The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Did we land on the moon?  (Read 202442 times)

Offline maff

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 24
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #75 on: 18/07/2007 16:09:37 »
Maff  you are talking total rubbish.  As you always do.  so much rubbish that it is just not worth the effort of pointing this out to you in detail.  Your entire aim is to start and create arguments about fatuous and irrelevant subjects.  I would reccommend other users to ignore it and put some effort into more interesting and relevant topics.

Ok God.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8644
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #76 on: 18/07/2007 20:11:52 »
The earth's atmosphere is fairly transparent to microwaves- a lot of radioastronomy is done with them. The microwave radiation levels on the moon are, therfore, comparable with those on earth.
Similarly the atmosphere is fairly transparent to visible radiation so the light levels here (whereI can use 400 ASA film without any problems) are not that different from those on the moon. The UV levels are much higher but UV filters are easy to make (a piece of glass wil do).
The problem with sudden heating and cooling is a bit of a red herring too. The stuff is all insulated by a good vacuum so there's not much to change the temperature rapidly.

The given reason for the WTC collapsed compared to the lots of skyscrapers that stand up to fires is
1 perfectly well known
2 not very complicated
3 that the crash blasted the asbestos fire proofing off the structural steelwork and also dammaged other fire retarding structures. Drywall (gypsum sheet or plasterboard on this side of the pond) was not really chosen for impact resistance.
If there is really any call for a yet another thread on the web discussing the conspiracy theories about WTC then start one rather than muddling this one.

Like I said, I don't know anyone who believes the conspiracies.
 

Offline lightarrow

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4586
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #77 on: 19/07/2007 12:55:23 »
The given reason for the WTC collapsed compared to the lots of skyscrapers that stand up to fires is
1 perfectly well known
2 not very complicated
3 that the crash blasted the asbestos fire proofing off the structural steelwork and also dammaged other fire retarding structures. Drywall (gypsum sheet or plasterboard on this side of the pond) was not really chosen for impact resistance.
And do you think Al Quaeda knew this? I don't think so. But CIA (or FBI or both) did. They knew there would have been such an attack, and they put charges on the buildings to be sure of the collapse and exploit that to justify the subsequent wars, especially the war against Iraq, since the American government weren't able to convince anyone about the presence of mass-destruction weapons there.
Quote
Like I said, I don't know anyone who believes the conspiracies.
Excepting me, you mean?
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8644
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #78 on: 19/07/2007 19:14:53 »
I think AQ may have known it- OBL is in the building trade, but I think it's more likely they just got lucky. Even if the buildings had stood I think the justification for the war would have been just as good (or bad) so the CIA (or...) wouldn't have needed to plant charges. Just the people on the aircraft would have been enough victims to provoke outrage (quite rightly) and the desire for revenge (less helpfully). The folks who died in the builings were, I think, pretty much a bonus for AQ.

"Like I said, I don't know anyone who believes the conspiracies.

Excepting me, you mean?"
I don't actually know you do I? For all I know you are just posting this as a joke.
For all anyone else reading this knows we might be the same person posting under 2 names just to try to gain publicity for the conspiracy. Not only that, but this is still in the wrong thread.
 

Offline G-1 Theory

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 231
    • View Profile
    • http://edward-e-kerls.com
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #79 on: 19/07/2007 19:25:35 »
To the poster BP

Quote BP;  Did we land on the Moon?

NO  “WE”  did not, but a few good Astronauts did!

Of course we landed on the Moon!

Ed

 

Offline lightarrow

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4586
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #80 on: 20/07/2007 13:37:55 »
To the poster BP
Quote BP;  Did we land on the Moon?
NO  “WE”  did not, but a few good Astronauts did!
Of course we landed on the Moon!
Yes, not before Apollo 14, however.
 

Offline om

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 53
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #81 on: 23/07/2007 05:25:54 »
To the poster BP

Quote BP;  Did we land on the Moon?

NO  ?WE?  did not, but a few good Astronauts did!

Of course we landed on the Moon!

Ed


You are right, Ed  Astronauts landed on the Moon and returned samples that provided totally unexpected information on the Sun.

 I analyzed some of those Moon samples.

We found that material coming from the surface of the Sun is highly enriched in the lightweight atoms (isotopes) of each element.  Here are the results:

http://www.omatumr.com/Data/1983Data.htm

Here is the elemental composition of the surface of the Sun:

http://www.omatumr.com/images/Fig1.htm

After correcting the surface composition for the mass-separation seen across isotopes of solar-wind implanted elements in the Moon, this is the unexpected composition of the interior of the Sun:

http://www.omatumr.com/images/Fig3.htm

The surface of the Sun is 91% Hydrogen and 9% Helium because those are the lightest and the next lightest elements, and the Sun selectively moves lightweight atoms to its surface .

Inside the Sun, the most abundant elements are the same ones that are most abundant in rocky planets and ordinary meteorites:

Iron, Oxygen, Silicon, Nickel and Sulfur

NASA did not fake the Moon landing, because the results of analysis on the Moon sample disproved one of NASA's most cherished illusions:

The Sun and all the other stars are balls of Hydrogen and Helium with only traces of heavier elements.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
www.omatumr.com

 

another_someone

  • Guest
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #82 on: 23/07/2007 07:36:49 »
Welcome to the forum, Oliver.  I shall look at your links when I have a few moments, but it sounds like you will lot of interesting stuff to contribute to the forum, so I hope we shall see you around a while.
 

Offline lightarrow

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4586
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #83 on: 23/07/2007 12:57:05 »
To the poster BP

Quote BP;  Did we land on the Moon?

NO  ?WE?  did not, but a few good Astronauts did!

Of course we landed on the Moon!

Ed


You are right, Ed  Astronauts landed on the Moon and returned samples that provided totally unexpected information on the Sun.

 I analyzed some of those Moon samples.
Did you do it before Apollo 14 mission's return?
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8644
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #84 on: 23/07/2007 19:25:15 »
Someone asked before why NASA didn't point the hubble 'scope at the moon and take pictures of the debris left behind. Well, the answer is simple. The same peopel who claim the original fil is a fake would say the hubble images were a fake. In the same way I'm afraid that Om's contribution won't help. the claim will be something like "He's only saying that because he's paid to" or"He may have analysed some rocks but they were fakes." (of course the bit about the expected nature of the sun was a clever fake too- double bluff)
For many questions and sources of information like these the matter is more one of theology than science. "Everything you say that proves the point is a fake" works perfectly- just like "proof denies faith".
However, would someone please tell me who put the retroreflectors on the moon if nobody went there and how did they fake the radio signals that the Russians picked up? (Or roughly as difficult, how did they persuade the Russians to keep quiet?)
 

Offline lightarrow

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4586
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #85 on: 23/07/2007 20:24:47 »
Someone asked before why NASA didn't point the hubble 'scope at the moon and take pictures of the debris left behind. Well, the answer is simple. The same peopel who claim the original fil is a fake would say the hubble images were a fake. In the same way I'm afraid that Om's contribution won't help. the claim will be something like "He's only saying that because he's paid to" or"He may have analysed some rocks but they were fakes." (of course the bit about the expected nature of the sun was a clever fake too- double bluff)
For many questions and sources of information like these the matter is more one of theology than science. "Everything you say that proves the point is a fake" works perfectly- just like "proof denies faith".
However, would someone please tell me who put the retroreflectors on the moon if nobody went there and how did they fake the radio signals that the Russians picked up? (Or roughly as difficult, how did they persuade the Russians to keep quiet?)
If your questions were asked to me, as I wrote, I think they landed on the Moon, but not in the first and second mission as they claimed.
 

Offline om

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 53
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #86 on: 24/07/2007 00:10:28 »
Quote
Did you do it before Apollo 14 mission's return?

Good question, Lightarrow.

I did not receive Moon samples until 1971, after becoming suspicious about a report that strange nuclear reactions in the Moon produced the light isotopes (atoms) of Krypton.

Our analysis revealed mass separated isotopes of Krypton and other elements coming from the Sun, as shown here for Krypton and Xenon:

www.omatumr.com/Data/1972Data1.htm

Isotope data from samples returned by earlier missions showed the same mass separation of isotopes in material from the Sun.

For example, isotope data from the 1969 Apollo 11 mission showed a common mass fractionation across the isotopes of Neon and Xenon:

"Mass fractionation and isotope anomalies in Neon and Xenon," Nature 227 (1970) 1113-1116

www.nature.com/nature/journal/v227/n5263/abs/2271113a0.html

With kind regards,
Oliver
www.omatumr.com

 

Offline lightarrow

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4586
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #87 on: 24/07/2007 19:50:51 »
Quote
Did you do it before Apollo 14 mission's return?

Good question, Lightarrow.

I did not receive Moon samples until 1971, after becoming suspicious about a report that strange nuclear reactions in the Moon produced the light isotopes (atoms) of Krypton.

Our analysis revealed mass separated isotopes of Krypton and other elements coming from the Sun, as shown here for Krypton and Xenon:

www.omatumr.com/Data/1972Data1.htm

Isotope data from samples returned by earlier missions showed the same mass separation of isotopes in material from the Sun.

For example, isotope data from the 1969 Apollo 11 mission showed a common mass fractionation across the isotopes of Neon and Xenon:

"Mass fractionation and isotope anomalies in Neon and Xenon," Nature 227 (1970) 1113-1116

www.nature.com/nature/journal/v227/n5263/abs/2271113a0.html

With kind regards,
Oliver
www.omatumr.com



What exactly is "mass fractionation"?
 

Offline om

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 53
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #88 on: 24/07/2007 21:07:21 »
Hi lightarrow,

Mass fractionation means sorted by mass.

In diffusive mass fractionation, each stage* enriches the abundance of the lighter atoms of mass L relative to that of the the heavier atoms of mass H by a factor, f, where f equals the square root of H/L.

f =(H/L)^0.5

Each stage of mass fractionation enriches the abundance of Xe-130 relative to that of Xe-131 by a factor,

f = (131/130)^0.5 = (1.0076923)^0.5 = 1.0038388 = 0.388388%

To enrich Xe-130 relative to Xe-131 by 3.5% -- as is observed in the Sun -- requires nine (9) stages of mass fractionation.

(131/130)^4.5 = 1.035

During World War II, U-235 was separated from U-238 by diffusion.  The plants in Oak Ridge, Tennessee had over 100 theoretical stages of mass separation.

The Sun, by comparison, has only about nine (9) theoretical stages of mass separation.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
www.omatumr.com

*For an example of one theoretical stage of mass fraction, imagine a balloon filled with equal number of atoms of He-4 and Ar-36.

Inside the balloon, He-4/Ar-36 = 1.00

A pin-hole in the balloon would cause one theoretical stage of mass fractionation.  The gas that would start leaking out of the hole would be enriched in Helium by a factor, f

f = (36/4)^0.5 = 9^0.5 = 3

So leaking from the balloon, He-4/Ar-36 = 3 x 1.00 = 3.00

ASSIGNMENT:  By what factor (f) would nine (9) theoretical stages of mass fractionation increase the Hydrogen/Iron ratio at the surface of the Sun?
 

Offline om

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 53
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #89 on: 26/07/2007 02:18:10 »
ANSWER: Nine (9) theoretical stages of mass fractionation increase the Hydrogen/Iron ratio at the surface of the Sun by a factor, f, where

f = (56/1)^4.5 =

f = 73,600,000

So inside the bulk Sun, the Hydrogen/Iron ratio -- the (H/Fe) ratio is

(H/Fe)sun = [(H/Fe)photosphere]/73,600,000

These two figures show how mass separation increases light elements in the photosphere, making the surface of the Sun look like a ball of Hydrogen and Helium:

a.) Photosphere abundances
www.omatumr.com/images/Fig1.htm

b.) Bulk Sun abundances
http://www.omatumr.com/images/Fig3.htm

Iron, Oxygen, Silicon, Nickel and Sulfur are the most abundant element in the Sun, in the Earth, and in ordinary meteorites.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
www.omatumr.com
« Last Edit: 26/07/2007 05:52:34 by om »
 

Offline lightarrow

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4586
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #90 on: 26/07/2007 12:33:20 »
Thank you, Oliver.
 

Offline Cosmored

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 60
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #91 on: 15/12/2007 21:15:53 »
There's lots of evidence that they didn't go to the moon.  Look at this.



At the 2 minute 35 second mark of the video the flag is still. When the astronaut goes past it, it starts to move.

There's an analysis of it here at the 3 minute 5 second mark.
 

lyner

  • Guest
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #92 on: 15/12/2007 21:57:29 »
Did any of the 'unbelievers' actually see and follow the action as it happened when it happened?
I have been watching science fiction films before and since the Moon Landings. The Hollywood versions are always full of actual holes. I watched the Moon Landings in the company of about a dozen highly competent research engineers. Nothing about the 'show' was flaky.
Could just one of you unbelievers just explain how the radio reception at stations around the Earth fitted the scenario if
1. The Apollo craft were in orbit around the Earth.
2. The Apollo craft were in orbit around the Moon.
3. The mission never left the Earth?

In all other cases than the genuine one, the RUSSIANS (who really wanted it to be a fake) would have spotted that anomaly and publicised it.
Go on - answer that one.
 

Offline Cosmored

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 60
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #93 on: 15/12/2007 22:28:33 »
Quote
In all other cases than the genuine one, the RUSSIANS (who really wanted it to be a fake) would have spotted that anomaly and publicised it.
Go on - answer that one.
You're just assuming what we read in the newspapers reflects what's really happening.

Have you read Chomsky's analysis of the cold war?

http://www.zmag.org/Chomsky/dd/dd-c01-s01.html
http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/sam/sam-3-1.html

This can't be ruled out.
http://www.nardwuar.com/vs/bill_kaysing/index.html
(excerpt)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, why did they keep faking the Apollo flights, I still don't understand. Did the Soviet Union know it was faked? Why did they keep shut up if they knew it was faked? 'Cause a lot of people would think they kept the moon race going to prove the U.S. was better than the Soviet Union. If the Soviet Union knew, why did they let the U.S. get away with this?
Well, I'll tell you - at the highest levels there is a coalition between governments. In other words, the Soviets said, if you won't tell on us - and they faked most of their space exploration flights - we won't tell on you. It's as simple as that. See, what Apollo is, is the beginning of the end of the ability of the government to hoodwink and bamboozle and manipulate the people. More and more people are becoming aware in the U.S. that the government is totally and completely public enemy number one.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 

Offline Cosmored

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 60
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #94 on: 15/12/2007 22:31:20 »
Here's some more evidence that they didn't go to the moon.  Why don't you post something that you consider to be conclusive proof that they went and we can discuss whether it's really proof.

There's a noticeable difference in the body movements in these two clips.


http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11v.1101330.rm

What I hypothesize is that only slow-motion was used in Apollo 11. Later, they improved thier methods of simulating lunar gravity and started using a combination of slow-motion and support wires. The slow-motion in the later missions might not have been exactly half-speed. It might have been sixty five or seventy percent of natural speed. It looked better but it was inconsistent with Apollo 11 footage. The inconsistency is apparent.

At around the 21 minute mark of this video the above footage from Apollo 11 can be seen played at double speed.
http://video.google.es/videoplay?docid=4135126565081757736&q=apollo

It looks just like movement in earth gravity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------

If you look at the acceleration of the object that falls from the astronaut's backpack and the acceleration of the hammer and feather that fall, it's apparent that the there's a difference in the way gravity affects the objects differently.




Evidently the slow-motion speed is different.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------
Here are some videos.

NR=1


NR=1
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=sgID31UpYfA

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5278489814268946247

Here are some articles.
http://www.nardwuar.com/vs/bill_kaysing/
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/moon.htm
http://www.aulis.com/skeleton.html
http://erichufschmid.net/Interview-with-Bart-Sibrel.html
http://www.geocities.com/apollotruth/


The astronauts look pretty nervous at the press conference.


Their behavior look pretty suspicious here too. It begins in the second half of the video.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2265515730495966561

Some people say the moon rocks prove we went to the moon.
There are a lot of plausible alternative scenarios for the moon rocks. All we have are documents that say they are real. If we aren't geologists in a laboratory looking at the rocks, we have no way of verifying that what we read is reflects reality.
There may be a lot of scientists who have sold out and are lying about the rocks and we only read what they say.
If there is video evidence that some of the footage was faked, it was probably all faked. Video evidence trumps what some documents or journals say as people can write lies.
Here are some possible scenarios for the rocks.
http://www.nardwuar.com/vs/bill_kaysing/index.html
(excerpt)
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------
Another point here is that the moon rocks were fake. Are the moon rocks real?
No, they are not real. NASA has a well-developed ceramics laboratory with high-temperature ovens-
That's another way NASA could prove they went to the moon, 'cause they brought back these rocks. Interestingly enough, at the University of British Columbia here, David Strangway, the President of U.B.C., was the guy in charge of inspecting the moon rocks.
OK, fine, why don't you call him up and ask him what he thinks about them.
So what happened, the moon rocks were not real?
No, they were manufactured on Earth to look like moon rocks, but since nobody has any moon rocks to compare them with, it's very simple to make up a moon rock and say, hey, this came from the moon.
Well, how would you know it is a moon rock? Like, how do you know it's not a moon rock - how do you know it's a fake?
I had a Seattle geologist who examined moon rocks and he said, "There's no question, Bill, that these rocks were made in a laboratory on Earth."
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------

http://www.erichufschmid.net/MoreInfoForScienceChallenge.html
(excerpt)
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------
9) Moon rocks are in Antarctica?
Barbara Cohen, a researcher from the University of New Mexico, was picking up rocks in Antarctica. She sent them to Houston, Texas for an analysis.
The scientists in Houston discovered that one of the Antarctic rocks closely matched the NASA moon rocks.
The scientists then concluded that one of the rocks from Antarctica was actually from the moon:
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6620370/
How did rocks from the moon get in Antarctica?
NASA and Ms. Cohen want us to believe that a big meteor crashed into the moon a while ago, and pieces of the moon were sent flying into space. A few of those pieces landed in Antarctica.
Take a look at how far away the moon is from the earth. If it were true that rocks were ejected from the moon with such velocity that they could escape the moon's gravity and fly out into space, what are the chances that any of them would survive the fall through the atmosphere and land on tiny Antarctica hundreds of thousands of kilometers away? Furthermore, the rock has to land in a location where humans can find it many years later.
A more sensible explanation is that the NASA moon rocks were rocks from Antarctica.
Therefore, when someone travels to Antarctica and sends rock samples to Houston, Texas for analysis, some of the rocks will closely match the Apollo moon rocks.
 

lyner

  • Guest
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #95 on: 16/12/2007 00:36:13 »
If you don't believe the News and your Government, why should I believe You?
What actual evidence do you have that is more believable than theirs?
I suppose you'll say that TV satellites don't exist and that the Internet is a figment of our imagination too.
Do you really believe what you see on Utube?
Do you know anything about Physics,Astronomy, Cosmology, Geology?
We all got it wrong but your conspiracy theories are all correct?
Grow up.
 

Offline Cosmored

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 60
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #96 on: 16/12/2007 12:10:04 »
Quote
If you don't believe the News and your Government, why should I believe You?
Lot's of data have been offered as proof that the moon missions were real. It has been said that several countries tracked the craft to and from the moon. It has been said that most geologists agree that the rocks really came from the moon. It has been said that all of the data learned from Apollo have been used by scientists since then, etc. I don't see any reason to believe any of this. It's possible to manufacture bogus data and publish it on a large scale. It's possible for the press and textbooks to lie about what other governments say about Apollo. It's possible that other governments aren't saying what they really believe about Apollo. There are lots of alternative scenarios so none of this data constitutes proof that the moon missions really happened. It's mere evidence that may be proven wrong later.

There are lots of cases of the official version of things being contested by reputable people in the alternative press.

Look at what this report on DU by RAND says.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/docs/b04151999_bt170-99.htm
There were probably a few PH.D's working on it.

This woman has a PH.D.
http://video.google.es/videoplay?docid=-5109486402266517406
She holds the opposite view.

Look at what this person says about "Genetically modified foods".
http://www.projectcensored.org/censored_2007/index.htm#11

Look at this.
http://www.rand.org/commentary/051204FT.html

This woman talks about how a lot of the science community has sold out.
GLOBAL NUCLEAR COVER UP part #1
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3626298989248030643
(around the 30 minute mark)

GLOBAL NUCLEAR COVER UP part #2
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7451332617120640846

The press and the school system is always drumming into us that we defend freedom and democracy in the world.
Look at the truth.
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/

Enter "Death squads" and "Torture" in this search engine.
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/htdig/search.html
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/

There are all kinds of examples of mass dishonesty by the media and the school system in the US. Why should Apollo be any different?

Quote
What actual evidence do you have that is more believable than theirs?
The stuff I posted above--analyze it and say why you think it doesn't debunk the idea that the moon missions were faked.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8644
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #97 on: 16/12/2007 12:41:02 »
OK; explain Satelite TV. Come to think of it, explain the iridium flashes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iridium_flare
We can clearly put stuff in space now. Why assume that we couldn't do it before?
And, at the risk of sounding like a cracked record, who put the retroreflectors there?
Until there's a reasonable answer to that, this conspiracy theory clearly doesn't make sense and should be dropped.
« Last Edit: 16/12/2007 12:45:17 by Bored chemist »
 

Offline ukmicky

  • Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3011
    • View Profile
    • http://www.space-talk.com/
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #98 on: 16/12/2007 17:16:11 »
There's lots of evidence that they didn't go to the moon.  Look at this.



At the 2 minute 35 second mark of the video the flag is still. When the astronaut goes past it, it starts to move.

There's an analysis of it here at the 3 minute 5 second mark.
How about static ,vibration or dirt kicked up against the flag pole or flag.

I cant believe this topic is still going. Dont you think the russians and the satelite recieving stations placed at different locations around the world that were not being run by USA would have noticed that the transmitions were coming from somewhere a bit closer than the moon. Or maybe you believe that was a bit beyond our science.



(SHAKES HIS HEAD IN DIS-BELIEF AND GOES BACK TO WATCH THE FOOTBALL)
 

paul.fr

  • Guest
Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #99 on: 16/12/2007 17:22:37 »
"There's lots of evidence that they didn't go to the moon. "

No, there are lots of ...ermmmm..people...that are foolish enough to believe what they read on the net, and those that like to sell books to those same people.

"(SHAKES HIS HEAD IN DIS-BELIEF AND GOES BACK TO WATCH THE FOOTBALL)"
we are seriously missing Drogba
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Did we land on the moon?
« Reply #99 on: 16/12/2007 17:22:37 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums