Surfmeister Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 Let's here it for our brave astronots who landed and walked on the moon on this date in 1969. Wearing rubber and cloth space suits they braved the extreme temperatures and found their way to the moon and back with computer technology equal to today's four function calculator. NASA Web Site ~ Apollo Anniversary
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 Let's here it for our brave astronots who landed and walked on the moon on this date in 1969. Wearing rubber and cloth space suits they braved the extreme temperatures and found their way to the moon and back with computer technology equal to today's four function calculator. NASA Web Site ~ Apollo Anniversary 386377[/snapback] In honor of the anniversary, Google's put up http://moon.google.com/, that let's you see and zoom in on all the moon landing sites...the close-up shots are amazing...
Dan Gross Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 In honor of the anniversary, Google's put up http://moon.google.com/, that let's you see and zoom in on all the moon landing sites...the close-up shots are amazing... 386382[/snapback] Was it just me, or did you see the discarded Mars bar wrapper...?
smokinandjokin Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 In honor of the anniversary, Google's put up http://moon.google.com/, that let's you see and zoom in on all the moon landing sites...the close-up shots are amazing... 386382[/snapback] Just thinking of Jim Carrey in Dumb and Dumber as he leaves the hotel bar with his arms in the air: "WE LANDED ON THE MOON!"
Corp000085 Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 i love the full zoom on that google site... it's a closeup of swiss cheese.
Surfmeister Posted July 20, 2005 Author Posted July 20, 2005 Bah, everyone knows it was a hoax... 386400[/snapback] No way was it a hoax. I just read on CNN the other day were going to have a satelite zoom past the moon and send back pictures of some of the American landers and stuff we left up there. I wonder if the photos will have Forrest Gump standing next to the flag?
Wacka Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 For people younger than say 36 you don't realize the amazement the moon landings generated. You could go outside, look up at the moon and realize "Holy sh-- ! There's people there right now!"
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 For people younger than say 36 you don't realize the amazement the moon landings generated. You could go outside, look up at the moon and realize "Holy sh-- ! There's people there right now!" 386667[/snapback] Hell, I go outside now, look at it, and say "Holy sh--! There's people posting on TSW right now that are a lot farther out there than that!"
smapdi Posted July 21, 2005 Posted July 21, 2005 There are alot of questionable photographs from the moon landings. In one there is a rock with a letter on. In another there are shadows coming from directions where there shouldn't be light. There was a tremendous panic that the Soviets would show us up again and land on the moon first; America could not let that happen no matter what. I personally don't even see how the technology was available to get human beings on the moon in 1969.
ofiba Posted July 21, 2005 Posted July 21, 2005 There are alot of questionable photographs from the moon landings. In one there is a rock with a letter on. In another there are shadows coming from directions where there shouldn't be light. There was a tremendous panic that the Soviets would show us up again and land on the moon first; America could not let that happen no matter what. I personally don't even see how the technology was available to get human beings on the moon in 1969. 386829[/snapback] Read This
Britbillsfan Posted July 21, 2005 Posted July 21, 2005 Read This 386839[/snapback] Love that link. Many thanks for posting it (not that I needing convincing the conspiracy theorists were kooks and idiots, but it made a very interesting read).
Stussy109 Posted July 21, 2005 Posted July 21, 2005 Hell, I go outside now, look at it, and say "Holy sh--! There's people posting on TSW right now that are a lot farther out there than that!" 386670[/snapback] Hilarious... the thing that makes it verrrrry tough for me to believe is that numerous scientists on the hoax show stated that with the equipment they had i.e. space suit, and protective layers on the space vessel, unless they were shielded with like 3ft of lead they would have been fried by the radiation belts as they left our atmosphere. That to me, is puzzling... How about the flag blowing in the video when the moon has no atmosphere or wind
Wacka Posted July 21, 2005 Posted July 21, 2005 First put on your tinfioil hat, then read the whole site they linked to.
drnykterstein Posted July 21, 2005 Posted July 21, 2005 This is the most convincing site yet on the whole hoax thing. I really believe at least some of it was faked. http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted July 21, 2005 Posted July 21, 2005 Read This 386839[/snapback] Good shiat man. Way to take the tinfoil hat society out behind the woodshed! w00t!
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 21, 2005 Posted July 21, 2005 Hilarious... the thing that makes it verrrrry tough for me to believe is that numerous scientists on the hoax show stated that with the equipment they had i.e. space suit, and protective layers on the space vessel, unless they were shielded with like 3ft of lead they would have been fried by the radiation belts as they left our atmosphere. That to me, is puzzling... How about the flag blowing in the video when the moon has no atmosphere or wind 386881[/snapback] 1) Radiation. That's a gross overestimation of the danger of the Van Allen belts. You only need that much lead to stop gamma radiation; the Van Allen belts are relatively slow ions (noting smaller than an electron) that can be stopped by comparatively thin shields. (Alpha radiation - helium nucleii - can be stopped by a sheet of paper. Classic physics 101 demonstration). Hell, nuclear reactors are bigger radiation hazards than that...last I checked, they don't encase 'em in three feet of lead. 2) The flag "waving" in the wind: actually, the flag was waving because it was in vacuum. If you secure a piece of cloth (or whatever they used - a sheet of flexible material, at any rate) at two edges and move it, the unsecured corner will flap around until air pressure dampens the oscillations. There's no air pressure on the moon, so as he set the flag up, the oscillations he induced in the material continued undampened...and the flag looks like it was "waving in the breeze". Most of the "evidence" the moon landing was a hoax is about on par with the "evidence" that 9/11 was a government plot: it looks good if you have absolutely no clue how the world works, but with a little thought and education it's obvious bull sh--.
drnykterstein Posted July 21, 2005 Posted July 21, 2005 1) Radiation. That's a gross overestimation of the danger of the Van Allen belts. You only need that much lead to stop gamma radiation; the Van Allen belts are relatively slow ions (noting smaller than an electron) that can be stopped by comparatively thin shields. (Alpha radiation - helium nucleii - can be stopped by a sheet of paper. Classic physics 101 demonstration). Hell, nuclear reactors are bigger radiation hazards than that...last I checked, they don't encase 'em in three feet of lead. 2) The flag "waving" in the wind: actually, the flag was waving because it was in vacuum. If you secure a piece of cloth (or whatever they used - a sheet of flexible material, at any rate) at two edges and move it, the unsecured corner will flap around until air pressure dampens the oscillations. There's no air pressure on the moon, so as he set the flag up, the oscillations he induced in the material continued undampened...and the flag looks like it was "waving in the breeze". Most of the "evidence" the moon landing was a hoax is about on par with the "evidence" that 9/11 was a government plot: it looks good if you have absolutely no clue how the world works, but with a little thought and education it's obvious bull sh--. 387258[/snapback] Read my link, it's better, as I see you have not read it yet. But if you have arguements, don't argue with me. I still claim to be ignorant, but ignorant with an opinion.
obie_wan Posted July 21, 2005 Posted July 21, 2005 This is the most convincing site yet on the whole hoax thing. I really believe at least some of it was faked.http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html 387239[/snapback] If Neil Armstrong was the first man on the moon, who took the photos of him stepping on the moon? From the angle of the photos, it doesn't seem that the camera could be fixed to the Lander.
Recommended Posts