|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Nov 26, 2011 21:32:09 GMT -4
please ask yourself this question If in 1969 it is was known that we could not go to the moon, could "they" have faked it? It wouldn't just be the people of 1969 that they would have to fool. They'd have to fake it in a way that would convince people 10, 50, 100, or even 500 years later. Eventually someone other than NASA would study the Van Allen radiation belt and discover that they were lying about it. NASA can not prevent other countries, corporations, or individual people from studying the radiation, and they can not hide or control the radiation. That means it would be incredibly foolish for NASA to lie about it. It means the radiation is proof that NASA is telling the truth. So let me ask you this: would you lie about something if you knew you were 100% guaranteed to be caught? Would you try to convince me that it was raining if all I had to do is look out the window to see it was sunny? Then you're a fool. There is no way a hoax like that could succeed. |
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Nov 26, 2011 21:36:39 GMT -4
in my opinion, your absolute view point can't allow any possibility that anything i say could possibly be true. if anything i say causes you to question, then you will have to find answers. Try and understand this: I have been on this site for a number of years, and I have been following the Apollo hoax notions for over a decade now. I could literally bury you in the material I have collecte dover the years, from DVDs, videos, books to newspaper cuttings, magazines, and so on. I've even met some of the astronauts. Have you? That means that the stuff you think should cause me to question is stuff I have already questioned, and I have already found answers. |
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Nov 26, 2011 21:41:27 GMT -4
frenat Could you give me the reference for "Ed Mitchell did swear on the Bible, so did Gene Cernan" For that matter so did Alan Bean The reference is in fact Sibrel's own video of the events. He includes it because they all three told him to clear off in no uncertain terms afterwards. |
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Nov 26, 2011 21:42:49 GMT -4
while your digging for references please provide one for this statement also "Sibrel has even said that if they swore on the Bible he would call them liars and if they didn't he would would still call them liars" The 'reference' there is the simple fact that Sibrel has not modified his stance in the least, despite three Apollo astronauts doing the thing he asked them to do as if it would prve they did walk on the Moon. |
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Nov 26, 2011 21:42:55 GMT -4
the Apollo astronauts went into low earth obit and stayed there until they came down. the Apollo 11 filming was done by Kubrick, later filming done by CIA & NASA the TV coverage was pre-shot and aired at the appropriate time. You need to read this thread: The Smoking Gun of Bart's "Smoking Gun" FootageThe video taken by the Apollo 11 astronauts shows Earth from a great distance, proving they weren't in low Earth orbit. And since the cloud formations match the weather forecasts for the day the video was broadcast from the spacecraft we know it wasn't pre-recorded. That puts the astronauts at a specific place (halfway to the Moon) at a specific time. |
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Nov 26, 2011 21:44:07 GMT -4
playdor, why won't you answer my question last repeated in reply #813? I ask it again, and I will keep asking it until you answer: Given your demonstrated lack of understanding of everything to do with Apollo, and given the many gross errors of basic understanding as well as simple errors of fact you have committed here - why do you not question your own insistence that Apollo was faked? I mean, one of your latest howlers was demanding to know why training was done at a "CIA" facility. You confused the Langley, VA headquarters of the CIA - which I have passed numerous times on the GW Parkway - with NASA's Langley Research Center, many hours' drive away on the Chesapeake! You literally have no idea at all what you're talking about. So why do you keep insisting your premise is correct? Why don't you even consider that you might be wrong, and all the experts are right? Is it a religious thing? Are you angry that Americans first landed on the Moon? Are you simply unable to ever concede your own ignorance? Or are you simply a troll? |
|
|
|
Post by chew on Nov 26, 2011 21:55:53 GMT -4
trebor what does the vacuum of space have to do with heat exchange on the finger tips vacuum means nothing other then no heat transfer via an atmosphere. So how does the Sun heat the Earth? |
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Nov 26, 2011 21:56:34 GMT -4
the first time i watched Dark Side of the Moon, i took it for a mockumentary. then i watched it again, and you know it may be the honest truth. You're not very observant, are you? It was obviously a mockumentary intended to teach critical thinking to gullible people (like you). But I guess you missed the clues. It's been a while since I watched Dark Side of the Moon, but one of the clues I remember was that they interviewed the "former CIA director" and he spoke Russian. Why would the former CIA director be speaking Russian? Think, man, think! |
|
|
|
Post by carpediem on Nov 26, 2011 21:58:08 GMT -4
frenat Could you give me the reference for "Ed Mitchell did swear on the Bible, so did Gene Cernan" Google it you lazy sod. |
|
|
|
Post by twik on Nov 26, 2011 21:58:18 GMT -4
One thing that playdor overlooks is that Kubrick's 2001 would never pass muster as actual space footage. So, the argument goes, I assume:
Kubrick was chosen because he could create convincing footage, as shown in his movies.
But his movies aren't terribly convincing (in comparison to the real thing - they were cutting edge effects for the time, but for the time only).
Well, then, he must have done deliberately shoddy work in his movies so people wouldn't realize that he was capable of faking the moon films.
I don't think hoax believers actually watch many movies other than modern blockbusters. I'd be surprised if playdor had ever sat through a single showing of 2001.
|
|
|
|
Post by chew on Nov 26, 2011 21:59:03 GMT -4
can the lm be moved sideways without tilting? the jets are on top. Hoo boy. Another uneducated and lazy hoaxer who doesn't understand the simplest laws of physics and couldn't be bothered to Google a photo of the LM. |
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Nov 26, 2011 22:05:00 GMT -4
LunarOrbit from start to finish... simply put, we could not get to the moon, we can't get thru the radiation belts and live, and even if we tried space if filled with radiation. No. You have no idea whatsoever what you're taking about. Worse, you just got through confusing electric current with ionizing radiation a few pages back. You weren't even aware of the Van Allen Belts' existence. Now, here you come waving your hands about radiation, mindlessly regurgitating claims from some idiot conspiracist website. Do you actually think you're bolstering your hoax claim? Do you think you're demonstrating anything other than your own ignorance? I ask you again: given your complete lack of understanding on this subject, and your many embarrassing errors, why do you fail to question your own premise? |
|
|
|
Post by chew on Nov 26, 2011 22:05:38 GMT -4
the Apollo 11 filming was done by Kubrick Kubrick. Why is it always Kubrick? You're another brain dead hoaxer who believes everything you see and hear that supports your belief without a moment's reflection. |
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Nov 26, 2011 22:15:10 GMT -4
also in his book he states the first thing he did on the moons surface was urinate. piss on this...in so many words. You do understand that he didn't actually urinate ON the Moon, right? He urinated into a diaper. "Take THAT Moon! I'll sure show YOU who's boss by peeing into my diaper!" |
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Nov 26, 2011 22:21:55 GMT -4
Technically it was a urine bag, not a diaper. But the point stands.
|
|
