U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 07-17-2011, 09:45 AM
 
9,088 posts, read 5,609,834 times
Reputation: 3835

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by geos View Post
You think all SIX landings were fake? One wouldn't be enough? You need to stop getting all your news from YouTube & Fox. This is truly laughable if not sad. Paranoia knows know bounds, earthly or otherwise. This has been debunked so many times by National Geographic, Discovery Channel, etc.
You need to stop getting all of your opinions from Television ... and use you're own mind a little more. And the first step should be to recognize that it's not paranoia to make obvious observations and draw reasonable conclusions .... it's pure stupidity not to.

When there is clear, incontrovertible evidence of fakery ... it is what it is. Are you suggesting that one could be fake, but the others were not? Is this your "logical" conclusion ... they could fake one, but not SIX ? What .. do you think? They'd get worse at faking? Or would they get better at it?

Now let's REALLY employ a bit of logic here .... leading up to the 6 out of 7 "successful" moon landings ... with the one failure not even attempted .. which really makes the moon landings 100% successful .... NASA had lot's of problems ... with many within the NASA community suggesting they just didn't have the technology to achieve the moon landing goal and were at least 30 years away. And 39 years after the last Apollo mission, not one attempt to go back? If they could do it with 1960's Technology at a 100% success rate ... why did NASA claim in 2006 that it will take until 2018 to do it again with 21st century technology leaps and bounds greater than the 1960's? Come on .... THINK for 5 seconds.

Now, let's look at a photo ... from the NASA Archives ... you can look it up yourself ... AS17-140-21370 .... here:



Notice anything funny (funny odd .. not funny ha,ha) ? No? Look carefully.

Notice that the lunar rover sits underneath the Lunar lander, still packed up, and not yet unpacked and operational. So ... what made the CLEAR track on the moon surface just in front of the lander? Some alien biker? There should be two tracks ... well ... actually, there should be NO TRACKS since the rover hadn't yet been unpacked and deployed. But if there was some other explanation ... like the Lunar lander landed in an area where a previous mission had traversed ... then, there would be two tracks ... unless wind blew one of them away ... OH .. wait ... no wind on the moon, so why is there ONE track ... how did it get there ? Splain that Lucy?

There are other problems in that photo too ... notice the big black shadow cast by the Lunar Lander on the surface around the rover package, indicating that the Sunlight was behind and slightly right of the Lander. The Rover package should be BARELY visible if not entirely black ... and certainly the US Flag and the United States sign attached to the Lander should be absolutely not visible at all ... but seems to be spotlighted. Given that this photo is assigned a serial number, and is supposed to represent the exact image on the film ... there are only two possibilities ... a secondary light source (which NASA claims was not utilized on any mission photography) or photo manipulation and artificial construction.

Now, let's take a closer look again at that Lunar Lander:



Now if you can look at this hodgepodge of junk taped together and believe this is something that managed to land on the moon safely, 6 out of 6 tries ... well, I feel very sad for you, cuz you're out of your mind. This pile of junk isn't flying anywhere ... good lord ... it looks like something a bunch of grade schoolers built in their backyard for a school project.

The Rover? Not much better:



Notice it has FOUR wheels ... and would make DUAL tracks in the surface .. not one track. I especially like the way they made a satellite dish out of an umbrella ... don't you?

Now here's video of hot rodding around in that short and narrow wheelbase buggy ... (Slow motion?)


‪Apollo 16 Astronaut drives Lunar Rover‬‏ - YouTube

Do you really think that if this guy was actually on the moon, they'd be bouncing around like that in 1/6th gravity, risking a major disaster just to pull a donut, and have a little fun?

That thing would have flipped over .. and if not, it sure would have been a risk ... and would they risk that? Would they take a chance on an accident, and on damaging the astronaut's suit or life support system ?

Good God already ....someone ... PLEASE use your head!!

Last edited by GuyNTexas; 07-17-2011 at 10:06 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-17-2011, 09:52 AM
 
9,088 posts, read 5,609,834 times
Reputation: 3835
Quote:
Originally Posted by D. Scott View Post
They did. There are retro reflectors placed there that is used with a laser to measure distance. This among other things left behind.
Hmm ... had it ever occurred to you that those reflectors could have been put there by an unmanned probe mission? You know ... like the one we have on Mars?

And what "other things" left behind? Are there some telescopic images of those other things that I'm not aware of? I haven't seen any ... maybe you can point me in the right direction ... or post one?

I'd like to see some of those other things.

The reality is ... we have some pretty detailed images supposedly taken while on the moon that frankly are preposterous looking things.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-17-2011, 12:00 PM
 
9,088 posts, read 5,609,834 times
Reputation: 3835
Quote:
Originally Posted by slackjaw View Post

So there is your expert. Obviously willing to manufacture information on the fly and pretend to be "in the know" and even when the video he was implying expertise on was proven to be a spoof from The Onion he just shrugs it off and posts more videos and claims to know more secret things.
So much trouble you go to, calling upon a a totally different topic from a year ago? What's the matter .... can't address this topic?

We're dealing with verifiable, serialized by number, photos here that one can go right to NASA's archives and verify for themselves, which precludes any possibility of outside manipulation or phony pictures.

Your diversion is an attempt to deceive ... stick to the topic of THIS thread.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-17-2011, 12:14 PM
 
19,216 posts, read 12,984,802 times
Reputation: 2337
Yeah, Slackjaw, you fathermucker!

Last edited by ergohead; 07-17-2011 at 01:07 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-17-2011, 12:53 PM
 
8,266 posts, read 10,706,679 times
Reputation: 4769
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas View Post
Your diversion is an attempt to deceive ... stick to the topic of THIS thread.
No, your claiming you knew what that video was about was an attempt to deceive, which became pretty damn laughable after discovered was a parody.

I'm merely establishing a pattern of deception by you, which is relevant to this thread since you're in it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-17-2011, 01:22 PM
 
9,088 posts, read 5,609,834 times
Reputation: 3835
Quote:
Originally Posted by slackjaw View Post
No, your claiming you knew what that video was about was an attempt to deceive, which became pretty damn laughable after discovered was a parody.

I'm merely establishing a pattern of deception by you, which is relevant to this thread since you're in it.
No ... the Onion video was merely an oversight on my part, not recognizing it was a parody ... primarily because as so often parodies do ... it depicted a plausible event, supported by a lot of other non-parody evidence.

Simply put, you are just engaging what you always engage ... diversions and distortions.

And if that's all you can come up with out of 3000+ posts .... this case is just as weak as all of your others.

Back to the topic .... explain the single tire track in the official NASA photo posted ... or go back an post on the old thread ... you're off topic ... and apparently out of your element.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-17-2011, 01:44 PM
 
8,266 posts, read 10,706,679 times
Reputation: 4769
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas View Post
Now, let's look at a photo ... from the NASA Archives ... you can look it up yourself ... AS17-140-21370 .... here:

Notice anything funny (funny odd .. not funny ha,ha) ? No? Look carefully.

Notice that the lunar rover sits underneath the Lunar lander, still packed up, and not yet unpacked and operational. So ... what made the CLEAR track on the moon surface just in front of the lander? Some alien biker? There should be two tracks ... well ... actually, there should be NO TRACKS since the rover hadn't yet been unpacked and deployed.
1. That is not an unpacked rover. The rover gets pulled by rope and folds out long and flat with two wheels extended, see here:


‪Apollo 15 Rover deployment‬‏ - YouTube


2. You are looking at the right track, the left track is too close to the camera. Here is the picture you're posted, notice the round shadow falling on the track you're interested in:




Here is the image immediately preceding that in the sequence, again notice the round shadow falling on the right track. This one is farther back so can see the left track as well:



In fact it looks like one can see in the lower left corner of the picture that has caused you problems a bit of the left track of the rover.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-17-2011, 01:46 PM
 
8,266 posts, read 10,706,679 times
Reputation: 4769
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas View Post
No ... the Onion video was merely an oversight on my part, not recognizing it was a parody
An oversight? But you were so sure, lecturing in that authoritative tone about what that bill was. If you were lying about knowing about that bill when it was an Onion video, what else do you manufacture expertise on?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-17-2011, 01:57 PM
 
8,266 posts, read 10,706,679 times
Reputation: 4769
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas View Post
And if that's all you can come up with out of 3000+ posts .... this case is just as weak as all of your others.
3000+ posts and not once do I not recognize The Onion logo and proceed to describe in great detail my insider information as to how it is describing FEMA concentration camps.

Just an "oversight" right? Accidentally lying about having info on something, whoopsie! My bad! Oversight.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-17-2011, 02:03 PM
 
8,266 posts, read 10,706,679 times
Reputation: 4769
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas View Post
I especially like the way they made a satellite dish out of an umbrella ... don't you?
How do you fold a dish antenna for storage? Think about it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top