Conspiracy Theory #2 (18 Viewers)

Anders · Oct 21, 2003

I never said that, I don't know what to think. I hear about all this evidence, but I've heard NASA dudes come up with some good explanations.

There's just one thing that really bugs me. Why haven't they travelled to the moon since then?????

Some might reply "why should they? they already know everything about the place" and that would be a stupid ass answer.

Think about it. We've been on this planet for quite a few years, and we still don't know everything about it. New stuff is discovered all the time... but erhmmm, let's send a couple of guys to the moon - get a few samples, take some pictures, and then we'll know everything about the moon. Yeah right...

Every time they send someone to space, they never travel very far. They just go into orbit. Why is that? Why not explore? Could it be cuz of the radioactive shield between us and the moon, which would kill any human being? The russians stopped cuz of that...

lol... I'm just spitting out all kinds of weird shit now.

gray · Oct 21, 2003

There's no gravity on the moon? :rolleyes:

Look at the exact directions of the shadows, and think about what this really should look like from a light source such as the sun...

Anders · Oct 21, 2003

Yes you have. Look closer, and maybe take a look at the yellow lines that show which way the shadows are dropping. That's lights from multible angles, and that's not possible.

Ivy · Oct 21, 2003

Not no..... but very very little...... things float and people weigh less. It's only a fraction of the gravity we have on earth.

gray · Oct 21, 2003

There's enough gravity to make a flag limp... and even if it doesn't make it drop at the same rate as the earth's gravitational field... since there's no force resisting the drop, it'd go limp within a few seconds.

But anyway, many people have scrutinized films and photographs of Apollo astronauts puttering around the moon and are unimpressed by the so-called "athletic feats" promised by NASA. If you accept NASA's claims, on the moon astronauts would barely nudge the scales at one-sixth of their earth weight. In theory, a 185-pound man wearing a space suit of equal weight should have been able to jump six feet off the ground. Yet apparently white astronauts can't jump

, for they never cleared more than a pathetic 18 inches. Bulky space suits are not an excuse. To give the illusion of low-gravity frolicking, NASA probably used "semi-slow motion" photography

Ivy · Oct 21, 2003

i see......

urm.....my weak atempt at explanation again.....

Multiple light source= Sun + other reflective objetc/planets

what i mean is out there, the sun is the only source of light. But there are many things reflecting it's light. Perhelps on the moon.... not only the sun but the earth is a reflector???

Anders · Oct 21, 2003

Yup, I heard that one ass well. If you speed up the footage from the "moon", it looks like they're just running around. :lazy:

vitoria_Ally · Oct 21, 2003

Wrong Ivy, there is gravity on the moon, if there wasnt any, astronauts would fly away... somewhere in the space.

Edited: opps, I was late, someone pointed it out already.

Dj Juve · Oct 21, 2003

yes they would :nasty: :devil:

Ivy · Oct 21, 2003

++ [ originally posted by gray ] ++

There's enough gravity to make a flag limp... and even if it doesn't make it drop at the same rate as the earth's gravitational field... since there's no force resisting the drop, it'd go limp within a few seconds.

But anyway, many people have scrutinized films and photographs of Apollo astronauts puttering around the moon and are unimpressed by the so-called "athletic feats" promised by NASA. If you accept NASA's claims, on the moon astronauts would barely nudge the scales at one-sixth of their earth weight. In theory, a 185-pound man wearing a space suit of equal weight should have been able to jump six feet off the ground. Yet apparently white astronauts can't jump

, for they never cleared more than a pathetic 18 inches. Bulky space suits are not an excuse. To give the illusion of low-gravity frolicking, NASA probably used "semi-slow motion" photography

ok.

note.... i really don't know if all this moon stuff is rel or not...... m just posting my thoughts

Like for eg........... how do you know exactly how much gravity it would take to make that flag go limp??

Anders · Oct 21, 2003

Yup, Nasa used that one as well. But if you look at the alignment of earth and the sun at the time (the only two light sources strong enough!) Those shadows would still be wrong. I saw this in a documentary once. NASA had some problems explaning it...

gray · Oct 21, 2003

There is no way that other objects and planets are reflecting the sun's light directly in such a way that this reflected light would cast shadows onto the surface of a planet/moon.

Sunlight is not cohesive like a laserbeam, and it'd quickly disperse long before it reaches the moon. It's like this... you don't see any shadows from the sun reflecting off the moon, right?

Now all these other planets that could reflect light are so far away, that we can't even see a glimpse of them without a telescope (light needs to reflect off an object into our eyes in order for us to see the object).

What i'm saying is, by your theory, we should be able to see shadows at night, and during the day, we should be able to see shadows from light reflected from Mars, Mercury etc.

gray · Oct 21, 2003

me too

this is quite an interesting discussion

Okay, think about it this way... gravity is not a "hit-or-miss" thing. If there isn't sufficient force to make the flag just go limp suddenly, gravity doesn't say "oh crap, we're not gonna try that again". Because there's no atmosphere or any other forces acting on an object apart from gravity, the flag would eventually droop down, because even if there's a tiny bit of gravity acting on the flag, it'd eventually get pulled down, no matter how slow...

Also, another piece of evidence is the fact that the lunar module, when it departed the moon's surface, was shown to have made a 'crater', by blowing away the dust around it, and it erased the footprints of the astronauts within a certain radius. This is the same as the flag argument... there's no atmosphere, so the dust couldn't have been blown away.

nosubstitute959 · Oct 21, 2003

@Sunshine, the astronauts bounce on the moon yeah......but they're not going to float away. That looks like what would happen if that flag wasn't tied to the pole. I don't think gray meant "limp" as in dangling along the pole, but rather asin being stiff like a brick. However, I've seen videos in which the flag was even flapping in the air......which is impossible.

As for the shadows......check out the astonaut's shadow on the ground..........it comes straight at you as if the light source is behind the guy and the vehicle implies the same thing.......but where the hell is that lighting on the face of the astronaut coming from!!

Ivy · Oct 21, 2003

OK, you guys have killed me on this multiple light source thing :LOL: I surrender

But abt Gray's "dust" ..... i think that.......

yes, no atmosphere, but have you seen astronaugts in 0 gravity? They play with food and stuff pushing it and juggling with it around the shuttle.

So what i mean is that ..... yes, no atmosphere, but if you apply energy to an object... it WILL move. No??

So when the lunar module 'rocketed' off..... the 'expelling' force is pushing th dust away. It's forced engery..... nothing to do with no atmosphere.

Do you get what i mean?

Do i make sense??

gray · Oct 21, 2003

No, that's actually what i meant. It should be limp on the pole, because gravity would eventually drag it down. Read my earlier post... gravity is a pulling force, not a boolean decision whether something is up or down. As such, it'd drag the flag down, much like someone slooooowly pulling the flag down on a string.

Ivy · Oct 21, 2003

Ok.....flapping flag would be impossible

face??? what face??? my astronaut had no face. We may be looking at diff pics here. i was talking about the pic in post #37

nosubstitute959 · Oct 21, 2003

My bad.........I was talking about the one in #34

nosubstitute959 · Oct 21, 2003

Yeah........u're right. Even though the gravitational force is about 5 times smaller, but still......it should take its toll on the flag.....unless of course NASA hasn't informed us of the new micro trubine-powered engine they have installed on that flag.

Ivy · Oct 21, 2003

#34 completly does not make sense.

anyway, bye guys. Am going to :yawn:

now

Conspiracy Theory #2 (18 Viewers)

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 18)