Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: Wiggs on January 28, 2013, 08:22:57 PM
-
We've never been to the moon...
Have fun and
Good evening
-
thanks, now fuck off
-
thanks, now fuck off
Of course one of my main haters would reply first. You've done your job, now move along....scram
-
it's spelled 'haider'. thanks.
-
it's spelled 'haider'. thanks.
lol
-
We've never been to the moon...
Have fun and
Good evening
And somehow this makes your being an unemployed poor better?
-
I hope Buzz Aldrin punches you in the face.
-
We've never been to the moon...
Have fun and
Good evening
Wiggs if you haven't seen it already, watch the movie The Shining Code 2.0. Kubrick put so much symbolism in that movie that it pissed off so many people in the Hierarchy. Stephen King was so upset about the story within a story that he wanted Kubrick dead for supposedly going against the Hierarchy. Of course it was Eyes Wide Shut that got Kubrick killed. We all only got to see the watered down version of it.
-
Wiggs if you haven't seen it already, watch the movie The Shining Code 2.0. Kubrick put so much symbolism in that movie that it pissed off so many people in the Hierarchy. Stephen King was so upset about the story within a story that he wanted Kubrick dead for supposedly going against the Hierarchy. Of course it was Eyes Wide Shut that got Kubrick killed. We all only got to see the watered down version of it.
I can't tell when you're serious or when your joking anymore.
-
We've never been to the moon...
Have fun and
Good evening
You are correct...if by "we" you mean black people ;D
-
-
We've never been to the moon...
Have fun and
Good evening
You can never prove that we have or have not been to the lunar surface. Besides a bunch of utube conspiracy theorist's speculating on there personal opinions. Only Buzz Lightyear knows the real truth.
So believe what you will, my job is done.
Hope this helps.
-
Don't be morons fellas. You're getting upset because this truth tugs at your fantasy reality and you'll do anything to protect it. This great accomplishment, never happened. This is just time catching up with one of hundreds of lies. So, no, we can't leave this planet to the moon for various reasons. Biggest one being the Van Allen Radiation Belt. Ha ha, How does it feel to knowing all you know is a lie bro?
-
I can't tell when you're serious or when your joking anymore.
Kubrick is telling another story in The Shining. No doubt about it.
-
I hope this helps.
-
I hope this helps.
-
Stanley Kubrick's daughters comment on Stanley's love for Conspiracy theories.
"On Kubrick’s love of conspiracy theories: “I once gave him a book, can’t remember the title, about all the weird and wonderful conspiracy theories out there. He was once convinced that a Chinese restaurant that we used to go to was a cover for some dastardly espionage activities! He thought the M’aitre D, was far too intelligent a man to be running a restaurant. We laughed and teased him as we chewed our egg rolls.”
-
I hope this helps
-
I think Wiggs is just trolling at this point.
-
this laptop im using is all the proof i need.
-
As was stated before, they couldn't have faked it, as the technology wasn't readily avaialbe to do so...plus the russians were watching as well, and would have called the US on it.
Watch this
http://gizmodo.com/5977205/why-the-moon-landings-could-have-never-ever-been-faked-the-definitive-proof (http://gizmodo.com/5977205/why-the-moon-landings-could-have-never-ever-been-faked-the-definitive-proof)
-
We've never been to the moon...
Have fun and
Good evening
You listen to the Joe Rogan podcast where he had the astro-physicist on to speak on this?
-
Dave McGowan Laurel Canyon and Apollo moon landing hoax SOT radio 6/3/11
-
Wiggs...more importantly...hows the POF hunt going?!!
-
But you have seen a lot of moon poses right Wiggs? ;)
-
Why is it so hard to believe we went to the moon in a contraption with little more technology than a washing machine?
-
Tbombz girlfriend goes to the moon with a 12 inch dildo every night
-
Wiggs' IQ is in retrograde.
-
Wiggs, you can't really be this stupid so I'm sure you have to be trolling. How are the all those hot white babes that you are scoring on POF?
-
The bible teaches that when a man and woman have sex (married or unmarried) it causes a spiritual interaction. For example if a guy sleeps with a witch doctor, he will have some curses passed to him. From the looks of this thread, Wiggs has been sleeping exclusively with stupid women.
-
Hhat is The Shining Code 2? Cliff notes pls...
Wiggs if you haven't seen it already, watch the movie The Shining Code 2.0. Kubrick put so much symbolism in that movie that it pissed off so many people in the Hierarchy. Stephen King was so upset about the story within a story that he wanted Kubrick dead for supposedly going against the Hierarchy. Of course it was Eyes Wide Shut that got Kubrick killed. We all only got to see the watered down version of it.
-
I hope Buzz Aldrin punches you in the face.
lol
-
As was stated before, they couldn't have faked it, as the technology wasn't readily avaialbe to do so...plus the russians were watching as well, and would have called the US on it.
Watch this
http://gizmodo.com/5977205/why-the-moon-landings-could-have-never-ever-been-faked-the-definitive-proof (http://gizmodo.com/5977205/why-the-moon-landings-could-have-never-ever-been-faked-the-definitive-proof)
Except for the fact that Kubricks movie "2001: A space Odyssey" made in 1968 looks more real than 99% of any movie made today on the SCI-FI channel. Lets not forget that the Russian elite are really no different than any other elite and they too are part of the One World agenda. The goal of the game was always to be who can bring humanity into a One World Rule. It's a race to the finish by the Hierarchy. If the American's faked the moon landing, the Russians would only tip their cap and smile with approval.
-
Then how did we get these Mr. Smartypants?
-
Hhat is The Shining Code 2? Cliff notes pls...
The Shining Code talks about all the Codes that Stanley Kubrick put in the film to tell a story within a story. The real story was that Kubrick himself helped fake the Apollo 11 moon landings. Some of the so called codes in the Shining Code seem silly. However, Kubrick was meticulous about EVERYTHING he put in a movie. Down to how many pencils had to be on a desk etc.
-
Why is it so hard to believe we went to the moon in a contraption with little more technology than a washing machine?
Watch some science channel before you spout such stupid comments. People sweated blood and some gave their lives to make that event happen.
-
If you knew anything about history, and had half a brain you can figure this out. We were in an arms race with Russia at that time. Russia was very far ahead of us in the space race and the U.S. was getting very worried they developed or would some technology they could manipulate in space from earth. The Russian were the shit back then.
The reason we can't go to the moon right now is because of the Van Allen Radiation Belt. You need 6 feet of lead in order for the radiation not to be able to penetrate. There are so many inconsistencies now it's ridiculous. Van Allen Radiation Belt is the biggest reason. So I'd like to know why Russia never went to the moon. They were so far ahead of the U.S. in space travel they even sent a ship to the moon for moon rocks. But never a manned craft. Van Allen Radiation Belt is the reason and it remains today. Funny how we've never been back since and now NASA is disbanded. Funny how that works ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) Then you have I believe was the head of NASA or it's operations at the time resign a couple days before the most historic event of modern man. He resigns. Yeah fuckin right. Then you have all three Astronauts retire shortly after this historic trip with Neil Armstrong rarely doing on camera interviews and avoiding the public. He was fucking shamed and no doubt threatened. They went into space but they just orbited earth like many others had. The photos we're here on earth mostly likely staged in Area 51, here in good ol' Nevada. Staged with many inconsistancies btw, like lack of stars in photos which would have appeared much more impressive from the moon. Lack of burn hole in the ground or lack of dust that would have settled if burn hole wasn't there because it blew away. The fact that when you view videos of "space walk" in normal speed it does duplicate what would appear to be the moons gravity which is 1/6th of the earths. Yes, but when you double the video speed, they are walking at normal earth gravity speed. Shadows in many photos are not consistent for what it would be if the only light source on the moon was the sun.
Let's not forget the technology available in 1969. Hahahhahahahahahhahahhah a. You've got to be kidding me. They may have many of you fooled and buying into it using nationalism but not me and not alot of other people. This was done as part of an arms race with Russia. We won. I can't say I don't blame them but I'm not one of the suckers. Boy, talk about the biggest by the government of all time. They'll laugh at you morons in the history books for believing it and I'm laughing at you now, cause when it comes out, and it eventually will, I'll be the first you think of when you hold your heads in shame from feeling like a used fool. Do your research on all the stuff I said and if you have a brain use it. if you don't then Ching-Chong Potato.
-
As was stated before, they couldn't have faked it, as the technology wasn't readily avaialbe to do so...plus the russians were watching as well, and would have called the US on it.
Watch this
http://gizmodo.com/5977205/why-the-moon-landings-could-have-never-ever-been-faked-the-definitive-proof (http://gizmodo.com/5977205/why-the-moon-landings-could-have-never-ever-been-faked-the-definitive-proof)
Parker who are you quoting as an authority? Who is Jesus Blanco? He's a nobody an editor on a website that just gave his opinion (not backed by any facts BTW) that you're using to back your argument. Read my post. Of course it was possible to fake. My story proves it. Everything is so compartmentalized very view people know how the whole puzzle fits. BTW did you know this "historic" flight was the only flight up till then where no independent media had say over anything. Everything for this was government controlled. Any pictures, any audio went through them. That was the first time that happened. All flights before that and after weren't like that. And it just so happens we've never been back. LOL. Wake up and smell the coffee. I know it's mind altering to everyones fragile psyches but people wanna know the truth there you go. I guess that's they say people can't handle the truth.
-
Listen up fruit booties.
-
Just another Armstrong that has lied to the public
(http://i302.photobucket.com/albums/nn109/basement_cat/moon_tiny.jpg)
-
Just another Armstrong that has lied to the public
(http://i302.photobucket.com/albums/nn109/basement_cat/moon_tiny.jpg)
LOL. True. Neil's was greater although through the way he lived after this, you can tell he was miserable. That must be a huge burden to carry if you are a man honor. Poor bastard. R.I.P. Aldrin on the other hand. You bring him to me. Have him to fly his space shuttle over. I'll knock his old ass in orbit.
-
Wiggs' IQ is in retrograde.
To think a man of your profession would be foolish enough to believe we've been tells me I've been overestimating men of your profession.
-
-
Watch some science channel before you spout such stupid comments. People sweated blood and some gave their lives to make that event happen.
::)
-
Did NASA cause this?
The radiation is actually evidence that the astronauts went to the Moon. Irene Schneider reports that 33 of the 36 Apollo astronauts involved in the nine Apollo missions to leave Earth orbit have developed early stage cataracts that have been shown to be caused by radiation exposure to cosmic rays. At least 39 former astronauts have developed cataracts; 36 of those were involved in high-radiation missions such as the Apollo missions.
-
what if the astronauts were brainwashed/mk-ultra'd into believing they went to the moon?
-
Do your real research Wiggs.
The Van Allen belts are full of deadly radiation, and anyone passing through them would be fried!
Needless to say this is a very simplistic statement. Yes, there is deadly radiation in the Van Allen belts, but the nature of that radiation was known to the Apollo engineers and they were able to make suitable preparations. The principle danger of the Van Allen belts is high-energy protons, which are not that difficult to shield against. And the Apollo navigators plotted a course through the thinnest parts of the belts and arranged for the spacecraft to pass through them quickly, limiting the exposure.
The Van Allen belts span only about forty degrees of earth's latitude -- twenty degrees above and below the magnetic equator. The diagrams of Apollo's translunar trajectory printed in various press releases are not entirely accurate. They tend to show only a two-dimensional version of the actual trajectory. The actual trajectory was three-dimensional. The highly technical reports of Apollo, accessible to but not generally understood by the public, give the three-dimensional details of the translunar trajectory.
Each mission flew a slightly different trajectory in order to access its landing site, but the orbital inclination of the translunar coast trajectory was always in the neighborhood of 30°. Stated another way, the geometric plane containing the translunar trajectory was inclined to the earth's equator by about 30°. A spacecraft following that trajectory would bypass all but the edges of the Van Allen belts.
This is not to dispute that passage through the Van Allen belts would be dangerous. But NASA conducted a series of experiments designed to investigate the nature of the Van Allen belts, culminating in the repeated traversal of the Southern Atlantic Magnetic Anomaly (an intense, low-hanging patch of Van Allen belt) by the Gemini 10 astronauts.
-
"The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense." -- Dr. James Van Allen
-
Wiggs, you're a good man. I'll be in town next month for 10+ days. We'll go to the Palamino. We'll have drinks. Babby, daddyo, we went to the moon. We did.
-
Do your real research Wiggs.
The Van Allen belts are full of deadly radiation, and anyone passing through them would be fried!
Needless to say this is a very simplistic statement. Yes, there is deadly radiation in the Van Allen belts, but the nature of that radiation was known to the Apollo engineers and they were able to make suitable preparations. The principle danger of the Van Allen belts is high-energy protons, which are not that difficult to shield against. And the Apollo navigators plotted a course through the thinnest parts of the belts and arranged for the spacecraft to pass through them quickly, limiting the exposure.
The Van Allen belts span only about forty degrees of earth's latitude -- twenty degrees above and below the magnetic equator. The diagrams of Apollo's translunar trajectory printed in various press releases are not entirely accurate. They tend to show only a two-dimensional version of the actual trajectory. The actual trajectory was three-dimensional. The highly technical reports of Apollo, accessible to but not generally understood by the public, give the three-dimensional details of the translunar trajectory.
Each mission flew a slightly different trajectory in order to access its landing site, but the orbital inclination of the translunar coast trajectory was always in the neighborhood of 30°. Stated another way, the geometric plane containing the translunar trajectory was inclined to the earth's equator by about 30°. A spacecraft following that trajectory would bypass all but the edges of the Van Allen belts.
This is not to dispute that passage through the Van Allen belts would be dangerous. But NASA conducted a series of experiments designed to investigate the nature of the Van Allen belts, culminating in the repeated traversal of the Southern Atlantic Magnetic Anomaly (an intense, low-hanging patch of Van Allen belt) by the Gemini 10 astronauts.
Utter nonsense. Ill address it in a future post. If you address my post please address all my point vs. Picking and choosing. All of it fits together. That Van Allen explanation is bullshit. Not to mention the fact that after they are outside the belt, they are unprotected 100%. No belt to protect them. Theyd be dead. We went no where but in orbit July 16, 1969. Deal with it. There are too many inconsistancies and the science doesnt add up sorry bro. We were lied to. They are are frauds although I do feel for Armstrong.
-
If you knew anything about history, and had half a brain you can figure this out. We were in an arms race with Russia at that time. Russia was very far ahead of us in the space race and the U.S. was getting very worried they developed or would some technology they could manipulate in space from earth. The Russian were the shit back then.
The reason we can't go to the moon right now is because of the Van Allen Radiation Belt. You need 6 feet of lead in order for the radiation not to be able to penetrate. There are so many inconsistencies now it's ridiculous. Van Allen Radiation Belt is the biggest reason. So I'd like to know why Russia never went to the moon. They were so far ahead of the U.S. in space travel they even sent a ship to the moon for moon rocks. But never a manned craft. Van Allen Radiation Belt is the reason and it remains today. Funny how we've never been back since and now NASA is disbanded. Funny how that works ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) Then you have I believe was the head of NASA or it's operations at the time resign a couple days before the most historic event of modern man. He resigns. Yeah fuckin right. Then you have all three Astronauts retire shortly after this historic trip with Neil Armstrong rarely doing on camera interviews and avoiding the public. He was fucking shamed and no doubt threatened. They went into space but they just orbited earth like many others had. The photos we're here on earth mostly likely staged in Area 51, here in good ol' Nevada. Staged with many inconsistancies btw, like lack of stars in photos which would have appeared much more impressive from the moon. Lack of burn hole in the ground or lack of dust that would have settled if burn hole wasn't there because it blew away. The fact that when you view videos of "space walk" in normal speed it does duplicate what would appear to be the moons gravity which is 1/6th of the earths. Yes, but when you double the video speed, they are walking at normal earth gravity speed. Shadows in many photos are not consistent for what it would be if the only light source on the moon was the sun.
Let's not forget the technology available in 1969. Hahahhahahahahahhahahhah a. You've got to be kidding me. They may have many of you fooled and buying into it using nationalism but not me and not alot of other people. This was done as part of an arms race with Russia. We won. I can't say I don't blame them but I'm not one of the suckers. Boy, talk about the biggest by the government of all time. They'll laugh at you morons in the history books for believing it and I'm laughing at you now, cause when it comes out, and it eventually will, I'll be the first you think of when you hold your heads in shame from feeling like a used fool. Do your research on all the stuff I said and if you have a brain use it. if you don't then Ching-Chong Potato.
You are a fucking moron... you'd think you learned your lesson after the whole Mayan calendar thing... *sigh*
-
Utter nonsense. Ill address it in a future post. If you address my post please address all my point vs. Picking and choosing. All of it fits together. That Van Allen explanation is bullshit. Not to mention the fact that after they are outside the belt, they are unprotected 100%. No belt to protect them. Theyd be dead. We went no where but in orbit July 16, 1969. Deal with it. There are too many inconsistancies and the science doesnt add up sorry bro. We were lied to. They are are frauds although I do feel for Armstrong.
your other points are so dumb they ain't worth refuting.
-
You are a fucking moron... you'd think you learned your lesson after the whole Mayan calendar thing... *sigh*
The irony is that you are the moron and you don't know it. You've been fooled and chose to remain a fool.
-
what if the astronauts were brainwashed/mk-ultra'd into believing they went to the moon?
What if you are currently brainwashed and you think you are posting on getbig.
-
What if you are currently brainwashed and you think you are posting on getbig.
-
Wiggs mom landed on my cock.
-
You listen to the Joe Rogan podcast where he had the astro-physicist on to speak on this?
Yes, Joe has Neil deGrasse Tyson on episode #310 refuting the skeptics!
-
Yes, Joe has Neil deGrasse Tyson on episode #310 refuting the skeptics!
that sucked. of course he's going to say that shit.
-
Wiggs mom landed on my cock.
hahahaa ;D ;D
Sir! You owe Wiggs an apology for that post.
-
Falconism engaged:
Neil = Lien
Lie
-
hahahaa ;D ;D
Sir! You owe Wiggs an apology for that post.
Wiggs mom owes me an apologie for giving me crabs ;D
-
Wiggs mom owes me an apologie for giving me crabs ;D
>:( >:( Now you owe Wiigs and his Mom and apology.
-
Falconism engaged:
Neil = Lien
Lie
Faaarrk man, makes complete sense..,!
-
Tbombz girlfriend goes to the moon with a 12 inch dildo every night
thats hot
-
Yes, Joe has Neil deGrasse Tyson on episode #310 refuting the skeptics!
My fellow Rogan fan :D
Yeah that was an interesting listen. Much of it is far over my head but he made some excellent points.
-
My fellow Rogan fan :D
Yeah that was an interesting listen. Much of it is far over my head but he made some excellent points.
Lol, I hear ya! Neil deGrasse Tyson does make science entertaining, the big bang and global warming stuff was really interesting.
-
I think Wiggs is just trolling at this point.
I hope so. If not, he is more stupid than most of us thought,
-
I hope so. If not, he is more stupid than most of us thought,
Than most of you thought.
That boy is dumb with a capital D.
-
You're an idiot.
[ Invalid YouTube link ]
-
very interesting pov's @ around 1:11 - 1:28 then goes on to the moon -
Wagging the Moondoggie, Part I
http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/Apollo1.html
I can't remember if that's the same one I saw, but there was a gread one about Laurel Canyon and the birth of hippies, interesting as hell!
-
Meanwhile, elsewhere in the world in those early months of 1965, a new ‘scene’ is just beginning to take shape in the city of Los Angeles. In a geographically and socially isolated community known as Laurel Canyon – a heavily wooded, rustic, serene, yet vaguely ominous slice of LA nestled in the hills that separate the Los Angeles basin from the San Fernando Valley – musicians, singers and songwriters suddenly begin to gather as though summoned there by some unseen Pied Piper. Within months, the ‘hippie/flower child’ movement will be given birth there, along with the new style of music that will provide the soundtrack for the tumultuous second half of the 1960s.
-
You blithering fucking idiots. The moon has no atmosphere. The radiation on it's surface is very high and very unpredictable. These cosmic rays would have and still would today destroy any astronaut in their pathetic little suits. That's if we got past the Van Allen Radiation Belts which no human EVER has. My god many of you are fucking idiots. Fuck.
It's not possible. This is why Russia or any other country NEVER went. In essence, we are quarantined here on this planet. If you get past the belts (which we never have) you have to deal with unpredictable radiation from many fronts.
It was staged. STAGED, STAGED you fucking dipshits. Wow! I'm talking to a bunch of retards here. Ships can go yes. Organic life cannot and survive. Deal with it. The emperor is naked you dumb cunts. By Nasser's thong! What wizard's spell have they put on you idiots?
-
You blithering fucking idiots. The moon has no atmosphere. The radiation on it's surface is very high and very unpredictable. These cosmic rays would have and still would today destroy any astronaut in their pathetic little suits. That's if we got past the Van Allen Radiation Belts which no human EVER has. My god many of you are fucking idiots. Fuck.
Do you have any training in particle physics or medical science? Do you know anything about the Van Allen radiation belts, cosmic rays, radiation, human anatomy and reaction to radiation? Or are you just repeating what some conspiracy website told you and you unthinkingly and uncritically accepted?
It's not possible.
Oh well, if some idiot on a bodybuilding forum says it isn't, then it must be true.
In essence, we are quarantined here on this planet. If you get past the belts (which we never have) you have to deal with unpredictable radiation from many fronts.
::)
It was staged. STAGED, STAGED you fucking dipshits. Wow! I'm talking to a bunch of retards here. Ships can go yes. Organic life cannot and survive. Deal with it. The emperor is naked you dumb cunts.
Right... it was staged, and not a single person, out of the tens of thousands of people involved with this project, ever spoke up; it was staged and nobody from the USSR, who presumably would know this to be staged, ever spoke up; it was staged and the objects left behind (including the retroreflectors) on the moon aren't really there.
In other news, Barack Obama's Kenyan Birth Certificate has finally been found Wiggs:
(http://www.calldrmatt.com/Barack_Hussein_Obama_Kenyan_Birth_Certificate.jpg)
-
Do you have any training in particle physics or medical science? Do you know anything about the Van Allen radiation belts, cosmic rays, radiation, human anatomy and reaction to radiation? Or are you just repeating what some conspiracy website told you and you unthinkingly and uncritically accepted?
Oh well, if some idiot on a bodybuilding forum says it isn't, then it must be true.
::)
Right... it was staged, and not a single person, out of the tens of thousands of people involved with this project, ever spoke up; it was staged and nobody from the USSR, who presumably would know this to be staged, ever spoke up; it was staged and the objects left behind (including the retroreflectors) on the moon aren't really there.
In other news, Barack Obama's Kenyan Birth Certificate has finally been found Wiggs:
(http://www.calldrmatt.com/Barack_Hussein_Obama_Kenyan_Birth_Certificate.jpg)
Listen limp dick. Do you know how many people we're in on the Manhattan Project that was denied for years until it was declassified? over 100,000 people. Do you know how they do this? Security Clearances that are compartmentalized. If you have no need to know, you won't. You are a fucking idiot have not proven ANY of what I said to be wrong. You're just flapping your gums to maintain your fragile psyche. Shut up. We're done.
-
your other points are so dumb they ain't worth refuting.
That's because you can't dipshit. Move along. ::)
-
Listen limp dick. Do you know how many people we're in on the Manhattan Project that was denied for years until it was declassified? over 100,000 people. Do you know how they do this? Security Clearances that are compartmentalized. If you have no need to know, you won't. You are a fucking idiot have not proven ANY of what I said to be wrong. You're just flapping your gums to maintain your fragile psyche. Shut up. We're done.
As far as "proving" what you said to be wrong goes, it's not my job to prove some idiot's assertions wrong. It's the job of the idiot making the assertions to prove them. Oh, and I know about about SCI clearances, actually. But you don't need to know about that :)
-
Than most of you thought.
That boy is dumb with a capital D.
that broad he fucked recently didn't look to bright either.
-
As far as "proving" what you said to be wrong goes, it's not my job to prove some idiot's assertions wrong. It's the job of the idiot making the assertions to prove them. Oh, and I know about about SCI clearances, actually. But you don't need to know about that :)
And yeah, I did, with science and you morons still dispute it without science. Ball is in your court genius.
You fucking dipshit I was in the Air Force 10 years cunt and ran many of my squadrons programs for PRP....Nukes. So fuck off.
As I've said we're done. You have no use. Carry on.
-
You are correct...if by "we" you mean black people ;D
Beat me to it lol
-
Not sure about that although it wouldn't make me wonder regarding what bullshit the governments have been pulling off for decades and longer.
-
And yeah, I did, with science and you morons still dispute it without science. Ball is in your court genius.
I dont't think science means what you think it means. You just quoted conspiracy nonsense and made assertions. That's not scientific and doesn't consistute a proof.
You fucking dipshit I was in the Air Force 10 years cunt and ran many of my squadrons programs for PRP....Nukes. So fuck off.
It's scary to think that a pot-smoking conspiracy theorist was even allowed in the Air Force. But what can you expect from the people who lost nukes?
As I've said we're done. You have no use. Carry on.
Yes Sir! ::)
-
I dont't think science means what you think it means. You just quoted conspiracy nonsense and made assertions. That's not scientific and doesn't consistute a proof.
It's scary to think that a pot-smoking conspiracy theorist was even allowed in the Air Force. But what can you expect from the people who lost nukes?
Yes Sir! ::)
shut up.
-
Wise choice Wiggs. the lunar landing.
this way you can't be proven a know nothing moron like you were with the last thing you "knew" and everyone else didn't.
-
Wiggs has been weird for a long time now. The world is a VERY confusing place to him right now.
-
Wise choice Wiggs. the lunar landing.
this way you can't be proven a know nothing moron like you were with the last thing you "knew" and everyone else didn't.
Don't start with me polio. It's a miracle of science you can walk on those legs. Don't misquote me. Re-read what I said. If you wanna go, we can go. But I'm not holding anything back. Now fuck off to another thread.
-
Wiggs has been weird for a long time now. The world is a VERY confusing place to him right now.
Lol....Shut up hook nose.
-
Wiggs has been weird for a long time now. The world is a VERY confusing place to him right now.
either he is taking drugs or the tediousness of unemployment /underemployment is getting under his skin.
A mixture of both can not be ruled out.
-
Dont worry wiggs
if the government come out tomorrow and said they are able to travel at Ludicrous speed most Americans would by it
-
either he is taking drugs or the tediousness of unemployment /underemployment is getting under his skin.
A mixture of both can not be ruled out.
You'd like to think that, but you'd be wrong. :-*
-
You'd like to think that, but you'd be wrong. :-*
Wiggs, seriously.. please acknowledge that I have nothing against you as a person, I only thing, like true Adonis, that you have made a lot of uncommon claims lately.. which you don't use to in the same extent. So you can't blame us for wondering why you sudddenly have so many weird / uncommon opinions about things.
-
Don't start with me polio. It's a miracle of science you can walk on those legs. Don't misquote me. Re-read what I said. If you wanna go, we can go. But I'm not holding anything back. Now fuck off to another thread.
I did read it.
You, or the articles you qoute, don't prove shit..and I also read the articles disproving your "van Allen" horseshit, including a quote by Van Allen himself.
It's the old "I'm right becuase I say I am"...and then you argue tooth and nail,and dismiss everything everyone else posts.. until people get bored with you being an obnoxious asshole and leave the thread.
Pretty much textbook Narcissitic Deity techniqie in his Dorian threads
Like Adonis said....you are a weirdo these days
-
Wiggs, seriously.. please acknowledge that I have nothing against you as a person, I only thing, like true Adonis, that you have made a lot of uncommon claims lately.. which you don't use to in the same extent. So you can't blame us for wondering why you sudddenly have so many weird / uncommon opinions about things.
Thanks for contributing to making this a 100 post thread. I don't envy you being a mindless zombie. It is you that is insane friend. You are asleep, just the way its wanted. Good day. The proof is out there, you just have to want it. I've given you plenty of things to look into. All this nonsense with various topics could be stopped. If it's so easy you can easily disprove what I say on these various topics. Yet, consistently no one shows anything it goes in this predictable order. Insult, try to discredit, insult, insult, discredit, discredit, discredit. *Yawn. Never any evidence disproving any of these conspiracy FACTS. Never any reasonable adult arguments. So until that day, Conspiracy FACT stories will be continued to be posted. The ones I and experts in their fields can prove various things to be true through science and or math, logic and reasoning. There will be a time in the future 10, 20, 30 years and these things will prove to be true. Whereever you are as they do, I will no longer look crazy to you, but a genius. You'll laugh to yourself, "that black bastard was right". And go on with your life. You're welcome.
-
Wagging the Moondoggie, Part I
http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/Apollo1.html
This is a very good read for someone interested in a different point of view, long but good read.
-
We've never been to the moon...
Have fun and
Good evening
thats just one black boys opinion
-
There are a lot of things that seem off about the Apollo missions.
Could've NASA really had the technology back in the 60's to protect the astronauts from the radiation outside the Van Allen Belts, when even today they're still trying to come up with ways to do so?
Aren't temperatures in the moon extreme? Were the suits enough to protect the astronauts from it? What about meteoroids?
How did the lunar modules land without creating a single crater or leaving a single mark on the moon's surface?
Couldn't have the so called reflectors be left there by robotic modules before or after the moon landings? I read that actually bouncing off of beams from the moon was being done before the apollo missions ever took place.
Probably one of the most compelling questions of them all, if the Russians were kicking USA's ass in the space race back then, how come they never made it to the moon? Not once.
Plus, I've seen pics from the so called lunar modules, they're ridiculous, as if they were made from tin foil for an elementary school science project or something.
-
There are a lot of things that seem off about the Apollo missions.
Could've NASA really had the technology back in the 60's to protect the astronauts from the radiation outside the Van Allen Belts, when even today they're still trying to come up with ways to do so?
Aren't temperatures in the moon extreme? Were the suits enough to protect the astronauts from it? What about meteoroids?
How did the lunar modules land without creating a single crater or leaving a single mark on the moon's surface?
Couldn't have the so called reflectors be left there by robotic modules before or after the moon landings? I read that actually bouncing off of beams from the moon was being done before the apollo missions ever took place.
Probably one of the most compelling questions of them all, if the Russians were kicking USA's ass in the space race back then, how come they never made it to the moon? Not once.
Plus, I've seen pics from the so called lunar modules, they're ridiculous, as if they were made from tin foil for an elementary school science project or something.
And there we have it friend. Someone else that is awake. THANK GOD! Why are these idiots, idiots?
-
I just watched a couple of youtube videos , Wiggs is right , wake up m@therfuckers.
-
Listen limp dick. Do you know how many people we're in on the Manhattan Project that was denied for years until it was declassified? over 100,000 people. Do you know how they do this? Security Clearances that are compartmentalized.
LMAO!
Stalin and the NKVD had a very good idea of what was going on with the Manhattan project way before Truman told Stalin about it. So much for secrecy.
-
There are a lot of things that seem off about the Apollo missions.
You should know that things aren't always as they seem. Besides, a lot of things "seem" off to nutjobs but that doesn't mean they are off.
Could've NASA really had the technology back in the 60's to protect the astronauts from the radiation outside the Van Allen Belts, when even today they're still trying to come up with ways to do so?
NASA planned the course of the missions to speed through the thinnest part of the Van Allen radiation belts to minimize their exposure. Still, the time the astronauts spent in the belts accounted for a large amount of the radiation dose that they received.
The reason why radiation outside the belts is a concern for future space travel, is because we are looking at much longer missions (e.g. to Mars) which will significantly increase the exposure time of the astronauts.
Aren't temperatures in the moon extreme? Were the suits enough to protect the astronauts from it? What about meteoroids?
Temperatures in space, in general, are extreme... do you think that the suits used by astronauts servicing the Hubble or spacewalking outside the ISS have to contend with an envornment that is any less hostile?
How did the lunar modules land without creating a single crater or leaving a single mark on the moon's surface?
What makes you think they didn't? And what makes you think they should?
Couldn't have the so called reflectors be left there by robotic modules before or after the moon landings?
No. The retroreflectors were installed with a precision that a robotic module of the day (if one had existed) could not have possibly achieved. Look at the accuracy of installation of the Russian retroreflectors, and compare them to the accuracy of the Apollo retroreflectors.
I read that actually bouncing off of beams from the moon was being done before the apollo missions ever took place.
What does that have to do with the presence of retroreflectors?
Probably one of the most compelling questions of them all, if the Russians were kicking USA's ass in the space race back then, how come they never made it to the moon? Not once.
How is that a compelling question? It's like asking why a kid that was taller than his friend at age 8 ended up shorter at age 18... The facts are that the United States devoted massive amounts of money and resources to get to the moon and the USSR didn't. As to why they didn't? Who knows - there are plenty of possible reasons, but the most likely one seems to be that they didn't want to devote the resources required.
Plus, I've seen pics from the so called lunar modules, they're ridiculous, as if they were made from tin foil for an elementary school science project or something.
Oh... well... that changes everything. If you've seen pictures of the "so called" lunar modules and they look flimsy to you, then that really settles it... the moon landings were faked. Forget about all the independent evidence and ignore all the explanations that serious scientists have produced to explain away the theories of quacks. The lundar modules look flimsy... that does it. ::)
In all seriousness, what the fuck is wrong with you people? Did you drop a barbell on your head or are you just naturally stupid?
-
This thread is becoming potato.
-
Only one person can solve this mystery...
Stanley Kubrick.
But "his" dead, so we have to resort to Jacob Nicholson which I assume to know much more than his unwilling to say.
-
NASA planned the course of the missions to speed through the thinnest part of the Van Allen radiation belts to minimize their exposure. Still, the time the astronauts spent in the belts accounted for a large amount of the radiation dose that they received.
The reason why radiation outside the belts is a concern for future space travel, is because we are looking at much longer missions (e.g. to Mars) which will significantly increase the exposure time of the astronauts.
Still, what about the radiation they received once they were outside the Belts? Its not that they only spent a few seconds in space. What about the time they spent walking in the moon's surface with no atmosphere or anything to protect them? I read a NASA article that explained the only 2 ways the astronauts could protect themselves against radiation is with a thick wall of concrete (like nuclear reactors) or heavy lead armour.
They didn't have any of that back then.
Temperatures in space, in general, are extreme... do you think that the suits used by astronauts servicing the Hubble or spacewalking outside the ISS have to contend with an envornment that is any less hostile?
Of course.
What makes you think they didn't? And what makes you think they should?
Pictures from the landings show no marks whatsoever. How do you think the modules landed? Do you think they just floated into place?
No. The retroreflectors were installed with a precision that a robotic module of the day (if one had existed) could not have possibly achieved. Look at the accuracy of installation of the Russian retroreflectors, and compare them to the accuracy of the Apollo retroreflectors.
What does that have to do with the presence of retroreflectors?
How do you know the retroreflectors were installed with such precision?
Maybe there arent any retroreflectos at all?
How is that a compelling question? It's like asking why a kid that was taller than his friend at age 8 ended up shorter at age 18... The facts are that the United States devoted massive amounts of money and resources to get to the moon and the USSR didn't. As to why they didn't? Who knows - there are plenty of possible reasons, but the most likely one seems to be that they didn't want to devote the resources required.
It's not like that at all, your example shows no relation. There are indeed many possible explanations, but it doesn't make sense that Russia was so far ahead everyone else in the space race, and up to the so called moon landings they were the first to do everything, first living creature to space, first man to space, first man to orbit earth ,etc..but then the USA somehow made it to the moon and Russia never did. Doesn't make sense at all.
Oh... well... that changes everything. If you've seen pictures of the "so called" lunar modules and they look flimsy to you, then that really settles it... the moon landings were faked. Forget about all the independent evidence and ignore all the explanations that serious scientists have produced to explain away the theories of quacks. The lundar modules look flimsy... that does it. ::)
In all seriousness, what the fuck is wrong with you people? Did you drop a barbell on your head or are you just naturally stupid?
Who is saying that "settles it"? Do you always reduce yourself to ridicule and insults?
What independent evidence, since most of it is gone missing?
So everyone that opposes the moon landings is a "quack" and everyone that agrees is a "serious scientist"? What about the scientists that oppose the idea?
-
Well at least they didn't spend 2 billion dollars to go to the moon. ::)
-
Still, what about the radiation they received once they were outside the Belts? Its not that they only spent a few seconds in space. What about the time they spent walking in the moon's surface with no atmosphere or anything to protect them? I read a NASA article that explained the only 2 ways the astronauts could protect themselves against radiation is with a thick wall of concrete (like nuclear reactors) or heavy lead armour.
They didn't have any of that back then.
The astronauts received a big dose of radiation - over 25% of the allowed yearly dose for those working in radioactive environments and/or around radiation. They were afforded some protection, but it was minimal.
Pictures from the landings show no marks whatsoever. How do you think the modules landed? Do you think they just floated into place?
Actually, that's almost exactly what happened. By the time the lunar modules touched down on the surface of the moon, their speed was practically zero and the engines were throttled down to almost zero thrust.
How do you know the retroreflectors were installed with such precision?
Maybe there arent any retroreflectos at all?
It is trivial to verify by shining a laser light at the appropriate location on the moon.
It's not like that at all, your example shows no relation. There are indeed many possible explanations, but it doesn't make sense that Russia was so far ahead everyone else in the space race, and up to the so called moon landings they were the first to do everything, first living creature to space, first man to space, first man to orbit earth ,etc..but then the USA somehow made it to the moon and Russia never did. Doesn't make sense at all.
Just because something doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean it doesn't make sense.
What independent evidence, since most of it is gone missing?
Recordings of the transmissions from space were received. Observatories from around the world observed the space capsules. Live video of the capsule descending, scorched from the heat caused by the air compression during re-entry, carrying the astronauts.
So everyone that opposes the moon landings is a "quack" and everyone that agrees is a "serious scientist"? What about the scientists that oppose the idea?
Everyone who repeats the same thoroughly debunked nonsense and insists that something that happened didn't without providing a single shred of evidence to support his assertions but insists that others must actually prove his assertions wrong is a quack.
-
The astronauts received a big dose of radiation - over 25% of the allowed yearly dose for those working in radioactive environments and/or around radiation. They were afforded some protection, but it was minimal.
So this implies the radiation they received wasn't as deadly as made out to be? Are you sure it was only 25%? We're talking about radiation from the sun, other stars, supernovas, etc. What about gamma rays? What about the constant meteoroids that "bombard" the moons surface? Unless what I read about them is bunk.....
Actually, that's almost exactly what happened. By the time the lunar modules touched down on the surface of the moon, their speed was practically zero and the engines were throttled down to almost zero thrust.
Are you sure about that? According to NASA the modules weighed 33,000 lbs on earth, which still, taking into consideration the moon's gravitational pull, makes it weigh what 1-3 tons? Not exactly something suited for a soft landing.
It is trivial to verify by shining a laser light at the appropriate location on the moon.
But according to some sources, people had been beaming off lights from the moon before the moon landings ever happened. How do you know all the alleged lights beamed off the moon after the landings weren't coming from the same source as beforehand?
Just because something doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean it doesn't make sense.
True, but the same can be said for the opposite. Just because something makes sense to you (moon landings), doens't mean it makes sense or it's true.
Recordings of the transmissions from space were received. Observatories from around the world observed the space capsules. Live video of the capsule descending, scorched from the heat caused by the air compression during re-entry, carrying the astronauts.
Oh yes, supposedly plenty of recordings were recevied from space during the missions, videos, voice data, biomedical monitoring data, and telemetry data, etc. but according to NASA all of that is missing. How come all those documents and reels are now missing?
Everyone who repeats the same thoroughly debunked nonsense and insists that something that happened didn't without providing a single shred of evidence to support his assertions but insists that others must actually prove his assertions wrong is a quack.
How about all the photographs taken in space that show no stars in the background at all?
How about pictures taken that show 2 sources of light? (when there should only be the sun's)
I'm genuinly asking these questions, since they seem to make sense to me, in a way that makes the moon landings to have been faked. JUst questioning the official story, still not sure about what actually happened yet.
-
So this implies the radiation they received wasn't as deadly as made out to be? Are you sure it was only 25%? We're talking about radiation from the sun, other stars, supernovas, etc. What about gamma rays? What about the constant meteoroids that "bombard" the moons surface? Unless what I read about them is bunk.....
No. It implies that for the (relatively short) amount of time they spent in space, they received a rather large amount of radiation - a full 25% of the dose that is allowed for an entire year for people working with radiation. You comment about the radiation they received not being "as deadly as made out to be" frankly demonstrates that you know very little about radiation and the effects it has on living organisms in general and the human body in particular.
I don't know what you read, or where you read it. If you look back at your posts in this thread, you keep saying "I read this" or "I read that" never once citing your sources for the information.
Are you sure about that? According to NASA the modules weighed 33,000 lbs on earth, which still, taking into consideration the moon's gravitational pull, makes it weigh what 1-3 tons? Not exactly something suited for a soft landing.
Yes, I am quite sure. The weight (or more accurately, the mass) of the module itself isn't relevant. To see why it isn't, consider a large object that weighs three tons. You suspend it from a balloon that has sufficient lifting capacity to keep the object afloat. Then you slightly reduce the lifting capacity of the balloon. The object, despite it's massive weight, will float down slowly, like feather. Isn't physics fun?
The combined descent and ascent stage was descending at an extremely slow speed. And as the module descended, its mass would continue to get reduced, as fuel was burned off, allowing the engine to be throttled back, as a small amount of thrust was sufficient to maintain the speed of descent within the mission parameters.
But according to some sources, people had been beaming off lights from the moon before the moon landings ever happened. How do you know all the alleged lights beamed off the moon after the landings weren't coming from the same source as beforehand?
What sources are those? Can you cite them? A number of independent observatories have verified the presence of the retroreflectors over many years. They are still functional today. Pictures from LRO clearly show the retroreflectors.
True, but the same can be said for the opposite. Just because something makes sense to you (moon landings), doens't mean it makes sense or it's true.
The difference is that I let science and reality be the arbiter.
Oh yes, supposedly plenty of recordings were recevied from space during the missions, videos, voice data, biomedical monitoring data, and telemetry data, etc. but according to NASA all of that is missing. How come all those documents and reels are now missing?
Independent recordings of the transmissions exist. Independent sightings of the spacecraft are documented. But let's assume, for the sake of argument, that what you say is true, and NASA claims all their own documents have gone missing. Don't you think that's a silly position for NASA to take? In this day and age, why wouldn't they digitally create whatever they needed and release it?
How about all the photographs taken in space that show no stars in the background at all?
The landings took place during daytime (lunar daytime). Do you really need me to explain why stars, which are much less bright than the sun, aren't visible during the daytime? Or do you naively believe that the stars turn on during the night and off during the day?
How about pictures taken that show 2 sources of light? (when there should only be the sun's)
Do you know why the moon appears bright at night? It may come as a surprise to you, but it's not because it's got a big lightbulb inside. It's because it's reflecting the light of the sun. Similarly, the earth would reflect the light of the sun onto the moon, generating a very bright, secondary light source.
I'm genuinly asking these questions, since they seem to make sense to me, in a way that makes the moon landings to have been faked. JUst questioning the official story, still not sure about what actually happened yet.
I would suggest that rather than asking your questions on a bodybuilding forum, you actually spend some time researching this issue more deeply and looking at what has already been said to debunk the "moon landings were a hoax" theories. All these questions you pose have been asked before and they have been answered thoroughly. That you would ask them suggests that you haven't spent any time looking into the issue.
-
going to the moon is basically like the dramatic sandy hook situation
-
No. It implies that for the (relatively short) amount of time they spent in space, they received a rather large amount of radiation - a full 25% of the dose that is allowed for an entire year for people working with radiation. You comment about the radiation they received not being "as deadly as made out to be" frankly demonstrates that you know very little about radiation and the effects it has on living organisms in general and the human body in particular.
I don't know what you read, or where you read it. If you look back at your posts in this thread, you keep saying "I read this" or "I read that" never once citing your sources for the information.
Yes, I am quite sure. The weight (or more accurately, the mass) of the module itself isn't relevant. To see why it isn't, consider a large object that weighs three tons. You suspend it from a balloon that has sufficient lifting capacity to keep the object afloat. Then you slightly reduce the lifting capacity of the balloon. The object, despite it's massive weight, will float down slowly, like feather. Isn't physics fun?
The combined descent and ascent stage was descending at an extremely slow speed. And as the module descended, its mass would continue to get reduced, as fuel was burned off, allowing the engine to be throttled back, as a small amount of thrust was sufficient to maintain the speed of descent within the mission parameters.
What sources are those? Can you cite them? A number of independent observatories have verified the presence of the retroreflectors over many years. They are still functional today. Pictures from LRO clearly show the retroreflectors.
The difference is that I let science and reality be the arbiter.
Independent recordings of the transmissions exist. Independent sightings of the spacecraft are documented. But let's assume, for the sake of argument, that what you say is true, and NASA claims all their own documents have gone missing. Don't you think that's a silly position for NASA to take? In this day and age, why wouldn't they digitally create whatever they needed and release it?
The landings took place during daytime (lunar daytime). Do you really need me to explain why stars, which are much less bright than the sun, aren't visible during the daytime? Or do you naively believe that the stars turn on during the night and off during the day?
Do you know why the moon appears bright at night? It may come as a surprise to you, but it's not because it's got a big lightbulb inside. It's because it's reflecting the light of the sun. Similarly, the earth would reflect the light of the sun onto the moon, generating a very bright, secondary light source.
I would suggest that rather than asking your questions on a bodybuilding forum, you actually spend some time researching this issue more deeply and looking at what has already been said to debunk the "moon landings were a hoax" theories. All these questions you pose have been asked before and they have been answered thoroughly. That you would ask them suggests that you haven't spent any time looking into the issue.
Axvo completely destroying the two idiots....with ease
-
buzz alden or neil armstrong one of those guys even said usa never went to moon
-
buzz alden or neil armstrong one of those guys even said usa never went to moon
Earth-bound moron.
-
buzz alden or neil armstrong one of those guys even said usa never went to moon
That seals it for me..."one of those guys" said it. How can you possibly dispute that ::)
-
neil armstrongs last interview http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/aug/25/neil-armstrong-last-interview
-
neil armstrong never gave interviews about the landing on the moon, on 25th anniversiary of landing armstrong said, compared astronauts to parrots, and parrots dont fly well, they repeat what they are told.
-
neil armstrongs last interview http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/aug/25/neil-armstrong-last-interview
And where, exactly, does Neil Armstrong say that the U.S. never went to the moon in that interview? It closes with a quote from him, saying "People love conspiracy theories. I mean, they are very attractive. But it was never a concern to me because I know one day, somebody is going to go fly back up there and pick up that camera I left." It sounds to me like he's stating, unequivocally, that we did go there.
What's up with the trolls lately? Sheesh!
-
thanks, now fuck off
he's right ..
now fuck off
-
buzz aldrin admits, tv camera recording all we were doing
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qd1Mj3Kx1R4 buzz aldrin admits, tv camera recording all we were doing
He admits what? That they didn't want to trip on the wire? There was a wire on the moon you dumbass. There was a TV camera recording you dumbass. ON THE MOON!
-
He admits what? That they didn't want to trip on the wire? There was a wire on the moon you dumbass. There was a TV camera recording you dumbass. ON THE MOON!
THese conspiracy retards quite simply hear what they want to hear, what the person is actually saying is irrelevant.
-
This thread is becoming potato.
a sweet potato
-
No. It implies that for the (relatively short) amount of time they spent in space, they received a rather large amount of radiation - a full 25% of the dose that is allowed for an entire year for people working with radiation. You comment about the radiation they received not being "as deadly as made out to be" frankly demonstrates that you know very little about radiation and the effects it has on living organisms in general and the human body in particular.
Just curious... what did you go to school for?
-
The Shining Code talks about all the Codes that Stanley Kubrick put in the film to tell a story within a story. The real story was that Kubrick himself helped fake the Apollo 11 moon landings. Some of the so called codes in the Shining Code seem silly. However, Kubrick was meticulous about EVERYTHING he put in a movie. Down to how many pencils had to be on a desk etc.
Thanks, I might check it out.
-
Nice troll, Wiggs.
Lots of lessons to be learned here.
-
We've never been to the moon...
Have fun and
Good evening
Obama never became "President".....so there!
-
a sweet potato
Full blown sweet potato.
-
No. It implies that for the (relatively short) amount of time they spent in space, they received a rather large amount of radiation - a full 25% of the dose that is allowed for an entire year for people working with radiation. You comment about the radiation they received not being "as deadly as made out to be" frankly demonstrates that you know very little about radiation and the effects it has on living organisms in general and the human body in particular.
I don't know what you read, or where you read it. If you look back at your posts in this thread, you keep saying "I read this" or "I read that" never once citing your sources for the information.
I will admit that I know little about radiation, just done some superficial reading on the subject, which is why I was asking the questions. I didn't think it was necessary citing my sources, but over the years I've done some reading on different websites regarding the subject of the moon landings, quite recently the articles from the link posted before.
You say they spent a relatively short amount of time in space. Do you know the distance from earth to the moon? How fast did the modules travel?
If the radiation they received wasn't such a big deal, why is NASA still trying to come up with ways today to protect astronauts from it during future possible trips to the moon and mars?
Yes, I am quite sure. The weight (or more accurately, the mass) of the module itself isn't relevant. To see why it isn't, consider a large object that weighs three tons. You suspend it from a balloon that has sufficient lifting capacity to keep the object afloat. Then you slightly reduce the lifting capacity of the balloon. The object, despite it's massive weight, will float down slowly, like feather. Isn't physics fun?
The combined descent and ascent stage was descending at an extremely slow speed. And as the module descended, its mass would continue to get reduced, as fuel was burned off, allowing the engine to be throttled back, as a small amount of thrust was sufficient to maintain the speed of descent within the mission parameters.
Still, a small amount of thrust from the rocket should've displaced some amount of dust on the moon's surface or at least left a mark, but nothing is shown on the pictures.
What sources are those? Can you cite them? A number of independent observatories have verified the presence of the retroreflectors over many years. They are still functional today. Pictures from LRO clearly show the retroreflectors.
According to the article I read, a 1966 National Geographic edition supposedly contained information about MIT scientists achieving the same thing. It also mentions the New York Times stating that the Russians had been doing the same thing since 1963.
The difference is that I let science and reality be the arbiter.
Reality according to whom?
Independent recordings of the transmissions exist. Independent sightings of the spacecraft are documented. But let's assume, for the sake of argument, that what you say is true, and NASA claims all their own documents have gone missing. Don't you think that's a silly position for NASA to take? In this day and age, why wouldn't they digitally create whatever they needed and release it?
Where are all of these independent recordings? I got this quote from the article:
As Reuters reported on August 15, 2006, “The U.S. government has misplaced the original recording of the first moon landing, including astronaut Neil Armstrong’s famous ‘one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind’ … Armstrong’s famous moonwalk, seen by millions of viewers on July 20, 1969, is among transmissions that NASA has failed to turn up in a year of searching, spokesman Grey Hautaluoma said. ‘We haven’t seen them for quite a while. We’ve been looking for over a year, and they haven’t turned up,’ Hautaluoma said … In all, some 700 boxes of transmissions from the Apollo lunar missions are missing.”
The landings took place during daytime (lunar daytime). Do you really need me to explain why stars, which are much less bright than the sun, aren't visible during the daytime? Or do you naively believe that the stars turn on during the night and off during the day?
Understood, I overlooked this little detail of the landings taking place during the daytime.
Do you know why the moon appears bright at night? It may come as a surprise to you, but it's not because it's got a big lightbulb inside. It's because it's reflecting the light of the sun. Similarly, the earth would reflect the light of the sun onto the moon, generating a very bright, secondary light source.
Of course I know how the moon reflects light from the sun to lighten the sky at nighttime. Are you saying the earth would in fact reflect the same light from the sun onto the moon? We're taking of different surfaces here.
Also, wouldn't the light reflected from earth be somewhat 'overshadowed' by the sun's light, as it is way brighter?
I would suggest that rather than asking your questions on a bodybuilding forum, you actually spend some time researching this issue more deeply and looking at what has already been said to debunk the "moon landings were a hoax" theories. All these questions you pose have been asked before and they have been answered thoroughly. That you would ask them suggests that you haven't spent any time looking into the issue.
I'll try to keep researching the issue as, at least to me, it is very interesting.
-
Axvo completely destroying the two idiots....with ease
::) At least I'm trying to discuss and bring some questions to the table. What are you doing other than kissing Axvo's ass? Who's the idiot now..
-
We've never been to the moon...
Have fun and
Good evening
:)
-
::) At least I'm trying to discuss and bring some questions to the table. What are you doing other than kissing Axvo's ass? Who's the idiot now..
I'm kissing his ass becuase I said he blew your argument out of the water?
He did. I don't know avxo from adam, i called it like i saw it.
Yes, you keep raising questions that have already been answered, or there is no concrete answer to, because we don't have the knowledge or the information...but that doesn't automatically mean it never happened, becuase we can't gauge accurately how much light would bounce off of the earth and show up in a picture. ::)
-
You say they spent a relatively short amount of time in space. Do you know the distance from earth to the moon? How fast did the modules travel?
They did. The entire Apollo 11 mission duration was just over 195 hours - or a little over 8 days - less than 24 of which were spent on the moon. And yes, I know the distance from the earth to the moon - down to the millimeter, actually, courtesy of the retroreflectors left up there.
If the radiation they received wasn't such a big deal, why is NASA still trying to come up with ways today to protect astronauts from it during future possible trips to the moon and mars?
It's not that the radiation they received isn't a big deal: most astronauts in the Apollo program developed a number of health ailments as a result of their exposure. I simply said that the dose of radiation they received in the few days they spent in space was almost 25% of the dose allowed in an entire year for people who work in environments where radiation exposure is a danger.
As for why NASA is trying to come up with better ways to protect astronauts, it should be be obvious: a mission to send humans to Mars would require a much, much, much longer transit time than a mission to send humans to the moon. What good is putting live humans on a spaceship to Mars if what arrives is a blob of dead, highly irradiated flesh? Even if our goal is to only go back to the moon, doesn't it make sense to research better radiation shielding options anyways? If nothing else, such options would have numerous applications here on earth.
Still, a small amount of thrust from the rocket should've displaced some amount of dust on the moon's surface or at least left a mark, but nothing is shown on the pictures.
There was a mark made - the engine's thrust eroded the hard lunar surface, despite the fact that the engine had been throttled way way down; that "crater" is visible in at least two pictures.
According to the article I read, a 1966 National Geographic edition supposedly contained information about MIT scientists achieving the same thing. It also mentions the New York Times stating that the Russians had been doing the same thing since 1963.
Right. It's possible to do laser ranging even without a retroreflector, nobody aruged otherwise. It's just exceedingly more difficult, but not impossible. That's why the Russians left retroreflectors and that's why we left retroreflectors: to make laser ranging easier. The Russian retroreflectors are on the landing craft of their Lunokhod 1 and 2 missions. Small retroreflector units from Apollo 11 were left on the surface by the Americans. The large retroreflector arrays from Apollo 14 and 15 were also carefully installed on the surface by Americans.
These are facts. The presence of those devices is proven and can be verified - all it takes is a laser and somewhat affordable detection equipment and you too can do laser ranging. That the retroreflector arrays left by Apollo 11, 14 and 15 were carefully installed by humans is obvious to anyone who sees pictures of the arrays from the moon, as well as the pictures taken from spacecraft orbiting the moon.
Reality according to whom?
Reality is reality and it's not according to any one particular person.
Where are all of these independent recordings? I got this quote from the article:
As Reuters reported on August 15, 2006, “The U.S. government has misplaced the original recording of the first moon landing, including astronaut Neil Armstrong’s famous ‘one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind’ … Armstrong’s famous moonwalk, seen by millions of viewers on July 20, 1969, is among transmissions that NASA has failed to turn up in a year of searching, spokesman Grey Hautaluoma said. ‘We haven’t seen them for quite a while. We’ve been looking for over a year, and they haven’t turned up,’ Hautaluoma said … In all, some 700 boxes of transmissions from the Apollo lunar missions are missing.”
So they misplaced the "original" recording (I use the term original loosely here). That sucks and they should be flogged, but so what? Large parts of those transmissions, including the seminal "small step" were seen by millions of people, live, on television and archived footage exists. It's even on youtube!
Of course I know how the moon reflects light from the sun to lighten the sky at nighttime. Are you saying the earth would in fact reflect the same light from the sun onto the moon? We're taking of different surfaces here.
I am saying that the earth reflects light from the sun onto the moon, similarly to how the moon reflects light from the sun onto the earth. The fact that the earth shines so brightly and prominently in pictures from the moon should be proof of just how much light it is reflecting.
Also, wouldn't the light reflected from earth be somewhat 'overshadowed' by the sun's light, as it is way brighter?
That's not how light works... ::)
I'll try to keep researching the issue as, at least to me, it is very interesting.
You may want to start from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Moon_landing_hoax_conspiracy_theories where all of the questions you've posed so far are already answered, and citations to original sources can be found.
-
-
We've never been to the moon...
Have fun and
Good evening
True, we haven't, but twelve astronauts have.
Hope that helps, my dark melatonin-inclined friend :)
-
maybe they wanted to make it seem like they were the first to do it
-
So much for the Van Allen Belt...
"Environment
1. The astronauts could not have survived the trip because of exposure to radiation from the Van Allen radiation belt and galactic ambient radiation (see radiation poisoning and health threat from cosmic rays). Some conspiracists have suggested that Starfish Prime (high altitude nuclear testing in 1962) was a failed attempt to disrupt the Van Allen belts.
- The spacecraft moved through the belts in about four hours, and the astronauts were shielded from the ionizing radiation by the aluminium hulls of the spacecraft. Furthermore, the orbital transfer trajectory from Earth to the Moon through the belts was chosen to lessen radiation exposure. Even Dr. James Van Allen, the discoverer of the Van Allen radiation belts, rebutted the claims that radiation levels were too harmful for the Apollo missions.[77] Plait cited an average dose of less than 1 rem (10 mSv), which is equivalent to the ambient radiation received by living at sea level for three years.[78] The spacecraft passed through the intense inner belt and the low-energy outer belt. The total radiation received on the trip was about the same as allowed for workers in the nuclear energy field for a year.[79]
- The radiation is actually evidence that the astronauts went to the Moon. Irene Schneider reports that 33 of the 36 Apollo astronauts involved in the nine Apollo missions to leave Earth orbit have developed early stage cataracts that have been shown to be caused by radiation exposure to cosmic rays.[80] At least 39 former astronauts have developed cataracts; 36 of those were involved in high-radiation missions such as the Apollo missions.[81]"
via http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Moon_landing_hoax_conspiracy_theories
-
Hope this helps:
[ Invalid YouTube link ]
-
Proof NASA weren't the first ones to go to the moon
-
(http://i45.tinypic.com/2s1t8wl.jpg)
Apollo 12 Landing SiteCredit: NASA/Goddard/ASU
The tracks made in 1969 by astronauts Pete Conrad and Alan Bean, the third and fourth humans to walk on the moon, can be seen in this LRO image of the Apollo 12 site. The location of the descent stage for Apollo 12's lunar module, Intrepid, also can be seen.
-
(http://i48.tinypic.com/iz0r4m.jpg)
Apollo 14 Landing SiteCredit: NASA/Goddard/ASU
The paths left by astronauts Alan Shepard and Edgar Mitchell on both Apollo 14 moon walks are visible in this LRO image. (At the end of the second moon walk, Shepard famously hit two golf balls.) The descent stage of the lunar module Antares is also visible.
-
Checkmate.
-
The problem with all this is that anything is debatable and in the age of photoshop you can always say... "Pics be touched."
Things like these, moon landing doubts, are killing of the good info(social and political re-education, loss of rights, high influence lobbies) that is out there.
Dis-info in small doses simply discredits the good host.
-
Wigg-spiracy....perhaps you should look up "Moon Machines" to go along with your continual youtube hoax post-bombings
-
The problem with all this is that anything is debatable and in the age of photoshop you can always say... "Pics be touched."
Things like these, moon landing doubts, are killing of the good info(social and political re-education, loss of rights, high influence lobbies) that is out there.
Dis-info in small doses simply discredits the good host.
http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/
What is LROC?
The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera (LROC) is designed to address two of the prime LRO measurement requirements: 1) Assess meter scale features to facilitate selection of future landing sites on the Moon. 2) Acquire images of the poles every orbit to characterize the polar illumination environment (100 meter scale), identifying regions of permanent shadow and permanent or near-permanent illumination over a full lunar year. In addition to these two main objectives, the LROC team is conducting meter-scale mapping of polar regions, stereo images that provide meter-scale topographic measurements, global multi-spectral imaging, and has produced a global landform map. We have imaged over 20% of the Moon at high resolution using the Narrow Angle Cameras; if the LRO mission continues for several more years, we will eventually image the whole moon at 1/2 m/pixel. LROC images will also be used to map and determine current impact hazards by imaging areas photographed by Apollo astronauts. Comparing the new and old images reveals impact craters that formed over the past 40 years.
LROC consists of two Narrow Angle Cameras (NACs) to provide 0.5 meter-scale panchromatic images over a 5 km swath, a Wide Angle Camera (WAC) to provide images at a scale of 100 meters/pixel in seven color bands over a 60 km swath, and a Sequence and Compressor System (SCS) supporting data acquisition for both cameras. LROC is a modified version of the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiters ConTeXt Camera (CTX) and MARs Color Imager (MARCI) provided by Malin Space Science Systems (MSSS) in San Diego, CA.
-
The problem with all this is that anything is debatable and in the age of photoshop you can always say... "Pics be touched."
Things like these, moon landing doubts, are killing of the good info(social and political re-education, loss of rights, high influence lobbies) that is out there.
Dis-info in small doses simply discredits the good host.
Except that this topic is not up for debate, the US went to the moon, there is empirical evidence to prove it. Only idiots who know nothing of photography or how cameras work think that this is all a big hoax.
Only a fucking moron what think we never went to the moon. We didn't have the technology to fake it back then, that's a fact, not debatable.
-
Who really knows
-
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/19/Apollo11-LRO-March2012.jpg)
No big deal, right?
-
Too bad that Gaddafffi got killed - he knew a lot about the US and the moon landings.
-
You may want to start from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Moon_landing_hoax_conspiracy_theories where all of the questions you've posed so far are already answered, and citations to original sources can be found.
In addition to your cogent and very good post I would like to add a “bon mot”:
I have met James Lovell…I knew his son Jay very well…he was a newspaper artist at the Houston Chronicle at the same time I worked there in the information technology department.
In addition, I met the engineer who designed the system that was used to get the television back from the Moon and the standards conversions to NTSC video.
-
Wiggs, I thought you were interested in the truth of these moon landings? Why did you abandon the thread when things got interesting? I'm assuming you're man enough to be able to reconsider your views in light of evidence previously unknown to you.
-
Just wanted you all to know that Wiggs is a fat, unemployed tard...