I guess we are going back to the Moon....
Friday, January 9, 2004 by kona0197 | Discussion: WinCustomize Talk
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3910698/
 |
|
Page 3 of 12 | |
|
|---|
TheSkinsFactory
Reply #42 Sunday, January 11, 2004 12:27 AM
Actually i'm not so sure we did. Explain why the flag was waving/blowing when they shot footage of it on the moon and the moon is zero-gravity?
Explain why there was no blast crater where the lunar lander touched down but there was tons of pressure from the engines?
Explain why they showed a shot of the astronauts in one place and then shot them in another place that was supposedly 2 miles away and when the photos were superimposed the rocks and hills were exactly the same?
Explain the shadow discrepancies between the astronauts, the lunar lander and the position of the sun?
Explain how the astronauts survived the trip through radiation belt with little to no radiation protection?
Too many unanswered questions to believe so positively.
Reply #42 Sunday, January 11, 2004 12:27 AM
| Be good if it happens.....might shut up the twits who think it never happened the first time |
Actually i'm not so sure we did. Explain why the flag was waving/blowing when they shot footage of it on the moon and the moon is zero-gravity?
Explain why there was no blast crater where the lunar lander touched down but there was tons of pressure from the engines?
Explain why they showed a shot of the astronauts in one place and then shot them in another place that was supposedly 2 miles away and when the photos were superimposed the rocks and hills were exactly the same?
Explain the shadow discrepancies between the astronauts, the lunar lander and the position of the sun?
Explain how the astronauts survived the trip through radiation belt with little to no radiation protection?
Too many unanswered questions to believe so positively.
Sugaree
Reply #43 Sunday, January 11, 2004 12:32 AM
Reply #43 Sunday, January 11, 2004 12:32 AM
I go to the moon all the time.
what..... you don't?
what..... you don't?
TheSkinsFactory
Reply #44 Sunday, January 11, 2004 12:41 AM
Reply #44 Sunday, January 11, 2004 12:41 AM
man i'm going to catch hell for this (but then that never stopped me before)... China, the only planetary body i want to go to is uranus 
TheSkinsFactory
Reply #47 Sunday, January 11, 2004 1:03 AM
Reply #47 Sunday, January 11, 2004 1:03 AM
Okay here is an interesting read about the conspiracies i brought up from the show i watched. He basically gives a good argument against what the doubters brought up. I'm not sure if we did or not. There were a lot of good questions brought up in the show. Keep in mind we were in the middle of the cold war with the Soviets and we needed "the moon" as a morale booster. Anyway i'm conflicted about what i think but this webpage will give you what conspiracy theorists believe and what this one guy believes. Some of his arguments are just as speculative as the theorists.
http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/ConspiracyTheoryDidWeGototheMoon.htm
http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/ConspiracyTheoryDidWeGototheMoon.htm
kongit
Reply #49 Sunday, January 11, 2004 1:15 AM
Reply #49 Sunday, January 11, 2004 1:15 AM
very interesting article. I think this statement pretty much confirms that we did go to the moon, at least in my mind.
| If the Russians detected fakery they could simply have invited journalists and scientists to listen in on the next mission. It would have been their biggest propaganda strike ever. And then there are the British, the French, the Japanese, the Chinese .... |
Sugaree
Reply #51 Sunday, January 11, 2004 1:20 AM
Reply #51 Sunday, January 11, 2004 1:20 AM
Sugaree backs up to the wall.....heh np 
[Message Edited]
[Message Edited]
kongit
Reply #52 Sunday, January 11, 2004 1:20 AM
Reply #52 Sunday, January 11, 2004 1:20 AM
That guys site is very intriging. I am going to be reading it for a while: http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSCINDX.HTM
Thanks Skins Factory for leading me to one of the gems of the internet
Thanks Skins Factory for leading me to one of the gems of the internet
TheSkinsFactory
Reply #53 Sunday, January 11, 2004 1:22 AM
Reply #53 Sunday, January 11, 2004 1:22 AM
the writer of that webpage debunks a lot of movies too. Explains how badly they break scientific laws etc. Good stuff.
TheSkinsFactory
Reply #54 Sunday, January 11, 2004 1:24 AM
Reply #54 Sunday, January 11, 2004 1:24 AM
Yeah Travis i'm actually good to have around the boards... When i'm around you get some drama/action (see people need to chill thread), you get some interesting web links (see this thread) and you get some sexual inuendo (see any thread i spot china on) 
DesignCaddy
Reply #55 Sunday, January 11, 2004 1:26 AM
Reply #55 Sunday, January 11, 2004 1:26 AM
i joined this way too late.. but uh.. wouldn't the earth's magnetic field deflect what energy we sent at it?
it blocks out much of the sun's, afterall.. if you were to send similar radiation back from the moon it would just bounce off and make pretty colors.
bush just wants to get to the moon again so Pepsi can pay him to put a billboard there.
it blocks out much of the sun's, afterall.. if you were to send similar radiation back from the moon it would just bounce off and make pretty colors.
bush just wants to get to the moon again so Pepsi can pay him to put a billboard there.
XX
Reply #56 Sunday, January 11, 2004 2:00 AM
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/apollohoax.html
Nuff said. Each point has been refuted.
Reply #56 Sunday, January 11, 2004 2:00 AM
| Actually i'm not so sure we did. Explain why the flag was waving/blowing when they shot footage of it on the moon and the moon is zero-gravity? Explain why there was no blast crater where the lunar lander touched down but there was tons of pressure from the engines? Explain why they showed a shot of the astronauts in one place and then shot them in another place that was supposedly 2 miles away and when the photos were superimposed the rocks and hills were exactly the same? Explain the shadow discrepancies between the astronauts, the lunar lander and the position of the sun? Explain how the astronauts survived the trip through radiation belt with little to no radiation protection? Too many unanswered questions to believe so positively. |
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/apollohoax.html
Nuff said. Each point has been refuted.
kongit
Reply #57 Sunday, January 11, 2004 2:04 AM
Reply #57 Sunday, January 11, 2004 2:04 AM
a link was already given that said the same. In fact a link to the same page is on that page.
And yes TSF your presence makes the boards more interesting...in a good way
And yes TSF your presence makes the boards more interesting...in a good way
joetheblow
Reply #58 Sunday, January 11, 2004 2:16 AM
Reply #58 Sunday, January 11, 2004 2:16 AM
I just thought of something: Wouldn't the Moon be a hard place to colonize because it get hit with space rocks and other material very offten?
XX
Reply #59 Sunday, January 11, 2004 2:36 AM
Not anymore. Moon still has craters because there's nothing to make em fade, meanwhile earth has wind, water ( melt/ice cycle is what mostly breaks rocks ) and etc to break craters down.
Armstrong's footprint will be there for millions of years, as long as theres no lunk quake ( very rare ) or rock hits where they landed.
Reply #59 Sunday, January 11, 2004 2:36 AM
| I just thought of something: Wouldn't the Moon be a hard place to colonize because it get hit with space rocks and other material very offten? |
Not anymore. Moon still has craters because there's nothing to make em fade, meanwhile earth has wind, water ( melt/ice cycle is what mostly breaks rocks ) and etc to break craters down.
Armstrong's footprint will be there for millions of years, as long as theres no lunk quake ( very rare ) or rock hits where they landed.
Tech-Cat
Reply #60 Sunday, January 11, 2004 2:58 AM
Reply #60 Sunday, January 11, 2004 2:58 AM
I think the "we did not go to the moon" theorists don't actually believe in their own theory themselves. I believe they are just using it as a subject to sell books. Most "we did not go to the moon" sites I have ever seen to were only ads for books.
Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
- Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
- Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
- Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
- It's simple, and FREE!
|
|
Page 3 of 12 | |
|
|---|
Reply #41 Saturday, January 10, 2004 11:00 PM
following link is from a story ran Aug, 11, 2003...
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/ssp-03b.html
New York - Aug 11, 2003
Energy policy is in the news again, with debates in Congress, statements from presidential candidates, consternation over our dependence on the Middle East for oil, and a California recall election traceable in part to energy supply problems for that state. Use of energy, whether fuel for transportation, electrical energy running the internet, or the destructive energy released in weapons, is central to our economy and security.
It is with good reason that the technical term for energy use per unit time, "power", suggests control in the human world as well. Three actions taken now - working to reserve radio spectrum for power transmission, focusing on reductions in costs for space launch, and investing in space solar power system research - hold the promise of opening up vast new sources of power within the next 10-15 years