Is there life on other planets?

[Funkalicous]

You're no genius either.

Stupid n00b! Discuss the topic or ******** off.

 

[Total Package]

If it was in a court of law, you would have to provide something more substantial than "look how grany the pics are - it must be faked".

• Flags flapping in the "wind"
• No Blast crater under the module.
• No lunar dust evident in any photos of the footpads on the lunar module.
• Footprints actually UNDER the lunar module even though they were supposidly the first men on the moon. Maybe some aliens got their first in their King Gee size 14 workboots and stomped around to make the surface nice and firm for them.
• Photos "edited" years after release to remove writing rocks and other inconsisencies.
• When Footage is doubled in speed you can clearly see they are in Earth's atmosphere.
• Apollo Safety Inspector writes a report saying the NASA program is in disarray and they will never get to the moon. Safety Inspector mysteriously is killed along with his whole family and the report is mysteriously lost meaning funding could continue into the Apollo program.
• Scientists calculated that to get to the moon and back safely in the 1960's would be a 0.0001% probability
• Not a single photo is ever taken of the stars even though they could have changed the aperture on the lens or bought a telescope/camera capable of taking photos of planets and galaxies that we could not see from Earth. They brought 3 lunar modules instead to go for a spin in. Why didnt they take photos of stars and the galaxy? Because its almost impossible to fake that. Easier just to have a black sky.
• Gus Grissom was the original astronaut for the Apollo mission. He was an outspoken critic of the program and had no problem telling people they had no chance of getting to the moon. Weeks later he is killed in a fire in the capsule during testing along with his 2 fellow astronauts. No wonder Neil Armstrong went into hiding after Apollo 11 and refuses to talk about it to this day. The man fears for his life.
• The intersecting shadows prove they were not on the moon..... badastronomy.org tries another pathetic attempt to describe how this works... and uses some minature models to prove it... and it is scientifically wrong. I will show you later on how ridiculous that is as well.
• The Van Allan radiation belts mean it would be almost impossible for them to get to the moon and not suffer the horrific effect of radiation. The highest altitude anyone has been has been 350miles above Earth in the space shuttle meaning nobody has been past the Van Allen belts at 1000 miles. The Astronauts to the moon apparantly made it 350,000 miles and are all fit and healthy. Yeah right.
• Several photos show NASA having the identical background on photos taken on completely different days miles away from eachother. Mr Bad Astronomy cleverly uses "Parallax" as a reason for this occurring. Sounds feasible doesn't it to the average idiot reading his site. Like I said... you can make anything sound plausible. Unfortunately for Mr Bad Astronomy NASA has come out and admitted it was just "Goofy editing" on their part and that the shots were from the same day and same mission. So immediately this proves what I was saying that Mr Bad Astronomy just finds an excuse that sounds reasonable and tells everyone what it was.... then gets bitten on the ass because NASA say the real thing that it was and that its got nothing to do with "Parallax". Unfortunately for NASA they should have gone with the "Parallax" excuse because it sounds more feasible than someone just stuffing up some video footage.

I could go on and on and on with this list and name about 50 bits of proof we have. How much more proof do you really need? I have an idea... why don't they PROVE it happened??? They can't. NASA has said so themselves... the only way we can prove it is to point a telescope at the Moon and show us the buggies and flags that are still there on the surface... but they won't.

What about the laser reflectors positioned on the surface of the moon? The ones that tell us the distance (to the nearest inch) to the moon.

How do you explain those away?

Do you have to send a man on the moon to put a reflector on it? No you can easily do that without having to send a man there with it.

Is this the best you can come up with? Why didnt they take pictures of the stars?

OK. Have you ever been in a well light area, and tried to see the stars? Can you point a camera up at the stars and get anything to develop? Nope. Why? reflected light screws you up every time.

See again... you a perfect example of a debunker. You pick out 1 of my reasons and use that for the basis to discredit the whole thing. No surprise that you chose the stars in the pictures.. just like Mr Bad Astronomy does. You can change the aperture on the camera so that you can focus just on the stars without having the reflective light. This question is not about WHY the stars don't exist in the pictures... its about WHY they didnt take photos of the stars seperately. The reflected light excuse does not wash with me. We can send a man to the moon but we can't take a camera capable of filtering out reflective light? Ahuh.

I also see you don't offer any valid reasons for my other points. So tell me.. does that really look like a flag waving on the surface of the moon by the astronaut twisting the pole to you?

Seeing you are the ones accusing nasa of a cover up - it is up to you to prove themfalse.

So far, it has not been done.

I give up. You are a Debunker with a closed mind. I've met your type 10000 times before and they are impossible to erason with because they refuse to budge on their views.. You are the amateur astromer type wo has grown up with these ideals. You look at everything from a scientific point of view. You have a closed mind. You can only have facts pushed in your face so many times. You just ignore them. The proof and facts are there. If you want you can swallow the NASA standard lines.. which is "They were all goofy mistakes" or you can read the biased fanatical rantings of Mr Bad Astronomy most of which have absolutely no basis at all and are just plain wrong. Thats up to you. You're problem is that you cannot even consider it remotely possibile that the US Government could possibly have covered this up. You probably have a poster of Neil Armstrong and the Moon up on your bedroom wall and have grown up all your life believing in this wonderful event. You've probably dreamed yourself of being an astronaut. You are the exact reason secrets can be kept for so long. The US Government doesnt have to try and keep a secret. They have enough closed minded fanatics like you who will do it for them.

 

[MonkeyButterer]

Stupid n00b! Discuss the topic or ******** off.

OOh, calling me a n00b!! What's next, "Takes one to know one!"??

I beleive your moronic assertion that the moon landing occured in 1957 was on topic, and my statement declarig your idiocy in that regard was on topic also. The genius remark was just an extension of such...

But by all means, lets get back on topic...so when was the moon landing again???

Moron.

 

[Kenny_01]

• Flags flapping in the "wind"
• No Blast crater under the module.
• No lunar dust evident in any photos of the footpads on the lunar module.
• Footprints actually UNDER the lunar module even though they were supposidly the first men on the moon. Maybe some aliens got their first in their King Gee size 14 workboots and stomped around to make the surface nice and firm for them.
• Photos "edited" years after release to remove writing rocks and other inconsisencies.
• When Footage is doubled in speed you can clearly see they are in Earth's atmosphere.
• Apollo Safety Inspector writes a report saying the NASA program is in disarray and they will never get to the moon. Safety Inspector mysteriously is killed along with his whole family and the report is mysteriously lost meaning funding could continue into the Apollo program.
• Scientists calculated that to get to the moon and back safely in the 1960's would be a 0.0001% probability
• Not a single photo is ever taken of the stars even though they could have changed the aperture on the lens or bought a telescope/camera capable of taking photos of planets and galaxies that we could not see from Earth. They brought 3 lunar modules instead to go for a spin in. Why didnt they take photos of stars and the galaxy? Because its almost impossible to fake that. Easier just to have a black sky.
• Gus Grissom was the original astronaut for the Apollo mission. He was an outspoken critic of the program and had no problem telling people they had no chance of getting to the moon. Weeks later he is killed in a fire in the capsule during testing along with his 2 fellow astronauts. No wonder Neil Armstrong went into hiding after Apollo 11 and refuses to talk about it to this day. The man fears for his life.
• The intersecting shadows prove they were not on the moon..... badastronomy.org tries another pathetic attempt to describe how this works... and uses some minature models to prove it... and it is scientifically wrong. I will show you later on how ridiculous that is as well.
• The Van Allan radiation belts mean it would be almost impossible for them to get to the moon and not suffer the horrific effect of radiation. The highest altitude anyone has been has been 350miles above Earth in the space shuttle meaning nobody has been past the Van Allen belts at 1000 miles. The Astronauts to the moon apparantly made it 350,000 miles and are all fit and healthy. Yeah right.
• Several photos show NASA having the identical background on photos taken on completely different days miles away from eachother. Mr Bad Astronomy cleverly uses "Parallax" as a reason for this occurring. Sounds feasible doesn't it to the average idiot reading his site. Like I said... you can make anything sound plausible. Unfortunately for Mr Bad Astronomy NASA has come out and admitted it was just "Goofy editing" on their part and that the shots were from the same day and same mission. So immediately this proves what I was saying that Mr Bad Astronomy just finds an excuse that sounds reasonable and tells everyone what it was.... then gets bitten on the ass because NASA say the real thing that it was and that its got nothing to do with "Parallax". Unfortunately for NASA they should have gone with the "Parallax" excuse because it sounds more feasible than someone just stuffing up some video footage.

I could go on and on and on with this list and name about 50 bits of proof we have. How much more proof do you really need? I have an idea... why don't they PROVE it happened??? They can't. NASA has said so themselves... the only way we can prove it is to point a telescope at the Moon and show us the buggies and flags that are still there on the surface... but they won't.



Do you have to send a man on the moon to put a reflector on it? No you can easily do that without having to send a man there with it.



See again... you a perfect example of a debunker. You pick out 1 of my reasons and use that for the basis to discredit the whole thing. No surprise that you chose the stars in the pictures.. just like Mr Bad Astronomy does. You can change the aperture on the camera so that you can focus just on the stars without having the reflective light. This question is not about WHY the stars don't exist in the pictures... its about WHY they didnt take photos of the stars seperately. The reflected light excuse does not wash with me. We can send a man to the moon but we can't take a camera capable of filtering out reflective light? Ahuh.

I also see you don't offer any valid reasons for my other points. So tell me.. does that really look like a flag waving on the surface of the moon by the astronaut twisting the pole to you?



I give up. You are a Debunker with a closed mind. I've met your type 10000 times before and they are impossible to erason with because they refuse to budge on their views.. You are the amateur astromer type wo has grown up with these ideals. You look at everything from a scientific point of view. You have a closed mind. You can only have facts pushed in your face so many times. You just ignore them. The proof and facts are there. If you want you can swallow the NASA standard lines.. which is "They were all goofy mistakes" or you can read the biased fanatical rantings of Mr Bad Astronomy most of which have absolutely no basis at all and are just plain wrong. Thats up to you. You're problem is that you cannot even consider it remotely possibile that the US Government could possibly have covered this up. You probably have a poster of Neil Armstrong and the Moon up on your bedroom wall and have grown up all your life believing in this wonderful event. You've probably dreamed yourself of being an astronaut. You are the exact reason secrets can be kept for so long. The US Government doesnt have to try and keep a secret. They have enough closed minded fanatics like you who will do it for them.

Nice post TP. Those points and the fact that Armstrong and co have never really talked about the mission is enough proof for me. When I first heard that the man landing on the moon was a hoax, I thought the guy who told me was nuts but if you sit down with an open mind and examine the facts, it is pretty evident (to me atleast) that the moon landings didn't actually occur.

 

[MonkeyButterer]

• Flags flapping in the "wind"
• No Blast crater under the module.
• No lunar dust evident in any photos of the footpads on the lunar module.
• Footprints actually UNDER the lunar module even though they were supposidly the first men on the moon. Maybe some aliens got their first in their King Gee size 14 workboots and stomped around to make the surface nice and firm for them.
• Photos "edited" years after release to remove writing rocks and other inconsisencies.
• When Footage is doubled in speed you can clearly see they are in Earth's atmosphere.
• Apollo Safety Inspector writes a report saying the NASA program is in disarray and they will never get to the moon. Safety Inspector mysteriously is killed along with his whole family and the report is mysteriously lost meaning funding could continue into the Apollo program.
• Scientists calculated that to get to the moon and back safely in the 1960's would be a 0.0001% probability
• Not a single photo is ever taken of the stars even though they could have changed the aperture on the lens or bought a telescope/camera capable of taking photos of planets and galaxies that we could not see from Earth. They brought 3 lunar modules instead to go for a spin in. Why didnt they take photos of stars and the galaxy? Because its almost impossible to fake that. Easier just to have a black sky.
• Gus Grissom was the original astronaut for the Apollo mission. He was an outspoken critic of the program and had no problem telling people they had no chance of getting to the moon. Weeks later he is killed in a fire in the capsule during testing along with his 2 fellow astronauts. No wonder Neil Armstrong went into hiding after Apollo 11 and refuses to talk about it to this day. The man fears for his life.
• The intersecting shadows prove they were not on the moon..... badastronomy.org tries another pathetic attempt to describe how this works... and uses some minature models to prove it... and it is scientifically wrong. I will show you later on how ridiculous that is as well.
• The Van Allan radiation belts mean it would be almost impossible for them to get to the moon and not suffer the horrific effect of radiation. The highest altitude anyone has been has been 350miles above Earth in the space shuttle meaning nobody has been past the Van Allen belts at 1000 miles. The Astronauts to the moon apparantly made it 350,000 miles and are all fit and healthy. Yeah right.
• Several photos show NASA having the identical background on photos taken on completely different days miles away from eachother. Mr Bad Astronomy cleverly uses "Parallax" as a reason for this occurring. Sounds feasible doesn't it to the average idiot reading his site. Like I said... you can make anything sound plausible. Unfortunately for Mr Bad Astronomy NASA has come out and admitted it was just "Goofy editing" on their part and that the shots were from the same day and same mission. So immediately this proves what I was saying that Mr Bad Astronomy just finds an excuse that sounds reasonable and tells everyone what it was.... then gets bitten on the ass because NASA say the real thing that it was and that its got nothing to do with "Parallax". Unfortunately for NASA they should have gone with the "Parallax" excuse because it sounds more feasible than someone just stuffing up some video footage.

I could go on and on and on with this list and name about 50 bits of proof we have. How much more proof do you really need? I have an idea... why don't they PROVE it happened??? They can't. NASA has said so themselves... the only way we can prove it is to point a telescope at the Moon and show us the buggies and flags that are still there on the surface... but they won't.

This should answer most of your questions.

BTW re: your "typical close minded debunker" spray - as the one challenging the accepted history, wouldn't that make you the debunker??

EDIT: Here's another, clearer debunker-debunking debunk.

 

[sabre_ac]

I believe there is life out there, I believe there are more advanced planets out there, I believe they know of us and I belive they have looked us up and done some research on us. But I believe they have merely chosen not to make contact.
We whether we like to believe it or not are a self destructive species, we crave power and are selfih, why would a more advanced race contact us? What do we have to offer? Why would a more advanced race want to conquer an already dying world?


They are out there, they just choose not to contact

 

[MonkeyButterer]

I believe there is life out there, I believe there are more advanced planets out there, I believe they know of us and I belive they have looked us up and done some research on us.

They googled me already. They got pics, but no nudes.

 

[otaku]

[*]Flags flapping in the "wind"

look at your video on your site. The flag has an extendable bar that runs across the top. This holds the glag out - as the astronaut moves the pole, the bar along the top moves the flag. Thus you get the "waving motion". The video on your site even shows this clearly.

[*]No Blast crater under the module.

why should there be a blast crater? How fast do you think the LM was going when it touched down?

One site worked out that the thrust from the LM would have been approx 1.5lbs per square inch (justfor you TP, that is sfa thrust)- thats enough to disturb the dust directly under the Lm, but not enought to blow a "crater" in the moon.

[*]No lunar dust evident in any photos of the footpads on the lunar module.

Lunar dust where? on the fotpad? around the footpad? under the footpad?

How do you think dust reacts in an environment with no atmosphere? It should follow a simple balistic trajectory (as there is no air to confuse things). If it does this, then the dust should not swirl back onto the footpads.

[*]Footprints actually UNDER the lunar module even though they were supposidly the first men on the moon. Maybe some aliens got their first in their King Gee size 14 workboots and stomped around to make the surface nice and firm for them.

have you a link to these pictures? I cant refute them without seeing them

[*]Photos "edited" years after release to remove writing rocks and other inconsisencies.

It has always been admitted that NASA edited phots. The rock with "writing" on it (i assume you mean the thing that looks like a "c"?) has been proven to be a copying error. The original photos show clearly that there is no "c" on the rock.

[*]When Footage is doubled in speed you can clearly see they are in Earth's atmosphere.

why would doubling the speed show atmosphere? If you mean it shows the ovements in gravity to appear the same, then DUH! Of course it will look the same. A body falls the same way in 1/6th gravity as it does in 1G. Elementary physics.

[*]Apollo Safety Inspector writes a report saying the NASA program is in disarray and they will never get to the moon. Safety Inspector mysteriously is killed along with his whole family and the report is mysteriously lost meaning funding could continue into the Apollo program.

I already went thru this one with you on the other thread. The man was killed in a car crash. His report was delivered to congress. It was shown to be in error.

[*]Scientists calculated that to get to the moon and back safely in the 1960's would be a 0.0001% probability

source? which scientist? Bill Keysing?? The man who had an arts degree? the man who left NASA in 1963?? That the person you are talking about? The man who catalogued the technical publications for NASA, who was, in other words, a librarian?

[*]Not a single photo is ever taken of the stars even though they could have changed the aperture on the lens or bought a telescope/camera capable of taking photos of planets and galaxies that we could not see from Earth. They brought 3 lunar modules instead to go for a spin in. Why didnt they take photos of stars and the galaxy? Because its almost impossible to fake that. Easier just to have a black sky.

I have no idea why they are no (according to you) photos of the stars - let me look it up

[*]Gus Grissom was the original astronaut for the Apollo mission. He was an outspoken critic of the program and had no problem telling people they had no chance of getting to the moon. Weeks later he is killed in a fire in the capsule during testing along with his 2 fellow astronauts. No wonder Neil Armstrong went into hiding after Apollo 11 and refuses to talk about it to this day. The man fears for his life.

Yet again - taking unrelated facts and trying to force them into a theory.

[*]The intersecting shadows prove they were not on the moon..... badastronomy.org tries another pathetic attempt to describe how this works... and uses some minature models to prove it... and it is scientifically wrong. I will show you later on how ridiculous that is as well.

you know nothing about photography. You admitted this in the other thread about the moon landing. You have no idea of how three dimensional ground affect shadows. Why are you simply spouting the conspiracy theorists standard line without researching this yourself

[*]The Van Allan radiation belts mean it would be almost impossible for them to get to the moon and not suffer the horrific effect of radiation. The highest altitude anyone has been has been 350miles above Earth in the space shuttle meaning nobody has been past the Van Allen belts at 1000 miles. The Astronauts to the moon apparantly made it 350,000 miles and are all fit and healthy. Yeah right.

the "horrific effect of radiation". Man, you should be writing for ACA with that mindset. Yes there is radiation in the Van Allen belt. Yes there is protection against radiation. The craft were shielded for their trip. And dont bollock on with the idea you need two foot of lead to shield the craft, cause that is complete garbage.

[*]Several photos show NASA having the identical background on photos taken on completely different days miles away from eachother. Mr Bad Astronomy cleverly uses "Parallax" as a reason for this occurring. Sounds feasible doesn't it to the average idiot reading his site. Like I said... you can make anything sound plausible.

just like the hoax theorists use anything that "sounds reasonable". But on second look, all their stuff is bollocks.

Unfortunately for Mr Bad Astronomy NASA has come out and admitted it was just "Goofy editing" on their part and that the shots were from the same day and same mission. So immediately this proves what I was saying that Mr Bad Astronomy just finds an excuse that sounds reasonable and tells everyone what it was.... then gets bitten on the ass because NASA say the real thing that it was and that its got nothing to do with "Parallax". Unfortunately for NASA they should have gone with the "Parallax" excuse because it sounds more feasible than someone just stuffing up some video footage.

Care to show where you got this from?

I could go on and on and on with this list and name about 50 bits of proof we have. How much more proof do you really need? I have an idea... why don't they PROVE it happened??? They can't. NASA has said so themselves... the only way we can prove it is to point a telescope at the Moon and show us the buggies and flags that are still there on the surface... but they won't.

please, go on - nothing you have said so far (apart from photos that i havent seen) points to anything apart from some bored people making crap up.

Do you have to send a man on the moon to put a reflector on it? No you can easily do that without having to send a man there with it.

yet this will mean you have to build a ship that can make it to the moon, lus a guidance system that will operate without any human interaction, plus keep all this under wraps (which increases the number of people who know about the conspiracy).

All in all, it would be easier to send a man to the moon.

See again... you a perfect example of a debunker. You pick out 1 of my reasons and use that for the basis to discredit the whole thing. No surprise that you chose the stars in the pictures.. just like Mr Bad Astronomy does. You can change the aperture on the camera so that you can focus just on the stars without having the reflective light. This question is not about WHY the stars don't exist in the pictures... its about WHY they didnt take photos of the stars seperately. The reflected light excuse does not wash with me. We can send a man to the moon but we can't take a camera capable of filtering out reflective light? Ahuh.

why doesnt it wash with you? Classic example of a hoax theorist just waving their hands in the air claiming "it isnt right - i just dont believe it" when they have nothing to back up their claims. Do you know anything about photography?

I also see you don't offer any valid reasons for my other points. So tell me.. does that really look like a flag waving on the surface of the moon by the astronaut twisting the pole to you?

yes

I give up. You are a Debunker with a closed mind. I've met your type 10000 times before and they are impossible to erason with because they refuse to budge on their views.. You are the amateur astromer type wo has grown up with these ideals. You look at everything from a scientific point of view. You have a closed mind. You can only have facts pushed in your face so many times. You just ignore them. The proof and facts are there. If you want you can swallow the NASA standard lines.. which is "They were all goofy mistakes" or you can read the biased fanatical rantings of Mr Bad Astronomy most of which have absolutely no basis at all and are just plain wrong. Thats up to you. You're problem is that you cannot even consider it remotely possibile that the US Government could possibly have covered this up. You probably have a poster of Neil Armstrong and the Moon up on your bedroom wall and have grown up all your life believing in this wonderful event. You've probably dreamed yourself of being an astronaut. You are the exact reason secrets can be kept for so long. The US Government doesnt have to try and keep a secret. They have enough closed minded fanatics like you who will do it for them.

And you are a classic hoaxist, who wants desparately to be "smarter" than the average joe, and who needs to believe in something that "proves" he is "beating the man".

You are a sad individual.

 

[Rodion]

Other theories have not even been discussed because a valid excuse cannot be made up for them so they are just conveniently gleaned over.

Such as?

I can explain 100 reasons as to why a car wouldnt start when you turn the ignition but 1 of those reasons might be because there is no engine in the car... yet people will always go for the more believable explanation like the battery is flat because it seems improbable that a car would have no engine.

But if you want me to believe that it's a missing engine and not a more reasonable explanation like a flat battery, you've got to show me some evidence to make me prefer your theory to mine. So far you've presented no evidence of fakery, except for stuff that could be reasonably expected to happen on the moon.

Here is the most perfect example of how Mr Bad Astronomy is a bad liar. Here is his explanation for the flag blowing in the wind on the moon where there is no wind. Straight from his website.

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html#flag

Of course a flag can wave in a vacuum. In the shot of the astronaut and the flag, the astronaut is rotating the pole on which the flag is mounted, trying to get it to stay up. The flag is mounted on one side on the pole, and along the top by another pole that sticks out to the side. In a vacuum or not, when you whip around the vertical pole, the flag will ``wave'', since it is attached at the top. The top will move first, then the cloth will follow along in a wave that moves down. This isn't air that is moving the flag, it's the cloth itself.

This is possibly one of his most ridiculous "explanations" as to why the flag is waving. Now reading what he has just said there... now view the video below on my website of the "flag waving" on the moon.

http://www.matera.com.au/flagswaving.wmv

If after viewing this video you can tell me that the waving flag is a result of astronauts "twisting a flag in his hand" then I will eat my own shoe.

You want sauce on that shoe? That flag does not look as though it's blowing in a breeze to me. Look how often the wind would have to be changing direction. If the wind was so swirly you'd expect it to also drop off from time to time and yet the flag never hangs limply. I wonder why. And why is the flag always pretty much straight, and only folds at the corners? Real flags in a real wind don't do this. It's just wrong. It does, however, look very much like the belt-on-pole experiment clavius.org encourages us to try.

I also showed this video to my brother, who knows very little about science and doesn't give a stuff about astronomy. He also thinks it doesn't look like a flag blowing in the wind.

Is it capable of going to the moon? Thats an awfully big assumption. The Van Allen Radiation belts are 1000 miles above Earth... in 1969 nobody knew the severity of these belts.... as nobody had EVER been that far into space before or SINCE...... then its no surprise that highest altitude the Space Shuttle has ever been is approx 350miles above Earth.... and the effect of the Van Allen radiation belt at that time was so severe that they Astronauts in the shuttle said they couldnt go any further because of the effect it was having on them. Now think about this for a minute and you will see that moon is 350,000 miles away from Earth.... compare that to the Space Shuttle who could barely make it to 350miles with the technology of the year 2000. You are telling me they went 350,000 miles there with the technology of a washing machine in 1969 in space suits that were as thin as tin foil (on their first attempt mind you)

Duh. You have no understanding of radiation (among a great many other things). The Van Allen belts consist of charged particles (high energy protons) that, yes, would be very harmful to an unprotected human being. But because they are high energy protons it does not take a great deal of shielding to block them out.

The Van Allen belts are not a uniform spherical shell around the earth and the trajectory followed by the Apollo craft went through the thinnest parts of the belt.

The engineers would have understood the nature of the Van Allen belts and if they were satisfied that the ship could pass through them, then it could. So I repeat: If you've got a ship that can go to the moon, why not go to the moon?

Fake footage so convincing??? Exact behaviour of fine dust in a vacuum?? Take a look at this footage which shows what we saw from the moon.... it certain "looks" like they are in 1/6 earth gravity doesnt it.... altho what would 1/6 earth gravity look like? Do we know? Watch this footage and see what happens when they speed the tape up by exactly double the speed of the original.

http://www.matera.com.au/gravity.wmv

Looks remarkably like they are taking the buggy for a spin on Earth doesnt it? That "exact behaviour of fine dust in a vacumm" doesnt look so exact now does it. See the way that dust moves and settles. Exactly as it would if it was on Earth.

Nothing like it would on Earth. That dust looks as though it is following a perfect parabolic arc. No wind is blowing it, it's not encountering any air resistance on the way down. Even if we assume the air is perfectly still, the dust would not fall in a perfect parabola because air resistance would slow its horizontal movement. It's like kicking a footy. The ball might leave Chris Judd's foot at 45 degrees, but by the time Phil Matera marks it it's coming down at a much steeper angle because air resistance has slowed it's horizontal movement. Better yet, screw up a bit of paper and throw it hard at about 45 degrees. It'll come down at a steeper angle than what you threw it at.

The dust on the video just isn't following that sort of path. Therefore, this video was shot in a vacuum.

Now I am no scientist but would 1/6th Earths gravity mean dust settles at exactly 1/2 the speed?

It's not settling at exactly 1/2 the speed. Your experience tells you that dust falls slower than other things, but this is because in your experience there has always been air to ****** its fall (your precious inbuilt assumptions have come back to bite you on the bum). As we have seen, this video was shot in a vacuum so you have to imagine these are little rocks. Even at the doubled speeds the 'little rocks' are up there too long.

 

[Funkalicous]

OOh, calling me a n00b!! What's next, "Takes one to know one!"??

I beleive your moronic assertion that the moon landing occured in 1957 was on topic, and my statement declarig your idiocy in that regard was on topic also. The genius remark was just an extension of such...

But by all means, lets get back on topic...so when was the moon landing again???

Moron.

A simple, "Actually it was 1969" would have done the trick.

People who bag out errors are the most frustrating posters on BigFooty. Is that who you wanna be?

 

[Rodion]

Not to be pedantic, but it was actually 1969.

 

[Funkalicous]

Not to be pedantic, but it was actually 1969.

Thanks

 

[Higgs Boson]

Did anyone see the doco on SBS last night about life elsewhere in the Universe? It wasn't too bad eh.

 

[MonkeyButterer]

A simple, "Actually it was 1969" would have done the trick.

Perhaps, but if you're going to hold forth on a subject about which you know precisely ******** all, prepare to be spanked over it. A simple "first think, then post" would have prevented the whole shebang....

People who bag out errors are the most frustrating posters on BigFooty. Is that who you wanna be?

You sound like Charlie Brown's frickin' schoolteacher. Is that who you wanna be?

 

[otaku]

So, Total Package, run away again eh?

Cant face having your little fantasy world exposed to reality??

Shame - it was fun rubbing your nose in how stupid you had been.

 

[Snickers]

No, and dont care.