Login in above or register to subscribe to this topic.
You can subscribe to receive an email when someone replies to this topic.
We will only send 1 email to you if there has been 1 or more replies since your last viewing. You can unsubscribe again here or in your account settings pages at any time.
super craigPosted: 08:24 Dec03 2007Post ID: 2016809
super craig
Posts: 7,694
Post Likes: 1
0
+
LIKE THIS POST
Aluminium is quite a strong metal once it has been processed, I mean planes and other vehicles are made out of the stuff so I don't belivev that the flag pole wasn't strong enough. It is also incredibly light for the amount of strength it has, and while its weight wouldn't have matter on the moon it would still have to be light for easy movement when on Earth.
As for the backgrounds the lack of atmosphere means that objects that are very far away aren't obscured, making them appear closer and clearer, so despite the different locations many of the shots will look similar, although not exactly the same.
Let me be the first to congratulate you on witnessing pure perfection!
In space there is no wind. The flag was moving, like it was in the wind in the videos. If there is no wind, there is no way the flag can be moving. NASA said that the pole they used to hold the flag was weak aluminum and was shaking from when it was put into the ground. That excuse doesn't fly though because NASA would have surely sent a strong flag pole to hold it up, not something that shook like it was from the dollar store.
Also the picture below proves that the lighting is not reflecting off a lunar module because it is behind and to the left of the auastronaut.
The explanation for the amateur mistakes is that the U.S was in a huge hurry to "land" on the moon before the Russians so they could take an upperhand in the cold war.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to spot those mistakes; even if unforseen circumstances occured due to it being a live broadcast, failing to account for the camera exposure and typically amateur-ish mistakes is next to impossible - rather, unforgivable - to the nations top scientists.
The material of the flag pole is your assumption, there's absolutely nothing backing it up, and as I've explained countless times; the motion of the flag was perfectly normal according to the given conditions of the moon. Its odd to assume that the flag wouldn't flail even if somebody was holding it. It wouldn't have mattered what the flag pole was made of; NASA's statement was a fact, not an argument, the flag would have flailed despite what ever it was attached to as long as the astronauts were holding it around.
The light could have easily reflected off a hill/crater or even another astronaut; really, it's not the least obvious thing to explain. Not to mention that wasn't taken with a camera, its fairly easy to alter the picture to make it more presentable; in fact, NASA admitted to altering all the pictures released to the public to make them more visible.
Rather than borrowing from some of the weakest, most common arguments against the moon landing, you should do some research and evaluate the whole thing on your own... or maybe you should just read every post before yours? I can't imagine why you'd bring up the wind thing if you've read any of my posts discrediting the wind argument (e.g. so the landing was fake and it was shot within a studio... so how does that explain wind blowing? A fan to keep the film crew nice and chilled?)
you just dont want to expect that yous/USA might not of landed on the moon
To slay the Dragon, You must first slay the Bee ~ Harlsta
Milliseconds, Seconds, Minutes, Hours, Days, Weeks, Months and Years Are All Illusions Of Time, Live Life Without Worrying About Them And You Will Be Living Life To The Fullest
super craigPosted: 11:51 Dec07 2007Post ID: 2020928
super craig
Posts: 7,694
Post Likes: 1
0
+
LIKE THIS POST
Well if they were smart enough to fake the moon landing then surely they would be smart enough to whip up a fake picture to 'prove' it. Even if it was a real picture you would still have people claiming its fake and that would just lead to more arguements. Apprerently there are things on the moon that you can use a laser to show that its there, but as Fwank mentioned a bit back they could have just put that there with a probe or something, which come to mention it they could probably do that with a flag.
Let me be the first to congratulate you on witnessing pure perfection!
There is however the slight problem of locating the original lunar landing site; after all, the moon may not be as big as Earth, but it's still pretty massive if you're looking for a solitary flag and landing module.
[center] Signature credited to Nathan (or whatever he decides to call himself next)
MSN address: yamiken (at) hotmail (dot) co (dot) uk [size=6](You know the drill, remove the spaces, replace the at with @ and the dot
The moon landings were the culmination of a fraught space race between the Americans and the Russians. Both nations threw the kitchen sink at trying to get a man on the moon first. Now if the Americans were hoaxing the whole thing the Russians would have quickly latched on to the fact that none of the audio or video transmissions were actually coming from the moon. Why didn't they step forward and declare the whole thing an American sham and gloat about it for the next two decades?
super craigPosted: 17:56 Dec10 2007Post ID: 2026075
super craig
Posts: 7,694
Post Likes: 1
0
+
LIKE THIS POST
A very good point, the Russians would have been the first people to be picking over ever little discrepency of the moon landings considering there was so much at stake. However it is still possible (though I doubt it) that the Russians just might not have looked hard enough.
Let me be the first to congratulate you on witnessing pure perfection!
If you had common knowledge you would know that there can be shadows on the moon from manmade lights and that the flag rippled because he moved it to make a rippling motion. Because there is no gravity it's logical and has been proved that the flag would still be making that exact same rippling motion today.
"It's right in the middle of the ocean!" (you had to be there)
Which is what I've been saying in this thread the entire time; including a month a go when this debate was first initiated.
Next time, come earlier so that the good points haven't been stated already and/or to make sure that you're not just paraphrasing something that's been mentioned 10 times over within one thread... (i.e. read everything before you post)
Also, its common knowledge that my "common knowledge" statement was in fact an sarcastic statement; you can see the extent of sarcasm being demonstrated as I trailled off and requested the member to back his statement up.
Please don't do that (post before you finish reading the entire thread) EVER again.
I don't think it was staged. Why would they stage such an important part of a an achievement? Plus there wouldn't really be any point in going back as it has been discovered and such. There are many other planets with which can be explored.
This old story? its not a hoax, it has been proven time and time again that we,maybe not the USA(cause im not saying i dont beleve that the US landed on the moon but im not saying that they did), the world as a whole has laneded on the moon.
Do not waste your time on Social Questions. What is the matter with the poor is Poverty; what is the matter with the rich is Uselessness.
Login in above or register to subscribe to this topic.
You can subscribe to receive an email when someone replies to this topic.
We will only send 1 email to you if there has been 1 or more replies since your last viewing. You can unsubscribe again here or in your account settings pages at any time.