Topic categories:

Non-Coventry

Moon Landings - conspiracy or not?

You need to be signed in to respond to this topic

No actionNo action

Displaying 1 to 15 of 24 posts

Page 1 of 2

1 2
Next pageNo action
24 posts:
Order:    

Midland Red
Cherwell
All posts by this member
1 of 24  Mon 16th Sep 2013 11:16pm  
Moderator: Joined Jan 2010  Total posts:5026

On 16th Sep 2013 6:58pm, Doddman said: Several years later on the same television in the early hours of the morning we watched Neil Armstrong set foot on the moon. I was in a room over here with Neil Armstrong one time, he just stood there in a power blue suit and everybody seemed to freeze up. He spoke, you listened on his every word. When he died recently, I think it was Time magazine, had his picture on the front cover, just two words "The Man". My wife and I were travelling from Detroit, Michigan to Louisville, Kentucky one time recently and we went through his small home town. There was a small museum dedicated to him, it was fascinating, quite the guy ?
Do you have any proof that "Neil Armstrong set foot on the moon"? Oh my
Non-Coventry - Moon Landings - conspiracy or not?
NormK
bulkington
All posts by this member
2 of 24  Tue 17th Sep 2013 5:26pm  
Member: Joined Jan 2012  Total posts:855

There was a TV programme on this subject, and to be honest I don't think it happened at all. Oh my
Milly rules

Non-Coventry - Moon Landings - conspiracy or not?
Rob Orland
Historic Coventry
All posts by this member
3 of 24  Tue 17th Sep 2013 7:29pm  
Webmaster: Joined Jan 2010  Total posts:1358

Oh no, not that old conspiracy again!!! Wink They were there alright - there's just too much proof against the hoax theorists. And one of the strongest pieces of evidence comes, surprisingly, not from NASA, but from the fact that their deadly rivals, the USSR, actually tracked the Apollo mission.... I somehow think that if the Russians could've provided even the slimmest evidence that it was a hoax, they would've definitely been the first to tell the world. But.... I still haven't found out what sort of cheese it's made from! Lol
Non-Coventry - Moon Landings - conspiracy or not?
Midland Red
Cherwell
All posts by this member
Thread starter
4 of 24  Tue 17th Sep 2013 9:17pm  
Moderator: Joined Jan 2010  Total posts:5026

Strange piece of evidence, that - hardly proves it! Roll eyes Won't stand up in court, Rob!
Non-Coventry - Moon Landings - conspiracy or not?
Dreamtime
5 of 24  Wed 18th Sep 2013 1:38am  
Off-topic / chat  

AD
Allesley Park
All posts by this member
6 of 24  Tue 1st Oct 2013 10:12am  
Member: Joined Aug 2011  Total posts:428

On 17th Sep 2013 9:17pm, Midland Red said: Strange piece of evidence, that - hardly proves it! Roll eyes Won't stand up in court, Rob!
I could have sworn I posted something in here! Maybe that piece of evidence doesn't prove it, but it is certainly a very compelling argument. A fierce 'war' between the US and USSR with millions spent on it, huge amounts of espionage. They tracked the mission very very closely and if they had one shred of evidence it had not taken place without doubt they would have voiced it. However, what IS evidence are the many, many tests done to disprove the conspirators - the waving flag, the bootprints, the lack of a camera in reflections etc. They've all been tested in vacuum chambers etc, and all proved to be the correct. Now, I think it's likely they would have taken 'mock' photos etc prior to the mission, just in case equipment failed etc. but that they actually went there is highly probable.
Non-Coventry - Moon Landings - conspiracy or not?
Baz
7 of 24  Wed 23rd Oct 2013 9:47pm  
Off-topic / chat  

PhilipInCoventry
8 of 24  Thu 24th Oct 2013 8:07pm  
Off-topic / chat  

morgana
9 of 24  Thu 24th Oct 2013 8:58pm  
Off-topic / chat  

Rob Orland
10 of 24  Thu 24th Oct 2013 9:01pm  
Off-topic / chat  

morgana
the secret garden
All posts by this member
11 of 24  Thu 24th Oct 2013 10:23pm  
Member: Joined Nov 2011  Total posts:2216

Lack of oxygen to the brain with that ribbon being pulled so tight Rob Big grin Now I thought UFO or even Button Moon you would have thought of too. Roll eyes
Non-Coventry - Moon Landings - conspiracy or not?
Mike H
London Ontario, Canada
All posts by this member
12 of 24  Tue 29th Oct 2013 5:51pm  
Member: Joined Apr 2012  Total posts:440

On 17th Sep 2013 7:29pm, Rob Orland said: Oh no, not that old conspiracy again!!! Wink They were there alright - there's just too much proof against the hoax theorists. And one of the strongest pieces of evidence comes, surprisingly, not from NASA, but from the fact that their deadly rivals, the USSR, actually tracked the Apollo mission.... I somehow think that if the Russians could've provided even the slimmest evidence that it was a hoax, they would've definitely been the first to tell the world. But.... I still haven't found out what sort of cheese it's made from! Lol
The Russians would claim anything just so they did not seem to be left out. Question. Considering the problems that Hawker had with the P1127, and the fact that US pilots had great difficulty flying them, how come that it was so simple to land and take off a ONE burner 'vehicle' on the Moon. Saturn 5's are streamlined and have MULTIPLE boosters. Question. The Hubble telescope can get images of galaxies which are billions of light years away, but the best it can manage of the moon landing site (or ANY telescope for that matter) is an image that looks like a Matchbox 'Model of Yesteryear' from the top of the Eiffel Tower?
Non-Coventry - Moon Landings - conspiracy or not?
mcsporran
Coventry & Cebu
All posts by this member
13 of 24  Tue 29th Oct 2013 8:53pm  
Member: Joined Oct 2013  Total posts:400

I can't believe anyone could seriously question this. The reason a single rocket can lift off from the moon is simply that the moon is much smaller than earth, therefore the gravity pull is significantly less, plus the payload was much smaller, plus there's no air resistance to overcome, also it only needed to get into orbit, not reach escape velocity. The best telescopes, including Hubble, can resolve details of perhaps 0.02 arcsec but to capture any detail of a lunar lander it would need to resolve 0.002 arcsec. Distant galaxies are much bigger than this so can be seen easily. Nevertheless, here's some of the images taken of the hardware left on the moon by the Apollo missions, taken when the sun was low enough to create sufficiently long shadows: Edited by member, 29th Oct 2013 8:58 pm
Non-Coventry - Moon Landings - conspiracy or not?
Midland Red
Cherwell
All posts by this member
Thread starter
14 of 24  Tue 29th Oct 2013 9:26pm  
Moderator: Joined Jan 2010  Total posts:5026

I can't believe anyone could seriously believe it Your link is to NASA info - they would say that, wouldn't they? Here's one site with a list of questions, answers to which I haven't seen - I watched a programme recently in which a NASA rep tried to squirm his way out of answering similar posers, without any conviction that he could disprove the theories
Non-Coventry - Moon Landings - conspiracy or not?
Mike H
London Ontario, Canada
All posts by this member
15 of 24  Wed 30th Oct 2013 12:34am  
Member: Joined Apr 2012  Total posts:440

On 29th Oct 2013 8:53pm, mcsporran said: I can't believe anyone could seriously question this. The reason a single rocket can lift off from the moon is simply that the moon is much smaller than earth, therefore the gravity pull is significantly less, plus the payload was much smaller, plus there's no air resistance to overcome, also it only needed to get into orbit, not reach escape velocity. The best telescopes, including Hubble, can resolve details of perhaps 0.02 arcsec but to capture any detail of a lunar lander it would need to resolve 0.002 arcsec. Distant galaxies are much bigger than this so can be seen easily.
You missed the detail in my post. I am not talking about gravity. My reference is to stability. Hawker had to really work at the prototype Harrier which has four nozzles, and even then, the operational Harriers were a handful. The Saturn 5 has weight distribution and five nozzles which keep it basically 'upright'. The module which supposedly left the base of the lander would be as stable as a firework rocket with no stick in the tail. The nozzles around it, presumably for steering would be hard pressed to supply enough force against almost no 'heavy' air such that straight flight could be maintained accurately or maybe at all. Like the Kennedy and 911 stuff, there are many more questions than answers.
Non-Coventry - Moon Landings - conspiracy or not?

You need to be signed in to respond to this topic

No actionNo action

Displaying 1 to 15 of 24 posts

Page 1 of 2

1 2
Next pageNo action

Previous (older) topic

Eating in the 50s and 60s
|

Next (newer) topic

Pet Corner
You are viewing topics in the Non-Coventry category
 
Home | Forum index | Forum stats | Forum help | Log out | About me | My music
Top of the page
HTML5
1,572,726

Website & counter by Rob Orland © 2018

Load time: 108ms