the faked moon landings

[The General8]

http://batesmotel.8m.com

interesting no?

read it before you comment.

[Cicada]

Last Updated 1-26-99

old news..

+ wrong forum

[Leshy]

Thread Tennis!

(Well, not really.)

[MrL_JaKiri]

That's just stupid.

Really stupid.

[Deffeh]

hi gen!

[MrL_JaKiri]

I was going to go through this step by step, but A is just so rediculous as 'evidence' (so many things could have caused that; a slight slope would do it) I really can't be bothered.

ps.

Communications satellites.

pps.

How do we have mirrors on the moon?

ppps.

'Whistling dixie! I want this sent to Area 51 for study!'

'But sir, that's where we're building the fake moon landing site.'

'Then we'll have to really land on the moon! Invent NASA and tell the to get off their fannies!'

[MrL_JaKiri]

And the so-called 'expert' doesn't have a doctorate.

And the vietnam war ended two years after the last moon landing.

And so on, so forth.

I wonder if there's an accurate piece of information on the site.

[Bloomers III]

"There are millions of micro-metors traveling at speeds up to 6000 MPH, which would tear the ship to pieces. "

IS that why Sky has bad reception?!?!

[Mushroom]

yeah, have you seen the counter site?
I think it's somewhere on the NASA website, but that's pretty convincing anyways

[Knight Theamion]

Originally posted by Mushroom
yeah, have you seen the counter site?
I think it's somewhere on the NASA website, but that's pretty convincing anyways

WINNAR!

[Nodrog]

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

[Jammers]

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri

pps.

How do we have mirrors on the moon?

The same way we have those nifty little dune buggy things on Mars?

And the so-called 'expert' doesn't have a doctorate

And what would you want him to have a doctorate in? Why the Moon Landings Were Faked-ology

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally posted by Jammers
The same way we have those nifty little dune buggy things on Mars?

Robotics wasn't really very advanced when they were placed, so that's highly implausable at best.

Originally posted by Jammers
And what would you want him to have a doctorate in? Why the Moon Landings Were Faked-ology

I'd like my 'experts' to have some form of academic qualification.

[Nixjim]

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast23feb_2.htm

Just as meteoroids constantly bombard the Moon so do cosmic rays, and they leave their fingerprints on Moon rocks, too. "There are isotopes in Moon rocks, isotopes we don't normally find on Earth, that were created by nuclear reactions with the highest-energy cosmic rays," says McKay. Earth is spared from such radiation by our protective atmosphere and magnetosphere.

Even if scientists wanted to make something like a Moon rock by, say, bombarding an Earth rock with high energy atomic nuclei, they couldn't. Earth's most powerful particle accelerators can't energize particles to match the most potent cosmic rays, which are themselves accelerated in supernova blastwaves and in the violent cores of galaxies.

Indeed, says McKay, faking a Moon rock well enough to hoodwink an international army of scientists might be more difficult than the Manhattan Project. "It would be easier to just go to the Moon and get one," he quipped.

And therein lies an original idea: Did NASA go to the Moon to collect props for a staged Moon landing? It's an interesting twist on the conspiracy theory that TV producers might consider for their next episode of the Moon Hoax.

"I have here in my office a 10-foot high stack of scientific books full of papers about the Apollo Moon rocks," added McKay. "Researchers in thousands of labs have examined Apollo Moon samples -- not a single paper challenges their origin! And these aren't all NASA employees, either. We've loaned samples to scientists in dozens of countries [who have no reason to cooperate in any hoax]."

Even Dr. Robert Park, Director of the Washington office of the American Physical Society and a noted critic of NASA's human space flight program, agrees with the space agency on this issue. "The body of physical evidence that humans did walk on the Moon is simply overwhelming."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To believe the moon landings were faked, one would have to be dumber than the moon rocks brought back. I stand by my earlier statement, no intelligent person on earth doubts that NASA really landed astronauts on the moon and brought them home.

[ParraCida]

A - One of the two shadows may have well been on an elevation (positive or negative) causing it to shift length but the picture was taken from such an angle that it wasnt quite clear.

B - Maybe the picture was taking with a flashything on the camera as to provide for better light? Very common here on earth when the ambient light isn't enough.

C - Camera is focused for short distance, not longdisnatace it therefore automatically becomes blurry.

D - Yes that would be the moonlandering type thingy.

E - Because this is not on earth and there IS only one lightsource that has no way of being refracted by an atmosphere the shadow WILL be more darker.

F - This one is too stupid to even answer.

K - Material may very well have been something that reflects light quite well, considering it had survive launch and re-entry you couldnt just use standard stuff.

L - maybe the chest was on top of another, or help up to make the picture, or the angle was so that it pointed upwards or it was on an elevation in the terrain or maybe the astronaut is kneeling.

M - its not a straight mirror, it has a curve.

N - Space suit most definatly, since its 'white'.

7 - anomaly, could be anything, probably prove its ON the moon more then not.

S - Have you analyzed moon dust? Didnt think so ty. Recent studies have indicated the moon contains large amounts of (frozen) water anyway.

R - Out of all the forms possible in this world, you 'think' its possible for a C shape to exist somewhere on a rock outside earth? Think of the face on mars for a far more complicated example of randomness.

P - Yes that is odd indeed, not that it prooves anything about this not being on the moon and such. However there couldve been multiple explanations, ie moving the camera, or light being reflected in a funny way etc. I'm not a camera expert - check with one before you make stupid claims.




Hey at least I get an 'A' for effort.

[Judge]

Originally posted by The General8
http://batesmotel.8m.com

interesting no?

read it before you comment.

Old story and been done on here at least a half dozen times over the last few years.

You Believe what you wish, the rest of us will stick to the facts.

[HobbieRogue4]

Originally posted by The General8
interesting no?

No.

read it before you comment.

Done. General8 is a retard.

[Intrepid00]

Just to show what a dumb **** this guy is.

http://batesmotel.8m.com/nasa8.gif

He argues in that picture that if the camera was really attached to the takers chest it shouldn't be at head level. Well, if the dumb **** looked in the hemlet refelection you can clearly see that he is kneeling with the sample contianr getting the camera at head level for the poser.

[Chrism]

It was me, I faked the moon landings.

[sayonara]

That website is ace.

I'm convinced.

After all, faking a moon landing is a really helpful thing to do with lots of advantages.

[Mushroom]

One of the aforementioned counter sites.
Not quite the one i was thinking of, but it explains a few points.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally posted by Mushroom
One of the aforementioned counter sites.
Not quite the one i was thinking of, but it explains a few points.

It's been posted in this thread already, wiggles.

[Jammers]

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
Robotics wasn't really very advanced when they were placed, so that's highly implausable at best.

Yet the Russians were able to send robots to the moon only 4years after the first moon landings (Lunakhod 2) cabable of wandering about the Moon quite happily, as well as carrying a laser detection device?
The US sent 8 missions to the Moon (counting Apollo 8, 10 and 13 which didn't actually land, but still went there and so could have dropped a robot down in the same way Lunakhod 2 was deployed).
The Russians were also able to retrieve moon rock from Luna 16, 20 and 24, so the existance of moon rock isn't proof in itself of a manned landing.
These only weighed about 4000-5600kg, compared to Apollo 11 which weighed 28801kg for the Command Module, 15065kg for the Lunar Module and 23,244 kg for the Service Module, giving a total weight of 67,110kg, enough to carry eleven 6000kg probes.
11 x 8 = 88, so thats potentially 88little robots wandering the moon reflecting lasers and picking up soil samples.

Also Apollo 1 had a fire in 1967, requiring a number of alterations, which appear to have been finished in time for Apollo 7 only 22months later.

Of course, since I don't have a degree, only a computer and access to Google, none of this actually counts as meaning anything, so please feel free to disregard this post, and I Apollo-gise(geddit?) for wasting your time.

[Mushroom]

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
It's been posted in this thread already, wiggles.

Eee... so it has. Well **** me sideways

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally posted by Jammers

Collecting moon rock is one thing, deploying something is much much more difficult.

[sayonara]

How about deploying something that collects moon rock?