let me get this straight - the last man went to the moon in 1972???????? - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

crockett · 06-18-2007, 01:18 PM

I can't believe there are people that are so dumb they think we didn't go to the moon.

StickyGreen · 06-18-2007, 01:19 PM

You should take a look at what companies like Lockheed Martin are up to if you think we haven't been to the moon since 1972... lol...

StickyGreen · 06-18-2007, 01:21 PM

And here's some lady talking about how NASA airbrushes shit in the moon pictures...

https://youtube.com/watch?v=6rt7mnz4J5E

CDSmith · 06-18-2007, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sublim3

if we've to been the moon.. then why not repeat it.

The better question might be --- why should they have repeated it before now?

Really, what did they find on the moon besides rocks? Unless they are ready to build a station on it and like it was said "use it as a jumping-off point" I've never seen the point of NASA spending billions more just to go back and land there and what?... knock a few more golf balls around? TV ratings? Yeah, that'd be fun.

_Richard_ · 06-18-2007, 01:39 PM

I didn't believe in the theory till i read something pointing out the lack of a blast crater under the lander

Pretty steady "sandy" surface eh?

If that actually landed, it sure the hell wouldn't look like this

ronaldo · 06-18-2007, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr.Sexbankroll

I didn't believe in the theory till i read something pointing out the lack of a blast crater under the lander

Pretty steady "sandy" surface eh?

If that actually landed, it sure the hell wouldn't look like this

1. No blast crater or any sign of dust scatter as was seen in the 16mm movies of each landing [3], p. 75.

No crater should be expected. The Descent Propulsion System was throttled very far down during the final stages of landing. The Lunar Module was no longer rapidly decelerating, so the descent engine only had to support the module's own weight, which by then was greatly diminished by the near exhaustion of the descent propellants, and the Moon's lower gravity. At the time of landing, the engine's thrust divided by the cross-sectional area of the engine bell is only about 10 kilopascals (1.5 PSI)[11], p. 164, and that is reduced by the fact that the engine was in a vacuum, causing the exhaust to spread out. (By contrast, the thrust of the first stage of the Saturn V was 3.2 MPa (459 PSI), over the area of the engine bell.) Rocket exhaust gases expand much more rapidly after leaving the engine nozzle in a vacuum than in an atmosphere. The effect of an atmosphere on rocket plumes can be easily seen in launches from Earth; as the rocket rises through the thinning atmosphere, the exhaust plumes broaden very noticeably. Rocket engines designed for vacuum operation have longer bells than those designed for use at the Earth's surface, but they still cannot prevent this spreading. The Lunar Module's exhaust gases therefore expanded rapidly well beyond the landing site. Even if they hadn't, a simple calculation will show that the pressure at the end of the descent engine bell was much too low to carve out a crater. However, the descent engines did scatter a considerable amount of very fine surface dust as seen in 16mm movies of each landing, and as Neil Armstrong said as the landing neared ("...kicking up some dust..."). This significantly impaired visibility in the final stages of landing, and many mission commanders commented on it. Photographs do show slightly disturbed dust beneath the descent engine. And finally, the landers were generally moving horizontally as well as vertically until right before landing, so the exhaust would not be focused on any one surface spot for very long, and the compactness of the lunar soil below a thin surface layer of dust also make it virtually impossible for the descent engine to blast out a "crater".[11], pp. 163?165

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_...ax_accusations

That'll be fun to read when I have some more time.

Grapesoda · 06-18-2007, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antonio

man, I'm not much of a conspiracy theories lover but something DOES smell fishy here

bunch of trips b/n 1969 and 1972 and then nothing??? why?

o kay just for you: bill clinton can't keep a fucking blow job in the white house secret and yet they faked the space program. is this your GIANT thought for the day?

CDSmith · 06-18-2007, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wanton

o kay just for you: bill clinton can't keep a fucking blow job in the white house secret and yet they faked the space program. is this your GIANT thought for the day?

StickyGreen · 06-18-2007, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wanton

o kay just for you: bill clinton can't keep a fucking blow job in the white house secret and yet they faked the space program. is this your GIANT thought for the day?

Bill Clinton got caught getting a blowjob from an intern so that means there is nothing top-secret going on within the United States government.

Great fucking logic there...

StickyGreen · 06-18-2007, 05:25 PM

And why would you bring up Bill Clinton of all people? Bill Clinton is a fucking boob and never had any kind of top secret clearance. Why would the people in charge of black projects let Bill Clinton in on it? For some reason people act like the President knows about everything that goes on... lmao...

SPACE GLIDER · 06-18-2007, 08:53 PM

It's not a secret that was too big to keep. People have been spilling the beans about this secret since 1971!

CDSmith · 06-18-2007, 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SPACE GLIDER

It's not a secret that was too big to keep. People have been spilling the beans about this secret since 1971!

Many of whom are no doubt sitting in a rubber room somewhere as we speak.

06-18-2007, 01:18 PM	#51
crockett in a van by the river Industry Role: Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 76,806	I can't believe there are people that are so dumb they think we didn't go to the moon. __________________ In November, you can vote for America's next president or its first dictator.

06-18-2007, 01:19 PM	#52
StickyGreen . Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 13,076	You should take a look at what companies like Lockheed Martin are up to if you think we haven't been to the moon since 1972... lol... __________________ Refer Cam Girls and Take Home 10% of Everything They Make For Life

06-18-2007, 01:21 PM	#53
StickyGreen . Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 13,076	And here's some lady talking about how NASA airbrushes shit in the moon pictures... https://youtube.com/watch?v=6rt7mnz4J5E __________________ Refer Cam Girls and Take Home 10% of Everything They Make For Life

06-18-2007, 05:25 PM	#60
StickyGreen . Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 13,076	And why would you bring up Bill Clinton of all people? Bill Clinton is a fucking boob and never had any kind of top secret clearance. Why would the people in charge of black projects let Bill Clinton in on it? For some reason people act like the President knows about everything that goes on... lmao... __________________ Refer Cam Girls and Take Home 10% of Everything They Make For Life

06-18-2007, 08:53 PM	#61
SPACE GLIDER Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 1,550	It's not a secret that was too big to keep. People have been spilling the beans about this secret since 1971! __________________ EarnCoin - Revive Your Ratios Now! Pain Lessons \|Orgastic Shock \| Snatch Sizers

06-18-2007, 01:39 PM	#55
_Richard_ Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Earth Posts: 30,989	I didn't believe in the theory till i read something pointing out the lack of a blast crater under the lander Pretty steady "sandy" surface eh? If that actually landed, it sure the hell wouldn't look like this