33 replies to this topic

[jrtheman]

I never saw it,do you have a link???

[Alex]

LMAO.
http://www.spaceg.co..... landing.mpeg
Moon landing = pwned.
Not really debate but I think its relevant to the discussion >_<

I dont understand how the flag was waving yet it did not succumb to the gravitational forces that the astronauts were.

[explodingrope]

Moon has gravity I believe. Wouldn't it stop it?

no, there is no atmosphere wich would stop the flag, there is no force to stop it

[redlion]

No, gravity pulls DOWN on the flag - it does not stop it from moving side-to-side.

There is a difference in horizontal and vertical forces.

Also, the flag was not loose like we expect flags to be - it was reinforced with wood or cardboard or something to keep it stiff. The "flapping" sensation was it merely shaking back and forth.

Si`. They had the NASA equivalent of PVC pipe holding it in place. It was still shaking in place though... I think the astronauts were pulling for that?

[|nfinite]

Lol, The Video was a joke, Casilla

There was alot of reasons of thinking why the moon landing could be fake, both political and physical reasons.

One thing I don't understand - Didn't they have witnesses who saw the rocket take off and come back? How did they just happen to pull two random names and say they went to the moon?

[Martin]

I have my doubts about the moon landing, but for the most part im going to stick with it being true. I did find some evidence agaisnt my beleives.

You said that during the videos of the lunar landings the astronauts replied instantly to Mission Control in Houston. Yet light, radio waves, and all energies of the electromagnetic spectrum travel at roughly 186,000 miles per second, meaning the response time of the astronauts to comments made by Mission Control should have been a little over two seconds since the moon is over 200,000 miles from the Earth. Excellent point! I was stumped here for a minute, until I considered this: we're only hearing the astronauts transmission. Okay, that explanation obviously needs an explanation. First off, like you said, NASA didn't establish a direct link with televison stations for the broadcast. Instead, the video we saw was actually filmed as it happened on the huge television screen in Mission Control, which accounts for the poor quality of the film. What does this mean? It means that the video and audio in the broadcasts of the Apollo missions were both time delayed. You didn't hear people speaking inside Mission Control, you heard their transmission to the astronauts. The audio we heard from Mission Control was actually several seconds old. In other words, the landings transmitted back to Earth video and audio feed of their landing, audio including messages from Mission Control that the astronauts had just received. To make this easier to picture, image it this way: Mission Control transmits a message to Apollo 11 on the lunar surface saying Neil and Buzz can get out of the LM and walk around (with suits on, of course.) This message travels just over a second to the moon, where Neil and Buzz receive it and reply "Finally!" This message is transmitted all the way back to Earth, where it is received and broadcast on the huge monitor in Mission Control. So you see, Mission Control spoke first and then the astronauts replied, only the audio transmitted
to us contained both messages with no time lapse in between.

The pressure inside a space suit was greater than inside a football. The astronauts should have been puffed out like the Michelin Man, but were seen freely bending their joints.

Text from pictures in the article said that only two men walked on the Moon during the Apollo 12 mission. Yet the astronaut reflected in the visor has no camera. Who took the shot?

For a start, he says, the TV footage was hopeless. The world tuned in to watch what looked like two blurred white ghosts throw rocks and dust. Part of the reason for the low quality was that, strangely, NASA provided no direct link up. So networks actually had to film man's greatest achievement from a TV screen in Houston - a deliberate ploy, says Rene, so that nobody could properly examine it.

By contrast, the still photos were stunning. Yet that's just the problem. The astronauts took thousands of pictures, each one perfectly exposed and sharply focused. Not one was badly composed or even blurred.

As Rene points out, that's not all: The cameras had no white meters or view ponders. So the astronauts achieved this feet without being able to see what they were doing. There film stock was unaffected by the intense peaks and powerful cosmic radiation on the Moon, conditions that should have made it useless. They managed to adjust their cameras, change film and swap filters in pressurized suits. It should have been almost impossible with the gloves on their fingers.

Award winning British photographer David Persey is convinced the pictures are fake. His astonishing findings are explained alongside the pictures on these pages, but the basic points are as follows: The shadows could only have been created with multiple light sources and,in particular, powerful spotlights. But the only light source on the Moon was the sun.

The American flag and the words "United States" are always Brightly lit, even when everything around is in shadow. Not one still picture matches the film footage, yet NASA claims both were shot at the same time.

Outer space is awash with deadly radiation that emanates from solar flares firing out from the sun. Standard astronauts orbiting earth in near space, like those who recently fixed the Hubble telescope, are protected by the earth's Van Allen belt. But the Moon is to 240,000 miles distant, way outside this safe band. And, during the Apollo flights, astronomical data shows there were no less than 1,485 such flares.

John Mauldin, a physicist who works for NASA, once said shielding at least two meters thick would be needed. Yet the walls of the Lunar Landers which took astronauts from the spaceship to the moons surface were, said NASA, about the thickness of heavy duty aluminum foil.

How could that stop this deadly radiation? And if the astronauts were protected by their space suits, why didn't rescue workers use such protective gear at the Chernobyl meltdown, which released only a fraction of the dose astronauts would encounter? Not one Apollo astronaut ever contracted cancer - not even the Apollo 16 crew who were on their way to the Moon when a big flare started. "They should have been fried

That is just some of the info I saw repeated on several(8+) websites I went to. They wernt just some freeweb page either. Many were organizations

[Cooliodoc]

I actually did my informative essay for year 12 on the Apollo 11 landing conspiracy. However as it was informative and therefore unbiased...I have no opinion.