Customer Discussions > Science forum

was the moon landing real or fake, and why?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 3176-3200 of 1000 posts in this discussion
Posted on Jun 25, 2012 1:27:35 PM PDT
iruri says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 25, 2012 2:20:47 PM PDT
iruri semi-coherently posted:
"Lj3d, You are way otta Line picking on men that are Dead"
You trash our astronauts all the time and some of them are dead.
But then, whatever makes you feel like a big important man instead of the aging loser that you are.
[I'm pretty sure he has me on ignore because--well--I'm just not nice and respectful toward him.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 25, 2012 2:23:00 PM PDT
Aww, Mr iruri the hypocrite is having another tantrum because he doesn't like the line of arguement over his beloved mentor.
Alive or dead, Kaysing was always a huckster, and nothing you say will change that. We are all still waiting for your proof oh ignorant one! Not speculation, heresay, misinformation or delusion, but proof of your ridiculous claims.

Posted on Jun 25, 2012 2:39:46 PM PDT
All joking about the Concorde being a fake aside, here's a remarkably detailed cutaway drawing of it from a 1971 issue of "Flight International" that demonstrates what an incredible achievement it was for the time:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/27417638@N07/7435908042/sizes/o/in/photostream/

And another cutaway drawing from the same illustrator, depicting a G-model F-104, which flew almost a decade before men even walked on the Moon:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/27417638@N07/7416346404/sizes/o/in/set-72157630241248940/

Darn, aerospace engineering back then was primitive and barbaric. I'm not sure if ANYTHING is real.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 25, 2012 2:46:03 PM PDT
Bubba says:
I've recently watched some documentation on the Apollo program and realized that the technology didn't exist at that time to fake the video that they were showing on TV. Simulating the effects of 1/6th gravity took a lot of cumbersome equipment, and simulating weightlessness was, and still is, a real pain in the ass.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 25, 2012 2:51:44 PM PDT
Andre Lieven says:
B:'simulating weightlessness was, and still is, a real pain in the ass.'

In the mid 90s, when they filmed Apollo 13 (Widescreen 2-Disc Anniversary Edition), to get the weightless effect on film, the sets of the interiors of the LM and CM were placed into a NASA 'vomit comet' aircraft, and scenes were shot in bits, as when the plane dived, they got weightlessness for not much more than 30 seconds at a time.

Since most Apollo TV transmissions during flight showed views where the interior views, showing the guys floating, went on for many minutes without a break. So, even the 1990s movie method would not have worked in 68-72.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 25, 2012 2:54:53 PM PDT
Bubba says:
I used to work on B-52Ds built in the mid 50s, it was totally amazing that something like that could fly at all, let alone be able to fly over Russia and drop nukes.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 25, 2012 3:00:15 PM PDT
Bubba says:
Yeah, that's what I was getting at. The current vomit comets and the civilian equivalent still provide the same ~30 seconds of weightlessness per cycle.

Posted on Jun 25, 2012 3:26:56 PM PDT
iruri says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on Jun 25, 2012 3:37:52 PM PDT
No, it means it's your job now to figure out a way to realistically fake weightlessness for the length of a 30-minute long television broadcast without a single visible edit, using only the technology available in 1969.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 25, 2012 4:28:22 PM PDT
Bill M. says:
>>Your assumptions are amazingly wrong. [iruri]

Funny, that's exactly what we've been explaining to YOU for the past 128 pages.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 25, 2012 6:13:11 PM PDT
Lj3d says:
Iruri, I know you worship BK. I don't and as I said before here, he does come across as likeable and in most other pursuits such as his books on how to eat cheap, he is probably not fleecing anyone and I'm not attacking him. I'm attacking his obviously deceptive book just as I attcked MR LEMs obviously deceptive website. BK is fleecing people when he sells obvious lies. When he says man didn't land on the moon because no stars show up in the pictures...that is an outright lie. BK is not stupid. If he worked as a contractor in a major aerospace corporation as a technical documents manager, he would have run across some of the rebuttals for faked moon landings long before they ever became rebuttals. The stars argument being the easiest one to refute today.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 25, 2012 6:16:26 PM PDT
Lj3d says:
Iruri: Well, All of what was in the Mr Lem Site maybe wasn't exactly true but a lot of was True, enought to post it here on the FAKE Moon Landing Discussion.

Lj3d: The above says it all. What does exactly true mean Iruri? The above statement clearly shows you will follow this lunar hoax business regardless of how deceptive an LHA site proves to be.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 25, 2012 6:25:21 PM PDT
Lj3d says:
Andre Lieven says: Since most Apollo TV transmissions during flight showed views where the interior views, showing the guys floating, went on for many minutes without a break. So, even the 1990s movie method would not have worked in 68-72.

Lj3d: Those were exactly the things I was drawn to back when I was 15 or so. The unedited stuff NASA showed that any reasonable person knew could not have been shown from in a plane. My focus was on the unedited walk to cone crater. At 15, I was no expert on movie editing but I knew enough and I was familiar with movie production techniques thanks to an unlikely source...Famous Monsters Of Filmland!

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 25, 2012 6:31:12 PM PDT
Lj3d says:
Daryl Carpenter says: Darn, aerospace engineering back then was primitive and barbaric. I'm not sure if ANYTHING is real.

Lj3d: This is exactly what hucksters within the LHA community want people to become. Uncertain of anything. That way, the hucksters can provide their opinions for a price. A price that goes beyond simply money.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 25, 2012 6:33:19 PM PDT
Lj3d says:
NASA used to hang astronauts sideways from a large rig and have them kind of jog along the wall they were jogging along while hanging nearly sideways. But this is by no means an accurate sim of 1/6th G. Especially when one side of you is being tugged at by 1 full G.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 25, 2012 6:35:56 PM PDT
Lj3d says:
Bubba says: Yeah, that's what I was getting at. The current vomit comets and the civilian equivalent still provide the same ~30 seconds of weightlessness per cycle.

iruri says: So, this proves man walked on the moon?

Lj3d: It goes much further to prove lunar landings than anything you have said that you claim as proof of faked landings.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 25, 2012 6:44:00 PM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Jun 25, 2012 6:44:44 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 25, 2012 6:44:32 PM PDT
Lj3d says:
Daryl Carpenter said it best Iruri, its up to you to show us why you think the lunar landings were faked. I've been asking you to do that over the course of at least a hundred pages now. And you haven't even come close. You echo LHA hucksters but when pressed with a question few have publically asked, such as why stars are not visible in ISS pics etc etc. You clam up! The worst part is, you rapidly post what you think is some breakthrough discovery thats going to change our minds and instead, ends up making your arguments look totally unconvincing. Did you look at Mr LEMs site and see hes just a fundy whacko who lives in the flat earth ages? No, you saw someone who thinks like you and immediatly grabbed and posted the link!

And I'll just say something I've said here before. I have nothing against you personally, I don't even know you. But I do know your arguments for a lunar hoax are nowhere near the standard required to be considered credible. If for no other reason because they are just other LHA opinions. That was proven when you went from blast craters, to radiation, to tinfoil LMs as your reasons for lunar fakery.

Posted on Jun 26, 2012 2:39:20 AM PDT
In the meantime iruri has simply just added another of his mindless reviews to his boring collection. This time he has non reviewed Tom Hank's film Apollo 13, denigrating it as a fake NASA video!!?? Wiskey Tango Foxtrot!

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 26, 2012 3:32:52 AM PDT
Lj3d says:
His reviews look like his posts. Its just him saying fake fake fake over and over. Claiming to have looked at evidence yet the only review I saw where he mentions specifics (Lighting, shadow so called anomalies) are those that come straight from Bart Sibrel, David Percy and company.

Posted on Jun 26, 2012 4:41:17 AM PDT
But the worst thing is that in just one comment he has basically stated that every person, people he doesn't even know, that have worked at, or for NASA, are liars, yet he throws a pedantic hissy fit if anyone says anything bad about his beloved Bill Kaysing even though be doesn't even understand half of what Kaysing says. I am now believing your theory Lj, in that he is simply just stating all this nonesense to get the attention he craves, because he is incapable of joining this discussion group, or any intelligent forum, where he actually has to think about what he is saying. Essentially iruri has zero communication skills at all, and when push comes to shove, he just either cries foul, or cuts and pastes. Until he can intelligently make a observational statement, or any statement regarding the stars in photographs issue, he is worthless as a contributor to this discussion or any dialogue regarding anything in the real world.

It makes me wonder what I would be like if I was an aging paraplegic stuck in a closed room with nothing but a colostomy bag and a computer. You know what, I don't think I would be a belligerant, delusional, reckless, annoying, insulting, monotonous hypocrite. I think I would make my plans to walk on the moon. ;)

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 26, 2012 6:45:07 AM PDT
Lj3d says:
Lol, I am basically a disabled shut in these days although I'm not paraplegic. But somehow I still manage to keep in touch with reality. I remember shortly after finding out my Aunt thought the landings were faked, I was hoping the landings were faked so I could still be the first man on the moon. I was probably 13 or 14.

Posted on Jun 29, 2012 3:53:27 PM PDT
Interesting that iruri hasn't made a post for some time now. I can imagine him sitting there thinking " Ah.. those dirty believers, I fixed them with my ultimate knowledge, my mentor uncle Bill, my stubborn willpower, and of course....my....precious!!"

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 30, 2012 9:25:09 PM PDT
Lj3d says:
It has been a few days since Iruris last post. Maybe he finally realizes his arguments have not convinced us. Can't understand why with all his (Cough cough) compelling evidence!
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Science forum
Participants:  219
Total posts:  5480
Initial post:  Nov 23, 2010
Latest post:  Sep 5, 2014

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 9 customers

Search Customer Discussions