Jimbo 133 Posted October 31, 2008 Author Share Posted October 31, 2008 And 35% believe that the Apollo landing on the Moon was a hoax. Bearing in mind that by 1967 NASA was still blowing up Rockets on the launch pad and that the Russians were still shitting themselves that any human travelling through deep space would get fried by the Van Allen belt of radiation, does anyone else feel a bit sceptical that in 1969 the Americans managed to not only get to the Moon but managed to get back unharmed at the first attempt ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 70 Posted November 1, 2008 Share Posted November 1, 2008 And 35% believe that the Apollo landing on the Moon was a hoax. Bearing in mind that by 1967 NASA was still blowing up Rockets on the launch pad and that the Russians were still shitting themselves that any human travelling through deep space would get fried by the Van Allen belt of radiation, does anyone else feel a bit sceptical that in 1969 the Americans managed to not only get to the Moon but managed to get back unharmed at the first attempt ?? America got on the moon but not Americans, that was about 7 years later. Then everybody lost interest in the moon...strange.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken 119 Posted November 1, 2008 Share Posted November 1, 2008 (edited) And 35% believe that the Apollo landing on the Moon was a hoax. Bearing in mind that by 1967 NASA was still blowing up Rockets on the launch pad and that the Russians were still shitting themselves that any human travelling through deep space would get fried by the Van Allen belt of radiation, does anyone else feel a bit sceptical that in 1969 the Americans managed to not only get to the Moon but managed to get back unharmed at the first attempt ?? Yeah but admittedly NASA pumped in a huge amount of money to develop their rockets. If you pump enough money into something you achieve results. I also believe the silence of the Russians and the fact they never voiced their skepticism over America's achievements in landing man on the moon as a point which leads me to believe that they did it. I have read that small doses of radiation in the Van Allen belt is acceptable to humans without permanent damage, and also that the radiation doesn't affect humans at all period, but I'm not from a scientific background so I wouldn't have a clue. As proof that man has reached the moon there are mirrors left on the moon by members of the Apollo crew which are used to bounce lasers off of them to measure the moon's orbit and distance. I am a little skeptical about the official time line myself though, and whether the images and film supposedly taken during the Apollo 11 mission were fake, to make it appear that the mission was perfect and successful from start to finish. NASA has lied about the use of fibre optics. They had us believe that they were using kodak - black and white film in a primitive 1960's camera; fibre optic lie Edited November 1, 2008 by Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken 119 Posted November 1, 2008 Share Posted November 1, 2008 And 35% believe that the Apollo landing on the Moon was a hoax. Bearing in mind that by 1967 NASA was still blowing up Rockets on the launch pad and that the Russians were still shitting themselves that any human travelling through deep space would get fried by the Van Allen belt of radiation, does anyone else feel a bit sceptical that in 1969 the Americans managed to not only get to the Moon but managed to get back unharmed at the first attempt ?? America got on the moon but not Americans, that was about 7 years later. Then everybody lost interest in the moon...strange.... I'm not sure about the 7 years after bit, what is the theory behind that? I am dubious about what is written in history books about the subject though, just as I am dubious about NASA and the American government. As for the bit in bold I do wonder what has really been discovered on the Lunar surface that needs to be kept secret; pyramids or fake boulders? moon's a beehive of activity I have no doubt America has flown to the moon covertly many times either to exploit resources and/or to study things on it and have successfully kept it from the public. China plan to put a man on the moon in the very near future so maybe all will be revealed then. After all China is a Communist country and atheist, so they don't have to protect the beliefs of creationists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted November 1, 2008 Share Posted November 1, 2008 And 35% believe that the Apollo landing on the Moon was a hoax. Bearing in mind that by 1967 NASA was still blowing up Rockets on the launch pad and that the Russians were still shitting themselves that any human travelling through deep space would get fried by the Van Allen belt of radiation, does anyone else feel a bit sceptical that in 1969 the Americans managed to not only get to the Moon but managed to get back unharmed at the first attempt ?? America got on the moon but not Americans, that was about 7 years later. Then everybody lost interest in the moon...strange.... I'm not sure about the 7 years after bit, what is the theory behind that? I am dubious about what is written in history books about the subject though, just as I am dubious about NASA and the American government. As for the bit in bold I do wonder what has really been discovered on the Lunar surface that needs to be kept secret; pyramids or fake boulders? moon's a beehive of activity I have no doubt America has flown to the moon covertly many times either to exploit resources and/or to study things on it and have successfully kept it from the public. China plan to put a man on the moon in the very near future so maybe all will be revealed then. After all China is a Communist country and atheist, so they don't have to protect the beliefs of creationists. The problem with the moon is..... it's shit. Mars is where the real action is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken 119 Posted November 1, 2008 Share Posted November 1, 2008 And 35% believe that the Apollo landing on the Moon was a hoax. Bearing in mind that by 1967 NASA was still blowing up Rockets on the launch pad and that the Russians were still shitting themselves that any human travelling through deep space would get fried by the Van Allen belt of radiation, does anyone else feel a bit sceptical that in 1969 the Americans managed to not only get to the Moon but managed to get back unharmed at the first attempt ?? America got on the moon but not Americans, that was about 7 years later. Then everybody lost interest in the moon...strange.... I'm not sure about the 7 years after bit, what is the theory behind that? I am dubious about what is written in history books about the subject though, just as I am dubious about NASA and the American government. As for the bit in bold I do wonder what has really been discovered on the Lunar surface that needs to be kept secret; pyramids or fake boulders? moon's a beehive of activity I have no doubt America has flown to the moon covertly many times either to exploit resources and/or to study things on it and have successfully kept it from the public. China plan to put a man on the moon in the very near future so maybe all will be revealed then. After all China is a Communist country and atheist, so they don't have to protect the beliefs of creationists. The problem with the moon is..... it's shit. Mars is where the real action is. Helium-3. Non-radioactive fission material. Apparently... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob W 0 Posted November 1, 2008 Share Posted November 1, 2008 And 35% believe that the Apollo landing on the Moon was a hoax. Bearing in mind that by 1967 NASA was still blowing up Rockets on the launch pad and that the Russians were still shitting themselves that any human travelling through deep space would get fried by the Van Allen belt of radiation, does anyone else feel a bit sceptical that in 1969 the Americans managed to not only get to the Moon but managed to get back unharmed at the first attempt ?? Yeah but admittedly NASA pumped in a huge amount of money to develop their rockets. If you pump enough money into something you achieve results. I also believe the silence of the Russians and the fact they never voiced their skepticism over America's achievements in landing man on the moon as a point which leads me to believe that they did it. I have read that small doses of radiation in the Van Allen belt is acceptable to humans without permanent damage, and also that the radiation doesn't affect humans at all period, but I'm not from a scientific background so I wouldn't have a clue. As proof that man has reached the moon there are mirrors left on the moon by members of the Apollo crew which are used to bounce lasers off of them to measure the moon's orbit and distance. I am a little skeptical about the official time line myself though, and whether the images and film supposedly taken during the Apollo 11 mission were fake, to make it appear that the mission was perfect and successful from start to finish. NASA has lied about the use of fibre optics. They had us believe that they were using kodak - black and white film in a primitive 1960's camera; fibre optic lie I suggest you get professional help as quickly as possible Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken 119 Posted November 1, 2008 Share Posted November 1, 2008 And 35% believe that the Apollo landing on the Moon was a hoax. Bearing in mind that by 1967 NASA was still blowing up Rockets on the launch pad and that the Russians were still shitting themselves that any human travelling through deep space would get fried by the Van Allen belt of radiation, does anyone else feel a bit sceptical that in 1969 the Americans managed to not only get to the Moon but managed to get back unharmed at the first attempt ?? Yeah but admittedly NASA pumped in a huge amount of money to develop their rockets. If you pump enough money into something you achieve results. I also believe the silence of the Russians and the fact they never voiced their skepticism over America's achievements in landing man on the moon as a point which leads me to believe that they did it. I have read that small doses of radiation in the Van Allen belt is acceptable to humans without permanent damage, and also that the radiation doesn't affect humans at all period, but I'm not from a scientific background so I wouldn't have a clue. As proof that man has reached the moon there are mirrors left on the moon by members of the Apollo crew which are used to bounce lasers off of them to measure the moon's orbit and distance. I am a little skeptical about the official time line myself though, and whether the images and film supposedly taken during the Apollo 11 mission were fake, to make it appear that the mission was perfect and successful from start to finish. NASA has lied about the use of fibre optics. They had us believe that they were using kodak - black and white film in a primitive 1960's camera; fibre optic lie I suggest you get professional help as quickly as possible No thanks. Lobster and a bottle of Moet will do me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted November 1, 2008 Share Posted November 1, 2008 And 35% believe that the Apollo landing on the Moon was a hoax. Bearing in mind that by 1967 NASA was still blowing up Rockets on the launch pad and that the Russians were still shitting themselves that any human travelling through deep space would get fried by the Van Allen belt of radiation, does anyone else feel a bit sceptical that in 1969 the Americans managed to not only get to the Moon but managed to get back unharmed at the first attempt ?? America got on the moon but not Americans, that was about 7 years later. Then everybody lost interest in the moon...strange.... I'm not sure about the 7 years after bit, what is the theory behind that? I am dubious about what is written in history books about the subject though, just as I am dubious about NASA and the American government. As for the bit in bold I do wonder what has really been discovered on the Lunar surface that needs to be kept secret; pyramids or fake boulders? moon's a beehive of activity I have no doubt America has flown to the moon covertly many times either to exploit resources and/or to study things on it and have successfully kept it from the public. China plan to put a man on the moon in the very near future so maybe all will be revealed then. After all China is a Communist country and atheist, so they don't have to protect the beliefs of creationists. The problem with the moon is..... it's shit. Mars is where the real action is. Helium-3. Non-radioactive fission material. Apparently... We don't need bigger bombs....... yet, but when we get to Mars...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 70 Posted November 1, 2008 Share Posted November 1, 2008 There is/was deffo something on the moon that worried them. They haven't made a noise about going back till just very recently. Probably going back tooled up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted November 1, 2008 Share Posted November 1, 2008 There is/was deffo something on the moon that worried them. They haven't made a noise about going back till just very recently. Probably going back tooled up. Bush maybe thought that was were Bin Laden was hiding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig 6307 Posted November 1, 2008 Share Posted November 1, 2008 tbf, the mirrors on the moon could have been sent by unmanned spacecraft but putting devil's advocate to one side, i know they weren't. Be interested to see if the lunar lander is actually there in the Sea of Tranquility though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimbo 133 Posted November 1, 2008 Author Share Posted November 1, 2008 tbf, the mirrors on the moon could have been sent by unmanned spacecraft but putting devil's advocate to one side, i know they weren't. Be interested to see if the lunar lander is actually there in the Sea of Tranquility though You would think with the high powered telescopes, that would be easy to demonstrate. Although one of the many pieces of evidence against the moon landings is the lack of a blast crater under the lunar lander, many thousands of pounds of thrust used in the landing surely would have blown away the dusty surface of the moon, yet in any of the photographs taken by the astronaughts show a pristine flat surface. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig 6307 Posted November 1, 2008 Share Posted November 1, 2008 tbf, the mirrors on the moon could have been sent by unmanned spacecraft but putting devil's advocate to one side, i know they weren't. Be interested to see if the lunar lander is actually there in the Sea of Tranquility though You would think with the high powered telescopes, that would be easy to demonstrate. Although one of the many pieces of evidence against the moon landings is the lack of a blast crater under the lunar lander, many thousands of pounds of thrust used in the landing surely would have blown away the dusty surface of the moon, yet in any of the photographs taken by the astronaughts show a pristine flat surface. Correct-a-mundo - what's more, with very little atmosphere there would have been no gravity to disperse the dust-cloud that this thrust would have produced. They should have been walking around in conditions that resembled thick fog - instead, the visibility was perfect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimbo 133 Posted November 1, 2008 Author Share Posted November 1, 2008 tbf, the mirrors on the moon could have been sent by unmanned spacecraft but putting devil's advocate to one side, i know they weren't. Be interested to see if the lunar lander is actually there in the Sea of Tranquility though You would think with the high powered telescopes, that would be easy to demonstrate. Although one of the many pieces of evidence against the moon landings is the lack of a blast crater under the lunar lander, many thousands of pounds of thrust used in the landing surely would have blown away the dusty surface of the moon, yet in any of the photographs taken by the astronaughts show a pristine flat surface. Correct-a-mundo - what's more, with very little atmosphere there would have been no gravity to disperse the dust-cloud that this thrust would have produced. They should have been walking around in conditions that resembled thick fog - instead, the visibility was perfect. add to this the flapping flag in the footage, a strange effect in the vacuum of space. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paddy 9 Posted November 1, 2008 Share Posted November 1, 2008 ready mix tbh, i love these things, will they wont they, did they etc etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken 119 Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 tbf, the mirrors on the moon could have been sent by unmanned spacecraft but putting devil's advocate to one side, i know they weren't. Be interested to see if the lunar lander is actually there in the Sea of Tranquility though You would think with the high powered telescopes, that would be easy to demonstrate. Although one of the many pieces of evidence against the moon landings is the lack of a blast crater under the lunar lander, many thousands of pounds of thrust used in the landing surely would have blown away the dusty surface of the moon, yet in any of the photographs taken by the astronaughts show a pristine flat surface. Correct-a-mundo - what's more, with very little atmosphere there would have been no gravity to disperse the dust-cloud that this thrust would have produced. They should have been walking around in conditions that resembled thick fog - instead, the visibility was perfect. So either the photographs were faked (ie.they were taken here on earth), or the explanation that the moon has 1/6 the gravity of earth is incorrect. Theorists suggest the gravitational pull could be as much as 2/3 that of the earth, which means the moon could very well have an atmosphere... if they are right in their theories. If the gravity was 1/6 that of earth's then a 180 pound man would weigh 30 pounds and should therefore be able to jump 6 times higher on the moon. No video or photo images (assuming they are genuine) show astronauts jumping any higher than one foot off the ground. Shouldn't they be leaping 6 foot into the air? Hoax? What about the lack of dust plume coming from the back of the lunar buggy; buggy on earth not moon What was fed to the public was obviously not the genuine thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken 119 Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 tbf, the mirrors on the moon could have been sent by unmanned spacecraft but putting devil's advocate to one side, i know they weren't. Be interested to see if the lunar lander is actually there in the Sea of Tranquility though Could very well have been. Or they could have been placed there by astronauts on covert mission/s. For me personally I don't dispute that America has sent man on the moon. I question what rocket was used, what mission, which astonauts and which year (could have been earlier than 1969). I think China plans to send a manned-mission to the moon by 2020. That's 12 years of more doubt and questioning - Yes, no, maybe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken 119 Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 (edited) There is/was deffo something on the moon that worried them. They haven't made a noise about going back till just very recently. Probably going back tooled up. An astronaut's conversation has been edited. Was it music from another interplanetary race? NASA hiding truth And this interesting article from a former NASA employee. Wacko or truth teller? sworn statement Edited November 2, 2008 by Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 They definitely went imo and without getting into this again most of the conspiracy shit is just that - i.e. easily debinked nonsense. I enjoyed Capricorn 1 though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lazarus 0 Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 Theres mirrors on the moon???? Just how vain are these astronauts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 Theres mirrors on the moon???? Just how vain are these astronauts? Shows the Moon's getting further away by about a metre a year iirc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 70 Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 tbf, the mirrors on the moon could have been sent by unmanned spacecraft but putting devil's advocate to one side, i know they weren't. Be interested to see if the lunar lander is actually there in the Sea of Tranquility though Could very well have been. Or they could have been placed there by astronauts on covert mission/s. For me personally I don't dispute that America has sent man on the moon. I question what rocket was used, what mission, which astonauts and which year (could have been earlier than 1969). I think China plans to send a manned-mission to the moon by 2020. That's 12 years of more doubt and questioning - Yes, no, maybe. Actually it is the new Nasa manned moon mission that has estimated 2020. This kind of thing just makes me laugh..Meant to be a piece of piss putting men on the moon apparently, after all we did it in the 60's?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 70 Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 tbf, the mirrors on the moon could have been sent by unmanned spacecraft but putting devil's advocate to one side, i know they weren't. Be interested to see if the lunar lander is actually there in the Sea of Tranquility though You would think with the high powered telescopes, that would be easy to demonstrate. Although one of the many pieces of evidence against the moon landings is the lack of a blast crater under the lunar lander, many thousands of pounds of thrust used in the landing surely would have blown away the dusty surface of the moon, yet in any of the photographs taken by the astronaughts show a pristine flat surface. Correct-a-mundo - what's more, with very little atmosphere there would have been no gravity to disperse the dust-cloud that this thrust would have produced. They should have been walking around in conditions that resembled thick fog - instead, the visibility was perfect. add to this the flapping flag in the footage, a strange effect in the vacuum of space. Of course if E.T. wanted to watch us the moon would be the best place to set up camp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 The budget in the 60s for the space programme was astronomical Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now