fake or real-- we landed on the moon.

:moon: landing

  • Total voters
    40

We may earn a small commission from affiliate links and paid advertisements. Terms

actually my professor said that there are winds in outter space called solar winds and stellar winds. he was pretty pissed when that thing first came out around 2002 because he also did work for nasa and tempt for an astronaut in the challenger catastrophy.

i also vote real.
 
I voted fake and I will tell you why........ If I was the first to the moon I would have left something on the surface that could be seen from here. The object could be incredibly light and thin because the moon has no atmosphere so weight is not an issue, not to mention the value of showing the russians an american flag when ever they looked at the moon. PRICELESS. If we were there we would have done it.
 
you know, technically there is wind on the moon. just because it doesn't blow through trees and grass doesn't mean it's not there.

also, the whole "launch off of moon produced no flame" theory is retarded. Of course it wouldn't produce big flaming huge balls of fire, there is not enough air to promote that kind of a visual effect. the only reason you get those big huge balls of fire on earth is because the air is fueling it.

also, if you ever look at a jet engine, you don't see flames shooting out the back end, but you can see from the heat coming out that the fuel is indeed burning.
 
Celerity @ Jan 18 2006 said:
Quoted post[/post]]
I'm more willing to believe in the "Moongate" theories, where we went, and we never stopped going since. I want to believe we have a base there and an operation and everything.

Frankly, Richard Hoagland present more interesting Moon facts than anyone else. The flag was not flapping. The surface of the moon is not so hot to melt anything. It's very cold on the moon. No flame was produced because rockets flames did not lift the probe off the surface - propulsion jets look MUCH different in space than they do on the ground an in atmosphere. The radiation is nominal in the LD, and there would be no "crater" because the lander... landed. It didn't slam into the surface at thousands of miles per hour.

The creator of the show is a fucking twit, these observations are retarded and the whole idea that NatGeo is going to negate our work to get to the moon insults me as a scientific minded person, an intelligent human and mostly as a proud American. May they rot in hell, and may god have mercy on their souls.
Click to expand...

:werd: :werd: :werd: :werd: :werd:

micah @ Jan 18 2006 said:
Quoted post[/post]]
i saw a show about it on either discovery or history one itme a long time ago. they had some old guy on there that was a former nasa employee. he said in the months before the launch that they rehearsed and practiced the landing out in the desert over and over again. he said it was setup alot like a movie studio and that each one of them was recorded.

whose to say they didnt just air a recording in order to beat the russians?

at this point, i wouldnt put much past our government
Click to expand...

Wouldn't you want to practice everything before you went? That's why they have practice flights for pilots in training too... you wouldn't want to be on a 747 with a pilot that only landed the plane in a simulation, right?

pills_PMD @ Jan 18 2006 said:
Quoted post[/post]]
real, period. It would be hard not to get to the moon with all the technology we have at our fingertips.

radioisotope thermoelectric generators can certainly power something long enough to get it to the moon and stay there for years.

the RCC tiles on the shuttle and fibrous silica ceramic tiles can withstand re-entry heat.

everyone knows the computer technology isn't' the problem...

go sit in on an AIAA conference and tell me its fake.... fuckin hippies

and this is the idiot's guide to explaining all of those things you posted in the most non-technical sense i've ever read...

http://www.thevoiceofreason.com/Conspiracy/moon.htm
Click to expand...

:werd: :werd: :werd: :werd: :werd:

friz @ Jan 18 2006 said:
Quoted post[/post]]
I voted fake and I will tell you why........ If I was the first to the moon I would have left something on the surface that could be seen from here. The object could be incredibly light and thin because the moon has no atmosphere so weight is not an issue, not to mention the value of showing the russians an american flag when ever they looked at the moon. PRICELESS. If we were there we would have done it.
Click to expand...

Duh... they left the damn lander base on the moon. It's WAY bigger than the flag that was left there.
 
Calesta @ Jan 19 2006 said:
Quoted post[/post]]
micah @ Jan 18 2006 said:
Quoted post[/post]]
i saw a show about it on either discovery or history one itme a long time ago. they had some old guy on there that was a former nasa employee. he said in the months before the launch that they rehearsed and practiced the landing out in the desert over and over again. he said it was setup alot like a movie studio and that each one of them was recorded.

whose to say they didnt just air a recording in order to beat the russians?

at this point, i wouldnt put much past our government
Click to expand...

Wouldn't you want to practice everything before you went? That's why they have practice flights for pilots in training too... you wouldn't want to be on a 747 with a pilot that only landed the plane in a simulation, right?
Click to expand...

im not saying they shouldnt have practiced, the x-nasa guy said it was all faked and they used footage from the rehearsals.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top