Another thought just came to be about the “waving” flag. I guess these people think it was filmed at night, outdoors? And it’s waving from an Earthly breeze? Or is their theory that it was under the air conditioner vent at the studio?
And if they filmed it outdoors, WHY AREN’T THERE ANY STARS!
I think the people that were supposed to film it FAKED THE FAKE FILM, and actually sent guys to the moon! They scammed NASA!
We watched last night. I let the boys stay up too. Like freido I pretty much debunked the stuff no sooner than it was spoken. I too learned about the Van Allen Belt in school, it also figured prominently in a cartoon while I was groing up (Star Rangers?, G-Force?) anyhow it was a nice exercise in logic, hell my 9 y/o figured out the vaccuum/no engine noise thing.
Why don’t you post yourself. Either sign up or use my login in: cleosia and
my password is **************
-----Original Message-----
From: andrew_harris@att.net [mailto:andrew_harris@att.net]
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2001 2:51 PM
To: Christine.X.Harris@us.wmmercer.com
Subject: Van Allen Belt
Chris: In answer to Friedo not knowing if the Van Allen
Belt is a danger to spacecraft, could you please post
the following from me? Thanks
I looked up the Van Allen Belt, and David Stern, a
researcher at Goddard, wrote in part:
“I looked up a typical satellite passing the radiation
belts (elliptic orbit, 200 miles to 20000 miles) and the
radiation dosage per year is about 2500 rem, assuming
one is shielded by 1 gr/cm-square of aluminum (about
1/8” thick plate) almost all of it while passing the
inner belt. But there is no danger. The way the
particles move in the magnetic field prevents them from
hitting the atmosphere, and even if they are scattered
so their orbit does intersect the ground, the atmosphere
absorbs them long before they get very far. Even the
space station would be safe, because the orbits usually
stop above it–any particles dipping deeper down are
lost much faster than they can be replenished."
Hope this helps. For more info, goto
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/97022
8a.html
[Okay, let’s not be publicly revealing our passwords. cleosia, perhaps you should change yours before someone who saw the original gets some really bad ideas about using your name to do nasty things. Thanks. -JMCJ]
[Edited by John Corrado on 02-16-2001 at 06:18 PM]
Ok I will thanx! 
As for the flag, didn’t they have something on the top to keep it up? plus you wouldn’t want the flag to look like starched undies would you, so they made it look like it was in the wind. At least that’s what I thought.
I promise
(a) to stop mocking Arab TV for its whack “documentaries” on Israel.
(b) stop making fun of local programming for its lack of science and logic…
::hanging me head in shame::
I promise
(a) to stop mocking Arab TV for its whack “documentaries” on Israel.
(b) stop making fun of local programming for its lack of science and logic…
::hanging me head in shame::
I promise
(a) to stop mocking Arab TV for its whack “documentaries” on Israel.
(b) stop making fun of local programming for its lack of science and logic…
::hanging me head in shame::
I promise
(a) to stop mocking Arab TV for its whack “documentaries” on Israel.
(b) stop making fun of local programming for its lack of science and logic…
::hanging me head in shame::
Hmmmm. A triple post.
What should we make of…
Dear God people! Run for your lives!
I promise
(a) to stop mocking Arab TV for its whack “documentaries” on Israel.
(b) stop making fun of local programming for its lack of science and logic…
::hanging me head in shame::
Oh my. Apologies. ISP issues here. I thought I was try to reload another screen, everything stalled out…
Shamed.
cleosia: did you post that, or did Andrew?
That’s what I tell all those fools over at survivorsucks.com
Having known an astronaut on each of the first two missions, (Rest in peace Pete.) I’ve got to throw my two cents worth in.
The flag had a thin metal support member that it hung from. It got bent during either the packing up for, or during the rigors of the flight to the moon on Apollo 11. The astronauts thought it looked “neat” with the bent support member because it gave it the appearance of waving. In the following missions they bent it on purpose. I got this from the horses mouths, Buzz Aldrin and Pete Conrad. If you bother to watch footage of the moonwalks, you can see that the flag stays stationary once the astronauts get through putting it up. It keeps the same “wave” in the same place for the rest of the mission.
As for proving it with science, several hundred pounds of geologically unique rocks came back. (Any geologists out there can explain how they are different.) How did the program explain how they got back? Did they suddenly jump up into the spacecraft from the surface of the moon?
Also, what was the reason that the program gave for NASA to be pulling the hoax? Why would NASA, after doing the hard part of getting a spacecraft into orbit around the moon, not go the last fifty miles down to the surface? Can’t be a landing problem. After all, they were able to land on return to the earth, which is a six times as difficult problem because of the huge gravity well.
Even the Russians conceded that we got there. They were always coming to NASA to study the rocks we got back.
IMHO, the most bullshit reason people think we didn’t land on the moon is “The shadows aren’t parallel!” Without even researching (much), I can disprove it four different ways.
Unless they are completely parallel to the camera lens, parallel lines projected onto a 3D plane do NOT appear parallel. Haven’t these idiots ever taken a 3rd-grade art class and drawn those train track perspective drawings?
They used panoramic 180° lenses, which distorted the images. 'Nuff said.
The surface of the moon is not smooth, you dumbass. Of course they aren’t going to be parallel.
If the light was very close, it might cause non-parallel lines, but many theorists believe that non-parallel shadows would have to be caused by multiple light sources. you dumbasses. If there are MULTIPLE light sources, there would be MULTIPLE shadows PER OBJECT. Get two flashlights, or a freeware raytracer, if you want to see what I mean. There is no way you could get two light sources to produce two non-overlapping shadows without much more money and resources than you’d have in 1969.
Also, one interesting thing to note: We’ve got hundreds (thousands?) of people who can testify that they worked directly with the Apollo project and could basically prove that we landed on the moon. But where are these people who supposedly made the hoax? It would seem like a hoax this realistic, by 1969 standards, would’ve taken a team of 100 people months to complete. Don’t you think it’s odd that none of these alleged people have spoken up, even after the awful Fox show?
Then there’s the whole thing about the laser reflectors and moon rocks, which obviously were not touched by Fox.
It’s true, after all: I thought Fox hit rock bottom with “Police chases 6” but it seems they’ve found a way to dig even further. If it weren’t for their Sunday night lineup, they’d be dead.
KJ…
Tens of thousands, if you want to get down to each individual component of the Saturn V’s, the CM’s and the LM’s.
BickByro…
By all means, explain to us how. After all, we’re all about Fighting Ignorance. We’d like to know the truth.
The debunkings provided in this thread seem pretty damn concrete to me. But, by all means, have a go at debunking the debunkings.
I’m not quite getting if KJ thinks there are multiple light sources or not, so I just want to say that there are. The sun, reflection off the moon’s surface, and the earth. It shines for the moon like the moon shines for us.
NASA responds.
and more from badastronomy.com
Fox TV and the Apollo Moon Hoax
This one goes through the shows ‘evidence’ point by point.
Okay, maybe there were multiple light sources. And I haven’t looked at any moon photography since I posted my last post. But (I think) there should still be only 1 visible shadow:
Light reflecting off the moon would cast a backlight on the shadows of the astronauts, but it would be virtually impossible to get it to reflect off at such an angle that it would cast another shadow onto the surface of the moon (the light would all reflect upward)
My WAG is that light reflecting off the Earth wouldn’t make any visible difference either. I mean, on a sunny day here on Earth, if the moon is in the sky, it won’t cast any shadows on Earth (certainly none that would show up on film.)
(On the other hand, on the moon, there is no atmosphere, and you’ve got light reflecting off the Earth, which is 4(?) times bigger in diameter, and damned-if-I-know times more/less reflective, so there may be a difference there.)
And, perhaps I didn’t make myself clear in the other post. The people who think the moon landing is fake (which does not include me) think that, because the shadows appear to be at different angles, that proves that there were multiple stage-lights casting shadows at different angles. It’s nearly impossible to get two differently angled non-intersecting shadows using two different light sources without either having a big black spot in the middle of them where the light sources did not intersect, or using special blue-screen effects (but it doesn’t take an idiot to figure out why nobody would put extra effort into using bluescreen effects for the moon “hoax”; they’d just reshoot it, fercryinoutloud.)
Perhaps if I uploaded some pictures to show you what I mean it would clarify things a bit more. I’m not too good at explaining it.
Anyone who is interested in hearing my debunkings of the debunkngs should just pop on over to Great Debates, where I’ve been quite involved in a thread called “Charity drive to fill the empty heads of the NASA/moon conspiracy theorists.” I’m not in love with the thread’s title, myself, but whatcha gonna do?
I really don’t want to start up a parallel thread here, but I couldn’t resist pointing a couple things out.
SPOOFE: tens of thousands of people may have been involved in making parts, but does that mean they had any idea what the bigger picture was? You think every guy or gal who made a part for the Stealth Bomber knew what they were doing? Ever see the movie “Real Genius”? A conspiracy would ultimately have required only a few hundred people, max.
KJ: I need you over at Great Debates! No one seems to believe me that the sun is a whole shitload brighter than even the earth would seem to be from the moon.
Take care, folks.