Do you think we landed on the moon
 

Did any one see that investigation how the landing on the moon was fake. I know it is old but me and my roommates where talking about it and I'm convinced that we didn't land on the moon.

pretty trippy, never thought about that..

I've heard about this. They said stuff like 'the flag would just drop down if there was no wind'.

But you must take each bit of evidence into account, and analyze it. For instance, the flag had metal bars in it to keep it up. Therefore that particular point is false. It doesn't prove we did land on the moon - but it also doesn't prove that we didn't.

If all evidence such as this can be determined illegitimate, then you can say that you have proven that the show did not prove that we did not land on the moon. Some people think when I argue this that I am arguing proof against this show is proof that we did land on the moon... anyway enough talking http://bbs.gofuckyourself.com/board/smile.gif

------------------
Juge - webmaster of:

• Juge's Bikini and Thong Page - http://www.jugesbikini.com/
• Juge's Weekly Wallpaper - http://www.weeklywallpaper.com/
• Daily Bikini Babe - http://www.dailybikinibabe.com/

[email protected] - Email me for link exchanges

We'll find out in 2 years. The Japanese are going there to take detailed photos of the moon's surface.

I'm not sure you argument is valid Juge. The metal bars weren't the point to the flag theroy on the show. Everyone knows about the bars to help keep it stiff, what they couldn't explain was that on one piece of footage, the flag actually waved a bit as they planted it.

No air means no wind, but on the footage you clearly see it waving.

I'm not saying we didn't go, (yet) I'm just saying that show made me think twice

Hi there,

Ok, i didn't see the show... so i didn't know what it said. but the rest of my points remain valid - so, if you can explain what you saw on the tape, i mean explain that that could have happened on the moon (the apparent waving), then you can remove that evidence, since it will prove nothing.

however, if you can prove there is no possible way for it to happen (i.e. if it really was waving - we know this is impossible, the moon has like 0.000001 atmospheres, i think) then this does indeed prove the footage to be false. And nothing else.

People think when i try and show thier error in their logic regarding proof that seemingly shows that we did not land on the moon, they think i am arguing that we did - i am not. i am just stating to think about it logically. if there is anyway at all that is possible to show the flag in it's condition on the moon on that footage, then you have no proof that that footage was not taking on the moon (but also have no proof that it was).

http://bbs.gofuckyourself.com/board/smile.gif

understand me y'all?

------------------
Juge - webmaster of:

• Juge's Bikini and Thong Page - http://www.jugesbikini.com/
• Juge's Weekly Wallpaper - http://www.weeklywallpaper.com/
• Daily Bikini Babe - http://www.dailybikinibabe.com/

[email protected] - Email me for link exchanges

There is a lot more than just the flag waving like when they landed on the moon it didn't leave any marks, or how shadows went in the wrong directions. I'm sure there is a web site somewhere that has more info on it

what about that shit they said on the van halen belt. that physicist said you'd need 2 feet of lead plating to stop the radiation and all they had was that funky gold tinfoil

I didn't see the show.

But what happens when you shake a pole with a flag on it? Does it stay still?

Is wind the only way for a flag to move?

I'm really not educated on this subject, just thought I'd throw in some questions.

------------------
Daily Naked

Free Auto Updating Top Referrer Lists

I have a copy of the moon landing special on video. I missed and so my wife recorded it. I'm glad she did.

What I didn't know is that we landed in 6 different locations, and planted a flag everytime.

At every location, they revealed how the footege could have been faked. Like x-rated said, there were no blast craters under those landere pods(I forget their technical name). They used jets to slow them down so they could land, but in the photos there is no evidence of that.

Did you ever launch a model rocket when you were younger? Remember that black shit that was left on the launch pad? It's like that, there was nothing there, and they said this engine could produce 10,000 pounds of thrust.

Then there was the issue of the photos. They went to a Hasselblad engineer. (Hasselblad, being the best pro cameras in the world.) This engineer, couldn't explain how some of the photos were made. Unexplained shadows, perfectly composed photos, light in the shadows.

I tend to agree with Juge, I'm not saying that we didn't go, I'm just saying that these findings tend to disprove what I always believed.

It will be interesting to see what the Japanese probe finds.

The most interesting theroies were about what Jimmy mentioned, that radiation belt area.

PeteDogg,
Imagine a flag made of aluminum foil. Push it into a shape and it will stay that way indefinately. That's what it should be like on the moon. There is no air, or atmosphere to move the flag. So if you shake the pole, and the flag buckles, that's how it will stay forever. (theoretically)

I don't know... it's just that show opened a can of worms.

Like I said, we'll see in two years.

Some guy on the old Art Bell radio show said that the lunar lander could not have fit into the rocketship that "supposedly" went to the moon.

I however, believe everything our government tells us.

OK, everything except for that "I didn't have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky" thing.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast23feb_2.htm

http://www.cnn.com/2001/TECH/space/02/19/nasa.moon/

I'm pretty sure that if it was fake, they
would have thought about the shadow,
waving flag etc..

http://users.erols.com/igoddard/moon01.htm
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

------------------
Juge - webmaster of:

• Juge's Bikini and Thong Page - http://www.jugesbikini.com/
• Juge's Weekly Wallpaper - http://www.weeklywallpaper.com/
• Daily Bikini Babe - http://www.dailybikinibabe.com/

[email protected] - Email me for link exchanges

Good point.

It's not like they aren't smart. 1000's of people have personally seen the space shuttle take off. They did that. They are geniouses.

------------------
Juge - webmaster of:

• Juge's Bikini and Thong Page - http://www.jugesbikini.com/
• Juge's Weekly Wallpaper - http://www.weeklywallpaper.com/
• Daily Bikini Babe - http://www.dailybikinibabe.com/

[email protected] - Email me for link exchanges

What's next?
The earth is not round?

The earth is what???

How come we don't all fall off, then?

Cause no man or webmaster has reach the very end point of the earth since it's so big! LOL

Silly kids. Ya know there's a reelly good moovie that you can watch called Capricorn One. Hee Hee.

As I recall, when I watched the damned thing actually happen on da teevee, it looked pretty real.


you guys crack me up.



------------------
tit,
Mowsebytes Porn Newsletter: Webmasters submit your sites here.

We did not land on the moon, Hitler shot JFK, & Elvis is a beach bum in Hawaii.

------------------
Moongem Erotica Moongem Fiction

Bad: A big staple of the HBs is the claim that radiation in the van Allen Belts and in deep space would have killed the astronauts in minutes. They interview a Russian cosmonaut involved in the USSR Moon program, who says that they were worried about going in to the unknowns of space, and suspected that radiation would have penetrated the hull of the spacecraft.

Good: Kaysing's exact words in the program are ``Any human being traveling through the van Allen belt would have been rendered either extremely ill or actually killed by the radiation within a short time thereof.''

This is complete and utter nonsense. The van Allen belts are regions above the Earth's surface where the Earth's magnetic field has trapped particles of the solar wind. An unprotected man would indeed get a lethal dose of radiation, if he stayed there long enough. Actually, the spaceship traveled through the belts pretty quickly, getting past them in an hour or so. There simply wasn't enough time to get a lethal dose, and, as a matter of fact, the metal hull of the spaceship did indeed block most of the radiation. For a detailed explanation of all this, my fellow Mad Scientist William Wheaton has a page with the technical data about the doses received by the astronauts. Another excellent page about this, that also gives a history of NASA radiation testing, is from the Biomedical Results of Apollo site. An interesting read!

It was also disingenuous of the program to quote the Russian cosmonaut as well. Of course they were worried about radiation before men had gone into the van Allen belts! But tests done by NASA showed that it was possible to not only survive such a passage, but to not even get harmed much by it. It looks to me like another case of convenient editing by the producers of the program.

you can always get the truth on the internet

actually the earth is not round, it's flattened at the poles because of it's velocity http://bbs.gofuckyourself.com/board/smile.gif

in comparison the earth is rounder than a billiard ball

I'm 12 credits short of an MSEE and some of my Profesors worked in the Space program, whats more a couple of the people I've worked with along the way have worked at Nasa.This doesn't make me a Scientific genious or anything but some of these folks talk about the work they did.They don't say things like "yeah we had to digitally enhance the photo to make it look like there was no wind", they say things like "we had to use custom designed electrolytic capacitors on the output of our power supplies in order to get the equivalent series resistance below .oo1 ohms,thats the only way to keep the ripple on a 100khz/300W swith mode power supply below 1 mv peak to peak".If you think that I am blowing sophisticated smoke at you then go spend 5 or 6 years in a University Enginnering Program to find out that I'm not.

In order to put forward the hypothesis that the moon landings are fake you have to be able to assume a conspiracy that would have included literally millions of people.NONE OF WHOM EVER CAME FORWARD AND REVEALED THE TRUTH.Give me a fucking break.

The only thing going on here is that somebody figured out a way to create some controversy and make some money.Just like the Loch Ness Monster, and the old Paul is dead Beatle fans.I wonder how many of you folks who question the moon landings without even a glimmer of real science in your background are more than willing to accept the existance of ghosts,boogy monsters,and that little green men crashed out in area 51 in the Nevada desert while the US government covered it up.

Let me explain something to you about most people who work in government.THEY AREN"T THAT SMART.

I'm a big consipiracy-theorist, I don't have any strong opinions about the moon landing though.

I do want to point out that the gov'ts fake pics of Lee Harvey Oswald had shadows going two different ways - so either they aren't very smart or they think we're all really stupid.

hounddog so what are you saying ? Ghosts, monsters, the boogy man they don't exist? How do you know can you prove this

I admit it brought up questions that I had never thought of before, and my fiance, the science buff, did bring up the radiation thing.

The bottom line for me, I would have given a second thought to it if it hadn't been broadcasted on Fox, you know the same guys that have given us Alien Autopsies and reality shows? That station couldn't get any tackier and unreliable if it tried. Like the brains at Fox scooped everyone else, including world renowned scientist. Not very likely.

X-Rated

What I would say is that most people believe whatever they need or want to believe in order to support their own internal sense of being.If it makes you feel better about yourself to believe in God,Ghosts,or the boogie monster then that is what you will believe in,and you will believe it without proof.I personally have never seen any physical evidence of any of those things therefore I cannot say I believe that they exist.That is the essential difference between science and religon.Science requires proof, religon does not require proof,only faith.

There is a mountain of evidence to prove that men really walked on the moon,it is not a matter of faith.For example,it was broadcast live around the world, and the radio transmission was monitored by practically every country on the planet.Given that radio waves in a vacume propogate at the speed of light then it is possible to use the transmission delay and trajectory of a radio wave to locate the actual location of the source of the transmission from the reciever, sort of the same way radar works.If every technologicaly developed nation in the world is monitoring the same radio transmission, and that transmission is coming from a garage in Burbank, don't you think one of them would have pointed it out, this all took place during the heart of the cold war.

As far as not being able to prove that ghosts, goblins, and so forth don't exist you are exactly correct,I cannot.But any elementary text in logic will tell you that it is manifestly impossible to prove the negative.If you believe in such things and you want to prove that they do exist it is incumbant upon you to offer the evidence that they do.

What I really think about religon is that it is the language of the unconsious human mind, and that through it,symbolicaly, we reveal ourselves both to one another, and to our own selves.My own sense of things like belief in UFO's or ghosts and such is that it is pretty much the same,just a less universal form of the human unconsious mind speaking it's piece.

I spent 12 years in industry, 6 of them working for defense contractors and I can tell you with unambiguous certainty, people do falsify data,fudge numbers,fake photographs,and that limited conspiracies do exist.When it happens though it is usually more like 4 people in a lab, or some small isolated group of people operating without approval.It doesn't ever really happen when large numbers of people are involved because it is to difficult to keep them all in line, not to mention keep everything secret.Bear in mind that the U.S. government actually consists of a wide and diverse group of people with competing political interests. You know,checks and balances.

hounddog did all these radio signals confirm that nasa landed on the moon? As far as I can tell there is no evidence at all that we landed on the moon.

Hounddog,

Couldn't have said it better myself...actually couldn't have said at all LOL. Science was never my strongest subject. Hey, but at least I understood what you said...and without a dictionary too LOL.
*gasps from fellow GFYers*