PDA

View Full Version : Fake Moon Landing debate


SFFWorld.com
Home - Discussion Forums - News - Reviews - Interviews

New reviews, interviews and news

New in the Discussion Forum


Pages : 1 [2] 3 4

Killer Chicken
July 19th, 2002, 01:20 PM
I trust that the US government would never lie to me.... *starts laughing hysterically*

DarthV
July 19th, 2002, 03:03 PM
What scares me is that 2 people actually voted "yes" ?

Alucard
July 19th, 2002, 04:50 PM
"7. When you double speed the video the buggy and astronauts are moving as if under Earth gravity."

Here's the deal with that. When speeding up the film to two times the speed, it appeared just like the gravity here on earth. But here is the problem. The ratio between Earth's and the moon's gravity is much more extreme. They should have had to speed up the film six times, not two, for it to match up (I don't remember all the exact numbers . . . this is all from the back of my head, but I'm fairly sure that is what is was).

And with the light sources, the real problem is that there were multiple or split shadows. In order for such shadows to appear, there had to have been multiple light sources, which does not match up, considering they were on the moon.

And if my memory serves me correctly, they could not have launched OFF the moon with the technology used during the first launch, there was not enough resistance for them to get the necessary momentum. Again, it's been a while, so I'm not 100% I'm relating this correctly.

As for the answer to the main question--did we land on the moon?--I'm not sure. There are always conspiracies floating about, but at the same time, the U.S. certainly had the motive, and I have never been all that trusting of our government. I mean, look at JFK. That story is so full of holes that it's likely to make swiss cheese a little jealous. I'm still undecided about the moon thing, but if I had to choose, I'd say we didn't. (Oh, suspicious little me :)).

enazwo
July 19th, 2002, 06:31 PM
The most troubling thing to me is, that if it indeed turns out to be true that NASA faked the moon landing. It will derail my "Blowing up the Moon" Project. I was counting on using some of NASA's technology to carry out this mission. A mission that would save the earth's human population from the imminent attack of lunar navigating insects. This could spell trouble.

Cadfael
July 20th, 2002, 12:14 AM
And with the light sources, the real problem is that there were multiple or split shadows. In order for such shadows to appear, there had to have been multiple light sources, which does not match up, considering they were on the moon.

I agree, and as many photographs show... especially the TV footage... they DID have arc lamps set up on the surface... this wan becuase of the poor contrast in the video images they had to beam back to earth. This would cause 'cross-shadowing'... I was an amature photographer... and we had to think about lighting in the studio to avoid this...

I have noticed that only captures from video footage is being used as evidence in this argument (not here... but in general). None of the still photographs that only were developed after the return to earth are offered a proof. The video stuff beamed to eath was very poor quality... and is open to mis-interpretation.


And if my memory serves me correctly, they could not have launched OFF the moon with the technology used during the first launch, there was not enough resistance for them to get the necessary momentum. Again, it's been a while, so I'm not 100% I'm relating this correctly.

They could lift a launch vehicle weighing a thousand or more times more that a lunar lander from a planet with 1G, but they did not have the technology to lift a vehicle that two men could lift, from a planet with 0.6G... now... come on! I think they used solid fuel rockets for this... very short lived.... but incredibley powerful

Alucard
July 20th, 2002, 01:16 AM
Could be. I don't remember my facts, it was a while ago that I read into this. But I remember hearing about it and looking up arguments for both sides, and the side that says that we didn't actually land was a lot more convincing . . . though, admittedly, when it comes to governments, I am always suspicious. Can't help it. Government conspiracy is one of the most recurring themes you'll find in any history book.

But as for the moon, I'm with you enazwo. Blow it up. I mean, do we really need tides? Do we really need all those coyotes howling away and disturbing our sleep? Do we really need that Pink Floyd Album?

(By the way, have you ever seen the show, Mr. Show? It used to come on HBO, and the skit where they blew up the moon was hilarious)

Cadfael
July 20th, 2002, 01:22 AM
Of course we need the Moon... I ask you, you are sitting with a girl... a full moon beaming down... you say...

"You know... the moonlight really makes you eyes look lovely... and I love the way it shines in your hair..."

Guarenteed BROTHER!!!! ;)

now.. picture this...

"I cant see your eyes, and your hain needs washing"

Nope... not a chance.... :(

enazwo
July 20th, 2002, 02:41 AM
Or how about this...?

"Ah Honey we blew up the moon last week and I can't see your hair or eyes tonight in order to tell you how much they make me sport wood.

So since there's nothing else to talk about, can I give you the hot beef injection honey baby, sweetie-pie, queen-of-all-my-dreams?"

Not only will, blowing-up-the-moon spare the inconvenience of those pesky low tides but should save time.

Romance for a new generation.
There's a new world coming.

Cadfael
July 20th, 2002, 04:20 AM
No challenge in that.. good lord.. you young blood have NO BLOODY IDEA!!!

*shambles off.. muttering "all too bloody easy for these young things.... not like that in my day.... it was all the better for the effort you put in... and that was only for a kiss*

I was not talking about sex... I was talkin' about ROOOOOOMANCE!!!!

We may have missed the pain... but we would also miss the dance...

In fact.. I don't think I could be bothered in your moonless world... watch TV instead....

Alucard
July 20th, 2002, 04:46 AM
Define this . . . ro-mance term you use. Is it a different kind of sex?