Shocking New Evidence On 1969 Moon Landing
- Thread starter Jacksson_77
- Start date
Tgunz262 said:
As I have stated in my previous long posts about this with lots of Q's & A's on it. There are no ground or space based telescopes that have the ability to view the surface of the moon.
The General.
om3ga
It's good to be the king...
http://images.dr3vil.com/files2/default/1144802146461fc2d.gif
(yeah, I know I've posted this before, but this thread is the natural home for this gif....:thumbsup: )
(yeah, I know I've posted this before, but this thread is the natural home for this gif....:thumbsup: )
25% of the US population believes the earth is less than 5,000 years old!
(wake me when the others wake up, please!)
(wake me when the others wake up, please!)
FullMoonWolf
Closed Account
Didn't Bush brag that the United States was going to Mars next? He mentioned this during his State of the Union Address. Probably to divert our attention away from Iraq. Hm-mmmmmmmmmmmmm....
That's obviously taken out of its religious context and purely argumentative -- i.e., an inapplicable statistic to use as you did.HeartBroker said:
Huh? Where did this come from? W. has been talking about Mars from before Iraq, and the realistic goals he set were clearly 2020+ -- something that will happen well after his administration. If history repeats itself, it should be someone from the US Democrat party. It's called planning the NASA budget -- something no President has done since ... really ... JFK/LBJ. Even Reagan botched the NASA budget, rather badly (don't get me started), although we got some excellent defense technologies (including those used in missile defense today).FullMoonWolf said:
Now I'm waiting to hear how I am "biased" again ... sigh. In case no one caught it before, I never worked directly for NASA, only military contractors (even though it was on several prime NASA projects). We tend to "beat up on NASA" as well (because we handle their more critical capabilities).
remember what kennedy says:us will be the first country to put the man on the moon. remember the first orbital flight of john hershel glenn in 1966, he was 300km above hearth and flew in space. and in 1969 at 2h56 gmt after checking carefully his chrono neil armstrong planted the american flag on the moon.
regards
georges
Was that the same Flag that was blowing in the Wind. (didn't think there was wind on the moon):dunno:
Do you mean the flag that they had to twist to get into the moon's surface that caused it's gyrations and since there is very little atmosphere on the moon to slow it down it kept moving much longer than here on earth?
i reckon it was all faked in order to secretly channel money into something else.
Sigh, the neverending thread (but at least I obliterated the poll)
It's a prime example how Aristotle-age physics are still alive and well (and not merely just in the US either)
At the time, the US couldn't even orbit a man, and the Russians would launch a space station while we couldn't even get a capsule into orbit.
No one -- not even the Russians -- had any proof that orbital docking could be achieved (and the same arguments are made by non-engineers today with regards to hit-to-kill missile defense, even though orbital docking is the exact same problem).
With docking dismissed by NASA itself -- right down to Von Braun, as impossible -- the entire vehicle -- last stage to lander and back -- would have to be a huge, single vehicle.
It took two engineers not taking "no" for an answer to force the issue of docking in space to save an exponential amount of weight.
Bringing up one of the major goofs of Apollo 11, NASA put the flag way too close to the lander. When the ascent stage fired its rockets, with its expulsion of particles directly against the bottom ascent stage, they jetted right out at the nearby flag. Although the flag had a bar at the top to make the flag "hang out," it was still a flexible material and it "waved."
As I covered over and over in this thread, the well-known movie is a JOKE among engineers and physicists. It preys upon people who have only an Aristotle-level of understanding of physics. That's not an insult, just the reality. But as I also said earlier in this thread when people argued with me, don't believe me then -- ask an engineer or physicists, you know and trust personally if I am, indeed, correct!
It wasn't mere coincidence that the poll was not merely closed, but HAD ITS RESULTS COMPLETELY REMOVED virtually just after I started posting in this thread.
Some informative, earlier posts from myself that address much of the "video evidence":
http://board.freeones.com/showthread.php?p=543805
http://board.freeones.com/showthread.php?p=543812
http://board.freeones.com/showthread.php?p=543884
http://board.freeones.com/showthread.php?p=544032
http://board.freeones.com/showthread.php?p=626234
It's a prime example how Aristotle-age physics are still alive and well (and not merely just in the US either)
I don't think people recognize just how significant Kennedy's speech was.
At the time, the US couldn't even orbit a man, and the Russians would launch a space station while we couldn't even get a capsule into orbit.
No one -- not even the Russians -- had any proof that orbital docking could be achieved (and the same arguments are made by non-engineers today with regards to hit-to-kill missile defense, even though orbital docking is the exact same problem).
With docking dismissed by NASA itself -- right down to Von Braun, as impossible -- the entire vehicle -- last stage to lander and back -- would have to be a huge, single vehicle.
It took two engineers not taking "no" for an answer to force the issue of docking in space to save an exponential amount of weight.
Actually, while I appreciate your commentary, it was 1962. In 1966, the Gemini program (which came after Mercury) was already over.
I don't know about "carefully" -- NASA made numerous blunders during the entire run. I'm sure a lot of that had to do with the Kennedy speech, as NASA believed it might take 2 Apollo launches to land and wanted to try 6 months before the end-of-decade.
You don't need any "gas" in any "atmosphere" to move an object. That's Aristotle-age thinking. Elementary Newtonian physics 101 ... particles striking a material will apply a force on it, which may move it. Even though space is (almost) a vacuum, particles can and do move in it -- including the reaction-counter-reaction of a chemical rocket engine.
Bringing up one of the major goofs of Apollo 11, NASA put the flag way too close to the lander. When the ascent stage fired its rockets, with its expulsion of particles directly against the bottom ascent stage, they jetted right out at the nearby flag. Although the flag had a bar at the top to make the flag "hang out," it was still a flexible material and it "waved."
As I covered over and over in this thread, the well-known movie is a JOKE among engineers and physicists. It preys upon people who have only an Aristotle-level of understanding of physics. That's not an insult, just the reality. But as I also said earlier in this thread when people argued with me, don't believe me then -- ask an engineer or physicists, you know and trust personally if I am, indeed, correct!
It wasn't mere coincidence that the poll was not merely closed, but HAD ITS RESULTS COMPLETELY REMOVED virtually just after I started posting in this thread.
Some informative, earlier posts from myself that address much of the "video evidence":
http://board.freeones.com/showthread.php?p=543805
http://board.freeones.com/showthread.php?p=543812
http://board.freeones.com/showthread.php?p=543884
http://board.freeones.com/showthread.php?p=544032
http://board.freeones.com/showthread.php?p=626234
BNF
Ex-SuperMod
Re: Sigh, the neverending thread (but at least I obliterated the poll)
So did Armstrong!
He had his staircase/laddder line reheased but blew it. Originally, he also admits, it was: That's one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind."
I guess that if I'd been the first to step on the moon, my mind would've been somewhere else too.
So did Armstrong!
He had his staircase/laddder line reheased but blew it. Originally, he also admits, it was: That's one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind."
I guess that if I'd been the first to step on the moon, my mind would've been somewhere else too.
Re: Sigh, the neverending thread (but at least I obliterated the poll)
I think somebody in Australia came up with evidence recently using the audio form that sentence that makes him think Armstrong did in fact say it right and put the "a" in it. I'm not sure but I think Armstrong said somewhere that he thought he said it that way also.
I think somebody in Australia came up with evidence recently using the audio form that sentence that makes him think Armstrong did in fact say it right and put the "a" in it. I'm not sure but I think Armstrong said somewhere that he thought he said it that way also.
Heres proof N.Armstrong wasnt the first on the Moon
http://www.blondepornstars.org/hotpornstars/monica_sweetheart/
http://www.blondepornstars.org/hotpornstars/monica_sweetheart/
Just plain foolishness.
no chance has man ever been to the moon shuttle goes 400 miles up and we worry about there safe return now lets try 239,000 miles rocket to leave earth then 60,000 miles through the Van allen belt then a rocket to land soak up some more radiation then rocket to take off then back 239,000 mile back to earth and 60,000 of that back through the super radio active Van allen belt which would be 5 hours each way exposed to 1000 times more powerful then an xrays and land nice and safe 6 times no less with no on board computers and they say we can not go back in the next 100 years because we do not have the no how ? so whos crazy those that think we went in the first place are for sure . cheers rose
Similar threads
