Conspiracy theorists weep, we did go to the moon!

This forum is for non aviation related topics, political debate, random thoughts, and everything else that just doesn't seem to fit in the normal forums. ALL FORUM RULES STILL APPLY.

Moderators: lilfssister, North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako

Locked
On condition
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 40
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 3:29 pm

Re: Conspiracy theorists weep, we did go to the moon!

Post by On condition »

mag check wrote:No, I believe that is a real photo of the wright brothers first powered flight, and it was not just made to look like a flight. The continual advancements to aircraft since that day would also suggest that that event actually did happen. (unlike the stagnation of space travel)
Continual advancements?

Like how we no longer have Mach 3 aircraft in operation? Like how modern airliners travel about 100 MPH slower than ones from 40 years ago? Like how we no longer have a supersonic commercial aircraft like we did in the 70s 80s and 90s?

How do you define advancements? Sure we don't go to the moon anymore, but since then we've sent probes beyond our solar system, spent years in orbit, made satellite navigation and communication a reality for the every day joe, and peered to the edge of space and beginning of time.
Dash-Ate wrote:The first thing that I discovered was that the Soviet Union, right up until the time that we allegedly landed the first Apollo spacecraft on the Moon, was solidly kicking our ass in the space race. It wasn’t even close. The world wouldn’t see another mismatch of this magnitude until decades later when Kelly Clarkson and Justin Guarini came along. The Soviets launched the first orbiting satellite, sent the first animal into space, sent the first man into space, performed the first space walk, sent the first three-man crew into space, was the first nation to have two spacecraft in orbit simultaneously, performed the first docking maneuver in space, and (allegedly) landed the first unmanned probe on the Moon.
When the data became public after the collapse of the Iron Curtain, we find the real story behind the Soviet triumphs.

The Soviets did launch the first satellite, but it reentered the only 3 months later and did nothing to further science other that proving a satellite could be orbited. The US Explorer 1 discovered the Van Allen radiation belts (you think they would have kept that a secret :wink: ) and remained in orbit for 12 years!


The first Vostok was nearly lost due to incomplete separation of the equipment and reentry modules. The design of the re entry module was inferior to the Americans and would have never been suitable for a high energy reentry. They also couldn't land Vostok softly without injuring the occupant so Gagarin and others had to parachute out before landing. They also lacked a global communications network, so there was communications blackout when the ship was on the other side of the earth.


Voskhod, which launched the first three man crew, was simply a Vostok with three seats arranged 90 degrees to the way they were in Vostok. The cosmonauts didn't have space suits because there was no room! They didn't change the instrument panels and switches from the Vostok so the cosmonauts had to turn their heads sideways to read them!

The second Voskhod needed an external airlock for the spacewalk as the Vostok-type equipment was air cooled and would have overheated in a vacuum. Aleksei Leonov, the cosmonaut that did the spacewalk, had a poorly designed suit that ballooned in space and restricted movement. He had to let out some air (!) before he could enter the spacecraft. To top it off, they overshot their reentry point and spent the night in the Ural Mountains surrounded by wolves before they were recovered.

Compare this to the contemporary Gemini spacecraft that could be depressurized and pressurized, allowed both astronauts to have space suits, allowed them to have full control of not only the attitude of their spacecraft, but the orbit as well, stay up for two weeks at a time, and powered by fuel cells instead of batteries or solar panels.

Other than some 'firsts' that were achieved at great risk to the cosmonauts, the Soviets were losing the space race by 1965. Only after the end of Skylab and the American vacancy from space from 1975-1981 were the Soviets again in the lead.

But they never went to the moon...
---------- ADS -----------
 
mag check
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 631
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 6:24 am
Location: Drink in my hand, feet in the sand

Re: Conspiracy theorists weep, we did go to the moon!

Post by mag check »

No, there are not.
Yes, there are. :wink:
---------- ADS -----------
 
We're all here, because we're not all there.
User avatar
mdscientist61
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 89
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 2:25 pm

Re: Conspiracy theorists weep, we did go to the moon!

Post by mdscientist61 »

mag check wrote:
No, there are not.
Yes, there are. :wink:
Have you also spotted all the discrepancies in the launch pad picture?

Can you see all the subtle little flaws left in the big screen and the projector and the sound system for faking the launch?

Can you see how the big screen was rippling in the wind like a flag? And how the launch looked different from different angles on the ground?

Are you gong to tell me that same type of projector and sound system was used by the commies, and the french, and the chinese, and the north koreans to fake all their rocket launches?

And they've all been faking it for 50 years?
---------- ADS -----------
 
mag check
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 631
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 6:24 am
Location: Drink in my hand, feet in the sand

Re: Conspiracy theorists weep, we did go to the moon!

Post by mag check »

mdscientist61 wrote:
mag check wrote:
No, there are not.
Yes, there are. :wink:
Have you also spotted all the discrepancies in the launch pad picture?

Can you see all the subtle little flaws left in the big screen and the projector and the sound system for faking the launch?

Can you see how the big screen was rippling in the wind like a flag? And how the launch looked different from different angles on the ground?

Are you gong to tell me that same type of projector and sound system was used by the commies, and the french, and the chinese, and the north koreans to fake all their rocket launches?

And they've all been faking it for 50 years?
No, not at all. I have no doubt at all in the state of space exploration right now. Rockets are roughly the way you would expect after 50 years of using them, and the technology used in space is consistant with a slow development, with an emphasis on safety. But only if you completly ignore the apollo years.
There are many technologies that would appear to have take a massive step backwards if you include apollo.
It is these points that make me, and many others wonder if we are hearing the whole story.

A prime example is the space suits worn today. They are huge, and much more cumbersome than the ones worn over 45 years ago. How is this possible? Why wouldn't they just keep using the 45 year old much smaller, suits? I mean seriously, look at those mercury, and apollo suits compared to the suits they wear today. With the advancements in textiles over the last 45 years, you would think they would be wearing jeans and a t shirt by now, :wink: but instead are wearing much bulkier suits.
---------- ADS -----------
 
We're all here, because we're not all there.
ragbagflyer
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 719
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2006 10:45 pm
Location: Somewhere rocky or salty.

Re: Conspiracy theorists weep, we did go to the moon!

Post by ragbagflyer »

Dash-Ate wrote:read this quote

(*NASA gives the distance from the center of Earth to the center of the Moon as 239,000 miles. Since the Earth has a radius of about 4,000 miles and the Moon’s radius is roughly 1,000 miles, that leaves a surface-to-surface distance of 234,000 miles. The total distance traveled during the alleged missions, including Earth and Moon orbits, ranged from 622,268 miles for Apollo 13 to 1,484,934 miles for Apollo 17. All on a single tank of gas.)

Am I the only one, by the way, who finds it odd that people would move in slow motion on the Moon? Why would a reduced gravitational pull cause everything to move much more slowly? Does a 50-pound weight fall more slowly than a 300-pound weight? Given the complete lack of air resistance, shouldn’t things actually fall faster on the Moon?
Maybe you should read it first Dash before you post it as credible "evidence". I'm dismayed when pilots - who I like to think of as critical thinkers with at least some basic knowledge of phyiscs - post this sort of garbage. First of all, a shuttle achieving orbit accelerates to roughly 18000 miles an hour. I'm sure the numbers for the Apoloo series vary but you get the picture. Secondly, once you're on your way the amount of fuel used to get there does not relate to how far you have to go. It wouldn't take any more fuel to get to mars then it would to get to the moon if you were going to accelerate to the same speed while trying to get there.

Should things fall faster on the moon? Are you serious or just stupid?
---------- ADS -----------
 
"I don't know which is worse, ...that everyone has his price, or that the price is always so low." - Calvin (of Calvin and Hobbes)
User avatar
BTD
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1596
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 8:53 pm

Re: Conspiracy theorists weep, we did go to the moon!

Post by BTD »

Nice post On Condition.
A prime example is the space suits worn today. They are huge, and much more cumbersome than the ones worn over 45 years ago. How is this possible? Why wouldn't they just keep using the 45 year old much smaller, suits? I mean seriously, look at those mercury, and apollo suits compared to the suits they wear today. With the advancements in textiles over the last 45 years, you would think they would be wearing jeans and a t shirt by now, but instead are wearing much bulkier suits.
Really? The lack of knowledge and critical thinking (as mentioned above) is showing.

As a quick answer to the above, the suits were/are used for different purposes. The suits you speak of now are meant to support the astronauts for many many hours outside in a weightless environment protecting against the dangers open space holds.

The launch suits of the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo days that you are referring to had the sole purpose of preventing the astronaut from dying during launch and reentry if there was a depressurization. Look up the Vostok mission where all 3 cosmonauts died during reentry. They did not need the same cooling systems and life support systems, or visors etc. The only time they did, was during unteathered EVAs which the suits where nearly the same size as they are now. Given small changes for mobility and flexibility.

Which suit is bulkier? Taking away a larger backpack for more life support, and the lights on the helmet.

http://mix.msfc.nasa.gov/IMAGES/HIGH/0302388.jpg

http://img.qj.net/uploads/articles_modu ... viewth.jpg

Suits; Not a prime example.

BTD
---------- ADS -----------
 
ragbagflyer
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 719
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2006 10:45 pm
Location: Somewhere rocky or salty.

Re: Conspiracy theorists weep, we did go to the moon!

Post by ragbagflyer »

---------- ADS -----------
 
"I don't know which is worse, ...that everyone has his price, or that the price is always so low." - Calvin (of Calvin and Hobbes)
Spokes
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1057
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2006 9:22 pm
Location: Toronto, On

Re: Conspiracy theorists weep, we did go to the moon!

Post by Spokes »

mag check wrote:
No, there are not.
Yes, there are. :wink:
where? :?:
---------- ADS -----------
 
Wahunga!
User avatar
mdscientist61
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 89
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 2:25 pm

Re: Conspiracy theorists weep, we did go to the moon!

Post by mdscientist61 »

mag check wrote: I have no doubt at all in the state of space exploration right now. Rockets are roughly the way you would expect after 50 years of using them.....
So you think rocket engines actually work, eh? Rocket engines do give thrust in the vacuum of space, do they? Sure.

Here's another picture for you, my suspicious little friend.

Image

The Jet Propulsion Laboratory alleges the following: "This image mosaic taken by the panoramic camera onboard the Mars Exploration Rover Spirit shows the rover's landing site, the Columbia Memorial Station, at Gusev Crater, Mars." They assert that "Data from the panoramic camera's green, blue and infrared filters were combined to create this approximate true color image."

So they captured three images with three filters on the digital camera, and then processed the data to arrive at the image posted here. Images from Mars, they tell us. Taken on June 3rd, 2004. Hmmm.
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/ma ... mages.html

In order for any of this to be true, the probe had to be first launched from earth on a rocket. Presumably they made it orbit earth a few times after the launch. Then they ignited the rocket engine and made the probe speed up enough such that instead of orbiting around the earth, it had enough speed to exceed the escape velocity and then go into an orbit around the sun. This was an oblong sort of oval orbit, with one end of the oval just touching the earth's orbit, and the far end of the oval just touching the orbit of Mars. They scheduled the launch such that when the probe arrived at the far end of its oval orbit, the planet Mars just happened to be there at the same time. The rocket engine was shut off during this oval orbit. (The earth does not burn any fuel while it is orbiting the sun). So they did what they had to do to slow the probe down to enter the orbit around Mars, and finally they conducted the landing on Mars with the parachute and the bouncy airbags. Later they deployed the camera to capture the data from which they created that image. Or so they claim they did all of this.

But when you think of it, the JPL is located just a hop, skip and a jump from Hollywood. So, was all this image stuff cooked up in Hollywood? Or maybe in Vancourver if they they decided to outsource it to save money? Or maybe in a London studio somewhere. After all, the sound stages used to film the Start Wars movie were located in London England.

Hmmm. So is this Mars rover stuff real, or is it fake?
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by mdscientist61 on Tue Nov 17, 2009 6:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
mag check
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 631
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 6:24 am
Location: Drink in my hand, feet in the sand

Re: Conspiracy theorists weep, we did go to the moon!

Post by mag check »

BTD wrote:Nice post On Condition.
A prime example is the space suits worn today. They are huge, and much more cumbersome than the ones worn over 45 years ago. How is this possible? Why wouldn't they just keep using the 45 year old much smaller, suits? I mean seriously, look at those mercury, and apollo suits compared to the suits they wear today. With the advancements in textiles over the last 45 years, you would think they would be wearing jeans and a t shirt by now, but instead are wearing much bulkier suits.
Really? The lack of knowledge and critical thinking (as mentioned above) is showing.

As a quick answer to the above, the suits were/are used for different purposes. The suits you speak of now are meant to support the astronauts for many many hours outside in a weightless environment protecting against the dangers open space holds.

The launch suits of the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo days that you are referring to had the sole purpose of preventing the astronaut from dying during launch and reentry if there was a depressurization. Look up the Vostok mission where all 3 cosmonauts died during reentry. They did not need the same cooling systems and life support systems, or visors etc. The only time they did, was during unteathered EVAs which the suits where nearly the same size as they are now. Given small changes for mobility and flexibility.

Which suit is bulkier? Taking away a larger backpack for more life support, and the lights on the helmet.

http://mix.msfc.nasa.gov/IMAGES/HIGH/0302388.jpg

http://img.qj.net/uploads/articles_modu ... viewth.jpg

Suits; Not a prime example.

BTD
Yah, there is hardly any difference between these.
Image
Image
You could wear the gemini eva suit inside the new emu suits.

Is it normal for technology to advance at a steady, predictable rate for 10 years, then leap way beyond any realistic expectations for 10 years, only to revert back to the original, predictable, steady advancements for the next 40 years?
Look at aviation, a few CENTURIES of steady, predictable advancements, leading from handheld gliding models, to full scale gliders, to powered flight(which as I said, is possible the Wrights achieved 3rd), through WW1, and WW2, and slowly progressing to supersonic flight, and the large commercial jets we have now. All in a nice steady process taking centuries, and always advancing in a predictable manner, continually adapting newer tech, and expanding the capabilities of aircraft.
This has not happened with space exploration, and it is the only "industry" that I can think of that hasn't.
Medicine, automotive, construction, military, sports, etc. all follow this nice steady, predictable process, but not NASA. Wonder why?
---------- ADS -----------
 
We're all here, because we're not all there.
North Shore
Rank Moderator
Rank Moderator
Posts: 5621
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 3:47 pm
Location: Straight outta Dundarave...

Re: Conspiracy theorists weep, we did go to the moon!

Post by North Shore »

So you think rocket engines actually work, eh?
Umm, well I had a little Estes Rocket in Grade 7; prior to that, the Chinese had it figured out in about 1300AD or so, so why wouldn't the same principle work on larger things?
Rocket engines do give thrust in the vacuum of space, do they? Sure.
This just betrays a lack of knowledge of Physics :roll:

ETA: Fack, I can't believe I just got sucked into this pointless debate..
---------- ADS -----------
 
Say, what's that mountain goat doing up here in the mist?
Happiness is V1 at Thompson!
Ass, Licence, Job. In that order.
ragbagflyer
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 719
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2006 10:45 pm
Location: Somewhere rocky or salty.

Re: Conspiracy theorists weep, we did go to the moon!

Post by ragbagflyer »

What's the point of debating when the arguments against are about the size of the spacesuit or about how we shouldn't have been able to get their that fast? Maybe the avro arrow never existed either. The atomic bomb must have been a conspiracy too. What about cloning? How can we possibly mess with things so tiny? I mean we can't even see those cells so how could we manipulate them? I guess Dolly was just another sheep.
---------- ADS -----------
 
"I don't know which is worse, ...that everyone has his price, or that the price is always so low." - Calvin (of Calvin and Hobbes)
ragbagflyer
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 719
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2006 10:45 pm
Location: Somewhere rocky or salty.

Re: Conspiracy theorists weep, we did go to the moon!

Post by ragbagflyer »

Look Dash, we made it all the way out here on "one tank of gas".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnFMrNdj ... re=related
---------- ADS -----------
 
"I don't know which is worse, ...that everyone has his price, or that the price is always so low." - Calvin (of Calvin and Hobbes)
User avatar
mdscientist61
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 89
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 2:25 pm

Re: Conspiracy theorists weep, we did go to the moon!

Post by mdscientist61 »

North Shore wrote:
Rocket engines do give thrust in the vacuum of space, do they? Sure.
This just betrays a lack of knowledge of Physics :roll:
You saw your little Este rocket engine output some thrust did you? It rose off the ground, did it? Very nice.

Do you believe that there are any GPS satellites up there in low earth orbit? If you do, then you probably agree that their orbits need to be fairly precisely controlled, eh? In order for the orbits to be controlled, then the thrusters would have to give out some thrust in order to push the satellite around, wouldn't they? In the vacuum od space, right?

Then if you think that the space shuttle actually does go shuttling into space, how do they de-orbit at the end of their mission? First they fire some little thrusters to change the pitch, yaw, and roll to orient the shuttle tail-first relative to their direction in their orbit, right? and then they fire their oribital maneuvering engines (the two smaller ones on each side of the base of the rudder) to slow down such that they start to fall out of orbit. All this in the vacuum of space, right?

So if you do believe all that, then rocket engines do have to give thrust in a vacuum don't they? Otherwise, it's all nothing but a big conspiracy.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Spokes
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1057
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2006 9:22 pm
Location: Toronto, On

Re: Conspiracy theorists weep, we did go to the moon!

Post by Spokes »

Thanks for this, I really enjoyed it. Its been a long time since I read this book last.

Image
---------- ADS -----------
 
Wahunga!
User avatar
BTD
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1596
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 8:53 pm

Re: Conspiracy theorists weep, we did go to the moon!

Post by BTD »

mag check wrote:
BTD wrote:Nice post On Condition.
A prime example is the space suits worn today. They are huge, and much more cumbersome than the ones worn over 45 years ago. How is this possible? Why wouldn't they just keep using the 45 year old much smaller, suits? I mean seriously, look at those mercury, and apollo suits compared to the suits they wear today. With the advancements in textiles over the last 45 years, you would think they would be wearing jeans and a t shirt by now, but instead are wearing much bulkier suits.
Really? The lack of knowledge and critical thinking (as mentioned above) is showing.

As a quick answer to the above, the suits were/are used for different purposes. The suits you speak of now are meant to support the astronauts for many many hours outside in a weightless environment protecting against the dangers open space holds.

The launch suits of the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo days that you are referring to had the sole purpose of preventing the astronaut from dying during launch and reentry if there was a depressurization. Look up the Vostok mission where all 3 cosmonauts died during reentry. They did not need the same cooling systems and life support systems, or visors etc. The only time they did, was during unteathered EVAs which the suits where nearly the same size as they are now. Given small changes for mobility and flexibility.

Which suit is bulkier? Taking away a larger backpack for more life support, and the lights on the helmet.

http://mix.msfc.nasa.gov/IMAGES/HIGH/0302388.jpg

http://img.qj.net/uploads/articles_modu ... viewth.jpg

Suits; Not a prime example.

BTD
Yah, there is hardly any difference between these.
Image
Image
You could wear the gemini eva suit inside the new emu suits.

Is it normal for technology to advance at a steady, predictable rate for 10 years, then leap way beyond any realistic expectations for 10 years, only to revert back to the original, predictable, steady advancements for the next 40 years?
Look at aviation, a few CENTURIES of steady, predictable advancements, leading from handheld gliding models, to full scale gliders, to powered flight(which as I said, is possible the Wrights achieved 3rd), through WW1, and WW2, and slowly progressing to supersonic flight, and the large commercial jets we have now. All in a nice steady process taking centuries, and always advancing in a predictable manner, continually adapting newer tech, and expanding the capabilities of aircraft.
This has not happened with space exploration, and it is the only "industry" that I can think of that hasn't.
Medicine, automotive, construction, military, sports, etc. all follow this nice steady, predictable process, but not NASA. Wonder why?
:roll:

I'll requote the part in my previous post because I knew someone would post a picture of Ed White on that EVA.
The only time they did, was during unteathered EVAs which the suits where nearly the same size as they are now. Given small changes for mobility and flexibility.

If you notice Ed White is teathered to the spacecraft. All the life support he is receiving is through this ambilical. In addition, one thing they found during the Gemini missions was that the astronauts overheated and got dehydrated during their EVAs when they had to do work. Ed White mostly just floated next to the space craft and tested the compressed air gun for manueuverability. He was only outside for less than 30 mins.

If you want to bring this suit back for the current astronauts then reteather them and let them work outside for short duration with no drinking water or cooling systems etc, and see how long it takes to fix the hubble.


By your logic you must also believe then that the photo you posted above was faked. Because these are the only EVA suits that are small (and therefore well ahead of their time)?
---------- ADS -----------
 
ragbagflyer
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 719
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2006 10:45 pm
Location: Somewhere rocky or salty.

Re: Conspiracy theorists weep, we did go to the moon!

Post by ragbagflyer »

Spokes wrote:
Thanks for this, I really enjoyed it. Its been a long time since I read this book last.
No need to thanks me. NASA launched Voyageur 1 in 1977. In 1990 Carl Sagan had the idea to point the camera at earth, making profound insight in the process (obviously believing that the Voyageur craft was not a hoax or conspiracy). Here in 2009 we have so called aviators doubting space travel, the ability of rockets to exert a force in space (seriously, wtf) and all other aspects of proven physics. Not even astrophysics, or particle phyics, but basic Newtonian physics. The type we study in high school. Maybe we are just a bunch of taxi drivers.
---------- ADS -----------
 
"I don't know which is worse, ...that everyone has his price, or that the price is always so low." - Calvin (of Calvin and Hobbes)
User avatar
mdscientist61
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 89
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 2:25 pm

Re: Conspiracy theorists weep, we did go to the moon!

Post by mdscientist61 »

All right mr. doubting-guy,

How about this:
Image

That's one of the first images from one of the viking landers on the planet mars.

Can you spot all the inconsistancies in that image? So are you telling me that's fake too?

Are you telling me that the viking program was faked?
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
trampbike
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1013
Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2009 8:11 am

Re: Conspiracy theorists weep, we did go to the moon!

Post by trampbike »

mag check wrote: Medicine, automotive, construction, military, sports, etc. all follow this nice steady, predictable process, but not NASA. Wonder why?
Now come on! :roll: This debate can not get more ridiculous than this. I don't even want to get into any details about this because it very probably would be pointless with you, but really, if you;d have studied just a tiny little bit of science an human history, you would know that what you just wrote is total crap.

Damn, even life evolution does not follow a nice steady, predictable process. Never has, never will. Study science, then make comments, not the opposite.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Think ahead or fall behind!
Topspin
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 871
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 5:46 pm

Re: Conspiracy theorists weep, we did go to the moon!

Post by Topspin »

Yep, Mariner 4 definitlely did not send back these pictures of Mars in 1965 4 years before the moon landing:
Image
Image
---------- ADS -----------
 
Spokes
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1057
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2006 9:22 pm
Location: Toronto, On

Re: Conspiracy theorists weep, we did go to the moon!

Post by Spokes »

Sure, and no one has ever put a lander on a Saturnian moon.
Titan anyone?

Image
---------- ADS -----------
 
Wahunga!
User avatar
mdscientist61
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 89
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 2:25 pm

Re: Conspiracy theorists weep, we did go to the moon!

Post by mdscientist61 »

A photograph of Neptune taken by the Voyager 2 spacecraft. I must say that I like that shade of blue.

Image

Are you going to tell us that you spot the inconsistancies in this image?

Are you going to tell us that the Voyager program was faked?
---------- ADS -----------
 
WileyCoyote
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 122
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2007 9:29 pm
Location: Between a rock and a grain field...

Re: Conspiracy theorists weep, we did go to the moon!

Post by WileyCoyote »

It seems that people are so cynical and bitter these days that they can't believe anything. If its not something they understand, or are too lazy to research, its fake. No wonder few people ever aspire to greatness anymore....
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
mdscientist61
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 89
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 2:25 pm

Re: Conspiracy theorists weep, we did go to the moon!

Post by mdscientist61 »

okay, now we need one more piece of the puzzle. In a follow-up posting we'll conclude with closing arguments.

The following video shows a vehicle that the pilots nick-named the "flying bedstead."

This is proof that that they built and operated a vehicle that did take off vertically, hover, fly around, come back to a hover, and land. They rigged it with thrusters to control the pitch, yaw, and roll.

(first side note: rotary wing fliers, I salute you)

(second side note: hawker harrier fliers, I salute you)

http://video.google.ca/videosearch?q=na ... mb=0&aq=f#

Sorry mr. doubting guy, there is no denying this one, because it was flown on earth where lots of people could see it. They used it as part of the training program for several years and many people piloted it. So there was a large number of witnesses who saw it perform as per this video. This one is definitely not a fake.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Spokes
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1057
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2006 9:22 pm
Location: Toronto, On

Re: Conspiracy theorists weep, we did go to the moon!

Post by Spokes »

Some recent photo's taken by the Lunar Reconnesance orbiter

Image
Image
Image

from this website
http://lunar.gsfc.nasa.gov/
---------- ADS -----------
 
Wahunga!
Locked

Return to “The Water Cooler”