|
|
|
|
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Custom Search
| ||||||||||||||||
Date: 3/11/2003 6:05:00 PM
From Authorid: 55533
I beleive you, they are watching us some how. There are some pictures that have the '+' behind and object when it was suppose to be infront of the objects to look like a picture.  |
|
Date: 3/11/2003 6:08:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 46184
first of all learn how to spell. The whole point of this post was to say we never landed on the moon and still haven't. The reason that the people on the space station arent killed is that it is now where near the first strip. The moon doesnt have enough gravity to pull the dust or gravel back down. you got me on 5. |
| Date: 3/11/2003 6:09:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 46184 But for the temputure it's impossible to control temps. like that. Think about it. |
Date: 3/11/2003 6:29:00 PM
From Authorid: 56176
i dont think we landed on the moon,,,,,,,,,but who knows,,,,they are the same people who covered up the ufo crash in rosewell,they say one thing,and hide the truth,maybe,im wrong but,maybe im not,  |
Date: 3/11/2003 6:34:00 PM
From Authorid: 40350
Hmm...I am confused,in the first number Why should the flag hang down? Are you suggesting that there is gravity on the moon; however in numbers two and three, you suggest that there isn't gravity on the moon because the dust should fly up in space never to return. The moon does have gravity, so the dust wouldn't "fly away." True the moon's gravity isn't near as strong as the earth, but it has it reguardless. **wonders if these are your reasons, or the reasons of the speical that came on FOX????** I am undecided on the subject, and most of your reasons are good. **shrugs** I guess the yes and no reasons balance each other...  |
| Date: 3/11/2003 7:05:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 46184 I've never seen the "Special" that was on FOX. Can someone tell me when it was on. |
Date: 3/11/2003 7:07:00 PM
From Authorid: 49498
We did, we have mirrors up there that Berkley reflects lasers off of. Its for their science program  |
| Date: 3/11/2003 7:21:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 46184 The mirrors are most likely on stilites, not on the moon. |
Date: 3/11/2003 7:23:00 PM
From Authorid: 45684
I haven't formed an opinion on this one yet. My boyfriend believes the same way you do. I think we have landed on the moon, I'm just not sure if the United States faked the first landing to look like they beat Russia, or if they really did land.  |
Date: 3/11/2003 7:32:00 PM
From Authorid: 58976
25k feet high yeah right lol  |
Date: 3/11/2003 8:02:00 PM
From Authorid: 43250
Ok here we go again. 1.The flag had a horizontal bar attached to it at the top. This was done so that the flag would stand out from the flagpole.2.Dust does not float in a vacuum. The only reason it 'floats' on Earth is because of the air. In a vacuum dust behaves exactly like any other object. You throw it up and it will then fall. It is no different from what a rock would do. Rocks do not float or billow around and the fact that dust is lighter makes no difference. Due to this lack of air dust falls quicker on the moon than on Earth. This may seem strange, as the Moon's gravity is much less. But the lack of an atmosphere is far more significant to the dust. But it still falls slower than you'd expect a rock to on Earth. 3.Same as #2. 4. The descent rocket used by the lander had a maximum thrust of 10,500lbs. That may be enough to cause a crater in softer surfaces than the moon's surface, but it doesn't matter in this case anyway. The lander's rocket was not at full thrust when it landed, Armstrong throttled it back all the way down as the lander approached the surface. As NASA did not have a precise landing point in mind, the lander did not descend vertically. The actual site was picked out as being relatively rock free by the astronauts themselves as they descended at an angle, travelling across the landscape and skidding to a stop. Consequently the lander did not hover directly above its eventual landing point. So there was practically no down thrust for any great length of time directly above the landing point to cause a crater. 5. I have never seen any of these "pictures". 6. This one is easy to explain and something you can even try yourself. Take two objects and set one on flat ground, take the other and set it on a slope. Guess what that makes, one shadow will be longer, and the one on the slope will be in the direction of the slope. So now you would have two shadows going in different directions. 7. The lunar surface is very bright. Brighter than the brightest day in the hottest part of the world. This is obvious when you think about it. There are no atmosphere or clouds on the moon. In comparison to this bright surface, the stars are very dim. It is very difficult to get a photograph of a very dim object and a very bright object at the same time. If you set the camera to take a photograph of the bright object (using a fast exposure) you won't capture the dim object at all. If you set the camera to take a picture of the dim objects, then the bright objects will appear as very fuzzy and over-exposed blobs. 8. Radiation is a big problem when it comes to space travel and the Van Allen belts concentrate this radiation to surround the Earth. No matter what, the Apollo crafts had to go through these belts and there was no way the Apollo crafts could afford to take all the weight of lead shielding with them. So they were bound to be exposed. The question is, just how serious would this exposure be? What you have to realise that the radiation involved isn't the same kind or intensity as you might get from a nuclear bomb. You don't fall sick and your hair doesn't all fall out. It's been calculated that travelling at speed through the Van Allen belt would result in exposure of 1 rem. Radiation sickness symptoms don't start to show until you get around 25. Once you reach 100 you're going to be ill. 500 and you're probably dead. So the exposure the astronauts received is pretty mild. 9. All objects above absolute zero radiate, some more than others, whether in a vacuum or not. The astronaut's spacesuits weren't white just because it looked smart, white reflects the most heat radiation, thereby minimising the amount absorbed. The suits were also cooled using a system not unlike your refrigerator in your kitchen. It worked because water sprayed into a vacuum experiences a very rapid drop in pressure and consequently temperature. The same thing happens to aerosol sprays. Why is it that spray-on deodorant is so cold? It is due to the sudden drop in pressure between the can and outside air. So, when a small amount of water was sprayed onto a cooling element on the rear of the spacesuit its temperature dropped so much that it would freeze over it. The cooling water of the spacesuit is then pumped through this element. The heat of the water melts the ice which rapidly boils off (the boiling point of water being very low in a vacuum) into space taking the unwanted heat with it. 10. What does that have to do with anything? 11. The photos do not seem to show the horizon to close. Go some where were there are no objects as far as you can see, and take a picture. The horizon will be as close as they appear in the photos. Also why would the Gov. want to fake the moon landing? Why has no one from NASA come out to show proof that the photos and video were made somewere other then the moon?  |
Date: 3/11/2003 8:07:00 PM
From Authorid: 5301
...I can attest to the fact that man did indeed land on the moon. I was there and I'll tell you that I charged NASA for every one of my rosebushes that those clumsy fool astronauts trod upon and squashed. It's NOT easy being a horticulturalist on the moon. I'm glad they've stopped coming. All I have to worry about now is those squid-monkeys from Orion.  |
|
Date: 3/11/2003 8:16:00 PM
From Authorid: 43250
There first hand report from Hekler. Proof enough for me! |
Date: 3/11/2003 8:28:00 PM
From Authorid: 47296
MI23, thanks for spending the time explaining everything. You saved me the trouble. Back in '69 when Apollo 11 first landed, I was something of an amateur astronomer. Several of us used our telescopes to spot where the astronauts were on the moon. We also watched the lift off through our telescopes. While it may have been possible to crash an object into the moon to make it look like we landed, the lift off of the LEM would have been hard to duplicate. We did go to the moon. With a good high powered telescope, one can still see the evidence today.  |
Date: 3/11/2003 9:37:00 PM
From Authorid: 21923
Thanks MI 23 and Warrior Spirit. You both summed up everything I was going to say and saved me the time of refuting another one of these we didn't land on the moon posts. Peace  |
|
Date: 3/11/2003 10:12:00 PM
From Authorid: 43250
While I was not around in 69, I do remember going to camp one year and using a high power telescope to see the moon. All people have to do is look on the moon and see what is there. |
Date: 3/11/2003 10:20:00 PM
From Authorid: 55967
Yes, MI23 said it better than I could, but I want to add two more things. For Angel Cat, the reason it seems those pluses are behind the object is, if you take notice, all the objects they seem to be behind are bright white. The plus is actually there in front, but the light from the white objects dims part of the them so it just looks like part of them are behind the object. Also, if these 11 reasons were actually real, they are so simple that they would have been picked up back in 1969, and we would not even consider the landing today. There were many people at the time who would have loved to refute the landing. ~GypsyHawk~  |
Date: 3/11/2003 10:28:00 PM
From Authorid: 53909
LOL, I made this same post before a long time ago and I got rude comments. Sayin' how stupid I was. I told them I didn't know if they did or not. From seeing this one show, they did make some good points about why we didn't really land on the moon. But I dont know why someone would lie about that though. OH well...I dunno..hehe  |
Date: 3/12/2003 12:59:00 AM
From Authorid: 48531
i have always felt that way too. If we had gone there, why havent we gone back with live cameras since, and put buildings there with life support. That should be a very easy task! It all seems fake to me as well!  |
Date: 3/12/2003 2:16:00 AM
From Authorid: 54444
the only thing Ive ever heard that was funnier than this post was that there is stilla flat earth society where everyone in it believe that the earth is flat. LOL ROTFL why didn't you post this in the humor section?  |
|
Date: 3/12/2003 2:17:00 AM
From Authorid: 54444
Peace KornDog, Love you...but this is very funny and I am sure that you are just pushing people's buttons because no way you truely believe this. |
|
Date: 3/12/2003 2:25:00 AM
From Authorid: 54444
One last point. Whoever originated this eleven point theory must have flunked both first year physics and first year science. as has very well been pointed out by other viewwrs, the eleven points don't hold up to what we do know as factual. |
Date: 3/12/2003 6:32:00 AM
From Authorid: 59751
Does anyone else find it amusing that the author can criticize the first reply by saying "first of all learn how to spell", and then down on his OWN comment, spell SATELLITES like "stilites"...hmmm, seems a bit hypercritical to me. I don't agree with the post, but that's just my opinion.  |
Date: 3/12/2003 10:00:00 AM
From Authorid: 54111
LOL.....This is funny, I would say something but I think MI23 has summed it up.  |
|
Date: 3/12/2003 4:34:00 PM
From Authorid: 57404
Well this is like asking, why the goverment lies and covers up a lot of things. LOL Why would they fake this? Hmm, who knows. I don't think the goverment really has to have a reason. Maybe they wanted to be first, to walk on the moon, if they couldn't make it happen.. why not fake it. LOL I wonder why we haven't been to the other side of the moon, where it is dark, but then again, I am sure there is some reason for it. hehe God Bless  |
| Date: 3/12/2003 5:01:00 PM From Authorid: 56971 we did not land on the moon |
Date: 3/12/2003 5:37:00 PM
From Authorid: 47584
i have read about how all of those have been explined. i don't remember the site bt just look on a searh engine  |
| Date: 3/12/2003 7:10:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 46184 STARS. NO STARS. EXPLAIN THAT!!!!!!! |
|
Date: 3/12/2003 8:30:00 PM
From Authorid: 56971
yes i saw the tv show on this. the govermnet had to say we landed on the moon. cause the russiens where kicking our but in space |
|
Date: 3/12/2003 10:14:00 PM
From Authorid: 43250
Oh yes the stars. Ok lets see. The lunar surface is very bright. There are no atmosphere or clouds on the moon. In comparison to this bright surface, the stars are very dim. It is very difficult to get a photograph of a very dim object and a very bright object at the same time. If you set the camera to take a photograph of the bright object (using a fast exposure) you won't capture the dim object at all. If you set the camera to take a picture of the dim objects, then the bright objects will appear as very fuzzy and over-exposed blobs. The cameras and films the Apollo missions took with them were designed to photograph activities on the moon's surface. They were not designed to take photographs of the stars. It doesn't mean the stars weren't there or couldn't be seen, just that the photographs did not capture them. The exposures were set to work with the brightly light surface and astronauts. Any thing else? |
|
Date: 3/13/2003 4:28:00 AM
From Authorid: 48525
"33 years ago, man landed on the moon and discovered that it was NOT made of cheese. We haven't been back since. Ahh...the power of conspiracy" LMAO!!  |
|
Date: 3/13/2003 9:34:00 PM
From Authorid: 55967
I have a question. When Armstrong and Auldrin were on the moon, could they talk to each other w/o NASA being there? Yes, you heard them talk to each other, but their voices could be heard by NASA and chosen segments were broadcast throughout the world. But could the astronauts turn off communication to NASA and just communicate with each other while they walked the surface? ~GypsyHawk~ |
Date: 3/14/2003 9:29:00 AM
From Authorid: 49982
I'm confused  |
| Date: 3/14/2003 10:32:00 AM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 46184 im not sure about that GypsyHawk |
|
Date: 3/25/2003 2:11:00 AM
From Authorid: 1225
Most people who doubt the Lunar landing never seem to take into account that we went back several times. Why on Earth (or the moon, for that matter) would the government endeavor to fake a moon landing over and over again? And what of Apollo 13, the mission that almost went to the moon? Did NASA and the government fake that as well? I might believe that the government faked a single moon landing in order to show strength and supremacy over the Russians, and to meet the challenge of the President Kennedy. But to fake it over and over; not likely. I urge everyone to read this article: http://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~jscotti/NOT_faked/fox.html  |
| Date: 3/30/2003 9:27:00 AM From Authorid: 51819 just a few other points .........jfk said within a decade ,nasa left it late but just made it ........the russian never even got close because of the van allen belt, the 1970 world cup had problems broadcasting the games around the world but nasa could talk ,show live pictures from the moon....none of the missions were show live due to problems only audio....since the 1970s no man mission beyond the van allen belt which must be passed through at the proper angle....... |
Renasoft is the proud sponsor of the Unsolved Mystery Publications website.
See: www.rensoft.com Personal Site server, Power to build Personal Web Sites and Personal Web Pages
All stories are copyright protected and may not be reproduced in any form, except by specific written authorization
Other Cool Sites:
demo.draganddropwebpages.com
demo.draganddropwebpagedesign.com
demo.obe-astralprojection.com
demo.underamicroscope.com
demo.jesus-god-angels.com
demo.laughsandjokes.com
demo.blognexus.org
demo.morningmystery.com
demo.business-finance-money.com
demo.theconsumerwatchdog.com
Awesome Free Web Graphics
Favorite Grapic Quotes
Greetings in Glittery Text
Your name in Glittery Text
www.thehomebusinessindex.com
www.diet-food-weightloss-health.com
www.investingandinvestments.com
www.cancerinformationworld.com
www.datinglovematchmaking.com
www.creditinformationworld.com
www.insurancelinksdirect.com
www.ilovemysteries.com
www.casinopokergambleing.com
www.make-money-while-sleeping.com
www.vacation-travel-cruse-deals-information.com
.
