0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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?
Conspiracy in the Scientific Community? On a Worldwide scale?
How about static ,vibration or dirt kicked up against the flag pole or flag.
How about static ,vibration or dirt kicked up against the flag pole or flag.If it had been static electricity, wouldn't the flag have been attracted to the astronaut as soon as he arrived to the closest point to the flag?I had never heard the idea that he might have kicked some dirt against the pole; that does sound plausible but I've never seen dirt kicked that far in any of the footage where it shows dirt being kicked. The astronaut is at least three or four feet from the pole when he goes by it and it would have had to be kicked to the side. That's pretty far for a side kick.
Of course if it were faked you would need to explain why NASA couldn't get a better actor.
What does everybody think of the astronauts' behavior at the press conference?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RcKLAo62Ro
I remember seeing this Moon Landing on the morning it happened at 4am. As a teenager too. So fake it's nothttp://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=RMINSD7MmT4
QuoteI remember seeing this Moon Landing on the morning it happened at 4am. As a teenager too. So fake it's nothttp://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=RMINSD7MmT4Look at the part of the video you posted where the astronaut is bouncing along.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. They just used fifty percent slow-motion to do Apollo 11.Look at the movements in the first six seconds of this clip.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUEThey are noticably different from the Apollo 11 footage. They used a combination of support wires and a slow motion that was a little faster than fifty percent in the later missions.
You may be right paul, but I'm still waiting for a sensible answer from cosmored.
They are noticably different from the Apollo 11 footage. They used a combination of support wires and a slow motion that was a little faster than fifty percent in the later missions.
Some people might realise that the jacket of the man who is running on a treadmill will move differently to the jacket of a woman who is standing still.
So the hoax is, itself a hoax! The clever barstewards!Although, if you watch the following clip, you will be convinced that the spaceship is made of NASA plastichttp://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=GONeqPxh4d4
Yep....what he said was 'One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind'...when he should have said...'one small step for A man, one giant leap for mankind'......I mean tcch!! tcch!!......it's not as if he was under any pressure or anything !!!!!
You think they couldn’t fake a sky full off stars. If they wanted to fake a moon landing and thought that they needed stars in the sky that would have been one of the easiest part of the scam to pull off. However if you could see stars then it would be fake.
Do you really think all of those at mission control, plus the Astronauts, ground crew...and not to mention the wives could have kept silent all those years?
Conspiracy in the Scientific Community? On a Worldwide scale?You might be able to gag the military and make politicians do what the government says but gagging all the Scientists, technicians and engineers in Nasa and around the work?
if we never went to the moon then where did all the cheese come from? Does the speed of sound travel through cheese at the same rate it travels through the moon? i think we should be told.
There's lot's of other footage that proves it was a hoax such as this.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1UEv2PIzl4The hoax is pretty well proven; it's just interesting to see how they did all the details.
Of all the possible conspiracy theories that there have ever been, this is the most loony
QuoteThere's lot's of other footage that proves it was a hoax such as this.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1UEv2PIzl4The hoax is pretty well proven; it's just interesting to see how they did all the details. Saying that a youtube video proves something is a hoax has got to be the mother of all oxymorons!
Anyone saying things like "One only has to look at the recent drug cartel frauds to see that a cover up in the scientific community is not even improbable, but highly plausible." has missed the point. Those frauds got found out. Decades after the moon landings there has been no real evidence of their falshood. Nobody has come forward and said "OK it's a fair cop- we faked them" It would have been perfectly possible to fake them (though I'm not sure how they persuaded the Russians to play along) but, by now the holes in the story would have shown up. Notwithstanding the fact that some people don't understand photography, no holes have been found. "A lie told often enough becomes the truth. Vladimir Lenin"Yeah, sure, look what happened to him.
Quote from: BP on 19/06/2003 19:25:32I have a friend that does not believe we landed on the moon. He says this because there are no stars in the backgroud of the pictures that were taken while up there on the moon. Does anyone know why that is?Quite clearly it´s because they faked the video. and could´nt add in the stars as it would have been 1. too dificult and 2. Allowed people who understood astrology to prove it was fake. The reason we dont see stars on the earth during the day is because we have an atmosphere. The moon doesn´t have an atmosphere, some may contend it has a small one, either way the atmosphere doesnt glow a bright colour during the daytime and block out the stars; like the earths does!O.K all put your helmets on and duck! Someone will no-doubt start throwing mud!
I have a friend that does not believe we landed on the moon. He says this because there are no stars in the backgroud of the pictures that were taken while up there on the moon. Does anyone know why that is?
This is easily refuted on two counts. One: The fact that the flag waves is due to the momentum imparted to it from the astronauts handling it. Since there's no air on the Moon, there's no resistance to keep the flag from waving a bit after it has been messed with. Check this out: http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Moon_Hoax:Purported_Mistakes#The_.22Waving.22_FlagTwo: Assuming that NASA did hoax the video, there is no way that they would have forgotten to take the wind into account. They would have filmed it in a location where there was no wind, such as a well-sealed building. Any institution of people intelligent enough to build rocket ships and hoax a Moon landing would realize that a flag blowing in the wind would blow their cover. If the idea of wind slipped their mind, then how could they cover up such a hoax for so long without slipping up and letting it get out?