Did NASA really make it to the moon???

Discussion in 'The ChitChat Lounge' started by i'm_not_neo, Oct 18, 2006.

  1. i'm_not_neo

    i'm_not_neo el valor máximo absoluto

    Sorry for the somewhat skeptical/contraversial question,but when you're through reading this thread you're going to have doubts too.When I first saw these I was shocked..

    1)Why does the dust clump together like wet sand? Everybody's seen the pictures of the astronauts' footprints, but should the dust have left any trace of the footprints? Wouldn't they have disappeared like footprints in dry sand dunes?

    2)Why doesn't the dust stay in the air longer than in earth? Surely with the less gravity it would float around for ages?

    3)The temperatures on the moon reach 280 degrees Fahrenheit. Wouldn't this have baked the photographic film until it frizzled?

    4)This picture and other filmed footage of the American flag on the moon seems to show it fluttering. How is this possible if there's no atmosphere or wind on the moon?

    5)Why does this rock have a 'C' written on it? Is it labelling placed on it by those who constructed a fake lunar landscape?

    6)The tracks of the rover in this photo appear to turn at right angles behind it. How is this possible?

    7)If the sun is the only source of light on the moon, why do lots of the photos, like this one, show shadows at different angles and lengths? Doesn't this show the use of spot lights?

    8)Who filmed Neil Armstrong coming out of the Lunar Module when there was no-one on the surface to do this?

    If you're through reading this then its time for confessions.NASA did make it to the moon.The answers to the above questions and a lot more can be found at moonhoax.com.Curiousity is the best way to gain knowledge.Some TV show on Nat Geo got me in to researching on this topic and I don't want someone else to fall for these gimmicks like I did.

    Edited (added later):Sorry folks!didn't know you'd been already tortured too many times on this topic.
  2. .:SpY_GaMe:.

    .:SpY_GaMe:. New Member

    topic discussed loads of time before like http://www.indianguitartabs.com/showthread.php?t=23928 n one was by jayswami i think

    i watched loads of vids abt that n finally got to say : wtf i dont care whether they made it through or not

    n yes they did not make it through it was shot in one of their secret bases think area 51 or sth such
  3. i'm_not_neo

    i'm_not_neo el valor máximo absoluto

    Thanks for the link to the previously posted thread.But that was the whole point of reposting it.Jayswami's thread is saying NASA didn't make it while I'm saying they did (in a very weird way,I know).Its just that these questiions make us doubt NASA and I wanted ppl to know that there's an explaination for them.

    So, again FOR A LOGICAL EXPLAINATION to all the questions above PLEASE GO TO www.moonhoax.com
    Darn I should have typed the answers too.
  4. .:SpY_GaMe:.

    .:SpY_GaMe:. New Member

    by the way u heard the news that nasa has apparently reported that they lost /cant find the original tape of the first landing

    they also said that it has to be in the storeroom but since they have more than 300 000 vids they currently cant find it

    heard that 2 mnths ago
  5. lord_neo

    lord_neo Guest

    oh no...not this again! :annoyed:
  6. i'm_not_neo

    i'm_not_neo el valor máximo absoluto

    Posting answers to the questions in same sequence....

    1)The lunar dust is not anything like sand. The particles are smaller and much more irregular. Sand on Earth is the result of weathering and has been rounded and smoothed by wind, water and oxidation, but dust on the moon are minuscule shards of broken rock from asteroid collisions. Consequently their surface at a molecular level is a jagged mass that won't get smoothed off and don't have any weathering to smooth them off. This means that when compressed, say by a boot, the dust particles will grip with each other very readily, using and retain the shape. All without any water.

    2) * Dust does not float in a vacuum. The only reason it 'floats' on Earth is because of the air that surrounds it. In a vacuum dust behaves exactly like any other object. You throw it up and it will then fall. It is no different from what a rock would do. Rocks do not float or billow around nor does the dust, even if it is lighter.
    * Because there is no air, dust falls quicker on the moon than on Earth. This may seem strange, as the Moon's gravity is much less. But the lack of an atmosphere is far more significant to the dust. But it still falls slower than you'd expect a rock to on Earth.

    3)This theory is based on the maximum temperature that the moon's surface reaches during the long lunar day. (The moon has a day that lasts for two of our weeks.) That's very, very hot. Fortunately, no-one went to the moon to spread film out under the sun for two weeks.

    4)Firstly the flag had a horizontal bar attached to it at the top. This was done so that the flag would stand out from the flagpole. NASA appreciated that there would be no wind on the moon, so any normal flag would just hang limply and unattractively down the pole. To make things look better they added a bar that stood out at 90 degrees from the pole. The flag was really hanging from this, rather than from the pole. The bar was also not quite the full width of the flag, so that it was slightly furled to give a 'wave look' to it.
  7. rohit

    rohit New Member

    watched it many times on natgeo.
  8. shak

    shak Harrr!

    1. cuz dust holds its shape when you pack it tight .. plus there is no wind and too little gravity to deform the sand structure

    2. the question isnt correct (Why doesn't the dust stay in the air longer than in earth ... comparing 'air' with 'earth')?, maybe you should rephrase it, but i think i know what you are saying .. well mate .. there aint no air on moon and very little chance that dust would get kicked up ..

    3. "the Moon landings were always set by NASA to occur when the sun was at 30 degrees above the horizon in the Lunar morning. This was for two reasons. First, the illumination at that sun angle makes it easier to pick out boulders and craters and other landing hazards so the LEM pilot could land safely. The other reason was that the temperature of the surface soil is the most earthlike at that time in the lunar "day", i.e. around 70 degrees F." (taken from yahoo answers) ...
    plus if you use little common sense ... if astronauts can survive those temps why cant film? if nasa can put heat shields around astronauts why cant they do the same for the films?

    4. vibration from the pole makes the flag move

    5. how do we know the picture hasnt been adulterated?

    6. what? they drove the rover and turned right!! that simple!

    7. this happens even on earth .. umm go throught the previous threads on this topic i have posted pictures that exhibit the same anomaly .. reason camera angle lenses and landforms .. etc. very basic

    8. DUH!! and a big one at that! .. camera mounted on one of the legs of the moon lander ..

    cant believe i've done this again ..
  9. Morbid_Angel

    Morbid_Angel Sid the sloth

    Another lame thread, which I make lamer.
  10. i'm_not_neo

    i'm_not_neo el valor máximo absoluto

    5)We don't have to take this ridiculous idea any further, because it is not a 'C'. The above image is perhaps third generation at best. It's a copy of a copy of the original photograph. Referring back to the original sees the 'C' disappear. This is simply because all it is is a tiny hair that contaminated one of the copies along the way.

    6)The rover was steered by its rear wheels, so all this photograph shows is where the wheels turned.

    7)You can see in this photograph that the astronaut on the right is much longer and at a different angle to the one on the left. This isn't at all strange if you consider the slopes on the landscape. There is a dip in the surface between the two figures. The shadow on the right is sloping downhill, the shadow on the left

    8)The last question is kinda stupid.
  11. i'm_not_neo

    i'm_not_neo el valor máximo absoluto

    Wrong is wrong...

    My sincere apologies for posting yet another previously posted thread....adequately entitled "lame".I thought the previous threads were more towards the negative side while I wanted to prove that NASA did make it (now I'm wondering why).
    Again apologies for adding an unwanted thread.
  12. i'm_not_neo

    i'm_not_neo el valor máximo absoluto

    @shak....nice you got close to many of the answers..
  13. Morbid_Angel

    Morbid_Angel Sid the sloth

    He's not just close. His answers are ALL theoritically correct.
    But we will never know about the moon landing.
  14. .:SpY_GaMe:.

    .:SpY_GaMe:. New Member

    make me president of the cia n i will unravel all the secrets

    duhhh even the secret service sucks nowadays./.....

    n yeah shak got all rite i think
  15. Morbid_Angel

    Morbid_Angel Sid the sloth

    Now this made me laugh. Maybe for a useless reason.
  16. i'm_not_neo

    i'm_not_neo el valor máximo absoluto

    Yeah I'm going to edit (delete) that line and a lot of other cheesy ones too...i thought i was being the first 1 to post em hence the (over/theatrical)enthusiasm.
  17. the_wizard

    the_wizard Omega == God

  18. bjr

    bjr Lady of the Evening

    aww, don't get upset. You make better threads than most people around anyway. Lameness is just a contagious disease you caught.
  19. d_ist_urb_ed

    d_ist_urb_ed Genuflect b*tches!

    Did NASA make it to the moon? Was Adriana Lima's nip slip real? Will gay people take over the world......
  20. the_wizard

    the_wizard Omega == God

    If he had told me the truth, I would've told him to shove that red pill right up his ass!!!!

Share This Page