ismokealotofpot
New Member
please drop the ball.God bless the Bowling Alley. I know several pilots with very spooky stories like this.
please drop the ball.God bless the Bowling Alley. I know several pilots with very spooky stories like this.
And step away from the pins.please drop the ball.
I know, and free Tang!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?
Who is 'they?' Who got the money?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?
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.rude mother fucker aren't ya, the fact is none of you can give me any proof that we went to the moon. the only hard evidence was moon rocks. so why don't you give us a moon rock analysis
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."Using these mirrors," explains Alley, "we can 'ping' the moon with laser pulses and measure the Earth-moon distance very precisely. This is a wonderful way to learn about the moon's orbit and to test theories of gravity."
Here's how it works: A laser pulse shoots out of a telescope on Earth, crosses the Earth-moon divide, and hits the array. Because the mirrors are "corner-cube reflectors," they send the pulse straight back where it came from. "It's like hitting a ball into the corner of a squash court," explains Alley. Back on Earth, telescopes intercept the returning pulse.
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.The round-trip travel time pinpoints the moon's distance with staggering precision: better than a few centimeters out of 385,000 km, typically.
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.Dude... It happened. Get over it.
What do you mean convince the commies? Obviously they had the rocket tech cause they launched the damn things at least into orbit. Do you deny that?
Can any one tell me of the last conspiracy theory that was proven correct?
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.[video=youtube;eWDHQxDl0g4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWDHQxDl0g4&feature=related[/video]
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).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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
He seems to just want to argue, not to even convince us, just to argue.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.