Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
NASA is a Fraud
11-27-2011, 12:14 PM, (This post was last modified: 11-27-2011, 12:14 PM by sekular.)
#1
NASA is a Fraud
Apollo missions were a fraud and this is why.

Watch this: part 1
[video=googlevideo]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5638049439673634422[/video]

Watch this: part 2
[video=googlevideo]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3186616594425246748[/video]

Watch this:




Check out the website:
Quote:Apollo Zero seeks to prove that no man has ever really walked on the moon.

Think about this: to date, only three countries have been able to put a man merely in Earth orbit - the United States, Russia, and China. That speaks to how difficult it is just to get into orbit. Next, consider how far away the moon is from the Earth: 240,000 miles. Since the alleged moon landings, no country even claims to have gone more than 400 miles from Earth and that was in the Space Shuttle. The International Space Station orbits at 200 miles above Earth. There is a big difference between 240,000 miles and 400 miles. Why can't anyone make it more than 400 miles from Earth today if we could make a 480,000 mile round trip in 1969?

NASA further asserts that three men were loaded into a rocket, flew 240,000 miles to the moon and then achieved lunar orbit. They say the spacecraft separated and two astronauts flew 60 miles to the surface of the moon, in a vacuum and 1/6 Earth gravity. They then hung out on the moon for up to three days in 250 degree heat, hit golf balls, rode a moon buggy — but what powered their life support and equipment? They say BATTERIES.

They then supposedly blasted off the surface of the moon, docked with the third man going around the moon at over 4000 miles per hour, and made it 240,000 miles back to Earth. They re-entered Earth's atmosphere going 25,000 mph, but parachutes assured a safe landing in the ocean.

Their current mission is a fraud as well. Sending probes to Mars is ridiculous, when will NASA ever get busted for tricking the world?

Please post all the NASA fraud videos and lectures that you know about. What do you think is the biggest flaw in the NASA lie? Radiation protection? Propulsion? Communication technology? Camera Technology?
Reply
11-27-2011, 03:40 PM,
#2
RE: NASA is a Fraud
Quote:Why can't anyone make it more than 400 miles from Earth today if we could make a 480,000 mile round trip in 1969?

That statement is nonsensical. Just because they haven't, it doesn't mean they can't.

Those documentaries are filled with logical fallacies, lies, and scientific errors. What a shame that so many people buy this bullshit.

There are several good websites that totally debunk all the arguments, none of which have been addressed by the scientifically illiterate hoax claimants.

This is one site with 8 points. If you really believe they did not go to the moon, then you must be able to counter their arguments.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/photogalleries/apollo-moon-landing-hoax-pictures/
If you can't or won't, then your arguments have zero credibility.
[Image: randquote.png]
Reply
11-27-2011, 03:42 PM,
#3
RE: NASA is a Fraud
(11-27-2011, 12:14 PM)sekular Wrote: Sending probes to Mars is ridiculous

Are you saying the Mars missions didn't occur?

[Image: randquote.png]
Reply
11-28-2011, 08:49 PM, (This post was last modified: 11-28-2011, 09:03 PM by sekular.)
#4
RE: NASA is a Fraud
What happened to the google video embeds ? Sad

Quote:That statement is nonsensical. Just because they haven't, it doesn't mean they can't.

That would be like me saying that I can levitate to you when you are a kid, showing you some video and images and saying then I do this 6 times. Then when you grow up, at 35 year old, you run in to me and you ask me to levitate. Then I say that I have already done it six times and I do not need to do it again.
If NASA could go to the moon with the technology that they had in 1969 then they could easily go again with minimal effort in relation to non man missions to mars. They could also take with far more advanced instruments and cameras and get far better footage. There is realy no reason why NASA has not gone back to the moon since apollo. Especially when you consider the size of their budget. This has to lead to the question, why has nasa not gone back to the moon? Then when you do consider that every other mission away from the planet towards space has never gone more than 400km. It does seem quite a leap for man to have gone 240000km round trip. If it was that easy to go 240000km above earth then what is stopping other countries and private organisations from going above 400km?

Quote:Those documentaries are filled with logical fallacies, lies, and scientific errors. What a shame that so many people buy this bullshit.

I would be genuinely interested to hear which argument are logical fallacies and lies and errors. This is the type of sentence that i would usually say about NASA fans, just change the words Those documentaries are to Apollo is.

Quote:There are several good websites that totally debunk all the arguments, none of which have been addressed by the scientifically illiterate hoax claimants.

I have looked in to these debunker websites and have watched mythbusters and read that national geographic collection of debunk arguments. I am usually left unconvinced, they more often than not do not directly disprove the aspect that they are debunking. They often just create slightly conflicting "facts" that are not disprovable as well. Because you can not prove that the fictional astronauts did not use a specific camera speed this means that there was stars and is more than enough justification for there being no stars in any of the pictures. This sort of counter logic, is what we called debunking. It is not actually proof to the contrary of the argument. But it leads me back to a great paraphrase from the producer of apollo zero where he says that, nasa and its fans, always have an answer for everything, no matter how convoluted.

Quote:This is one site with 8 points. If you really believe they did not go to the moon, then you must be able to counter their arguments.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...-pictures/
If you can't or won't, then your arguments have zero credibility.

Trying to debunk debunk argument is non nonsensical because trying to disprove what camera speeds nasa used on the moon is not possible. But ill give it a go anyway.

flag wave:
This is not entirely accurate because the flag is seen moving in some video a while after the actornaut had touched it.

no photographer:
never heard of this argument before, i have heard of the argument that some photos were inconsistent based on where they were taken, but nothing specifically saying that there was a third person or a tripod. But this is also a common method of "debunkers" they will misrepresent the argument(s) or cherry pick arguments etc.

No Stars:
Stars would show up at that speed on the moon with no atmosphere. The sky would be white with stars. This is a great debunk of a debunk because it creates a disprovable counter argument. Smile
The "no stars" is one the smoking guns of the apollo lie.

no landing crater:
Have you watched the footage from the apollo missions? with todays visual effects it is actually humorous for myself to watch it and pretend that it is real. The images showing a perfectly placed lander is another smoking gun of the apollo lie.

Lighting:
This is another classic debunk. Of course can not prove how light would shadow on the moon. But general knowledge about the sun and shadows that we have our own planet and based on the knowledge we have about the moon. We can say that shadows would fall from the sun and you would not have additional light sources. You would be lucky to survive the heat, let a lone reflect light from another source to make another shadow. Some of the more blatant lighting mistakes within the apollo footage is not explained by this debunk.

Footprints:
never heard that argument about footprints being too clear.

leftovers:
Well i think this is an interesting point, it is also a pointless argument because even if someone invents technology to focus on the moon at close range. The moon hoaxes will not believe it anyway. It would be just as easy to produce an apollo landscape with nothing on it. Much like the japanese HD footage of the moon, that did not show anything at the apollo sites.

strange lights:
never heard this argument before.


There are many arguments that were not mentioned. I understand that many people struggle with apollo missions being a lie. But in my opinion any one that thinks we went to the moon in the 60s and 70s has no scientific credibility.


Quote:Are you saying the Mars missions didn't occur?

In my opinion I find it unlikely that man or probe has gone more than 400km above the earth. Unmanned satellites exist and we have had manned space craft in orbit and at high altitudes. But man does not have the technology to send probes out side of our atmosphere yet. We do not have propulsion technology, the anti-radiation technology and the material science technology to withstand the micrometeorites.

If we have had tons of probes from NASA go out of our atmosphere why can't they stick a camera on one and then have 30fps footage streaming back to earth. We could see the earth getting smaller and smaller with all the stars. It would look amazing. One day when man has the technology and he goes past 400km it will be amazing and we will all laugh at the foolish people from the past and NASA. Big Grin
Reply
11-28-2011, 09:41 PM,
#5
RE: NASA is a Fraud
(11-28-2011, 08:49 PM)sekular Wrote: What happened to the google video embeds ? Sad

Try using the proper BBCode.

(11-28-2011, 08:49 PM)sekular Wrote:
yeti Wrote:That statement is nonsensical. Just because they haven't, it doesn't mean they can't.
That would be like me saying that I can levitate to you when you are a kid, showing you some video and images and saying then I do this 6 times.

You again demonstrate that you fail to understand basic logic.

(11-28-2011, 08:49 PM)sekular Wrote:
yeti Wrote:Those documentaries are filled with logical fallacies, lies, and scientific errors. What a shame that so many people buy this bullshit.
I would be genuinely interested to hear which argument are logical fallacies and lies and errors. This is the type of sentence that i would usually say about NASA fans, just change the words Those documentaries are to Apollo is.

If you actually were interested, than you would have visited the many sites which disprove each claim point by point.

(11-28-2011, 08:49 PM)sekular Wrote:
yeti Wrote:There are several good websites that totally debunk all the arguments, none of which have been addressed by the scientifically illiterate hoax claimants.
Because you can not prove that the fictional astronauts did not use a specific camera speed this means that there was stars and is more than enough justification for there being no stars in any of the pictures.

You just demonstrated that you don't even understand the basics of photography.

(11-28-2011, 08:49 PM)sekular Wrote:
yeti Wrote:This is one site with 8 points. If you really believe they did not go to the moon, then you must be able to counter their arguments.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...-pictures/
If you can't or won't, then your arguments have zero credibility.
Trying to debunk debunk argument is non nonsensical because trying to disprove what camera speeds nasa used on the moon is not possible.

The speeds used, the film used, and the camera used is all public information.

(11-28-2011, 08:49 PM)sekular Wrote: flag wave :
This is not entirely accurate because the flag is seen moving in some video a while after the actornaut had touched it.

This is exactly the behavior one would expect in a vacuum. Thank you for proving the flag was in a vacuum. BTW, how do you explain the video of the feather dropping to the ground at the same speed as the tool?

(11-28-2011, 08:49 PM)sekular Wrote: No Stars:
Stars would show up at that speed on the moon with no atmosphere. The sky would be white with stars. This is a great debunk of a debunk because it creates a disprovable counter argument. Smile
The "no stars" is one the smoking guns of the apollo lie.

Again you demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding of basic photography. Take a flash photograph of a subject in front of a field of stars. Do you see any stars in the photo? Exactly. So much for your smoking gun.

(11-28-2011, 08:49 PM)sekular Wrote: no landing crater:
Have you watched the footage from the apollo missions?

Duh. What a stupid question. I watched them live on TV. I've watched them many times. I watched the IMAX version. Have you?

(11-28-2011, 08:49 PM)sekular Wrote: Lighting:
This is another classic debunk. Of course can not prove how light would shadow on the moon. But general knowledge about the sun and shadows that we have our own planet and based on the knowledge we have about the moon. We can say that shadows would fall from the sun and you would not have additional light sources. You would be lucky to survive the heat, let a lone reflect light from another source to make another shadow. Some of the more blatant lighting mistakes within the apollo footage is not explained by this debunk.

Your lack of basic understanding of how light works is sad. You're beyond help. You fail to recognize your own personal experience while clutching at straws. Go ahead, tell me it is impossible for an object to not cast multiple shadows. I dare you.

(11-28-2011, 08:49 PM)sekular Wrote: leftovers:
Well i think this is an interesting point, it is also a pointless argument because even if someone invents technology to focus on the moon at close range. The moon hoaxes will not believe it anyway. It would be just as easy to produce an apollo landscape with nothing on it. Much like the japanese HD footage of the moon, that did not show anything at the apollo sites.

OK, now you're LYING. I'm not going to waste any more time on a LIAR, other than to ask you to explain how the laser reflector box was precisely placed on the moon by the astronauts and is still used to this day.

(11-28-2011, 08:49 PM)sekular Wrote:
yeti Wrote:Are you saying the Mars missions didn't occur?
In my opinion I find it unlikely that man or probe has gone more than 400km above the earth.

OK, I'm done with you. You're obviously a crackpot.
[Image: randquote.png]
Reply
11-28-2011, 10:50 PM, (This post was last modified: 11-28-2011, 10:54 PM by sekular.)
#6
RE: NASA is a Fraud
(11-28-2011, 09:41 PM)yeti Wrote:
(11-28-2011, 08:49 PM)sekular Wrote: What happened to the google video embeds ? Sad

Try using the proper BBCode.

(11-28-2011, 08:49 PM)sekular Wrote:
yeti Wrote:That statement is nonsensical. Just because they haven't, it doesn't mean they can't.
That would be like me saying that I can levitate to you when you are a kid, showing you some video and images and saying then I do this 6 times.

You again demonstrate that you fail to understand basic logic.

No i think if you read the rest of the paragraph you will see that my logic does not fail to understand basic logic.

(11-28-2011, 08:49 PM)sekular Wrote:
yeti Wrote:Those documentaries are filled with logical fallacies, lies, and scientific errors. What a shame that so many people buy this bullshit.
I would be genuinely interested to hear which argument are logical fallacies and lies and errors. This is the type of sentence that i would usually say about NASA fans, just change the words Those documentaries are to Apollo is.

If you actually were interested, than you would have visited the many sites which disprove each claim point by point.
[/quote]

I have already said that I have read the debunking websites and i was unconvinced.

(11-28-2011, 08:49 PM)sekular Wrote:
yeti Wrote:There are several good websites that totally debunk all the arguments, none of which have been addressed by the scientifically illiterate hoax claimants.
Because you can not prove that the fictional astronauts did not use a specific camera speed this means that there was stars and is more than enough justification for there being no stars in any of the pictures.

You just demonstrated that you don't even understand the basics of photography.
[/quote]

OK then please tell me what are the camera settings that would allow for stars on the moon. Please also explain to me why some photos manage to focus on the moon, on the lander and the planet earth but still manage to see no stars?

(11-28-2011, 08:49 PM)sekular Wrote:
yeti Wrote:This is one site with 8 points. If you really believe they did not go to the moon, then you must be able to counter their arguments.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...-pictures/
If you can't or won't, then your arguments have zero credibility.
Trying to debunk debunk argument is non nonsensical because trying to disprove what camera speeds nasa used on the moon is not possible.

The speeds used, the film used, and the camera used is all public information.
[/quote]

Made public by NASA the people behind the lie.

(11-28-2011, 08:49 PM)sekular Wrote: flag wave :
This is not entirely accurate because the flag is seen moving in some video a while after the actornaut had touched it.

This is exactly the behavior one would expect in a vacuum. Thank you for proving the flag was in a vacuum. BTW, how do you explain the video of the feather dropping to the ground at the same speed as the tool?
[/quote]

That video could have easily been faked. That video was also of a very poor quality if i remember correctly.

(11-28-2011, 08:49 PM)sekular Wrote: No Stars:
Stars would show up at that speed on the moon with no atmosphere. The sky would be white with stars. This is a great debunk of a debunk because it creates a disprovable counter argument. Smile
The "no stars" is one the smoking guns of the apollo lie.

Again you demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding of basic photography. Take a flash photograph of a subject in front of a field of stars. Do you see any stars in the photo? Exactly. So much for your smoking gun.
[/quote]

If you go to cuba where they have the big telescope or go out where you can see a lot of stars and you take a picture you will catch stars in the sky because they give out so much light. Without an atmosphere on the moon it is realy unrealistic for cameras to not pick up any stars. Also the speed that they have stated the pictures were taken at are unsubstantiated.

(11-28-2011, 08:49 PM)sekular Wrote: no landing crater:
Have you watched the footage from the apollo missions?

Duh. What a stupid question. I watched them live on TV. I've watched them many times. I watched the IMAX version. Have you?

[/quote]

The only Imax of apollo that i have heard of is the movie with ton hanks, apollo 13, maybe you mistaken the actual apollo mission for the movie?

(11-28-2011, 08:49 PM)sekular Wrote: Lighting:
This is another classic debunk. Of course can not prove how light would shadow on the moon. But general knowledge about the sun and shadows that we have our own planet and based on the knowledge we have about the moon. We can say that shadows would fall from the sun and you would not have additional light sources. You would be lucky to survive the heat, let a lone reflect light from another source to make another shadow. Some of the more blatant lighting mistakes within the apollo footage is not explained by this debunk.

Your lack of basic understanding of how light works is sad. You're beyond help. You fail to recognize your own personal experience while clutching at straws. Go ahead, tell me it is impossible for an object to not cast multiple shadows. I dare you.

[/quote]

I did not say that given different light sources that there would not be different shadows. I was just under the impression that the sun always gives one angled shadow. But realy to focus on shadows or one of the aspect is failing to see the bigger picture. It is all of the problems together that make it a fraud. One problem here and there you could forgive or debunk, but all of the problems together and you have a big lie.

(11-28-2011, 08:49 PM)sekular Wrote: leftovers:
Well i think this is an interesting point, it is also a pointless argument because even if someone invents technology to focus on the moon at close range. The moon hoaxes will not believe it anyway. It would be just as easy to produce an apollo landscape with nothing on it. Much like the japanese HD footage of the moon, that did not show anything at the apollo sites.

OK, now you're LYING. I'm not going to waste any more time on a LIAR, other than to ask you to explain how the laser reflector box was precisely placed on the moon by the astronauts and is still used to this day.

[/quote]

I did not realize that you were a fan of NASA, to be honest i am kind of surprised that an admin of conspiracycentral would be against one of the biggest conspiracy known to people. When most people think of conspiracies they think of moon landing lie. What do you think about that. Does that contribute towards your hate of this theory?

(11-28-2011, 08:49 PM)sekular Wrote:
yeti Wrote:Are you saying the Mars missions didn't occur?
In my opinion I find it unlikely that man or probe has gone more than 400km above the earth.

OK, I'm done with you. You're obviously a crackpot.
[/quote]

I do not appreciate being called a crackpot for my opinions. I did not come to these lightly.I have done a fair amount of research and this is the opinion that i have come to. If you do not want to agree with that, then i do not care to convince you. But I would extend the request to anyone who has any material that proves that nasa is a fraud or that has apollo hoax lectures and documentaries or information to please share it. Thanks.
Reply
12-01-2011, 09:15 PM,
#7
RE: NASA is a Fraud
(11-28-2011, 10:50 PM)sekular Wrote: OK then please tell me what are the camera settings that would allow for stars on the moon. Please also explain to me why some photos manage to focus on the moon, on the lander and the planet earth but still manage to see no stars?

yeti Wrote:OK, I'm done with you. You're obviously a crackpot.

Quote:I do not appreciate being called a crackpot for my opinions.
You ought to be grateful.

Most people would let you stew in your pathetic delusions.

Good luck when you reach adulthood. (The state reached when you first appreciate the true meaning of the word humility). If you ever do...

Reply
12-02-2011, 06:47 PM,
#8
RE: NASA is a Fraud
I met many ppl who believe NASA landed on our moon. Many believe it just "because i saw it on tv, stupid". Most of them lack simple knowledge of space and what is out there. They saw so called Sy-Fy flicks and that's all the knowledge of space they have. So they knowalmost nothing about the power of Solar radiation of its consistency, they never heard of cosmic radiation (radiation from othr stars for example), and they don't want to understand that our planet has its own protecting magnetic field.
When i say about Van Allen belt and what is out there behind it, many look at me as if i'm a lunatic and that's "just because they saw it on tv!".
No living earth's creature ever crossed that protection field. Never. Because technologically it's impossible to produce some kind of protection from Solar & cosmic radiation for human. By radiation i mean a whole bunch of rays - X-rays, alpha, beta, gamma-rays, magnetic radiation and other particles. These rays may not be lethal for electronics of probes & satelites, but are deadly for any living earth's creature (except probably fungus spores).
If you wanna laugh out loud, compare space suits of those alleged moon walkers & modern suits in space station.
Then take a ruler, make an identical in sizes spacecraft landed on moon from whatever you want get there & try to stay there
for at least a couple of hours (without food & visiting WC).
There were rumors that in 1967 soviet union tryied to send a manned spacecraft farther from earth, but mission failed, people died, results classified. Even after 40 years, Russia (supposedly by agreement with US) didn't declassified anything about that mission, BUT didn't disapproved it either!
We could hope that China (somehow) will send men to the moon, BUT now economical dependence of US & China is SO HUGE and US won't let such a blow to their image to happen, we won't have any impressive facts in near future.

The problem with NASA fans is next, they don't want to listen to your technical part of your opinion they start attacking your personality and your beliefs straight. Their #1 argument is "NASA is cool & great, who are you to challenge them?"
When you start giving technical information to them their usual reply is like above's "...your pathetic delusions".
NASA has one of the biggest PR department so effective, that Steve Jobbs would envy. Why scientific, space agency needs these "spin doctors"? If space exploration & discoveries are "for public", then who they treat?

Now technically impossible to send man on the moon considering three facts: radiation, successful landing & launching, and logistics. There's no enough powerful booster to carry the weight of alleged apollo mission. Saturn 4 was never launched successfuly, what you saw was slightly inflated Saturn-1. Even now there's no powerful booster. Funny, NASA uses Russian launchers. At the same time NASA claims of unbeaten Saturn4 which blueprint were lost! Can you believe this shit!? Tens of years of expensive trials and errors and blueprints were lost. But why NASA didn't invite designers & developers, who didn't lost their mind i hope to recreate those blueprints?

The bottom line is, Moon Landing was a political show. Yes, it had a tremendous effect & influenced US political image as a super power. But that was the show.
BTW watch "Kubrick's oddyssey". You will find out how the moon footage was produced.
Reply
12-02-2011, 07:46 PM,
#9
RE: NASA is a Fraud
(12-02-2011, 06:47 PM)LCD2 Wrote: So they knowalmost nothing about the power of Solar radiation of its consistency, they never heard of cosmic radiation (radiation from othr stars for example), and they don't want to understand that our planet has its own protecting magnetic field.
When i say about Van Allen belt and what is out there behind it, many look at me as if i'm a lunatic and that's "just because they saw it on tv!".
No living earth's creature ever crossed that protection field. Never.

Excuse me if I accept the word of Van Allen himself over yours. He is on record saying the belt would have little effect on the astronauts.

So tell me he's wrong and you're right.


(12-02-2011, 06:47 PM)LCD2 Wrote: There's no enough powerful booster to carry the weight of alleged apollo mission. Saturn 4 was never launched successfuly, what you saw was slightly inflated Saturn-1. Even now there's no powerful booster. Funny, NASA uses Russian launchers. At the same time NASA claims of unbeaten Saturn4 which blueprint were lost! Can you believe this shit!?

Why should I believe someone who doesn't even know which version of the Saturn launchers was used for the moon missions? It was the Saturn FIVE.
[Image: randquote.png]
Reply
12-02-2011, 09:01 PM, (This post was last modified: 12-02-2011, 10:15 PM by LCD2.)
#10
RE: NASA is a Fraud
Quote:"Excuse me if I accept the word of Van Allen himself over yours. He is on record saying the belt would have little effect on the astronauts.
So tell me he's wrong and you're right."

When he was saying that (on the record), in 60's & 70's? How many information about the radiation US & USSR had at those times? I'm not gonna tell you who is right or wrong. Now we have a lot of information about van Alen belt & cosmic radiation. Just don't read articles published by NASA only. There are EAN & RosCosmos.
BTW, after Newton's Principia many scientists completed the physics with facts Newton didn't know. Does it mean they were wrong and Newton was right? Nope. It means that science today have more knowledge of physics & mathematics than it was in times of Newton. The same way van Allen didn't know much about the radiation we know today.
Or you only judge the knowledge by one rule "if someone famous says something, then it is absolute truth"

Quote:Why should I believe someone who doesn't even know which version of the Saturn launchers was used for the moon missions? It was the Saturn FIVE."
So what? Yes, i'm human, my memory let me down, which is natural for human. And by one error you've decided to judge the whole picture. Then why you're not so captios about NASA? They have much more faults & errors to discard their credibility. Or you're so catious you stopped contacting your kids 'because they make errors all the time'?

As for landing, lets examine NASA Mars landings, which by the time of landing this operation had to be "a piece of cake". But how many missions to mars failed before successful ones? To land on the moon is not an easy task. It's not docking the spaceship (which is not an easy operation even today with all those modern automatics & electronics).
As i said before, NASA & their fans uses rhetoric, not facts. Their best weapon is to call you "an idiot" and then add "we don't argue with idiots". Say no more.

sekular. NASA & other space agencies of the world successfully launched probes & satelites. GPS, Satelite TV & communication are working all thanks to satelites which are 35,786 km (22,000 mi) above. Mars, Venus & other missions are real. NASA doesn't fool anyone, simply because many of those missions are international.
But what NASA is really flimsy about are their Apollo missions & SkyLab.
As for books, i recommend Ralph Rene's "NASA mooned America".

P.S. I really respect all the work NASA has been doing all these years. I respect all the people who worked, have been & are working for this organization. I feel sympathy for their fails and excitement for their successes. And i wish this organization to live long life and have minimum fails with little damage. But this organization became part of the trickery in US goverment political games, which is sad.
Reply
12-02-2011, 10:48 PM,
#11
RE: NASA is a Fraud
(12-02-2011, 06:47 PM)LCD2 Wrote: ... By radiation i mean a whole bunch of rays - X-rays, alpha, beta, gamma-rays, magnetic radiation and other particles. ...

Oh, do please explain what "magnetic radiation" is.
“Today’s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after
equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality. ” -Nikola Tesla

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace." -Jimi Hendrix
Reply
02-27-2012, 05:00 PM,
#12
RE: NASA is a Fraud
aww he gave up when you asked him to explain magnetic radiation. perhaps he wiki'd and found gamma, xrays ect are all forms of electro-magnetic radiation. shame he didn't have the balls to own up.

If they are still reading you seemed to have the hangup about recording stars on camera. Its really quite simple. light from stars in not that bright. its true. a sunlit sky can easily drown out such things. you need quite a dark sky for them to poke out at all.

Now imagine you are on the moon while facing the sun. very hot as you know also very bright indeed.

The photographer has a choice when presented with very dark and very bright objects in the same field of vision.

drown out the dark stuff and record the bright in normal contrast or overbright the light stuff and bring the stars out? you cant have both. can anyone in class tell me which choice the photographers interested in recording the moon chose?

There is also another thing to consider. focal length. the closer you focus on something the more the back ground goes out of focus. little, not very bright pin lights on a deep black? you wouldn't even see a dark grey.

If you saw stars it would be fake.
Reply
08-09-2012, 04:28 AM,
#13
RE: NASA is a Fraud
I can't find where "Apollo Moon-Landing Hoax" would go on this site, but I just started watching the film DARK SIDE OF THE MOON. I'd seen the clips of the Nixon staff before and remember saying, "Yeah, but that could be spliced together about some topic other than the moon-landing, which isn't actually mentioned among them." Many of you know what I'm talking about...

So, I don't know much more about the film yet besides, of course, what almighty Wiki says, but I think it's important to consider beyond the obvious. Namely, what if the discussion was indeed about the Apollo mission? If the cat got out of the bag...just speculating here...Rummy, Haig, et al. could have said to the filmer, "Listen: you chop this shit up and call it, uh...a 'mockumentary.' Yeh, that's gonna be a new thing now, okay? Pass it off as that or your head will roll. We'll develop the antihoax, give it a wiki page, etc., all this since people have seen it and it's gone viral..."

Something to that effect. So it gets swallowed/covered as this fun, fake film and no harm done -- in fact, if the mission filming was indeed faked by Kubrick, it would only add to the strength of the detraction of the debunkers of the conspiracy.
Reply
08-09-2012, 09:43 AM,
#14
RE: NASA is a Fraud
The government lies about almost everything,, why think they would tell the truth about the moon landing? About as much chance as they would about 9/11, since out moon landing beat the Soviets somehow. I never bothered really caring whether or not the moon landing was real, but I tend to lean towards it being faked. I never knew that light reflected so much and was so bright when not on the moon, how crazy are the laws of physics when one changes planetary bodies? I suppose about as crazy ad a bullet can get when shot at a man of importance, it makes sure to travel through him at least three times.

Or, perhaps we did go to the moon, but we do not anymore because the government has some large amount of bases or who knows what? I have no idea. For all I know, there are Nazis on the moon.
Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats. - Henry L. Mencken

I believe that it is better to tell the truth than a lie. I believe it is better to be free than to be a slave. And I believe it is better to know than to be ignorant. - Henry L. Mencken
Reply
08-12-2012, 07:03 PM,
#15
RE: NASA is a Fraud
(08-09-2012, 09:43 AM)Anarchist Wrote: The government lies about almost everything,, why think they would tell the truth about the moon landing?

"If the government said it, it's a lie" is a simplistic and delusional axiom. This kind of conspiracy-influenced thinking is the source of a great deal of distorted perceptions. Of course the government lies, but do they lie about 'almost everything'? No. Keeping track of such a sprawling web of deception would be impossible and would render them completely untenable, even to the uncritical masses.

Quote:Or, perhaps we did go to the moon, but we do not anymore because the government has some large amount of bases or who knows what? I have no idea. For all I know, there are Nazis on the moon.

So you don't think the Apollo missions were real, but you DO think it's possible that there are secret bases and Nazis there...

/facepalm
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Nasa Validates 'Impossible' Space Drive pizzaman777 2 1,555 08-04-2014, 07:15 AM
Last Post: vagabonder
  NASA Scientist’s Quest To Prove We’re All Trapped Inside A Video Game drummer 10 3,623 02-13-2013, 02:31 AM
Last Post: Valthrax
Video NASA Discovers Portals in Space drummer 3 1,370 12-10-2012, 12:02 AM
Last Post: macfadden
Bug NASA Conducts Big P.R. Stunt on Mars CharliePrime 1 878 11-23-2012, 06:21 PM
Last Post: FastTadpole
Video STS-75: The NASA Electrodynamic Tether Incident (1996) FastTadpole 1 1,669 05-24-2011, 12:21 PM
Last Post: Krise
  BREAKING NEWS :: NASA Reveals 'Astrobiology Discovery' + The Gulf of Mexico Biofuel Connection drummer 5 2,201 12-03-2010, 04:21 PM
Last Post: FastTadpole
  NASA finds water on moon April 3 1,339 11-18-2009, 08:17 AM
Last Post: FastTadpole
  Nasa prepares to bomb the moon TriWooOx 18 3,154 10-07-2009, 08:50 PM
Last Post: April
  NASA 'can't cope' with killer asteroids April 6 1,555 08-16-2009, 04:17 AM
Last Post: ---
  NASA Satellite Crashes Before Reaching Orbit B4Time 18 3,303 04-09-2009, 09:49 PM
Last Post: rsol

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)