|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted October 12, 2008 06:51 PM |
|
|
No, that's wrong. At that point the RUSSIANS had had some failures in a row already. The US were NOT in a hurry.
I repeat that Apollo 12 was the OFFICIAL reserve mission in case somehing went wrong with Apollo 11. THEY HAD A FAILURE PLANNED IN. They could have afforded a failure.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted October 12, 2008 06:56 PM |
|
|
Argh. Can you at least try to answer the "unanswered questions" then? Any of them? It's easy to say "no it's all wrong" without taking the challenge of explaining.
What on earth is that camera cross doing behind an obstacle, for instance?
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 12, 2008 07:58 PM |
|
|
Why would I try to explain something that I don't have no chance to verify? To do that I would have to watch the original transmissions from back then, compare them with what is claimed in those articles, and first verify the claim. THEN I would have to find an explanation.
Now, what I read was something that even in 2005 NASA wouldn't have the equipment to enable a person a trip to the moon and back. Which would mean that the claim is not only all 6 landings on the moon were fakes, Apollo 10 mission was a fake as well.
I'm no rocket scientist, but I'm pretty sure that this claim is wrong, since it's not that difficult to send a man to the moon and back ONCE YOU HAVE HIM UP THERE. It's just under 400.000 km, after all, and you need to get to 40.000 km/h to go up there.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted October 12, 2008 08:15 PM |
|
|
Fine. I don't suppose original transmissions would solve that mysterious cross behind an obstacle anyway  All right, I give up on attempts to convince you. Not my problem anyway.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted October 12, 2008 08:19 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Why would I try to explain something that I don't have no chance to verify? To do that I would have to watch the original transmissions from back then, compare them with what is claimed in those articles, and first verify the claim. THEN I would have to find an explanation.
Funny how you find explanations for the non-fake situations but you have no chance to verify (unless you're working at NASA, but even then you may not have authorization!).
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 12, 2008 08:27 PM |
|
|
Well, then, if you are so knowing about this, you may be able to answer a question of mine, then.
Obviously the best understanding of what the US may have been capable in terms of space flight - apart from the masterminds in the US - in 1969 would have been: the Russians.
So why, then, if everything was so obvious - and if it WAS obvious, the Russians would have known: Comrade Brezhnev, WE are not able to put a man to the moon, not in 5 or 10 years, and we don't think the capitalists can; call their bluff -, why didn't the RUSSIANS call the bluff? Why did they accept the landing as fact? Hm?
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted October 12, 2008 08:28 PM |
|
|
|
A conspiracy between them? Or maybe the US were so good at the fake photos? I don't know, but I'll try to search for it, see if anyone dig it up
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted October 12, 2008 09:05 PM |
|
|
|
who on earth knows. The photos and vids are fake. Perhaps they really made it to moon in their first try, but if they really did why would they feed the world with those poorly fabricated photos/videos?
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted October 12, 2008 09:12 PM |
|
|
Quote:
but if they really did why would they feed the world with those poorly fabricated photos/videos?
Aliens?
or because it's not what we think it is and they didn't want to spoil the secret? no idea
|
|
JoonasTo
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted October 12, 2008 09:14 PM |
|
|
Quote:
So why, then, if everything was so obvious - and if it WAS obvious, the Russians would have known: Comrade Brezhnev, WE are not able to put a man to the moon, not in 5 or 10 years, and we don't think the capitalists can; call their bluff -, why didn't the RUSSIANS call the bluff? Why did they accept the landing as fact? Hm?
I said this in the other thread already. Because they had radar(if that's even called radar anymore that far away) confirmation of the trip to moon. 
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted October 12, 2008 09:16 PM |
|
|
|
Why the fake photos, then?
|
|
Geny
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted October 12, 2008 09:27 PM |
|
Edited by Geny at 21:28, 12 Oct 2008.
|
I haven't read all of the thread, I'm not taking sides and I'm not going to seriously participate in this discussion, but something caught my eye here, and I just want to post it as food for thought. This is what it was:
Quote:
Why would I try to explain something that I don't have no chance to verify? To do that I would have to watch the original transmissions from back then, compare them with what is claimed in those articles, and first verify the claim. THEN I would have to find an explanation.
Now, all of you pro-conspiracy people have been saying that the most important reason to knowing was there a landing on the moon or not is to know whether or not a huge number of people have been brainwashed by media propaganda. My question is this (you don't have to answer it, just think about it):
Have you ever considered that you may be the ones "brainwashed" by people who want everyone to believe there was no landing? After all, where did you get your questions from? TV and internet, right? So on closer observation, is the position you're in so much different than the position of the other side?
Just food for thought.
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
|
posted October 12, 2008 09:30 PM |
|
|
The cake is a lie.
____________
The giant has awakened
You drink my blood and drown
Wrath and raving I will not stop
You'll never take me down
|
|
JoonasTo
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted October 12, 2008 09:32 PM |
|
|
No idea.
But what was that cross you were discussing? If it's a cameara stand what's so strange about it? Do you actually think they would get it right by first take?
I've never actually seen either the photos or the vid besides of quick glimpses and I have no real desire to either.
Also what's up with all this conspiracy theorising lately?
And why is that you are always against everything? Is Poland like the worlds largest sceptics' club?
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted October 12, 2008 09:48 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Have you ever considered that you may be the ones "brainwashed" by people who want everyone to believe there was no landing? After all, where did you get your questions from? TV and internet, right? So on closer observation, is the position you're in so much different than the position of the other side?
No we look at the photos (yes that the media, or in other words from NASA) and we see they are "fake" because of the cross for example. Yes of course NASA could have send us fake photos while the operation could have been normal, however that assigns them a lot less credibility.
@Joonas: The cross was supposed to be a camera's display thing to aid in focusing or something (at that period), so it technically was "above the picture" so to speak -- having objects in FRONT of the cross is like having only some 3D game characters in front of the OSD of your monitor (you know, the on screen display which usually is in "front" of everything else of the monitor)
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 12, 2008 09:52 PM |
|
|
TheDeath:
Do you realize that some of these photos have indeed been fabricated - but by the conspiracists?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JoonasTo
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted October 12, 2008 09:55 PM |
|
|
So how does that make the pictures fake? You mean it was added afterwards or what? I understand what you mean but I don't see how it makes them fake? Does that imply that they were framed? Well of course they were framed. Your pictures are framed too aren't they. But how does being framed mean they aren't taken on the moon? I don't quite follow your logic here guys.
Enlighten me. 
This would have been so much easier on MSN or HCM and I wouldn't have to spam this thread.
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted October 12, 2008 10:01 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 22:02, 12 Oct 2008.
|
@mvass: what is true and what is fake? that is the question
@Joonas: ok, imagine you having a monitor which has an ON SCREEN cross, which "aids" in focusing (at least it's what I understood from that). Then, naturally this "on screen" display should appear foremost in the foreground, no 'image' should be 'before' or 'over' it (in depth), right? It's like the On screen display of a monitor -- no image will ever be "in front" of it while some others are 'behind'. That's like saying a 3D character in a game can be in front of the OSD of your monitor, while the others are behind, which is ridiculous.
Note however that some pictures had the cross partially covered by some objects/astronauts. Only SOME.
|
|
JoonasTo
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted October 12, 2008 10:05 PM |
|
|
Implieing that the objects were added later? And thus tehy are forged. I'm on the right track now? I sure hope so.
Thanks.
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted October 12, 2008 10:06 PM |
|
|
Yeah something like that.
No problem.
|
|
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
