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

Gawwad wrote:

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

killer21 wrote:

It is common knowledge that the moon landing was faked.  Not saying it was faked but many people believe it was.

coke wrote:

killer21 wrote:

It is common knowledge that the moon landing was faked.  Not saying it was faked but many people believe it was.

Many people also believed that the Earth was flat...

Im_Dooomed wrote:

killer21 wrote:

It is common knowledge that the moon landing was faked.

Just posting that first sentence makes me wonder about your sanity. And I wont even begin to question why you needed to use bold, green text lol

killer21 wrote:

Im_Dooomed wrote:

Just posting that first sentence makes me wonder about your sanity. And I wont even begin to question why you needed to use bold, green text lol

Been using green text since like forever. 

bennisboy wrote:

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}

Anti-argument? So you'll be agreeing then?

ig wrote:

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're dumb

DeathUnlimited wrote:

It was the US not scots.

Hypothetically you are right.

Kurazoo wrote:

Humans have been on the moon

/thread

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.

daddyofdeath wrote:

Crazy scots been knocking back on grandpa's old cough remedy again eh!

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.

Im_Dooomed wrote:

SgtSlauther wrote:

http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com … picard.jpg

lmao.

I was afraid he would post a thread about this. Hey FUnky, did you read my PM? How about you just post it here for everybody to read and save me the trouble? Ah the hell with it:

This debunks the myth they did everything in slow motion on Earth:

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 myth "If there are no stars in the background, it must be fake!!"

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!

This debunks the waving flag myth:

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.

There is so much more...You just haven't done ANY research on it apparently.

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html  <---Whole list of shit u can read through, but you probably wont. Cause you can't fathom believing in something you don't believe in now CAN YOU?!

Edit: fix'd hotlink in quote

mtb0minime wrote:

This is the biggest waste of a thread ever. We shouldn't waste our time trying to explain to some ignorant kid that we went to the moon. It's ridiculously obvious, and if he can't see that, then we should just move on and stop wasting our time with this crap.

Sorry Finny.

kptk92 wrote:

Can we focus on a planet with life on kthx

I'm Jamesey wrote:

This thread would be going a lot better if the OP had some substantial points, or even any point at all.

I don't care either way, I just like to see conspiracy theorists get hot under the collar when people laugh at them.

Try posting some text or a source that backs up your views Mr Finny, or you'll have lost the debate before it's started.

konfusion wrote:

.... Don't you usually start a debate where you're supposed to be proved wrong with a couple of arguments?

-konfusion

Last edited by Funky_Finny (2008-02-21 05:42:28)

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.