| FAKE CONSPIRACY -> moon conspericy | Start A New Topic | Reply |
| Post Info | TOPIC: moon conspericy |
| Posted By: VOid Posted On: Jan 28, 2004 Views: 713 | RE: moon conspericy I also realized one thing. I dont give a sh1t about what any of you think. Im sure you've all heard the saying "arguing over the internet is like running in the special olympics, even if you win your still retarded." You people can call me a dumbass, you can say what you want, however, just remember, you started the dumb, pointless, flame war, and by default, you win, but mainly its because i dont give a sh1t. so congragulations, you won the special olympics. |
| Posted By: Max Powers Posted On: Jan 28, 2004 Views: 712 | RE: moon conspericy hey VOid, you kick ass, well put... i hate these s h i ts that come in here just to argue with every point that someone makes. im sick of how immature they can be. you know, no one landed on the moon, we didnt even have it faked, did someone say 6 times? where did this number come from? and the 814 pounds of moon rock, wow... i wish i could pull numbers out of my a s s too. |
| Posted By: smater than you Posted On: Jan 28, 2004 Views: 705 | RE: moon conspericy pulled out of our ass?? try an Encyclopedia. or an American History text book. ie, turn off MTV, open a book once in awhile and USE YOUR BRAINS!! |
| Posted By: smarter than you Posted On: Jan 28, 2004 Views: 703 | RE: moon conspericy VOid (of intelligence), to address an earlier post: "Actually, the only people that needed to know that it was faked, was the president of the US, the head of NASA, a few people under him, and the astronauts, anyone else, the didnt need to know. fake video images and fake radio signals wouldnt be very hard to send." -actually, it would have been pretty easy to recognize if a signal was coming from an object almost a million miles away, as opposed to one transmitted from the earth (or even an earth satellite). The signals from the moon were transmitted from the moon, to a satellite orbiting the moon, and then bounced to earth. That would have been impossible to fake. Also, what about the people who built the fake moon sets? The people who filmed it? The engineers who would have had to transmit it? Even a low budget movie requires the work of hundreds of people. "and if you truly do believe that we landed on the moon back in the 60's and 70's, why did we suddenly stop going." -interest was waning, and the US was involved in the war with Vietnam. The $$ was simply not available to continue funding. and why would it take years to get NASA back to the level they were at in the 60's? We cant, and the president even amits, we couldnt send a amn to the moon tomorrow." -landing a human on the moon is not an easy task! First off, we would have to build new rockets and vehicles to get there (the shuttle is not made for travel to other planets/moons). It would takes months of planning. Getting proper funding from Congress is a massive project in of itself. It's not as if NASA has the old equipment all ready to go. Most of it was dismantled or used as displays in museums, not to mention that a modern car has more computing power than all of the Apollo missions combined. Bottom line - you "moon conspirators" prove your idiocy every time you try to prove it was faked. You all need to stop watching movies and START USING YOUR BRAINS! |
| Posted By: VOid Posted On: Jan 28, 2004 Views: 697 | RE: moon conspericy you started out good, proving counter arguements to my points in an organized, not insult laden way, but your last line in which you said we prove our idiocy (i dont know if thats right, nor do i care) kinda destroyed the rest. however, those could be good points except for a few things. Every space vehicle ever sent into space orbited the earth well below the Van Allen Radiation Belts that circle the earth. the only exception was the Apollo missions. Even the modern space shuttle doesnt orbit anywhere near them, for fear of radation. The Russians even stopped there attempts to go to the moon for fear of the radation. Your reasoning of why NASA stopped going to the moon, was a lack of money during the vietnam war. during the first moon landing, 1969, America was heavily into the war and continued to be for many years. however, the Us involvemnt ended in 73, and we continued to send space flights until 72. we stopped a year shy of the end of the war. after that year, the money probably could have been available for space flight, however, NASA decided to cancel Apollo 18. |
| Posted By: Jay Posted On: Jan 29, 2004 Views: 692 | RE: moon conspericy Didn't we leave an American flag planted in the soil of the moon? With the powerful satellites we have now, we should be able to take a picture of the flag from space. THAT would be proof enough! -J |
| Posted By: Kiki D Posted On: Jan 29, 2004 Views: 688 | RE: moon conspericy Do you mean the flag that was WAVING in the video of the first moon landing? Is there air in space? (no.) |
| Posted By: smater than you Posted On: Jan 29, 2004 Views: 687 | RE: moon conspericy "Every space vehicle ever sent into space orbited the earth well below the Van Allen Radiation Belts that circle the earth. the only exception was the Apollo missions. Even the modern space shuttle doesnt orbit anywhere near them, for fear of radation. The Russians even stopped there attempts to go to the moon for fear of the radation." actually, the Van Allen belt only extends about 40,000 miles above the Earth, and is part of what is called the magnetosphere. It is concentrated in the Earth's equatorial plane. It poses a risk to both manned and unmanned space craft, and both generally avoid it. Other than the usual tactics taken to avoid this region, it really has nothing to do with moon exploration. "Your reasoning of why NASA stopped going to the moon, was a lack of money during the Vietnam war. During the first moon landing, 1969, America was heavily into the war and continued to be for many years. however, the Us involvemnt ended in 73, and we continued to send space flights until 72. we stopped a year shy of the end of the war. after that year, the money probably could have been available for space flight, however, NASA decided to cancel Apollo 18." I also mentioned that it had a lot to do with public interest. After the 6th landing, and about 17 related missions - the general public wasn't very interested in the moon program anymore. It was also very expensive, and NASA felt that other space missions were worth more time and energy. Although the Vietnam war was in effect during some of the space program, the expense of the war did have a pretty big impact on funding for moon exploration, and with public interest waning - the combination was enough to shift attention away from the moon. Bottom line is that there is almost zero evidence given by so-called "moon-conspirators" that cannot be adequately explained and invalidated by science. If you want to argue about a conspiracy, pick something else. It would have taken a massive undertaking, much more complicated than the moon missions themselves, to pull off faking the world. It simply wasnt faked. Sorry. |
| Posted By: smater than you Posted On: Jan 29, 2004 Views: 684 | RE: moon conspericy to address Kiki: You are right, there's no breeze on the Moon. But then, there's no atmosphere, either. When the astronauts planted the flagpole they twisted it back and forth to sink it into the lunar soil. On the Earth, that would have made the flag "wave" (barely) for a few seconds, then stop. But that's because the flag pushes against air as it flaps, and the air slows it down. On the Moon, there was no air to stop the flag's motion, so it continued, just as Newton's First Law of physics says it should. So of course the cloth flag waved and rippled beneath the metal rod holding it out. If you watch video of the flag being planted into the soil, you will easily see the effect. |
| Posted By: VOid Posted On: Jan 29, 2004 Views: 678 | RE: moon conspericy You posted : "actually, the Van Allen belt only extends about 40,000 miles above the Earth, and is part of what is called the magnetosphere. It is concentrated in the Earth's equatorial plane. It poses a risk to both manned and unmanned space craft, and both generally avoid it. Other than the usual tactics taken to avoid this region, it really has nothing to do with moon exploration." and could you please explain, how the radation belts have nothing to do with moon exploration when you have to pass through them to get to the moon? I dont understand your reasoning. |
| Posted By: smarter than you Posted On: Jan 29, 2004 Views: 677 | RE: moon conspericy The Van Allen belt is an earthy phenomenon, widely believed to be caused by earth's magnetic field colliding with solar waves. There are regions where it is more concentrated (more powerful and damaging) than others. Space agencies know where these regions are and do their best to avoid them. In the less concentrated regions, normal radiation shielding will prevent any damage. Once a space craft is above a certain point, there is no concern. In other words, once a moon-bound craft escapes the earthly formed Van Allen belt, there is no cause for concern. All spacecraft escaping earth's atmosphere have to content with this phenomenon. Does that make sense? One other point I'd like to address - you mentioned how we were competing with the Soviets (height of the cold war), and this was cause for us to "make up" moon landings. Well, Russia, China, East Germany and other cold-war enemies of the USA at the time closely monitored all of the lunar missions. Since it would have been easy for those nations to recognize whether the Apollo radio signals were coming from the direction of the Moon, and whether the time delays in conversation matched the distance the signals had to travel...if anything had seemed off or wrong, surely these unfriendly countries would have loudly shouted to the world that the USA was pulling a major hoax! Yet none of them ever questioned NASA's accomplishment. When even your enemy gives you credit for something, it's pretty convincing. |
| Posted By: Phil Posted On: Jan 30, 2004 Views: 666 | RE: moon conspericy I'm too tired to refute the lunar conspiracy right now. Here's a Web Site discussing this matter. http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html |
| Posted By: evan Posted On: Feb 1, 2004 Views: 649 | RE: moon conspericy so those of you who think the moon landings never really happened, i'm guessing you all saw the special on fox about it?? yeah, i bet all of you also don't know that it was made to be a joke. all the people on that show were just pretending to be skeptics. |
| Posted By: VOid Posted On: Feb 1, 2004 Views: 644 | RE: moon conspericy actually i did see the show, but that only made me wonder if it was true, what they had said, so then i did some reaserch on my own, and found alot of evidence to support their claims. Buts as anyone can see, this thread has died. arguing on the interent is a waste of time. |
| Posted By: Charlie Posted On: Feb 1, 2004 Views: 643 | RE: moon conspericy Maybe you folks should argue over the course of a few weeks on a topic that has more effect on all of our daily lives! Until any of us have any motivation of going to the moon ourselves, I think we should use the limited time alotted to us by God for matters that are more pressing at hand (Such as getting Bush out of office in the next election ;^) ). |
| Pages [ 1 2 ] |