We Probably Never Made it to the Moon

a reply to: dunn00

It burns up because of friction. It’s entering the atmosphere, and heating up as it does. As the atmosphere gets thicker, there’s more friction, so more heat.

a reply to: everyone

That's nice but this is about us landing on the moon and not magic bullet theory.

a reply to: Zaphod58

For the sake of argument do you believe an impact crater with a shiny surface could work?

originally posted by: dunn00
If everything burns up roughly 3-4 thousand miles out how do all the satellites used for tv work as some say are out in a fixxed orbit at around 22thousand miles out ?? What about that unmanned thing called voyager they sent out that now is supposed to be beyond pluto and still sends pics back here..

But things don't burn up 3 to 4 thousand miles out.

a reply to: dunn00

Have to ask also, how does everything "burn up roughly 3-4 thousand miles out"?

As to the voyager probes well they are still transmitting and beyond the heliosphere.

originally posted by: xollo6

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: xollo6

Actually, the messiah complex is a psychological condition, which technically means you’re mental. Still, making me laugh, so keep it up.

NOEL is LEON

Wanna play?

JESUS real name is ZEUS ... JESUS without the J...

God is Dog
Cat is Tac
Bird is Drib

Your post makes no sense whatsoever?

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: dunn00

It burns up because of friction. It’s entering the atmosphere, and heating up as it does. As the atmosphere gets thicker, there’s more friction, so more heat.

And an object's velocity as it hits the atmosphere is a factor as well. Theoretically, an object could enter the atmosphere at a very slow velocity relative to the atmosphere and not create the friction that causes it to burn.

If anti-gravity spacecraft were ever developed, or spacecraft with engines that could deliver a large enough thrust for an indefinite period while reentering the atmosphere, then heat shields on those spacecraft would not be required. They could re-enter at, say, 125 km/h (200 mph) -- or even 1 km/h for that matter -- and be perfectly fine.

originally posted by: xollo6

originally posted by: visitedbythem
Let me see the car on the surface and that will settle it.

they played golf on the Moon


Stop, don''t laugh

He used a "makeshift" club which was a modified sample collection tool which he added a 6 iron head to and hit TWO balls.

Not exactly taking a full set of Taylor Made and playing 18 holes is it

originally posted by: Grenade

There's no end of inconsistencies and anomalies in the photo and video evidence.

Example:

It's not like the Nixon Administration would ever lie.

Yeah things like that alone are enough to show it didn't happen. No way the same backdrop would have occurred for two separate missions... much more likely that the same film backdrop was used twice accidentally.

originally posted by: andy06shake

As to the voyager probes well they are still transmitting and beyond the heliosphere.

No they're in a NASA basement making up the images on photoshop

a reply to: dunn00

Where in the world did you get 3-4 thousand miles?

If this was sarcasm I apologize.

originally posted by: cooperton


Yeah things like that alone are enough to show it didn't happen. No way the same backdrop would have occurred for two separate missions... much more likely that the same film backdrop was used twice accidentally.

They aren't the exact same backdrop, why do you think they put the photos next to each other instead of making an overlay? Because then it is immediately clear it is a different backdrop. (not to forget that both images are stitched together from multiple photos and they are from the same Apollo 17 mission)
www.hq.nasa.gov... (google moon link mw2.google.com...)
www.hq.nasa.gov... (google moon link mw2.google.com...)

a reply to: cooperton

Mmmkay.

Can i interest you in some sky-hooks or tartan paint?

a reply to: Zaphod58

A single photon?

a reply to: TheLead

Not as well as the reflectors do.

a reply to: cooperton

I guess it boils down to believing the US government or not. History tells me that's a foolish approach to finding real truth.

The evidence for the moon landing requires a certain level of trust, you need to trust the astronauts, who, as military men would follow orders even if they were told to lie and act.

If you take away the testimony of astronauts you then have to depend on samples brought back from the moon. With moon rocks that NASA handed out, some at least have been proven fake, others as natural meteorites.

Example:
news.bbc.co.uk...

Another was sent to Andrew Steele, an astrobiologist at NASA’s JSC from the University of Portsmouth in the United Kingdom, he said:

"It was quite alarming, I thought I was looking at hairs from an astronaut. But they turned out to be brush fibres.”

So, both of these proofs could well be compromised.

In fact most studies on lunar samples have been found to be very close to what we find on Earth crust samples. I challenge anyone to find an independent study of lunar rock from the Apollo missions.

At least we still have all the original data, photos and video to pour over:

NASA loses Apollo tapes

I did find a nice archive of Apollo photos if anyone's interested, some i've never seen before:

www.flickr.com...

A few that i found interesting:



An overlay of images: AS17-136-20685 and AS17-147-22527

Here's Buzz standing near an identical rock while a few hundred thousand miles from the moon:




*The information in this post was sourced from the following page, i've removed the Kubrick angle and summarised the info.

www.conspiracytruths.co.uk...

a reply to: Grenade

The reflectors bounce back between one and three photons every few seconds. The surface of the moon bounces back between 0 and 1, much more erratically.

a reply to: Zaphod58

So two photons?

I'm just playing with ye.

I don't doubt the reflectors are there, i just don't see how it proves a manned mission.

originally posted by: Grenade

A few that i found interesting:

An overlay of images: AS17-136-20685 and AS17-147-22527

From my front door, I can see a large hillside a few miles in the distance. As I look at the hill, I can see the street in front of my house in the foreground and certain houses across the street.

If I walk down my street several houses and stand at their front door and look at the same hill a few miles away, the hill looks virtually identical from the way it looked from my house. However, the foreground in front of me is a tonally different part of my street and totally different houses across that street.

The hillside is far enough away that looking at it from down the street makes virtually no difference in point of view, but the foreground is close enough to make a huge difference.

Apollo 17's landing site was a few miles/several km from the South Massif (the hill). The South Massif looks closer than we think because there is no haze on the Moon to help us judge distances like we do on Earth.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

That’s not what’s happening in these frames and you know it.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

That’s not what’s happening in these frames and you know it.

I mean, why not? If not this, then how should the two images look when overlaid?

I can see some very very minuscule shifting of the stuff on the hillside between the two frames. It seem likely, and very plausible, that taking two images of the same mountain from two slightly different locations -- locations close enough to each other to not affect the background too much, but far enough that the foregrounds would be different -- would result in two images like this.

But if you say they should not look like this, then explain what they should look like and give reasons why.