon than of earth.

D H

04-14-07, 08:17 AM

orcot

04-14-07, 12:45 PM

Congress and its equivalent in other space-faring nations fund the development and operation of those satellites is because many of these needs for Earth imagery are connected with dollars.
Yeah and they chould actualy take funds from the moon program and reinvest them in those satelites. Because their aging with not enough replacements planned.

Janus58

04-14-07, 02:10 PM

Hey, google satellites are far far away compared to the moons, just look at the images of google maps.

I think you'll find that Google does not rely on satellites alone for its images. The higher resolution ones come from sources that provide aerial photograghy.

Singularity

04-14-07, 02:20 PM

Singularity, what makes you think we should have more hi-res images of the Moon than of the Earth?

We have satellites capable of taking hi-res images of the Earth because we need that imagery for many, many reasons. One important reason why Congress and its equivalent in other space-faring nations fund the development and operation of those satellites is because many of these needs for Earth imagery are connected with dollars.

That need doesn't exist yet for lunar imagery. Congress is not going to fund a hi-res lunar imager just to satisfy a bunch of woo-woos.

Ya sure i am a woo-woo and u r a retard , u beleive all that u r told, or else u wouldnt have argued so much about this issue

instead u should have told this in your initial post, but u couldnt because u r just a milking cow of the illuminati, u just graze for them.

Singularity

04-14-07, 02:25 PM

I think you'll find that Google does not rely on satellites alone for its images. The higher resolution ones come from sources that provide aerial photograghy.

I know that, and u know that we can recognize cars from the google satellite images (not the aerials ones). The images could have been even more high res, but its a policy adopted for protection from peeping tom/terrorists.

There is no doubt that the moon satellite could had even better at resolutions with no atmospheres and very low orbits but .....

D H

04-14-07, 04:49 PM

Ya sure i am a woo-woo

Tell me something I don't know.

and u r a retard

I didn't know that. However, since you have also cast that same aspersion upon Ben, all I can say is "thanks".

I argue about this because I find this woo-woo garbage is highly insulting to the people I work with every day who were involved in putting people on the Moon.

Read-Only

04-14-07, 04:54 PM

Tell me something I don't know.

I didn't know that. However, since you have also cast that same aspersion upon Ben, all I can say is "thanks".

I argue about this because I find this woo-woo garbage is highly insulting to the people I work with every day who were involved in putting people on the Moon.

No worries. Singularity can't possibly be for real. No one could be that dense and make it past their 10th birthday.:D

Singularity

04-14-07, 09:53 PM

... I work with every day who were involved in putting people on the Moon.

Its really sad that u work with the Nazzis.

Oli

04-14-07, 09:59 PM

I know that, and u know that we can recognize cars from the google satellite images (not the aerials ones)
Arrant nonsense, once more, cars and sometimes even registration plates are recognisable from aerial recce imagery
There is no doubt that the moon satellite could had even better at resolutions with no atmospheres and very low orbits but .....
but there is not the same need as there is for good imagery of the Earth and most likely not the budget

Singularity

04-15-07, 12:48 AM

Arrant nonsense, once more, cars and sometimes even registration plates are recognisable from aerial recce imagery

but there is not the same need as there is for good imagery of the Earth and most likely not the budget

Ya sure, they will have to manufacture a low cost imaging system specially for lowRes, since there is no need for it or ....

And the there is a billion dollar difference between the highRes and lowRes systems. I mean whats the use of using the same fabs , after all the public pays for NASA.

orcot

04-15-07, 04:01 AM

after all the public pays for NASA.

I believe NASA realy is strabed for cash.
http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/1/1a/NASA_budget_linegraph_BH.PNG
The graph is wors then it look, you only have to look at the orange line to get a clear picture of the destortian of the change in value of money. But to be more exact you should actually make a pie graphic showing the amount of rechearge done, it's proberly clear that in the 1960's their was little need in fundings to develop nano materials and complex ion engines, and offcourse their was no ISS other costs pretty much stayed the same. So you can see that NASA's isn't doeing to well

draqon

04-15-07, 04:07 AM

oh NASA don't die.
http://images.cafepress.com/product/35601293_240x240_Front.jpg

orcot

04-15-07, 04:32 AM

nothing that gets over 16.3 billion dollars anualy from the state is going to go bancrupt any time soon but their competence is severly reduced. Note that their isn't realy a good amount of money for funding NASA because if they got 10 trilion anualy then their still would be strapped to build something like project daedalus.
However their current budget seems quistionable to be able to fund a new series of moon mission and building a lunar base let alone be able to continue further mission like galileo and cassinie huyghens or even those rover missions and many others

Singularity

04-15-07, 06:38 AM

...
However their current budget seems quistionable to be able to fund a new series of moon mission and building a lunar base let alone be able to continue further mission like galileo and cassinie huyghens or even those rover missions and many others

Soi it seems like the announcements are for checking the public nerves. If they are too busy working to take notice of, just siphon the money.

orcot

04-15-07, 08:06 AM

siphon :bugeye: ?

Nikelodeon

04-15-07, 08:06 AM

with a hosepipe.

Communist Hamster

04-15-07, 09:03 AM

Soi it seems like the announcements are for checking the public nerves. If they are too busy working to take notice of, just siphon the money.What do the Illuminati need money for if they already own all the world banks?

Singularity

04-15-07, 12:52 PM

What do the Illuminati need money for if they already own all the world banks?

The idea is to make people work so much that they wont get time to be involved in govt matters. In long run they get used to this life style and loose all the skills to help their country.

Its called POWER.

For example they show no reaction even after knowing that they dont have to pay any taxes.

Total control.

Communist Hamster

04-15-07, 02:39 PM

The idea is to make people work so much that they wont get time to be involved in govt matters.So that's why you're unemployed.

So, to summarise: NASA is getting lots of money, but it's actually the Illuminati getting the money. They don't need the money, but they do need to take the money away from the people (taxes) so they have to work harder to get more money, so they keep their eyes out of the government.

Remind me why this is more plausible than "NASA is a government agency which explores space and needs money for it"?

pinkiss

04-15-07, 03:02 PM

people who create such threads should be banned.I mean whats the difference for you did they or did they not land,our technology reached a lot now and nasa is preparing for mars landing and dont see why they couldnt land on the moon back then.The only thing is money wich is the problem coz it costs fck*** billions for a such trip and cant be done every time like someone would like ,only to bring some rocks from there back then it was race for usa and russians wich could go to space faster and further.

orcot

04-15-07, 03:08 PM

As stupid as it sounds NASA has to set it's priorities right. The space shuttle in favor of more moonlandings was a big mistake (I still think the moon missions could have been a absolute succes with a different mission planner). The ISS altough interesting should not have been build with the current space budget or more countries like india korea china and japan chould have invested in it. Earth rechearge chould prioreties and basicly NASA chould act more like the russian space agency and work together on certain projects and also get over this stupid taboo against nuclaer propulsion especialy when out of earths atmosphere. And offcourse other propulsion methodes like solar sails and ion engine chould be used more often.

PS I believe that singularity isn't employed because she sometimes sounds like a teenage girl (no offensef I hope if it's not true it's the woowoo's and bubbleheads)

kwhilborn

04-15-07, 07:47 PM

If space travel isn't possible, then how come I have a satellite tv

p.s. We could go to the sun, but it'd have to be at night.

D H

04-15-07, 10:45 PM

As stupid as it sounds NASA has to set it's priorities right. The space shuttle in favor of more moonlandings was a big mistake

That doesn't sound very stupid. NASA will decommission the Shuttles in 2010 in part to pay the way for landing people on the moon in 2014.

Singularity

04-16-07, 01:07 AM

...

PS I believe that singularity isn't employed because she sometimes sounds like a teenage girl (no offensef I hope if it's not true it's the woowoo's and bubbleheads)

Sorry, but i am a rich dads girl and have my own business.

I am thinking about joining the illuminati, since i have started to realize why they do what they do, but i am still not sure if they have ethics and care for the environment.

Singularity

04-16-07, 01:10 AM

That doesn't sound very stupid. NASA will decommission the Shuttles in 2010 in part to pay the way for landing people on the moon in 2014.

Naa, this is the end of USA and NASA, the illuminati have shifted their business to China and India, and its easy to exploit people over there now, with 2 Billion dumb taxpayers. :D

Look at China Space technologies and shockingly India is planning moon missions.

Communist Hamster

04-16-07, 04:33 AM

They don't have experience, and Chinas space program is using technology borrowed from Roskosmos.

orcot

04-16-07, 06:09 AM

borrowed some would use other perhaps more correct wordings but your right that the Chinese are ..."using" a lot of Russian technology to increase their space capabilities for a fraction of the development costs.
Annyway besides the political and linguistic chanllenges on how to describe the Chinese space program, I can understand why americans are somewhat warry to coorperate with the Chinese on space projects.

Oli

04-16-07, 06:38 AM

I am thinking about joining the illuminati
We don't want you.

Singularity

04-16-07, 07:21 AM

We don't want you.

When i say i will Join , it means i am in. If someone dont like me, i will make sure he goes.

Read-Only

04-16-07, 07:54 AM

When i say i will Join , it means i am in. If someone dont like me, i will make sure he goes.

Ha-ha-ha!! What would you do - scare them to death by not wearing makeup?:D

orcot

04-16-07, 08:01 AM

by a secret conspiraty where all illuminaty now. This happened on new year eve of 2000 because some scientist said that afther Y2K the human pancreas would stop functioning unless the worlds goverments paid him a massive rechearge funds and he came up that we chould turn up all illuminaty. Nothing much changed only perhaps some some extra fluor in the tooth past for obvious reasons.
PS is this going of topic?

Oli

04-16-07, 10:03 AM

orcot

04-16-07, 02:57 PM

You mean the entirely serious one about whether or not the moon landings took place?
I believe I got the same opinion on weather the moon landing occured like most people. But the fact that they lost the original tapes and destroyed the direct evidence (by chemical altering the lunar samples through allowing them to react with corrosiv oxygen). The lack of imaginative surface planning. I do believe you can have a decent conversation because let's face it they fucked up and they fucked up pretty darn bad. A 10 For effort minus a million for good thinking

Singularity

04-17-07, 03:01 AM

Off topic? You mean the entirely serious one about whether or not the moon landings took place?
This thread should have started in Pseudoscience (along with the 9999 others on this question) and finished in the cesspool.

Its quite obvious that u looked the other way when i gave u the youtube links.

Talking about morons, illuminati wants people like u to exist in vast numbers; who work for them free of charge.

Singularity

04-17-07, 03:04 AM

I believe I got the same opinion on weather the moon landing occured like most people. But the fact that they lost the original tapes and destroyed the direct evidence (by chemical altering the lunar samples through allowing them to react with corrosiv oxygen). The lack of imaginative surface planning. I do believe you can have a decent conversation because let's face it they fucked up and they fucked up pretty darn bad. A 10 For effort minus a million for good thinking

Seems like they got rid of all the problematic materials.

I hope some patriot has kept copies with him and releases them on internet.

This will be very good for world of science , it will fuel new interest and new race to reach the moon for the first time.

Oli

04-17-07, 07:42 AM

Its quite obvious that u looked the other way when i gave u the youtube links.
And that sums up your problem in one sentence... what is "obvious" to you is not, in actual fact, true.

orcot

04-17-07, 07:57 AM

http://www-curator.jsc.nasa.gov/lunar/lnews/lnjul94/hist25.htm

In the end you can only be thankfull that their are people like Singularity. Their constant bitching on in logic sence unreasanble demands has "clearly?" greatly contributed to the protection and preservation on lunar achievements mostly in the case for the returned lunar samples. Without the bitching that their might be evil microbes on the moon that would kill us all then NASA would proberly never have made the investments to store at least store some of the lunar samples (far from all) in vacuum chambres. So without that the samples would have degrated even further then afther being stored in a oxygen rich enviroment for 3 days (they where stored with minimal protection in the return capsule)
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/30jan_smellofmoondust.htm
Even NASA admit/says that Moondust on Earth has been "pacified." All of the samples brought back by Apollo astronauts have been in contact with moist, oxygen-rich air. Any smelly chemical reactions (or evaporations) ended long ago.

Singularity

04-17-07, 12:50 PM

http://www.nasm.si.edu/collections/imagery/apollo/AS11/images/S69-42583.jpg

Can anyone tell how did they take this video footage ?

Another small rover for the purpose ?

Communist Hamster

04-17-07, 12:55 PM

There was a video camera mounted on the leg of the lander.

2inquisitive

04-17-07, 11:14 PM

Read-Only

04-17-07, 11:28 PM

Actually, there was a TV camera mounted in the Modularized Equipment Storage Assembly near the bottom of the lunar module. It was deployed by a small door opening up on the module, then a bracket which extended the TV camera to a position pointed at the ladder from which Armstrong descended.

That is quite correct. I happen to know a retired engineer who worked on the MESA - it's hydraulics, in fact. At the time, he was employed by the Grumman company which had the contract and later became Northrop Grumman.

James R

04-17-07, 11:30 PM

Added that to this: Moon landing conspiracy

GeoffP

04-17-07, 11:47 PM

Its quite obvious that u looked the other way when i gave u the youtube links.

Talking about morons, illuminati wants people like u to exist in vast numbers; who work for them free of charge.

...Happeh?

GeoffP

04-17-07, 11:59 PM

When i say i will Join , it means i am in. If someone dont like me, i will make sure he goes.

Dear Singularity,

Thankyou for submitting your application to join the Illuminati.

As you know, there are only a certain number of posts available in our organization at any given time. Openings are either 'grandfathered' in as senior Officers experience their final molt before being returned to Alpha Centauri, or are transferred back to fight the insurrection on Zebulon Prime, or are executed by their immediate supervisors for actual or perceived failures in the execution of their duties, or just to make a point.

We therefore regret to inform you that we have selected from among the other candidates for the position in our Organization. Your dossier unfortunately lacks several core subjects considered essential for Illuminati Overlordship, including: Creatively Demonic Finance, Basic Human Social Skills and Advanced Tinfoil Hat Weaving. Our decision was a difficult one: there were many very diabolically clever, evil and/or insane candidates for the position and the fact of your consideration suggests a commendable degree of lunacy on your part.

We thank you for your interest in the Illuminati and we wish you great fortune in all future bids to join a world-dominating organization. Please eat this message.

Sincerely,

GeoffP
Lizardoid UnderCommander (2B)

Singularity

04-18-07, 12:15 AM

...Happeh?

Who is this crap Happeh ?

First they said i was Anomalous ,now this retard.

Read-Only

04-18-07, 12:20 AM

Who is this crap Happeh ?

First they said i was Anomalous ,now this retard.

Well, perhaps if you tried developing a little intelligence they wouldn't keep confusing you with those dummies. :D

Singularity

04-18-07, 12:23 AM

Added that to this: Moon landing conspiracy

Look at this JamesR , no stars :D

http://www.space.com/images/schmitt_flag_03.jpg

We can understand that the glare of other objects will limit us from getting stars in the photos.

But not a single Photo pointed at moon Sky, Thats amazing.

There is no way i wont take a good snap from moon of sweet Earth thats above my head. But they forgot Earth once they found the moon. ;)

I am sure we should see the brightest stars with cameras that good when pointed at space.

Read-Only

04-18-07, 12:26 AM

Look at this JamesR , no stars :D

http://www.space.com/images/schmitt_flag_03.jpg

We can understand that the glare of other objects will limit us from getting stars in the photos.

But not a single Photo pointed at moon Sky, Thats amazing.

There is no way i wont take a good snap from moon of sweet Earth thats above my head. But they forgot Earth once they found the moon.

I am sure we should see the brightest stars with cameras that good when pointed at space.

Heh! Don't know the first thing about film exposure time, do you?:bugeye:

Singularity

04-18-07, 12:26 AM

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/a12.DPphoto.jpg

Inorder to land this close near another probe previously launched , one would require a GPS intalled in Moon Sky first.

Singularity

04-18-07, 12:33 AM

OK, HERE IS A BIG BLUNDER BY THE HOAXTERS.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a17/AS17-134-20387.jpg

A FINAL NAIL IN THE COFFIN.

We can see the earth behind this AstroNot, do u think this historic image from NASA is possible on real moon ? :shrug:

Singularity

04-18-07, 01:12 AM

http://gtresearchnews.gatech.edu/reshor/rh-ss03/sp-main5.jpg

Hmm, they got it right in this photo. Same mission different Earths :p

Communist Hamster

04-18-07, 01:53 AM

Who is this crap Happeh ?

First they said i was Anomalous ,now this retard.You are anomalous. There is no difference between your posting styles, and you had the same avatar at one point. You were also Wounded Iraqi Muslim.

Singularity

04-18-07, 01:54 AM

http://www.clavius.org/img/bootspot.jpg

http://www.clavius.org/img/bootspot-cu.jpg

Seems like Niel Armstrong used a Flash to take this snap. :D

Singularity

04-18-07, 01:55 AM

You are anomalous. There is no difference between your posting styles, and you had the same avatar at one point. You were also Wounded Iraqi Muslim.

And U r George Bush hence u should be indited for killing millions. :p

2inquisitive

04-18-07, 03:21 AM

http://gtresearchnews.gatech.edu/reshor/rh-ss03/sp-main5.jpg

Hmm, they got it right in this photo. Same mission different Earths :p

Hmm, different missions, different astronauts. Alan Shepard was the only Apollo astronaut I know of to wear the red armbands as in your previous image. He was on the Apollo 14 mission.

Oli

04-18-07, 07:09 AM

Inorder to land this close near another probe previously launched , one would require a GPS intalled in Moon Sky first.

Or alternatively they could have just followed the same flight profile and made final adjustments before landing. What the hell makes you think GPS is necessary?

orcot

04-18-07, 07:42 AM

I hope you realise that this picture is false
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/a12.DPphoto.jpg
it was composed by adding these 2 photo's
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/37/GPN-2000-001316.jpg/685px-GPN-2000-001316.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/d/d4/Surveyor_3_Conrad.jpeg/600px-Surveyor_3_Conrad.jpeg
You can actualy see where that rectractable ?thingy? is been erased on the second astronauts right feed where a nice piece of the shadows is also erased and if you look good you can see the erased piece in the leg but that's white on white so the shadow is easier to spot

First of all they landed in a lunar dumb yard Next to the Surveyor 3 there was also luna 5 and ranger 7 in the relative neigberhood.
So the area was wel known. The descent was mainly automatic, with only a few manual corrections by Conrad (the pilot)

GPS was certainly not necesairy (besides Earth GPS wouldn't work on the moon it would need it's own system and GPS was only inveted years later) take the buran for example that was lifted into space and returned and landed on autopilot.

funny facts where Conrads first words on the moon: "Whoopie! Man, that may have been a small one for Neil, but that's a long one for me."
And the fact that one of them actually managed to sneeze on the Surveyor 3

John99

04-18-07, 08:01 AM

You are anomalous. There is no difference between your posting styles, and you had the same avatar at one point. You were also Wounded Iraqi Muslim.

yeah, and i think i may have been the first to point that out. When i was here as someone else i got anomalous to go ballistic....aaahhh that was fun.

orcot

04-18-07, 08:37 AM

a nice link (http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo_gallery.html) for apollo pictures

Singularity

04-18-07, 08:58 AM

I hope you realise that this picture is false
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/a12.DPphoto.jpg
it was composed by adding these 2 photo's...

that was not my question, but anyways i trust NASA just like u do :D , since this photo is on NASA site.:p

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/a12.DPphoto.jpg

orcot

04-18-07, 10:04 AM

Inorder to land this close near another probe previously launched , one would require a GPS intalled in Moon Sky first.
Yeah but it's sort of hard to explain the maneuverability of a LEM. Partially because I got no ID how to fly something like that but like I said a lot of space craft landed in the area and that sort of means that there where some good detail of the terrain where they could focus on.

Annyway what do you think of this article (http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/tm_objectid%3D17435592&method%3Dfull&siteid%3D66633&headline%3Dman-on-moon--we-saw-a-ufo--name_page.html) :)

edit

Here is a youtube version (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XlkV1ybBnHI) with buzz aldrin talking in it. Make of it what you wish. I think the old man yust wants attention for space missions.

Loose from that the earth is darn pretty from the moon it even looks a bid like a gas giants. I wonder if we ever going to get such a accurate picture from a exo planet

Singularity

04-18-07, 10:45 AM

Yeah but it's sort of hard to explain the maneuverability of a LEM. Partially because I got no ID how to fly something like that but like I said a lot of space craft landed in the area and that sort of means that there where some good detail of the terrain where they could focus on...

Thats all possible only with auto pilot, even then its very difficult in zero G and that kinda alien environment.

At little jet burst here and a little there makes a huge variation on the end result of a space craft, thats why people use GPS even for airliners.

orcot

04-18-07, 10:47 AM

perhaps a little bid explanation on that last part I always liked the hubble space telescope and I'm somewhat curious on how exo planets and potential planets with life would look like (with future camera's hopefully with a resolution of the earth from the moon or better). All things considering I am proberly going to see the next couple of generations of space telescopes. So if there is any life in the closest 50 LY then I'll proberly eventually know. However considering NASA's anoying plans to return to the moon and budget cuts that ended many (more) interesting missons like the Terrestrial Planet Finder then I can somewhat understand that the're trying to beef up the old moon story to make the ID sexy again, but using aliens and things like peaks of eternal light is going a bit to far.

Oli

04-18-07, 12:37 PM

Thats all possible only with auto pilot, even then its very difficult in zero G and that kinda alien environment.
Total and utter bollocks, those guys trained for a very long time and had some provision for manual control had it ever been needed.

At little jet burst here and a little there makes a huge variation on the end result of a space craft, thats why people use GPS even for airliners.
Again, utter bollocks - or do you believe no-one flew airliners before GPS arrived?
GPS is used in civilian applications because it is available and it takes a lot of donkey-work out of navigating, but it is NOT a sine qua non.

Singularity

04-18-07, 12:43 PM

Total and utter bollocks, those guys trained for a very long time and had some provision for manual control had it ever been needed.

Again, utter bollocks - or do you believe no-one flew airliners before GPS arrived?
GPS is used in civilian applications because it is available and it takes a lot of donkey-work out of navigating, but it is NOT a sine qua non.

Hey chill down man, and show some respect to the whistleblowers who risk their lives saying these things.

Now watch this and shut up, if u cant live with the truth then u r free to die, fight it or fake it, choice is yours.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUE&mode=related&search=

Just look at the fast moving feet in this one

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSHFekcXhNQ

now wonder why they had such a hardtime bending or sitting down (something pulling up ?)

Singularity

04-18-07, 01:09 PM

I always suspected something fishy in this pic, now i know, i was so dumb not to notice it. Obviously there are some people out there smarter than me :rolleyes: .

http://www.colorado.edu/physics/phys1110/phys1110_fa03/images/man_on_moon.jpg

So here we go,

The sun seems to discriminate between the astronot and the background, look how sun meticulously spotlights the astronot compared to the darker moonscape behind him.

And look behind him near the edge of moonland; do u think moon is so small that the horizon will be at walking distance, look at the shiny object at the left side of this photo, its so near to the horizon.

Read-Only

04-18-07, 01:28 PM

SIngularity, do you derive some sort of perverse pleasure of appearing to be THE most stupid person alive???? :bugeye:

Singularity

04-18-07, 01:48 PM

SIngularity, do you derive some sort of perverse pleasure of appearing to be THE most stupid person alive???? :bugeye:

Seems like u have some kinda syndrome to focus on topic at hand, u talk all shit expect about the topic.

Let me guess ,
u r a highschool dropout and have severe epileptic problems, right ?

Read-Only

04-18-07, 02:19 PM

Seems like u have some kinda syndrome to focus on topic at hand, u talk all shit expect about the topic.

Let me guess ,
u r a highschool dropout and have severe epileptic problems, right ?

Wrong on every single thing.

And going back on topic, I guess you're just plain stupid in your childish beliefs. You've been proven wrong here on every single point you've tried to raise yet you keep hanging on. Now THAT'S the classical definition of true stupidity!!!

orcot

04-18-07, 03:17 PM

Communist Hamster

04-18-07, 03:27 PM

The vacuum does peculiar things to ones perception of the horizon. With no atmosphere to haze of otherwise distort the view, it can be hard to tell what is a rock and what is a far distant hill. I read an account of one of the astronauts who used the moon buggies, he recalled driving for a few minutes towards what he initially thought was an interesting but small boulder, and finding out that it was in fact several times his size.

orcot

04-18-07, 03:48 PM

The vacuum does peculiar things to ones perception of the horizon
Yeah I also heard that someone ones told my that because the sky is blue the sun apears noticable greenish when viewed from space. But then again he was proberly yust acting clever.

James R

04-18-07, 08:00 PM

Singularity:

I've updated Moon landing conspiracy again to incorporate your latest points.

Thanks for your help.

Singularity

04-18-07, 11:21 PM

Wrong on every single thing.

And going back on topic, I guess you're just plain stupid in your childish beliefs. You've been proven wrong here on every single point you've tried to raise yet you keep hanging on. Now THAT'S the classical definition of true stupidity!!!

Now i have started to feel pity for u.

I want people to prove me wrong so that i feel that there r less dumb people in this world. But in your case it seems u r here only for one thing, seducing your EGO.

Singularity

04-18-07, 11:24 PM

Singularity:

I've updated Moon hoax conspiracy again to incorporate your latest points.

Thanks for your help.

Thanks but it seems illuminati deleted that page, all i can see is this :

Moon hoax conspiracy
From Science Encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

There is currently no text in this page, you can search for this page title in other pages or edit this page.

2inquisitive

04-19-07, 01:12 AM

Thanks but it seems illuminati deleted that page, all i can see is this :

Moon hoax conspiracy
From Science Encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

There is currently no text in this page, you can search for this page title in other pages or edit this page.

Here is a working link, nothing 'deleted':
http://www.sciforums.com/encyclopedia/Moon_landing_conspiracy

Singularity

04-19-07, 02:59 AM

Here is a working link, nothing 'deleted':
http://www.sciforums.com/encyclopedia/Moon_landing_conspiracy

Thanks James R,

I appreciate your efforts towards maintaining the Honor and Integrity of those astronauts and others involved who must have really risked their lives for humankind by going to the moon.

On that note heres something beautiful for all of u to cherish, trust me its worth watching if u hadnt,
i love this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOLa6BOFu3A&mode=related&search=

Singularity

04-19-07, 04:20 AM

But then JamesR,

I wonder how u will feel after watching this,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RXrKRuNvNU&mode=related&search=

Just dont commit suicide after watching it, i dont want to be responsible for it. Watch the congress spilling all the beans .... hope u all dont hate Donald Rumsfield after this.

orcot

04-19-07, 05:17 AM

I stopped afther less then 20 seconds mainly to safe my download volume but the shots are far to short, their placed so to form a fake story. Pretty much in the same way like Chef's outtake from south park.
BTW did you see my link from buzz aldrin abouth the aliens he saw during the apollo mission that was most definitly him saying it.

My gues is the old man is starting to get a bid nuts or he's twisting the truth a bid to make the whole thing of going back to the moon a bid more interesting.

I'm saying twisting because the did saw something and they also made this public in 1969 in the technical crew debriefing link (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/a11tcdb.html#060) in chapter 6 article 6.40

The first unusual thing that we saw I guess was 1 day out or something pretty close to the moon. It had a sizeable dimension to it, so we put the monocular on it.

Collins
How'd we see this thing? Did we just look out the window and there it was?
...
Armstrong
Or really two rings.

Aldrin
Yes.

Armstrong
Two rings. Two connected rings.

Annyway it goes on a lot longer describing how it looked like and what it could possible be. they however never called it a ufo. I'm guessing that their firs ID was right and that is was a part of the metal that covered the rocket during launch.

Singularity

04-19-07, 06:04 AM

.....

Forget the ufos, they are for generating revenue for moon like missions,

instead watch this,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xiVXd6lRUz0

orcot

04-19-07, 06:41 AM

Bart sibrel... I know that name
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buzz_Aldrin#Confrontation_with_Bart_Sibrel
In the end buzz never filed a law suit but Sibrel did against buzz however Beverly Hills police and the city's prosecutor declined to file charges. (Mr Sibrel was a little more rude then the short movie indicates and got hit by buzz afther getting a bible shoved in it's face and be named a "a coward, a liar, and a thief".)

So the same person who wilingly says he saw UFO's is greatly offended when you call the lunar landing a hoax. (that's his opinion not mine)

Bart sibril claims that altough the apollo capsule was launched in never left low orbit this is in contradiction with foto's published showing both the inside of the capsule and the earth far from earth orbit

orcot

04-19-07, 06:50 AM

Forget the ufos, they are for generating revenue for moon like missions
I do agree that the ufo story is most likly a trick to make people more interested in the moon afther all buzz has shown to do quit a lot to get his share of the money from apollo and his proberly convinced enough of the inportance of manned space flight to make this up.

Oli

04-19-07, 07:27 AM

Hey chill down man, and show some respect to the whistleblowers who risk their lives saying these things.
Yup, it's so risky they post everywhere they can, and keep posting and none have died yet. Woo-woo.

Now watch this and shut up, if u cant live with the truth then u r free to die, fight it or fake it, choice is yours.
Fight it or fake it? Halfwit.

Okay, the videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQ...elated&search=
No jump commensurate with 1/6th gravity? Oh shit there's the proof. NOT. For one thing, notice how those guys move round? Stiff legged because of the internal/ external pressure difference between their suits and the surrounding vacuum - they don't have the flexibility to get a decent jump, the suits were "hard" suits (NASA over-rode the general consensus of the astronauts very early in the space programme), and lacked full movement.

Second video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSHFekcXhNQ
Pulled up by wires? Hardly, the pressure differential would make the suit straighten up, moving the astronaut faster than normal muscle movement would do it. Tangled in the wires? Or just maybe it was all the junk round his feet that could be seen in the video.

now wonder why they had such a hardtime bending or sitting down (something pulling up ?)
Or the pressure differential trying to keep the suit at maximum volume and resisting bending.

You're not even credible as a woo-woo. You parrot other people's "conspiracies" and can't even be bothered to work things out for yourself.

Jeremyhfht

04-19-07, 07:41 AM

This is a very "simplistic" topic. More like a cess pool for half-minded conspiracy theorists.

Anyone proficient in using google, or even filming, knows that the moon landing can't be discerned as "fake" from the footage. Also the fact that NASA has released a BOOK on the footage alone, which rebuttals key points. All of which in line with the reality of what the moon is (or would be) like. Which is in line with the footage.

Overall: There's a high chance it did happen. Either way, NASA is a team of VERY ADVANCED SCIENTISTS. It wont be found out as a "conspiracy" by your random super-fat imbecile that thinks he knows how the world works. It wont mess up if it decides to fake something. The few hundreds of scientists on the project sort of ensure that.

To give a more educated reason for even doubting the landing: The technology at the time was extremely lacking. NASA was lucky. Immensely so. The only reason NASA hasn't planned more manned-space missions, is that they now fully know the extent of the danger. Not very willing to rely on blind-luck anymore, either.

Singularity

04-19-07, 07:56 AM

Yup, it's so risky they post everywhere they can, and keep posting and none have died yet. Woo-woo.....

And does this make me a woowoo ?

http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1361059&postcount=195

Or did u realize that u r a cattle and nothing more; like a battery in the movie Matrix,

your life is a shame.

Oli

04-19-07, 08:13 AM

Once again you show a marvellous, almost impossible, lack of understanding.
The point was that the people who are "risking their lives" post all over, not YOU. All you do is parrot crap that others have come up with, get shown you are wrong, due to your ineffable stupidity, and move onto another so-called fact without acknowledging that you were wrong.
That is what makes me say you're a woo-woo.
What actually makes you a woo-woo is your credulous idiocy, lack of knowledge of physics, engineering, astronautics and other topics which you comment so frequently on with no basis in reality, and consistently fail to correct, and the comfort you take in the "knowledge" that anyone who bothers to think is "cattle for the Illuminati" (who, by the way, do NOT exist: GeoffP's lizard invasion notwithstanding, of course).

Singularity

04-19-07, 08:39 AM

U mean Donald Rumsfield is a WooWoo ?

I am just repeating what he has said in this video,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RXrKRuNvNU&mode=related&search=

ie. If the video is still online.

Oli

04-19-07, 09:10 AM

U mean Donald Rumsfield is a WooWoo ?
Depends. If he actually said it in the context that the video CLAIMS he did, the yes, he is a woo-woo. But the editing is done so that the interviewees could have been talking about anything at all..

I am just repeating what he has said in this video,
QED: you repeat what others say, without considering source, feasibility, credibility or anything else. If it suits your credulous, uninformed agenda, because you WANT to believe that crap, then you accept it.
It's strange how you "question"* science but don't apply the same level of doubt to the things you want to be true.

* I say "question" but you don't do that either: you make some ridiculous insupportable statement, e.g. Thats all possible only with auto pilot, even then its very difficult in zero G and that kinda alien environment. and leave it at that - no explanation of why you believe that, just your own stupid prejudices.

orcot

04-19-07, 10:28 AM

Also the fact that NASA has released a BOOK on the footage alone
Do you have a link on that?

Annyway the most obvious proof for the apollo landings are in the independed observations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings)

Singularity

04-19-07, 12:10 PM

Do you have a link on that?

Annyway the most obvious proof for the apollo landings are in the independed observations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings)

Hi Orkot,

there is nothing new in that link, all the tracking they talk about is not good proof. If i want to fake it then i will retransmit recordings from the craft to the earth.

BTW that Oli can learn a lot from your attitude, I hope he/she matures someday.

Singularity

04-19-07, 12:13 PM

Bart sibrel...

So the same person who wilingly says he saw UFO's is greatly offended when you call the lunar landing a hoax. (that's his opinion not mine)

...

Its shows that he is a compulsive liar. He lies about the UFO and the Landings (from my point of view).

Singularity

04-19-07, 12:19 PM

actualy singularity you chould think your post a bid more through. I'm not going to make you gues how far the horizon is but here on earth a average person that's 1M70 can see 4.7 km far (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon) the moons radius is 0.273 times earth so I gues 1.28km chould be a good bed. Aftherall the horizon can't be everywhere like in bolivia
http://www.treorchy.net/magazine/Bolivia.jpg

Nice pic, but this pic is not a land pic, things have to get smaller as we look further.

The below pic has an man made shiny object placed very near the horizon; and u forgot the huge spotlight, the entire surface should be lit with uniform brightness.

http://www.colorado.edu/physics/phys1110/phys1110_fa03/images/man_on_moon.jpg

Singularity

04-19-07, 12:26 PM

...
It's strange how you "question"* science but don't apply the same level of doubt to the things you want to be true.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/a12.DPphoto.jpg

What did u say about this NASA pic, i cant remember.
Or did u ignore it on purpose for your illuminati agenda ?

* I say "question" but you don't do that either: you make some ridiculous insupportable statement, e.g. and leave it at that - no explanation of why you believe that, just your own stupid prejudices.

U know what , your problem is that u focus less on the problem and more one me, so i suggest u reconsider your career in science.

orcot

04-19-07, 02:18 PM

but this pic is not a land pic No it is ectualy on land (bolivian salt dessert or something) beatiful you have to see it if you can.

The below pic has an man made shiny object placed very near the horizon
I see rocks and even if the've left stuff there

And abouth the picture with the 2 astronauts look at the shadows of the right legs (from your side it's the left one) of the most right astronaut. You will notice a unfilled hap in the shadow you may also notice the surprisenly low ress on this pic?

Jeremyhfht

04-19-07, 07:36 PM

Before this madness continues, I'd like to make a point that there are many "conspiracy theorists" out there that are literally making photo's up.

If I could post links, I would, as I know of a website which almost perfectly mimic's JPL's. Simply so the guy would make other websites to discredit NASA.

Kind of ironic. The real conspiracies lie with the conspiracy theorists!

Actually, let me get around that stupid link barrier for just a moment (to prove my case):
marsrovers.
jpl.nasa
.gov/

For the real JPL website, google "JPL".

Singularity

04-20-07, 03:22 AM

Jeremyhfht

04-20-07, 04:10 AM

and...there's supposed to be some point to that picture?

Btw, that also appears to be a fake NASA website. NASA is NASA.GOV not HQ.NASA.GOV.

It would appear, sir, you've been scammed by another fake placed conspiracy-attraction website. No need to feel ashamed, they duplicate the NASA websites almost perfectly. I'd nearly fall for if it wasn't for the fact I have fingers, and can use search engines.

Singularity

04-20-07, 06:55 AM

Singularity

04-20-07, 07:10 AM

Lets see if u can spot http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/apollo.html

Above Link within this one http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/apollo/index.html

Seems like illuminati has their enemies within.

Resistance is alive and Kicking !

Oli

04-20-07, 07:17 AM

What did u say about this NASA pic, i cant remember.
Actually I said nothing about that picture - one picture, provenance unkown, says nothing one way or the other.
Or did u ignore it on purpose for your illuminati agenda ?
The ever-present cry of the woo-woo, if you don't agree with my half-baked uninformed speculation then you "work for them".
U know what , your problem is that u focus less on the problem and more one me, so i suggest u reconsider your career in science.
Focus on you? Hardly, just trying to correct your Insufferable Idiocy. You ARE the problem.
"Career in science" - another unwarranted assumption on your part...

Janus58

04-20-07, 07:39 AM

The below pic has an man made shiny object placed very near the horizon; and u forgot the huge spotlight, the entire surface should be lit with uniform brightness.

http://www.colorado.edu/physics/phys1110/phys1110_fa03/images/man_on_moon.jpg

Once again, you are letting your "common sense" lead you astray.

Even though the surface is uniformly lit by the sun, it would not appear to be a uniform brightness as seen form the vantage of the camera. The sun is behind the astronaut in the photo and the surface is irregular, the sun is also at a low angle. You are going to have highlights and shadows. As you look further into the distance, your sight line becomes more parallel to the surface.
As this happens, more and more of the highlit portions of the bumps are hidden on the opposite side of the bumps themselves and you see a higher porportion of the shadows. The surface looks darker. IOW, even though the angle at which the sun hits the surface doesn't change with distance, your viewing angle does.

Also, the astronaut is standing between two bumps in the surface, so you see highlit Areas on either side of him, plus some radiosity effect( where light striking him is reflected to light the ground near him.

The bright object in the background is just a rock that sticks up high enough and has a fairly vertical surface facing to the right.

Jeremyhfht

04-20-07, 08:40 AM

So u mean this is a fake site or r u implying in a secret code that the whole of nasa is Fake . :D

Wow, you are mindless. It's obvious I called the website fake. The real website is NASA.GOV. Anything else is an imitation made by people attempting to ruin NASA's credibility.

D H

04-20-07, 12:19 PM

Wow, you are mindless. It's obvious I called the website fake. The real website is NASA.GOV. Anything else is an imitation made by people attempting to ruin NASA's credibility.

Amazingly, singularity is correct in this regard (legitimacy of XXX.nasa.gov web sites). JPL is jpl.nasa.gov, NASA Headquarters is hq.nasa.gov, Johnson Space Center is jsc.nasa.gov, and so on.

Jeremy, the Mars page you posted is a real JPL web page. What makes you think it is phony?

Jeremyhfht

04-20-07, 10:07 PM

roflcopter. This is hilarious. Although it is kind of sad. But don't be fooled, these are high-class attempts at duplicating NASA. The main ways to find out aside from google are:

1. Do a "Whois lookup" on those websites. It'll show up as some business, not NASA. Note: Do not "Whois" Nasa.gov, "Whois" the entire website (being the xxx.xxx.gov). Otherwise you will get the legit Nasa website.

2. You can check the images. They're obviously edited in MSpaint.

3. You can check how much information there is on the website. The real NASA website has a lot more images and information. This is one of the more obvious things, as it's updated constantly.

If you google "NASA" and "JPL" separately, what shows up? It's not "XXX.XXX.gov". It's "XXX.gov". The ones with the two subdomains are the fake ones.

And what makes me think it's phony? the obvious fact most images there used by conspiracy theorists are edited in MSPAINT. Look at the fake JPL website, for example. You'll easily see this.

Edit:

To add, there's also the fact that websites normally cannot have two subdomains. That's another way to tell it's a fake website. If it were, for example, "XXX.whatever.gov" rather than "www. XXX.whatever.gov", then it's possible to be a legit website.

Example: Science.nasa.gov is a legit website. It doesn't have the www. before it.

Example2: the fake domain is not Nasa.gov. It's HQ.Nasa.gov. Put emphasis on the little "dot" there between HQ and NASA.

orcot

04-21-07, 01:31 AM

not everything envolving with space has to be envolved with NASA
space daily (http://www.spacedaily.com/) for example gives constant accurate articles with no direct connection to NASA.

D H

04-21-07, 01:42 AM

Do you have the foggiest idea of how the Domain Name System works?

Try this:
Go to the main NASA web page, http:www.nasa.gov
Near the bottom you will see two pull-down menus. Select "Jet Propulsion Laboratory" from the right menu and press "Go". That will bring you to this page: http://www.nasa.gov/centers/jpl/home/index.html
Press "Missions" on the left (not the top), which will bring you to this page: http://www.nasa.gov/centers/jpl/missions/index.html
Scroll down until you see "Mars Exploration Rovers". Press "Read More", which will bring you to this page: http://www.nasa.gov/centers/jpl/missions/mer.html
Near the bottom, under "Related Links", press "Mars Exploration Rover mission page". That will bring you to this page: http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/home/index.html

Singularity

04-21-07, 01:07 PM

Once again, you are letting your "common sense" lead you astray.

Even though the surface is uniformly lit by the sun, it would not appear to be a uniform brightness as seen form the vantage of the camera. ....

http://mud.mm-a2.yimg.com/image/2303344881

http://mud.mm-a8.yimg.com/image/4007093897

http://mud.mm-a5.yimg.com/image/3280653398

Janus58

04-21-07, 02:47 PM

http://mud.mm-a2.yimg.com/image/2303344881
While the shadows are dark in this photo, You only see a few of the dunes, so you don't get the blending effect with distance between shadow ans highlight. Neither is the vantage point of the camera with respect to the height of the dunes correct. Also, the lighting does not appear to be coming from behind the dunes.

http://mud.mm-a8.yimg.com/image/4007093897

Lighting angle not the same as in the moon photo (not low in the sky and behind the subjects. Also, the problem with this and the following photo is that they are taken on Earth, where the light scattered from the sky tends to fill in shadows. This is known as ambient lighting. You don't get this type of ambient lighting on the moon.
This lighting softens the difference between highlight and shadow on the Earth. So even if you reproduced the same lighting, camera angle and surface bumpiness in an Earth shot, the darkening with distance effect would be much less pronounced.

http://mud.mm-a5.yimg.com/image/3280653398

Cloudly sky with very soft shadows.

My explanation stands. None of the pictures reproduce the conditions under which the Moon shot was taken. Just admit that you were mistaken, and that lighting on the moon shot does appear to be natural after all. It would be the mature thing to do.

Singularity

04-21-07, 04:37 PM

...
Even though the surface is uniformly lit by the sun, it would not appear to be a uniform brightness as seen form the vantage of the camera. ....

....
My explanation stands. None of the pictures reproduce the conditions under which the Moon shot was taken. ....

http://www.ucm.es/info/Astrof/imagenes/luna/fullmoon1.jpg

Do u think that the edges of Moon in this pic should be darker ?

Singularity

04-21-07, 04:56 PM

I always suspected something fishy in this pic, now i know, i was so dumb not to notice it. Obviously there are some people out there smarter than me .

http://www.colorado.edu/physics/phys1110/phys1110_fa03/images/man_on_moon.jpg

So here we go,

The sun seems to discriminate between the astronot and the background, look how sun meticulously spotlights the astronot compared to the darker moonscape behind him.

And look behind him near the edge of moonland; do u think moon is so small that the horizon will be at walking distance, look at the shiny object at the left side of this photo, its so near to the horizon.

Heres Another Nail in the Coffin,

Guys, Do u think horizon can change in a single mission.

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/62297main_neil_on_moon_full.jpg
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/62297main_neil_on_moon_full.jpg

Unless they changed the direction of the spotlight :D ; Or dramatic change in height of the camera (using studio crane) to see that large near horizon object to come nearer.

Thanks for the inspiration Janus58, now its confirmed, Apollo missions were Faked. So lets chant it once more.

"IF WE CANT MAKE THEN LETS FAKE IT"

Nikelodeon

04-21-07, 04:58 PM

Guys, Do u think horizon can change in a single mission.

What do you mean?

Singularity

04-21-07, 05:11 PM

What do you mean?

Look at the shiny object behind the astronot, and the change in the distance between it and the horizon in both of these Apollo 11 pics.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Look at the wider pic, u will notice that the top part of the Lander leg intersects with the horizon (in the pic), this shows that the camera was at very high altitude, ie. taller than the astronots and that leg. http://sciforums.com/avatars/avatar23456_96.gif

Jeremyhfht

04-21-07, 08:46 PM

...DH, not only did you completely and entirely _MISS_ my point...but you're correcting me on the entirely wrong premise.

You missed key words I used, such as "usually" when referring to multiple subdomains.

Oh, btw, notice how marsrovers.jpl.nasa completely lacks the "www."? Yeah. you've just proven one of my points. The domain name is jpl.nasa.gov. The sub domain is mars rover.

Try and tack on the "www." and see if it works. Here's a hint: it wont.

But this isn't even my point. My point was, those websites (hq.nasa, etc) are fake, so images you get from them are doctored up (obviously). Please actually do the whois lookup before spewing further aggressive ignorance.

Janus58

04-21-07, 10:17 PM

http://www.ucm.es/info/Astrof/imagenes/luna/fullmoon1.jpg

Do u think that the edges of Moon in this pic should be darker ?

Is the sunlight coming from behind the moon? No.
Does the viewing angle and the angle of the sunlight vary from each other significantly? No.

Here the sun is almost directly behind the camera. The sightlines and the Sun's rays are almost exactly parallel to each other.

Again, this is no way duplicates the conditions of the other photo.

Quit beating a dead horse.

Read-Only

04-21-07, 10:32 PM

Singularity

04-21-07, 10:45 PM

People, please!!!! Can't you see by now that this Singularity individual is playing all of you for fools? (I suppose the common-forum-speak would be "Troll" becasue that's what he/she/it really is.)

No one over the age of nine could possibly believe the garbage that he/she/it keeps posting in this (and other) threads. All we've been doing is feeding the idiot troll and providing it with encouragement. I sincerely suggest that everyone (myself included) totally ignore the troll and eventually it will go back under the rock from whence it came - and where it rightfully belongs!!

The more i am attacked personally, the more confidence i get in your incompetence about proving my points wrong. ;)

So how much do they pay u to say these stupid things ?
Is the illuminati worried about "Super Size Me ?" I mean about my brain size.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/Doble11.JPG

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/alsj.trio.jpg

Singularity

04-21-07, 11:06 PM

.... My point was, those websites (hq.nasa, etc) are fake, so images you get from them are doctored up (obviously). Please actually do the whois lookup before spewing further aggressive ignorance.

So why dont u tell us why is nasa linking to such sites ?

http://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/5-8/features/F_Apollo_35th_Anniversary.html

Actually this Jeremyhfht is misleading u to the fact that some photos escaped their own scrutiny since all photos were faked and now its difficult to take them off the site, as that will raise more eyebrows worldwide.

D H

04-21-07, 11:42 PM

Jeremy, you are embarrassing yourself.

Here are the steps taken to translate "marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov" to an IP address.

Names are translated right to left, starting with ".gov".
Your computer asks the nameserver listed in your local internet configuration file to find an IP address for ".gov". This is the .gov nameserver machine.
Your computer asks the .gov nameserver to find an IP address for ".nasa.gov". This is the NASA nameserver machine.
Your computer now asks this machine to find an IP address for "jpl.nasa.gov". This is the JPL nameserver machine.
Finally, your computer now asks the JPL nameserver to find an IP address for "marsrover.jpl.nasa.gov".

BTW, websites do not have to start with "www". That is customary but not essential. What is essential is that the machine must recognize and accept the HTTP protocol.

Please read on how the Domain Name System works.

Singularity

04-21-07, 11:42 PM

Clearly NASA has good tieups with expert fakesters.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/a15.DPsalute.jpg

No wonder sometimes the shadows dont matchup with reality.

Pete

04-22-07, 02:46 AM

Hi Jeremy,
It's not possible to register a subdomain unless you own the domain. So the only people who can register ???.nasa.gov are those who own nasa.gov. Or more specifically, those who control the nameserver registered against nasa.gov.

Anyway, have you tried doing a whois lookup yourself?
Here:
The ip address of hq.nasa.gov is 198.116.63.2
According to ARIN (http://ws.arin.net/whois/?queryinput=198.116.65.37), that address is in the range allocated to NASA. Check for yourself.

Singularity

04-22-07, 03:30 AM

Who cares about the stupid arguments of these skeptics,
we should focus on these two photos and try to see why they are like this, there must be a good explanation if the eagle did land on moon.

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/62297main_neil_on_moon_full.jpg

http://www.colorado.edu/physics/phys1110/phys1110_fa03/images/man_on_moon.jpg

Jeremyhfht

04-22-07, 03:34 AM

I withdraw my former comments.

It would appear, after a lot of relooking and searching, they are "legit" in the fact that they are government websites.

On the other hand, I've discovered an entirely different issue with the websites. This one is much more puzzling. I'm going to make a new thread on the subject, and request that singularity can't post. Heh

orcot

04-22-07, 03:34 AM

Pete

04-22-07, 04:18 AM

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/a15.DPsalute.jpg
the picture show apollo 15, I'm first wondering why the picture is in black and white when they got color camera's
annyway

... I can't seem to find the originals but their are crossmarks on the picture and the smaller left don't align with the big ones in the middle that are aligned with the small ones on the right, and neather is the distance to each other the same. Conclusion the left astronaut stands significantly higher and more to the left then the original. their are also some signs of photoshop near the left hand and other marks
This image is hosted by NASA, but is not a NASA production. It's a "fanpic" by someone names Adam Bootle. You'll find it on the Fun Images (http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/alsj.funpix.html) page, under the heading "An Air Force Salute". The accompanying text reads:
Adam Bootle sends this picture of Dave Scott (right) and Jim Irwin (left) saluting for the camera. Scott and Irwin, part of an all-Air-Force crew, served on the Apollo 12 backup crew and, although they may not have known about the illicit self-timer, this composite would have been a natural.

Singularity is playing games.

Here's another image from the same page:
http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/A16Vantuyne.jpg

Pete

04-22-07, 04:28 AM

Just as a by-the-way, I've just found that not all Apollo 15 shots were in colour. Of the 18 magazines shot, 7 were color and 11 B&W.

orcot

04-22-07, 04:38 AM

Just as a by-the-way, I've just found that not all Apollo 15 shots were in colour. Of the 18 magazines shot, 7 were color and 11 B&W.

Does anyone now why they have never made a picture of the lunar surface and the sun? I've seen pics with earth but I cind a noticed that you very rarly see the sun, does this has any specific reason?

Jeremyhfht

04-22-07, 04:41 AM

Google for images of both the Sun and the moon. Amongst other planets. They offer images of them all.

I'd also like to note that I've listed my confusion about the websites here: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=65681

I admit I was wrong, but that fills you in that something is wrong with the whole thing.

Singularity

04-22-07, 04:56 AM

Does anyone now why they have never made a picture of the lunar surface and the sun? I've seen pics with earth but I cind a noticed that you very rarly see the sun, does this has any specific reason?

They have joined two different pics by resizing them first, thats why the shadows suddenly change their direction in the other side of the image right from the center.

http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/IanR81Apollo11.jpg

Or may be i am wrong and its just a real huge light bulb.

Actually the sky is all fake thats why there no stars and the light is using a reflector so no light at the sides or the ground below or else how will it reach the Lander :D