The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Did anyone see that programme on Sci Fi night on Channel 5 (those can get reception) couple of Sunday's back, refuting the accomplishment of any of the moon landings?
Any physicists or the like out there to give learned views on how, if it was a fake, they could have made such a bodge job of it! The NASA spokesman was not very helpful and just plain arrogant.
Any physicists or the like out there to give learned views on how, if it was a fake, they could have made such a bodge job of it! The NASA spokesman was not very helpful and just plain arrogant.
Page:
mattyboy wrote:
According to resources there was also
> a trip to Mars which was actually televised I might add and that was
> found to be a complete hoax. I cant remember when it was, I wasnt
> even born though at that time!! It was believed they filmed it at
> Area 51 and it took a long time before people relised they were
> had!!
There actually wasnt a fake trip to Mars...
That was a movie that was made in the seventies, about NASA faking a trip to Mars...
:)
According to resources there was also
> a trip to Mars which was actually televised I might add and that was
> found to be a complete hoax. I cant remember when it was, I wasnt
> even born though at that time!! It was believed they filmed it at
> Area 51 and it took a long time before people relised they were
> had!!
There actually wasnt a fake trip to Mars...
That was a movie that was made in the seventies, about NASA faking a trip to Mars...
:)
Well I never saw it but I do not think that it was faked.
It certainly did raise a few eyebrows. I remember reading some book about aliens, conspiracies and government cover ups and found one story to be of great interest!!
One side of the story was about the moon landing where we are believed that they did actually land (that I have no doubt!!) but nothing much was allowed to be reported back because of an unidentified ship seen flying close to the area. Apparently they took pictures of this ship and Neil Armstrong was actually said to have come in close contact with whatever was onboard. He claimed it was just a huge alien type UFO which completley covered everything, hung around for a few moments then flew off!!
Now whether this is true or not I very much doubt but it was quite interesting nevertheless. Maybe this was just used as another cover up much like the landing being hoaxed to keep us all away from the real truth!!
According to resources there was also a trip to Mars which was actually televised I might add and that was found to be a complete hoax. I cant remember when it was, I wasnt even born though at that time!! It was believed they filmed it at Area 51 and it took a long time before people relised they were had!!
One side of the story was about the moon landing where we are believed that they did actually land (that I have no doubt!!) but nothing much was allowed to be reported back because of an unidentified ship seen flying close to the area. Apparently they took pictures of this ship and Neil Armstrong was actually said to have come in close contact with whatever was onboard. He claimed it was just a huge alien type UFO which completley covered everything, hung around for a few moments then flew off!!
Now whether this is true or not I very much doubt but it was quite interesting nevertheless. Maybe this was just used as another cover up much like the landing being hoaxed to keep us all away from the real truth!!
According to resources there was also a trip to Mars which was actually televised I might add and that was found to be a complete hoax. I cant remember when it was, I wasnt even born though at that time!! It was believed they filmed it at Area 51 and it took a long time before people relised they were had!!
>and there was shadows on the moon
>there is nothing wrong with that except that the shadows >were moving in the wrong direction
If you're on earth and it's light do you need a flash if you're not in the direction of the sun?
>and i have also heard about the radiation suits and >especially the "spot light thing " and how come the voices >crack up as soon as he steps off the shuttle on to >the "Moon"
The spotlights come from the radiation in space. The voices would have crackled up because it would have constuctively or destructively interfered with other radiation and sound waves in space distorting the sound.
>there is nothing wrong with that except that the shadows >were moving in the wrong direction
If you're on earth and it's light do you need a flash if you're not in the direction of the sun?
>and i have also heard about the radiation suits and >especially the "spot light thing " and how come the voices >crack up as soon as he steps off the shuttle on to >the "Moon"
The spotlights come from the radiation in space. The voices would have crackled up because it would have constuctively or destructively interfered with other radiation and sound waves in space distorting the sound.
SmokedKipper wrote:
> I saw an interview with a bloke a while ago (a proper scientist, not
> just a nutter from off the street) who put forward a case along the
> lines of this.
He was simply putting forward some simple
> questions to people involved in the lunar landing and the answers
> they gave made for interesting viewing.
One question was about
> radiation protection in the space suits - why has the technology
> used in them not been made available to nuclear power stations and
> the like? The answer: they didn't ask for any radiation protetion to
> be featured in the suits.
If there were no flashes on the cameras
> they took how can some photos show things lit up at the front even
> though the light from the sun is obviously coming from behing
> them?
One photo shows a small white sphere in the background. Of
> course this can't be a dodgy bit on the picture :) - since it's too
> big to be a star and in the wrong place (and colour) to be the sun,
> some people think it may be a spotlight. I admit that one made me
> laugh.
How were the small buttons on the cameras pressed when
> wearing awkward space suit gloves.
A few years ago the moon WAS
> photographed in detail and NASA have apparently ignored requests to
> release photos of the lunar lander still on there.
At the time of
> the landing, America were far behind Russia in the space race. The
> end of decade time limit was drawing near and something had to be
> done quickly - which is probably why the disbelievers started
> voicing their opinion in the first place.
I think a lot of it is
> just NASA being secretive (too keep public imagination and interest
> running) and occasionally underqualified staff giving less than
> bullet proof ecuses for things but the debate will continue to go on
> until more trips to the moon are made and some totally
> unquestionable evidence is produced.
Me? I think they did go
> there but NASA are playing the minority public's scepticism to keep
> enough interest in space travel to warrant the funding it gets.
and there was shadows on the moon
there is nothing wrong with that except that the shadows were moving in the wrong direction and i have also heard about the radiation suits and especially the "spot light thing " and how come the voices crack up as soon as he steps off the shuttle on to the "Moon"
> I saw an interview with a bloke a while ago (a proper scientist, not
> just a nutter from off the street) who put forward a case along the
> lines of this.
He was simply putting forward some simple
> questions to people involved in the lunar landing and the answers
> they gave made for interesting viewing.
One question was about
> radiation protection in the space suits - why has the technology
> used in them not been made available to nuclear power stations and
> the like? The answer: they didn't ask for any radiation protetion to
> be featured in the suits.
If there were no flashes on the cameras
> they took how can some photos show things lit up at the front even
> though the light from the sun is obviously coming from behing
> them?
One photo shows a small white sphere in the background. Of
> course this can't be a dodgy bit on the picture :) - since it's too
> big to be a star and in the wrong place (and colour) to be the sun,
> some people think it may be a spotlight. I admit that one made me
> laugh.
How were the small buttons on the cameras pressed when
> wearing awkward space suit gloves.
A few years ago the moon WAS
> photographed in detail and NASA have apparently ignored requests to
> release photos of the lunar lander still on there.
At the time of
> the landing, America were far behind Russia in the space race. The
> end of decade time limit was drawing near and something had to be
> done quickly - which is probably why the disbelievers started
> voicing their opinion in the first place.
I think a lot of it is
> just NASA being secretive (too keep public imagination and interest
> running) and occasionally underqualified staff giving less than
> bullet proof ecuses for things but the debate will continue to go on
> until more trips to the moon are made and some totally
> unquestionable evidence is produced.
Me? I think they did go
> there but NASA are playing the minority public's scepticism to keep
> enough interest in space travel to warrant the funding it gets.
and there was shadows on the moon
there is nothing wrong with that except that the shadows were moving in the wrong direction and i have also heard about the radiation suits and especially the "spot light thing " and how come the voices crack up as soon as he steps off the shuttle on to the "Moon"
Smoked kipper said
>A few years ago the moon WAS photographed in detail and >NASA have apparently ignored requests to release photos of >the lunar lander still on there.
They said on the programme said that the resolution (the smallest size the camera could see was too big to distinguish whether there was a spacecraft there or not. In a few years the Japanese are flying a rocket to take even more detailed photos of the moon and then we'll see.
>A few years ago the moon WAS photographed in detail and >NASA have apparently ignored requests to release photos of >the lunar lander still on there.
They said on the programme said that the resolution (the smallest size the camera could see was too big to distinguish whether there was a spacecraft there or not. In a few years the Japanese are flying a rocket to take even more detailed photos of the moon and then we'll see.
I saw an interview with a bloke a while ago (a proper scientist, not just a nutter from off the street) who put forward a case along the lines of this.
He was simply putting forward some simple questions to people involved in the lunar landing and the answers they gave made for interesting viewing.
One question was about radiation protection in the space suits - why has the technology used in them not been made available to nuclear power stations and the like? The answer: they didn't ask for any radiation protetion to be featured in the suits.
If there were no flashes on the cameras they took how can some photos show things lit up at the front even though the light from the sun is obviously coming from behing them?
One photo shows a small white sphere in the background. Of course this can't be a dodgy bit on the picture :) - since it's too big to be a star and in the wrong place (and colour) to be the sun, some people think it may be a spotlight. I admit that one made me laugh.
How were the small buttons on the cameras pressed when wearing awkward space suit gloves.
A few years ago the moon WAS photographed in detail and NASA have apparently ignored requests to release photos of the lunar lander still on there.
At the time of the landing, America were far behind Russia in the space race. The end of decade time limit was drawing near and something had to be done quickly - which is probably why the disbelievers started voicing their opinion in the first place.
I think a lot of it is just NASA being secretive (too keep public imagination and interest running) and occasionally underqualified staff giving less than bullet proof ecuses for things but the debate will continue to go on until more trips to the moon are made and some totally unquestionable evidence is produced.
Me? I think they did go there but NASA are playing the minority public's scepticism to keep enough interest in space travel to warrant the funding it gets.
He was simply putting forward some simple questions to people involved in the lunar landing and the answers they gave made for interesting viewing.
One question was about radiation protection in the space suits - why has the technology used in them not been made available to nuclear power stations and the like? The answer: they didn't ask for any radiation protetion to be featured in the suits.
If there were no flashes on the cameras they took how can some photos show things lit up at the front even though the light from the sun is obviously coming from behing them?
One photo shows a small white sphere in the background. Of course this can't be a dodgy bit on the picture :) - since it's too big to be a star and in the wrong place (and colour) to be the sun, some people think it may be a spotlight. I admit that one made me laugh.
How were the small buttons on the cameras pressed when wearing awkward space suit gloves.
A few years ago the moon WAS photographed in detail and NASA have apparently ignored requests to release photos of the lunar lander still on there.
At the time of the landing, America were far behind Russia in the space race. The end of decade time limit was drawing near and something had to be done quickly - which is probably why the disbelievers started voicing their opinion in the first place.
I think a lot of it is just NASA being secretive (too keep public imagination and interest running) and occasionally underqualified staff giving less than bullet proof ecuses for things but the debate will continue to go on until more trips to the moon are made and some totally unquestionable evidence is produced.
Me? I think they did go there but NASA are playing the minority public's scepticism to keep enough interest in space travel to warrant the funding it gets.
We'll get a smaller midget!
You two are dumber than a bag of hammers
You two are dumber than a bag of hammers
Page: