BF2S Forums We did NOT go to the moon, damnit!!

Can we focus on a planet with life on kthx

Also several independent observatories around the world have been looking at and reflecting lasers off reflectors left there during the lunar landings...

Funky_Finny wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

Funky should start his own thread instead of continuing with the lunar landing argument.

We didn't go!
Prove me wrong, and I shall deftly reject your argument and respond with an anti-argument _{if there is such a thing}

You didn't but Mr. Lance Armstrong did.

Ryan wrote:

Funky, why didn't we go to the moon? I think there is more evidence that we did, rather than we didn't.
I'd like to see some theories behind your statement.
http://chnm.gmu.edu/worldhistorysources … s/moon.jpg
http://www.apollo-projekt.de/images/AS12-47-6897.jpg
http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/IMAGES/SMALL/GP … 001131.jpg

All seem pretty real to me.

*NOTE: Notice how the ground of the moon is very fine and footprints are evident and clear. So clear that the consistency of the Moon's surface is almost like powder or extremely fine dirt.

The single most important fact that no one can dispell is that a LUNAR LANDING CRAFT firing REVERSE THRUSTERS with the force equal to or greater than a jet engine does not so much as leave a mark or BLAST MARK (blowing out the surface away from the engine.)

No one can figure out how we can leave footprints in the surface, stick a flagpole in the surface by hand but not blow away the surface from under the LUNAR LANDING CRAFT.

We did not land on the moon you uneducated bastards. Read a book once in a while. GG

The OP is perhaps one of the worst i ever seen but it's starting to build momentum, will be fun to see where this ends ...

Anyone seen this

ARCHANGEL1941 wrote:

Ryan wrote:

Funky, why didn't we go to the moon? I think there is more evidence that we did, rather than we didn't.
I'd like to see some theories behind your statement.
http://chnm.gmu.edu/worldhistorysources … s/moon.jpg
http://www.apollo-projekt.de/images/AS12-47-6897.jpg
http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/IMAGES/SMALL/GP … 001131.jpg

All seem pretty real to me.

*NOTE: Notice how the ground of the moon is very fine and footprints are evident and clear. So clear that the consistency of the Moon's surface is almost like powder or extremely fine dirt.

The single most important fact that no one can dispell is that a LUNAR LANDING CRAFT firing REVERSE THRUSTERS with the force equal to or greater than a jet engine does not so much as leave a mark or BLAST MARK (blowing out the surface away from the engine.)

No one can figure out how we can leave footprints in the surface, stick a flagpole in the surface by hand but not blow away the surface from under the LUNAR LANDING CRAFT.

We did not land on the moon you uneducated bastards. Read a book once in a while. GG

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxa … tml#crater

Bad: In the pictures taken of the lunar lander by the astronauts, the TV show continues, there is no blast crater. A rocket capable of landing on the Moon should have burned out a huge crater on the surface, yet there is nothing there.

Good: When someone driving a car pulls into a parking spot, do they do it at 100 kilometers per hour? Of course not. They slow down first, easing off the accelerator. The astronauts did the same thing. Sure, the rocket on the lander was capable of 10,000 pounds of thrust, but they had a throttle. They fired the rocket hard to deorbit and slow enough to land on the Moon, but they didn't need to thrust that hard as they approached the lunar surface; they throttled down to about 3000 pounds of thrust.

Now here comes a little bit of math: the engine nozzle was about 54 inches across (from the Encyclopaedia Astronautica), which means it had an area of 2300 square inches. That in turn means that the thrust generated a pressure of only about 1.5 pounds per square inch! That's not a lot of pressure. Moreover, in a vacuum, the exhaust from a rocket spreads out very rapidly. On Earth, the air in our atmosphere constrains the thrust of a rocket into a narrow column, which is why you get long flames and columns of smoke from the back of a rocket. In a vacuum, no air means the exhaust spreads out even more, lowering the pressure. That's why there's no blast crater! Three thousand pounds of thrust sounds like a lot, but it was so spread out it was actually rather gentle.

[Note added December 6, 2001: Originally in this section I said that the engines also cut off early, before the moment of touchdown, to prevent dust from getting blown around and disturbing the astronauts' view of the surface. This was an incorrect assertion; it was known that dust would blow around before the missions were launched, and steps were taken to make sure the astronauts knew their height above the surface. Anyway, the incorrect section has been removed.]

ARCHANGEL1941 wrote:

Ryan wrote:

Funky, why didn't we go to the moon? I think there is more evidence that we did, rather than we didn't.
I'd like to see some theories behind your statement.
http://chnm.gmu.edu/worldhistorysources … s/moon.jpg
http://www.apollo-projekt.de/images/AS12-47-6897.jpg
http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/IMAGES/SMALL/GP … 001131.jpg

All seem pretty real to me.

*NOTE: Notice how the ground of the moon is very fine and footprints are evident and clear. So clear that the consistency of the Moon's surface is almost like powder or extremely fine dirt.

The single most important fact that no one can dispell is that a LUNAR LANDING CRAFT firing REVERSE THRUSTERS with the force equal to or greater than a jet engine does not so much as leave a mark or BLAST MARK (blowing out the surface away from the engine.)

No one can figure out how we can leave footprints in the surface, stick a flagpole in the surface by hand but not blow away the surface from under the LUNAR LANDING CRAFT.

We did not land on the moon you uneducated bastards. Read a book once in a while. GG

At least have the common decency to provide some common BASIC science before you go on about something you obviously don't understand. It's NOT rocket science for fucks sake! BTW You recommend a book for us all be educated by?

Bonus Question: What is the makeup of the Moon's atmosphere? To qualify you need to 100% correct, no guessing here

Gawwad wrote:

Varegg wrote:

The OP is perhaps one of the worst i ever seen but it's starting to build momentum, will be fun to see where this ends ...

Anyone seen this

I'm convinced just by looking at the tittle: Conspiracy Theory - Did we landed on the moon by Fox TV

Hahahaahahha omg.
Thats hilarious, there really proving there point.

Shaguart wrote:

Gawwad wrote:

Varegg wrote:

The OP is perhaps one of the worst i ever seen but it's starting to build momentum, will be fun to see where this ends ...

Anyone seen this

I'm convinced just by looking at the tittle: Conspiracy Theory - Did we landed on the moon by Fox TV

Hahahaahahha omg.
Thats hilarious, there really proving there point.

I found that title priceless

Varegg wrote:

Shaguart wrote:

Gawwad wrote:

I'm convinced just by looking at the tittle: Conspiracy Theory - Did we landed on the moon by Fox TV

Hahahaahahha omg.
Thats hilarious, there really proving there point.

I found that title priceless

Haha i know at first i didnt notice it i thought it was normal, then i was like wait a second....
Somethin is up. Ahhh so priceless indeed

Ryan wrote:

Funky, why didn't we go to the moon? I think there is more evidence that we did, rather than we didn't.
I'd like to see some theories behind your statement.
http://chnm.gmu.edu/worldhistorysources … s/moon.jpg
http://www.apollo-projekt.de/images/AS12-47-6897.jpg
http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/IMAGES/SMALL/GP … 001131.jpg

All seem pretty real to me.

I dont see stars in those photos?

ddenholm67 wrote:

Ryan wrote:

Funky, why didn't we go to the moon? I think there is more evidence that we did, rather than we didn't.
I'd like to see some theories behind your statement.
http://chnm.gmu.edu/worldhistorysources … s/moon.jpg
http://www.apollo-projekt.de/images/AS12-47-6897.jpg
http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/IMAGES/SMALL/GP … 001131.jpg

All seem pretty real to me.

I dont see stars in those photos?

The moon's surface is essentially bright white, the light of the sun would easily obscure stars to a photo lens.

This guy makes more sense than funky