Report, edit, etc...Posted by SS_DD on 2006-06-11 at 14:28:11
This is so worthless, of course we landed on the moon. All of the people and shows that question that fact are playing off of Americas love for conspiracy thoeries. Just look at the Da Vinci we eat that crap up.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by n2o-SiMpSoNs on 2006-06-11 at 14:58:27
QUOTE(MillenniumArmy @ Jun 7 2006, 12:09 PM)
Yea, and National Geographic proved them all wrong with their program about moon landing conspiracies.
[right][snapback]501406[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]501406[/snapback][/right]
Penn and Teller's bullcrap did a thing on how conspiracy theorys are bullcrap one of them was the moon landings
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Tearshed on 2006-06-17 at 19:31:53
I reckon the '69 was faked but those done in the last 20 yrs or so have probably been real.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Cruzo on 2006-06-19 at 05:08:40
See... If FOX television network didn't air a program titled Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land On The Moon. This whole thing wouldn't happen.
The likelihood of success was calculated to be so small that it is inconceivable the moon landings could have actually taken place. Every Apollo mission before number 11 was plagued by about 20,000 defects apiece. Yet, with the exception of Apollo 13, NASA claims there wasn't one major technical problem on any of their Moon missions. The poor video quality of the first moon landings was a deliberate ploy so nobody could properly examine it.
There can't be any pictures taken on the Moon because the film would melt in the 250° temperatures. Every Apollo photograph appears to be perfectly composed, focused and exposed, despite the fact the astronauts used cameras without viewfinders and light meters. The black sky should be full of stars, yet none are visible in any of the Apollo photographs.
The likelihood of success was calculated to be so small that it is inconceivable the moon landings could have actually taken place. Every Apollo mission before number 11 was plagued by about 20,000 defects apiece. Yet, with the exception of Apollo 13, NASA claims there wasn't one major technical problem on any of their Moon missions. The poor video quality of the first moon landings was a deliberate ploy so nobody could properly examine it.
There can't be any pictures taken on the Moon because the film would melt in the 250° temperatures. Every Apollo photograph appears to be perfectly composed, focused and exposed, despite the fact the astronauts used cameras without viewfinders and light meters. The black sky should be full of stars, yet none are visible in any of the Apollo photographs.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by chrono_seifer on 2006-06-19 at 05:36:08
How couldent we , think about it just how awful would we look if japan beat us to it lets say 50 years later? thank you america
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Inspektah-Deck on 2006-06-21 at 01:27:30
QUOTE(Cruzo @ Jun 19 2006, 04:08 AM)
See... If FOX television network didn't air a program titled Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land On The Moon. This whole thing wouldn't happen.
The likelihood of success was calculated to be so small that it is inconceivable the moon landings could have actually taken place. Every Apollo mission before number 11 was plagued by about 20,000 defects apiece. Yet, with the exception of Apollo 13, NASA claims there wasn't one major technical problem on any of their Moon missions. The poor video quality of the first moon landings was a deliberate ploy so nobody could properly examine it.
There can't be any pictures taken on the Moon because the film would melt in the 250° temperatures. Every Apollo photograph appears to be perfectly composed, focused and exposed, despite the fact the astronauts used cameras without viewfinders and light meters. The black sky should be full of stars, yet none are visible in any of the Apollo photographs.
[right][snapback]509392[/snapback][/right]
The likelihood of success was calculated to be so small that it is inconceivable the moon landings could have actually taken place. Every Apollo mission before number 11 was plagued by about 20,000 defects apiece. Yet, with the exception of Apollo 13, NASA claims there wasn't one major technical problem on any of their Moon missions. The poor video quality of the first moon landings was a deliberate ploy so nobody could properly examine it.
There can't be any pictures taken on the Moon because the film would melt in the 250° temperatures. Every Apollo photograph appears to be perfectly composed, focused and exposed, despite the fact the astronauts used cameras without viewfinders and light meters. The black sky should be full of stars, yet none are visible in any of the Apollo photographs.
[right][snapback]509392[/snapback][/right]
If you would read the thread; the moon is the 2nd brightest planet. Every wonder why you dont see stars during day time or in a city during night? Thats because its brighter than the stars
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Felagund on 2006-06-21 at 02:25:16
Jesus Christ. A lot of your are paranoid weirdos. We've sent robots to Mars. We've sent probes into the reaches of space. We've assembled a space station above Earth. I believe we landed on the moon. It's sad to say that people make money disputing history.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by MindArchon on 2006-06-21 at 03:16:58
QUOTE(Pyro_Maniak14 @ Jun 6 2006, 03:38 PM)
But did you see that there was no crater underneath the... space pod-majig? With all the thrust to break through the Moon's gravitational pole on Earth would be hard... You'd imagine a crater would form with all the heat pounding on the surface like that.
[right][snapback]500896[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]500896[/snapback][/right]
I believe it occured that way for the reasons that:
- The moon is in a vacuum
- The moon's gravity is 1/6 of earth, so the lunar craft weighed less.
The reason why there are no stars in the photographs is because the cameras were focussed to take pictures of the moon. STARS ARE DIM LIGHT. The cameras were FOCUSSED ON THE MOON.
And uh.. last time I checked the moon wasn't 250 degrees. And also uh.. the temperature changes.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Gigins on 2006-06-21 at 11:21:31
I love your general argument, "I played a game and now I think it's true". One of the most stupid things I have ever heard actually. I could as well post some thing like "Omg omg, I just finished starcraft broodwar and Kerrigan won, she will come to earth, we are all gona dies, hide!!!1!". 
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Shapechanger on 2006-06-22 at 03:02:16
QUOTE(Cruzo @ Jun 19 2006, 03:08 AM)
There can't be any pictures taken on the Moon because the film would melt in the 250° temperatures. Every Apollo photograph appears to be perfectly composed, focused and exposed, despite the fact the astronauts used cameras without viewfinders and light meters.
Hello, fool, let me show you the holes in your oh so flawed logic.
250 degrees, eh? Since when did space get so hot?
My friend, space is but one degree higher than absolute zero, the point at which all energy ceases to transfer. Heat is all around us here on Earth because we have an atmosphere, an uncountable amount of tiny particles absorbing and transferring heat between each other and objects in this atmosphere.
QUOTE(Cruzo @ Jun 19 2006, 03:08 AM)
The black sky should be full of stars, yet none are visible in any of the Apollo photographs.
Ahem. Please, take a camera of your own, take a very bright light outside at night, at the picture so the bright light is within the photograph, while the night sky still being completely vissible.
You.
Will.
See.
No.
Stars.
In your developed photograph.