buzz aldrin punches man in the face!

[Captain Equipoise]

3 words.. Van Allen Belt.

[Lee_a_priest]

IS THE FLAF STILL ON THE MOON AND THE CRAFT THEY DROVE AROUND ON...WELL USE THE HUBBLE TELESCOPE TO ZOOM IN ON IT AND WE CAN SEE THE FLAG THEY LEFT............IF THE CAN USE THAT TELESCOPE TO SEE OTHER UNIVERSES USE IT TO SHOW US THE MOON THEN END OF STORY...........STILL MUST BE CRAP THEY LEFT THERE STILL THERE.......

LETS ALL JUST WATCH... CAPRICORN ONE... AGAIN...GREAT MOVIE

[youandme]

1.  where's the video? is there one down the rabbit-hole w you?

Take the blue pill, take the red pill.

[JOHN MATRIX]

SPACE IS GAY

FUCK SPACE

[webcake]

Moon landing was fake. The only reason why it was set up was because JFK said they will have man on the moon by the end of the decade, to which they beat the deadline by only 5 months. And why has man not been on the moon since 1972?? If the technology was available back then, surely it would be even more advanced now, yet we still are not able to return.

[SaleenS7525T]

IS THE FLAF STILL ON THE MOON AND THE CRAFT THEY DROVE AROUND ON...WELL USE THE HUBBLE TELESCOPE TO ZOOM IN ON IT AND WE CAN SEE THE FLAG THEY LEFT............IF THE CAN USE THAT TELESCOPE TO SEE OTHER UNIVERSES USE IT TO SHOW US THE MOON THEN END OF STORY...........STILL MUST BE CRAP THEY LEFT THERE STILL THERE.......

LETS ALL JUST WATCH... CAPRICORN ONE... AGAIN...GREAT MOVIE

Not saying we did or didn't land on the moon (I'm with 240 on this), but the Hubble does not have the resolution to see an object as small as the flag on the moon. Sure it can see galaxies that are much farther than the moon, but galaxies are just a bit bigger that that flag. So even at much larger distances, it takes less resolution to see a galaxy or star than an object the size of the flag on the moon.

[Sexual Mustard]

Moon landing was fake. The only reason why it was set up was because JFK said they will have man on the moon by the end of the decade, to which they beat the deadline by only 5 months. And why has man not been on the moon since 1972?? If the technology was available back then, surely it would be even more advanced now, yet we still are not able to return.

this is what gets me.  If we can get on the moon with technology from the 60s and 70s, surely we'd be able to venture past it by now...perhaps even on Mars?

sm

[sync pulse]

Yes, the United States sent men to the moon.
1. They left behind science packages that sent data back by telemetry for a considerable time after the missions.       
2. They left behind optical corner retro reflectors that still can reflect laser beams from the earth.
3. I met and conversed at length with the engineer who designed the television standards conversion system that enabled the televison networks to carry the video.
4. I met James Lovell.
5. I knew Jay Lovell, his son very well, while he worked as a commercial artist for the Houston Chronicle.
6. The Hubble telescope can only resolve objects on the moon larger than 60 meters.
There are many more hoax refutations, but I have to edit a commercial.  If you are interested, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Moon_Landing_hoax_accusations.  If you are suspicious of wikipedia, I suggest a university library, or large central public library.

[Meso_z]

Americans were not the first who "walked" on the moon - the moon landing was all fixed, many proofs. end of story.

[omgsoswole]

IF THE CAN USE THAT TELESCOPE TO SEE OTHER UNIVERSES

What the....when did this happen?!?!?

[jr]

Can you just clear it up for me - explain why a rocket doesn't kick up dust on the surface of the moon?

How does the ship take off from the moon using rocket engines, and the camera just shows it rising.  no shake, no dust, nothing.   Just explain that for me, algebra.  you've called me a mad hatter, so you owe me the courtesy of telling me why you believe the NASA version, that a rocket doesn't disrupt dirt.  Thanks!

There's no air on the moon, it's a vacuum. On Earth the rocket would push air down onto the ground kicking up dust. Not on the moon as there is no air. There's nothing in the moons atmosphere. A vacuum.

[omgsoswole]

There's no air on the moon, it's a vacuum. On Earth the rocket would push air down onto the ground kicking up dust. Not on the moon as there is no air. There's nothing in the moons atmosphere. A vacuum.

But the rocket does throw a number of particles out of its exhaust...which is what creates the thrust.  I'd have thought a vacuum would have served to accentuate any disturbance of dust as opposed to reduce it.

Not that i agree with 240.

[jr]

But the rocket does throw a number of particles out of its exhaust...which is what creates the thrust.  I'd have thought a vacuum would have served to accentuate any disturbance of dust as opposed to reduce it.

Not that i agree with 240.

How far would those particles travel from the nozzle and are they capable of moving dust?
How much dust was there on the surface of the moon under the rocket before launch to begin with?
If the rockets could move dust, wouldn't most of the dust have been moved during landing leaving mostly moon rock surface underneath the rocket?
Is it possible to see fine dust being moved on presumably poor resolution footage (I haven't seen the footage)?

[jr]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R88yPyhTMZI

Looks like a lot of stuff is moved when it lifts off. Like the flag and lots of debris.

[omgsoswole]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R88yPyhTMZI

Looks like a lot of stuff is moved when it lifts off. Like the flag and lots of debris.

Yeah after watching that vid i'm not really sure where the whole 'no dust' theory came from...

[kiwiol]

you use a rude name and poo-poo this idea.

Can you just clear it up for me - explain why a rocket doesn't kick up dust on the surface of the moon?
I've looked at other things - fishy pics, radio delay, flags blowing, inconsistent lightning, radiation - and none of it does too much for me.  both sides claim to have debunked the other.  Whatever.

240, for dust to accumulate on the surface so it can later be disturbed by whatever force, there needs to be an atmosphere or some sort of flowing medium that weathers things and carries the miniscule particles to other places.

Simply put, unlike the Earth or other planets / some cosmic bodies, the moon is just a dead rock (on the surface) that has no atmosphere surrounding it (Mars has a thin one that causes the dust storms you can read about in news archives).

So there is no flow of the two main mediums of transport (air and all 3 forms of water), which is also the reason why there is no weathering, bar the inconsiderable amount bought about by solar radiation or the occasional object falling into the satellite. The Moon might have sub-surface Geothermal activity, but this is something that can be argued for just as strongly as it can be argued against.

Plus, the cameras back then weren't exactly high resolution. The thing is, it's not that unimaginably hard to send someone to the Moon and back successfully . Hope this helped

[webcake]

The main point is one i already made. If we were able to put man on the moon in the late 60's to early 70's, why can we not put man on the moon these days? Why has man not set foot on the moon since 1972?

Simple, America had to beat Russia in being the 1st to put man on the moon. The Russians had better technology and a lot more space experience. If one country was going to legitimately have someone on the moon, it was going to be Russia.

[kiwiol]

The main point is one i already made. If we were able to put man on the moon in the late 60's to early 70's, why can we not put man on the moon these days? Why has man not set foot on the moon since 1972?

Simple, America had to beat Russia in being the 1st to put man on the moon. The Russians had better technology and a lot more space experience. If one country was going to legitimately have someone on the moon, it was going to be Russia.

Pretty much the same reason Arnold looks more impressive than bodybuilders of today inspite of the money, the growth of the industry, the advances in science etc. Then again, people didn't weigh 260 @ 5'9" in those days

The thing is, if someone wanted to and there was a valid reason and had the full means to enjoy that luxury, they would. But Biotechnology and Information technology both take greater value now cause they cater to an immediate need that's lucrative in the short term and the long term.

Simply put, no one's going to make a ton of money by putting someone on the Moon and / or be able to justify the budget (billions of dollars) to the current crop of citizens in most countries.

[davidpaul]

Buzz would have made a mean superheavyweight

[James Blunt]

Scooby doo is on channel 56

[davidpaul]

Buzz was the main idea behind Buzz lightyear

[Stark]

I meet the man back in my German Army time, we were in France and I was asked to attend a special Celbrity Dinner in Paris a couple of days before the big parade.

Now when the cameras were on eveybody tried talking to us and all, as soon as they were off all these high society fucks were gond, one guy comes over and says: You know that guy over there? I say I have no idea... he says, thats Buzz aldrin the second man on the moon...

So I walk over and we had a really good chat, he is very friendly the only one who truly wanted to talk to us, of course I got a signature.

[davidpaul]

Buzz Aldrin isn't human

[spinnis]

Buzz aldrin @ Ali G

&mode=related&search=

[Whiskey]

faking that moon landing won the Cold war, you ingrates!

World tech and investment resources all shifted from USSR to USA.  As a result, after 15 years of turmoil as partners left for us, Russia collapsed and went bankrupt.

Buzz should have punched that little punk twice.  America... fvck yeah!

Hey 240 have you ever watched the documentary " did we really land on the moon"    u can watch it over on www.alluc.org

it was the biggest hoax of the 20th century