- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Steph Curry doesn't believe the US ever landed on the moon
Posted on 12/11/18 at 11:03 am to SCLSUMuddogs
Posted on 12/11/18 at 11:03 am to SCLSUMuddogs
quote:
-Photographic evidence
Of course, NASA did themselves no favor with using staged photographs though.
2
Posted on 12/11/18 at 11:05 am to go ta hell ole miss
ALright, frick it, I'll take the time to do this. It's for the good of the human race after all
Again, the moon gravity is 1/6 of the Earth's. You would not need a ton of propulsion to lift the landing craft off of the moon; therefore there would not be an impact crater
The moon doesn't have an atmosphere; which means the moon doesn't have air resistance. Therefore the flag would float in place for a good moment once planted, and should then slowwwwwwly start to settle down. The flag picture is exactly what you should expect to see from a flag placed on the moon.
A low sun and uneven surface can distort the angles of shadows in images. And if there are multiple light sources, why does each object only cast one shadow
More of a what you believe thing I guess, but the Van Allen Belts aren't nearly as big of an issue as moon truthers like to push. We had been studying the van allen belts for years prior to the moon landing. We shot a bunch of nukes at it in the early 60's for some reason or another.
In order to capture a brightly lit object in a dark space a photographer has to use a fast exposure time and a small aperture. When this method is used, faint background objects are impossible to capture.
What, you think that's a prop rock? You think Hollywood marks every rock on a set with a letter? This one is pretty silly. It could be a hair in the scanner, it be any number of things. The least likely thing it could be though, is a prop rock.
I've seen the photos. They look very close, but they aren't identical. The slope and number of peaks on the hill/mountain to the right are significantly different.
I think you mean the fact that there are certain photos that appear to be "in front" of the crosshair grid. There is again a simple answer for you here. The picutre was overexposed. When an overexposed image is scanned. the bright white areas of the emulsion "bleed" over the thin black crosshairs. The crosshairs are only about 0.004 inches thick (0.1 mm) and emulsion would only have to bleed about half that much to fully obscure it.
And now those are answered for you
quote:
Lack of an impact crater.
Again, the moon gravity is 1/6 of the Earth's. You would not need a ton of propulsion to lift the landing craft off of the moon; therefore there would not be an impact crater
quote:
Waiving/rippling of the flag in photos when there is no wind on the moon to cause such
The moon doesn't have an atmosphere; which means the moon doesn't have air resistance. Therefore the flag would float in place for a good moment once planted, and should then slowwwwwwly start to settle down. The flag picture is exactly what you should expect to see from a flag placed on the moon.
quote:
Shadows in all different directions in photos.
A low sun and uneven surface can distort the angles of shadows in images. And if there are multiple light sources, why does each object only cast one shadow
quote:
Van Allen Radiation Belt and whether technology in 1969 could handl this.
More of a what you believe thing I guess, but the Van Allen Belts aren't nearly as big of an issue as moon truthers like to push. We had been studying the van allen belts for years prior to the moon landing. We shot a bunch of nukes at it in the early 60's for some reason or another.
quote:
Lack of stars.
In order to capture a brightly lit object in a dark space a photographer has to use a fast exposure time and a small aperture. When this method is used, faint background objects are impossible to capture.
quote:
The C clearly engraved on a moon rock in one of the photos.
What, you think that's a prop rock? You think Hollywood marks every rock on a set with a letter? This one is pretty silly. It could be a hair in the scanner, it be any number of things. The least likely thing it could be though, is a prop rock.
quote:
Exact same backdrops in the Apollo 15 mission from photos taken “miles apart” according to NASA.
I've seen the photos. They look very close, but they aren't identical. The slope and number of peaks on the hill/mountain to the right are significantly different.
quote:
Crosshair photos with objects in front of them
I think you mean the fact that there are certain photos that appear to be "in front" of the crosshair grid. There is again a simple answer for you here. The picutre was overexposed. When an overexposed image is scanned. the bright white areas of the emulsion "bleed" over the thin black crosshairs. The crosshairs are only about 0.004 inches thick (0.1 mm) and emulsion would only have to bleed about half that much to fully obscure it.
quote:
There’s enough issues to raise questions
And now those are answered for you
Posted on 12/11/18 at 11:08 am to go ta hell ole miss
quote:
Well, that’s two questions you have answered. And the others?
You only had 2 questions listed initially.
quote:
And, the video looks perfectly normal when you speed up the footage.
You just lack a fundamental understanding of gravity. Yes, if you speed up the footage it will look more normal. The laws of physics haven't been broken, gravity is just weaker.
quote:
It appears to have earth like gravity and the actors, uh, astronauts appear to possibly have motions suggesting they have strings attached to lift them. Strange that they can jump on the moon with astronomical height, yet still come back down?
BECAUSE IT IS 1/6 OF THE EARTH'S GRAVITY
quote:
astronomical height
Lol
This post was edited on 12/11/18 at 11:16 am
Posted on 12/11/18 at 11:15 am to bigberg2000
quote:
mean this isn’t the same as the flat earth bs. Lots of very smart people are skeptical about the moon landing.
No. We aren’t.
Posted on 12/11/18 at 11:20 am to SCLSUMuddogs
Some things I'd like to add to your points:
1. How in the hell could everybody involved keep this thing such a secret. And by everybody, I mean thousands of NASA, Smithsonian, museum, and science workers out there. That is, in addition to the actual astronauts themselves. Not one person would spill the beans in a drunken rant of "you gotta listen to this shite". Unlikely. Nobody can keep a secret like that.
2. What would be the ulterior motive for pulling such a stunt? I get why they would have done it then, but why now? With this point, I go back to #1. Surely since nobody gives a shite what we do vs what the Russians do anymore, somebody would have let it out.
1. How in the hell could everybody involved keep this thing such a secret. And by everybody, I mean thousands of NASA, Smithsonian, museum, and science workers out there. That is, in addition to the actual astronauts themselves. Not one person would spill the beans in a drunken rant of "you gotta listen to this shite". Unlikely. Nobody can keep a secret like that.
2. What would be the ulterior motive for pulling such a stunt? I get why they would have done it then, but why now? With this point, I go back to #1. Surely since nobody gives a shite what we do vs what the Russians do anymore, somebody would have let it out.
Posted on 12/11/18 at 11:20 am to ninthward
Thanks for answering all of the questions and clearing everything up with such eloquent and sophisticated language. Words like goddamn and holyfrick.
This post was edited on 12/11/18 at 5:58 pm
Posted on 12/11/18 at 11:20 am to bigberg2000
quote:
Lots of very smart people are skeptical about the moon landing.
No, lots of very smart people are not skeptical of the moon landing.
That is absurd.
I bet very few, if any, very smart people are skeptical about the moon landing.
Posted on 12/11/18 at 11:23 am to bigberg2000
quote:
I am just saying there is a big difference in believing the earth is flat and this.
Both are beyond idiotic to the point that it makes no difference.
Is it dumber to say 2+2=hamster or bananas are controlling our minds? I don't know, but no one with any intelligence whatsoever will ever say either.
Posted on 12/11/18 at 11:24 am to TheCaterpillar
Thanks
This post was edited on 12/11/18 at 11:34 am
Posted on 12/11/18 at 11:24 am to go ta hell ole miss
quote:
Thanks for answering all of the questions and clearing everything up with such eloquent and sophisticated language
De nada
Posted on 12/11/18 at 11:27 am to go ta hell ole miss
All of your questions were answered big dog. Just because a flag is wrinkled, doesn’t mean it’s waving. The flag is simply settling
Posted on 12/11/18 at 11:31 am to Mo Jeaux
For the down voters.
This post was edited on 12/11/18 at 11:31 am
Posted on 12/11/18 at 11:34 am to go ta hell ole miss
quote:
Would you mind explaining the questions/issues I proposed?
All answers were provided by another poster.
Posted on 12/11/18 at 11:40 am to Mo Jeaux
The Michael Collins Photo?
1. NASA never claimed it was from actual space
2. In Carrying the Fire, by Michael Collins, the book that both of the photos were taken from, Michael Collins said his biggest regret was "To not be photographed during my space walk."
3. Also the source for both photos being the exact same book is a pretty big oversight right? How inept must these conspirators be?
1. NASA never claimed it was from actual space
2. In Carrying the Fire, by Michael Collins, the book that both of the photos were taken from, Michael Collins said his biggest regret was "To not be photographed during my space walk."
3. Also the source for both photos being the exact same book is a pretty big oversight right? How inept must these conspirators be?
Posted on 12/11/18 at 11:46 am to GetCocky11
quote:
Steph Curry doesn't believe the US ever landed on the moon
If they keep pushing this farcical notion that we will be colonizing Mars about the time of Super Bowl LXXV, I'm going to be right there with him in my beliefs.
Posted on 12/11/18 at 11:49 am to winkchance
quote:
Sadly, this is being taught by some professors in college. Southern has several professors teaching this right now. Spoke to a couple of students from southern recently who argued this point and said two of their professors had proof.
Curry is right. Why spend the money to get to the moon when you can fake it for 1/1000th of the cost and with the same effect against the Russians.
Occam's Razor. Makes so much sense it's not even debatable. Why did we go to them moon? To show the Russians that we had the technology and give them cold war scares. They could achieve the same goal much more cheaply and easily with staging the hoax landing.
I'm sure we could go to the moon. But why put forth the extra effort and expense when unnecessary?
They certainly didn't put forth the man-power just to give MTV a cool logo.
The OT needs to read more.
Posted on 12/11/18 at 11:50 am to Mo Jeaux
Like this...
And the OJ debacle, where orange juice leaked out of the suit and onto the camera...
Whether we went or didn't is irrelevant if the passing images, testimony and other stuff is repros or just downright fake.
Posted on 12/11/18 at 11:54 am to SCLSUMuddogs
All good points, and I'm not a conspirator by the way.
Posted on 12/11/18 at 11:54 am to MojoGuyPan
quote:
MojoGuyPan
Flagging poster as a reminder to never, ever take them seriously in any discussion on this website.
I hope you people don't breed.
Posted on 12/11/18 at 11:56 am to finchmeister08
We landed and operated a rover on a planet 35 millions miles away. Not a person, but that's a pretty freaking large accomplishment.
Page 4 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News