Conquer Club

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hkNnltFfR4&NR

wtf

This is one of the conspiracy theories that really cracks me up.

Let's assume for a second that we really didn't go to the moon. Why would we then continue to NOT go to the moon four more times? I mean, c'mon...the first "hoax" was pretty good...why spend all that money to fake it four more times?

BTW: Like the Astronauts, I wouldn't swear on a bible/torah/koran/Green Eggs & Ham for anything either. The Astronauts are Atheists...who knew!

Then why have we not been back in 50 years???

xtratabasco wrote:Then why have we not been back in 50 years???

Why would not going back for 50 years (its actually more like 30) mean that it was a hoax?

But here are some reasons why: Reduced funding for the space progam, focus on shuttle and space station missions, the several accidents that occurred in later Apollo missions.

A moon base is currently being planned by NASA.

then why is the flag waving??

It was saying hello.

where are the stars in the pictures??

They're camera shy.

why is the spacecraft sitting on level, uncompromised moon soil, instead of a deep pit that had been disturbed by the reverse thrust of the rocket engine....also there would be moon dust for years after the ground had been disturbed by the reverse thrust of those rockets, but the pics are so clear.....LOL

xtratabasco wrote:why is the spacecraft sitting on level, uncompromised moon soil, instead of a deep pit that had been disturbed by the reverse thrust of the rocket engine....also there would be moon dust for years after the ground had been disturbed by the reverse thrust of those rockets, but the pics are so clear.....LOL

I hope you aren't serious...and honestly don't think it was all a grand hoax.

BTW, all of these questions have been answered over and over again, but they aren't nearly as much fun as a conspiracy. Look at the US government...the slightest impropriety and it's headline news. Yet the biggest coverup in history has been kept completely silent by tens of thousands of people for over 30 years? Right!

Backglass wrote:

xtratabasco wrote:why is the spacecraft sitting on level, uncompromised moon soil, instead of a deep pit that had been disturbed by the reverse thrust of the rocket engine....also there would be moon dust for years after the ground had been disturbed by the reverse thrust of those rockets, but the pics are so clear.....LOL

I hope you aren't serious...and honestly don't think it was all a grand hoax.

BTW, all of these questions have been answered over and over again, but they aren't nearly as much fun as a conspiracy. Look at the US government...the slightest impropriety and it's headline news. Yet the biggest coverup in history has been kept completely silent by tens of thousands of people for over 30 years? Right!

you didnt answer crap....crapper....lol

xtratabasco wrote:you didnt answer crap....crapper....lol

So you are serious...and 13 years old it seems.

Ask your science teacher all about it.

Backglass wrote:

xtratabasco wrote:you didnt answer crap....crapper....lol

So you are serious...and 13 years old it seems.

Ask your science teacher all about it.

wheres the stars in the pics wize old government groveller???


LOL

xtratabasco wrote:

Backglass wrote:

xtratabasco wrote:you didnt answer crap....crapper....lol

So you are serious...and 13 years old it seems.

Ask your science teacher all about it.

wheres the stars in the pics wize old government groveller???


LOL

Most photographers already know the answer little man: It's difficult to capture something very bright and something else very dim on the same piece of film -- typical emulsions don't have enough "dynamic range." Astronauts striding across the bright lunar soil in their sunlit spacesuits were literally dazzling. Setting a camera with the proper exposure for a glaring spacesuit would naturally render background stars too faint to see.

Photography 101...but you only know the digital world.

Backglass wrote:

xtratabasco wrote:

Backglass wrote:

xtratabasco wrote:you didnt answer crap....crapper....lol

So you are serious...and 13 years old it seems.

Ask your science teacher all about it.

wheres the stars in the pics wize old government groveller???


LOL

Most photographers already know the answer little man: It's difficult to capture something very bright and something else very dim on the same piece of film -- typical emulsions don't have enough "dynamic range." Astronauts striding across the bright lunar soil in their sunlit spacesuits were literally dazzling. Setting a camera with the proper exposure for a glaring spacesuit would naturally render background stars too faint to see.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

LMFAO



ok bozo....LOL

Backglass wrote:

xtratabasco wrote:

Backglass wrote:

xtratabasco wrote:you didnt answer crap....crapper....lol

So you are serious...and 13 years old it seems.

Ask your science teacher all about it.

wheres the stars in the pics wize old government groveller???


LOL

Most photographers already know the answer little man: It's difficult to capture something very bright and something else very dim on the same piece of film -- typical emulsions don't have enough "dynamic range." Astronauts striding across the bright lunar soil in their sunlit spacesuits were literally dazzling. Setting a camera with the proper exposure for a glaring spacesuit would naturally render background stars too faint to see.

Photography 101...but you only know the digital world.

Let me guess, you probably believe the governments story that a 757 hit the Pentagon too and that the reason there is no picture of it on the Pentagons securty cameras is that the plane was going too fast, right....



LOL, your a riot.


LOL

what a great way to start my day, thanxs man.... LMFAO

xtratabasco wrote:LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

LMFAO ok bozo....LOL

Welcome to the real world kid.

xtratabasco wrote:Let me guess, you probably believe the governments story that a 757 hit the Pentagon too and that the reason there is no picture of it on the Pentagons securty cameras is that the plane was going too fast, right....

Changing the subject to make yourself feel better about being in that corner?

Aren't you late for school?

xtratabasco wrote:LOL, your a riot.


LOL

what a great way to start my day, thanxs man.... LMFAO

No problem...and anytime you need me to help you with your homework again, let me know.

your the one who tried to change the subject, by attacking my age.


LOL LOL


LMAO

xtratabasco wrote:your the one who tried to change the subject, by attacking my age.


LOL LOL


LMAO

OK...I'll play along. Back on topic then. What else would you like to know about the moon landings?

Americans never landed on the moon. They don't even have the tech to build their own space station, only in recent years they launched the INTERNATIONAL space station and all nasa's mission to space these days are? yeap to repair it, if they are having soo much trouble with a space station how can they land on the moon? other evidence exists van allen band, no stars and strange shadows in photos its clear that america has faked moon landing !

xtratabasco wrote:Americans never landed on the moon. They don't even have the tech to build their own space station, only in recent years they launched the INTERNATIONAL space station and all nasa's mission to space these days are? yeap to repair it, if they are having soo much trouble with a space station how can they land on the moon? other evidence exists van allen band, no stars and strange shadows in photos its clear that america has faked moon landing !

That's more of a statement then a question, but let assume your delusion is correct. I have some questions for you now:

1) Why? What's the point of this massive hoax?

2) Why perpetrate the hoax 5 times over several years?

3) How are they keeping tens of thousands of people quiet about the biggest hoax in history? Why would all the workers, contractors, mission control workers and Astronauts themselves have to gain by keeping quiet? In fact they would be hailed as hero's and become multi-millionaires to tell their story of the grand hoax...yet they don't. Why?

this is my post, lets answer my questions, or at least first, ok.


That is if you can. LOL

xtratabasco wrote:this is my post, lets answer my questions, or at least first, ok.


That is if you can. LOL

OK. Fair enough.

Then why have we not been back in 50 years???

It hasn't been 50 years it has been 35 (1972). The main reason it is very expensive, and there really isn't anything compelling there to go see...we have already been five times.

then why is the flag waving??

I don't understand why you think this is evidence of any kind. Moving a piece of cloth will cause it to "wave" in a vacuum or not. When you whip around a vertical pole, the flag will "wave"', since it is attached at the top. The top will move first, then the cloth will follow along in a wave that moves down. This isn't air that is moving the flag, it's the cloth itself.

where are the stars in the pictures??

Already answered above. Enroll in Photography as your next elective and learn about film and exposure.

why is the spacecraft sitting on level, uncompromised moon soil, instead of a deep pit that had been disturbed by the reverse thrust of the rocket engine.\

When someone driving a car pulls into a parking spot, do they do it at 100 kilometers per hour? Of course not. They slow down first, easing off the accelerator. The astronauts did the same thing. Sure, the rocket on the lander was capable of 10,000 pounds of thrust, but they had a throttle. They fired the rocket hard to deorbit and slow enough to land on the Moon, but they didn't need to thrust that hard as they approached the lunar surface; they throttled down to about 3000 pounds of thrust.

Now here comes a little bit of math (try to follow along): the engine nozzle was about 54 inches across (from the Encyclopaedia Astronautica), which means it had an area of 2300 square inches. That in turn means that the thrust generated a pressure of only about 1.5 pounds per square inch! That's not a lot of pressure. Moreover, in a vacuum, the exhaust from a rocket spreads out very rapidly. On Earth, the air in our atmosphere constrains the thrust of a rocket into a narrow column, which is why you get long flames and columns of smoke from the back of a rocket. In a vacuum, no air means the exhaust spreads out even more, lowering the pressure. That's why there's no blast crater. Three thousand pounds of thrust sounds like a lot, but it was so spread out it was actually rather gentle.

Remember the thrust needed to move an object on Earth is MUCH larger than on a body with hardly any gravity and no atmosphere.

also there would be moon dust for years after the ground had been disturbed by the reverse thrust of those rockets, but the pics are so clear

On the Moon, there is no air. The only dust that gets blown around by the exhaust of the rocket (which, remember, isn't nearly as strong as the HBs claim) is the dust physically touched by the exhaust, or dust hit by other bits of flying dust. In the end, only the dust directly under or a bit around the rocket was blown out by the exhaust. The rest was left where it was. Ironically, the dust around the landing site was probably a bit thicker than before, since the dust blown out would have piled up there.

There ya go! I am sure you will type many LOL's and not believe any of it...it's much more fun to believe in conspiracies isnt it.