The Apollo Hoax

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Aedes
 
Reply Thu 18 Jun, 2009 07:04 pm
@TurboLung,
TurboLung;70025 wrote:
i remember in the 80's we bought the first video camera you could buy. it consisted of a HUGE, HEAVY VCR that hung from your shoulder. Attached to this was a video camera, that was the size of a surface-to-air missile.

remember, this was mid-80's, so, with technology from 20-years previous in 1962, am i supposed to believe that man actually got that thing onto the moon and then took off and came back several times?
First of all, they were using film reels, and people have had handheld film recorders since long before the 1980s.

Secondly, they had this large device that was able to carry heavy objects, what was it called again oh yeah a SPACESHIP.



Third, don't people have something better to do than to give a rats ass about whether or not we landed on the moon? Who cares if we did or we didn't? Do we really need this to convince people that the government lies about things from time to time?
 
Yogi DMT
 
Reply Thu 18 Jun, 2009 07:11 pm
@Poseidon,
NASA i'm sure had far more advanced technology than was available publicly to consumers. Just thought i'd point that out.
 
Zacrates
 
Reply Thu 18 Jun, 2009 07:13 pm
@Poseidon,
has anyone seen that the youtube video is sped up from 30 to 55fps??
 
Krumple
 
Reply Thu 18 Jun, 2009 07:33 pm
@Poseidon,
Quote:
Why no blast crater under the module?


Can I call you a moron without everyone getting defensive for you? YOU ARE A MORON poseidon. Put down the joint every now and then and stop reading conspiracy websites.

There are a dozen websites that debunk the so called "lack of blast crater" under the LM. The spot there the apollo 11 landed was inside of a crater impact site. This means that the surface in the area was much harder due to the collision of the asteroid on the moons surface. This causes the surface to solidify in a kind of hard glass/rock layer which is very firm. There was a very thin layer of dust which settled back down after the impact occured. This fine layer of dust is seen blown away revealing the much harder impact layer exposed to the camera. The fine layer of dust is a few inches deep which you can noticably see in many other shots where they are walking around.

I don't care if people get mad but you are a MORON poseidon. This is a very rare occasion when ever I call someone a moron but you won first prize. Congrats.
 
Aedes
 
Reply Thu 18 Jun, 2009 07:42 pm
@Poseidon,
Krumple -- I am in no way defending Poseidon here.

But your point would have been more effective if you would spare him and the rest of us the namecalling. Thanks, and be mindful of our rules.
 
Krumple
 
Reply Fri 19 Jun, 2009 11:09 pm
@Poseidon,
Quote:
Krumple -- I am in no way defending Poseidon here.

But your point would have been more effective if you would spare him and the rest of us the namecalling. Thanks, and be mindful of our rules.


Yeah I usually to never do, it always seemed stupid to respond like that and I expected to get this kind of response. I would even tempt a ban to go through with it because it had to be said. Like I said, I rarely if ever name call but there are times when a regular response will just not cut it. I don't apologize and I don't care if it makes me look bad. I just get annoyed with all the conspiracy theorists and 2012 nonsense. Just like the Y2K bug. These same people that were jumping up and down about that are the same people spreading the rest of this garbage.

I would like to make a request to anyone who supports or produces any material on prophecies or conspiracies that if they are ever revealed to be wrong or not turn out how they were predicted then those people should lose their right to produce any future material on anything remotely related to a conspiracy or prophecy.

Of course none of them would ever accept my challenge because they all know they are full of crap. But if you truly believe that what you say is honestly true then they should have absolutely no problem accepting my challenge.
 
TurboLung
 
Reply Sat 20 Jun, 2009 03:24 am
@Aedes,
Aedes;70203 wrote:
First of all, they were using film reels, and people have had handheld film recorders since long before the 1980s.


with this statement you are just enforcing my belief. you are right, in the 60's technology was so backward that they used reels to record moving images, but somehow, they could deliver a rocket to the moon AND back.

Aedes;70203 wrote:
Secondly, they had this large device that was able to carry heavy objects, what was it called again oh yeah a SPACESHIP.


yes, a spaceship that was built at a time when technology looked like this...

http://uhigh61.com/philco-radio.jpg

http://www.antiques-atlas.com/dealer-stock-images/denbighshireantiques/ac045a060b.jpg



Quote:
Third, don't people have something better to do than to give a rats ass about whether or not we landed on the moon? Who cares if we did or we didn't? Do we really need this to convince people that the government lies about things from time to time?


it is human nature to learn, discover and unearth.

seriously, i can not believe that in this day and age people still believe in this fairy tale.

why have they not been back? with todays technology, wouldn't cuba be able to send a ship up cheaply? for christ's sake, private companies have ships circling the planet.

imagine what technology could go into a spaecraft for landing on the moon today.
 
proV
 
Reply Sat 20 Jun, 2009 05:41 am
@TurboLung,
I read the entire topic and could not find any trace of proof of the hoax. Is the proof supposed to be this youtube video? Jumping on the moon at double speed Thank you.
 
Aedes
 
Reply Sat 20 Jun, 2009 06:37 am
@Poseidon,
TurboLung, that the same ballistic missile technology that produced the Apollo rockets had been invented in the 1940s (ask anyone in London who survived a V2 rocket attack), and the same German rocket engineer (Werner von Braun) who invented the V2 was part of the Apollo program.

Speaking of World War II, there were handheld 8mm movie cameras in use then too, including some taken during the amphibious landings in Normandy, Okinawa, and Iwo Jima. You'd think that this would be yet easier with an additional 25 years of technology and 1/6 the gravity of earth.
 
xris
 
Reply Sat 20 Jun, 2009 07:21 am
@Aedes,
Well i dont think they got there, no pictures of the man in the moon and why did i not see them waving from my back yard.
Seriously i can remember the landing, for me it was absolutely amazing moment of history and this silly hoax idea is not worthy of debate.I cant imagine with the thousands that where involved not one of them has come forward with confirmation of this hoax, get real ,get a life.
 
Aedes
 
Reply Sat 20 Jun, 2009 07:25 am
@Poseidon,
I think it's also a hoax that humans have visited earth.
 
Caroline
 
Reply Sat 20 Jun, 2009 09:11 am
@Poseidon,
Is that because there's no supporting evidence?
 
Aedes
 
Reply Sat 20 Jun, 2009 10:30 am
@Poseidon,
None.

To my knowledge this is the only authentic photograph of earth. The rest, all these snapshots that people have taken, are all forgeries, made with studio backdrops or elaborate photoshop techniques. It's the oldest tall tale in the entire existence of humanity, that we've actually been to earth.

http://cache.eb.com/eb/image?id=65046&rendTypeId=4.jpg
 
TurboLung
 
Reply Sat 20 Jun, 2009 08:11 pm
@Aedes,
Aedes;70578 wrote:
TurboLung, that the same ballistic missile technology that produced the Apollo rockets had been invented in the 1940s (ask anyone in London who survived a V2 rocket attack), and the same German rocket engineer (Werner von Braun) who invented the V2 was part of the Apollo program.


most of these crashed before hitting their target. there is a huge difference in firing a rocket with an explosive payload a short disitance [compared to outer space] that is meant to hit a general area.

on top of this, we have '60's technology that had to support life in outer space, land accurately on the moon and then take off again and land safely on earth. no comparison.

Quote:
Speaking of World War II, there were handheld 8mm movie cameras in use then too, including some taken during the amphibious landings in Normandy, Okinawa, and Iwo Jima. You'd think that this would be yet easier with an additional 25 years of technology and 1/6 the gravity of earth.


you are missing the point. i am not innterested in filming anything, i am interested in the fact that the technology was so archaic [compared to today] that moving pictures were captured with reels. today, the same, with superior technology AND COLOUR can be done on a cheap mobile phone [you americans call them cellular phones, right?]. it would be a cake-walk to get to the moon today if they could have done it in 1962.


here is some more 60's technology for you:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/207/515106921_37d39332fd.jpg

http://www.earlytelevision.org/images/Bush-TV-12-hd.jpg



they went to the moon with this technology?:sarcastic:


also for consideration, all this was done with a ship working on 1 k of RAM and a pre integrated circuit CPU!

my wrist watch blows away the technology of the apollo.

really, what do you think you could do with 1 k of ram?
 
Aedes
 
Reply Sat 20 Jun, 2009 08:41 pm
@TurboLung,
TurboLung;70750 wrote:
most of these crashed before hitting their target. there is a huge difference in firing a rocket with an explosive payload a short disitance [compared to outer space] that is meant to hit a general area.
They had only developed it in 1944; by the 1950s they had ICBMs, and by the late 50s (unless you disbelieve this too) they had put people in orbit. There was 25 years of engineering between 1944 and 1969.

Quote:
you are missing the point. i am not innterested in filming anything, i am interested in the fact that the technology was so archaic [compared to today] that moving pictures were captured with reels.
No, I get your point. And your point about the technical implausibility of getting a handheld camera to the moon is incorrect based on the extant technology.

Furthermore, while you're correct that it would be easier to get to the moon with 2009 technology than 1969 technology, it's an awfully expensive endeavor without much reason to do it, so I wouldn't draw conclusions from the fact that we haven't gone there since the Apollo program.
 
xris
 
Reply Sun 21 Jun, 2009 07:26 am
@Aedes,
The rocket took of it hung around for bit then we had splash down, what did they do if they did not go to the moon?Approxiametly 2000 personal worked directly on the project can any one point to any of them who have broken rank and claimed it was a hoax.I cant believe any one with an ounce of common sense can believe it was a hoax.
 
TurboLung
 
Reply Sun 21 Jun, 2009 09:02 am
@Aedes,
Aedes;70755 wrote:

No, I get your point. And your point about the technical implausibility of getting a handheld camera to the moon is incorrect based on the extant technology.


no. no you don't. it's not that hard to get what i am saying. it has NOTHING to do with getting a camera on the moon. i picked the camera, as an example of how backward technology was back then. i could have said telephone and talked about how backward phones were then. so, no, you have missed my point completely.
 
Aedes
 
Reply Sun 21 Jun, 2009 09:34 am
@TurboLung,
TurboLung;70822 wrote:
no. no you don't. it's not that hard to get what i am saying. it has NOTHING to do with getting a camera on the moon. i picked the camera, as an example of how backward technology was back then. i could have said telephone and talked about how backward phones were then. so, no, you have missed my point completely.
Had you done so I'd have pointed out your error in that regard. Every last bit of evidence you offer is a pipe dream, a fantasy. With no good evidence, you grab a handful of sand and pebbles and throw it in the air hoping to hit us all in the eye.

No, Turbo, I get your point. Tell me about the impossibility of spacesuits next. No, bottled oxygen. No, moon rovers. No, video cameras. Tell me about the nature of blast craters. Tell me about conspiracies. Tell us it all.
 
Caroline
 
Reply Sun 21 Jun, 2009 09:47 am
@Poseidon,
I thought it was a well known fact that technology and inventions are held back and what we see on the market available to the public is not a reflection on how far technology has developed, that it is alot further on then the products out there now, for instance, i find it difficult to find a vr helmet and they've been around for years. They're always holding stuff back. But they are going to poor money into NASA. Why would anyone want to fake it, has it been proved that the moon landing was fake with solid evidence? No! The reason noone has gone to the moon since is because of the massive costs involved, it's difficult to warrant funding for a space trip as it so the money they do get goes into explorations that we've not done before such as probes to mars, saturn etc, valuable funding is not wasted on another trip to the moon, what would be the point of repeating the same trip anyway?
 
TurboLung
 
Reply Sun 21 Jun, 2009 10:19 am
@Aedes,
Aedes;70830 wrote:
Had you done so I'd have pointed out your error in that regard. Every last bit of evidence you offer is a pipe dream, a fantasy. With no good evidence, you grab a handful of sand and pebbles and throw it in the air hoping to hit us all in the eye.

No, Turbo, I get your point. Tell me about the impossibility of spacesuits next. No, bottled oxygen. No, moon rovers. No, video cameras. Tell me about the nature of blast craters. Tell me about conspiracies. Tell us it all.



why don't you tell me why they haven't been back for nearly 50-years? i am all ears [eyes]...

oh, did i mention 1k of ram was all the apollo had to run its instrumentation?
 
 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 04/22/2024 at 03:47:35