Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

dom

Very Interesting Video

Recommended Posts

Anyone who understands basic physics and engineering can see that moonflight is quite feasible.

Maybe, but not the way NASA claim.

How did their suits regulate body temperature on the moon?

Why take car?

Why no photos of the stars?

Why no disturbance under the LEM engine?

Here's another video

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=81...he+moon&pl=true

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe, but not the way NASA claim.

Why no photos of the stars?

No star? Can you see stars in the daylight? Maybe the suns light reflecting off the earth distorts the visible light from the stars. Who knows?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest X-QUORK

And the connection to House Prices is what exactly???

Bloody conspiracy theory geeks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This web site examines the theories that suggest the NASA Apollo moon landings were faked. It hopes to prove, without any doubt, that these theories are wrong and a combination of a poor understanding of basic science and a desire to make a fast buck. Ultimately, however, you're going to have to reach your own decision.

http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/

All your questions will be answered!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe, but not the way NASA claim.

How did their suits regulate body temperature on the moon?

Why take car?

Why no photos of the stars?

Why no disturbance under the LEM engine?

Look, obviously they went to the moon but maybe the snaps we mostly crap. Perhaps it's not so much that their photos "don't show stars", maybe thay were so badly framed that half of them only show stars, or at least they would do if they hadn't left the camera on the roof of the LEM when they took off. Could have been so much worse, could have locked the key inside, "Hey Neil, I thought you had the keys"..."That's right, I remember putting them down when we stopped for a sandwich".

Rather than try explain the lack of iconic photos to a skeptical public,("this is another one of Buzz, but the top of his head is chopped off and he's a bit out of focus") they rigged a few extra shots in an old hangar and tweaked them using a beta release of photoshop.

Big deal. It's a conspiracy, but only a very small one that has no place on this forum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the first privately launched lunar robot sent to check (probably within a decade)?

How come all the men who went have unblemished records of straight-talking, integrity and honesty?

Actually, don't bother. Believe what you will. :rolleyes:

1. Watch the videos

2. If you are referring to Lunacorp, do your research. if you're not then please supply some evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Little bit of a sceptic on the moon missions, but like the posts above, that journalist is an Arrogant, lying, pushy, ignorant pig who i wouldnt pi$$ on if he was on fire. He deserved everything he got. If he spoke to me in that manner after i agreed to an interview he would be luck to get away with a right hook. how pathetic and lowbrow that journalism is.

Rant over :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The evidence you seek is on the moon. The landers are on the limit of being resolved by telescopes (click) as we speak, and will be seeable within a few years. For footprints it will probably take a lunar orbital telescope or landing robot, and I imagine one will be sent. But why would you believe that? Its creators will all be in on the plot, along with the thousands of government, independent and amateur scientists in communist and socialist countries who verified the flights while they were happening.

EDIT: No doubt NASA is going to the moon secretly, even as we speak, to plant the evidence.

Yeah, so you have no evidence.

"The Apollo 12 lunar module, for example, had a mass of 33,325 lbm (15,148 kg) fully loaded"

"How big is Beagle 2?

The Beagle 2 probe (during the cruise phase, from Mars Express to Mars) is small: the maximum depth at its middle is 532mm (21 inches) and the minimum at its edges is 304mm (12 inches). At its widest point it is 924mm (36 inches) in diameter and 372mm (15 inches) at the narrowest."

So surely It would be impossible for wreckage of Beagle 2 to show up on a photo of MARS?

Apparently not!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1943819,00.html

As far as I'm concerned men never went to the moon and the illusion was badly executed.

You cannot provide me with one piece of evidence that conclusively proves this man on the moon horse shit ever took place. Until I'm provided with this evidence why should I believe it?

Why don't you watch this from 17 minutes into it.http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=19...he+moon&pl=true

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No star? Can you see stars in the daylight? Maybe the suns light reflecting off the earth distorts the visible light from the stars. Who knows?

No, but that has got something to do with a little known phenomena called the atmosphere. Its really complicated 'n' that but I don't fink the moon have got one. I fink there is a book 'bout it in the children's section of the library.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could not get the video to run smoothly. It kept stopping. Any suggestions?

You could wait for the whole film to download before you run it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Little bit of a sceptic on the moon missions, but like the posts above, that journalist is an Arrogant, lying, pushy, ignorant pig who i wouldnt pi$$ on if he was on fire. He deserved everything he got. If he spoke to me in that manner after i agreed to an interview he would be luck to get away with a right hook. how pathetic and lowbrow that journalism is.

Rant over :angry:

So you only watched the first five minutes then? Bart Sibrel is trying to provoke litigation because he believes he has such a strong case against NASA's claims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, but that has got something to do with a little known phenomena called the atmosphere. Its really complicated 'n' that but I don't fink the moon have got one. I fink there is a book 'bout it in the children's section of the library.

Have someone beam a bright torch in your eyes - it will desensitize them to not be able to see a dim light in the back ground whilst that bright light is on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How did their suits regulate body temperature on the moon?

The same way they do when they do space walks

Why take car?

Why not? Technical challenge, good advertising for the commercial companies supplying parts.

Why no photos of the stars?

As mentioned it's to do with the contrast ratio, a human eye on the moon can actually see stars at daytime, a camera doesn't have the 'dynamic range' of a retina.

Why no disturbance under the LEM engine?

There's no air on the moon. Try using a hair dryer in a vacuum and you'll notice your hair doesn't get disturbed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have someone beam a bright torch in your eyes - it will desensitize them to not be able to see a dim light in the back ground whilst that bright light is on.

What is the point you are trying to make, please?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The same way they do when they do space walks

From the skin out, the Apollo A7LB spacesuit began with an astronaut-worn liquid-cooling garment, similar to a pair of "long-johns" with a network of spaghetti-like tubing sewn onto the fabric. Cool water, circulating through the tubing, transferred metabolic heat from the Moon explorer's body to the backpack and thence to space.

How does it transfer this thermal energy to a vacuum?

Why not? Technical challenge, good advertising for the commercial companies supplying parts.
Weight? No need for it? better use of space? Take a decent telescope?
As mentioned it's to do with the contrast ratio, a human eye on the moon can actually see stars at daytime, a camera doesn't have the 'dynamic range' of a retina.

The exposure can be set to photograph stars, which would have been of great interest. They didn't because the never went to the moon.

There's no air on the moon. Try using a hair dryer in a vacuum and you'll notice your hair doesn't get disturbed.

A hair dryer is a small turbine compressing air so of course it won't work in a vacuum.

The LEM used a rocket engine to produce a stream of high pressure gas, a force acting on the lunar surface which would displace loose material.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 301 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.