anyone know
-
the hun gets revenue from pre-paid gallery placements on the top 15 spaces and banners.
the rest of thegalleries are free placements. -
-
so why hasnt there been another one in the last 32 years
conspiracy theorists may now start replying to this thread
Last edited by Global Dialers; 06-23-2004, 01:22 AM.the hun gets revenue from pre-paid gallery placements on the top 15 spaces and banners.
the rest of thegalleries are free placements.Comment
-
the moon doesnt exist..Originally posted by Global Dialers
so why hasnt there been another one in the last 35 years
conspiracy theorists may now start replying to this thread
Often times I wonder why
There's love and hate, theres live or die.
When sickness comes I must decide:
When feelings go, theres suicide.
Comment
-
There will happen a lot in the next 10 years. Japan, India, Russia and Europe are preparing to go to the moon. Japan has planned test flight for august this year. They want to grab some Helium-3 for kern fusion reactors.
Comment
-
the studio burned down?Originally posted by Global Dialers
so why hasnt there been another one in the last 32 years
conspiracy theorists may now start replying to this thread
Comment
-
Why is ones shadow almost twice the length as the other!? Conspiracy!?
Comment
-
There's a little hill behind the left guy.Originally posted by MrJackMeHoff
Why is ones shadow almost twice the length as the other!? Conspiracy!?
Comment
-
In the spot where R is marked why is the marked with the letter C? And how does bone dry lunar dust allow perfect tire/foot prints!?
Last edited by MrJackMeHoff; 06-23-2004, 01:36 AM. Comment
-
Why is the cross hair on the left behind the pic its taking!?
Comment
-
Where the fuck are the stars!?
Comment
-
http://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~jscotti/NOT_faked/
If you look at the rock labeled R you will notice a the letter C carved in the rock. Perhaps a gag left by the props department?
This is an artifact of the particular scan of this print. It does not appear in the original image. The following close-up (not color corrected) of a print of the same image from our collection at the Lunar and Planetary Laboratory shows no such feature:Comment
-
What are you trying to prove MrJackMeHoff? Deny ignorance. For every thing you see in that pictures is a logical emplanation. For example stars are so small they are very hard to catch on a photograph. What are you going to tell us next? Airplanes doesn't exist?Comment
-
Ok brainiac explain this angle of the same pic:Originally posted by Fabuleux
There's a little hill behind the left guy.
Comment
-
Make it a litte harder will ya. It's the shadow of the flag.Originally posted by MrJackMeHoff
Ok brainiac explain this angle of the same pic:
Comment
-
Why are there 3 different directions to the shadows in this pic? And where are the stars. You cant expect me to believe without an atmosphere bright dots wouldn't appear?
Last edited by MrJackMeHoff; 06-23-2004, 02:05 AM. Comment
-
Even without the flag his shadow is still way taller.Originally posted by Fabuleux
Make it a litte harder will ya. It's the shadow of the flag. Comment
-
*lol*..
why was the flag waving? there is no air neither a athmosphere., it cant wave
it was all fakeSEO since 2002 - Google Index Record: 32 minutes. - Selling SEO services and toolsComment
-
The flag isn't waving, it's crumpled because of the way it was carried in the spacecraft. A piece of metal-wire holds the flag up.Originally posted by Peacemaker
*lol*..
why was the flag waving? there is no air neither a athmosphere., it cant wave
it was all fakeComment
-
nope.. in the movies you see the flag waving.. just like wind does.Originally posted by Fabuleux
The flag isn't waving, it's crumpled because of the way it was carried in the spacecraft. A piece of metal-wire holds the flag up.SEO since 2002 - Google Index Record: 32 minutes. - Selling SEO services and toolsComment
-
This is a panorama picture created by stitching 3 photo's together. You can see the color diffrence in the middle pic. When the three pictures are taken from the same spot, you have to "bend" the pictures to make them fit.Originally posted by MrJackMeHoff
Why are there 3 different directions to the shadows in this pic? And where are the stars. You cant expect me to believe without an atmosphere bright dots wouldn't appear?
Comment
-
Got link?Originally posted by Peacemaker
nope.. in the movies you see the flag waving.. just like wind does.Comment
-
oehm.. let me search.. had it on my hd a while back..SEO since 2002 - Google Index Record: 32 minutes. - Selling SEO services and toolsComment
-
The shadow area is with a few feet of each other why would you stich such small sections that makes no sense. And if thats the case why is there only one shadow of the pic taker!?Originally posted by Fabuleux
This is a panorama picture created by stitching 3 photo's together. You can see the color diffrence in the middle pic. When the three pictures are taken from the same spot, you have to "bend" the pictures to make them fit.Last edited by MrJackMeHoff; 06-23-2004, 02:22 AM. Comment
-
And about the stars, I was in the middle of the desert of Egypt a few years back and in the middle of the night, it's so dark (because there is no "light pollution" from street lights and cities) that you could even see the Milky Way. You see a gazillion stars with a blue glow around it. I've taken 30 sec. exposure shots without good results. Catching stars on can isn't easy.Comment
-
YOu keep skipping the good questions and answering the ones that dont matter much. 'Sides egypt still has an atmosphere!Originally posted by Fabuleux
And about the stars, I was in the middle of the desert of Egypt a few years back and in the middle of the night, it's so dark (because there is no "light pollution" from street lights and cities) that you could even see the Milky Way. You see a gazillion stars with a blue glow around it. I've taken 30 sec. exposure shots without good results. Catching stars on can isn't easy.
Here is the wind blowing flag:
http://www.ufos-aliens.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Apollo1.rm Comment
-
No small area's are stitched, it are three pictures of equal size. There is only one shadow in the picture because you siply only can see it in the right picture. It's hard to explain what I mean by bending and stiching, but the bending is needed because the photographer turned around one single position.Originally posted by MrJackMeHoff
The shadow area is with a few feet of each other why would you stich such small sections that makes no sense. And if thats the case why is there only one shadow of the pic taker!?Comment
-
Originally posted by Fabuleux
No small area's are stitched, it are three pictures of equal size. There is only one shadow in the picture because you siply only can see it in the right picture. It's hard to explain what I mean by bending and stiching, but the bending is needed because the photographer turned around one single position.
Whatever your in fantasy land you really think we landed on the moon in 1969 thats a laugh.
Taking pics at different angles doesnt change where the shadows fall anyway. If they were that far off I think the objects in the pic would be distorted as well.
All the shadows are right next to each other! Its caused by using flood lights in a studio. C'mon get a clue.Last edited by MrJackMeHoff; 06-23-2004, 02:36 AM. Comment
-
The fastest airplaine ever build is the Lockheed Martin SR-71A Blackbird and it's first flight was in 1965. Don't think we didn't have the knowlegde back then.Originally posted by MrJackMeHoff
Whatever your in fantasy land you really think we landed on the moon in 1969 thats a laugh.
All the shadows are right next to each other! Its caused by using flood lights in a studio. C'mon get a clue.
By the way, I study Flight and airospace technology
Comment
-
Originally posted by Fabuleux
The fastest airplaine ever build is the Lockheed Martin SR-71A Blackbird and it's first flight was in 1965. Don't think we didn't have the knowlegde back then.
By the way, I study Flight and airospace technology
Huge difference between fast flight and landing on the moon there. Comment
-
The Sun was too bright.Originally posted by MrJackMeHoff
And where are the stars. You cant expect me to believe without an atmosphere bright dots wouldn't appear?
skype = "adultdatelink"Comment
-
Haven't you seen the clips where the guys are bouncing around in obvious low gravity?
skype = "adultdatelink"Comment
-
He used his flashlight in the right picture.Originally posted by Colin
The Sun was too bright.Comment
-
They just slow down the frame rate for that.Originally posted by Colin
Haven't you seen the clips where the guys are bouncing around in obvious low gravity? Comment
-
And about the flag: Neil is turning the flagpole to "drill" it in the moon surface. The flag acts strange because there is no air resistance. Try it for yourself. Take a stick and mount a paper on top of it with tape so it looks like a flag. Then strengthen the top of the paper with iron-wire and fold it a few times around the stick. If you turn the stick the paper will act very similar as what you see on the video.
The technology we as civillians see today is not the technology our governments have. The Joint Strike Fighter for example is equipped with a 100kW laser capable of shooting rockets out of the sky. Sounds Star Wars, but it's today's reality.Comment
-
They didnt have flashlights on the moon. As a matter of fact they didnt have any lights at all. They couldn't even have had cameras because the film would have melted its over 200 degrees on the moon!Originally posted by Fabuleux
He used his flashlight in the right picture. Comment
-
I challange anyone to produce the mathematical equation to show the trajectory needed to push a mass through our atmosphere, through space, get it close enough to the moon to launch a lander, have that lander land, then take off again, hook back up with the shuttle and then rocket back to earth TODAY in 2004 LET ALONE back when the original "happened".
Our own president even said that he will try to land on the moon next year. TRY? why do you have to try, if you did it back then and there have been so many advances why can't it be done now?
To add insult to injury a privately owned craft just flew into space for pennies on the dollar of NASA budget, who as we are told is mostly privately funded now! HAHA come on people!
the earth revolves and rotates, as does the moon, not on an eliptical course. when the rockets boost there is not a hell of a lot of correction being done, not when you look at it as a ratio. Gravity is going to fight the ship and pull on it till the force of the upward movement brings it out of the range of earth's gravitational pull. IE IT IS NOT GOING STRAIGHT UP, IT IS REVOLVING AND ROTATING AS IT DOES UP. At the same time you have a dot out in space that is moving around it in the same weeble wobble type motion. You have a window from which to launch from houston or florida to get everything to link up. Ask anyone on the salt flats of bonnaville how far off from the proposed end point you will get if you turn the wheel of your car even 1* at 150mph and if you need a second opinion ask the guy who just got back from space what happened when their guidance apparatus messed up, I believe he said 20 miles off course.
My point is the ship is massive and it is going fast, the mathematics to figure out how to get the shit i said in the beginning to happen is PAST rocket science, it was science fantasy plain and simple. Even today the math involved in getting a massive space craft being thrusted that fast to correct itself due to wind shifts and gravitational divergence is still the same. As long as you are using solid or liguid fuel with limited thrusting capablities, on a ship that is not highly manuverable with a human pilot who needs air and has limited ability to stay in space IT JUST DON'T ADD UP. You are talking about math that needs to be percise down to the .0000001 the world is full of things that would cause a differance that small.
But go ahead prove me wrong, show us the math.even ADULTS need TOYS
icq: 3 6 3 2 6 6 6 7 | aim: conglomorateman
open for business, affiliates and friendshipsComment
-
What the fuck are you talking about, you smokin some crack now. 'Sides this wasnt my argument I just showed you what you ask for from the other guy. I personaly think they would have staged this indoors so the wind theory wasn't mine.Originally posted by Fabuleux
And about the flag: Neil is turning the flagpole to "drill" it in the moon surface. The flag acts strange because there is no air resistance. Try it for yourself. Take a stick and mount a paper on top of it with tape so it looks like a flag. Then strengthen the top of the paper with iron-wire and fold it a few times around the stick. If you turn the stick the paper will act very similar as what you see on the video.
The technology we as civillians see today is not the technology our governments have. The Joint Strike Fighter for example is equipped with a 100kW laser capable of shooting rockets out of the sky. Sounds Star Wars, but it's today's reality. Comment
-
Originally posted by jade_dragon
I challange anyone to produce the mathematical equation to show the trajectory needed to push a mass through our atmosphere, through
But go ahead prove me wrong, show us the math.
Yeah and they saying they dont know how to send people to the moon today because of the radiation belts. How did they do it 32 years ago!? Comment
-
Notice the "posed" tire tracks!? Like the lunar lander can turn like that eh?
Last edited by MrJackMeHoff; 06-23-2004, 03:10 AM. Comment
-
Simpel question. There are no satellites? Without you couldn't have seen the war in Iraq live. There circle in a 0.000001mm precise orbit. First satillite was broadcasting data 4th october of 1957.Originally posted by jade_dragon
I challange anyone to produce the mathematical equation to show the trajectory needed to push a mass through our atmosphere, through space, get it close enough to the moon to launch a lander, have that lander land, then take off again, hook back up with the shuttle and then rocket back to earth TODAY in 2004 LET ALONE back when the original "happened".
Our own president even said that he will try to land on the moon next year. TRY? why do you have to try, if you did it back then and there have been so many advances why can't it be done now?
To add insult to injury a privately owned craft just flew into space for pennies on the dollar of NASA budget, who as we are told is mostly privately funded now! HAHA come on people!
the earth revolves and rotates, as does the moon, not on an eliptical course. when the rockets boost there is not a hell of a lot of correction being done, not when you look at it as a ratio. Gravity is going to fight the ship and pull on it till the force of the upward movement brings it out of the range of earth's gravitational pull. IE IT IS NOT GOING STRAIGHT UP, IT IS REVOLVING AND ROTATING AS IT DOES UP. At the same time you have a dot out in space that is moving around it in the same weeble wobble type motion. You have a window from which to launch from houston or florida to get everything to link up. Ask anyone on the salt flats of bonnaville how far off from the proposed end point you will get if you turn the wheel of your car even 1* at 150mph and if you need a second opinion ask the guy who just got back from space what happened when their guidance apparatus messed up, I believe he said 20 miles off course.
My point is the ship is massive and it is going fast, the mathematics to figure out how to get the shit i said in the beginning to happen is PAST rocket science, it was science fantasy plain and simple. Even today the math involved in getting a massive space craft being thrusted that fast to correct itself due to wind shifts and gravitational divergence is still the same. As long as you are using solid or liguid fuel with limited thrusting capablities, on a ship that is not highly manuverable with a human pilot who needs air and has limited ability to stay in space IT JUST DON'T ADD UP. You are talking about math that needs to be percise down to the .0000001 the world is full of things that would cause a differance that small.
But go ahead prove me wrong, show us the math.
A launch from the moon costs far less energy then a launch from earth, there is no atmosphere and gravity is 7 times lower.Comment
-
right..Originally posted by MrJackMeHoff
They just slow down the frame rate for that.
just double the speed and it looks like they are driving on a dune / desertSEO since 2002 - Google Index Record: 32 minutes. - Selling SEO services and toolsComment
-
and this is not a panorama pictures.. but whats wrong here with the shadows and the different light sources?
SEO since 2002 - Google Index Record: 32 minutes. - Selling SEO services and toolsComment
-
Turn, drive backwards, drive forward. Next question please.Originally posted by MrJackMeHoff
Notice the "posed" tire tracks!? Like the lunar lander can turn like that eh?
Comment
-
Try to jump that high with a suite that heavy.Originally posted by Peacemaker
right..
just double the speed and it looks like they are driving on a dune / desert
Comment
-
did you ever wear that suite they used? i didnt, did you? no, how do you know its not only plasticOriginally posted by Fabuleux
Try to jump that high with a suite that heavy.
SEO since 2002 - Google Index Record: 32 minutes. - Selling SEO services and toolsComment
-
you guess is as good as mine
SIG TOO BIG! Maximum 120x60 button and no more than 3 text lines of DEFAULT SIZE and COLOR. Unless your sig is for a GFY top banner sponsor, you may use a 624x80 instead of a 120x60. Let me repeat... A 120 x 60 button and no more that 3 lines of DEFAULT SIZE AND COLOR text.Comment
-
and something is so wrong in this pic.. look at the light source and the shadows..
SEO since 2002 - Google Index Record: 32 minutes. - Selling SEO services and toolsComment
-
Shadows look ok, but I agree with the light source. Give me a sec on that one haha.Originally posted by Peacemaker
and something is so wrong in this pic.. look at the light source and the shadows..
Comment
Comment