OT: NASA Loses Moon Landing Video

[JJ-INSANE1]

Because there is nothing on the moon. No reason to have any kind of station. We have bases in places on earth where there is some kind of resource (be it human or otherwise). On the moon there is dirt. And even more dirt.

The correct answer is : There is no reason to fake it again. We have plenty of money getting funneled into NASA. Best bet if we where short on money we would come up with a man on Mars mission to get all the "masses" behind us - therefore generating lots of good ol MONEY.

 

[JJ-INSANE1]

Hey guys!
I just found out who saved the entire Apollo 11 mission! A 10 years old and some grease! Now imagine that.... some grease and a 32k computer and we all could shoot our self to the moon... nothing to it!

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/space/07/20/apollo11.irpt/index.html

What a joke

 

[JJ-INSANE1]

Well Bilbo and 617ricky...

Today the government just shot your theory right out of the water -

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/space/07/20/nasa.future.human.exploration/index.html

Quote" Today, NASA is working to return astronauts to the moon by 2020 and establish a lunar base that would allow them to stay on the desolate surface for up to six months by 2025"


Now let me understand this... they "loose" the original footage of the greatest feat of mankind... taped over it or what ever and now after all you guys argued to the governments side that we didnt go back or wouldnt go back because there was "no reason" ... it was nothing but dust... bla bla bla.... the government turns around and blasts your theory right out of the water and now finds the need for a "lunar base" on the moon. Hummm
Why? Because "maybe" by 2020 the will actually be able to get to the moon - just like scientist claimed back in the late 60s... it would take till then to accomplish it.... bros, you are being played.

 

[Bilbo]

Well Bilbo and 617ricky...

Today the government just shot your theory right out of the water -

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/space/07/20/nasa.future.human.exploration/index.html

Quote" Today, NASA is working to return astronauts to the moon by 2020 and establish a lunar base that would allow them to stay on the desolate surface for up to six months by 2025"


Now let me understand this... they "loose" the original footage of the greatest feat of mankind... taped over it or what ever and now after all you guys argued to the governments side that we didnt go back or wouldnt go back because there was "no reason" ... it was nothing but dust... bla bla bla.... the government turns around and blasts your theory right out of the water and now finds the need for a "lunar base" on the moon. Hummm
Why? Because "maybe" by 2020 the will actually be able to get to the moon - just like scientist claimed back in the late 60s... it would take till then to accomplish it.... bros, you are being played.

Oh snap! *foot tastes salty*

 

[JJ-INSANE1]

Now - one more time... does anyone want to take a couple of minutes and answer the one simple question i have asked all along?

How is it that there are tiny little pebbles and a shit load of loose sand directly under the lunar right after it was suppose to have landed on the moon? I mean it had to use the blasters to land and those things put out excess of 10,000 degree heat ... on top of propulsion to slow down the lunar down. Now explain that to me.

Also, this is not brought up anywhere that i can find.... when you go places you have never been (especially the damn moon) do you not video tape your surroundings? If you where doing a video for the entire world wouldnt you want to assure the best camera angles and views.... why is it that not one single video is a 360 degree shot? They are all taken aimed in one position.
They never pan around 360 degrees.... not once. Why? Because the damn movie and camera crew is behind the camera ... thats why.

 

[Tom]

dust

Now - one more time... does anyone want to take a couple of minutes and answer the one simple question i have asked all along?

How is it that there are tiny little pebbles and a shit load of loose sand directly under the lunar right after it was suppose to have landed on the moon? I mean it had to use the blasters to land and those things put out excess of 10,000 degree heat ... on top of propulsion to slow down the lunar down. Now explain that to me.

Also, this is not brought up anywhere that i can find.... when you go places you have never been (especially the damn moon) do you not video tape your surroundings? If you where doing a video for the entire world wouldnt you want to assure the best camera angles and views.... why is it that not one single video is a 360 degree shot? They are all taken aimed in one position.
They never pan around 360 degrees.... not once. Why? Because the damn movie and camera crew is behind the camera ... thats why.

not too mention there is no dust on top of the landing pads in any photo of the lander.

 

[617ricky]

Now - one more time... does anyone want to take a couple of minutes and answer the one simple question i have asked all along?

How is it that there are tiny little pebbles and a shit load of loose sand directly under the lunar right after it was suppose to have landed on the moon? I mean it had to use the blasters to land and those things put out excess of 10,000 degree heat ... on top of propulsion to slow down the lunar down. Now explain that to me.

I'm not sure if I really get your question.. What should it have looked like in your opinion? You find it suspicious that it appears there's pebbles and sand underneath? I don't even see what kind of logic that is, honestly.. I'm sure it disturbed some of the surface a bit, but what do you expect it to be totally bare ground after it landed? It obviously blew some shit around, but there was plenty more pebbles and sand underneath, to be there after it landed.. And that surface is absolutely cooked to begin with - daytime temps are over 200F and nighttime temps are below -200F, not to mention it's exposed to very extreme UV light every day..

 

[Newman]

in the northern hemispher in the summer, on a verry clear night. point at 250x bushnell telescope at the sea of tranquility. after about a half hour of looking around that area you can see a couple of things. the moon buggy, the bottom half of the lunar lander, and a little green flash about every 28.35 seconds. thats a mirror placed on the moon used to measure its distance from the earth with a laser. and we have been there more than once. here ya go look them up yourself.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/List_of_moon_landings

The link proves nothing, it's just a list of assertions.

On the other hand, if you are saying that you have PERSONALLY viewed manmade items on Gods silvery moon, then I'll believe you with cautious scepticism, at least until I can very your assertions myself.

Thanks for that. Now I have a reason to look at a moon other than my wifes moon (hers is even nicer than the other one)

 

[Tom]

I'm not sure if I really get your question.. What should it have looked like in your opinion? You find it suspicious that it appears there's pebbles and sand underneath? I don't even see what kind of logic that is, honestly.. I'm sure it disturbed some of the surface a bit, but what do you expect it to be totally bare ground after it landed? It obviously blew some shit around, but there was plenty more pebbles and sand underneath, to be there after it landed.. And that surface is absolutely cooked to begin with - daytime temps are over 200F and nighttime temps are below -200F, not to mention it's exposed to very extreme UV light every day..

makes you wonder with those temperature extremes and the uv light how those still photos came out so crisp and clear. not to mention how centered most of those photos are when they were taken from a camera mounted on the chest of the spacesuit. they could not bend thier heads down to site in those photos due to the helmets.

 

[Newman]

i have to disagree.. oswald was a noted shooter.. his sniper tests showed that when he was in the service.. also, tlc and numerous other studies have had snipers with the same credentials as oswald reenact the shooting and guess what?? THEY DID IT.. not too difficult for them.. now i am noit saying that oswald acted alone ect ect.. i dont know.. neither does anyone else.. but, the shots could and have been done since.. and that can be proven..

as for the lunar landing ect.. there is much debris left behind by us.. that can still be seen.. why does no one address this..? if we werent there how did it get there..?

I don't believe it.

I'm not trying to be a bonehead, it's just that a 6.5 kicks significantly more than an M16 & requires the shooter to move their offhand from the forestock back to the bolt, make 4 fast motions, them replace the offhand back onto the forestock to aid in regaining a clear sight pic & another ACCURRATE follow up shot.

This is 3 shots minimum, not just the 2 declared by the coroner.

ALSO, the mormon tapes show Mr Kenedys forehead opening up as hit by a high energy shot from approximately the same level as his head was at, NOT from the library window.

Oswald would have had to pop off 2 shots into Kennedys' neck & upper chest area, then run down the stairs to get the head shot, then run back up the stairs & abandon his 6.5 back into same room the first 2 shots were fired from.

Ignoring the very expert shooting required fromthe upper window, I'm a little skeptical that Oswald could run down the stairs, heart beating like hell, panting like a dog, then get a clear head shot (without getting shot himself), then run back up the stairs again...

The physics don't agree with the official version, just like they don't agrre with the official version of how other buildings near the twin towers just decided collapse out of sheer sympathy with the loss of the towers...

The supposedly scientific explanation for that is that the admittedly enormous friction from all that falling concrete/steel/glass was enough to create adequate heat that magically transferred efficiently enough through the soil between the fallen towers & the untouched fallen adjacent building. Even with the tightly packed, paved over upper layer, the 40 or 50 feet of dirt between the two sites would never be able to transfer the towers friction heat efficiently enough to cause the adjacent building to collapse from thermally induced spalling in the concrete footings & base area.

Neither official versions are valid...

 

[JJ-INSANE1]

I'm not sure if I really get your question.. What should it have looked like in your opinion? You find it suspicious that it appears there's pebbles and sand underneath? I don't even see what kind of logic that is, honestly.. I'm sure it disturbed some of the surface a bit, but what do you expect it to be totally bare ground after it landed? It obviously blew some shit around, but there was plenty more pebbles and sand underneath, to be there after it landed.. And that surface is absolutely cooked to begin with - daytime temps are over 200F and nighttime temps are below -200F, not to mention it's exposed to very extreme UV light every day..

Ricky,
Bro how can you not understand the question? There are official NASA photos showing underneath the lunar - its a fact that to land the thing like they "say" they did then the use of the powerful blaster under the lunar would have to be used. Its a fact that the blaster emits heat up to 10,000 degrees. Now, lets just say the moon is used to the heat and the 10,000 degree heat wouldnt effect it in anyway (highly doubtful... but im no scientist)... have you seen the photos of the rover throwing up dust? Have you seen the foot print Armstrong took a photo just out side the Lunar? Have you seen the astronauts jumping around causing dust to scatter... ect?
Then you see the lunar sitting there AFTER landing with not a single speck of dirt or dust on the landing gear... and NOTHING blown away under it. There are many photos of little tiny pebbles laying there. Now, the moon has just a 6th of the earths gravity correct? Yes... correct. So those little tiny pebbles would have been like feathers much less earth heavy pebbles. They would have blown far away. There would at least be a blast crater... but guess what? Nothing. That PROVES the thing did not land like they claimed it did.
It was set down on a movie set. Period.
Tom made a very interesting point i meant to make but forgot... not one picture shows anything on the "aluminum foil" paper thin looking landing gear. Its nice and clean for the pics taken.
You know.... some people just cant see the truth if its plastered inside there own eye lids. How is this so hard to believe? Nasa was FAILING! Nasa was LOOSING .... the only way to get any money generated into something that was that defunked is to get the world and American public behind it. What better to do that then faking a moon landing?

 

[617ricky]

makes you wonder with those temperature extremes and the uv light how those still photos came out so crisp and clear.

I don't think those variables would have any negative effects on a photograph.. The cameras were constructed to work in that temperature range, and with the light UV light - any effects that could have caused was also taken into account.. Maybe they took the pics at night? Or maybe the UV rays would not matter at all since they were using their own brighter lighting device.. Plus this was not the 1st time pictures were being taken up there - that had been going on for years with the many missions before, so they obviously had the best possible setup from experience..

And the fact that pictures are centered also proves nothing.. These guys were trained to the fullest to use every single device.. And it wasn't just like any usual job.. It was a job they were absolutely thrilled to be doing, so they were obviously giving it 110%, not to mention they were deemed the best for the job by NASA, out of many 1000's of others..

 

[617ricky]

That PROVES the thing did not land like they claimed it did.
It was set down on a movie set. Period.

It doesn't PROVE a damn thing man.. Why? Cuz you assume the way dust should settle on the moon should happen differently? That makes no sense.. You have no idea of the physics involved and how the shit should happen, and frankly neither do I.. But there's just no doubt in my mind we landed on the moon.. We had so much at stake in the space race against the Soviets, that had we did fake it, we would have been EXPOSED - case closed! They probably spent millions looking for evidence that we did - but they couldn't find any, cuz we really did it..

Nothing personal man, but I just hate getting into debates like this continually going back and forth, cuz I've done that on other boards in the past and it's just not worth it to me..

Here's how I see it - nothing is gonna convince you we did land on the moon, which I'm fine with - and nothing is gonna convince me we did not.. So I'm just throwing in the towel with this one, it's a losing cause..

 

[JJ-INSANE1]

Tom - thanks for actually sticking to what you believe and posting openly. There are alot of bros who feel the same but will not share it because of the "beating" and name calling that usually occurs. You seem very intelligent and have taken time to think this stuff out like i do.


Newman.... man, you make me proud.
You actually took the "forbidden" step and spoke honestly about your beliefs on 9/11. Every time i did this i was bombarded with name calling and everything else and eventually kicked off the board for what i believed.
I had many many emails and Pms from bros who felt the same but didnt want to piss anyone off on the board like i always seemed to do.

I wish i was as intellectually smart as some guys are (you 2 included) but im not. I just call it how i see it and how i believe it. I can copy and paste a bunch of stats and scientific proof.... quotes from Harvard, Yale, and other professors stating those towers could have never fallen like they did... no due to fire or Jet hitting them. The guy who BUILT and designed the towers said on video there is no way those planes did what they say they did... he designed the towers to take multiple hits and besides that... its the ONLY ... ONLY!!! steel skyscraper to have EVERY fallen due to fire... and only after a hour of burning. The Madrid skyscraper burned non stop for 24 hours and still remained standing... that building was built almost exactly like the trade centers in NY.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/spain_fire_9-11.html?q=spain_fire_9-11.html

So... i pray to GOD one day somehow the whistle is blown on the moon landing and the NY towers.... i will still be very sad that all those people died in NY... but at least they wouldnt have died in vain.

 

[JJ-INSANE1]

It doesn't PROVE a damn thing man.. Why? Cuz you assume the way dust should settle on the moon should happen differently? That makes no sense.. You have no idea of the physics involved and how the shit should happen, and frankly neither do I.. But there's just no doubt in my mind we landed on the moon.. We had so much at stake in the space race against the Soviets, that had we did fake it, we would have been EXPOSED - case closed! They probably spent millions looking for evidence that we did - but they couldn't find any, cuz we really did it..

Nothing personal man, but I just hate getting into debates like this continually going back and forth, cuz I've done that on other boards in the past and it's just not worth it to me..

Here's how I see it - nothing is gonna convince you we did land on the moon, which I'm fine with - and nothing is gonna convince me we did not.. So I'm just throwing in the towel with this one, it's a losing cause..

ricky...
With all due respect man, if you can say that "photo" doesnt prove a damn thing... then i can say exactly the same thing about every peice of "proof" you assume you have.
The flag being mounted on the moon (actually movie set) doesnt prove a thing. The fact that there are mirrors and reflectors on the moon doesnt prove a thing (where placed there by remote controlled unmaned missions).
What is the argument if your just going to say ... this doent prove a thing or that doesnt prove a thing. I would like one single "proof" that PROVES man was on the moon? Using your philosophy ... nothing you say will stand up.
You say they took pictures.... well i say thats not proof because it doent prove there the pictures where taken (in a studio) ... you say this and that... but if the answer is going to always be... that doesnt prove anything then it works both ways.
Im saying.... THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN DUST OR PEBBLES BLOW AWAY... THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN A BLAST HOLE! THAT MY FRIEND IS COMMON SINCE! It would have been that way because thats the way it should have been.... common sense tells US this. It WASNT ... and why? Because when NASA filmed it.. they didnt use any common sense.

Now... about the cameras not being able to take the pictures due to the temps and UV light ect.... they where Hasselblad 70 and 16mm cameras. The owner/manager of the Hasselblad company publicly explained there cameras would not have been able to film in the extreme heat differences on the moon. He said that when the Temp went from -150f in the shade to +200 in the sun the lenses (glass) would have shattered. Kodak even admitted it didnt have a film that could even come remotely close to filming still pics or moving pics in that atmosphere. The UV light would have ruined them. They where quoted as saying if that film was available they would have been selling it to the public along time ago.
With all this being said...im sure your going to just answer this with... well that doesnt prove anything. To that i say.... show me something that DOES prove something.
Every one keeps pointing to the Mythbusters show.... well if you will listen at the end of there CNN video just posted on the cnn site Adam says that they would like to actually be able to go to the moon to see if there where man made items there to retrieve because thats the only way to "prove" we actually went.
ricky man, i like you because you come here and actually debate... and dont name call and put down others for what they believe... but please man, try and explain instead of just washing it away as it doesnt prove anything.
Like i said... common sense will tell you that there should be a crater blast under that lunar ship... and common sense will also tell you that something powerful enough to land 3 men in outer space will no doubt blow away some tiny pebbles when landing... much less moon sand.... even with the earths gravity, much less 1/6 of it.

 

[ericraven2003]

ricky...
With all due respect man, if you can say that "photo" doesnt prove a damn thing... then i can say exactly the same thing about every peice of "proof" you assume you have.
The flag being mounted on the moon (actually movie set) doesnt prove a thing. The fact that there are mirrors and reflectors on the moon doesnt prove a thing (where placed there by remote controlled unmaned missions).
What is the argument if your just going to say ... this doent prove a thing or that doesnt prove a thing. I would like one single "proof" that PROVES man was on the moon? Using your philosophy ... nothing you say will stand up.
You say they took pictures.... well i say thats not proof because it doent prove there the pictures where taken (in a studio) ... you say this and that... but if the answer is going to always be... that doesnt prove anything then it works both ways.
Im saying.... THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN DUST OR PEBBLES BLOW AWAY... THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN A BLAST HOLE! THAT MY FRIEND IS COMMON SINCE! It would have been that way because thats the way it should have been.... common sense tells US this. It WASNT ... and why? Because when NASA filmed it.. they didnt use any common sense.

Now... about the cameras not being able to take the pictures due to the temps and UV light ect.... they where Hasselblad 70 and 16mm cameras. The owner/manager of the Hasselblad company publicly explained there cameras would not have been able to film in the extreme heat differences on the moon. He said that when the Temp went from -150f in the shade to +200 in the sun the lenses (glass) would have shattered. Kodak even admitted it didnt have a film that could even come remotely close to filming still pics or moving pics in that atmosphere. The UV light would have ruined them. They where quoted as saying if that film was available they would have been selling it to the public along time ago.
With all this being said...im sure your going to just answer this with... well that doesnt prove anything. To that i say.... show me something that DOES prove something.
Every one keeps pointing to the Mythbusters show.... well if you will listen at the end of there CNN video just posted on the cnn site Adam says that they would like to actually be able to go to the moon to see if there where man made items there to retrieve because thats the only way to "prove" we actually went.
ricky man, i like you because you come here and actually debate... and dont name call and put down others for what they believe... but please man, try and explain instead of just washing it away as it doesnt prove anything.
Like i said... common sense will tell you that there should be a crater blast under that lunar ship... and common sense will also tell you that something powerful enough to land 3 men in outer space will no doubt blow away some tiny pebbles when landing... much less moon sand.... even with the earths gravity, much less 1/6 of it.

Go to bad astronomy.com. They will destroy your moon hoax silliness. They will break down for you point by point and there are actual scientists on it not body builders. Take a look.

 

[JJ-INSANE1]

Just today on CNN.... Oh boy here we go again!!

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/tech/2009/07/20/dcl.myth.busters.moon.landing.cnn

No money - no Buck Rogers my friends! Its time for Nasa to start the lies and push for money to reboot there once again failing space program.

All this for what? Even the believers of the moon landing said there was "no reason" to go back to the moon. Now they need money again... and they conveniently come up with another "reason"

 

[whiteknucks]

I was about to reply to his question and statement, but I just couldn't.. It was like something I'd imagine a 6 yr old saying..

do you believe in santa claus?

are you one of those guys that feared for his life when saddam was building WEAPONS OF OUTRAGEOUSLY MASS DESTRUCTION!!!!! ?

keep standing in the puppet line man...i would try to think for myself though if i were you.

 

[Tom]

time will tell

time will tell...it always does. we now know as fact that the germans sank the lusitania which brought the u.s. into world warI because it was in fact loaded with armaments meant for britian. intelligence was well aware of the impending attack on pearl harbor but it was allowed to happen so the u.s. could declare war on japan. the gulf of tonkin incident was fabricated by johnson and his cronies in order to go to war with n.viet nam. someday the truth will be known about 911 as well as the moon landing.

 

[Tom]

rickey

don't throw in the towel bro. i have as much respect for you and your opinions as i do for jj and his. there is nothing wrong with healthy debate and we can always learn from each others responses even if we disagree on the main points.