View Full Version : Fake Moon Landing debate

Home - Discussion Forums - News - Reviews - Interviews

New reviews, interviews and news

New in the Discussion Forum

Pages : 1 2 3 [4]

July 22nd, 2002, 02:12 AM
Regarding the shadow length one, it's fairly easy - the ground is not flat - as you can see by the varying amount of shadow on the ground itself - to the left top it gets brighter.
I think the guy at the right is standing on a slight slope, if you look at the comparative shadowy nature of the ground, as opposed to where it appears to be flattening off.

It's best demonstrated (although a bit extremely) by having two people, a wall, and a sun getting low on the horizon.
Stand one person next to the wall. Stand the other person a couple of metres out from the same wall.
The person furthest away from the wall will still have a shadow stretching all the way to the wall.
Depending on the sun's angle, the longer shadow won't come up as high as the one that is next to the wall, but it will still appear to be longer.

July 22nd, 2002, 04:17 AM
If you honestly want to know the truth, investigate.

There are three stars in the second picture, so if we go back to 1969, find out where the planets were, the moon the sun and everything in relation, then the three stars behind Buzz? should be found to be the brightest by far in the sky. In relation to everything these stars should be in the exact position we see them in in the picture.

I know this sounds confusing as I just ate a crap load of chocalate and I'm writing at a speed that makes what I'm saying almost unitelligable.

Something else, how do we know there's a radiation belt surrounding the earth?

July 22nd, 2002, 11:59 AM
About 20 miles about the Earth, there is a radiation belt named the Van Allen belt. No human can get through this belt, If you try than you get hit with 300+ rads of radiation. Unless they are surrounded on each side by 4 feet on lead.
Are you suggesting that no humans have ever made it to space at all?

There are millions of micro-metors traveling at speeds up to 6000 MPH, which would tear the ship to pieces.
Once again, if this is true then does it mean that no ships, not even the space shuttle, have ever orbited the Earth or been close to the Moon? What about the hundreds of satellites orbiting the planet?

However, some of the "oddities" you listed were strange indeed, especially the bits about the seemingly unmanned camera shots. Did they have remotely controlled cameras in the sixties? We need to find that out...

July 22nd, 2002, 12:25 PM
Originally posted by Miriamele
Did they have remotely controlled cameras in the sixties? We need to find that out...

In the sixties every thing was pretty much remote controlled, it had to be because everybody was so triped out on LSD. ;)

July 22nd, 2002, 01:29 PM
Then too most Apollo missions that landed on the Moon (there were some that just went there and came back and others that only went up to Earth orbit to test the equipment) happened in the 1970s!

A remote controlled camera would be a walk in the park compared to a lunar lander. If they could make the latter why not the former?

Actually the micrometeors travel at speeds up to 120,000 MPH, but we aren't talking fist sized rocks here. They are measured in microns, I'm too tired to look that up but it is really, really, really small. Space on the other hand is really, really, really big so it isn't like they were zooming through a sandstorm. They built the hull and spacesuits to withstand it.

It takes time for radiation to get through the hull. The astronauts went through the most intense part of the raditation belt very quickly, so the hull didn't have to be four feet thick. If you know how long it takes for radiation to penetrate the metal you are using to build your hull and you know the velocity your spacecraft will be traveling when it goes through the worst part of the radiation then you do the math and build you hull of X thickness to withstand Y hours in Z amount of radiation.

If you do a search for Apollo missions to the moon you can find websites that refute the faked landing theories. :) There's even a Russian page dedicated to discounting the faked landing theories. Seeing as the US was in a Space Race with the Russians you would think the Russians would be first in line to disprove we landed on the moon if we hadn't.

Oh, and there was a time delay in the signals in all the recordings I've seen. On the topic of radio signals, anybody with a radio telescope would have been able to exactly pinpoint the source of those signals. In order to fool them all we would have had to have sent something to the moon to do the broadcasting. If we did that, why not send the astronauts along too? :)

July 22nd, 2002, 05:31 PM
A micron is a millionth of a metre.(0.00004 of an inch). I wasn't tired so I looked it up :)

July 23rd, 2002, 02:15 AM
I read the belt is quite extensive. Only the moon missions have taken humans past the belt.

It's funny how there is either 3 stars or none.

The first moon mission coincided with the sun's worst solar flare-up in mankind's history (or some such thing). They were lucky to make it the moon at all (if they did).

Plus, about a dozen astronauts were killed trying to get shuttles taking off in few prior years. One astronaut, who was gonna be the first to step on the moon, hung a lemon on the shuttle in the center and told his wife that the next time it screws up, he's gonna be the one dead. And he was, fried with his crew before the shuttle even took off, and there were communication problems between the control and the shuttle. They couldn't even get things right, or communicate to the shuttle a mile or less away, let alone from earth to the moon. A quote on a site says that God must have been the co-pilot. Another astronaut mysteriously died too, after submitting a 2000 (or so) page report on what was wrong with the space program. The document disappeared and he as killed in another mishap. Also, Buzz Aldrin has run off crying before making speechs at 3 NASA functions. Guilt, perhaps.

fluffy bunny
July 24th, 2002, 01:44 PM
here u go- they landed on the moon and took some piccies

Then when they got back, they decided that the photographer needed shooting so they made some up

July 24th, 2002, 01:53 PM
Originally posted by fluffy bunny
here u go- they landed on the moon and took some piccies

Then when they got back, they decided that the photographer needed shooting so they made some up

LOL... now THAT I can believe!!