I am a Moonie

Guest

Conspiracy Theory - Did we landed on the moon by Fox TV
In the absence of the true masters I will ask all to devote 44 minutes of their lives to watching 44 min Conspiracy Theory - Did we landed on the moon by Fox TV
44 min - Jan 30, 2006 - (538 ratings)
``Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?'', hosted by X-Files actor Mitch Pileggi. The program was an hour long
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1138935117048624484

Guest

youngdan wrote:: Conspiracy Theory - Did we landed on the moon by Fox TV
In the absence of the true masters I will ask all to devote 44 minutes of their lives to watching 44 min Conspiracy Theory - Did we landed on the moon by Fox TV
44 min - Jan 30, 2006 - (538 ratings)
``Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?'', hosted by X-Files actor Mitch Pileggi. The program was an hour long
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1138935117048624484

I'll give it a watch but do they state stuff like "you can't see the stars" and "theres too much radiation"

Guest

They say all that but I would not dwell on either as who can say how strong the van allen radiation is and whether the stars should be seen or not. All I know is that a Saturn 5 rocket has one hell of a big fuel tank when I looked at it down in Cape Canaveral. When I looked at the replica of the luner lander in the air and space museum I did not see any fuel tanks bigger than a honda 50. But here is a more personnel experience. When I was young there was a great science fiction series on RTE called The Time Tunnel. The plot was that the scientists built a time tunnel and 2 lads were getting placed at critical times in history and in great danger and the scientists were trying to bring them back safely as the machine was malfunctioning. I came accross the series on dvd at Best Buy a while back and bought it. One episode landed the 2 heros in the future as extra cargo on the first flight to Mars. There was a plot but that does not matter to this. The extra weight meant that the craft would not reach escape velocity so they decided to land on the moon to pick up extra fuel. The scene of them landing on the moon was at one stage very similiar to the footage of the actual descent. The problem is The Time Tunnel was made in 1967. I think it is a good use of 44 minutes to watch this because all we get is one lie after another from government.

Guest

youngdan wrote:: They say all that but I would not dwell on either as who can say how strong the van allen radiation is and whether the stars should be seen or not. All I know is that a Saturn 5 rocket has one hell of a big fuel tank when I looked at it down in Cape Canaveral. When I looked at the replica of the luner lander in the air and space museum I did not see any fuel tanks bigger than a honda 50. But here is a more personnel experience. When I was young there was a great science fiction series on RTE called The Time Tunnel. The plot was that the scientists built a time tunnel and 2 lads were getting placed at critical times in history and in great danger and the scientists were trying to bring them back safely as the machine was malfunctioning. I came accross the series on dvd at Best Buy a while back and bought it. One episode landed the 2 heros in the future as extra cargo on the first flight to Mars. There was a plot but that does not matter to this. The extra weight meant that the craft would not reach escape velocity so they decided to land on the moon to pick up extra fuel. The scene of them landing on the moon was at one stage very similiar to the footage of the actual descent. The problem is The Time Tunnel was made in 1967. I think it is a good use of 44 minutes to watch this because all we get is one lie after another from government.

Is there any moon dust samples in existance?......on this planet?

Guest

SeathrúnCeitinn wrote:: Is there any moon dust samples in existance?......on this planet?

According to wikipedia there are rock samples. Would these reveal anything if independently investigated?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing

The shadows and lighting in the video look pretty damning and I wonder if it is calculable that the effort the astronauts make in the one sixth earth gravity in the video footage on the moon is faithful to what it would be like in lunar gravity as in the video it seems to be half of earth's gravity, not one sixth?

Also, the Russians never sent a manned module to Mars rather three Luna missions all unmanned. Why was that? It's not because they didn't have the technology I'm sure - NASA were later on buying space-station recycling technology (how to live off your own pee) from the Russians for the ISS because their own technology was not as advanced.

According to this site, the Hubble telescope cannot resolve any object on the moon less than 80m across.. and the moon module was 2.5. Would a blast crater not be nearly 80m in diameter?

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap020628.html

Guest

Auditor #9 wrote:

SeathrúnCeitinn wrote:: Is there any moon dust samples in existance?......on this planet?

According to wikipedia there are rock samples. Would these reveal anything if independently investigated?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing

Moon rock samples. Seen 'em - they do the rounds of the universities. Examined thin sections of them down a microscope, too. They don't look quite like anything you'd find on Earth.

Also, an uncle of mine attended most of the launches, and knew the astronauts.

Guest

I know it's just one video and there should be decent refutations of the evidence elsewhere as that presentation showed extremely poor answers from the NASA man but I'd love to hear a few more observations about the lack of dust on the machine and the shadows. Your man's refutation was not presented at all it just showed him whining.

As the craft was descending (how was it even doing that? rocket propulsion?) you see the video from inside the cabin of the lunar module pointed towards the ground which showed not a speck of dust moving. You'd imagine there would have been a cloud around it. The old skeptic talks about the sound of the rockets there being absent but maybe the sound was filtered out through the astronauts headgear ??

Maybe the craft was way too high above the moon to create a dust cloud but I'm sure the astronaut would have kept the camera trained on the moon all the way as they descended...? Maybe not as the landing was expected to have been rough... Questions questions.

Guest

YouTube - Proof of moon hoax! (Funny!)
BREAKING: New Video Footage of Moon Landing! (Video Contest ...

Watch video - 27 sec -

www.youtube.com/watch?v=mouUUWpEec0 Here is the video I took myself. In all seriousness I think that it is good that we ponder this. Some months back the Chinese put a orbitor around the moon to map and photo the entire surface. They most likely put the best camera available on it but I do not know what it can pick up. The Chinese at the time reckoned it was a hoax. When Bush 2 years ago said the were returning to the moon his statement was fleshed out with specifics the next day saying that the date would be 2017. Needless to say I don't believe a word of it. If asked to land on the moon I would point out that if I landed on a slope or one of the legs got wedged between rocks then I would be in a spot of bother

Guest

Despite the more and more conspiracy theories that emerge the further and further we go from the moon landings - the last in late 72 - I believe it happened and nothing has emerged since for me to doubt it.

For one - surely the the Russians , exuse me, the Soviets would have called foul - cant think of any reason that they would have played along for what will be seen as Capitalist Americas greatest triumph in the 20th century?

I think that Nasa pulled off a fantastic coup in getting a human on the moon ,pushing the existing technology to its limits and then the raison d'etre for the mission ended. To paraphrase one of those NASA folks involved - we went to the moon - pissed on it -and came home. It was purely a PR stunt - there was no plan B for what to do when they got there and with that acheived - and Nixon ,who wasnt half as enamoured with the Space programme as was Johnson- its his baby - not Kennedys - dramatically cut the budget to pay for bombing North Vietnam back to the stone ages.

There was no reason to go back - the Moon was just a lump of rock and the Americans went because - well darn it - because they bloody well wanted to.

All in all - the whole Apollo programme is earily similar to a previous voyage of discovery undertaken by this guy:

http://www.time.com/time/asia/features/journey2001/intro.html

Reason the yanks are going back is that they have to get there before the Chinese and the biggie is that its is now known that there is vast amounts of Frozen H2O around the lunar poles - where there is water - there are human possiblities.

The whole episode is in line with the whole process of human discovery - somebody reaches beyond the envelope and achieves something while it can take decades,if not centuries for others to follow up - if ever.

Guest

Bush is looking for a bolt hole.

Guest

The Soviets were no more an enemy than the Martians. Why do you think they were given all the loans and wheat shipments that they needed. The chinese at the time called it a hoax. They no more glided down gently to the moon surface by using rockets than I did. Lets see how the chinese will fare out in a few years with technology that is light years away from the stuff they had in the sixties.

Guest

I now see that the Europeans and the Russians are going to put their heads together and take a trip to the moon no less. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24633615/
They reckon on a landing in 2018. They must be as thick as bricks if they could not get to the moon till 50 years after the Yanks. Just how dumb are these sientists.

Guest

you can see the stuff left up their by consumer telescope from earth

Guest

lostexpectation wrote:: you can see the stuff left up their by consumer telescope from earth

Which ought to end the debate, but won't.

Guest

ibis wrote:

lostexpectation wrote:: you can see the stuff left up their by consumer telescope from earth

Which ought to end the debate, but won't.

So you think that the US sent people to the Moon?

Guest

Ard-Taoiseach wrote:

ibis wrote:

lostexpectation wrote:: you can see the stuff left up their by consumer telescope from earth

Which ought to end the debate, but won't.

So you think that the US sent people to the Moon?

TBH, I don't think it's even an open question.

Guest

Where can I buy this telescope. I would love to be able to see that lunar rover parked up there. This would be the rover that was strapped to the side of the lander. Carefull taking it down lads because if it falls on ye yeer screwed because ye would need a jcb to pick it up.
The chinese have an orbiter mapping the moon at the moment so maybe they have a picture of the rover. I have yet to see it though.

Guest

This all makes me think they think our poor planet is f*****d. Is there not some way we can lure them up there and then take the ladder away?

Guest

ibis wrote:

Ard-Taoiseach wrote:

ibis wrote:

lostexpectation wrote:: you can see the stuff left up their by consumer telescope from earth

Which ought to end the debate, but won't.

So you think that the US sent people to the Moon?

TBH, I don't think it's even an open question.

Well I'm in complete agreement with you. I believe that the Moon landings occurred.

This is quite a day, finding common ground with both ibis and Edo, two posters I rate very highly.

Guest

Ard-Taoiseach wrote:

ibis wrote:

Ard-Taoiseach wrote:

ibis wrote:

lostexpectation wrote:: you can see the stuff left up their by consumer telescope from earth

Which ought to end the debate, but won't.

So you think that the US sent people to the Moon?

TBH, I don't think it's even an open question.

Well I'm in complete agreement with you. I believe that the Moon landings occurred.

This is quite a day, finding common ground with both ibis and Edo, two posters I rate very highly.

In some cultures you'd be married by now.

Guest

cookiemonster wrote:: In some cultures you'd be married by now.

Well this is the Machine Nation, so we don't have such deviance here. And thank our Sheep god for that.

Guest

It's still Thursday, I'm worshiping a small underdeveloped head of Iceberg lettuce.

Guest

cookiemonster wrote:: It's still Thursday, I'm worshiping a small underdeveloped head of Iceberg lettuce.

Heretic. You know we do the Sweetheart Devotionals on Thursday. I'm reporting you to the MN Inquisition.

Guest

Ard-Taoiseach wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:: It's still Thursday, I'm worshiping a small underdeveloped head of Iceberg lettuce.

Heretic. You know we do the Sweetheart Devotionals on Thursday. I'm reporting you to the MN Inquisition.

Nobody was expecting that!

I am a Moonie 172467

Guest

cookiemonster wrote:

Ard-Taoiseach wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:: It's still Thursday, I'm worshiping a small underdeveloped head of Iceberg lettuce.

Heretic. You know we do the Sweetheart Devotionals on Thursday. I'm reporting you to the MN Inquisition.

Nobody was expecting that!

I am a Moonie 172467

I see ibis has had his beard cut. He looks dashing. For an AI.