[Closed] Appollo 17 - faked ?

I am convinced that the vast majority of flat earthers/apollo fakers are just trolling, as there is a certain type of person who is 100% guaranteed to go apoplectic at the mere mention of it. A mate regularly gets into massive, swearing arguments on FB over this type of thing. As such I approve and try to promote both theories whenever possible. It's just trolling gold 🙂

Heh - now knowing how angry Buzz Aldrin gets when people accuse him of faking it all, I'd *definitely* wind him up 😉

Wish I had known this when I met him in the 80's

Rachel

Audio track is a little sweary

[i]I am convinced that the vast majority of flat earthers... are just trolling[/i]

I thought that when the flat earth thread came up the other week. Then I watched a couple of things, read a couple of things and.. they really are [s]THAT STUPID.[/s] Sorry, not wound up.. that stupid.

There's a point to the flat earthers, and that's to make all the other conspiracy theorists look crazy by lumping them into the same pot.

So, FE is a conspiracy designed to discredit conspiracy theorists 🙂

Rod Hull - NOT A REAL EMU!?!

WATCH CAREFULLY..

The plumage us all wrong for a start.

Yeah, there are definitely a good number of FE'ers that are just trolls and just want to watch the world burn. But they are usually very easy to spot.

The true believers tend to be either bible literalists or people heavily into other conspiracy stuff that don't have a very good grasp of science, maths, geometry or reality. And there are LOTS of them.

([url= http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/these-make-the-truthers-look-sensible ]Flat Earth thread is this way[/url])

cant possibly have been real

Is it even worth asking if there is any reasoning behind this statement of faith?

just do a bit of research yourself, Van allen belt, why havent we been back since? (oh yeah the technology got destroyed). the lack of impact crater on the moon landing site (but many footprints), the waving flag, multiple light sources, no visible stars, duplicate backdrops used in different scenes, rock samples brought back match those from antarctica....much much more.

believe what you want just dont dismiss it without 1st researching yourself.

Van allen belt,

why havent we been back since?

(oh yeah the technology got destroyed).

the lack of impact crater on the moon landing site (but many footprints),

Like we said evidence....

So just for LOLs, NASA faked six missions that landed on the moon as well as the other orbital ones and just for giggles faked the Apollo 13 near disaster? No holes in that.

Yeah you'd think that once they faked one they'd be pretty glad they got away with it. Why fake more and add to the chance they'd get caught? Not to mention the Russians joining in and faking theirs too. 🙄

nasa fakes stuff 😆

Woo hoo - prominent Flat Earther Mark Sargent. Yaaay!

Van Allen belts you say ?

[url= http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/VABraddose.htm ]Complete Explanation[/url]

[i]knowing how angry Buzz Aldrin gets when people accuse him of faking it all[/i]

Watching that vid, Buzz was pretty nonchalant until the moron stood in front of him and said "You're a coward and a liar".. so, wound up about what hmm?

[i]Not to mention the Russians joining in and faking theirs too[/i]
And the Chinese!

Don't forget kids, this is all filmed underwater in a giant pool with no air bubbles or in a plane doing zero-G dives or CGI:

[url= http://www.iflscience.com/space/this-flatearther-is-going-to-launch-himself-in-a-homemade-rocket-on-saturday/ ]This Flat-Earther Is Going To Launch Himself In A Homemade Rocket On Saturday[/url]

[img] [/img]

Van Allen belts you say ?

Complete Explanation

the van allen belt is touted as one of the reasons they cant go back

Love his quote there: "I don't believe in science. I know about aerodynamics and fluid dynamics and how things move through the air, about the certain size of rocket nozzles, and thrust. But that’s not science, that’s just a formula. There’s no difference between science and science fiction."

Amazing stuff. Hope he survives.

I've met some of the https://copenhagensuborbitals.com/ team. Their stuff looks [i]considerably[/i] less shonky than his and they are still not at the stage where they can put a person in it safely.

the van allen belt is touted as one of the reasons they cant go back

by whom ? I've never heard that argument.

But then; I'm not a conspiracy theorist !

[b]Van Allen Belts[/b]-"In fact, Dr. Van Allen helped to design the Apollo lunar trajectories, which were engineered specifically to lessen radiation exposure. Despite the conspiracists' insistence that Dr. Van Allen agrees with them, he has rejected the claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts, calling it "nonsense"."

[b]why havent we been back since?[/b] (oh yeah the technology got destroyed)
Why should we go back? It's very expensive, tere is no particular reason to go, other space programmes (ISS in particular) give a better return on the investment. I've no idea where you got the 'technology got destroyed' thing from, but it's on display in museums all over the world.

[b]the lack of impact crater on the moon landing site[/b]
An impact crater would indicated a landing that would have killed the astronauts. The whole point of the mission was to get peiople there and bring them back alive.

[b]the waving flag[/b]
"the video you see where the flag's moving is because the astronaut just placed it there, and the inertia from when they let go kept it moving," said spaceflight historian Roger Launius, of the Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum in Washington D.C. In space, there is no atmosphere to damp down the motion, so it would go on moving for a lot longer thna it would in a still atmosphere on earth.

....and similar, logical, scientific explanations exist for all of the other things you listed. If you really have done your research you would be well aware of that. But you have deliberately chosen to believe one set of explanations, the one that contradicts science and engineering, rather than another. I don't know why you would make that choice and I'm not going to speculate.

the van allen belt is touted as one of the reasons they cant go back

It really isn't.

Some conspiracy nuts have jumped on comments made by Kelly Smith about the Orion Deep Space Mission to the planet Mars in this NASA video:

He describes how they have to test the Orion craft. Which is clear evidence (if you are insane) that they have never done this before.

3:00 to 3:47 is the "controversial" bit.

organic355 - Member

the lack of impact crater on the moon landing site

You don't get an impact crater when you land. You get an impact crater when you crash. You can find some impact craters at airfields, they're not evidence of a succesful plane landing.

Pffft. That's just proof that planes are fake Northwind.

If the earth is flat surely that'd put a stop to the Hollow Earth theory. I mean who doesn't believe in that!

It's the Moon that's hollow. Do keep up.

It's the Moon that's hollow. Do keep up.

I wonder if there's much crossover between flat earthers and moon landing conspiracy theorists.

I mean, according to the FE'ers the moon isn't very far away, so presumably it wouldn't be *that* difficult to actually get there?

Surely if the earth is flat you can just wait until daytime then jump off the edge and land on the moon that way. Getting back, you wait until night and jump off the moon to land on earth.

Simple.

Don't be daft.

The edge is the impenetrable Antarctic ice wall and is protected by thousands of UN patrol boats that won't let you near it.

Plus the moon stays up in the sky. Because it is visible from other parts of the disk.

Simple.

I wonder if there's much crossover between flat earthers and moon landing conspiracy theorists.

There must be a Venn diagram around for that.
[img] [/img]

wobbliscott - Member

mirrors placed on the surface we fire lasers off to measure with extreme accuracy the distance of the moon from the Earth and hence it's rate of decay from Earth's orbit?

How Can Mirrors Be Real If Our Eyes Aren't Real

Hmm, just wondering how Mad Mike Hughes will take it if he ends up in orbit...

More likely have his belief in Heaven debunked though eh.

@fasthaggis your Venn diagram made me think of this;

How Can Mirrors Be Real If Our Eyes Aren't Real

maybe its the lasers that are not real! have we considered that? I've always been suspicious of lasers, they just don't look real to me.

You have to be impressed my NASAs tenacity in faking another mission (Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter) to photograph amongst other things the Apollo 17 landing site.

[img] [/img]

Trail erosion everywhere.

Pfft that's clearly just ant trails on top of a sponge cake. 😉

TG: do you smoke a lot of pot? Do you feel like you have lost control over aspects of your life? Have you suffered any traumatic events recently that might have you searching for answers?

A lot of folk getting drawn into conspiracy stuff seem to fit into one or more of these groups.

TG and friends discuss yet another conspiracy...

Close ..but quite obviously that is Birds Angel Delight and not a sponge cake...
Seriously though ..those moon buggy tracks must be two miles wide if we are to believe that ! 8)

those moon buggy tracks must be two miles wide if we are to believe that !

You realise that picture wasn't taken from Earth with someone's phone, yeah?

eriously though ..those moon buggy tracks must be two miles wide if we are to believe that

Please show your workings...

You can clearly see a bubble float by in that picture.

Seriously though ..those moon buggy tracks must be two miles wide if we are to believe that !

The LRO orbits at a height of 50k above the moon, and has no atmospheric dispersion to worry about.

Seriously though ..those moon buggy tracks must be two miles wide if we are to believe that !

[img] [/img]

The LRO orbits at a height of 50k above the moon, and has no atmospheric dispersion to worry about.

For those landing site photos it adjusted its orbit to 21km above the lunar surface, as described here:
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/news/apollo-sites.html

They were taken by the Narrow Angle camera on the LRO. It has an Effective Focal Length of 700mm. Specs are here:
http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/about/specs

The LRV is not far off the size of a normal car "10 feet 2 inches long, 44 inches high with a 7-foot 6-inch wheel base", specs here:
https://www.history.nasa.gov/alsj/MSFC-LRV.pdf

Hope that helps with the sums.