[PigPen]

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Space/2005/ ... 4-sun.html


"NASA hopes to return astronauts to the moon by 2018 and establish a sustained presence with the help of Canadian space scientists"

IN ORDER TO RETURN SOMEONE TO THE MOON ARE YOU NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE BEEN THERE ONCE BEFORE?

"The American space agency unveiled its $104-billion US lunar exploration plan yesterday as 250 scientists, researchers and academics from around the world converged in Toronto for the 7th annual International Lunar Conference. "

HOW COME THIS TIME IT WILL COST 104 BILLION AND THIRTEEN YEARS TO GET THIS MISSION OFF THE GROUND AND IT WAS NO BIG DEAL IN THE 60'S.

[Blue_Nose]

PigPen PigPen:

IN ORDER TO RETURN SOMEONE TO THE MOON ARE YOU NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE BEEN THERE ONCE BEFORE?

I take it that you're one of the conspiracists.

There's no need to SHOUT EITHER.

[Mustang1]

Blue_Nose Blue_Nose:

PigPen PigPen:

IN ORDER TO RETURN SOMEONE TO THE MOON ARE YOU NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE BEEN THERE ONCE BEFORE?

I take it that you're one of the conspiracists.

I was thinking the same thing – I hope it’s not tinfoil hat time.

[dgthe3]

$1:

HOW COME THIS TIME IT WILL COST 104 BILLION AND THIRTEEN YEARS TO GET THIS MISSION OFF THE GROUND AND IT WAS NO BIG DEAL IN THE 60'S.

Perhaps they want to actually acomplish something when they go there this time? In the 60's it was an acomplishment simply to go there, and it would still be an acomplishment to go again. Back then the sole purpose was to beat the Soviets, now it is likely be to prepare for a mission to Mars, or beat the Chinese. To simply go to the moon would only require the Americans a couple of years, mostly restricted by training and money rather than technical issues for those have already been solved.

[canucker]

[Thematic-Device]

PigPen PigPen:

HOW COME THIS TIME IT WILL COST 104 BILLION AND THIRTEEN YEARS TO GET THIS MISSION OFF THE GROUND AND IT WAS NO BIG DEAL IN THE 60'S.

104 billion seems like a perfectly reasonable sum, it is right in line with the amount of money the military will typically spend to build a new aircraft.

As for it being no big deal in the 60's, in current US dollars, Nasa's budget between 1960 and 1973, was in excess of 198.53 billion dollars .

Research is expensive stuff.

[PigPen]

in a pole conducted here on the ship of 20 people only two think that the moon landing was real.

here are a few points

A rocket capable of landing on the Moon should have burned out a huge crater on the surface, yet there is nothing there.

The next evidence also involves pictures. In all the pictures taken by the astronauts, the shadows are not black. Objects in shadow can be seen, sometimes fairly clearly, including a plaque on the side of the lander that can be read easily. If the Sun is the only source of light on the Moon, and there is no air to scatter that light, shadows should be utterly black.

When the astronauts are assembling the American flag, the flag waves. Kaysing says this must have been from an errant breeze on the set. A flag wouldn't wave in a vacuum.


The program makes a big deal out of how well the pictures taken from the Moon were exposed and set. Every picture we see is just right, with the scene always centered perfectly. However, the cameras were mounted on the front of the astronauts' spacesuit, and there was no finder. They couldn't have taken perfect pictures every time!

Crosshairs were etched in the astronauts' cameras to better help measure objects in the pictures. However, in several images, it looks like the objects are actually in front of the crosshairs, which is impossible if the crosshairs were inside the camera! Therefore, the images were faked

When the movies of the astronauts walking and driving the lunar rover are doubled in speed, they look just like they were filmed on Earth and slowed down. This is clearly how the movies were faked

lack of stars in the pictures taken by the Apollo astronauts from the surface of the Moon. Without air, the sky is black, so where are the stars?

It is said that the computing power used by the Apollo craft would have been less than that contained in a modern pocket calculator. One author, Bill Kaysing, who reputedly worked for NASA just before the time of the Apollo launches says that NASA commissioned a feasibility study to check the odds of completing the moon landings successfully. The odds were reported as being 0.0017% chance

[ShepherdsDog]

$1:

I was thinking the same thing – I hope it’s not tinfoil hat time.

I wonder if he's the milk chocolate or dark chocolate variety?

_________________

[Mustang1]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

$1:

I was thinking the same thing – I hope it’s not tinfoil hat time.

I wonder if he's the milk chocolate or dark chocolate variety?

_________________

You’d have to ask the Illuminati.

[Jaime_Souviens]

PigPen PigPen:

in a pole conducted here on the ship of 20 people only two think that the moon landing was real.

here are a few points

A rocket capable of landing on the Moon should have burned out a huge crater on the surface, yet there is nothing there.

For liftoff from a small sub-planet with no atmosphere?

PigPen PigPen:

The next evidence also involves pictures. In all the pictures taken by the astronauts, the shadows are not black. Objects in shadow can be seen, sometimes fairly clearly, including a plaque on the side of the lander that can be read easily. If the Sun is the only source of light on the Moon, and there is no air to scatter that light, shadows should be utterly black.

Of course, the surface of the moon couldn't reflect light back onto the lander.

PigPen PigPen:

When the astronauts are assembling the American flag, the flag waves. Kaysing says this must have been from an errant breeze on the set. A flag wouldn't wave in a vacuum.

No, it wobbles. It had a stick to hold it out, and the still pictures of 'waves' in the flag are of creases from where it was folded.

PigPen PigPen:

The program makes a big deal out of how well the pictures taken from the Moon were exposed and set. Every picture we see is just right, with the scene always centered perfectly. However, the cameras were mounted on the front of the astronauts' spacesuit, and there was no finder. They couldn't have taken perfect pictures every time!

And they couldn't crop them here?

PigPen PigPen:

Crosshairs were etched in the astronauts' cameras to better help measure objects in the pictures. However, in several images, it looks like the objects are actually in front of the crosshairs, which is impossible if the crosshairs were inside the camera! Therefore, the images were faked

If they were going to fake the pictures, why not fake the crosshairs?

PigPen PigPen:

When the movies of the astronauts walking and driving the lunar rover are doubled in speed, they look just like they were filmed on Earth and slowed down. This is clearly how the movies were faked

What?

PigPen PigPen:

lack of stars in the pictures taken by the Apollo astronauts from the surface of the Moon. Without air, the sky is black, so where are the stars?

When you take a picture of a big bright thing, (surface of the moon), you
have to adjust the camera for contrast, and lose the stars.

PigPen PigPen:

It is said that the computing power used by the Apollo craft would have been less than that contained in a modern pocket calculator. One author, Bill Kaysing, who reputedly worked for NASA just before the time of the Apollo launches says that NASA commissioned a feasibility study to check the odds of completing the moon landings successfully. The odds were reported as being 0.0017% chance

Maybe that's why he was fired, he sucked at calculating odds.

[Blue_Nose]

Yeah, but Jaime, only 2 people out of 20 on the ship thought it was real.... that's, like, almost less than 25%!!!!!!!!!!

I see you didn't even attempt to refute that one.

[Jaime_Souviens]

Blue_Nose Blue_Nose:

Yeah, but Jaime, only 2 people out of 20 on the ship thought it was real.... that's, like, almost less than 25%!!!!!!!!!!

I see you didn't even attempt to refute that one.

I know my limits.

[dgthe3]

And if you want proof that we have gone to the moon, think about the technology that was created as a result of the project. Advances in micro-electronics, life support systems, even cordless drills. There are so many other technologies and products that it would take forever to actually list them all.

As far as the computing power of the spacecraft, it's how you use it that counts. Keep everything as simple as possible and give the computer the minimum amount of work to do, and the math and physics aren't that complicaed. And it can still perform calculations faster than the human brain can.

[Blue_Nose]

Mustang1 Mustang1:

You’d have to ask the Illuminati.

ixNay on the lluminatiIay..... He's a reemasonFay

[Mustang1]

Blue_Nose Blue_Nose:

Mustang1 Mustang1:

You’d have to ask the Illuminati.

ixNay on the lluminatiIay..... He's a reemasonFay

My bad…should’ve used my Super Secret Skull and Bones decoder ring.