Don't tell the people who built all the shit that went to the moon, they are real dedicated to the lie.
1969 Moon Landing
- Thread starter gtsfirefighter
- Start date
The van allen radiation can penetrate up to 1 g/cm^2 of material. About 1 mm of lead. I believe that was about 3mm of aluminum needed to shield enough to keep the electronics and people safe for a straight shot through the belts.
I've said it many times - one person might be able to keep a secret. Two people might be able to keep a secret, so long as one of them is dead.
The number of people who would have to be in on the secret if they faked the moon landings is phenomenal.
Worst case, radiation levels cooked their film, and, fearing the naysayers, they faked some photos to convince the world. Even that is a big stretch.
The number of people who would have to be in on the secret if they faked the moon landings is phenomenal.
Worst case, radiation levels cooked their film, and, fearing the naysayers, they faked some photos to convince the world. Even that is a big stretch.
was no film... it was all beamed back live (well, there is a delay)
there is SOME film, but the main part is the videos people saw...
it's not hard to sheild (1mm of lead isn't that thick), and it's not as dangerous to humans as it is to electronics (modern electronics have a tougher time handling the surges)
Secrets are kept all the time in this country... Look at the stealther figher and bomber. The stealther fighter was around decades before the public knew about it, and how many people worked on it?
there is SOME film, but the main part is the videos people saw...
it's not hard to sheild (1mm of lead isn't that thick), and it's not as dangerous to humans as it is to electronics (modern electronics have a tougher time handling the surges)
Secrets are kept all the time in this country... Look at the stealther figher and bomber. The stealther fighter was around decades before the public knew about it, and how many people worked on it?
what i think is funny is that we know all this OTHER shit about the moon landing and such, but how many of you can name the CREW off the top of your head. Ask them.
Actually, the stealth fighter and bomber weren't much of a secret anywhere except the USA. Sure, we didn't know the specs on it, but everyone knew it existed, and had a decent idea what it's capabilities were.
When I was still keeping up on the scientific community, they were publishing articles on new technologies years before the applications appeared in the military. Hell, they still haven't declassified the 'cold' jets, and I read about those initially in Scientific American back in the 80s. (They aren't really cold, of course, but they burn much cooler than regular jets - cool enough to foul up heat tracking systems on missiles.)
When I was still keeping up on the scientific community, they were publishing articles on new technologies years before the applications appeared in the military. Hell, they still haven't declassified the 'cold' jets, and I read about those initially in Scientific American back in the 80s. (They aren't really cold, of course, but they burn much cooler than regular jets - cool enough to foul up heat tracking systems on missiles.)
I can talk about a million things the governement is up to in the aerospace department, but it's pretty futile...
namely, the Hutchinson effect (as they took all his equipment and supposedly it ended up at skunkworks) http://www.americanantigravity.com/hutchison.html
thre is also lifter technology
http://www.americanantigravity.com/lifter4.html
(neat site BTW)
what was kept low key is the fact that a missile did hit a stealth fighter... so anti-stealth technology is out there more than likely. There is other technologies for hypersonic aircraft, ect...
namely, the Hutchinson effect (as they took all his equipment and supposedly it ended up at skunkworks) http://www.americanantigravity.com/hutchison.html
thre is also lifter technology
http://www.americanantigravity.com/lifter4.html
(neat site BTW)
what was kept low key is the fact that a missile did hit a stealth fighter... so anti-stealth technology is out there more than likely. There is other technologies for hypersonic aircraft, ect...
Its for reals. Any retarded conspiracy video could be debunked.... they have all the debunk vids on youtube.
I'd believe 911 conspiracy before moon...
De-bunk vids:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khDI2MsWSYc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrI3iQqTdns
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zspt2xD4VsY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExJofca4dFA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCN7qWrLHVw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkzjdTDdq0A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJcF5jCZG5I
If you don't think we landed on the moon your funny. For any doubters watch these videos before you do! Anyone who still believes we didn't is just silly.
I'd believe 911 conspiracy before moon...
De-bunk vids:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khDI2MsWSYc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrI3iQqTdns
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zspt2xD4VsY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExJofca4dFA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCN7qWrLHVw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkzjdTDdq0A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJcF5jCZG5I
If you don't think we landed on the moon your funny. For any doubters watch these videos before you do! Anyone who still believes we didn't is just silly.
Last edited:
Yeah, i think making those videos like that, keeping all the people quiet, setting it all up and planting fake equipment on the moon, is more work than actually doing the mission. What I think is cool...we went from not even being able to achieve powered flight, to landing on our own moon, in 70 years. But the conspiracy is stupid.
It was fake.
Reason i say that is, besides all the evidence against it being real, it was in a time when people weren't aware of technology, things weren't meant to be so clear.... didn't have no 12MP digital cmera's back then, or HD 1080i or internet, or Core 2 Duo's or none of that.... its no wonder its never been done since.
Isiphius I also think doing the setup is less work than getting on the moon.. if we really did go to the moon then the Total Recall Mars idea would have been long in effect... think about how far ahead everything else has excelled except travelling to the moon which is yet to occur again.. when back then NASA's supercomputers wouldn't have even matched a 486... let alone today's PC's even at a home user level....
Also regarding the sharp photo's I've seen I wonder how the man stood so well... did they have anti-motion filtering camera's that are 100's of years ahead of everything else that it was such the case....
Never went there.. Cold War Myth...and I think that's that
That is ofcourse my opinion, may not be right from what others would think but meh its merely what I think.
Reason i say that is, besides all the evidence against it being real, it was in a time when people weren't aware of technology, things weren't meant to be so clear.... didn't have no 12MP digital cmera's back then, or HD 1080i or internet, or Core 2 Duo's or none of that.... its no wonder its never been done since.
Isiphius I also think doing the setup is less work than getting on the moon.. if we really did go to the moon then the Total Recall Mars idea would have been long in effect... think about how far ahead everything else has excelled except travelling to the moon which is yet to occur again.. when back then NASA's supercomputers wouldn't have even matched a 486... let alone today's PC's even at a home user level....
Also regarding the sharp photo's I've seen I wonder how the man stood so well... did they have anti-motion filtering camera's that are 100's of years ahead of everything else that it was such the case....
Never went there.. Cold War Myth...and I think that's that
That is ofcourse my opinion, may not be right from what others would think but meh its merely what I think.
omg, watch the videos i linked.vas85 said:It was fake.
Reason i say that is, besides all the evidence against it being real, it was in a time when people weren't aware of technology, things weren't meant to be so clear.... didn't have no 12MP digital cmera's back then, or HD 1080i or internet, or Core 2 Duo's or none of that.... its no wonder its never been done since.
Isiphius I also think doing the setup is less work than getting on the moon.. if we really did go to the moon then the Total Recall Mars idea would have been long in effect... think about how far ahead everything else has excelled except travelling to the moon which is yet to occur again.. when back then NASA's supercomputers wouldn't have even matched a 486... let alone today's PC's even at a home user level....
Also regarding the sharp photo's I've seen I wonder how the man stood so well... did they have anti-motion filtering camera's that are 100's of years ahead of everything else that it was such the case....
Never went there.. Cold War Myth...and I think that's that
That is ofcourse my opinion, may not be right from what others would think but meh its merely what I think.
I don't understand how you people doubt it, seriously!
I find it funny because most nay sayers aren't from America....
WATCH THE VIDEOS!!! I don't see how anyone could logically come up with idea that we faked it when shown MORE information then just one side, or what you've heard.
That, and 1080i? We have 1080p now
That and it would be way harder to fool the entire WORLD.... and at the same time have an obvious NASA mission in which BILLIONS of dollars were spent... and where the hell did the shuttle go? You don't think the Russians would have been the first one to raise the BS flags?? Damn you people sure under estimate humanity.
I'm sure some reasons why we haven't gone to the moon again is simply because we have tons of samples of moon rocks... how much more could we study? It's just a empty planet. They probably can't really justify spending money for no damn reason... I think they are much more interested in Mars.
Infact, we have tons of plans to go to mars in the future, with manned shuttles. Are you going to call BS on that one too? Do you think if we FAKED going to the moon we would have gone eventually? Right? Doesn't that make logical sense? So we are just skipping over the moon and going for mars eh?
Last edited:
vas85 said:
What are you trying to say here? Because the public "didn't have no"
12mp camera's or HD tv, you think it was impossible for NASA, the inventor/supplier of most our new technology, to go to the moon?as for the "we've never done it since comment...
wikipedia said:
vas85 said:
uh........ You think it would impossible to stand still on the moon? Why is that exactly?
Anti-motion? More like a freakin tri-pod.
Anti-motion filtering camera's.... there were consumer digital camera's with image stabilization in the 90's. That's not 100's of years... :sarcasm:
navs85 said:Never went there.. Cold War Myth...and I think that's that
That is ofcourse my opinion, may not be right from what others would think but meh its merely what I think.
Ya, i wasn't on the mission, nor did i witness it, but holy crap the evidence supporting the "hoax" is extremely weak. Its all political. I have yet to see something physical supporting the hoax story.
Fooling a group of the public is one thing..... but completely fooling thousands of rocket scientists, NASA engineers and such since those missions is unreasonable.
There is no way a secret of that magnitude could be kept. They would have had to KILL each and every person involved with the fake to keep it under the rug.
You fools, there was no moon landing because there is no moon. Its all a big lie and cover up.
/sarcasm
/sarcasm
vas85 said:It was fake.
Reason i say that is, besides all the evidence against it being real, it was in a time when people weren't aware of technology, things weren't meant to be so clear.... didn't have no 12MP digital cmera's back then, or HD 1080i or internet, or Core 2 Duo's or none of that.... its no wonder its never been done since.
Isiphius I also think doing the setup is less work than getting on the moon.. if we really did go to the moon then the Total Recall Mars idea would have been long in effect... think about how far ahead everything else has excelled except travelling to the moon which is yet to occur again.. when back then NASA's supercomputers wouldn't have even matched a 486... let alone today's PC's even at a home user level....
Also regarding the sharp photo's I've seen I wonder how the man stood so well... did they have anti-motion filtering camera's that are 100's of years ahead of everything else that it was such the case....
Never went there.. Cold War Myth...and I think that's that
That is ofcourse my opinion, may not be right from what others would think but meh its merely what I think.
Total Recall Mars? Please, stop talking.
Let me explain the estetics of going to the moon vs going to mars.
We haven't gone back to the moon because of the immense cost and little gain we would get from sending people there. We have rock samples from all over the surface, we have plenty of data on geography, ect. There's no reason to go there at this time, that's why we haven't in over 30 years. There's simply nothing to gain and nothing new to learn.
Mars? Did you just compare going to Mars to going to the moon? Need I point out that the moon covieniently orbits the Earth at about 384400km (239000miles) center to center. Mars however, doesn't. The Earth is around 150 million km (~93000000 miles) from the sun, Mars is somewhere in the land of 250 million km (155300000 miles). And now we have 100 million km to cover just in straight orbital seperation, then you have to consider that both are moving at different speeds, and can be on opposite sides of the sun at the same time. Thus, sending out a space craft will require launching on a trajectory to intercept mars, not just go to it. Meaning Earth will leave the astronaughts far behind in it's orbit. If something goes wrong help is a year away. It's likely help would find a tin can full of frozen bodies.
Sending people to mars is a whole new department of space travel. The moon is a few days in space, Mars is over a year in space, then however long on mars, and a year back. Assuming they manage to land in the martian atmosphere without burning up, then take off without something going wrong, then making it into space and on the right trejectory to get back. This is all assuming that they don't get obliterated by interstellar debris, die of radiation exposure due to damage to the ship caused by impacts from said debris, or a long list of a million things that could go wrong.
The moon is easy. The technology of the 1960's was more than enough to do the job. Mars is very very far beyond today's technology.
And now, cost. Sending a probe the size of a basketball to mars costs millions of dollars. Sending a rover to land on its surface costs billions. The apollo missions costed a lot of money, had the government continued to fund them, it would have been economical suicide with the cold war looming.
I don't think anyone is stupid enough to fake something of the magnitude of the moonlanding. If it had been discovered, the US would be discredited for the rest of time.
Keros: you're forgetting that it's also a far larger body and actually launching off the surface seems to be one of the major logistical nightmares.
Escaping the moon's gravity is a hell of a lot easier than escaping the earth's. Mars gravity is lower, but not nearly as low as the moon...
Escaping the moon's gravity is a hell of a lot easier than escaping the earth's. Mars gravity is lower, but not nearly as low as the moon...
the two main obsticles right now to going to mars is the logistics of staying there and getting back home, and the psychological effects of being in space for such a long period of time with the same people...
honestly, we don't have any damn balls anymore, it took months to sail across the sea back in the time of the explorers, but we can't go to mars...
honestly, we don't have any damn balls anymore, it took months to sail across the sea back in the time of the explorers, but we can't go to mars...