ismokealotofpot
New Member
please drop the ball.
Space thread what they didn't want you to see
- Thread starter ismokealotofpot
- Start date
ismokealotofpot
New Member
it knew no one would see it but me. sounds funny huh?
Doer
Well-Known Member
And step away from the pins.
ismokealotofpot
New Member
They faked the moon landing for more than one reason. the first was to convince the commies they have superior rocket tech and the second was to pocket all the money from the space program by making a low budget movie instead. think about it how many billions in free tax dollars could they get?
Doer
Well-Known Member
I know, and free Tang!
mindphuk
Well-Known Member
Who is 'they?' Who got the money?
Heisenberg
Well-Known Member
Moon rocks are not the only hard evidence. We can point a laser burst at the moon and reflect it off of the man made 'mirrors' that were left there. Sure it would take some high tech and expensive equipment to verify, but it can be done completely independent of NASA.
Pretty hard to explain anything natural being able to reflect a laser back so accurately, especially since there are at least three reflectors in different locations. The data collected is used to test theories such as gravity and moon orbit. If this information was being faked by some method, the data would not turn out to be useful in other areas of study, we would see mistakes.
There is also this,
So, when we reflect the laser off the moon, if should give us a number we can verify through independent calculations. This means, anyone setting up equipment at different times and locations would get specific numbers, that they can verify.
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_11/experiments/lrr/
Doer
Well-Known Member
"You need laser that can shoot enough photons in a short pulse that you'll get some back in the return pulse (shoot 10[SUP]17[/SUP] green 532 nm photons per pulse). "
More fascinating discussion here about how it can be attempted by the amateur with some cash. So the question is not if there is the reflector there, it's how to get the return ourselves.
Can an amateur astronomer test the Lunar Laser Ranging RetroReflector?
More fascinating discussion here about how it can be attempted by the amateur with some cash. So the question is not if there is the reflector there, it's how to get the return ourselves.
Can an amateur astronomer test the Lunar Laser Ranging RetroReflector?
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
Well ya see, it just so happens that a group of Wahhabist conspirators hatched a plot to hijack these airliners see.... Sometimes a conspiracy actually is a conspiracy. But usually its wacky.
skudz47
Member
John Searl claims to have made flying saucers before we even went to the moon
http://www.scribd.com/doc/75278338/SEG-Mock-Up-Verses-SEG-Prototype-Stages-of-R-D
http://www.scribd.com/doc/75278338/SEG-Mock-Up-Verses-SEG-Prototype-Stages-of-R-D
rmx
Member
Wow, loads of people getting defensive about this. Don't shit on me for stating an opinion - But Something about the moon landing footage has never sat right with me at all, and I'm far from a conspiracy theorist. Even when I first saw the moon landing footage in school at around age 8(?), I clearly remember thinking it looked 'awful' and was genuinely surprised to learn that it was actual moon landing footage. I thought it was an excerpt from a low budget 70's movie. - I mean, even though the footage is old, it's hardly justification for the huge number of inconsistencies and questionable occurrences.
Look at the video above for a start. Apart from the question of how the camera accurately filmed the departure - Take a look at the take off. Lol, it hardly looks or sounds like it has enough force to light a damn fart, never mind launch a space shuttle. There's a tiny sign of downdraft as the shuttle just instantly lifts and slowly drifts upwards... Righto.
Yeah, then look back at the first few videos in this thread. Astronauts apparently walking around in low gravity while objects around them fall to the ground at normal speeds.
Come on guys, I know how fucking annoying it is to have your beliefs challenged, but you can't deny that many parts of the footage just don't look right at all.
Anyway, like I said, don't rage at me. I'd be interested in reading logical explanations for some of these "anomalies". Peace friends!
Edit: Just to clarify - I don't take any joy in 'slandering' iconic footage. I find space, astrology and astronomy fascinating and believe that what NASA does "nowadays" is truly awesome. I'm not a conspiracy theorist. There are just too many inconsistencies in this particular footage for me to immediately accept it as irrefutable proof of this particular moon landing.
mindphuk
Well-Known Member
The footage of the module take off was only done on the last three missions. Those were the missions with the lunar rover with a camera on it that could be controlled from Earth (this camera was used for a lot of the footage of the astronauts working on the moon's surface, as well).
Because of the signal delay between the moon and the Earth, the camera operator had to start sending the command to "pan up" to the camera a couple seconds before the module actually launched. I believe that he missed the ascent almost entirely on Apollo 15, got a lot better on Apollo 16, and nailed it almost perfectly on Apollo 17. I remember reading how they practiced this camera move many times in order to get it right for 17.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
It's not that the footage is old, it looked wierd when it was new too. The environemnt on the moon is not just low gravity, but the lack of atmosphere direct exposure to solar radiation and huge rapid swings in temperature from nearly 0 kelvin in the shade to hot eough for the cooking of meatloaf. This means the cameras and film had to be specially calibrated, and equipped with aperatures that could shut down real fast if light intensity got too high, focus over vast distances without having blurry backgrounds, sheilding for the film enclosures, and electrical components, annd be durable enough to survive re-entry even if the capsule didnt. These were not Super8's from the Sears and Roebuck catalog.
The differences in cameras and film is only part of the story. 1/6 gravity is very much like what you get walking in a shallow swimming pool. after just a few hours, when you get out your legs feel all rubbery. these guys just spent more than 2 days just getting to lunar orbit, in near total weightlessness. by the time they got to walking on the lunar surface their legs were like linguini, plus they had to wear those clumsy suits which were not designed for mobility or graceful ballet moves, and adapt to a gravity that was heavy comapred to the flight but super light compared to earth. yeah, sometimes they walked goofy. this low-G environment makes some movements seem slow, and others seem too fast, this immediate and hard to define strageness of movement is why many films lately have used actors suspended in water to portray creepy otherworldy motions. it just looks WRONG to the viewer.
The lack of atmosphere doesnt just require specially designed cameras, it changes the way light functions when compared to earth. with no atmospheric or distortion dispersion, the focal field becomes nearly infinite. with no obvious frame of focus, subjects and backgrounds had no distinction between them, save the shapes and motions, and everthing looks somehow "fake" like early uses of video tape shooting on soap operas. many early video tape shoots just looked OFF on screen, and many video tape cinematographers started smearing vaseline on the outer edge of their lenses to give the illusion of focal depth. The stark contrasts between light and shadow are disturbing to the oberver and just seem unnatural. and many of the actions and events astronauts performed were scripted by nasa as a show for the people back home. all combined these factors help create the "fake" seeming un-reality of the films.
ismokealotofpot
New Member
have you ever looked into those cameras they were 30 years out of date at the time. and the manufacturer even said they tampered with the film because the they had cross hairs embedded in the lens. in some of photos the cross hairs are edited out. how about the back drops that are used repeatedly over and over for multiple landing sites.
KI11TH3W3AK
Active Member
^^lol this guy can't believe anything because he thinks he is so cool 
love it
love it
Heisenberg
Well-Known Member
So after pages of people trying to clarify things for you, you ignore the pertinent information and double down on conspiracy points that have long been adressed. Your goal seems simply to oppose.
Doer
Well-Known Member
He seems to just want to argue, not to even convince us, just to argue.