http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nn6WZ...eature=related
i say no...
Printable View
if i never post again its because the goverment killed me for spreading te truth..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1tqZ...eature=related
...I personally still haven't made up my mind yet whether it was real or not. But it sure is a fascinating debate.
yes
So were all 12 times faked?
yes
Yes, we've landed on the moon. I don't buy this conspiracy theory.
And we faked the failed 13th attempt?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ubereem1
i always wondered if they really went to the moon , home come they never WENT BACK TO THE MOON , remember the space race against Russia ???
Yes. Mythbusters proved it.
Nibiru - Yes.
2012 - Yes.
U.S. faking the Moon Landings - No.
I believe we went to the moon....I just do. That's one of the few conspiracies I don't believe...
Yep, sure do, watch this guys youtube channel. He dissect a lot of popular arguments for and con the belief that the moon landing and subsequent space missions were faked.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr76qSQ9ZQQ
probably a sham. I don't believe anything this country puts out in the media until it is proven with facts.
They went back 11 times.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Noronowicz
Dude I don't even believe in the moon:P
this guys prob a goverment plant...they made mythbusters say we went..we cant even get the spaceships in area 51 to fly!!!!!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Douglas White
i would say watch the mythbusters episode on this. while they didn't tackle every controversy; they hit a couple of them and took them down pretty well. imo we went to the moon.
i think the only moon they went to was a big plus sized ham and egger trailor park zit faced onion smellin with dents in her booty ho
Asking questions is a fair and responsible part of being a smart critical human being. However, questions in of themselves are not a form of evidence nor is the construction of potential doubt.
The problem with this debate is that in order to even begin to question the moon landing you must discredit NASA as a valid source of information. Once you discredit the major source of almost all known space travel information, then you're left with this information less void where any anecdotal side note carries as much weight as a NASA document.
Why can't we go now? George W said a few years ago that we were planning on going back but it would take at least 10 years to figure it out. The Saturn 5 rocket technology that supposedly made it to the moon "successfully" many times no longer exists, they trashed it, no joke. Explain that.
yeah im with eddie on this one.. from what i've seen, there's much more evidence against it than there is to support it. I'd say Aliens/Ufo's, Weed, DMT, The Moon Landing, population control.. all things the govt lies to us about.
It was too expensive. From wiki:Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddie Bravo
From 1964 until 1973, a total of $6.5 billion ($43.57 billion present day) was appropriated for the Saturn V, with the maximum being in 1966 with $1.2 billion ($8.04 billion present day).[19]
One of the main reasons for the cancellation of the Apollo program was the cost. In 1966, NASA received its biggest budget of US$4.5 billion, about 0.5 percent of the GDP of the United States at that time.
NASA's current expected budget for 2010 is 18,724 Billion dollars.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Bu...te_note-11BO-4
If I had some studio invoices or documents from China or Russia calling this thing bullshit, then I would really be interested in the validity of the moon landing.
People cannot go to the moon because of the Van Allen radiation belts. Not only would people die from radiation poisoning but all photography film would be destroyed. Pictures from the moon should not exist.
This is that conundrum I mentioned earlier. The Van Allen belts were discovered by Dr. James A. Van Allen during the flight of Explorer 1 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...080901946.html).Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Mallory
So first we are acknowledging that the Van Allen Belt is real? I mean this is information from NASA (formerly NACA), Van Allen worked for NACA/NASA. But then if I were to say that the discovery of the Van Allen belt created an entire new field of science called magnetospheric physics, which would map out the radiation levels of the entire belt making space travel possible... would that then be thrown out as NASA propaganda?
I'm no expert on this topic, I am literally looking this stuff up as you guys are asking it. The information is out there, but whenever I go through this path of research I eventually hit a wall with the other person where they say that I am just being a shill and accepting whatever information I found from NASA. Well, yeah... it's freaking NASA. We wouldn't even know that the Van Allen Belt existed if it wasn't for NASA (which is odd, because why would they invent their own fake problem to overcome with a fake space flight?).
So I don't know where anybody is going with this. I mean if you don't want to believe NASA when they say that they mapped out the belts, designed satellites that can shut down dependent upon the danger of the radiation they are flying through (electronic components are sensitive to radiation) in order to allow you to use your cell phones, and yes, even to launch a dude through space without dying... then why even believe them about the existence of the Van Allen Belt? I mean why not call bullshit on the whole thing? If we throw that out then maybe satellites aren't real either.. who knows.
wooahh.. just got up to walk around. this cough syrup is rad.
I'm with Eddie on this too! I've heard "we can't afford it" but we send the rovers to mars and how long did that take to get there? 10 months? And they get pic and vid feed from mars to here.....pashaw! That can't be cheap....but the moon is way closer than that and we can't get a rover to send pic and vid from there? Or it's "too expensive"? Dood! Somethin' ain't right. Gives me a feelin' they don't want to go back there for some reason. Did we fuck something up with those trips we made, and now we can't go back? Fucked somethin' up? Aren't welcome to come back?Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddie Bravo
I'm just sayin'.
The Mars Rover costs about 625million dollars per year. So they've spent roughly 3.2 Billion dollars on the Mars Lander over the course of 5 years.
(see page 161)
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/168652main_N...et_Request.pdf
Why didn't the space shuttle ever get to the moon? Or at least drive by? I could be wrong but I think the space shuttle was way more expensive than the Saturn 5 rocket that supposedly got to the moon many times. More expensive yet can't get to the moon? Huh? Since when has America stopped the progress of human technological advances because of money? The Russians were WAY ahead of the US in space exploration in the 50's and 60's, and they were hell bent on beating us to the moon. The had many firsts in space yet they could never figure out how to get a man on the moon. Why is that? They sent un manned missions to the moon and they sent monkeys into space but they always came back fried. Why did they just give up? I'm gonna guess that they couldn't figure out how to get people thru the van Allen radiation belts without frying them, that's my guess. And that's my guess as to why the space shuttle never left the safety of the earth's orbit :)
ok...so give me so fill in on this Van Allen radiation belts. I mean.....I'm just a little ignorant to them. Where? What? Etc.
And if they could build a heat shield to survive re-entry a dozen times....couldn't there be some shielding built for reflecting the radiation belts as well? Or is it their safety belt to keep us from questioning why we don't do more?
or MAYBE.. they are just saying radiation belts exist, and that there's no oxygen.. to keep us here ;) i mean.. ive never really been to space so i dont know. For all i know ive been lied to about space travel just to keep me from doing it and discovering whats REALLY out there. do i believe that?.. no.. but i like to keep an open mind :P Besides, If you want to travel through the universe.. there's much easier ways than a space ship.. Give me about 80 dollars, some Mimosa hostilis Root Bark bark, and a bong.. and i bet you i can make it WAY past the moon.
ZZZZing!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by chronic_jiujitsu
Because its much, much easier just to stage the whole thing and win the moon race without leaving the starting line. But not only the moon missions but subsequent Gemini 10 and 11 space walks as well, because those allegedly took place right in the Van Allen belt, indecently those space walk photos were faked by NASA. But the majority of the space flight missions, well over a hundred, stayed out of the southern belt region all together.Quote:
I'm gonna guess that they couldn't figure out how to get people thru the van Allen radiation belts without frying them, that's my guess. And that's my guess as to why the space shuttle never left the safety of the earth's orbit
Some quite compelling stuff here, in particular when they play the movie footage of the buggy at double speed:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1CpNoI4WGc
I don't know what to think really, still strikes me as odd that such an event would be faked at all.
Agreed. The first of the two Van Allen radiation belts begins at 700 miles from earth. The farthest that any of the space shuttles has gone was 365 miles from earth. The astronauts reported seeing flashes of light which was radiation from the belt, WITH THEIR EYES CLOSED. The radiation was going through the hull of the shuttle, through their suits AND through their eyelids !Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddie Bravo
Looking for a naked grandma in the woods lying on a blanket.
This might be helpful.. or not. From the...
http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apollo/S2ch3.htm
BIOMEDICAL RESULTS OF APOLLO
SECTION II
CHAPTER 3
RADIATION PROTECTION AND INSTRUMENTATION
by
J. Vernon Bailey
Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center
(relevant excerpts)
The solar and cosmic radiation found in space has long been recognized as a possible danger in space travel. Exposure to such radiation has the potential of causing serious medical problems. For example, radiation exposure can produce a number of significant changes in various elements of the blood, making an individual more susceptible to disease; also, ionizing radiations of the type found in space can produce significant damage to the lens of the eye. Radiation exposure can also cause temporary or lasting damage to the reproductive system ranging from reduced fertility to permanent sterility. The extent of damage depends upon the tissue involved, the duration of exposure, the dose received, and other factors.
...
Van Allen Belts
The problem of protecting astronauts against the radiation found within the Van Allen belts was recognized before the advent of manned space flight. These two bands of trapped radiation, discovered during the Explorer I flight in 1958, consist principally of protons and high-energy electrons, a significant part of which were, at that time, debris from high-altitude tests of nuclear weapons. The simple solution to protection is to remain under the belts [below an altitude of approximately 556 km (? 300 nautical miles)] when in Earth orbit, and to traverse the belts rapidly on the way to outer space. In reality, the problem is somewhat more complex. The radiation belts vary in altitude over various parts of the Earth and are absent over the north and south magnetic poles. A particularly significant portion of the Van Allen belts is a region known as the South Atlantic anomaly (figure 1). Over the South Atlantic region, the geomagnetic field draws particles closer to the Earth than in other regions of the globe. The orbit inclination of a spacecraft determines the number of passes made per day through this region and, thus, the radiation dose.
Particles within the Van Allen belts, in spiraling around the Earth’s magnetic lines of force, display directionality. This directionality varies continuously in angular relationship to the trajectory of the spacecraft. Therefore, dosimetry instrumentation for use in the Van Allen belts had relatively omnidirectional radiation sensors so that the radiation flux would be measured accurately. The Van Allen belt dosimeter (figure 2) was designed specifically for Apollo dosimetry within these radiation belts.
The rest of the document covers all other forms of possible radiation. Again, it comes down to whether or not you believe NASA. And keep in mind, this collective information about the function of radiation is known data that is used in order to plan satellite trajectories within safe margins of the belt.
http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apollo/S2ch3.htmQuote:
Originally Posted by Jason Mallory
One particular effect possibly related to cosmic rays was the light-flash phenomenon reported on the Apollo 11 and subsequent missions. Although it is well known that ionizing radiations can produce visual phosphenes (subjective sensations best described as flashes of light) of the types reported, a definite correlation was not established between cosmic rays and the observation of flashes during the Apollo Program. The light flashes were described as starlike flashes or streaks of light that apparently occur within the eye. The flashes were observed only when the spacecraft cabin was dark or when blindfolds were provided and the crewmen were concentrating on detection of the flashes.
[QUOTE=AJ Camacho;25303]This might be helpful.. or not. From the...[QUOTE]
Damn dude! That's enough to make someone wanna stay right here on earth and wish we thought it was flat again!
I love AJ Camacho... thats all. Thank You sir. :-)
The rocks dont lie. We went to the moon. They quite possibly jazzed the video up a bit, but that doesnt mean they didnt go.
http://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/lunar/index.cfm
Also, radiation is less of a big deal than the cold war left people think it was. A excessive dose will make you sick. The same goes for, iron or even water. The world is a radioactive.
http://rerowland.com/BodyActivity.htm