D
Darkgroove
Guest
The flag was moving because they placed a rod inside it. More patriotic. And the light would have been shining out of the shuttle...
Wow, i never would have thought.
- Thread starter SlaveOfTheBeast
- Start date
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2007
- Sythe Gold
- 0
- Messages
- 6,541
At 16:30, the Apollo blast WOULD have blown the dust up and onto the ship, but nothing, not even a speck of dust was found on the ship. The footprints could have been blown partially away, I can go on and on with more evidence supporting me, but isn't this enough?
As a child I was always inspired by Neil Armstrong and his speech i remember it of by heart. " one small step for man one giant leap for man kind"
But as i grow older i started doubting that the landing ever happened, that speech sounded as if rehearshed.
America had all the motication they needed to fake the landing on the moon , the russians were ahead in the space race in 1969 but drastically in need of being the first nation on the moon. They might have pulled of the greatest hoax ever.
But yet there is some proof that they did land and the moving flag does not prove anything, there was a spring in the top of the flag so it did not just hang.
I have watched countless documentaries but like every consipricy theory there are both sides of the argue ment with equal proof.
I want to believe that the landing did happen but it makes me think of why there hasn't been a repeat of it for more than a decade. The modern space craft cant even get that far... or maybe we should just blame it on the cost like the NASA does... How will we ever know if we reach the red planet?
will it just be another hoax and will there be enough proof for people to believe that it truly happened. This debate will go on forever since there is no real way to prove anything.
But as i grow older i started doubting that the landing ever happened, that speech sounded as if rehearshed.
America had all the motication they needed to fake the landing on the moon , the russians were ahead in the space race in 1969 but drastically in need of being the first nation on the moon. They might have pulled of the greatest hoax ever.
But yet there is some proof that they did land and the moving flag does not prove anything, there was a spring in the top of the flag so it did not just hang.
I have watched countless documentaries but like every consipricy theory there are both sides of the argue ment with equal proof.
I want to believe that the landing did happen but it makes me think of why there hasn't been a repeat of it for more than a decade. The modern space craft cant even get that far... or maybe we should just blame it on the cost like the NASA does... How will we ever know if we reach the red planet?
will it just be another hoax and will there be enough proof for people to believe that it truly happened. This debate will go on forever since there is no real way to prove anything.
Well blitz, you must have done research about this before because you actually do seem to have all of the answers. I'm not going to waste any more of my time being proven wrong, but I do have one question. I'm not sure exactly what the budget for the space program was, but there is no way that it would have taken all of it just to produce a fake landing. If they never went to the moon then where would all that money have gone?
thats weird, i still thnik they landed on the moon but theyres some weird stuff in there
FLAG
Bad: When the astronauts are assembling the American flag, the flag waves. Kaysing says this must have been from an errant breeze on the set. A flag wouldn't wave in a vacuum.
Good: Of course a flag can wave in a vacuum. In the shot of the astronaut and the flag, the astronaut is rotating the pole on which the flag is mounted, trying to get it to stay up. The flag is mounted on one side on the pole, and along the top by another pole that sticks out to the side. In a vacuum or not, when you whip around the vertical pole, the flag will ``wave'', since it is attached at the top. The top will move first, then the cloth will follow along in a wave that moves down. This isn't air that is moving the flag, it's the cloth itself.
New stuff added March 1, 2001: Many HBs show a picture of an astronaut standing to one side of the flag, which still has a ripple in it (for example, see this famous image). The astronaut is not touching the flag, so how can it wave?
The answer is, it isn't waving. It looks like that because of the way the flag was deployed. The flag hangs from a horizontal rod which telescopes out from the vertical one. In Apollo 11, they couldn't get the rod to extend completely, so the flag didn't get stretched fully. It has a ripple in it, like a curtain that is not fully closed. In later flights, the astronauts didn't fully deploy it on purpose because they liked the way it looked. In other words, the flag looks like it is waving because the astronauts wanted it to look that way. Ironically, they did their job too well. It appears to have fooled a lot of people into thinking it waved.
This explanation comes from NASA's wonderful spaceflight web page. For those of you who are conspiracy minded, of course, this doesn't help because it comes from a NASA site. But it does explain why the flag looks as it does, and you will be hard pressed to find a video of the flag waving. And if it was a mistake caused by a breeze on the set where they faked this whole thing, don't you think the director would have tried for a second take? With all the money going to the hoax, they could afford the film!
Note added March 28, 2001: One more thing. Several readers have pointed out that if the flag is blowing in a breeze, why don't we see dust blowing around too? Somehow, the HBs' argument gets weaker the more you think about it.
STARS
Bad: The first bit of actual evidence brought up is the lack of stars in the pictures taken by the Apollo astronauts from the surface of the Moon. Without air, the sky is black, so where are the stars?
Good: The stars are there! They're just too faint to be seen.
This is usually the first thing HBs talk about when discussing the Hoax. That amazes me, as it's the silliest assertion they make. However, it appeals to our common sense: when the sky is black here on Earth, we see stars. Therefore we should see them from the Moon as well.
I'll say this here now, and return to it many times: the Moon is not the Earth. Conditions there are weird, and our common sense is likely to fail us.
The Moon's surface is airless. On Earth, our thick atmosphere scatters sunlight, spreading it out over the whole sky. That's why the sky is bright during the day. Without sunlight, the air is dark at night, allowing us to see stars.
On the Moon, the lack of air means that the sky is dark. Even when the Sun is high off the horizon during full day, the sky near it will be black. If you were standing on the Moon, you would indeed see stars, even during the day.
So why aren't they in the Apollo pictures? Pretend for a moment you are an astronaut on the surface of the Moon. You want to take a picture of your fellow space traveler. The Sun is low off the horizon, since all the lunar landings were done at local morning. How do you set your camera? The lunar landscape is brightly lit by the Sun, of course, and your friend is wearing a white spacesuit also brilliantly lit by the Sun. To take a picture of a bright object with a bright background, you need to set the exposure time to be fast, and close down the aperture setting too; that's like the pupil in your eye constricting to let less light in when you walk outside on a sunny day.
So the picture you take is set for bright objects. Stars are faint objects! In the fast exposure, they simply do not have time to register on the film. It has nothing to do with the sky being black or the lack of air, it's just a matter of exposure time. If you were to go outside here on Earth on the darkest night imaginable and take a picture with the exact same camera settings the astronauts used, you won't see any stars!
It's that simple. Remember, this the usually the first and strongest argument the HBs use, and it was that easy to show wrong. Their arguments get worse from here.
EVERYTHING ELSE
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html#stars
and let me just point out something. alot of u think ur so smart cuz u have "evidence" that they didnt land on the moon. dont u think that if ur average minds could see these points, nasa could too? i mean if they were trying to pull of a hoax, theyd make sure everything looked close to real before showing it. they would see the same points ur making. ok i doubt any of you are smarter then some of the people there, so dont think that if u find these points, ur the first to notice them. i mean look at the movies they have now. they look extremely convincing and look like its actually happening..
Bad: When the astronauts are assembling the American flag, the flag waves. Kaysing says this must have been from an errant breeze on the set. A flag wouldn't wave in a vacuum.
Good: Of course a flag can wave in a vacuum. In the shot of the astronaut and the flag, the astronaut is rotating the pole on which the flag is mounted, trying to get it to stay up. The flag is mounted on one side on the pole, and along the top by another pole that sticks out to the side. In a vacuum or not, when you whip around the vertical pole, the flag will ``wave'', since it is attached at the top. The top will move first, then the cloth will follow along in a wave that moves down. This isn't air that is moving the flag, it's the cloth itself.
New stuff added March 1, 2001: Many HBs show a picture of an astronaut standing to one side of the flag, which still has a ripple in it (for example, see this famous image). The astronaut is not touching the flag, so how can it wave?
The answer is, it isn't waving. It looks like that because of the way the flag was deployed. The flag hangs from a horizontal rod which telescopes out from the vertical one. In Apollo 11, they couldn't get the rod to extend completely, so the flag didn't get stretched fully. It has a ripple in it, like a curtain that is not fully closed. In later flights, the astronauts didn't fully deploy it on purpose because they liked the way it looked. In other words, the flag looks like it is waving because the astronauts wanted it to look that way. Ironically, they did their job too well. It appears to have fooled a lot of people into thinking it waved.
This explanation comes from NASA's wonderful spaceflight web page. For those of you who are conspiracy minded, of course, this doesn't help because it comes from a NASA site. But it does explain why the flag looks as it does, and you will be hard pressed to find a video of the flag waving. And if it was a mistake caused by a breeze on the set where they faked this whole thing, don't you think the director would have tried for a second take? With all the money going to the hoax, they could afford the film!
Note added March 28, 2001: One more thing. Several readers have pointed out that if the flag is blowing in a breeze, why don't we see dust blowing around too? Somehow, the HBs' argument gets weaker the more you think about it.
STARS
Bad: The first bit of actual evidence brought up is the lack of stars in the pictures taken by the Apollo astronauts from the surface of the Moon. Without air, the sky is black, so where are the stars?
Good: The stars are there! They're just too faint to be seen.
This is usually the first thing HBs talk about when discussing the Hoax. That amazes me, as it's the silliest assertion they make. However, it appeals to our common sense: when the sky is black here on Earth, we see stars. Therefore we should see them from the Moon as well.
I'll say this here now, and return to it many times: the Moon is not the Earth. Conditions there are weird, and our common sense is likely to fail us.
The Moon's surface is airless. On Earth, our thick atmosphere scatters sunlight, spreading it out over the whole sky. That's why the sky is bright during the day. Without sunlight, the air is dark at night, allowing us to see stars.
On the Moon, the lack of air means that the sky is dark. Even when the Sun is high off the horizon during full day, the sky near it will be black. If you were standing on the Moon, you would indeed see stars, even during the day.
So why aren't they in the Apollo pictures? Pretend for a moment you are an astronaut on the surface of the Moon. You want to take a picture of your fellow space traveler. The Sun is low off the horizon, since all the lunar landings were done at local morning. How do you set your camera? The lunar landscape is brightly lit by the Sun, of course, and your friend is wearing a white spacesuit also brilliantly lit by the Sun. To take a picture of a bright object with a bright background, you need to set the exposure time to be fast, and close down the aperture setting too; that's like the pupil in your eye constricting to let less light in when you walk outside on a sunny day.
So the picture you take is set for bright objects. Stars are faint objects! In the fast exposure, they simply do not have time to register on the film. It has nothing to do with the sky being black or the lack of air, it's just a matter of exposure time. If you were to go outside here on Earth on the darkest night imaginable and take a picture with the exact same camera settings the astronauts used, you won't see any stars!
It's that simple. Remember, this the usually the first and strongest argument the HBs use, and it was that easy to show wrong. Their arguments get worse from here.
EVERYTHING ELSE
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html#stars
and let me just point out something. alot of u think ur so smart cuz u have "evidence" that they didnt land on the moon. dont u think that if ur average minds could see these points, nasa could too? i mean if they were trying to pull of a hoax, theyd make sure everything looked close to real before showing it. they would see the same points ur making. ok i doubt any of you are smarter then some of the people there, so dont think that if u find these points, ur the first to notice them. i mean look at the movies they have now. they look extremely convincing and look like its actually happening..
Doombringe1
Forum Addict
Always with the sarcasm. Its funny. Anyways back to topic, It is very interesting the theory but im pretty sure it happened.
Immortality
Forum Addict
THXZ MNA 4 UR POST CUZ I NEDEED DAT IT HELPZ S00 MUHC1!11!111@12!3!@111!1!11!1
Zane2006
Forum Addict
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2007
- Sythe Gold
- 5
- Messages
- 576
megaman 2006
Forum Addict
I guess we'll find out when we go to the moon again, if we see the flag and all of that stuff, we'll know whether we really did. One quick question if anyone could answer it, Can we see the flag with telescopes? And I mean the big observatory ones, it seems like the ones off in space should be able too.
Not sure where I heard it but I'm pretty sure we have no way of seeing a flag with telescopes. I think there is supposed to be something going up into space that will be able to take pictures that close but apparently nothing can right now.
I said nothing about beating the Russians or stealing money from the government. I wasn't suggesting anything with this post I was just wondering if anyone had any guesses as to where the money would have gone if this was indeed nothing but an elaborate hoax.
Xx Hahaha xX
Apprentice
the flag waving on the moon thing, Ive always wondered about how the flag can wave when theres no wind. Well now i know im not the only one who wondered.
OMG i just watched the vid and now i believe its a fake omfg
OMG i just watched the vid and now i believe its a fake omfg
Xx Hahaha xX
Apprentice
double post sorry
yea, i believe we didnt. its a bunch of govermont crap. i hate how the goverment hids stuff from us.
x3mvess
Apprentice
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2005
- Sythe Gold
- 0
- Messages
- 793
ofcourse we didnt land on the moon. and also 9/11 was a conspiracy. and the titanic was a conspriacy aswell. and a bunch of gray alliance landed in rosewell and we hide em for fun. and the manbearpigs are soon to take over the earth. and global warmining doesnt exist either. i can keep on going like that. all these videos are made by some looser college kids who find some crappy info on some site that fits their immaginiation and htan slap on some creepy music and say that the government is evil.
Codeh
Active Member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2007
- Sythe Gold
- 2
- Messages
- 204
[N]ick;2241949 said:
Are you stupid?
The chances that this is true and that 9/11 was a Government act are blatantly more believable, due to conspiracy researchers' given proof, than that of them being what the USG tries to claim.
And I know your reply. Think about it like this, the majority of those researchers are not simply out there to make up a wild story out of a biased viewpoint of whoever they may be condemning. There are always three sides to a story. One party's side, the other party's side, and then the truth. Whether we'll know the truth or not, who knows. I highly doubt it. But I'm leaning more towards the conspiracy theories than I am that we landed on the moon which is I-don't-know how many thousands of miles away, and that we were randomly ambushed and attacked by a few foreign religious zealots and managed to cause such a big to-do.
As for the 9/11 theory, watch that popular video on Google about Bush and his lackeys planning and initiating the attack and demolition of the twin towers. It'll open your eyes quite a bit. Not saying it'll make a believer or anti-believer out of anyone, but it should influence opinions out there.
Slave, your simply to gullible. You based all your 9/11 views on a view videos, and junk websites. Posting this as any evidence whatsoever is ridiculous.
Similar threads
