We didn't go!Stingray24 wrote:
Funky should start his own thread instead of continuing with the lunar landing argument.
Prove me wrong, and I shall deftly reject your argument and respond with an anti-argument if there is such a thing
We didn't go!Stingray24 wrote:
Funky should start his own thread instead of continuing with the lunar landing argument.
Anti-argument? So you'll be agreeing then?Funky_Finny wrote:
We didn't go!Stingray24 wrote:
Funky should start his own thread instead of continuing with the lunar landing argument.
Prove me wrong, and I shall deftly reject your argument and respond with an anti-argument if there is such a thing
you're dumbFunky_Finny wrote:
We didn't go!Stingray24 wrote:
Funky should start his own thread instead of continuing with the lunar landing argument.
Prove me wrong, and I shall deftly reject your argument and respond with an anti-argument if there is such a thing
OK so the Astronauts get out of the Lunar Spacecraft with a flag in hand. It's rolled up on the pole and so they unfurl it and put the top rod in so it stays up. They force it in the moon surface, so the pole the flag and the astronaut are all in motion, ok? Astronaut lets go after its firmly in the moon, and there is still kinetic energy moving the flag fabric around... Make sense?SamTheMan:D wrote:
yes(T)eflon(S)hadow wrote:
Its called mass. Need more of an explanation?SamTheMan:D wrote:
why is the flag waving?
Mate, this is pathetic.Funky_Finny wrote:
We didn't go!Stingray24 wrote:
Funky should start his own thread instead of continuing with the lunar landing argument.
Prove me wrong, and I shall deftly reject your argument and respond with an anti-argument if there is such a thing
What he said. If you are really from Scotland, then I guess you're right.DeathUnlimited wrote:
It was the US not scots.
Hypothetically you are right.
QFE man, DO IT!buLLet_t00th wrote:
If you want to save yourself from huge embarrassment then I suggest you delete this thread.
Last edited by Ryan (2008-02-20 14:31:12)
ka-ching!RoosterCantrell wrote:
It's Generall accepted that we did, you, being the fringe Conspiracy theorist should prove YOURSELF, not the other way around.
Ya fuckin' nut.
Unless of course these liars were paid handsomely well!M.O.A.B wrote:
They did go, I mean why would so many people, thousands of respected scientists, pilots etc, take part in a hoax? If it was a hoax there was that many people involved that someone would have talked.
lmao.SgtSlauther wrote:
http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com … picard.jpg
This debunks the myth "If there are no stars in the background, it must be fake!!"Bad: When the movies of the astronauts walking and driving the lunar rover are doubled in speed, they look just like they were filmed on Earth and slowed down. This is clearly how the movies were faked.
Good: This was the first new bit I have seen from the HBs, and it's funny. To me even when sped up, the images didn't look like they were filmed in Earth's gravity. The astronauts were sidling down a slope, and they looked weird to me, not at all like they would on Earth. I will admit that if wires were used, the astronauts' gait could be simulated.
However, not the rover! If you watch the clip, you will see dust thrown up by the wheels of the rover. The dust goes up in a perfect parabolic arc and falls back down to the surface. Again, the Moon isn't the Earth! If this were filmed on the Earth, which has air, the dust would have billowed up around the wheel and floated over the surface. This clearly does not happen in the video clips; the dust goes up and right back down. It's actually a beautiful demonstration of ballistic flight in a vacuum. Had NASA faked this shot, they would have had to have a whole set (which would have been very large) with all the air removed. We don't have this technology today!
This debunks the waving flag myth: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!
There is so much more...You just haven't done ANY research on it apparently.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.
Last edited by Im_Dooomed (2008-02-20 14:42:56)
aren't the Chinese gonna go there in a few years? I'm willing to bet they would explore the old site, to see how stuff has held up.xRBLx wrote:
I think when NASA revisits the moon they should go to the landing site and take some photo's that should course a stir.