51 - Page 3

[joshSCH]

I agree. I seriously doubt Armstrong was the first man on the moon..

[EnderX]

Okay? Then prove this to be false...

The major point which has helped convince me that the moon landing was faked was the fact that when the control room asked a question to the astronauts, the replies were instant with no delays. This seems strange as even with technology in the 1990's there is a delay from satellite links from the UK to the US. There is about a 0.7 second delay from London to California so how is it possible for instant replies from the Moon ?
There is also evidence that when people go into space that their voice goes tense although the astronauts voices have been analyzed and found to be normal, and 7/10 people said it sounded like someone reading from a script.

When Houston is talking to the module you should not be able to hear the responses at least when the module is landing and the infamous "eagle has landed" quote, this is due to the noise that should have been created by the rocket motor which generates several hundred thousand pounds of thrust 20 ft below the astronauts. The noise would have completely drowned
the vocals out.

A few quick questions regarding the noise:

1. Would that supposed noise be generated inside the cockpit, or outside the cockpit?

2. What makes you so certain they were using every single psi of thrust when they were landing?

And one regarding what you refer to as a instant replies: I admit I haven't seen whatever it is you're looking at, but you seem to be implying that the responses came back with no timegap whatsoever. Are you indicating that there was no time given for the astronauts to take in the question, think about it, and then reply?

[jbennet]

If it was outside and it was a vacum wouldnt it be silent?
I thaught sound doesnt travel in a vacum?

[Don Gino]

you dont have to make a huge set anyway, use the same small one, just change the scenery a bit, after all its all sand and rocks, how hard would that be?

[EnderX]

you dont have to make a huge set anyway, use the same small one, just change the scenery a bit, after all its all sand and rocks, how hard would that be?

Every time you have someone enter or leave, you've got to start over at removing the vacuum. In order to do what you're suggesting, they'd have to either be capable of repeatedly removing the atmosphere from your 'smaller' set (which would still have to be large enough for them to walk around in for quite some distance). Either that, or they'd have to have not just the 'actornauts' in space suits (remember, no oxygen in a vacuum) but also the entire 'stage crew' as well, and I doubt those suits hold enough air for massive sets of 'let's reposition the entire scenery' anywhere but an open zone, where the scenery can be changed simply by going from point Alef to point Bet. The moon qualifies as an open zone. A stage studio of any sort I can think of does not.

[Don Gino]

I see what you mean but my argument is you dont need a vacuum, just cable hanging from a ceiling, and also, slow down the speed at which the film plays.

[jwenting]

In order to fake the landings, they'd need to build a huge airtight set and then remove all the air from it. Without it collapsing. Good luck doing that with 1960s technology. Or 2000s technology.

Also, they'd still need to build the moon lander and spacecraft and launch all those rockets anyway, and having developed all the technology and spent all the money, there's no reason they would suddenly go and build a giant set made out of magical materials that can withstand the weight of the atmosphere.

And te cost of all that would have been miniscule compared to the cost of paying all the tens of thousands of people involved to keep their mouths shut forever, and the cost of paying everyone with a decently powerfull telescope (like the Soviets and Chinese...) to buy the story.

[jbennet]

the cost of paying everyone with a decently powerfull telescope (like the Soviets and Chinese...) to buy the story.

its a fact that you cannot see the sites of the moon landings with a telescope.

[WaltP]

haha.. I was just joking.. I'm a realist.. So I've got to say that no, I do not believe we have made any contact with other life forms.

Why is being a realist counter to life forms contacting us? There's some logic missing here...

Yeah, I don't believe in them lol.

And they don't believe in you. That's why you've ceased to exist :icon_mrgreen:

It was cheaper to go to the moon than to fake it? lol... I think not... It would be much easier and much cheaper to simply film the first 'moon landing' in a studio or something.

When was the last time you saw a 1960's science fiction movie? Easy to fake my butt!!!

Every time you have someone enter or leave, you've got to start over at removing the vacuum.

Can we say airlock kiddies? Or is that technology available? If not, how did divers leave submarines :icon_rolleyes:

[christina>you]

And they don't believe in you. That's why you've ceased to exist :icon_mrgreen:

That's fine by me, I'm a little frightened by the thought that there might be aliens out there. ;)

[Serunson]

It is highly unlikely that there are other creatures living out in the huge universe. there are not enough 'perfect' planets orbiting the right distance from a star to support water let alone life.
I a physics buff ~ my kind of subject is space;)

[Don Gino]

Yes i do not believe that there are any other life forms out there.

[christina>you]

Why do we not have any proof then? (or do we?)

[Serunson]

well
seeing as we cant see any planet near us (thousands of lightyears away) ~ or visit them
we 'assume' there isn't seeing as we haven't found one after decades of looking

[christina>you]

Ahh, do you think we will ever find out?

[jbennet]

probably eventually

[Serunson]

i doubt it in our lifetimes
maybe in the next hundred or so years we will have nuclear reactor engines or summit to power us everywhere through space!

[hollystyles]

Oh for goodness sake!

1. The Americans did land on the moon, there are laser reflectors placed on the moon for getting exact distance measurements and possibly other experiments I don't know what, but they're there and it can't be disputed.

2. Extraterestrial Civilisations

It is very difficult to comprehend the size of the universe and the amount of matter within it. But even if a tiny percent of the stars in our galaxy alone (and there are billions of galaxies) have an earth like planet life is almost asured, but they will be many thousands of light years away a seemingly unbridgable void for now and therefore, they may as well not exist for now, but I for one am certain they're there.

I mean surely God made a prototype ? gathering dust in a cosmic closet someplace :)
Otherwise... well it's an awful waste of space don't you think ?

[hollystyles]

i doubt it in our lifetimes
maybe in the next hundred or so years we will have nuclear reactor engines or summit to power us everywhere through space!

I think ultimately the trick to pull off is to bend spacetime over on itself (imagine a sheet of paper place a point at each end and pretend they're light years apart, now fold the paper so the points touch) We know from Einstien space and time are one and the same and it's bendy you just need enough gravity (like a blackhole perhaps) So get two distant points to meet and just step across he he sounds simple!

[Rashakil Fol]

I think ultimately the trick to pull off is to bend spacetime over on itself

While we're at it, let's run the engine with sunspots! Accelerate using negative gravity! Reroute power from the deflectors! Spiderwalk along lines of magnetism, for extra efficiency!

[hollystyles]

Spiderwalk along lines of magnetism, for extra efficiency!

Spiderwalking lines of magnetism will just never be posible, everybody knows that sheesh!

[jwenting]

its a fact that you cannot see the sites of the moon landings with a telescope.

not with one you buy at Walmart...
But there are those laser reflectors left out there which make a nice large target when hit with a laser that can be seen.

And who says anything about the actual landing sites? the rockets on their way could be seen using an ordinary telescope just as you can see ISS and Shuttles when they're up there now.

[EnderX]

While we're at it, let's run the engine with sunspots! Accelerate using negative gravity! Reroute power from the deflectors! Spiderwalk along lines of magnetism, for extra efficiency!

You do realize that if you reroute power 'from' the deflectors, you're getting rid of the only shielding you've likely got short of the ship's own frame and any physical armor attached to it? If you're attempting high speeds, that could be nasty...

[John A]

While we're at it, let's run the engine with sunspots! Accelerate using negative gravity! Reroute power from the deflectors! Spiderwalk along lines of magnetism, for extra efficiency!

Spiderwalking lines of magnetism will just never be posible, everybody knows that sheesh!

You do realize that if you reroute power 'from' the deflectors, you're getting rid of the only shielding you've likely got short of the ship's own frame and any physical armor attached to it? If you're attempting high speeds, that could be nasty...

Come on! Rashakil Fol was being sarcastic. :icon_rolleyes:

[christina>you]

Come on! Rashakil Fol was being sarcastic. :icon_rolleyes:

Yeah, I guess people just don't really know when someone is being sarcastic. But I just recently found that out about Rashakil. He has that type of personality, so I don't take stuff like that seriously. ;) They don't know him yet.

For the record, Rashakil Fol has a humorous/sarcastic personality, so don't take any offense to what he says. (as I did...)

[hollystyles]

Come on! Rashakil Fol was being sarcastic. :icon_rolleyes:

Yep we were joining in :icon_rolleyes:

[hollystyles]

Yeah, I guess people just don't really know when someone is being sarcastic. But I just recently found that out about Rashakil. He has that type of personality, so I don't take stuff like that seriously. ;) They don't know him yet.

For the record, Rashakil Fol has a humorous/sarcastic personality, so don't take any offense to what he says. (as I did...)

In a text only medium where body language is absent, smilies just aren't up to the job and it's very easy to misunderstand people.

[EnderX]

<sarcasm>How about this? In the future, if anyone's being sarcastic, we simply place <sarcasm/> tags around it? Reasonable?</sarcasm>

[~s.o.s~]

<sarcasm>Agreed</sarcasm> ;-)

[jbennet]

<?133t

<rofl> thats funny </rofl>

?>