1. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

We Never Went to the Moon

Discussion in 'Conspiracy Debates' started by Scott, Mar 23, 2007.

  1. peoplespartyguy65

    peoplespartyguy65 Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2008
    Messages:
    8
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Michigan
    If we didn't go to the moon please explain to me the explosion of technology we had during that period of time?
     
  2. revolution4PAUL

    revolution4PAUL Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2008
    Messages:
    77
    Likes Received:
    2
    ^^^^LOL, lots of scientists, engineers and HUGE PAYCHECKS!! LOL^^^


    http://youtube.com/watch?v=G29WT2_y1-E&feature=related

    If you watch this clip I would like for you to answer this question. My question- Say you figure the astronaut weighs 270lbs total(180lbs for himself and say his space suit/equipment weighs 90lbs) and the moons gravity is 1/6th that of earth or equal to 0.1666666... than he would only weigh a total of ~46lbs(270lbs X 0.166...) on the moon, how come he can only jump up like two feet?

    I would have to imagine that they would easily be able to jump 4 or 5 feet up with 1/6 of earths gravity, but i have never been to the moon and this is just and educated guess.

    What does anyone else think about this logic? Should this be considered evidence?
     
  3. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2007
    Messages:
    101
    Likes Received:
    5
    I'm no expert but when I look at the formulas for height and range of trajectories in this link...

    http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/traj.html

    ...it looks like he should be able to jump a lot higher than he jumps in that video.
    A pretty good case is made for a combination of wire supports and slow-motion to fake moon gravity in this clip.
    http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUE

    I saw a YouTube video made by Jarrah White which I can't find now. He said the slow-motion in that clip was about sixty seven percent.
     
  4. 9sublime

    9sublime Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2007
    Messages:
    2,620
    Likes Received:
    13
    Location:
    Bristol
    Exactly.
     
  5. peoplespartyguy65

    peoplespartyguy65 Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2008
    Messages:
    8
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Michigan
    The reason the astronauts only jumped around about 2 feet high is because of the low gravity. They had to stay in control for fear of jumping off of the moon. Also if we did not have the race for the moon a lot of the communication technology that we take for granted today would not exist.
     
  6. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2007
    Messages:
    101
    Likes Received:
    5
    There's a noticeable difference in the body movements in these two clips.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUE
    http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11v.1101330.rm

    What I hypothesize is that only slow-motion was used in Apollo 11. Later, they improved thier methods of simulating lunar gravity and started using a combination of slow-motion and support wires. The slow-motion in the later missions might not have been exactly half-speed. It might have been sixty five or seventy percent of natural speed. Jarrah White says it's 67 percent. It looked better but it was inconsistent with Apollo 11 footage. The inconsistency is apparent.

    At around the 21 minute mark of this video the above footage from Apollo 11 can be seen played at double speed.
    http://video.google.es/videoplay?docid=4135126565081757736&q=apollo

    It can also bee seen in this video at around the 30 minute 55 second mark.
    http://video.google.es/videoplay?docid=-7335269088210976286

    It looks just like movement in earth gravity. To fake lunar gravity during Apollo 11 they used a crude half speed slow-motion.

    There's a ton of video evidence that the missions were faked. One of the most damning pieces of evidence is this clip of the flag being moved by air when the astronaut walks past it.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1UEv2PIzl4
    (2 minute 35 second mark)

    Why doesn't some pro-Apollo person post something he considers to be conclusive proof that they went to the moon and we can talk about whether it's really proof.
     
  7. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2007
    Messages:
    101
    Likes Received:
    5
  8. Mr.Dysfunctional

    Mr.Dysfunctional Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2008
    Messages:
    271
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    The Future World order of China
    Flag waving theory comes crashing to the floor (( as well as a few others )) thanks to the most prominent Scientific team EVER!!!

    I love you Mythbusters and Discovery channel!

    HAHA Eat it CT's!!! we went to the moon :cool:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMBCfuKs9i8&NR=1
     
  9. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2007
    Messages:
    101
    Likes Received:
    5
  10. BigRob

    BigRob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2007
    Messages:
    7,534
    Likes Received:
    353
    Location:
    USA
    You will simply say that about anything you dont agree with. What is the point of the discussion at that point?
     
  11. top gun

    top gun Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2007
    Messages:
    4,940
    Likes Received:
    34
    Location:
    Ohio, USA
    Come on... of course we went to the moon.

    First of all that would be a project far to big with hundreds and hundreds (probably thousands) of people who would have to be knowledgeable of the lie and covering it up all the way to their death beds.

    Secondly... there were a lot of lead up missions that were well documented and/or repeated by the US as well as other nations... orbiting the earth etc.

    And third... going to the moon doesn't seem all that impossible in the first place.

    I'd be more inclined (still pretty slightly) to believe our government was lying about UFO's than I ever would believe we didn't go to the moon.
     
  12. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2007
    Messages:
    101
    Likes Received:
    5
    There is some very simple evidence that the missions were faked. I posted this a few pages back.

    Look at the way the corners of the jacket the woman astronaut is wearing behave in zero-gravity.

    http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=TejsnPThmd4
    (first 10 seconds and last 30 seconds)

    It's pretty different from the way the corner of Collins' jacket behaves.

    http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=I_CMgqitv98
    (50 second mark)

    Look at the way Collins' dog tags bounce up and down in the second clip. Look at the dogtags in this clip.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3dGBSggYq8
    (dogtags in real zero-G timemark 1:50)

    I put some keys on a string and hanged them around my neck and jogged in place. I was able to exactly duplicate the motion of Collins' dogtags right here in gravity by imparting a little extra forward motion to my upper body. Collins' feet are out of sight. He may be on some kind of exercise device with pedals which would explain the extra forward motion. Do you think it's possible to duplicate zero-G motion in gravity by imparting a little extra movement to the upper body? When Collins was jogging in place, they were supposed to be halfway to the moon.

    The press would never report it. The press is controlled.

    http://www.youtube.com//watch?v=bbnxsPgcsH0
    http://es.youtube.com/results?search_query=chomsky+media&search_type=&aq=f

    Also, it would be downright dangerous for someone to go public. Look what happened to Thomas Baron.
    http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfYBJFPuiwE

    There's no evidence that they went any higher than low earth orbit.

    The evidence shows that they faked it. The most probably reason was probably space radiation.


    http://www.geocities.com/apollotruth/
    (excerpt)
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    There is an old saying that "A liar needs a good memory". Nowhere is this more true than in the Apollo program. NASA tell lies to cover up previous lies, and other discrepancies uncovered by people investigating the Moon landings. Altering previous data, removing photographs, and retracting statements made, only re-enforces the evidence that NASA are on the run, and being forced into a corner to which they cannot escape. The actions of those under investigation makes the investigator more aware they are bluffing. The longer that person, or persons, who make the extravagant claims continue, the more lies they have to tell in order to counteract it, until it reaches the point where it becomes ridiculous. That point was passed in July 1999, when NASA officials were questioned about the Moon landings on television. They dodged the all important questions like a drifter dodges the heat.


    Many Apollo astronauts have long since died, as to have many of the original NASA officials involved in the scam, consequently current officials, who know that Apollo was a fake, have not quite got it right when talking openly in public. Perhaps the biggest slip of the tongue was made by NASA Chief Dan Goldin when interviewed by UK TV journalist Sheena McDonald in 1994. He said that mankind cannot venture beyond Earth orbit, 250 miles into space, until they can find a way to overcome the dangers of cosmic radiation. He must have forgot that they supposedly sent 27 astronauts 250,000 miles outside Earth orbit 36 years earlier.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vENebR5hsRs
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZ65d30kYME

    two sets of radiation data
    http://hey_223.tripod.com/bulldoglebeautaketooooo/id82.html
    (excerpt)
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To prove his thesis, Rene tries to get certain solar data from NATIONAL
    OCEANIC & ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, (NOAA) using clever techniques
    to
    disguise his true intentions, [i.e. to get true data on solar flares.] NOAA,
    unfortunately, proved to be as cagey as Rene in dodging the giving out of any
    really good DETAILS on this matter, [you know, where the devil resides.]

    Rene, seeing games being played, deduced that there must be two sets of data,
    one which is sent to scientists on the preferred list, and one sent to the
    likes of Rene as casual strangers. (p.125)
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    http://ocii.com/~dpwozney/apollo5.htm
    http://www.erichufschmid.net/MoreInfoForScienceChallenge.html
    http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=9659&hl=apollo


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Van_Allen

    About James Van Allen
    ---------------------------
    http://www.buzzcreek.com/grade-a/MOON/articles1.htm
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2rotplZn0g
    ---------------------------

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKB5u_VTt6M
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcytzf7PkRA
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6DhY1NvmIc
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1ltWMbHdDU
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnckudD9oa8
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiTzo3G_hvo
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFiIR7hA1rM
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toI1Xw9paW4

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xlKooAbKpM
    (this has more than 20 parts)
    ------------------------------------------------------------------

    Here are some good analyses of the big picture.
    http://www.reddit.com/domain/northerntruthseeker.blogspot.com
     
  13. top gun

    top gun Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2007
    Messages:
    4,940
    Likes Received:
    34
    Location:
    Ohio, USA
    I can appreciated that you are really into this... but "keys on a string test" is not what I'd call a conclusive example of fraud. There are a lot of things that can be made to look like other things... that doesn't mean the original thing isn't real as well.

    Think about it for a second. First... we weren't nearly as good at cinematic "faking of things" as we are today. Secondly... it's not "the press" it all the hundreds (probably thousands) of people involved and with some knowledge of the fake. People would after all these many years be pouring out of the woodwork to make a buck on such a claim.

    Any of the astronauts or anybody ever having any real credentials at NASA would definitely get air-time... heck we have shows on UFO's all the time! Add to that the lowest common denominator... rags like the Enquirer would have jumped all over this years ago.


    I understand but it's like Watergate someone, somewhere, somehow would have came forward if nothing else as a death bed confession.


    Well if you take 100% of everything documented as "no evidence" I guess that would be no evidence... to that person.

    And it's a fact we did have the technology to shield the space radiation effect.

    I suppose there are people who don't believe we've had people living in orbiting space stations either. Like I said I appreciate your interest in this but a preponderance of the evidence is that we went to the moon.
     
  14. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2007
    Messages:
    101
    Likes Received:
    5
    Top Gun-

    You're not debunking the evidence I posted. You're ignoring it. I can think of a few possibilities.

    http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/dissonance.htm
    (excerpt)
    ------------------------------------------------
    Cognitive dissonance is a psychological phenomenon which refers to the discomfort felt at a discrepancy between what you already know or believe, and new information or interpretation. It therefore occurs when there is a need to accommodate new ideas, and it may be necessary for it to develop so that we become "open" to them. Neighbour (1992) makes the generation of appropriate dissonance into a major feature of tutorial (and other) teaching: he shows how to drive this kind of intellectual wedge between learners' current beliefs and "reality".


    Beyond this benign if uncomfortable aspect, however, dissonance can go "over the top", leading to two interesting side-effects for learning:

    if someone is called upon to learn something which contradicts what they already think they know — particularly if they are committed to that prior knowledge — they are likely to resist the new learning. Even Carl Rogers recognised this. Accommodation is more difficult than Assimilation, in Piaget's terms.
    and—counter-intuitively, perhaps—if learning something has been difficult, uncomfortable, or even humiliating enough, people are less likely to concede that the content of what has been learned is useless, pointless or valueless. To do so would be to admit that one has been "had", or "conned".
    ------------------------------------------------

    http://www.philosophicalsociety.com/Logical Fallacies.htm
    (excerpt)
    ------------------------------------------------
    invincible ignorance -- the fallacy of insisting on the legitimacy of one's position in the face of contradictory facts. Statements like "I really don't care what the experts say; no one is going to convince me that I'm wrong"; "nothing you say is going to change my mind"; "yeah, okay, whatever!" are examples of this fallacy.
    ------------------------------------------------

    http://www.opposingdigits.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1222
    (excerpt)
    -------------------------------------------------
    9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues with denial they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

    Example: "Nothing you say makes any sense. Your logic is idiotic. Your facts non-existent. Better go back to the drawing board and try again."

    Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your evade the issues with your own form of nonsense while others, perhaps more intelligent than you pretend to be, have no trouble with the material. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 9 - play dumb)?
    -------------------------------------------------

    I usually don't get sarcastic but I can't help it here. Here's a video for you to watch.

    http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=v1kuaALuBrk
     
  15. BigRob

    BigRob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2007
    Messages:
    7,534
    Likes Received:
    353
    Location:
    USA
    Your response to the entire show debunking most of the CT claims was simply it is government controlled propaganda. Then you turn around and say "debunk my evidence." Why is it that you do not have debunk any evidence?
     
Loading...

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice