vResistance Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 Good god man, if you're that unobservant then I'd seriously doubt your opinion of what is currently right under your nose, let alone something that happened on another planet 40 odd years ago. Get a grip. I'm interested in how the A11 radio broadcasts were sent from the moon when there was no one there? And how come the moon rock returned from the Apollo missions wasn't fake if the missions were? The thing is, you blow what little credibility you have when you splurge cack like this onto a forum. Crikey, calm down. I've not really begun to look into this and thought I'd start by looking at some of the footage. I'm not saying Man didn't walk on the moon. I'm just toying with the idea at the moment. The footage from the day isn't totally convincing and of course could be faked. It has a similar look to it as the special effects in 'space 1999' Anyway forget about that. Tell me more about moon rock and the A11 radio thingy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anywebsite Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 If we could yes. I'd have though we'd have had a satellite go close enough to get pictures showing at least the bigger pieces before now. I wonder how much it would cost to send a rover to the moon to have a good look around. It would be fascinating to see it with modern equipment. An eye on the moon we could all look at on the Internet. 'Google moon "street view".. it'd be reet good. There was a lunar satellite that mapped the moon last year, you can see the photos of Apollo landing sites here: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/news/apollo-sites.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anywebsite Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 Crikey, calm down. I've not really begun to look into this and thought I'd start by looking at some of the footage. I'm not saying Man didn't walk on the moon. I'm just toying with the idea at the moment. The footage from the day isn't totally convincing and of course could be faked. It has a similar look to it as the special effects in 'space 1999' Anyway forget about that. Tell me more about moon rock and the A11 radio thingy. Russians sent unmanned lunar probes up that collected some moon rock, it matched the samples the Apollo missions brought back. The Apollo missions transmitted radio (and live tv) from the moon. The USSR had the technology to check up on it all & they'd have announced a fake if it was, unless the USSR is in on the conspiracy too. There have been no whistle blowers either, it'd have had to be a huge conspiracy & they've all kept their silence all these years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vResistance Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8226075.stm Strangely one piece of moon rock turned out to be just petrified wood. The footage from the satellite showing what we are told is the remains and the tyre tracks is impressive, but again could easily be faked. Still I'm inclined to believe man did walk on the moon, more so than before perhaps. I wonder though if some of the footage might have been staged just to enhance the event. One of the strangest things I find is that, when the craft is landing and taking off, there seems to be no disturbance of the fine dust from the thrusters. Why is that? This is more interesting. The idea that man did walk on the moon and is walking on the moon http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CDcQtwIwAg&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DjEeictfmBx0&ei=1m4jUOTONYGm0QW2ooH4DA&usg=AFQjCNH3tZloGMoa32qtSwcQabf3o69B-g Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 One of the strangest things I find is that, when the craft is landing and taking off, there seems to be no disturbance of the fine dust from the thrusters. Why is that? I'm not 100% sure but I seem to remember something about moon dust being crystalline granules rather than the rounded granules/particles you find on Earth. Could this mean that dust holds together stronger? (I'm away on holiday at the moment and using my mobile for interwebs, so I'm not bothering looking into it right now ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vResistance Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 I'm not 100% sure but I seem to remember something about moon dust being crystalline granules rather than the rounded granules/particles you find on Earth. Could this mean that dust holds together stronger? (I'm away on holiday at the moment and using my mobile for interwebs, so I'm not bothering looking into it right now ) I don't see how that would make a difference but maybe. It's the same when they are walking, I'd expect the dust to be disturbed and being little gravity I'd expect the dust to hang for ages.(still considering the lack of atmosphere) How can a man need a weighted suit to stop him floating off the surface but fine dust not be disturbed when they go jumping about on it? It's all a bit mind boggling. Having thought about it, I think I get it.- everything falls at the same speed in a vacuum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 http://pseudoastro.wordpress.com/2009/07/14/the-apollo-moon-hoax-why-is-there-no-blast-crater-under-the-lunar-module/ This is probably quite relevant to the question you're answering. Even at maximum thrust, the rocket from the lander module would create 1/3rd of the pressure of a human footprint (under earth gravity). Presumably the launch stage required even less thrust than the lander, and presumably any dust that could be disturbed was disturbed on landing, and no there to be disturbed on take off. http://www.ukskeptics.com/apollo-moon-landing-hoax.php Here's some more info. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vResistance Posted August 11, 2012 Share Posted August 11, 2012 http://pseudoastro.wordpress.com/2009/07/14/the-apollo-moon-hoax-why-is-there-no-blast-crater-under-the-lunar-module/ This is probably quite relevant to the question you're answering. Even at maximum thrust, the rocket from the lander module would create 1/3rd of the pressure of a human footprint (under earth gravity). Presumably the launch stage required even less thrust than the lander, and presumably any dust that could be disturbed was disturbed on landing, and no there to be disturbed on take off. http://www.ukskeptics.com/apollo-moon-landing-hoax.php Here's some more info. Thanks, that explains it well. I'd say I'm now about 90% sure man did walk on the moon, enough to satisfy my curiosity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sci fi Posted August 17, 2012 Author Share Posted August 17, 2012 Any one know anything about auditory psychological experiments. IE the use of technology on the masses etc, or the crowd experiments? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SBCY Posted August 17, 2012 Share Posted August 17, 2012 Thanks, that explains it well. I'd say I'm now about 90% sure man did walk on the moon, enough to satisfy my curiosity. Hi . Thanks for the rocker fella interview I didn't watch it , YET . As my thread was terminated . Any ideas ? About the moon , what we do know is backed up by science . The Van Allen belt is a belt of dense radiation surrounding planet earth . If anything such as human tissue was too pass through it they would get very sick. This radiation would also severely effect electrical circuits . I'm not sure what NASA did too over come this problem . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.