# Space thread what they didn't want you to see



## ismokealotofpot (Feb 16, 2012)

notice the wires holding them up,the sand falling off their boots,also at 2minutes 25 seconds he drops something that fall real fast. <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUE" target="_blank">[video=youtube;wdMvQTNLaUE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUE[/video]


----------



## mindphuk (Feb 16, 2012)

[video=youtube;NOv_zvM-oJQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOv_zvM-oJQ&amp;feature=fvwrel[/video]

[video=youtube;oCNV1hiKpLI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCNV1hiKpLI&amp;feature=related[/video]


----------



## ismokealotofpot (Feb 16, 2012)

hay thanks for stopping by


----------



## ismokealotofpot (Feb 16, 2012)

they did the wire test also. Im not sure if it was on myth busters or not may have been another show. I have dial up so It takes me while to watch videos. how do you post a u tube image on here all I can do is post a link.


----------



## mindphuk (Feb 16, 2012)

ismokealotofpot said:


> they did the wire test also. Im not sure if it was on myth busters or not may have been another show. I have dial up so It takes me while to watch videos. how do you post a u tube image on here all I can do is post a link.


Click the little film icon next to the quote icon and you will get a dialogue box to put your video link. You can also just place [ video] [ /video] tags around your link (remove the extra space)


----------



## ismokealotofpot (Feb 16, 2012)

in the first video i posted you can see the wires above their heads plain as day.


----------



## loquacious (Feb 16, 2012)

Wow, I did not know that people like you really existed (always thought they were just trolls). I never thought anyone could be so stupid as to not understand how we made it to the moon. Well sir, you have proved my wrong and I congratulate you on proving me wrong.


----------



## jesus of Cannabis (Feb 16, 2012)

true to his name, his soliloquy was long


----------



## ismokealotofpot (Feb 16, 2012)

[video=youtube;4IXRAUKhQT0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IXRAUKhQT0&amp;feature=related[/video]


----------



## ismokealotofpot (Feb 16, 2012)

You can see the wires in the myth busters video by the way they use the same video I posted in this thread.


----------



## ismokealotofpot (Feb 16, 2012)

loquacious said:


> Wow, I did not know that people like you really existed (always thought they were just trolls). I never thought anyone could be so stupid as to not understand how we made it to the moon. Well sir, you have proved my wrong and I congratulate you on proving me wrong.


Im glad your not a troll. thanks for stopping by its good to have nice people around.


----------



## ismokealotofpot (Feb 16, 2012)

jesus of Cannabis said:


> true to his name, his soliloquy was long


I don't really smoke that much pot


----------



## sonar (Feb 17, 2012)

I'm not sure if you are aware of this, but NASA has a new lunar satellite called the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter that went into orbit around the moon last year. The imagines of the Apollo sites clearly show the tracks and junk left behind by the missions.




http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/news/apollo-sites.html


----------



## mindphuk (Feb 17, 2012)

ismokealotofpot said:


> You can see the wires in the myth busters video by the way they use the same video I posted in this thread.


You see an anomaly and you automatically assign an explanation without any invesigation -- wires. You do this because it confirms your preexisting belief yet you don't seek alternative explanations like lens flare and film artifacts. This is NOT the way to conduct critical thinking which will ultimately lead to truth, this is the way of conspiracy theorists that only seek to make evidence fit their already established conclusions. The MB take the true skeptical approach... Let's assume the conspiracies are correct so let's try to show how to simulate microgravity. When they are unable to use a gravity rig (wires) and have it appear to be the same as the film from NASA, then the only conclusion is that it WASN'T done that way. If you won't even acknowledge the points made in the debunking by MB and others, why should anyone take you seriously?


----------



## mindphuk (Feb 17, 2012)

[video=youtube;Tc7FLQR92eg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tc7FLQR92eg[/video]


----------



## Farfenugen (Feb 17, 2012)

Antenna silly


----------



## beardo (Feb 17, 2012)

Lets ask someone who actually knows
[youtube]UUFO8AGMwic[/youtube]


----------



## ismokealotofpot (Feb 17, 2012)

sonar said:


> I'm not sure if you are aware of this, but NASA has a new lunar satellite called the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter that went into orbit around the moon last year. The imagines of the Apollo sites clearly show the tracks and junk left behind by the missions.
> 
> View attachment 2064540
> 
> ...


that image is crystal clear hay I can see them running around


----------



## ismokealotofpot (Feb 17, 2012)

nice video beardo plus rep bro. notice he wouldn't swear on the bible he never admitted nor denied it. I would have punched him back.


----------



## ismokealotofpot (Feb 17, 2012)

there is a video of apollo 11 ware buzz is filming earth through a window and the camera pans left for a brief second to another window with earth in it again plain as day.


----------



## mindphuk (Feb 17, 2012)

ismokealotofpot said:


> there is a video of apollo 11 ware buzz is filming earth through a window and the camera pans left for a brief second to another window with earth in it again plain as day.


So I guess you are not interested in actual discussion and honest debate but merely are using RIU so that you can troll your bullshit. Figures.

/unsubscribed


----------



## sonar (Feb 17, 2012)

ismokealotofpot said:


> there is a video of apollo 11 ware buzz is filming earth through a window and the camera pans left for a brief second to another window with earth in it again plain as day.


There is also a video of Buzz punching a guy out for calling him a liar about going to the moon.



[youtube]FUI36tPKDg4[/youtube]


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Feb 17, 2012)

ismokealotofpot said:


> I have dial up so It takes me while to watch videos.


Dial up still exists?


----------



## ismokealotofpot (Feb 18, 2012)

sonar said:


> There is also a video of Buzz punching a guy out for calling him a liar about going to the moon.
> 
> 
> 
> [youtube]FUI36tPKDg4[/youtube]


don't you pay attention someone already posted that.


----------



## ismokealotofpot (Feb 18, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> So I guess you are not interested in actual discussion and honest debate but merely are using RIU so that you can troll your bullshit. Figures.
> 
> /unsubscribed


MINDPHUK I want you stay forever! really. Im sorry you devoted your life to a lie.


----------



## Brick Top (Feb 18, 2012)

Padawanbater2 said:


> Dial up still exists?


I think it still does in Romania.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Feb 18, 2012)

Brick Top said:


> I think it still does in Romania.


lol while they have got some dial around in romania i wouldnt sneer at their internet if i was you 



> Romania has the second fastest Internet speeds on the planet, clocking in at 15.27 Mbps, and a trio of Eastern European countries round out the top five, Bulgaria, Lithuania and Latvia. The United States musters a very pedestrian 4.93 Mbps  good for 26th in the world


http://mashable.com/2011/09/21/fastest-download-speeds-infographic/


----------



## ChronicClouds (Feb 18, 2012)

loquacious said:


> Wow, I did not know that people like you really existed (always thought they were just trolls). I never thought anyone could be so stupid as to not understand how we made it to the moon. Well sir, you have proved my wrong and I congratulate you on proving me wrong.


How come we have never gone back? It should be easier now than back then.


----------



## cannabineer (Feb 18, 2012)

Padawanbater2 said:


> Dial up still exists?


It never existed. They used wires. cn


----------



## cannabineer (Feb 18, 2012)

ChronicClouds said:


> How come we have never gone back? It should be easier now than back then.



It was hard then and it is hard now. Back then, there was a pressing political need combined with the sheer newness of the enabling technologies. To do it today, we'd be using pretty much the same tech ... no sufficiently advanced propulsion systems have been brought online in the mean time. Since we lack a compelling reason to go back to the moon, and since the price tag for a Mars mission (using either chemical or nuclear-thermal reaction engines) is stupid high, we have no believable manned space program in this time after the Shuttle has been retired and Orion (the Apollo successor, not the pulse-nuclear direct ascent concept from the 60s) is temporarily not canceled. SSTO technology (single stage to orbit [and return]), such as the Delta Clipper, VentureStar and Reagan's good ole NASP never did pan out. 

So it's down to money. Nobody sees a need to spend many billions on gaining and proving the technology all over again ... unless of course the Chinese get uppity. Then we might have the political angle to play again, but without the goad of "must get there before the Main Enemy!" that spurred us fifty years ago. cn


----------



## ChronicObsession (Feb 18, 2012)

loquacious said:


> Wow, I did not know that people like you really existed (always thought they were just trolls). I never thought anyone could be so stupid as to not understand how we made it to the moon. Well sir, you have proved my wrong and I congratulate you on proving me wrong.


Isn't it cool how a bunch of smart guys can defecate on religious people with their words of hate. Now THE MOON LANDING IS FAKE???!?!?!?! seriously guys, wtf? Nice troll indeed. antimoonlanding threads 


....back to reality. Of course they landed, and there is a secret on the darkside of the moon. Astronauts were told to pack their shit and NEVER return, or Earth would be destroyed. True story


----------



## tehgenoc1de (Feb 18, 2012)

[video=youtube_share;-f_DPrSEOEo]http://youtu.be/-f_DPrSEOEo[/video]


----------



## ismokealotofpot (Feb 20, 2012)

Thank you all for your comments this is fun.[video=youtube;BMBcLg0DkLA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMBcLg0DkLA&amp;feature=related[/video]


----------



## ismokealotofpot (Feb 20, 2012)

[video=youtube;eWDHQxDl0g4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWDHQxDl0g4&amp;feature=related[/video]


----------



## ismokealotofpot (Feb 20, 2012)

Did you guys even watch the first film? 2 minutes and 25 seconds in he drops something.


----------



## ismokealotofpot (Feb 20, 2012)

This is from hubble notice all the foot prints and space junk left behind.[video=youtube;PRItZ8rCZzA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRItZ8rCZzA&amp;feature=related[/video]


----------



## InCognition (Feb 20, 2012)

lol, the USA did make it to the moon.

A lot of those anti-moon landing videos are either just videos, or they are manipulated videos. The one video you posted of the "wires"... where are any wires?

How come in the photos of the visor lenses you don't see any anomalies in the reflection? Yet, all the videos claim anomalies in the visor reflections?


----------



## Doer (Mar 16, 2012)

As I understand it, anybody with decent equipemnt, even in Romania can get a return from the laser reflectors that were left. If you know where to look, there is a moon buggy to see, also. So, we don't have argue about this one. It happened. Upgrade to broadband and further your education. Cheers.


----------



## cannabineer (Mar 17, 2012)

The Apollo 17 ascent stage (Challenger) launch filming was done by a clever remote operator who anticipated a launch on schedule and sent the pan request 2.6 seconds early. He lucked out. The uncoordinated nature of the filming is visible by the camera not precisely tracking the AS. Apollo 17 was the only AS launch with which that trick worked. cn


----------



## mindphuk (Mar 17, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> The Apollo 17 ascent stage (Challenger) launch filming was done by a clever remote operator who anticipated a launch on schedule and sent the pan request 2.6 seconds early. He lucked out. The uncoordinated nature of the filming is visible by the camera not precisely tracking the AS. Apollo 17 was the only AS launch with which that trick worked. cn


I remember reading about that some time ago. They practiced it a lot pre-mission IIRC.


----------



## bird mcbride (Mar 17, 2012)

I know they went to the moon. I suggested pumping the fuels into the chambers instead of pressurized fuel cells and switching up to H2O2 as aan intermix instead of H2O.


----------



## ismokealotofpot (Mar 17, 2012)

great half my posts are gone.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Mar 17, 2012)

ismokealotofpot said:


> great half my posts are gone.


don't worry doubt they'd be missed


----------



## tyler.durden (Mar 17, 2012)

ginjawarrior said:


> don't worry doubt they'd be missed


ROTFLMAO! I tried to like your post, GW, but apparently the site can't even get that to work. +rep


----------



## ChronicObsession (Mar 17, 2012)

There was this one time, at space bandcamp, I stuck a pussy in my flute and queefed "I pledge allegiance to the flag" while farting my country 'tis of thee backwards.


----------



## jbsoriginality (Mar 19, 2012)

on another video,idk name but look around u can see that the closer the astronaut gets to the lander the longer his shadow becomes!


----------



## mindphuk (Mar 19, 2012)

jbsoriginality said:


> on another video,idk name but look around u can see that the closer the astronaut gets to the lander the longer his shadow becomes!


 OMFG!! The shadow gets longer? Hold the presses, jbs finally has some proof! Shadows can never change because of terrain or moving closer to a bright object reflecting sunlight.


----------



## Doer (Mar 19, 2012)

OH No. The moon is perfectly flat, like a cue ball. So, you would never see a shortened shadow going downhill or a lengthening shadow going up hill. 

So, unless you can prove the moon is not perfectly flat, he's right.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Mar 19, 2012)

Doer said:


> OH No. The moon is perfectly flat, like a cue ball. So, you would never see a shortened shadow going downhill or a lengthening shadow going up hill.
> 
> So, unless you can prove the moon is not perfectly flat, he's right.


a cue ball isnt perfectly flat tho...

when you get down to scale there would be tiny hills on that too.


----------



## Doer (Mar 19, 2012)

Yes. Flatness and Stillness have something in common.


----------



## ismokealotofpot (Mar 20, 2012)

mars anyone?


----------



## Doer (Mar 20, 2012)

Would the shadows be shorter because there are more moons.


----------



## ismokealotofpot (Mar 26, 2012)

what the hell are you talking about? shadows?


----------



## ismokealotofpot (Apr 3, 2012)

this is mars


----------



## ismokealotofpot (Apr 3, 2012)




----------



## ismokealotofpot (Apr 3, 2012)

Two hillslopes in the Atacama Desert of Chile &#8211; one of bedrock (A) and the other covered with soil (B) &#8211; look amazingly like the Columbia Hills on Mars (C) once the yellowish grey Martian sky has been artificially colored blue and the red color of the rocks has been removed.(Mars image, acquired by the rover Spirit, courtesy of NASA/JPL/Cornell University)

​


----------



## mudminer (Apr 5, 2012)

so...... whats the conspiracy here? is the rover "spirit" in chile or is chile on mars?


----------



## Doer (Apr 5, 2012)

There are hills everywhere. Just what are you trying to say? I can put lipstick on a pig. How about coloring the sky from Chile, red.
I hear it's very chilly on Mars. <yuck, yuck>


----------



## RyanTheRhino (Apr 5, 2012)

ismokealotofpot said:


> in the first video i posted you can see the wires above their heads plain as day.


first of that is the antenna attached to their backpacks and the glare on the top is light reflecting thru the camera lens.


----------



## ismokealotofpot (Apr 11, 2012)

i dont even know what the fuck your talking about.


----------



## ismokealotofpot (Apr 11, 2012)

ryan the rhino what mission was your fim or piture taken? the first film i posted was from the very first lunar mission apollo 11


----------



## medikal (Apr 14, 2012)

if you no anything about mathematics and biological science you would no that the statistical probability of surviing a trip through the Van Allen radiation belt is less the 0.18% each way even with your tiny sub evolved monkey brains this is a fact that cannot be disputed


but here is something you dont no steve jobs payed a private chinese company in 2006 to go as close as any human has too the van allen belts everyone on the mission is now dead acute cellular breakdown on the sub atomic level in laymans terms a supercancer the likes which primitive human medical science has stuggled to explain


----------



## mindphuk (Apr 14, 2012)

medikal said:


> if you no anything about mathematics and biological science you would no that the statistical probability of surviing a trip through the Van Allen radiation belt is less the 0.18% each way even with your tiny sub evolved monkey brains this is a fact that cannot be disputed


Maybe that's why NASA decided to avoid the bulk of it. I KNOW quite a bit about math and biology. No one has claimed anyone has survived a trip through a significant cross-section of the Van Allen belt. Van Allen radiation surrounds the earth like a belt (hence the name). It appears however that you, and many moon landing conspiracists, forget we can move in three dimensions. Not much different than if I wanted to leave Saturn and avoid the ring system.


----------



## Doer (Apr 14, 2012)

Hey, medikal, I see you posting in our science forum and in a quite condescending fashion. What's with the monkey brain insults? You are evolved somehow, superior? In what respect? What's your beef, anyway? Are you that other guy with a new login?

Politely, I ask you to provide more detail and more reference. And tone down the complex.


----------



## mindphuk (Apr 14, 2012)

Doer said:


> Hey, medikal, I see you posting in our science forum and in a quite condescending fashion. What's with the monkey brain insults? You are evolved somehow, superior? In what respect? What's your beef, anyway? Are you that other guy with a new login?
> 
> Politely, I ask you to provide more detail and more reference. And tone down the complex.


I just wish he would type in plain English. It takes me about 3-4 attempts to try to figure out what he is trying to say. If English is your second language, that's okay but trying to sound superior when you sound like a dumbass doesn't work too well.


----------



## Doer (Apr 14, 2012)

Right you are. I'm always interested in fresh ideas.....if there is one.


----------



## cannabineer (Apr 14, 2012)

Doer said:


> Right you are. I'm always interested in fresh ideas.....if there is one.


Judging by what [he] has been posting in other subfora ... I wouldn't hold my breath. cn


----------



## ismokealotofpot (Apr 14, 2012)

I understand that some of the suits have antennas on them but that doesn't explain when the astronaut drops something that falls at normal speed. did you guys see the picture of the fake earth in the window of apollo? there were actually two earths in the video I suppose you guys didn't see that did you?


----------



## mindphuk (Apr 14, 2012)

ismokealotofpot said:


> I understand that some of the suits have antennas on them but that doesn't explain when the astronaut drops something that falls at normal speed. did you guys see the picture of the fake earth in the window of apollo? there were actually two earths in the video I suppose you guys didn't see that did you?


I think you hallucinated the second earth.


----------



## cannabineer (Apr 14, 2012)

ismokealotofpot said:


> I understand that some of the suits have antennas on them but that doesn't explain when the astronaut drops something that falls at normal speed. did you guys see the picture of the fake earth in the window of apollo? there were actually two earths in the video I suppose you guys didn't see that did you?


I looked for it and couldn't see it. cn


----------



## axionjaxson (Apr 14, 2012)

i've never been to the moon , but i've been to a gravel pit in montana


----------



## cannabineer (Apr 14, 2012)

axionjaxson said:


> i've never been to the moon , but i've been to a gravel pit in montana


Was it a sample-return mission? cn


----------



## ismokealotofpot (Apr 14, 2012)

so why exactly are you guys posting in this thread? I could understand if you posted something that *they didnt want you to see *but your just posting all the same bullshit that was in the other space thread.* I at least showed cannabineer some courtesy by not posting my ufo crap in his thread* i come here to post my own bullshit and you guys follow trying to debunk everything i post even though you cant


----------



## axionjaxson (Apr 14, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> Was it a sample-return mission? cn


lol hi dude , it was a drunken and stoned teenage punani mission


----------



## mindphuk (Apr 15, 2012)

ismokealotofpot said:


> so why exactly are you guys posting in this thread? I could understand if you posted something that *they didnt want you to see *but your just posting all the same bullshit that was in the other space thread.* I at least showed cannabineer some courtesy by not posting my ufo crap in his thread* i come here to post my own bullshit and you guys follow trying to debunk everything i post even though you cant


We have debunked everything you said. It is your unwillingness to accept the answers given, not your skill in defending your claims that keeps you going. 

Do you think RIU threads are here for your own amusement and desires? This is a public forum of which we are all members. I can come post in your threads and you in mine. You want a place to spout your crazy conspiracy theory then start a blog. That's what all of your sources have done.


----------



## ismokealotofpot (Apr 15, 2012)

what have you debunked fuckerpants?


----------



## ismokealotofpot (Apr 15, 2012)

your pissed because mommy told you that you can be anything you want when you grow up. so how did it work out for you? did you go to the moon? you have nothing better to do than argue with a guy who you say doesn't know what hes talking about. hay I don't know shit and spew lies so mindfuck needs to be rite here to tell me so.


----------



## ismokealotofpot (Apr 15, 2012)

ill just post a bunch of bullshit in your threads then


----------



## ismokealotofpot (Apr 15, 2012)

[video=youtube;gepFUTloIbs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gepFUTloIbs[/video]


----------



## ismokealotofpot (Apr 15, 2012)

[video=youtube;Q0X7HH6-SZo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0X7HH6-SZo&amp;feature=related[/video]


----------



## axionjaxson (Apr 15, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> We have debunked everything you said. It is your unwillingness to accept the answers given, not your skill in defending your claims that keeps you going.
> 
> Do you think RIU threads are here for your own amusement and desires? This is a public forum of which we are all members. I can come post in your threads and you in mine. You want a place to spout your crazy conspiracy theory then start a blog. That's what all of your sources have done.


 lol i like this lol


----------



## vilify (Apr 15, 2012)

UFO's can visit earth, but we cant visit the moon?

Who the fuck is this guy.


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Apr 17, 2012)

We did indeed land on the moon. If were capable of basic, short distant space travel, why is it so hard to accept that we landed on the moon?.. BUT on the other hand, a good amount of moon videos are fake, hell, they all could be fake. The US government doesnt want you to know whats on the mood, its not just the dark side of the moon thats a mystery... The retarded US government even shot a nuke at the claiming that it was a test and it wasnt aimed at the moon... That nuke never got to where it was going though, didnt even phase the ones that the nuke was targeting... I suggest you watch this documentary on the moon, the message the documentary may seem far-fetched but they back up their claims with evidence... It even tells you to look up moon pictures yourself and find the little blurred/edited pixels that show you the government is hiding something... check it out

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilOsZyjRvDs


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Apr 17, 2012)

yeah my grammar sucks... its late lol


----------



## ginjawarrior (Apr 17, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> yeah my grammar sucks... its late lol


i'd be much less worried about your grammar than your "giant spacemen" video if i was you


----------



## jonesbag (Apr 17, 2012)

tollolololol


----------



## axionjaxson (Apr 17, 2012)

ginjawarrior said:


> i'd be much less worried about your grammar than your "giant spacemen" video if i was you


like>>>>>>


----------



## RyanTheRhino (Apr 17, 2012)

I don't know why people really think we never went to the moon. It is easier to go to the moon then to the bottom of the ocean. A vessel can handle no pressure a lot easier then tons and tons of pressure. Also it is only 1/6th as hard to leave the moon then to leave the earth. 


You heard it here first, size does matters... the bigger you are the more you attract woman.... it is simple physics


----------



## ismokealotofpot (Apr 17, 2012)

Well the video i posted with the wires was apollo 11 to video that ryan the rhino posted was a different apollo mission yes they have antennas. but if you look closer at the fist video you can see the wires.


----------



## cannabineer (Apr 17, 2012)

RyanTheRhino said:


> I don't know why people really think we never went to the moon. It is easier to go to the moon then to the bottom of the ocean. A vessel can handle no pressure a lot easier then tons and tons of pressure. Also it is only 1/6th as hard to leave the moon then to leave the earth.
> 
> 
> You heard it here first, size does matters... the bigger you are the more you attract woman.... it is simple physics


Being particularly dense would also have that effect.  cn


----------



## ismokealotofpot (Apr 17, 2012)

did you know the moon rocks they brought back got stolen along with all the documentation and research. Hmm your rite there is no reason for the us government to lie to its people they would never do that. It couldn't have had anything to do with the cold war.


----------



## ismokealotofpot (Apr 17, 2012)

look at the lunar take offs when the lem takes off it rocks back and forth like its on a string.


----------



## cannabineer (Apr 17, 2012)

ismokealotofpot said:


> look at the lunar take offs when the lem takes off it rocks back and forth like its on a string.


Not so imo. If on a string, the pivot would be the attachment point. Any rocking I saw looked like it was about center of mass, as is to be expected by a gimbaled rocket generating/damping torsion moments. The other interesting feature of the ascent stage ignitions is the freed debris, which flies like material in a hard vacuum. cn


----------



## Doer (Apr 18, 2012)

How can it possibly matter? We are no longer space-faring, at present.

Are you trying to prove that govts lie? They are suppose to. We won the cold war.

It's like saying the CIA took down the World Trade Center. So What?


----------



## bird mcbride (Apr 18, 2012)

What I've been thinking in answer to some peoples concerns is to use a carbon ceramic material much the same as used in the B-2 bomber and pressurize a dual outer hull layer with compressed ozone gas. It would then be possible for the crew and the ship to survive even the most extreme solar storm. Lots more but not today


----------



## RyanTheRhino (Apr 18, 2012)

bird mcbride said:


> What I've been thinking in answer to some peoples concerns is to use a carbon ceramic material much the same as used in the B-2 bomber and pressurize a dual outer hull layer with compressed ozone gas. It would then be possible for the crew and the ship to survive even the most extreme solar storm. Lots more but not today


except ceramics are so brittle that they would most likely break under their own weight during a launch 4Gs. also ozone"it does help some" is not what protects us from the real danger of solar radiation. it is the earths churning metal core that produces a magnetic field that deflects the radiation. 

you would be better of with a dense metal


----------



## RyanTheRhino (Apr 18, 2012)

this brings up how i think energy will be created when fossil fuels are running out. Building a modular solar array that can be built up over time. The solar radiation is much higher lvl in our orbit. You can collect it more efficiently and beam it to a station in the form of a microwave which can then be turned back into electricity.

Best part is with no atmosphere there is no forces of erosion so its lifespan could be forever.



Sell it to our government as a weapon, and then use the advancements in research for energy creation


----------



## ginjawarrior (Apr 18, 2012)

RyanTheRhino said:


> this brings up how i think energy will be created when fossil fuels are running out. Building a modeler solar array that can be built up over time. The solar radiation is much higher lvl in our orbit. You can collect it more efficiently and beam it to a station in the form of a microwave which can then be turned back into electricity.
> 
> Best part is with no atmosphere there is no forces of erosion so its lifespan could be forever.
> 
> ...


i don't think thats ever being built at least with the current political climates. would have to wait for a unified earth and a true one government.

could you imagine china or russia allowing america to build a weapon such as this?


----------



## RyanTheRhino (Apr 19, 2012)

We will just pull an Iran and say its for energy creation


----------



## Doer (Apr 20, 2012)

But, China can just cash all our T-bills they own. The sword of Damocles, and they know it.


----------



## RyanTheRhino (Apr 20, 2012)

I don't understand why all you people think our debt is owed to china. 








They only own about 1.4 trillion out of our 14+


----------



## ismokealotofpot (Apr 21, 2012)

Hate to have to cut that loss huh! wow! I feel like im on rug that's getting swept out from under me.


----------



## ismokealotofpot (Apr 21, 2012)

*mythbusters did a moon hoax scenario..all they managed to prove was that it could be faked here on earth..am I wrong?*


----------



## RyanTheRhino (Apr 21, 2012)

ismokealotofpot said:


> *mythbusters did a moon hoax scenario..all they managed to prove was that it could be faked here on earth..am I wrong?*



You sir are a genius why din't i think of that ..Except if you watched it they could not get the walk right, even with -g's


----------



## Doer (Apr 21, 2012)

ismokealotofpot said:


> *mythbusters did a moon hoax scenario..all they managed to prove was that it could be faked here on earth..am I wrong?*


It could not be faked. Very detailed, but you missed the point. Or didn't watch the show. Still wondering why you need to be so RIGHT about this?

China maintains, by far, the largest collection of Treasury notes in one "hand," that can be cashed outright in a day. You can ignorantly propose that we just "cut our losses." But that's not reality.


----------



## Doer (Apr 21, 2012)

RyanTheRhino said:


> I don't understand why all you people think our debt is owed to china.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It is difficult to figure out, with the various notes and terms. So, I will float this. (thanks for the chart)

I have only respect for American Presidents. I can not say any have done a bad job. They are men for their Seasons. 
Gotta love them all, I reckon.

Remember during Clinton, great President wrt China as was Nixon who paved the way. Clinton, I remember 
made the un-heard of decision to re-finance America. Shorter term obligations began to replace the longer 
term as far as portfolio weighting. 40 year weighting became 45 day, like that. I'm no deep weenie on finance. 
But, it seems to me the shorter term obligation are aggregated into a fewer hands, China being, big dragon.

These hands, Brazil being a swing vote, are powerful. China simply announces no confidence in the Treasuries' Notes. 
Call for gold to cash out. So does Brazil. That's a mess. It will lead to war of course. The same problem exists in reverse 
for China. Their manufacturing base is already slowing as the world economy downshifts (while America fiddles with
posterity for the fewer.) It's all about feeding the mob in the end.

So, my forum mates, the previous war is always easy to fight. This is uber-real. Throw in some Cyber attacks. 
Missiles go to status, Use Them Or Lose Them. Subs off our coasts are French. (for real) 

Who will be the man for that Season?


----------



## ismokealotofpot (Apr 22, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> Not so imo. If on a string, the pivot would be the attachment point. Any rocking I saw looked like it was about center of mass, as is to be expected by a gimbaled rocket generating/damping torsion moments. The other interesting feature of the ascent stage ignitions is the freed debris, which flies like material in a hard vacuum. cn


how about a heavy object attached to a crane. you keep talking about this hard vacuum all mythbusters did was prove that the shit can be faked here on earth.


----------



## ismokealotofpot (Apr 22, 2012)

Out of all the things they could could try to debunk they pick footprints? hmm oh look at me I can make a footprint on earth. big deal


----------



## Doer (Apr 22, 2012)

*"...all mythbusters did was prove that the shit can be faked here on earth. * 

Not correct. They proved (to me) that even with modern equipment, IT CAN"T BE FAKED. "


----------



## cannabineer (Apr 22, 2012)

ismokealotofpot said:


> how about a heavy object attached to a crane. you keep talking about this hard vacuum all mythbusters did was prove that the shit can be faked here on earth.


I keep talking about hard vacuum because things with high surface area (dust, debris, the flag) behave characteristically under vacuum in ways they don't (and can't) in any sort of atmosphere. There is no way to place such a big stage (required if the film were hoaxed) under that kind of vacuum. Watch an ascent stage launch or the spray of dust from the Rover. 


As for a crane ... what lifts it (if on a line) won't have any effect at all on the pivot point of the ascent stage. cn


----------



## mindphuk (Apr 22, 2012)

Doer said:


> *"...all mythbusters did was prove that the shit can be faked here on earth. *
> 
> Not correct. They proved (to me) that even with modern equipment, IT CAN"T BE FAKED. "


He will just keep ignoring the facts and come up with his own reality. The very first video of the MB episode in question I pointed out to him how they tried to replicate one-sixth G by various methods and NONE of them matched with actual footage. If he actually watched the videos he could not make the claim that it *could *be faked on earth because that is the specific myth that they busted. Anyone this detached from reality and honesty really doesn't deserve our responses.


----------



## Doer (Apr 23, 2012)

Right. When someone really does not want to discuss what seems to be the truth, but wants to convince us with "how could it possibly...?" As I mention also, it sounds like he didn't even watch the show, only heard about it. 

I'm still amused by the "gift of sub-light travel" from the math thread, Possibly another person, but pretty funny, really.


----------



## Doer (Apr 23, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> I keep talking about hard vacuum because things with high surface area (dust, debris, the flag) behave characteristically under vacuum in ways they don't (and can't) in any sort of atmosphere. There is no way to place such a big stage (required if the film were hoaxed) under that kind of vacuum. Watch an ascent stage launch or the spray of dust from the Rover.
> 
> 
> As for a crane ... what lifts it (if on a line) won't have any effect at all on the pivot point of the ascent stage. cn


To me what cinches it beyond other cinches, is the Assent from the moon. I can watch that over and over. How much did that mass?
How did that little rocket poof send it upward? The Myth boys didn't even have to try that one. You can't launch anything from earth's gravity well, that can mimic the spooky acceleration from the Lunar surface. No model at any mass can do that from earth.


----------



## ismokealotofpot (Apr 23, 2012)

unless you have a crane pull it up


----------



## Harrekin (Apr 23, 2012)

Doer said:


> To me what cinches it beyond other cinches, is the Assent from the moon. I can watch that over and over. How much did that mass?
> How did that little rocket poof send it upward? The Myth boys didn't even have to try that one. You can't launch anything from earth's gravity well, that can mimic the spooky acceleration from the Lunar surface. No model at any mass can do that from earth.


I'm gonna say...Magnets?


----------



## mindphuk (Apr 23, 2012)

ismokealotofpot said:


> unless you have a crane pull it up


You're not reading all of the replies. Someone already pointed out that would not allow for the wobbling around the center of mass. If it were a crane, it would be wobbling from the pivot point where the cable hooked on to the LEM. These videos cannot be replicated here on earth no matter how much you want to believe otherwise. 

Why are you so invested in believing there really was no moon landing? All of your so-called evidence is either pure fabrication or has normal mundane explanations yet you go out of your way in believing the random people that try to perpetuate this myth. What is it specifically about the moon landing that makes you want to believe it didn't happen?


----------



## bird mcbride (Apr 23, 2012)

Before the moon landings radiation was a key concern. Gold lined the spacesuits of the apollo astronauts in an effort to keep them safe. Metal reacts violently when exposed to solar storm radiation like metal in a microwave oven. Gold was also used to sheild the electronics on the probes that explored jupiter and the outer planets. Any spacecraft designed for manned exploration would have to be assembled in space. If radiation is truly the prime concern such as the van allen belts, Russia would have said something long ago. Moscow reconizes that the US has in fact landed men on the moon.


----------



## Doer (Apr 24, 2012)

Yes, if our enemies understand, that is sufficient. Space faring could be the key to global peace, if we figure a way the Big 5 economies can mutually assure the planet's destruction from space. Then we can mutally defend the planet from Solar debris, also.


----------



## ismokealotofpot (Apr 26, 2012)

By Lee Ferran​Apr 23, 2012 11:22am

[h=1]Super Secret Hypersonic Aircraft Flew Out of Its Skin[/h]http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/04/super-secret-hypersonic-aircraft-flew-out-of-its-skin/#http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/04/super-secret-hypersonic-aircraft-flew-out-of-its-skin/#
 Email22Smaller FontTextLarger Text|Print



It turns out that tearing through the atmosphere at 20 times the speed of sound is bad for the skin, even if you&#8217;re a super high-tech aircraft developed by the government&#8217;s best engineers at its far-out research agency.
DARPA, the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency, has made public its best guess about what might have caused its unmanned arrowhead-shaped Hypersonic Technology Vehicle (HTV-2) to suddenly lose contact and crash in the Pacific just a few minutes after slicing through the sky at Mach 20 last August: it was going so fast its skin peeled off.
After an eight-month investigation, DARPA concluded that even though the HTV-2 was expected to lose some of its skin mid-flight, &#8220;larger than anticipated portions of the vehicle&#8217;s skin peeled from the aerostructure,&#8221; the agency said in a statement Friday.
The agency said it expected the HTV-2, which goes so fast it can make the commute from New York to Los Angeles in 12 minutes, to experience &#8220;impulsive shock waves&#8221; at such speeds, but shocks it experienced last August were &#8220;more than 100 times what the vehicle was designed to withstand.&#8221;
While the test was very public, the details of the HTV-2&#8242;s design, stability system and potential purpose remain highly classified.
Two months after DARPA&#8217;s test, the Army tested its own hypersonic aircraft &#8212; this one a long-range weapon system called the Advanced Hypersonic Weapon (AHW) designed to strike any target in the world in just a couple hours.
​​​​


----------



## ismokealotofpot (Apr 26, 2012)

i seen one similar a few years back only it didn't fly that fast. it was fallowing me in my car matching my speed perfectly even when i slammed on my breaks it had no lag. what is strange is it knew where i was going and flew rite over the bowling ally no more than ten feet above the building.this craft made zero noise and had me in a spotlight until it flew over the building. i think the story the feds are telling is a ruse or what i seen was a ufo. i got real close to it within 30 feet


----------



## ismokealotofpot (Apr 26, 2012)

all you experts back to the moon would it be possible from inside apollo to cast a shadow over the earth? can you answer that?


----------



## Doer (Apr 26, 2012)

These are tests where they fire the models straight down from high altitudes? Or I wonder if they have gone more horizontal, now, testing the sramjet? Keeping the skin on seems like a good thing.


----------



## Doer (Apr 26, 2012)

ismokealotofpot said:


> all you experts back to the moon would it be possible from inside apollo to cast a shadow over the earth? can you answer that?


We'll need a little more explanation. Also, are you saying your were actually turned down for alien abduction because you were going to a bowling alley?


----------



## ismokealotofpot (Apr 26, 2012)

turned down? I dont know it seemed to know what I was thinking and knew I was scared shitless


----------



## ismokealotofpot (Apr 26, 2012)

APOLLO REALITY​





_*How, and where NASA faked the lunar orbit, landing and lift off.*__*___________________________________________________*_​





[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]*This web page will show how, and where NASA faked the lunar approach, lunar orbit, lunar landing, and lunar take off, for all the Apollo Moon landing video's. Contrary to what many believe, the sequences were not shot in a desert, Hollywood studio, or Area 51. There may have been the odd picture taken at Area 51, and a few Apollo pictures that were taken in some remote desert, but the majority of stills and video were performed at Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia. Scientist's at NASA knew in the early 60's that a manned mission to the Moon was impossible within 8 years, and a plan to fake the Moon landings was put into operation. NASA's fake Moon pictures were taken at various locations such as KSC, JSC, LRC, and of course the odd one or two desert locations. I would also like to point out to that the art of faking both still photographs, and movie film is as old as photography and film itself. The 1930's film "King Kong" showed a huge gorilla scaling up the Empire State building. If it's on film are we led to believe it's real? No of course not, but that is exactly what PAN's, (Pro Apollo Nutters) are claiming. Their ridiculous debunking claim is that digital manipulation of photographs and film was not available back in the 1960's, but they did not have digital artifacts back in 1930 when the film "King Kong" was made.*[/FONT]






[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]*Langley is NASA's space research facility, and staff are sworn to secrecy. All files pertaining to the Apollo (fake Moon missions) are stored there and not due for declassification until 2026. Other artifacts including the burnt out Apollo 1 capsule which killed Grissom, Chaffe and White. They have the facilities to perform anything, fake backgrounds, simulated orbiters etc. First piece of evidence is the large 250 foot traverse crane shown below. **Notice** fake Moon crater surface created beneath the crane.*[/FONT]












[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]*This crane was **purposely** built in 63/64 to perfect the lunar landing as close as possible to the real thing, and used to suspend both the LM and astronauts. It enabled movement of the LM in all directions, ie, up down, left right, forward and reverse. Trial runs were so good NASA, opted to use the setup for faking the film of lunar landing, and take off, whereby the flag is blown over.*[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]*Bobby Braun claims the idea was to teach the astronauts how to land a rocket propelled LM. However **no rocket powered LM was ever ever suspended from this crane**. In any case anyone with the slightest gumption knows that it is**impossible** to control a rocket engine. The LM was controlled purely by traverse and lowering, in the same way as a conventional crane.*[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif] [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]*Below are more pictures showing mock LM suspended from this crane. In the center picture note the circular objects on the ground floor. The vast expanse of ground area beneath this crane was ideal for creating mock lunar landscapes. In reality the area was covered with gray ash, (possibly from some coal fired power station or boiler house), or plain cement. The circular objects were then raised by crane to create authentic looking Moon craters.*[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][/FONT]
​​​









[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]*




*[/FONT]​
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]*The far right picture above is a time lapse sequence taken at night. Notice spotlights on crane gantry, and how it illuminates the ground surface. The mock LM was traversed full length of crane, and simultaneously lowered at the same time in order to create an authentic looking lunar landing, when viewed from within the mock LM itself. Power supply to the mock LM was by cable from crane tower. This enabled a large fan, (fitted beneath the mock LM), to create the dust scatter effect of a rocket engine as it descended to the fake Moon surface. The film shown to public of the LM supposedly blasting off from the Moon's surface was also created beneath this crane at LRC. The mock LM was simply attached to the crane, and hoisted very rapidly at the same time a pathetic looking blast off sparks was enacted beneath it. The film was then speeded up for showing to the public, and it is interesting to note that the camera filming this sequence cut short once the LM had reached the crane maximum height. In other words WHY didn't the camera continue to film the LM until it was out of view? Because it was not possible under the circumstances in which the "lift off" was faked.*[/FONT]

​​​[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]








[/FONT]​
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]*The above pictures were taken by Bob Nye on June 20 1969, one month before Armstrong, err, supposedly stepped on the Moon. Picture on right shows the lander hovering above fake Moon crater surface beneath the crane. Believe me folks this is how it was done, even if Pro Apollo Nutters say no way. Picture on left, taken at night, looks like a realistic Moon setting, although I am in no doubt that some out there will actually say this photo is the Moon. I have heard so much BS from the Pro Apollo Nutters nothing would surprise me. The light source seen in left picture is the same light source that highlights Buzz Aldrin in the controversial picture of him allegedly on the Moon. Those lights are fixed at top of crane gantry, as shown in earlier picture.*[/FONT]







[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif] [/FONT]








[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]*This picture shows Armstrong at the site in January 1970. This is 6 months**after** he supposedly landed on the Moon, and likewise Apollo 12 had done the same. Evidently he returned to the simulation site 6 months later to figure out how he could do it, having conned the world into believing he actually did land on the Moon 6 months before this picture was taken.*[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][/FONT]



[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]*Pictures below show how astronauts were suspended from the crane in order to simulate low gravity. They eventually settled for an upright position with the astronaut suspended by strong elastic/bungee cord, so that his feet were only just touching the ground, the same way as a baby bouncer. You can try it yourself by placing a given weight at the end of an elastic band. As the astronauts walked in a given direction, the overhead crane moved in the same direction. This enabled the astronauts to literally float along in a crude "Moon walk" fashion.*​[/FONT]​​[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]​[/FONT]​​​​​[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]*




**








*​[/FONT]​​
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]*There is a classic piece of film, and I have only ever seen it once. It shows two astronauts supposedly on the Moon, but one astronaut is following behind the other in a dead straight line, and at a fixed distance. Two partners in a strange desolate place* *would not walk in such a stupid fashion, and so far apart. It's obvious both are following a given line/route, ie, the line or route in which the two overhead cranes are forcing them to follow. In the pictures above, it can be seen how astronauts were suspended from this crane. It is interesting to note that high backward leg swing in far left picture. That backward leg swing is identical to the back leg swing in the Apollo 17 photo of Harrison Schmitt supposedly tripping up on the Moon (shown right). In another video sequence of Apollo 17 astronauts supposedly cavorting on the Moon, one of them is actually suspended 2 feet horizontally off the ground. This sequence lasts for a couple of seconds, so how do NASA officials explain that, and why is it that no one else has passed comment on this totally absurd picture shot? It's clear evidence that person in space suit is suspended from wires, or some other line. The center picture shows astronaut suspended via a tubular spring to create the "bounce effect" as though they were walking in reduced gravity on the Moon.*[/FONT]

​​​[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]*








*[/FONT]​
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]*Picture above left is a view taken from top of the crane, looking down onto fake lunar surface below.*[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]*Picture above right shows Donald Hewes beneath the Langley crane. Hewes created the fake lunar surface, and was heavily involved in the fake lunar landing and lift off video's.*[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]*Still not convinced? Then maybe this NASA archive, dated 26 August 1969, and copied word for word, will change your mind. It relates to Donald Hewes, who oversaw operations/filming with the fake landing and take off. Read it, then think hard about it. Why were NASA phaffing around with fake lunar landscapes, one month **after** Armstrong supposedly pulled it off for real? Answer, to make the fake film look ever more realistic, when future, higher quality images were broadcast to an already gullible audience:-*[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]*Looking down from the top of the gantry on to the simulated Lunar Surface. James Hansen writes: "To make the simulated landings more authentic, [Donald] Hewes and his men filled the base of the huge eight-legged, red-and-white structure with dirt and modeled it to resemble the moon's surface. They erected floodlights at the proper angles to simulate lunar light and installed a black screen at the far end of the gantry to mimic the airless lunar "sky." Hewes personally climbed into the fake craters with cans of everyday black enamel to spray them so that the astronauts could experience the shadows that they would see during the actual moon landing." (p. 375) From A.W. Vigil, "Piloted Space-Flight Simulation at Langley Research Center," Paper presented at the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1966 Winter Meeting, New York, NY, November 27 - December 1, 1966. "Ground-based simulators are not very satisfactory for studying the problems associated with the final phases of landing. This is due primarily to the fact that the visual scene cannot be simulated with sufficient realism. For this reason it is preferable to go to some sort of flight-test simulator which can provide real-life visual cues. One research facility designed to study the final phases of lunar landing is in operation at Langley. ... The facility is an overhead crane structure about 250 feet tall and 400 feet long. The crane system supports five-sixths of the vehicle's weight through servo-driven vertical cables. The remaining one-sixth of the vehicle weight pulls the vehicle downward simulating the lunar gravitational force. During actual flights the overhead crane system is slaved to keep the cable near vertical at all times. A gimbal system on the vehicle permits angular freedom for pitch, roll, and yaw. The facility is capable of testing vehicles up to 20,000 pounds. A research vehicle, weighing 10,500 pounds fully loaded, is being used and is shown [in this picture]. This vehicle is provided with a large degree of flexibility in cockpit positions, instrumentation, and control parameters. It has main engines of 6,000 pounds thrust, throttle able down to 600 pounds, and attitude jets. This facility is studying the problems of the final 200 feet of lunar landing and the problems of maneuvering about in close proximity to the lunar surface." Published in James R. Hansen, Spaceflight Revolution: NASA Langley Research Center From Sputnik to Apollo, (Washington: NASA, 1995), pp. 373-378.*[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]*We now go inside the Langley Research Center complex itself to see how they faked the lunar approach and close orbit of the Moon's surface. We've all seen film supposedly taken from the LM as it approached the Moon, and then begin to orbit. The speed at which it changes from approach to lunar orbit is utterly ridiculous, as any craft traveling at that speed would crash straight into the Moon. **No one**could control a craft in such as way as shown in the film, and in reality no one did. The following pictures show **exactly** how it was done.*[/FONT]

​​​[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]








[/FONT]​
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]*Size does matter believe me, especially when NASA want to create a fake lunar surface as shown in the above picture on left. It literally dwarfs the two men stood in front of it. It's unbelievable the time, trouble and expense that NASA incurred purely to fake the lunar missions. It was of course done purely to convince the world they were the leaders in space. This very large picture, and others were used in conjunction with a rail mounted camera, which also focused on a large rotating PLASTER PARIS model of the Moon, ) shown on the right). NASA knew, (after Kennedy's speech in 61), that a lunar landing before 1970 was impossible. Realizing this they had no option but to fake the missions. This was Project Apollo, wherby a program was launched at LRC to design props/backgrounds etc, to convince the media they had achieved the goal set by Kennedy. The pictures above were scanned from a book, hence the poor quality, however the following pictures are from NASA.*[/FONT]

​​​[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]*








*[/FONT]​
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]*The high resolution picture above left shows a 20' diameter sphere which can be rotated from below. In the left of that picture can be seen a huge blank placard. This is the scene **before** LRC staff began work on converting the sphere to an authentic looking Moon complete with craters, ( for lunar approach), and the placards were to be lunar orbit. Notice also the rail track around placards. These placards formed a gigantic semi circle, which took up the length and breadth within the building. Note moving trolley on the track. This trolley, which had a movie camera mounted on it, was able to scan across the placards, so as to simulate a lunar orbit. If the camera reached the end of the placards it was able to swing through 360 degrees, move up, or down, and continue scanning the placards in reverse at a differing level. Theorectically the camera on trolley, in addition to moving forwards and back, was able to zoom in and out, rotate through a full 360 degrees, and increase or decrease the height level. It first began to film the rotating sphere, (lunar approach), it then swung around and began scanning the fake lunar surface on placards, (lunar orbit). The picture above right shows a section of the placards after modeling work. Pretty impressive eh? Notice how background is in the dark. Remove that bloke from the picture and you could easily pass this photo as being taken by the Apollo command module circling the Moon.*[/FONT]

​​​[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]*








*[/FONT]​
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]*The pictures above show how LRC made "plaster paris" copies of the Moon craters on the placards. The guy on the left with dividers, is checking that craters are to scale, whilst the guy on the right is spraying the surface to create shadows and dark area's of the Moon, this info being obtained from high resolution images of the Moon, taken with high magnification telescopes. Notice the sphere in left hand picture after modeling work. This sphere had a light inside it which was translucent on the outside, and it enabled the model to have a bright appearance like the Moon itself. The large placards with Moon craters were also backlit. Turn off all your lighting, and you end up with the picture shown below left. This is how the Moon would look in the void of space if you could get close enough to it, however no one, not even Armstrong could get anywhere near to the real thing. The man stood on movie rail track with dividers, is Apollo Program Manager John W Paup. Paup's personality antagonised NASA staff to the point where they ordered Apollo Project Manager, Harrison Storms, to replace him. This he did in 1964, and Paup left NASA at the same time. Paup died at the tender age of 45, and six months before the launch of Apollo 8. It could be that as NASA were using the plaster paris models for showing to the public as being the 'real thing', Paup would immediately recognise the fakery, and as he had a grievience with NASA, he may well spill the beans on them. PAN's claim that if the missions were faked, then someone would have spoken out. Well if they are dead and gone before the very first fake Moon mission, they can't very well speak out can they?*[/FONT]

​​​[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]








[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]*NASA claim that picture above right is far side of Moon, taken by Apollo 8. Compare this sphere with one shown above it in the left hand picture. It speaks for itself does it not? In all of these pictures notice the black background. This of course made it easier for touching up photo's to ensure that background space was indeed black. The video on the left below, was shown to the media as being the Apollo 8 orbit of the Moon and Earth, (I would like to point out that the views of Earth in this video are genuine, whilst those of the Moon are not). It encapsulates all sequences at the Langley fake Moon studio. The film shows high definition craters, which is the fake Moon surface beneath the Langley crane. This is followed by filming of the placards whereby at the end of plaster paris placards, the camera can be seen to rotate through 180 degrees, move up, and return scan of the placards. The camera is then filming the 20' sphere, and pans up to show the curvature of the sphere. This video is just so ridiculous. Notice at the end how the Command Module can be seen falling away and reflected in astroNOTS visor. How did they get to the Moon with no Command Module, as there was no separation of modules on the Apollo 8 mission. The video shown on the right is one of the many ways in which Langley Research Center faked the one sixth gravity.*[/FONT]
​​[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]*




**




*[/FONT]​
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]*The two pictures above prove that you do not need pressurized suits to create an authentic Moon approach or orbit. Take a film whilst approaching the plaster paris model, and it would be enough to convince a gullible audience that film was taken whilst approaching the Moon.*[/FONT]

​​​[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]*








*[/FONT]​
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]*There was no need for NASA to land a man on the Moon before 1970, as the photograph above left shows. Project Apollo staff at Langley had a firm grip on it as early as 1964. Move out the way fella's, this is meant to be a picture taken by astroNOTS approaching the Moon.*[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]*Picture on right shows Charlie Duke (pointing), and John Young, at the simulator controls for lunar approach/orbit. The picture on TV screen is reminiscent of the pictures we saw on our TV screens. *[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]*We were told it was the Moon, but the picture showing on TV screen in photograph is not the Moon. It is a camera filming the plaster paris model of Moon. Both John Young and Charlie Duke were heavily involved in faking of the Apollo Moon missions.*[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]*So there you have it. I have shown how NASA faked close lunar approach/orbit, and lunar landing and take off, so next time you see a film on TV of any Apollo craft supposedly approaching, orbiting, landing on, or taking off from the Moon, you will know exactly how it was done. However there is more NASA fakery involved in filming the Moon from a much greater distance. You've probably seen the "Incriminating Footage" albeit (Pretty boring eh) video on YT which was supposed to be the Apollo crew filming the Moon from a distance. This video claims to show Earth's shadow moving across the Moon's surface, so as to prove it was genuine. Unfortunately, just like other NASA Moon video's, the film is fake, and the pictures below show how it was achieved.*[/FONT]











[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]*Preparing the projection of the Earth's shadow (when the lab was still illuminated). Notice camera shrouded in a black cloak, with the lens pointing at a picture of the Moon. The lab lighting was turned off to achieve the objective required.*[/FONT]




​​​




​




[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]*Micrometric system (with vernier) to move the Earth's shadow across picture of the Moon.*[/FONT]
















[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif] [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif] [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]*This picture shows the final set up. The camera is filming the sequence just before the simulated moon eclipse created by the Micrometric system shown above.*[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]*If your hooked on this scam, and wanna **see more.*[/FONT]


----------



## ismokealotofpot (Apr 26, 2012)

Doer said:


> We'll need a little more explanation. Also, are you saying your were actually turned down for alien abduction because you were going to a bowling alley?


what ever it was that I seen looked real close to that picture only it looked like it was put together with triangular panels and it had one red light in the back that blinked on real slow and off real slow. the front seemed to be covered with bright spotlights. at first I thought chopper but when I rolled down the window I didnt hear any noise. and if it were a chopper when i slammed on the breaks it should have passed me. It seemed to maintain a steady distance away close enough for me to see it real good. then it decided to swing out in front of my car flying sideways down the road in front of me then it flew over the top of the bowling ally.what ever it was it made no noise flew 70 then dropped to 10 mph by the time I pulled into the parking lot.


----------



## ismokealotofpot (Apr 26, 2012)

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]*Spot the light above*[/FONT]


----------



## ismokealotofpot (Apr 26, 2012)

not sure if its a spotlight but there is a reflection.


----------



## ismokealotofpot (Apr 26, 2012)

Apollo Investigation

[HR][/HR]*Jack White's Apollo Studies &#8211; Moon Sky File*
An extensive study of Apollo imagery by photo analyst Jack White
All studies © 2005/7 Jack White


[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]NASA do(o)med? Chapters 1-4 [/FONT]




​Editor's Comment: Please note that Apollo photograph AS15-82-11057 has no visible lens flare or any other artifact. But when adjustments are made to the contrast of the image as described above, a dome is revealed. Significantly, this anomaly is only in the black 'sky' area, it does not extend below the mountains.​​
​
 










​​
​​
 









​​
 




[FONT=Century Gothic, Arial, sans-serif]




[/FONT]​


----------



## ismokealotofpot (Apr 26, 2012)




----------



## ismokealotofpot (Apr 26, 2012)

two lems?


----------



## ismokealotofpot (Apr 26, 2012)

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Driving on the Moon?




[/FONT]​


----------



## mcrandle (Apr 26, 2012)

ismokealotofpot said:


> Driving on the Moon?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


LMAO- I've seen small jeeps take bigger dips than that. If you had some common fucking sense you can see the width of that vehicle's chassis and the height clearance. Get off the conspiracy meds man. This shit makes me laugh. If we can calculate the distance and send a rover to Mars and land it, then it's not so far-fetched we can land a man on the moon. Fucking hell. And you walk our streets?


----------



## ismokealotofpot (Apr 27, 2012)

rude mother fucker aren't ya, the fact is none of you can give me any proof that we went to the moon. the only hard evidence was moon rocks. so why don't you give us a moon rock analysis


----------



## ismokealotofpot (Apr 27, 2012)

mcrandle said:


> LMAO- I've seen small jeeps take bigger dips than that. If you had some common fucking sense you can see the width of that vehicle's chassis and the height clearance. Get off the conspiracy meds man. This shit makes me laugh. If we can calculate the distance and send a rover to Mars and land it, then it's not so far-fetched we can land a man on the moon. Fucking hell. And you walk our streets?


so let me get this strait your 20 thousand miles from earth. its life and death for all three astronauts and your going to hit a giant pot hole and risk their lives. your going to jeopardize the safety of the mission. I don't think you have common sense look again you wouldn't have enough clearance it didn't even scrape the side of the smaller crater.


----------



## ismokealotofpot (Apr 27, 2012)

good job ignoring the rest of the pictures


----------



## Doer (Apr 27, 2012)

ismokealotofpot said:


> turned down? I dont know it seemed to know what I was thinking and knew I was scared shitless


God bless the Bowling Alley. I know several pilots with very spooky stories like this.


----------



## Doer (Apr 27, 2012)

These picture and articles have the common logic flaws of all conspiracy. In short, "How could it possibly....?" "Purported to be..., but actually could be..." Then the absurd....aside from the complete mis-use of the word gumption, it's factually incorrect. 

*.... anyone with the slightest gumption knows that it is impossible to control a rocket engine.*


----------



## mcrandle (Apr 27, 2012)

ismokealotofpot said:


> rude mother fucker aren't ya, the fact is none of you can give me any proof that we went to the moon. the only hard evidence was moon rocks. so why don't you give us a moon rock analysis


I'm a rude motherfucker with common sense.


----------



## mcrandle (Apr 27, 2012)

Doer said:


> These picture and articles have the common logic flaws of all conspiracy. In short, "How could it possibly....?" "Purported to be..., but actually could be..." Then the absurd....aside from the complete mis-use of the word gumption, it's factually incorrect.
> 
> *.... anyone with the slightest gumption knows that it isimpossible to control a rocket engine.*


This is just BASIC ROCKETRY, not the advanced stuff:

http://exploration.grc.nasa.gov/education/rocket/rktcontrl.html


----------



## ismokealotofpot (Apr 29, 2012)

Doer said:


> God bless the Bowling Alley. I know several pilots with very spooky stories like this.


 please drop the ball.


----------



## ismokealotofpot (Apr 29, 2012)

it knew no one would see it but me. sounds funny huh?


----------



## Doer (Apr 30, 2012)

ismokealotofpot said:


> please drop the ball.


 And step away from the pins.


----------



## ismokealotofpot (May 4, 2012)

They faked the moon landing for more than one reason. the first was to convince the commies they have superior rocket tech and the second was to pocket all the money from the space program by making a low budget movie instead. think about it how many billions in free tax dollars could they get?


----------



## Doer (May 4, 2012)

ismokealotofpot said:


> They faked the moon landing for more than one reason. the first was to convince the commies they have superior rocket tech and the second was to pocket all the money from the space program by making a low budget movie instead. think about it how many billions in free tax dollars could they get?


I know, and free Tang!


----------



## mindphuk (May 4, 2012)

ismokealotofpot said:


> They faked the moon landing for more than one reason. the first was to convince the commies they have superior rocket tech and the second was to pocket all the money from the space program by making a low budget movie instead. think about it how many billions in free tax dollars could they get?


Who is 'they?' Who got the money?


----------



## Heisenberg (May 4, 2012)

ismokealotofpot said:


> rude mother fucker aren't ya, the fact is none of you can give me any proof that we went to the moon. the only hard evidence was moon rocks. so why don't you give us a moon rock analysis


Moon rocks are not the only hard evidence. We can point a laser burst at the moon and reflect it off of the man made 'mirrors' that were left there. Sure it would take some high tech and expensive equipment to verify, but it can be done completely independent of NASA.



> "Using these mirrors," explains Alley, "we can 'ping' the moon with laser pulses and measure the Earth-moon distance very precisely. This is a wonderful way to learn about the moon's orbit and to test theories of gravity."
> Here's how it works: A laser pulse shoots out of a telescope on Earth, crosses the Earth-moon divide, and hits the array. *Because the mirrors are "corner-cube reflectors," they send the pulse straight back where it came from.* "It's like hitting a ball into the corner of a squash court," explains Alley. Back on Earth, telescopes intercept the returning pulse.


Pretty hard to explain anything natural being able to reflect a laser back so accurately, especially since there are at least three reflectors in different locations. The data collected is used to test theories such as gravity and moon orbit. If this information was being faked by some method, the data would not turn out to be useful in other areas of study, we would see mistakes.

There is also this,



> The round-trip travel time pinpoints the moon's distance with staggering precision: better than a few centimeters out of 385,000 km, typically.


So, when we reflect the laser off the moon, if should give us a number we can verify through independent calculations. This means, anyone setting up equipment at different times and locations would get specific numbers, that they can verify. 


http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_11/experiments/lrr/


----------



## Doer (May 5, 2012)

"You need laser that can shoot enough photons in a short pulse that you'll get some back in the return pulse (shoot 10[SUP]17[/SUP] green 532 nm photons per pulse). "

More fascinating discussion here about how it can be attempted by the amateur with some cash. So the question is not if there is the reflector there, it's how to get the return ourselves.
Can an amateur astronomer test the Lunar Laser Ranging RetroReflector?


----------



## AMileHigh (May 7, 2012)

Dude... It happened. Get over it. 

What do you mean convince the commies? Obviously they had the rocket tech cause they launched the damn things at least into orbit. Do you deny that?


Can any one tell me of the last conspiracy theory that was proven correct?


----------



## Dr Kynes (May 10, 2012)

jesus of Cannabis said:


> true to his name, his soliloquy was long




Well Played sir, well played.


----------



## Dr Kynes (May 10, 2012)

AMileHigh said:


> Dude... It happened. Get over it.
> 
> What do you mean convince the commies? Obviously they had the rocket tech cause they launched the damn things at least into orbit. Do you deny that?
> 
> ...


Well ya see, it just so happens that a group of Wahhabist conspirators hatched a plot to hijack these airliners see.... Sometimes a conspiracy actually is a conspiracy. But usually its wacky.


----------



## skudz47 (May 10, 2012)

John Searl claims to have made flying saucers before we even went to the moon


http://www.scribd.com/doc/75278338/SEG-Mock-Up-Verses-SEG-Prototype-Stages-of-R-D


----------



## rmx (May 10, 2012)

ismokealotofpot said:


> [video=youtube;eWDHQxDl0g4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWDHQxDl0g4&amp;feature=related[/video]


Wow, loads of people getting defensive about this. Don't shit on me for stating an opinion - But Something about the moon landing footage has never sat right with me at all, and I'm far from a conspiracy theorist. Even when I first saw the moon landing footage in school at around age 8(?), I clearly remember thinking it looked 'awful' and was genuinely surprised to learn that it was actual moon landing footage. I thought it was an excerpt from a low budget 70's movie. - I mean, even though the footage is old, it's hardly justification for the huge number of inconsistencies and questionable occurrences.

Look at the video above for a start. Apart from the question of how the camera accurately filmed the departure - Take a look at the take off. Lol, it hardly looks or sounds like it has enough force to light a damn fart, never mind launch a space shuttle. There's a tiny sign of downdraft as the shuttle just instantly lifts and slowly drifts upwards... Righto.

Yeah, then look back at the first few videos in this thread. Astronauts apparently walking around in low gravity while objects around them fall to the ground at normal speeds.

Come on guys, I know how fucking annoying it is to have your beliefs challenged, but you can't deny that many parts of the footage just don't look right at all.

Anyway, like I said, don't rage at me. I'd be interested in reading logical explanations for some of these "anomalies". Peace friends!

Edit: Just to clarify - I don't take any joy in 'slandering' iconic footage. I find space, astrology and astronomy fascinating and believe that what NASA does "nowadays" is truly awesome. I'm not a conspiracy theorist. There are just too many inconsistencies in this particular footage for me to immediately accept it as irrefutable proof of this particular moon landing.


----------



## mindphuk (May 10, 2012)

rmx said:


> Wow, loads of people getting defensive about this. Don't shit on me for stating an opinion - But Something about the moon landing footage has never sat right with me at all, and I'm far from a conspiracy theorist. Even when I first saw the moon landing footage in school at around age 8(?), I clearly remember thinking it looked 'awful' and was genuinely surprised to learn that it was actual moon landing footage. I thought it was an excerpt from a low budget 70's movie. - I mean, even though the footage is old, it's hardly justification for the huge number of inconsistencies and questionable occurrences.
> 
> Look at the video above for a start. Apart from the question of how the camera accurately filmed the departure - Take a look at the take off. Lol, it hardly looks or sounds like it has enough force to light a damn fart, never mind launch a space shuttle. There's a tiny sign of downdraft as the shuttle just instantly lifts and slowly drifts upwards... Righto.
> 
> ...


The footage of the module take off was only done on the last three missions. Those were the missions with the lunar rover with a camera on it that could be controlled from Earth (this camera was used for a lot of the footage of the astronauts working on the moon's surface, as well).

Because of the signal delay between the moon and the Earth, the camera operator had to start sending the command to "pan up" to the camera a couple seconds before the module actually launched. I believe that he missed the ascent almost entirely on Apollo 15, got a lot better on Apollo 16, and nailed it almost perfectly on Apollo 17. I remember reading how they practiced this camera move many times in order to get it right for 17.


----------



## Dr Kynes (May 11, 2012)

rmx said:


> Wow, loads of people getting defensive about this. Don't shit on me for stating an opinion - But Something about the moon landing footage has never sat right with me at all, and I'm far from a conspiracy theorist. Even when I first saw the moon landing footage in school at around age 8(?), I clearly remember thinking it looked 'awful' and was genuinely surprised to learn that it was actual moon landing footage. I thought it was an excerpt from a low budget 70's movie. - I mean, even though the footage is old, it's hardly justification for the huge number of inconsistencies and questionable occurrences.
> 
> Look at the video above for a start. Apart from the question of how the camera accurately filmed the departure - Take a look at the take off. Lol, it hardly looks or sounds like it has enough force to light a damn fart, never mind launch a space shuttle. There's a tiny sign of downdraft as the shuttle just instantly lifts and slowly drifts upwards... Righto.
> 
> ...


It's not that the footage is old, it looked wierd when it was new too. The environemnt on the moon is not just low gravity, but the lack of atmosphere direct exposure to solar radiation and huge rapid swings in temperature from nearly 0 kelvin in the shade to hot eough for the cooking of meatloaf. This means the cameras and film had to be specially calibrated, and equipped with aperatures that could shut down real fast if light intensity got too high, focus over vast distances without having blurry backgrounds, sheilding for the film enclosures, and electrical components, annd be durable enough to survive re-entry even if the capsule didnt. These were not Super8's from the Sears and Roebuck catalog.

The differences in cameras and film is only part of the story. 1/6 gravity is very much like what you get walking in a shallow swimming pool. after just a few hours, when you get out your legs feel all rubbery. these guys just spent more than 2 days just getting to lunar orbit, in near total weightlessness. by the time they got to walking on the lunar surface their legs were like linguini, plus they had to wear those clumsy suits which were not designed for mobility or graceful ballet moves, and adapt to a gravity that was heavy comapred to the flight but super light compared to earth. yeah, sometimes they walked goofy. this low-G environment makes some movements seem slow, and others seem too fast, this immediate and hard to define strageness of movement is why many films lately have used actors suspended in water to portray creepy otherworldy motions. it just looks WRONG to the viewer.

The lack of atmosphere doesnt just require specially designed cameras, it changes the way light functions when compared to earth. with no atmospheric or distortion dispersion, the focal field becomes nearly infinite. with no obvious frame of focus, subjects and backgrounds had no distinction between them, save the shapes and motions, and everthing looks somehow "fake" like early uses of video tape shooting on soap operas. many early video tape shoots just looked OFF on screen, and many video tape cinematographers started smearing vaseline on the outer edge of their lenses to give the illusion of focal depth. The stark contrasts between light and shadow are disturbing to the oberver and just seem unnatural. and many of the actions and events astronauts performed were scripted by nasa as a show for the people back home. all combined these factors help create the "fake" seeming un-reality of the films.


----------



## ismokealotofpot (May 11, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> It's not that the footage is old, it looked wierd when it was new too. The environemnt on the moon is not just low gravity, but the lack of atmosphere direct exposure to solar radiation and huge rapid swings in temperature from nearly 0 kelvin in the shade to hot eough for the cooking of meatloaf. This means the cameras and film had to be specially calibrated, and equipped with aperatures that could shut down real fast if light intensity got too high, focus over vast distances without having blurry backgrounds, sheilding for the film enclosures, and electrical components, annd be durable enough to survive re-entry even if the capsule didnt. These were not Super8's from the Sears and Roebuck catalog.The differences in cameras and film is only part of the story. 1/6 gravity is very much like what you get walking in a shallow swimming pool. after just a few hours, when you get out your legs feel all rubbery. these guys just spent more than 2 days just getting to lunar orbit, in near total weightlessness. by the time they got to walking on the lunar surface their legs were like linguini, plus they had to wear those clumsy suits which were not designed for mobility or graceful ballet moves, and adapt to a gravity that was heavy comapred to the flight but super light compared to earth. yeah, sometimes they walked goofy. this low-G environment makes some movements seem slow, and others seem too fast, this immediate and hard to define strageness of movement is why many films lately have used actors suspended in water to portray creepy otherworldy motions. it just looks WRONG to the viewer.The lack of atmosphere doesnt just require specially designed cameras, it changes the way light functions when compared to earth. with no atmospheric or distortion dispersion, the focal field becomes nearly infinite. with no obvious frame of focus, subjects and backgrounds had no distinction between them, save the shapes and motions, and everthing looks somehow "fake" like early uses of video tape shooting on soap operas. many early video tape shoots just looked OFF on screen, and many video tape cinematographers started smearing vaseline on the outer edge of their lenses to give the illusion of focal depth. The stark contrasts between light and shadow are disturbing to the oberver and just seem unnatural. and many of the actions and events astronauts performed were scripted by nasa as a show for the people back home. all combined these factors help create the "fake" seeming un-reality of the films.


have you ever looked into those cameras they were 30 years out of date at the time. and the manufacturer even said they tampered with the film because the they had cross hairs embedded in the lens. in some of photos the cross hairs are edited out. how about the back drops that are used repeatedly over and over for multiple landing sites.


----------



## KI11TH3W3AK (May 11, 2012)

^^lol this guy can't believe anything because he thinks he is so cool  love it


----------



## Heisenberg (May 11, 2012)

ismokealotofpot said:


> have you ever looked into those cameras they were 30 years out of date at the time. and the manufacturer even said they tampered with the film because the they had cross hairs embedded in the lens. in some of photos the cross hairs are edited out. how about the back drops that are used repeatedly over and over for multiple landing sites.


So after pages of people trying to clarify things for you, you ignore the pertinent information and double down on conspiracy points that have long been adressed. Your goal seems simply to oppose.


----------



## Doer (May 11, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> So after pages of people trying to clarify things for you, you ignore the pertinent information and double down on conspiracy points that have long been adressed. Your goal seems simply to oppose.


He seems to just want to argue, not to even convince us, just to argue.


----------



## Dr Kynes (May 11, 2012)

real question is, what really happens if you fart in a space suit... I'm bettin it puffs up real big then automatically vents excess pressure to the void. So maybe the moon DOES have a little bit of atmosphere now. Just a little.


----------



## Harrekin (May 11, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> real question is, what really happens if you fart in a space suit... I'm bettin it puffs up real big then automatically vents excess pressure to the void. So maybe the moon DOES have a little bit of atmosphere now. Just a little.


You realise given that a space suit is an enclosed enviroment, that the pressure is always the same because everything contained within already displaces the space it needs. 

Also it is not "nearly 0 kelvin" on the moon, infact it's not "nearly 0K" anywhere. Go Google "absolute zero".


----------



## Dr Kynes (May 11, 2012)

Harrekin said:


> You realise given that a space suit is an enclosed enviroment, that the pressure is always the same because everything contained within already displaces the space it needs.
> 
> Also it is not "nearly 0 kelvin" on the moon, infact it's not "nearly 0K" anywhere. Go Google "absolute zero".


In space, in shadow, temperature drops precipitously, theoretically to 0. with no atmospheric mass to hold the heat, and a highly reflective, and poorly conductive lunar surface when the moon turns it's ass to the sun, the surface temp can plummet to 100 degrees Kelvin( -279.4 ºF or -173 ºC which is FUCKING COLD AS SHIT but i didnt want to bore the crap out of everybody digging up 60 year old research papers, and citing articles most people wont even read.) http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?bibcode=1964ApJ...139..734M&db_key=AST&page_ind=8&data_type=GIF&type=SCREEN_VIEW&classic=YES in a few minutes. in open space, when solar radiation is blocked by a celestial body, the void can easily drop close to 0 degrees kelvin in a few seconds as there is nothing to hold radiate or conduct heat in empty space.

The space suit comment was a joke. but farts are under pressure in the intestinal tract and colon, held under pressure by the sphincter of the anus. Gasses can and do compress under pressure so the release could cause a minute increase in the suit's overall volume as the flatus expands. In addition to the smell. There would of course be no increase in mass. but that would have been silly.


----------



## Doer (May 11, 2012)

Hey, no problem, we cite articles in the science section, I like to read citations. 

IAC, anus space gas must be contained as the frozen mist would foul your partner's visor.


----------



## psari (May 11, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> The space suit comment was a joke. but farts are under pressure in the intestinal tract and colon, held under pressure by the sphincter of the anus. Gasses can and do compress under pressure so the release could cause a minute increase in the suit's overall volume as the flatus expands. In addition to the smell. There would of course be no increase in mass. but that would have been silly.



Which of course brings this to mind. Farts and space. Everyone loves their own brand, but ... :


. hrm, punch line takes a minute to show up ...

[video=youtube;wbAF1EExpek]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbAF1EExpek[/video]


----------



## Dr Kynes (May 11, 2012)

psari said:


> Which of course brings this to mind. Farts and space. Everyone loves their own brand, but ... :
> 
> 
> . hrm, punch line takes a minute to show up ...


[email protected] now i gotta watch that film!!!!

I got a cramp laughin at those pricks in mission control!


----------



## elduece (May 12, 2012)

Doer said:


> He seems to just want to argue, not to even convince us, just to argue.


NO. ismokeaolotofdouche is just cognitively impaired.


----------



## Doer (May 13, 2012)

Oh, I have stop short of using making characterization insults. There is no way to know that.


----------



## ismokealotofpot (May 15, 2012)

thanks for all the insults. anyone have real proof. do you have some moon rocks in your pocket? what about the back drops same mountain ranges two different landing sites you guys are as blind as a bat. do you realize people have been giving me rep because the agree with me. they dont want to post because of you trolls talking shit. if you dont like what i say dont post its real simple. this is my thread and ill continue this until you provide proof even then I will still be posting alien technology of coarse you wont believe that either but you will still make comments im sure.


----------



## Heisenberg (May 15, 2012)

ismokealotofpot said:


> thanks for all the insults. anyone have real proof. do you have some moon rocks in your pocket? what about the back drops same mountain ranges two different landing sites you guys are as blind as a bat. do you realize people have been giving me rep because the agree with me. they dont want to post because of you trolls talking shit. if you dont like what i say dont post its real simple. this is my thread and ill continue this until you provide proof even then I will still be posting alien technology of coarse you wont believe that either but you will still make comments im sure.


Strange that you would get so emotional about investigation. Why would it make you angry if we have been to the moon? You may see it as trolling, but this is how reasonable people react to conspiracy logic. Your arguments just don't hold up under critical thinking, it's not our fault. Your conduct has been to ignore anything that doesn't agree with you, and now you are playing the victim. I suppose these are the tactics you are left with when your position is indefensible.


----------



## Doer (May 16, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> Strange that you would get so emotional about investigation. Why would it make you angry if we have been to the moon? You may see it as trolling, but this is how reasonable people react to conspiracy logic. Your arguments just don't hold up under critical thinking, it's not our fault. Your conduct has been to ignore anything that doesn't agree with you, and now you are playing the victim. I suppose these are the tactics you are left with when your position is indefensible.


Yeah, it drives folks into a very defensive posture to not be right. Then we get the questioning about their Position that get's ignored, turned around, and becomes ammo for the emotion play. It's a very pervasive attitude among Western males, it seems. We can propose interesting avenues and this one is as interesting as many. The interest, to me is how people believe what they believe. Not so much what we believe, but how? And can we get to the bottom if reasonable debate can take place. It's just hard to separate those that are truely thirsty for increasing understanding from those that are trying to maintain a position. And it morphs as the raw insults pile up. Then there are those marginal personalities that just practice a haughty form of buzz kill, for their own amusement.

So, I've learned, Mr. H is not a buzz kill type. I try not to be. To me the question is not "IF," it's WHY does the US not have any missions planned but India, for example has manned missions planned out till 2030. Has the US seem all it need and the other nations need to see "something" for themselves?

It just occurred to me that this persistence myth, that we never went, could be just remnant of a smokescreen for that "something" we need other spacefaring nations to see, before the general public is alarmed to death.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (May 16, 2012)

Doer said:


> Yeah, it drives folks into a very defensive posture to not be right. Then we get the questioning about their Position that get's ignored, turned around, and becomes ammo for the emotion play. It's a very pervasive attitude among Western males, it seems. We can propose interesting avenues and this one is as interesting as many. The interest, to me is how people believe what they believe. Not so much what we believe, but how? And can we get to the bottom if reasonable debate can take place. It's just hard to separate those that are truely thirsty for increasing understanding from those that are trying to maintain a position. And it morphs as the raw insults pile up. Then there are those marginal personalities that just practice a haughty form of buzz kill, for their own amusement.
> 
> So, I've learned, Mr. H is not a buzz kill type. I try not to be. To me the question is not "IF," it's WHY does the US not have any missions planned but India, for example has manned missions planned out till 2030. Has the US seem all it need and the other nations need to see "something" for themselves?
> 
> It just occurred to me that this persistence myth, that we never went, could be just remnant of a smokescreen for that "something" we need other spacefaring nations to see, before the general public is alarmed to death.


[youtube]zvNX72kWODs[/youtube]


----------



## Doer (May 16, 2012)

Probably so. It isn't a wonder the other nations want to build up the tech. It's a wonder that the US culture just doesn't really care if we went or not. Or really cares to go again.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (May 16, 2012)

Doer said:


> Probably so. It isn't a wonder the other nations want to build up the tech. It's a wonder that the US culture just doesn't really care if we went or not. Or really cares to go again.


Well there's your problem.. having hope in the American culture. 

_American Idol_ is cemented in American culture, that should give you a good idea of the kinds of people you hope develop an interest in space exploration.


----------



## Doer (May 17, 2012)

Padawanbater2 said:


> Well there's your problem.. having hope in the American culture.
> 
> _American Idol_ is cemented in American culture, that should give you a good idea of the kinds of people you hope develop an interest in space exploration.


Mouth wording. I never said I had hope.


----------



## Dr Kynes (May 18, 2012)

Doer said:


> It just occurred to me that this persistence myth, that we never went, could be just remnant of a smokescreen for that "something" we need other spacefaring nations to see, before the general public is alarmed to death.


Or maybe, after the last Apollo mission, NASA realized that flying a billion dollar roman candle millions of mile into the black is a big expense, just to go see the blasted and barren moonscape, when they could just go to Detroit. It's is a little more dangerous than blasting off into space, but it's a lot cheaper. If India and Japan want to go to the moon, they can burn their own money. Plus, we already done t, ad we pissed all over the place up there. Theyll have to wade around in Neil Armstrong's urine, and dodge John Glenn's turds. 

AMERICA FUCK YEAH!!! Screw the moon, we are done wit that shithole. Next stop MARS!! We need someplace to dump our toxic waste and spent nuclear fuel!


----------



## cannabineer (May 21, 2012)

Dr Kynes said:


> Or maybe, after the last Apollo mission, NASA realized that flying a billion dollar roman candle millions of mile into the black is a big expense, just to go see the blasted and barren moonscape, when they could just go to Detroit. It's is a little more dangerous than blasting off into space, but it's a lot cheaper. If India and Japan want to go to the moon, they can burn their own money. Plus, we already done t, ad we pissed all over the place up there. Theyll have to wade around in Neil Armstrong's urine, and dodge John Glenn's turds.
> 
> AMERICA FUCK YEAH!!! Screw the moon, we are done wit that shithole. Next stop MARS!! We need someplace to dump our toxic waste and spent nuclear fuel!



Sample-return missions to Detroit have been designed and flown, but something always happened to the return stage. The videos are inconclusive, but ...


----------



## Red1966 (May 29, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> You see an anomaly and you automatically assign an explanation without any invesigation -- wires. You do this because it confirms your preexisting belief yet you don't seek alternative explanations like lens flare and film artifacts. This is NOT the way to conduct critical thinking which will ultimately lead to truth, this is the way of conspiracy theorists that only seek to make evidence fit their already established conclusions. The MB take the true skeptical approach... Let's assume the conspiracies are correct so let's try to show how to simulate microgravity. When they are unable to use a gravity rig (wires) and have it appear to be the same as the film from NASA, then the only conclusion is that it WASN'T done that way. If you won't even acknowledge the points made in the debunking by MB and others, why should anyone take you seriously?





mindphuk said:


> You see an anomaly and you automatically assign an explanation without any invesigation -- wires. You do this because it confirms your preexisting belief yet you don't seek alternative explanations


 Damn, you stole my rant!


----------



## Weedasaurus (May 31, 2012)

hoax or not. It doesn't matter. we could send people to mars now if we wanted to. It just doesn't make sense to. The money is better spend on rovers.


----------



## Doer (Jun 1, 2012)

What we can see, is the first Commercial Space mission and it's success. Dragon has landed. 
One small step for BIG $$$$$.


----------



## Doer (Jul 1, 2012)

It is a very unusual thing when harsh talk is more interesting than the first commercial space mission, but I guess we could have guessed.

Surprised there are no others to agree? I'm not. But, that could cause anger in some, I guess. <shrug>


----------



## Trolling (Jul 1, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> [video=youtube;NOv_zvM-oJQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOv_zvM-oJQ&amp;]


This ^

/end thread...

Wouldn't let me have both vids in my post for some reason.


----------



## ismokealotofpot (Jul 1, 2012)

seen it they prove they can fake a vacuum hear on earth with fake moon dust because they were unable to get the real stuff.


----------



## mindphuk (Jul 2, 2012)

ismokealotofpot said:


> seen it they prove they can fake a vacuum hear on earth with fake moon dust because they were unable to get the real stuff.


You may have seen it but you clearly do not understand the implications. Your post is quite confusing too. We can hear on earth so the vacuum is fake....wat?!

You are either very stupid and cannot grasp the basic concept of what they debunked or lied about watching or you're just a troll that will post contrarian viewpoints for kicks. So that makes three possibilities, none of which are worth anyone's time.


----------



## Doer (Jul 3, 2012)

Yes, I think so. And such one tracked. We discuss all manner of topics and yet, this one was supposed to sit here like a crab pot, to gather agreement. But, pulling blanks on this string. Is there some other topic? I would like to agree with you on something, after all this effort.


----------



## 5ourdiesel (Jul 8, 2012)

Good points, but what ab hundreds of thousands of jobs that were created in the private, corporate, federal, and international sectors? Someone would slip. If Apollo was a legit mission only to have been fabricated by the addition of a fake moon landing as a last ditch effort to claim victory over the soviets, someone would have spilled the beans by now. The soviets were some of the most skeptical people towards US affairs. The Russians gave us credit for landing on the moon. If they had a grain of evidence that could be used to argue against the lunar landing, they would have exposed their findings to the world. In the cold war, The Soviets had thousands of spies in the US that would leak out information back to mother russia. Look at Robert Hanssen for example. Hanssen was a top dog FBI agent who was sentenced to a life sentence after being found of being an active soviet/russian spy for 22 years. 

if the lunar landing was fraud, the russians would have caught us


----------



## Fonzarelli (Jul 9, 2012)

This is absolutely fucking retarded. Those flashes of light in the video are #1 lens glare. #2 Blips in the film roll, they didn't have digital filming back then, they still used rolls of film which if you have never seen a movie in a theater, have all kinds of white flashes around the screen. Wires? Give me a fucking break, these people trying to discredit moon missions are assholes. The guy getting up off the ground seemed to defy gravity because there was a frame missing, that's all. This shit is pretty damn obvious.


----------



## Doer (Jul 9, 2012)

Yes, and the most baffling part is motive, right? Why? Not why they would or not, but why care? For UFOs I can see why. Big business. 

For this there is no profit, Ferengi.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jul 9, 2012)

Doer said:


> Yes, and the most baffling part is motive, right? Why? Not why they would or not, but why care? For UFOs I can see why. Big business.
> 
> For this there is no profit, Ferengi.


I think i can turn a profit off this...


----------



## ismokealotofpot (Jul 12, 2012)

i get my post deleted and rep taken away because I defended myself and my thread


----------



## ismokealotofpot (Jul 12, 2012)

they only visit you if your not packin heat


----------



## ismokealotofpot (Jul 12, 2012)

yo zuckerburge lock this thread ill start pointing them out to you.


----------



## Dr Kynes (Jul 12, 2012)

ismokealotofpot said:


> no ufos you guys are total pussies




I havent seen a single "there aint no UFOs" post on this entire thread. its all variations of 

*Yea: *
we never been to no moon it were all faked by the communists and the american dental association!

*Nay:*
sho nuff we dun bin to da moon see them there space capsules at the goddard space center? you think theys just models? oh.. theys just models huh? well what they done modeled em off of smarty pants? real space capusles thats what!

*Double Nay:
*the apollo program was real, we did send men to the moon, and heres proof (insert anecdotal or hearsay evidence here)*

Triple Nay: 
*if you say we never went to the moon one more time John Glen will punch you in the mouth. 

nobody ever made the ridiculous assertion that there are no UFOs. if there are no UFO's then where did all the Aliens come from?


----------



## Doer (Jul 12, 2012)

ismokealotofpot said:


> cannabineer your so awesome you encrypted phuck 11000 posts all one liners and hollow as hell thanks for your contribution to medical cannabis.


I count 8 one liners from you. You seem to exhibit psycopathic swervings into puny name calling. And you wonder why your posts are deleted. That's why. It's not you. It's your content. Dull, un-interesting and now with foul language.


----------

