Webmaster Forum

Go Back   Webmaster Forum > The Webmaster Forums > Forum Lobby

Forum Lobby The off-topic forum.


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Share |
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 03-11-2004, 02:51 PM
SVB's Avatar
SVB SVB is offline
Contributing Member
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 10-13-03
Posts: 3,112
iTrader: 0 / 0%
1969 moon landing

So theres been alot of talk lately about how the first landing was possibly fake, backed up with all sorts of things like the waving flag even though theres no air or wind, the shadows, etc. What do you believe?
I came across this, nice little read :-)

Quote:
THE MOON SONG
by Dave Hook

Well, "It's one small step for man
And one giant leap for mankind"
Those were the scripted words for Neil Armstrong,
On July 20th, 1969

That grainy footage shown on TV
At one time actually convinced me
But how do we really know?
Because Walter Cronkite told us so?





I say:

No man has ever walked on the moon
Now before you dismiss me as a loon
Listen to the facts and you may even find
A story that just might change your mind

You see it all started back in '62
JFK told the people what he would do
Put a man on the moon by the decade's end
Land, and bring them safely home again




He was a great speaker we all know
And he even banged Marilyn Monroe,
He was also just a politician,
But Jack knew Jack ****
about the complexities of any space mission

Now NASA had to get their ass in gear
And suddenly their hearts were full of fear
The Russians were way ahead of them in the space race
Now Kennedy was setting them all up for disgrace

Their funding stood at about a couple BILL
Would not admit defeat, and never will

So they said:

If we can't make it, then we'll fake it
If we can't do it, then screw it
We'll film it in the desert, or on a sound stage
And put it on the TV and the front page
We'll shoot it all in black and white
Even though we got a color camera on the flight




We'll bring jeeps, but bring no telescopes?

We'll hit some golf balls all around,
Then stick a flag into the ground

That should be enough for the boob tube watching dopes

There are dangers about space travel most don't know
Radiation gets more intense the farther out you go
It starts at about 1,000 miles out
Go farther than that and die, there's no doubt




Unless you shield yourself with 8 feet of lead
Any less than that, and surely you'd be dead
But to build a ship like that, why even try?
It would be much too heavy to ever fly

Kennedy thought this was plausible

NASA knew it was impossible

But they still wanted to get paid

So they said to themselves:

If we can't make it, then we'll fake it
If we can't do it, then screw it
We'll film it in the desert, or on a sound stage
And put it on the TV and the front page

We'll bring extra lighting just for fun
Even though the only light source is the sun

But we need them for the photos we're going to take

No photos of stars or other stuff,
Some young astronomer may call our bluff




It never can come out it all was fake

'cause it's much too dangerous to really go,
On live TV? I don't ****ing think so
We'll tape the whole thing in advance
For an unhappy ending we can not take the chance

3 dead astroNOTS would not boost morale
And anyway we'll be long dead before they cry foul
We'll show them some meteors we found on earth if they want proof
When you control the media you control the truth

Full body photos of Neil on the moon, there are only two
And he has never ever granted an interview
But this does not leave me too surprised
Ask him no questions, and he'll tell you no lies

He knows

They couldn't make it, so they faked it
They couldn't do it, and said, "Screw it"
They filmed it in the desert on a sound stage
And put it on the TV and the front page

Sent a satellite feed of their con
To a few on the ground who knew what was going on

Then beamed it out to all the excited folks

They were never 250,000 miles away
George Bush says we're going back some day:

But the first time around it was a hoax

They slowed the film, and hid the wires
Very very clever liars,

But

The first time around it was a hoax
 
Reply With Quote

Advertisement

Advertisement

  #2 (permalink)  
Old 03-11-2004, 02:53 PM
Leader of Men's Avatar
Senior Member
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 10-12-03
Location: Minnesota, USA
Posts: 939
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Re: 1969 moon landing

Quote:
Originally Posted by unrealfragmaster
So theres been alot of talk lately about how the first landing was possibly fake, backed up with all sorts of things like the waving flag even though theres no air or wind, the shadows, etc. What do you believe?
I came across this, nice little read :-)
I feel I should clear this up, many of the videos out there are fake, as are the pictures.

The original video (which I've seen many times) you can clearly see wires in the flag which is why it stays elevated.
 
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 03-11-2004, 02:58 PM
Pimpen 2010's Avatar
Senior Member
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 10-13-03
Location: Pffffft
Posts: 4,743
iTrader: 0 / 0%
I posted about this earlier.... I think it may be fake but still hard to tell...
 
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 03-11-2004, 03:02 PM
SVB's Avatar
SVB SVB is offline
Contributing Member
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 10-13-03
Posts: 3,112
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Yeah i think its fake too. The poem above makes alot of good points aswell, quite good to read.
 
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 03-11-2004, 04:30 PM
greg's Avatar
Senior Member
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 10-13-03
Location: Little Rock
Posts: 1,184
iTrader: 0 / 0%
ugh, i get tired of all this consipracy about the moon landing. I am fine with a lot of consipracies, i believe in several actually, but this one i think is crazy. They landed on the moon, they did not fake it.
 
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 03-11-2004, 04:32 PM
Leader of Men's Avatar
Senior Member
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 10-12-03
Location: Minnesota, USA
Posts: 939
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by greg
ugh, i get tired of all this consipracy about the moon landing. I am fine with a lot of consipracies, i believe in several actually, but this one i think is crazy. They landed on the moon, they did not fake it.
I was thinking the same thing, just didn't want to be the first to say it.
 
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 03-11-2004, 05:42 PM
Pimpen 2010's Avatar
Senior Member
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 10-13-03
Location: Pffffft
Posts: 4,743
iTrader: 0 / 0%
I know how you feel. I kinda think it's fake, but why would the gov. want to hide something so big and how would they.

So I have my reasons for believing it/not believing it...
 
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 03-11-2004, 07:05 PM
Brian's Avatar
Super Trooper
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 10-12-03
Posts: 4,810
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by greg
ugh, i get tired of all this consipracy about the moon landing. I am fine with a lot of consipracies, i believe in several actually, but this one i think is crazy. They landed on the moon, they did not fake it.
Same here. The conspiracy of the moon landing is old news, and I don't care much for the arguments the conspiracy theorists bring forward since they've been easily rebutted.
__________________
badum tish.
 
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 03-12-2004, 06:50 AM
Junior Member
 
Join Date: 02-25-04
Location: Manchester UK
Posts: 15
iTrader: 0 / 0%
C'mon guys, there is a zero chance that it was fake.

Do you not think the Russians would have been tracking them too? Noting the reception of signals from the craft? Do you think they would have dropped a chance to humiliate Uncle Sam? If there was anything to this wacko notion, don't you think the commies would have been all over it?

What about when (due to the Earth's rotation) Australia had to take over the tracking of the capsule for half the day? Don't you you think they would have noticed too?

Plus the thousands of people involved in the landing. If it was fake, do you think they would all have kept quiet?

C'mon, get a grip. Get a life.
 
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 03-12-2004, 08:46 AM
SVB's Avatar
SVB SVB is offline
Contributing Member
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 10-13-03
Posts: 3,112
iTrader: 0 / 0%
The thousand sof people involved in the landing didnt know it was fake :-) Why has neil Armstrong never once give an interview about the landings? And why were about 12 people involved in the space mission 'killed or vanished' in the following year? Obviously being killed as to not reveal the big secret.
 
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 03-12-2004, 09:10 AM
SVB's Avatar
SVB SVB is offline
Contributing Member
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 10-13-03
Posts: 3,112
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian
Quote:
Originally Posted by greg
ugh, i get tired of all this consipracy about the moon landing. I am fine with a lot of consipracies, i believe in several actually, but this one i think is crazy. They landed on the moon, they did not fake it.
Same here. The conspiracy of the moon landing is old news, and I don't care much for the arguments the conspiracy theorists bring forward since they've been easily rebutted.
Looking at the evdience, theres alot more to support the conspiracy theory. Theres none to support the landng, apart from the photos. Why would NASA want evidence? They dont want questions asked. There are loads of flaws in the photos, which anyone can laugh at when they see, as there s clearly something wrong. Lots of shadow problems, which can be proven with simple physics, due to not considering the moons atmosphere and the single source of light. Heres a couple that caught my eye:

Quote:
(caption for small image)
Here is a portion of the previous picture, blown up. Take a look at the cross hairs that appear on the picture. These hairs appear on EVERY lunar picture. These cross hairs are placed between the shutter of the camera, and the film, supposedly. If you take a look at the cross hair on the left, this cross hair was placed behind the lunar rover, you can see the Lunar Rover is in front of the cross hairs
Quote:
(caption for nasa3.gif)
Look at "C". The ground fades off into the horizon. Haha they obviously didnt research physics too well. In a non atmoshpere condition, the ground should stay the same sharpness until the horizon
Quote:
(caption for nasa9.gif)
If you look at the rock labeled R you will notice a the letter C carved in the rock. Perhaps a gag left by the props department?
See small pic for more
 
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 03-12-2004, 11:24 AM
Brian's Avatar
Super Trooper
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 10-12-03
Posts: 4,810
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by unrealfragmaster
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian
Quote:
Originally Posted by greg
ugh, i get tired of all this consipracy about the moon landing. I am fine with a lot of consipracies, i believe in several actually, but this one i think is crazy. They landed on the moon, they did not fake it.
Same here. The conspiracy of the moon landing is old news, and I don't care much for the arguments the conspiracy theorists bring forward since they've been easily rebutted.
Looking at the evdience, theres alot more to support the conspiracy theory. Theres none to support the landng, apart from the photos. Why would NASA want evidence? They dont want questions asked. There are loads of flaws in the photos, which anyone can laugh at when they see, as there s clearly something wrong. Lots of shadow problems, which can be proven with simple physics, due to not considering the moons atmosphere and the single source of light. Heres a couple that caught my eye:
You're right, I do laugh, because they can be easily rebutted.
__________________
badum tish.
 
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 03-12-2004, 11:29 AM
SVB's Avatar
SVB SVB is offline
Contributing Member
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 10-13-03
Posts: 3,112
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Ok then rebute one. What about the one where the crosshair is behind the rover? Like obviously you are a US extremist, you have some politics thing in your sig, so your going to back the whole thing up, but the photo evidence, the dead NASA staff the following year, the no interviews, the Russian satellite pics of 'movie studio like base' in US desert and all sorts more is alot more evidence than a video of a man on supposedly the moon. The whole thing is because of the space race and the Cold War.
 
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 03-12-2004, 11:32 AM
Brian's Avatar
Super Trooper
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 10-12-03
Posts: 4,810
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Search the internet for sites released by science departments and astronomers. I posted a link on this forum the last time we had this conspiracy debate, and it seemed to answer many peoples questions. All the answers are on the internet.

And I'm a conservative republican... not an extremist.
__________________
badum tish.
 
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 03-12-2004, 11:35 AM
greg's Avatar
Senior Member
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 10-13-03
Location: Little Rock
Posts: 1,184
iTrader: 0 / 0%
and i am a liberal democrat, it was my president that put the guys there in the first place.

see.. me and brian agree on things, liberal or conservative, it is still a stupid argument to make.
 
Reply With Quote
  #16 (permalink)  
Old 03-12-2004, 11:36 AM
SVB's Avatar
SVB SVB is offline
Contributing Member
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 10-13-03
Posts: 3,112
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Alot of the questions cant be answered, like why were about 12 of the leading NASA staff involved with this mission killed? Its way too big a coinsidence. How come if the lunar module gives 3000lb's of thrust, the ground was undisturded? (that oe hasnt been rebuted, they never give a reason). Why does the ground fade out, when theres no atmosphere? Those questions havenet been answered. If they really did land on the moon, they would be answering everything, talking about it non stop, producing detailed reports about the moon etc. None of this has been done. Its like they had one big tv event, and neve rmentioned it again. Even the main astronaut refuses to give interviews (probably cause of the other dead NASA members)
 
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old 03-12-2004, 11:42 AM
Brian's Avatar
Super Trooper
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 10-12-03
Posts: 4,810
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Well, since I have nothing else to do, I'll just post replies to the images you posted.

Image 1-

"Film is not a perfect recorder and in the case where an object is so bright white, it will saturate and bleed over into adjacent parts of the emulsion. If you look at the very edge of the cross-hair where it hits the antenna on the rover you will see that it is slightly darker and does slightly cut into the image of the antenna despite its saturation. You need to look at the original image, however."

Image 2 -

"This is an artifact of the particular scan of this print. It does not appear in the original image. The following close-up (not color corrected) of a print of the same image from our collection at the Lunar and Planetary Laboratory shows no such feature: [see attachment below]"

The original image (AS16-107-17446) as well as all of the color images from Apollo 16, have a purplish cast to them, indicating some problem with the entire batch of film, either in the source, the developing or in the environment they were exposed to during flight. At first, I thought it was just fading of the prints themselves after 20+ years in a notebook on a shelf, but I also examined the transparencies, and they also have the purplish cast to them. The prints and transparencies I am looking at are probably 3rd or 4th generation from the original image (the first generation was copied once after processing and have since been stored away, untouched with the 2nd or 3rd generation being used for subsequent reproduction). The "C" likely was introduced when the image was copied to be processed to color correct it and the color corrected image which included this artifact has been propagated to a number of different publications. The artifact was likely due to some dust or lint introduced during the scanning or color correction processing."

Image 3 -

This is a simple case of lighting effects. The scattering angle off the near surface is viewed from a steeper angle than that of the lunar surface off in the distance. The local terrain contributes greatly to the brightness of the near surface too. The apparent out of focus of the horizon area is caused by the image being focused on the astronaut in the foreground - simple optics. Also, the Lunar Module reflects significant amounts of light into the area behind Aldrin as can be seen in this image of the general area.
__________________
badum tish.
 
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old 03-12-2004, 11:45 AM
SVB's Avatar
SVB SVB is offline
Contributing Member
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 10-13-03
Posts: 3,112
iTrader: 0 / 0%
So their 'evidence' is "the original photo doesnt have that". LOL, so they just edit the photo, and say this is the original. Sure....
What have they said about the staff deaths? (or assassinations as they are called)
 
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old 03-12-2004, 11:48 AM
Brian's Avatar
Super Trooper
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 10-12-03
Posts: 4,810
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Hmm, guesse I could reply to that you may be the one that has the edited photo. Eh?

In response to your 3,000 lbs. of thrust.

"On the contrary, there are many photographs which show the disturbance of the lunar soil under or near the Lunar Module. For example, see AS11-40-5892 or AS11-40-5921 (from the ALSJ) which shows not only some discoloration under the descent engine, but also some radial disturbance in the soil from the outward blast. Also, see AS12-46-6781 which shows a trail of disturbed soil along the ground track of the Apollo 12 lunar module. On the left edge of this frame is the TV camera with some footprints right next to the small crater. The engine exhaust trail goes almost straight across the lower part of the image, about a quarter of the way from the bottom of the frame. There is some disturbed soil caused by an astronaut's footprints that angles diagonally across the exhaust trail, meeting it at the right edge of the image. If the landings were faked, placing a blast crater under the LM would be the most obvious thing to do in order to "fool" the unwitting public. In fact, there was plenty of dust, but the moons' regolith is rather densely packed due to billions of years of gardening and a lack of air on the moon."
__________________
badum tish.
 
Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old 03-12-2004, 11:51 AM
SVB's Avatar
SVB SVB is offline
Contributing Member
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 10-13-03
Posts: 3,112
iTrader: 0 / 0%
So they say there isnt a blast crater because it would look fake? But sure if it was a real landing, why would they need to worry about it looking fake? The blast crater should be there, and they say it isnt because it would look fake, as if they had control over having it there or not.
 
Reply With Quote
Go Back   Webmaster Forum > The Webmaster Forums > Forum Lobby

Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Moon Yulia Forum Lobby 38 11-26-2006 05:44 PM
Google Cache shows 1969? Buskerdoo Google Forum 4 02-01-2005 10:14 AM
1969 Cache Date jstcrzyengh Google Forum 4 01-07-2005 11:29 AM


V7N Network
Get exposure! V7N I Love Photography V7N SEO Blog V7N Directory


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:55 PM.
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright 2000-2014 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Copyright © 2003 - 2014 Escalate Media




Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 RC 2 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.