moon landing in 1969
Posted 21 July 2004 - 09:15 PM
The reporters for the N G said that the astronauts would have been killed instantly when the space craft passed through the Van Allen Radiation belts. That the radiation in that belt is lethal enough to penetrate the outer surface of the space craft. They also pointed out is how come you see know stars in the back drop of space and how was the flag moving and waving when there is no wind on the moon?It was also pointed out that as dusty as the lunar surface appeared you never saw any dust flying when the craft landed or took off and that the pods or feet of the landing craft had no dust on them what so ever.The NG pointed out alot of good points and they are hard to explain away.
Posted 21 July 2004 - 09:51 PM
Posted 21 July 2004 - 10:27 PM
And even more detailed:
Posted 22 July 2004 - 12:24 AM
Posted 22 July 2004 - 04:43 AM
Posted 22 July 2004 - 05:59 AM
Posted 22 July 2004 - 08:08 AM
Well, I am a person who believes the landings were indeed staged! Reason number 1 is already pointed out by Gregory - why haven't we gone there yet again till now? So definitely something IS wrong.
It wasn't pointed out by me; it was pointed out by someone else. I'm the one who linked to the pages explaining why the hoax theory is silly. Why haven't we gone back? You mean, aside from all the times we have? Maybe because it's dangerous, expensive, and the public as a whole has shown no interest in the idea?
Posted 22 July 2004 - 08:33 AM
One thing I didn't see addressed in the linked articles was the "waving" flag. The flag used had a "permanent wave" so that it would appear to be flapping in the breeze.
Posted 22 July 2004 - 12:49 PM
As soon as saw this post I opened another window to find the Bad Astronomers website since I expected to give that link. I see you have already posted it, so it's not necessary for me anyway.
That the landings were faked have been debunked thoroughly, and anyone who still believes it are simply clinging on to ignorant beliefs. I suggest people who still believe it to give Gregory's links a chance, unless they prefer to be ignorant.
Posted 22 July 2004 - 01:13 PM
Posted 22 July 2004 - 01:28 PM
Um,you confused me Peter.Are you in agreemnet with the hoax theroy or not ?
Hehe, I'm a little drunk right now, so that may be why my writing is a little confusing. I apologize if that's the case.
The point I was trying to make is that the Moon landing is NOT a hoax. We did very much land on the Moon in 1969. When you actually try to study the pictures with sufficient knowledge you will quickly realize that the hoax arguements are laughable.
Try to read the links giving by Gregory, they clearly debunk the idea that it was a hoax.
Posted 22 July 2004 - 01:39 PM
Posted 22 July 2004 - 01:54 PM
Okay, this is getting scary. I'm on the 'same page' -so to speak- with what's-his-face-Plindboe and it's rather uncomfortable to say the least. (It's happened on this thread and another one and I'm getting a bit spooked!) ANYWAY- yes, indeedeedee, the lunar landings happened. John Glenn developed a serious alcohol addiction after his great adventures because as he put it "I stepped on the moon. What else was there to conquer?" Not that I'm pointing to that as proof by any means. But I was old enough to remember all the stuff that went on and if it was a hoax then it was the best BAD_WORD hoax ever.
"what's-his-face-Plindboe". ;D You don't have to be rude hawk, just because you made a fool of yourself in the astrology thread. Instead enjoy that we finally agree on something.
Posted 22 July 2004 - 09:11 PM
Posted 23 July 2004 - 07:11 AM
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users