PDA

View Full Version : Did we land on the moon?


Meksilon
08-15-2002, 10:40 AM
Silly question isn't it? The obvious answer is HELL NO! As some of you may know the Conspiricy Theory recently aired in Australia (which aired last year in the US on April Fools day). They missed a few points and didn't explain things very well either.

Here is why it is impossible that we went to the moon. From the most outragious fact.... to the least outragious (but still indisputible) fact.

1. The Van Allen Radiation Belt
Only the Apollo spacecrafts on their way "to the moon" ever "passed through" these radiation belts. In fact the US Government created a 3rd belt 100 times more intense then the natural belts when they tried to blast a hole through it using a nuclear device. Each apollo space craft spent about 4 hours traveling through it (and all the other radiation in space - once you're out of the earth's magnetic feild). And even left the space craft and were practically naked to the radiation on the moon! No Apollo astronauts ever suffrered radiation sickness.

In 1998, the Space Shuttle flew to one of its highest altitudes ever, three hundred and fifty miles! This is miles away from the begining of the belt, and the Space Shuttle has far superior sheilding then Apollo did. The crew reported being abel to see the ratiation WITH THEIR EYES CLOSED! So if Apollo got there first... why didn't they report this?

2. Gravity
The moon has 1/6th earth's gravity. That means if you drop something it'll take six times as long to fall. Now just double the speed of the space walks or the lunar rover and you'll see that that not only are the people (astronauts) and the rover appear to be in our gravity... but so does the dust they're kicking up! At this speed the dust should still fall 3 times slower then on earth, yet it's falling at the rate of earth's gravity! The astronaunts also didn't step further between steps. And they never reached the full potential of 1/6th earth's gravity (jumping 2meters high!)

3. LEM takeoffs
No doubt you'll notice how dodgy they look. You might be wondering why there's no flame comming out of most as well... actually a flame would not be visible in a vacum. But Apollo 16 shows us.... a flame! Oh yes, and if this was really space we WOULD see the exaust fumes.

4. LEM landing
The LEM was never successfully tested on Earth. And yet it landed and took off from the moon 6 times? Then there's the actual landing which should have created a blast creater each time. NASA tells us that it just blows away the dust. Yet when Neil steps out he makes a nice clear footprint in the dust that was just blow away by the LEM's landing! And actually, there are hundreds of footprints around every LEM... this is impossible.

5. Cameras
Thoes of you who know anything about film know that it's quite fussy when it comes to heat. Too much heat and it melts. The moon's surface is a little too hot for film to survive. In fact it's imposibile.

6. Photographic Imposabilities
i. there are non-parallel shadows in many shots indicating the use of many lights with a sound stage.
ii. there is often a "spotlight" (or rather where the lights are all focusing). This is consistant with i.
iii. there are no stars... well except in some shots. you'll never see more then 2 or 3 stars in one photo though!

8. Locations
The same backgrounds will appear twice with diffrent forgrounds sometimes. I know of 2 examples, and then there's the apollo 16 mission where day one and day two's footage are on exactly the same hill dispite being "4km apart".

Any ONE of these is enough evidence to prove conclusivly that the moon landing was nothing but a hoax. NASA pulled a hoax before this, if you're interested look up the "Gemini 10 Space Walk".

Anyone who beleives man has set foot on the moon is an idiot.
Discuss.

=mek=

HelenW
08-15-2002, 11:48 AM
I've not seen the programme about the faked moon landings but i have read about it.

Some other suspicious things are
1) No one has 'landed' on the moon since 1972. strange considering we seem to be developing new technologies for things all the while. 30 years is a hell of a long time!

2) A photo of a lunar module shows a footprint underneath it yet no one had walked on the moon before.

3) A boulder in one photo quite clearly has the letter "C" on it, as though it is an identification mark for a studio prop.

4) Trye tracks appear at bizarre angles, as though vehicles have been pushed, rather than steered.

5) the on-board computer of the apollo 11 had less memory than a modern washing machine (that one really makes me laugh!! )

Other theories I have read include one view that there really was a moon landing, but alien life forms were encountered there. This is why fake photos were made so as not to panic people. This is also seen as explanation as to why there have been no more landings there, and as to why none are planned.

raVen_image
08-15-2002, 12:18 PM
I find it remarkably humorous when people who have no knowledge of science try to use it to prove their whacked theories.

I will take two of your points, because I don't have the time to tackle them all. See, I attend classes and I LISTEN to all the evidence before jumping to conclusions. (You might consider this approach)
1. The Van Allen Radiation Belt... Each apollo space craft spent about 4 hours traveling through it
No.

Kaysing's exact words in the program are ``Any human being traveling through the van Allen belt would have been rendered either extremely ill or actually killed by the radiation within a short time thereof.'' This is entirely disingenuous.

The van Allen belts are regions above the Earth's surface where the Earth's magnetic field has trapped particles of the solar wind. An unprotected man would indeed get a lethal dose of radiation, if he stayed there long enough. Actually, the spaceship traveled through the belts pretty quickly, getting past them in slightly less than an hour or so. There simply wasn't enough time to get a lethal dose, and, as a matter of fact, the metal hull of the spaceship did indeed block most of the radiation.
Source: http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/waw/mad/mad19.html
But Apollo 16 shows us.... a flame! Oh yes, and if this was really space we WOULD see the exaust fumes
There were no flames (I've seen the footage), unless FOX added them for effect.

There is actually a simple reason why you cannot see the flame from the lander when it took off. The fuels they used produced no visible flame! The lander used a mix of hydrazine and dinitrogen tetroxide (an oxidizer). These two chemicals ignite upon contact and produce a product that is transparent. That's why you cannot see the flame. We expect to see a flame because of the usual drama of liftoff from the Earth; the flame and smoke we see from the Shuttle, for example, is because the solid rocket boosters do actually produce them, while the lunar lander did not.

However, the exhaust (which you claim doesn't exist?) would create a kaleidoscope effect during lunar liftoff to the color cameras of that day. Perhaps you saw this as a flame.
Source: http://www.abc.net.au/science/moon/rocket.htm
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap960609.html

At this speed the dust should still fall 3 times slower then on earth, yet it's falling at the rate of earth's gravity!
I can't begin to tell you how little you know about gravity, so I'll take on the dust example.

If you watch the clip, you will see dust thrown up by the wheels of the rover. The dust goes up in a perfect parabolic arc and falls back down to the surface. If this were filmed on the Earth, which has air, the dust would have billowed up around the wheel and floated over the surface. This clearly does not happen in the video clips; the dust goes up and right back down. It's actually a beautiful demonstration of ballistic flight in a vacuum.

Had NASA faked this shot, they would have had to have a whole set (which would have been very large) with all the air removed. I'm not certain this is possible to recreate on earth.

I'm not saying that they DIDN'T fake the moon landing ... but if they did, they knew more about science than you do.

Here is your FIRST clue ... you are quoting FOX television. This station and it's news affiliates are the television equivalent of The National Enquirer. They are parodies (like pro-wrestling is a parody of Greco-Roman Wrestling). No one in the United States takes this channel seriously ... they aren't meant to.

Mort-Hog
08-15-2002, 12:45 PM
Here here, Raven. I've seen this debate occuring countless times on science forums and it's never any less pathetic.
The reason no-one's gone back to the moon since is because there isn't really any reason to. This was only really done because it could be done, for the news coverage.
And, as Raven pointed out well, it would be extremely hard and expensive to 'fake' the whole moon landing (perhaps as much as actually doing it properly would), to little gain. Of course, it would be argued that the US would want to get a head-start in the space race so to fool the crazy Russians into giving up. But I don't think that's likely.

Anyhow, it's good to see that Raven has added some sense to this post. Hooray. :-)

Joshi
08-15-2002, 04:21 PM
i agree with both y'all (raVen and mort). here are sokme more contradictions (from me)

5. Cameras
Thoes of you who know anything about film know that it's quite fussy when it comes to heat. Too much heat and it melts. The moon's surface is a little too hot for film to survive. In fact it's imposibile.

well, first, i aint gonna comment on the spelling of impossible. but i agree that film is fussy and would infact disintergrate under moon temperatures. and apart from the fact that the moon spend part of it's lunar month with a great big planet in it's path of the sun is nothing to do with it. space is extremely cold, the absence of the sun doesn't help much. and oh, lets not forget that amarica spent $1 million on a pen that would wright in space (russians took a pencil), i'm pretty sure they could make some protective material for the film. and also, they didn't even use film, thay sent the images back down to earth and they recoreded it there.


6. Photographic Imposabilities
i. there are non-parallel shadows in many shots indicating the use of many lights with a sound stage.
ii. there is often a "spotlight" (or rather where the lights are all focusing). This is consistant with i.
iii. there are no stars... well except in some shots. you'll never see more then 2 or 3 stars in one photo though!


i. yes, these are caused by lights from the lunar module and reflection from nearing planets. each spacesuit has lights on it and the camera thingy on legs (sorry, can't remember the name) which had to take the whole first step thing had lights on as well, at different angles because it wouldbe rather dark at the time.

ii. explained in i.

iii. almost explained in i. if you live in a big city, try looking up at night and count the starts. trust me, there are a lot more than that and you know that. the lights from all the places in i. create a very small polution in that area so the camera can't see the starts and so neither can we, but i can bet that the astronaugts could see loads.

8. Locations
The same backgrounds will appear twice with diffrent forgrounds sometimes. I know of 2 examples, and then there's the apollo 16 mission where day one and day two's footage are on exactly the same hill dispite being "4km apart".

i can't explain the apollo 16 thing. but think about the first thing you said there. you can drive about ten miles in a car and the clouds will still be the same, you can drive past the foreground much faster than you can the backround. even if they did move quite a bit, the stars ill still be the same for a number of days.

and helen.
5) the on-board computer of the apollo 11 had less memory than a modern washing machine (that one really makes me laugh!! )

okay, what exactly did the onboard computer do other than list things for them to do, it's not as if it controled the entire thing. most thing were done from earth.

i don't normall like to argue with people on a scale this big, but this is something i can really sink my teeth into so hopefully any bad feeling will stay in this thread and we can still act as usual everywhere else because this is all just a simple disscussion.

oh and also, mek.
Anyone who beleives man has set foot on the moon is an idiot.
Discuss.
well, that's a contradiction in terms really isnt it. the only way one could really discuss this is to argue which would mean that ni your terms, he/she is an idiot. so how are we meant to do that exactly?

HelenW
08-15-2002, 05:46 PM
Originally posted by Neil Joshi


i don't normall like to argue with people on a scale this big, but this is something i can really sink my teeth into so hopefully any bad feeling will stay in this thread and we can still act as usual everywhere else because this is all just a simple disscussion.



It's not really arguing is it, thats why its called a discussion. It only becomes an argument when people start trading personal insults, and if people refrain from making personal comments i can't see why anyone would hold bad feelings. To say you disagree with a comment and state your views why, is just contributing to the discussion. It would be pointless if we all held the same views, there would be loads of posts saying yeah, i agree. I don't think any of us here will be able to say that the moon landings were faked or not. we can say well, when you look at this point it does look suspicious, or you can say, well no actually there's a logical explanation for that. When it comes to any conspiracy theory type argument no one ever really knows what happened, except for top members of certain governments. hence the use of the word theory!

Meksilon
08-15-2002, 09:51 PM
No, I read about it years back now. I was simply producing indispuitable evidence.Originally posted by HelenW
1) No one has 'landed' on the moon since 1972. strange considering we seem to be developing new technologies for things all the while. 30 years is a hell of a long time! Well there is always the fact that SINCE we've gone to the moon, we've sent 25 unmaned space craft to Mars (unmaned space craft are a lot simpler then the complex manned craft as they only need to go one way and the conditions must be such the craft survives, not the craft AND the people). Only 7 ever made it to mars!Originally posted by HelenW
5) the on-board computer of the apollo 11 had less memory than a modern washing machine (that one really makes me laugh!! ) In 1969 the computer chip hadn't yet been invented, and with only 36k of RAM (from memory) it surprises me how anyone can beleive we have the technology to do it NOW let alone in 1969.

And Neil, you're wrong. They used film we know this because each roll of film has more the 100 photos. The VIDEO footage was sent directly back to earth (which was terrible quality in Apollo 11 but NASA magically fixes it for the rest of the lunar missions).

Two light-sources would produce two shadows per item (double shadows). So we can easily rule that one out.

On to the Photos...

Here's a good background example:
http://users.erols.com/igoddard/mountns1.jpg
And here's the Apollo 16 day 1, day 2 (day 2 is "2km south" according to NASSA). The argument that those take when saying we went to the moon is that it's just poor orginisation by NASA...
http://moonhoax1.tripod.com//sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/16rock1.gif
http://moonhoax1.tripod.com//sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/16rock2.gif
I found the other background I was talking about too...
http://www.lunaranomalies.com/images/fake2-bckgrnd6.jpg
Now please explain THIS which I just discovered, I'm dying to hear the explination!
http://web.bryant.edu/~history/h453proj/spring_02/hoaxes/backdrop.jpghttp://web.bryant.edu/~history/h453proj/spring_02/hoaxes/backdrop1.jpg
Here's my explination:http://web.bryant.edu/~history/h453proj/spring_02/hoaxes/Image1.jpg + Stupidity (an American, hehehehe)

As for the shadows, pehapps you can explain these - remembering that NASSA SAID NO ADDITIONAL (ARTIFICIAL) LIGHTING WAS USED!
http://web.bryant.edu/~history/h453proj/spring_02/hoaxes/shadow.jpghttp://web.bryant.edu/~history/h453proj/spring_02/hoaxes/shadow1.jpg

Here are the Nasa Pages... http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/images/pao/AS15/10075741.htm http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/mirrors/images/images/pao/AS15/10075742.htm

Can you beleive a site claimed THIS photo has wrong lines because the one at the back shouldn't be flat but rather like the ones in the front? Well if this is the case if the shadows are like the ones in the front why don't the hills at the back reflect this!?!
http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/images/shadowangles.jpg

There's always the question of how these photos were taken from chest cameras (remember that NASA didn't crop the pictures, otherwise we'd be abel to tell by the crosshairs).

Anyhow I'll leave you with this picture, CLEARLY showing a spotlight and shadows going in to it.

http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/goodphoto.gif

=mek=

PS: And yes this is an argument, but so far it's stayed clean.

raVen_image
08-15-2002, 10:00 PM
Originally posted by HelenW
It's not really arguing is it, thats why its called a discussion.
Actually, "discussion" and "argument" are synonymous. When you construct a critical statement for a discussion, it's often called an "argument". But, by your own words, I see that you agree with this, already:
When it comes to any conspiracy theory type argument no one ever really knows what happened, except for top members of certain governments, hence the use of the word theory!
In this case, i'd say hypothesis is a better word. Theories require solid evidence, and this conspiracy seems to lack that key factor.
...when people start trading personal insults, and if people refrain from making personal comments i can't see why anyone would hold bad feelings.
Too late for that, isn't it?
Originally posted by Meksilon
Anyone who beleives man has set foot on the moon is an idiot.

This one sentence completely eradicates any credibility that Meksilon had. To him, there is no point in debating ... there is no room for discussion. he has already prejudged us. You are an "idiot" if you disagree with Meksilon's premise. Ridiculous!

He doesn't want sound debate ... he wants the last word.

COJ
08-15-2002, 10:10 PM
All this explination is giving me a headach...I mean, who cares when they landed, as long as they did...

Meksilon
08-16-2002, 12:20 AM
Originally posted by raVen_image
[B]You are an "idiot" if you disagree with Meksilon's premise. Ridiculous!No, that's the chat topic of the thread.

=mek=

Natty
08-16-2002, 02:35 AM
Is it just me or does Mek really like being the controversial trouble maker? So even if we didn't land on the moon we've had some great movies, especially The Dish, my all time fave movie. Those pictures of man landing on the moon came from the Parkes telescope in Australia. It's in the middle of a sheep paddock too :D Clearly the best movie from the Working Dog crew. Much better than The Castle me thinks

Deadmeat_X
08-16-2002, 03:39 AM
You know, how strange it may sound, I don't care. I've already heard bout these conspiracies, and tought about them, and then came to the conclusion that it doesn't really matter. I think I should give a good reason for that, but I have none. I just don't care.

And Natty, yes, I think Mek enjoys being the controversial center of attention. Otherwise, he would post stupid things like 'if you don't believe this, you're and idiot'. IMO that's asking for a 'angry' discussion like this.

Natty
08-16-2002, 03:46 AM
I agree deady, I don't care one way or another if man landed on the moon or not, like I said some brilliant movies have been made from man landing on the moon. Just sit back and enjoy the story. Really there are more important things to worry about than whether people landed on the moon or not

HelenW
08-16-2002, 03:58 AM
Originally posted by raVen_image

Actually, "discussion" and "argument" are synonymous. When you construct a critical statement for a discussion, it's often called an "argument". But, by your own words, I see that you agree with this, already:

In this case, i'd say hypothesis is a better word. Theories require solid evidence, and this conspiracy seems to lack that key factor.



I am quite aware of the meanings of discussion / argument / hypothesis. In the context that Neil Joshi used the word arguing I don't believe he was referring to an intellctual argument. He was concerned that people would be falling out over this. I was merely pointing out that his views were not necersarily contributing to 'that type' of argument, as he seemed concerned about this.

Also, for many members of this forum, English is a second language. There are many younger forum members who might find long words in a second language confusing. When I post I am not attempting to impress people with an extensive vocabularly, I just try to post in a way that everyone will understand regardless of vocabulary and language barriers. That way everyone is able to comment on what I say and contribute to the discussion if they choose to do so. (I hope no-one takes offense to that, I'm not saying younger people are unable to understand things, just that they have had less time to learn a second language).

Redwing
08-16-2002, 04:01 AM
I'm so tired of this debate. It's sooooo old and stoopid ;_;

::walks out of topic::

Drunken_Sailor
08-16-2002, 04:07 AM
Originally posted by Meksilon

Anyone who beleives man has set foot on the moon is an idiot.
Discuss.

=mek=

Well, I find science interesting. Your theory lacks of official evidences, so shut your trap and don't call people you don't even know for idiots!

Natty
08-16-2002, 04:19 AM
Mek is an irritating trouble maker who likes to be controversial to try and appear more superior and intelligent to everyone else, when infact it makes him look like a sad pathetic loser

Discuss

Meksilon
08-16-2002, 06:59 AM
Originally posted by Deadmeat_X
You know, how strange it may sound, I don't care. I've already heard bout these conspiracies, and tought about them, and then came to the conclusion that it doesn't really matter. I think I should give a good reason for that, but I have none. I just don't care.

And Natty, yes, I think Mek enjoys being the controversial center of attention. Otherwise, he would post stupid things like 'if you don't believe this, you're and idiot'. IMO that's asking for a 'angry' discussion like this. I was just trying to start a new topic to move off the gay one, not to start trouble but rather to prevent it. This is good material for discusion.

=mek=

Natty
08-16-2002, 10:47 AM
I wonder if Neil Armstrong saw God while he was on the moon?

Joshi
08-16-2002, 03:04 PM
Originally posted by Natty
So even if we didn't land on the moon we've had some great movies, especially The Dish, my all time fave movie. Those pictures of man landing on the moon came from the Parkes telescope in Australia. It's in the middle of a sheep paddock too :D Clearly the best movie from the Working Dog crew. Much better than The Castle me thinks

i thought you said your all time favorite movies was the Wizard of Oz?

but anyway, you made me remember something that will help my argument (i can now see that this an argument, just an argument of social and productive sort).
i never actaully saw the movie, but i know the basic plot and know it to be fully and completely true. it's about the huge satallitte dish set up in australia which was going to recieve the video footage from the moon on it's landing with Neil Armstrongs first words and stuff. for some reason that i don't fully know, it went missing. (yes i know, but that's what happened, really) and we almost missed the whole thing. i loada stuff happend after that with a huge panic from NASA and then they found it in time and we saw it all without knowing what happened (this entire episode was revealed twenty years later and made into a recent movie) if the moonlanding was staged, why was there such a big fuss about thsi dish if know one nkew about the thing in the first place?

Meksilon
08-16-2002, 09:08 PM
Originally posted by Natty
I wonder if Neil Armstrong saw God while he was on the moon? I wonder why Neil Armstrong (who invented the greeting for Aliens as being "Gnorts Mr Alien") DOSEN'T TALK ABOUT HIS MOON EXPERIENCE?

=mek=

raVen_image
08-16-2002, 10:33 PM
Originally posted by Meksilon
I wonder why Neil Armstrong ...DOSEN'T TALK ABOUT HIS MOON EXPERIENCE?
**sigh**

He does ... and has.
Their experiences from Apollo , as told by the astronauts: Aldrin, Collins, and Armstrong:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/ap11ann/FirstLunarLanding/toc.html
http://www.ksc.nasa.gov/history/apollo/apollo-11/apollo-11.html
http://www.his.com/~pshapiro/iceonthemoon/iceonthemoon.html

If you read Armstrong's biography...
http://www.top-biography.com/9099-Neil%20Armstrong/ataglance.htm
...you'll see that he has always had an aversion to the spotlight. He doesn't talk much about his war experiences either. So, (unless you think the korean War was also faked) his notable lack of public appearance is NOT evidence for your weakening case.

As to Natty's god question, there was some rumor that Armstrong heard the whispers of Allah while on the moon's surface and converted to Islam. This is probably just a rumor.

**edited for misspellings**

Redwing
08-16-2002, 10:41 PM
Interesting useless fact...my grandmother's second cousin was Neil Armstrong. :D

(No, that doesn't contribute to the topic. But so what? I'm bored. ^_^)

Natty
08-16-2002, 11:22 PM
Originally posted by Neil Joshi


i thought you said your all time favorite movies was the Wizard of Oz?

but anyway, you made me remember something that will help my argument (i can now see that this an argument, just an argument of social and productive sort).
i never actaully saw the movie, but i know the basic plot and know it to be fully and completely true. it's about the huge satallitte dish set up in australia which was going to recieve the video footage from the moon on it's landing with Neil Armstrongs first words and stuff. for some reason that i don't fully know, it went missing. (yes i know, but that's what happened, really) and we almost missed the whole thing. i loada stuff happend after that with a huge panic from NASA and then they found it in time and we saw it all without knowing what happened (this entire episode was revealed twenty years later and made into a recent movie) if the moonlanding was staged, why was there such a big fuss about thsi dish if know one nkew about the thing in the first place?

The Wizard Of Oz is my fave movie :)

I seriously doubt that in 1969 America or Australia or whoever had the type of technology to not only stage the moon landing but to also stage it in such a way that the pictures came from an Australian telescope that is the largest in the Southern Hemishphere and beam these shots to people all over the world.

In short Mek has his arse hanging out of his dacks (that's one of my fave lines from the Dish

Doodle Dude of Doom
08-17-2002, 05:04 AM
I don't understand. Why couldn't we not have alnded on the moon? I mean, you can't prove that the americans didn't land on the moon, can you?

Meksilon
08-17-2002, 07:03 AM
Originally posted by raVen_image
**sigh**

He does ... and has.
Their experiences from Apollo , as told by the astronauts: Aldrin, Collins, and Armstrong:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/ap11ann/FirstLunarLanding/toc.html
http://www.ksc.nasa.gov/history/apollo/apollo-11/apollo-11.html
http://www.his.com/~pshapiro/iceonthemoon/iceonthemoon.html

If you read Armstrong's biography...
http://www.top-biography.com/9099-Neil%20Armstrong/ataglance.htm
...you'll see that he has always had an aversion to the spotlight. He doesn't talk much about his war experiences either. So, (unless you think the korean War was also faked) his notable lack of public appearance is NOT evidence for your weakening case.

As to Natty's god question, there was some rumor that Armstrong heard the whispers of Allah while on the moon's surface and converted to Islam. This is probably just a rumor.

**edited for misspellings** It seems to me that NASA should have been more interested in letting the first person to walk the moon be someone who was prepared to talk in public about their experince - someone like "Buzz" Aldrin. Then again, since Neil couldn't even say his line right "it's one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind" I'm amazed they even let him tag along to the moon.

I'm still waiting for solid proof that we went to the moon. I mean NASA didn't bother to point Hubble at the moon and take pictures of the remnants from the six sucessful Apollo missions. In fact when Japan sends their probe to map the surface of the moon next year and the can produce photos of where we've been on the moon then I'll shut up. If they can't then that'll be further indisputible proof that we never landed on the moon.

=mek=

raVen_image
08-17-2002, 10:09 AM
This is not evidence for or against the moon landing ... it is an assessment of the debater's credibilty to present this argument.
Originally posted by Meksilon
...when Japan sends their probe ... and the can produce photos of where we've been on the moon then I'll shut up.
I doubt that you'll shut up. It is more likely that you'll say NASA paid the Japanese to fake the photos ... or that the entire Japanese probe launch was faked. Your attitude tells me that you will not shut up about this.
(please note: it is not necessary to quote the entire post when you are only discussing one sentence within it)

If you are looking for indisputable proof ... it will never come to you. We all see what we want to see, don't we? For you, there can be nothing offered to sway your opinion (as evidenced in the last sentence of your first post).

Question ... do you think atoms exist? There have been magnetic images taken of those, but there is no indistputable proof that these "photographs" haven't been faked. We laymen don't really know whether or not atoms exist, either. For that matter, what proof do you have that any of us exist? We could all be constructs of your imagination ... and life is, but a dream.

If you are going to start questioning things based on a lack of tangible proof ... why not start a little closer to home? There is a lot that is uncertain about this puppet-show that we are so quick to call "reality". Did you chose this topic because someone else thought it all out for you? Have you even considered that it is YOU that may have been faked? Either way, it is this little passage that comes into my mind:

It is the fools's prerogative to tell the emperor that he has no clothes. Afterwards it makes no difference ... the emperor will still be the emperor, and the fool will still be the fool.

Meksilon
08-18-2002, 07:23 AM
Originally posted by raVen_image
I doubt that you'll shut up. It is more likely that you'll say NASA paid the Japanese to fake the photos ... or that the entire Japanese probe launch was faked. Your attitude tells me that you will not shut up about this.
(please note: it is not necessary to quote the entire post when you are only discussing one sentence within it) NASA sent their own probe to map the surface of the moon back in 96 I think it was, and they didn't produce any photos of their used-equipment. Which makes me wonder why Japan needs to map the surface of the moon; it is true we know very little about the moon, but will mapping it really help us out that much? Maybe it's because NASA don't share their mapping of the moon. Oh well.Originally posted by raVen_image
Question ... do you think atoms exist? There have been magnetic images taken of those, but there is no indistputable proof that these "photographs" haven't been faked. We laymen don't really know whether or not atoms exist, either. For that matter, what proof do you have that any of us exist? We could all be constructs of your imagination ... and life is, but a dream.The concept of the atom has changed time and time again. There are still flaws in the current model of the atom. As to the idea that everything is made up of particles then yes I beleive that. But as to wheather or not it's the atom model we've all been made a custom to then I think it's nonsence - all theory and made up. Well not complete nonsence, but there are inconsistancys such as where do gluons come from and how and why do they become active, if neutrons are made up of protons and electrons how come protons and electrons don't have gravity... and if electrons orbit can vary in the distance from the neuclii then how come this dosen't effect the atom size?Originally posted by raVen_image
If you are going to start questioning things based on a lack of tangible proof ... why not start a little closer to home? There is a lot that is uncertain about this puppet-show that we are so quick to call "reality". Did you chose this topic because someone else thought it all out for you? Have you even considered that it is YOU that may have been faked? Either way, it is this little passage that comes into my mind:

It is the fools's prerogative to tell the emperor that he has no clothes. Afterwards it makes no difference ... the emperor will still be the emperor, and the fool will still be the fool.I wonder why NASA dosen't have any solid proof they went to the moon? I mean IF they went to the moon. It seems compleatly ludicris.

=mek=

Guybrush122
08-18-2002, 09:17 AM
Ah, this old jazz. My personal opinion is that NASA faked the landing. BUT, they did a good job of it, because ALMOST every piece of scientific evidence that proves the moon landing a hoax can be explained and deprove the landing as a hoax.

But there are a few clues of a set. Like Mek mentioned...the background. The background is the same no matter what. But when a picture of the module from one direction has the same background as a different picture from another direction entirely...something has to be wrong, here.

Also...how about footprints. If you look carefully at the moon before the landing (no one has stepped off yet) you see a footprint. Hmmmm. Not only that...but wouldnt the dust on the moon be blown away by the module landing....somehow theres hundreds of footprints right next to the craft.

raVen_image
08-18-2002, 12:39 PM
Originally posted by Meksilon
I wonder why NASA dosen't have any solid proof they went to the moon? I mean IF they went to the moon. It seems compleatly ludicris.
You don't have any solid proof that I exist either. You don't have any solid proof that any of us exist. Yet you spend time believing in us.

Everything that you see written could have been made by a random speech generator. The rules of English make it very easy to generate random text based on key words. There are plenty of programs available that will do this for you.
http://www.democracymeansyou.com/satire/spin-generator.htm
http://bushspeaks.com/speaks.asp?did=84&taf=2

Here is one for these forums... an insult generator:
http://www.humboldt.edu/~gsh3/Insult.exe
(Just click the link and choose open from location or save it to your hard drive) The Shakespearean insults are funny too.

My point, "Thou fawning, bunched-backed measle", is that you have no proof that any of us truly exist as human beings. You could be all alone in these message boards, talking to a computer that randomly generates messages for your amusement.

You have to take it on faith that we exist, don't you? And if you can have faith in this concept (which is less tangible than the evidence for the moon landing) ... where do you draw the line? It's all a matter of faith. We see what we want to see.

Speaking of having faith in something without solid proof, I was surprised to see you post on a Sunday. How does posting messages in a fourm keep the Sabbath day holy for your god?

Natty
08-19-2002, 12:26 AM
That means Alice Bot doesn't really exsist, I'm so heartbroken. That means my doggies don't exsist and neither does my family.

What happened to the moon rocks they brought back from the moon? The dirt samples?

Mek go and watch The Dish for crying out loud, go and enjoy a fantastic Australian movie. There's plenty of fantastic historical footage as well. Oh and everyone else go watch it as well, you can pick up on some fantastic Australian slang :D

Mitch- You treat us like a pack of galah's!
Al- *blank look*
Glen- that's a type of parrot...
Mitch- just because I don't have my head burried in a manual that doesn't mean I'm a drongo
Glen- that's a hopeless horse...
¤¤¤¤
Mitch- that's bullsh*t! You just bullsh*tted NASA!
¤¤¤¤
Mitch- I just didn't want you to see me as some country kid with me arse falling out of me dacks
Al- your ummm...
Glen- your pants
Al- Listen Mitch I never thought of you as some kid with his pants falling out of your ummm...
Glen- dacks
Al- Dacks


Also playing cricket on the Dish looks like so much fun

http://thedishmovie.warnerbros.com/photogallery/photos/photo17.jpg

http://thedishmovie.warnerbros.com/photogallery/photos/photo18.jpg

Mek isn't very Australian, he should be proud of the fact that those images came from Australian satelites

Gatorboy
08-19-2002, 06:15 AM
wait, so of there wasnt really a landing on he moon yet,
does that mean that that Nsync guy who's flying to the moon is just a new test dummy for NASA and will die?


whooooooooohoooooo!!!!

Natty
08-19-2002, 06:22 AM
Ya reckon we could leave him there :)

Meksilon
08-19-2002, 07:33 AM
Originally posted by Guybrush122
Ah, this old jazz. My personal opinion is that NASA faked the landing. BUT, they did a good job of it, because ALMOST every piece of scientific evidence that proves the moon landing a hoax can be explained and deprove the landing as a hoax.

But there are a few clues of a set. Like Mek mentioned...the background. The background is the same no matter what. But when a picture of the module from one direction has the same background as a different picture from another direction entirely...something has to be wrong, here.

Also...how about footprints. If you look carefully at the moon before the landing (no one has stepped off yet) you see a footprint. Hmmmm. Not only that...but wouldnt the dust on the moon be blown away by the module landing....somehow theres hundreds of footprints right next to the craft. Well at least SOMEONE here has some sence :)

And to Raven Image thou wenching, beetle-headed scantling flea-bitten assortment of filthy slime-mould... you pitiful ball of soppy pimple squeezings, you deeply disturbed crock of cheesy moose entrails, you self-exalting box of radioactive whale waste, bewildered apology for fly-covered Wookie hair....

If you did not exisit and this was all random speach then you could not argue, or question your existance. Therefore we render your argument invalid.

=mek=

Joshi
08-19-2002, 01:33 PM
Originally posted by Guybrush122
...but wouldnt the dust on the moon be blown away by the module landing....

again, we have to stress the fact of there being no air on the moon, hence, no wind to be able to blow the dust away as that would involve moving air. if you threw a ball on the moon, it would travel a lot farther and a lot faster because of not air resistance (and low gravity, but that's besides the point). also, i think we all have valid points here which is why i'm at a standstill and therfore can't take sides here. after talking to my brother in law recently who didn't take classes in this kind of thing, but has been intersted since he was a child and actually buys and reads books on this kind of thing. also, he has also worked for the military since he was twelve and came to know a thing or two about how the american and russian political and govermental minds work (like for a start, the cold war aint over, and has never been, but i'm sure you all knew that). basically, the goverments idea to hide things has been going on for many years. but with no solid proof, we cannot state whether or not we landed on the moon, wherther or not anything happened in roswell, whether or not Area %! has anything to do with anything and whether or not teh president opf the united states has any power whatsoever (which he doesn't, but i can't prove that, not for sure) so what do we do?

well, believe it or not, the most intelligent person taking pert in thsi conversation is Natty, for not really taking part. after this became complicated and confusing, i decided to let it go, because it was turning into "Whats the meaning of life?" kind of debates, there is never going to be a complete answer to this, everyones going to have there different opinions. so in my words,

Cognitum Ergo

Natty
08-19-2002, 10:35 PM
Where the hell are footprints?

The moon isn't like the earth you know

Deadmeat_X
08-20-2002, 06:43 AM
Mek, don't insult ppl (at least not with insults I don't get) :D

And to both Raven and Mek: Give it a rest man! It started as a topic about some conspiracy, then became a topic a bout if we exist or not (we do exist actually. Maybe just in our head, but that an existens as well. Just see the matrix)., and next thing you know we're talking about wich Greek wise-guy was right (Plato was wrong, that hedonist guy was right), and that will lead to another religion topic (God doesn't exist, that kinda crap).

Meksilon
08-20-2002, 08:29 AM
Originally posted by Neil Joshi
again, we have to stress the fact of there being no air on the moon, hence, no wind to be able to blow the dust away as that would involve moving air.Two things:
1. The Lem's flame gives out air dosen't it?
2. We even SEE the dust being blown away.Originally posted by Deadmeat_X
Mek, don't insult ppl (at least not with insults I don't get) :DInsult generator.Originally posted by Natty
Where the hell are footprints?

The moon isn't like the earth you know HAHAHA yes it is, it's very similar actually, except that there isn't any air (that we know of). Since it's probably the moon collided with Earth and then began its orbit it's possible that it has a bit of air covering parts of it.

And to your other question about rock samples - beleive it or not most of the rock and dust samples from the moon were collected from unmanned probes, Apollo collected a hanful by comparason. It would also be easy to get some rock from the Earth and pass it off as being from the moon.

=mek=

Joshi
08-20-2002, 12:05 PM
Originally posted by Meksilon
It seems to me that NASA should have been more interested in letting the first person to walk the moon be someone who was prepared to talk in public about their experince - someone like "Buzz" Aldrin. Then again, since Neil couldn't even say his line right "it's one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind" I'm amazed they even let him tag along to the moon.
=mek=

i told myself that i would quit this disscussion now, but it seems i can't, i saw this and had to put mek right.
um, i really don't think that they would send just anyone into space. they trained men for months and years to see who would be best to go to the moon, not the guy who would be the best public speaker. if i became famous one day as someone asked me for an interview (and that will never happen because i don't intend to become famous) i know i would be crap in that interveiw and not say very much at all, but that would not mean that i am not famous now would it. Neil armstrong isn't a very good public speaker (which is why he messed up his lines on the moon, and i know that to be true at least) but he made it to the moon and survived up there whilst being able to do what he needed to do up there, and that's what he training rendered him for.

Drunken_Sailor
08-21-2002, 03:49 AM
Originally posted by Meksilon

And to your other question about rock samples - beleive it or not most of the rock and dust samples from the moon were collected from unmanned probes, Apollo collected a hanful by comparason. It would also be easy to get some rock from the Earth and pass it off as being from the moon.

=mek=


A few points of my own:

Apollo wasn't a space barge designed to haul back tons of lunar material. Still, the missions collected nearly 400 kilograms of the stuff. That is hardly a handful.

And no, you can't just "get some rock from the Earth and pass it off as being from the moon." Even if you found a rock that was ejected from the moon to Earth (ala the Martian SNC meteorites) it would still have been altered from "pure" moon rocks by erosion. Real moon rocks have never been affected since there is no air and the world is geologically dead. You can't fake that.

Drunken_Sailor
08-21-2002, 04:04 AM
Originally posted by Meksilon
5. Cameras
Thoes of you who know anything about film know that it's quite fussy when it comes to heat. Too much heat and it melts. The moon's surface is a little too hot for film to survive. In fact it's imposibile.


=mek=

You don't know what you are talking about.

It isn't necessarily true that the film would melt as minor safegards could prevent that amount of damage although heat could compromise the emulsion. Now. Had You introduced the irreversible, unavoidable damage done due too Radiation. Your argument pertaining to the film would be more valid. I've said and I'll say again. The so called Hoaxers has valid, reasonable reason's to believe a Moon landing was staged. All the more reason for NASA to PROVE to the World, they did exactly what they said they did. What do I Believe?? We landed on the Moon!! What is my belief based on?? NASA has more than once. Performed the Impossible. Surprising even theirselves. The Minds they have at NASA would make the Most Intelligent here at this Forum (and there's many.) look like the Dummy You Think Anyone Who Believes Is!! And Sir. The Dumbest at NASA would put Your Mind At About The Level Of The Caveman.

Joshi
08-21-2002, 02:08 PM
i don't mean to sound pompous, but i think this would be a good time to point out that many of those great thinkers were asian. i'm not accussing or attempting and racial abuse, i am just proud of the fact. and now to make this post a non spam, i'm going to continue with the disscussion at hand.

after looking closely at the pictures provided by mek (and after laughing my pants off at the picturse provided by natty, well, not realy, but that was pretty funny) i can now explain almost all of them.

1. The first two pictures with the same backround. this is because depsite what you may think, they are not the same. as an art student, i am taught to look at these kind of things in fdetail including lighting and shadows and see these to be very similar, almost exactly the same to teh average person if it were not for some of the shadows being completely different even if the moon and the sun 9or lights as you believe there to be) were in different places, this would still not be possible so these must have been different places that look the same. i one in a million chance you may say, but that is still a chance, and as it happens, 1 in million chances actually occure three times out of ten.

2. With the second set of pictures, yes, this is the same backround, but some of the backround ahs changed due to it being a slightly differnt angle. the camera has moved slightly to the left making the backround change slightly and no studion on the earth is big enough to create a huge set, that for off so if there was a different angle, the backround would change and they would make two different backround that look almost exactly the same just for something tiny like that that wouldn't even be noticed as people generally aren't that sad (sorry, now it's turning ugly, i retract that statement, but am leaving it in to keep my point, i think you know what i mean (basically no offece to any of you but there are some people like that out there))

3. the third set of pictures. i will admit that the one on the left was staged for reasons that i do not know and cannot guess (why the left, because it is a good quality picute) but all they did was take the backround and the lunar lander from the right pic (the original, taken from the moon) and added some guy on a badly done set (although not too badly) in front of a blue screen and this was all done probably recently, maybe to touch up teh picture for it's30th anniversary or something.

4.&5. the fourth pic (not your diagram) would actually be a trick of the eye, if you look closely, those rocks appearing to give a horizontal shadow could actually be giving a diagonal one as the rest but it looks horizontal because of the shape and position of the rock. and 5 was a spotlight, from the robotic camera, the artificial lighting used because it was very dark on the moon, the other shadows highlighted by this.

i'll continue with this later considering i have to eat sometime, but that should lay some groundwork.

Meksilon
08-21-2002, 07:23 PM
Originally posted by Neil Joshi
1. The first two pictures with the same backround. this is because depsite what you may think, they are not the same. as an art student, i am taught to look at these kind of things in fdetail including lighting and shadows and see these to be very similar, almost exactly the same to teh average person if it were not for some of the shadows being completely different even if the moon and the sun 9or lights as you believe there to be) were in different places, this would still not be possible so these must have been different places that look the same. i one in a million chance you may say, but that is still a chance, and as it happens, 1 in million chances actually occure three times out of ten. It's DEFINATLY the same background. Some people claimed that one was just taken a lot closer then the other, and since we can't tell how far away the background is it looks the same. If this was actually the case then one of the forgrounds would have to appear in the other picture, which it dosen't.Originally posted by Neil Joshi
3. the third set of pictures. i will admit that the one on the left was staged for reasons that i do not know and cannot guess (why the left, because it is a good quality picute) but all they did was take the backround and the lunar lander from the right pic (the original, taken from the moon) and added some guy on a badly done set (although not too badly) in front of a blue screen and this was all done probably recently, maybe to touch up teh picture for it's30th anniversary or something. What, and yet you still think we wnet to the moon? You'll notice that the forground has changed slightly, but shadow still falls in the same way off the astronaunt. In my oppinion this would not be easy to simulate, it would have been easier so super impose the photo over the original so to keep the original background. The reasons the two shadows aren't compleatly identical is 1. a diffrent pose and 2. slightly diffrent forground (as in has been walked over more in the one on the right).Originally posted by Neil Joshi
4.&5. the fourth pic (not your diagram) would actually be a trick of the eye, if you look closely, those rocks appearing to give a horizontal shadow could actually be giving a diagonal one as the rest but it looks horizontal because of the shape and position of the rock. and 5 was a spotlight, from the robotic camera, the artificial lighting used because it was very dark on the moon, the other shadows highlighted by this. 5 was a spotlight? No! And what about the last one? That's a spotlight too! Oh I see. So why did NASA tell us they didn't use any atrificial lighting then?

Natty At School
08-21-2002, 07:28 PM
Mek just lives in lala land, who knows what drugs he's on. I'd hate to be a homophobic racist who believes the most stupid of conspiracy theories

Meksilon
08-21-2002, 07:44 PM
Originally posted by Natty At School
Mek just lives in lala land, who knows what drugs he's on. I'd hate to be a homophobic racist who believes the most stupid of conspiracy theories I AM NOT HOMOPHOBIC. I DO NOT FEAR GAYS. AND I AM DEFINATLY NOT RACIEST. YOU ARE INSANE NATTY BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW THE DIFFRENCE BETWEEN RIGHT AND WRONG. AT LEAST I CAN DISTINGUISH THE DIFFRENCE.

I FEEL VERY SORRY FOR YOU NATTY, I REALLY DO. AND IT'S NOT BECAUSE OF HOW FU*CKING UGLY YOU ARE ON THE OUTSIDE, THAT WE CAN COPE WITH. IT'S HOW STUPID AND HOW UGLY YOU ARE ON THE INSIDE. IT IS REALLY SAD THAT ALL YOU CAN DO IS INSULT ME RATHER THEN THINK OF CONSTUTIVE ARGUMENTS.

I THINK IT'S THE SADEST THING I EVER HEARD. AND SINCE YOU WERE SO SAD AS TO POST THE SAME POST TWICE I'LL POST THIS TWICE SO PEOPLE READING EITHER OF YOUR ORIGINAL CRAP CAN READ MY RESPONCE.

=MEK=

Grannen
08-22-2002, 12:18 AM
Originally posted by Meksilon
I AM NOT HOMOPHOBIC. I DO NOT FEAR GAYS. AND I AM DEFINATLY NOT RACIEST. YOU ARE INSANE NATTY BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW THE DIFFRENCE BETWEEN RIGHT AND WRONG. AT LEAST I CAN DISTINGUISH THE DIFFRENCE.

I FEEL VERY SORRY FOR YOU NATTY, I REALLY DO. AND IT'S NOT BECAUSE OF HOW FU*CKING UGLY YOU ARE ON THE OUTSIDE, THAT WE CAN COPE WITH. IT'S HOW STUPID AND HOW UGLY YOU ARE ON THE INSIDE. IT IS REALLY SAD THAT ALL YOU CAN DO IS INSULT ME RATHER THEN THINK OF CONSTUTIVE ARGUMENTS.

I THINK IT'S THE SADEST THING I EVER HEARD. AND SINCE YOU WERE SO SAD AS TO POST THE SAME POST TWICE I'LL POST THIS TWICE SO PEOPLE READING EITHER OF YOUR ORIGINAL CRAP CAN READ MY RESPONCE.

=MEK=

Meksilon, you are now deep down in your arguments when you start to use peoples looks in your postings.
Natty is a nice, warm hearted funny girl who we all loves. You on the other hand seems to use your religion as a drug and you have lost all sense of reality. Like all dopes your life only consists of how to get the next shot of bible talk and you are paying thousands of dollars for your drug. Your brain has probably been damaged and you seems to be out of reach for help.

Regarding the shadows, or lack of, on the moon:
The explanation is that due to no absorbing atmosphere the sun light is extremly intense and is reflected from all stones and rocks. This more or less works as a reflector and there are no or very weak shadows.

Regarding the flag:
The first visitors had a horizontal rod for the flag pole that was too short! That’s why it seems as there is a wind blowing. NASA liked the look and the next visitors also planted flags with a short rod.

Drunken_Sailor
08-22-2002, 03:58 AM
Originally posted by Meksilon
I'm still waiting for solid proof that we went to the moon. I mean NASA didn't bother to point Hubble at the moon and take pictures of the remnants from the six sucessful Apollo missions. In fact when Japan sends their probe to map the surface of the moon next year and the can produce photos of where we've been on the moon then I'll shut up. If they can't then that'll be further indisputible proof that we never landed on the moon.


Nasa CAN'T point Hubble at the moon and take pictures of the landing sites. The moon is just too bright and would damage Hubble's delecate instruments.

Did you write that all yourself, do all that "research" yourself? Well, you insult my intelligence. Almost all your your information fails against reason. I don't know what fantasy world you have dreamed up, but some of it really cracks me up. Take for example:

Originally posted by Meksilon
In fact the US Government created a 3rd belt 100 times more intense then the natural belts when they tried to blast a hole through it using a nuclear device

LOL How are you (more importantly WHY??!!) gonna blast a hole through a belt of EXTREMELY rarified solar wind?! That is just one example of the ludicris claims you made. By the way, you say:

Originally posted by Meksilon
I mean, NASA didn't bother to point Hubble at the moon and take pictures of the remnants from the sucessful Apollo missions.

That's because no optical telescope in the world has the resolving power to image the landers. The hubbles resolving power is 0.1 arc seconds. Doing the trig:

1 arc second equals 1/3600 of a degree. So to get Hubbles resolving power in degrees do 0.1/3600
Your answer is 2.77777778x10^-5 Now we are going to get the resolving power of Hubble in meters at the moons distance. To do that, we are going to think of it as a giant equalateral triangle, with the Hubbles eye at one vertex, where there is an angle of 2.78x10^-5 degrees, and the oppisite side as the resolving power of hubble at the moons distance that we are finding. The two sides adjacent to the angle of 2.78x10^-5 are the equal ones.
Ok now that you get the picture, draw a line down the center of the equalateral triangle that bisects the angle into two equal parts. This would also hit the exact center of the oppisite side, due to the nature of equalateral triangles. You have just made a right triangle.
Since you bisected the angle of 2.77777778x10^-5 perfectly, you have a right triangle of one angle being 1.3888889x10^-5 and another being 90-1.3888889x10^-5 Now take the
cos 1.3888889x10^-5=384403000(distance to moon in meters)/x (x=the length of hypotenuse) You might notice that the cos 1.3888889x10^-5 equals 1. Well its not exactly 1, but close enough (its like 0.9999999999999, my calculater says it is 1, and it goes out to like 10 decimal places) So I just proved the obvious, that the hypotenuse for all practical purposes equals the length of the adjacent leg. Now for the important stuff:
sin 1.38888889x10^-5=x/384403000 (x equals the resolving power of Hubble) Now multiply both sides by 384403000 to solve for x. What do you get? That the resolving power of Hubble is 93.2 meters at the moons distance. While I don't know the exact size of the landers, I know for sure that they were not 93.2 meters or larger!!!

I would also like to correct an error I made:

I forgot the last step on the math problem. Since we only found the leg of the right triangle oppisite the angle of 1.388889x10^-5 degrees, we only found ONE HALF of the Hubbles resolving power at the moons distance. You have to multiply the final answer by 2. Thus the Hubbles resolving power at the moons distance is 186.4 meters.

Originally posted by Meksilon
Anyone who beleives man has set foot on the moon is an idiot.

As I said earlier, you insult my intelligence. You call me an idiot. Not only are you dumb and gulible, but you are offensive. I do believe that the people here at escapemi.com forums have a new idiot to pick on. You!


Originally posted by Meksilon
The concept of the atom has changed time and time again. There are still flaws in the current model of the atom. As to the idea that everything is made up of particles then yes I beleive that. But as to wheather or not it's the atom model we've all been made a custom to then I think it's nonsence - all theory and made up. Well not complete nonsence, but there are inconsistancys such as where do gluons come from and how and why do they become active, if neutrons are made up of protons and electrons how come protons and electrons don't have gravity... and if electrons orbit can vary in the distance from the neuclii then how come this dosen't effect the atom size?
=mek=

Take a good look at some photos from an electron microscope. See what you think then.


Originally posted by Meksilon
What, and yet you still think we wnet to the moon?

All of the guys that went to the moon did observe "bright flashes" in their eyes when they were on the moon. At first no one was sure what they were, it wasn't realised until they got back to Earth that they were Cosmic Rays. There were even evidence of "holes" in the helmets of the astronauts (when observed under a microscope) which could have only been caused by incredibly high speed Cosmic Rays.

Now, this was a new discovery after the Moon landings, now how could they have made this discovery if the landings never happened???

I just wish I was alive back then to have witnessed it...

Deadmeat_X
08-22-2002, 07:50 AM
Originally posted by Meksilon
I AM NOT HOMOPHOBIC. I DO NOT FEAR GAYS. AND I AM DEFINATLY NOT RACIEST.

Mek (and eveyone else), I think 'homophobic' means fear of humans instead of fear of gays. Since almost all these fear names are iether from Greek or Latin, this would be the most logical. Or am I just stupid and ugly on the inside and stuff?

Drunken_Sailor
08-22-2002, 09:16 AM
Just going to point to some links:


http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/apollohoax.html

http://astronomylinks.com/satellites_and_missions/moon/landing_conspiracy/

http://users.commkey.net/Braeunig/space/hoax.htm

http://www.business.uab.edu/cache/motives.htm

http://www.business.uab.edu/cache/debunking.htm

http://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~jscotti/NOT_faked/

http://www.nasastooge.fsnet.co.uk/

http://cass.jsc.nasa.gov/pub/expmoon/apollo_landings.html

http://www.nasm.edu/apollo/apollotop10.htm


http://www.clavius.org/

http://www.apollo-hoax.co.uk/strangeshadows.html

http://www.the-indigestible.com/specials/moon.htm

http://www.valleyskeptic.com/moon_hoax.html

Many more can be found, but this should suffice for the time being.

Meksilon
08-22-2002, 10:16 AM
Originally posted by Deadmeat_X
Mek (and eveyone else), I think 'homophobic' means fear of humans instead of fear of gays. Since almost all these fear names are iether from Greek or Latin, this would be the most logical. Or am I just stupid and ugly on the inside and stuff? Yes that is logical, except that the gays decided that homophobic means scared of homosexuals or diluted versions even meaning "someone who dosen't accept homosexuality" ie someone who beleives that it's wrong.

=mek=

Joshi
08-22-2002, 11:43 AM
actually, the greek or latin translation of homo (sorry to veer off topic here, be back soon) is actually "same" like homosapiens (humans) are the "same" species (i know there's a more clear explanation for than one, just cant think of it now) and homosexuals are people who have (technically) sexual feeling towards the same gender (so they basically got it wrong, slightly) so a homophobic is technically a fear things that are the same.

now back to the topic in hand.

there were actually quite a handfull of things that we didn't know about teh universe and other things until we went to the moon and found these things out, as said by Drunken_Sailor, and so we had to have gone to the moon as most of these things would have been impossible to discover without going to the moon first, and many of these things were studied and used to make space travel better and safer for the astronauts (instead of the very high possibilities of the shuttle actually exploding unexpectadly after exiting or entering the earths atmosphere). so try and explain that if you will

Drunken_Sailor
08-22-2002, 04:38 PM
Originally posted by Meksilon
It's DEFINATLY the same background. Some people claimed that one was just taken a lot closer then the other, and since we can't tell how far away the background is it looks the same. If this was actually the case then one of the forgrounds would have to appear in the other picture, which it dosen't.

Grannen is right.

Remember, you are looking at a three-dimensional scene, projected on a two-dimensional photograph. That causes distortions. When the Sun is low and shadows are long, objects at different distance do indeed appear to cast non-parallel shadows, even here on Earth....If seen from above, all the shadows in the Apollo images would indeed look parallel. You can experience this for yourself; go outside on a clear day when the Sun is low in the sky and compare the direction of the shadows of near and far objects. You'll see that they appear to diverge.




Originally posted by Meksilon
What, and yet you still think we wnet to the moon? You'll notice that the forground has changed slightly, but shadow still falls in the same way off the astronaunt. In my oppinion this would not be easy to simulate, it would have been easier so super impose the photo over the original so to keep the original background. The reasons the two shadows aren't compleatly identical is 1. a diffrent pose and 2. slightly diffrent forground (as in has been walked over more in the one on the right).


This is definitelly the same foreground. One picture obviously being taken couple of steps further back.

That shadows are the same, just a bit more seen of them in the second picture.

You can also see that the foortprints are identical, the same two being just visible at the bottom edge of picture one which are clearly visible in picture two.

Meksilon
08-22-2002, 07:45 PM
Originally posted by Drunken_Sailor
Grannen is right.

Remember, you are looking at a three-dimensional scene, projected on a two-dimensional photograph. That causes distortions. When the Sun is low and shadows are long, objects at different distance do indeed appear to cast non-parallel shadows, even here on Earth....If seen from above, all the shadows in the Apollo images would indeed look parallel. You can experience this for yourself; go outside on a clear day when the Sun is low in the sky and compare the direction of the shadows of near and far objects. You'll see that they appear to diverge. Yes, but unlike Grannen's 1,000,000 to one estimate the chances of it hapening are even more remote and imopsible.

Look at the top of the mountain to the right, you see two distinct "dimples" in both photos. the one to the right is smaller and slightly rotated anti-clokwise then the one on the right. This implies that the photo was taken further back then the left photo, that it should show the lem and that the ground the astronaunt was standing on was slanted slightly in one picture. I can make a 10-point check superimposing the photos that show the mountains to be identical. The mountain is like a fingerprint, the chances of 2 identical ones happening on the moon accidently is almost impossible.

We know both pictures are the same ration because of the crosshairs. Moving on...Originally posted by Drunken_Sailor
This is definitelly the same foreground. One picture obviously being taken couple of steps further back.

That shadows are the same, just a bit more seen of them in the second picture.

You can also see that the foortprints are identical, the same two being just visible at the bottom edge of picture one which are clearly visible in picture two. Remember, both those photos came off thefilm rolls from Apollo.

=mek=

duder
08-23-2002, 04:06 AM
Whats your theory on why they staged the landing?

The Space Race & the Cold War?

Funding?

Meksilon
08-23-2002, 05:02 AM
Originally posted by duder
Whats your theory on why they staged the landing?

The Space Race & the Cold War?

Funding? Technology, the fact that NASA has lied before and the fact that all missions too the the moon came back with 100% success in terms of the astronaunt's health. The fact that we haven't gone back to the moon since Apollo, and that we haven't even sent manned spaceships (apart from apollo) through Van Allen (and it was discovered they are actually much bigger then NASA said they were). Photographic Spotlights, Photographic repetitions (hills/backgrounds), footprints around the LEMs. But it all comes back to technology. We didn't have the technology to do it.

=mek=

duder
08-23-2002, 06:37 AM
Thats not quite what I'm driving at. I was after a plausible theory on what they had to gain by constructing this 'fictional' event?

Drunken_Sailor
08-23-2002, 07:24 AM
It would probably have cost more to "fake it" than to actually do it.

You would need the vacuum chamber f.e. to get the dust which the rover´s wheels are throwing up to fall ballistically like they do in vacuum, when there is no air to carry them for a distance like here on Earth, i.e. no dustclouds on the Moon.

If you have a video showing the rover moving, you can see this your selve, i.e. that they really quide obviously are moving in vacuum.

To succeed in making a vacuum chamber of sufficient size really would IMO have been an impressive feat, and really quite expensive to boot.

Drunken_Sailor
08-23-2002, 08:58 AM
Originally posted by Meksilon
Look at the top of the mountain to the right, you see two distinct "dimples" in both photos. the one to the right is smaller and slightly rotated anti-clokwise then the one on the right.
=mek=

You are seeing equipment that are on top of the lander module (LM), i.e. couple of the antennas, see:

http://www.friends-partners.org/mwade/craft/apollolm.htm
[Up close]

http://web.bryant.edu/~history/h453proj/spring_02/hoaxes/backdrop.jpg
[some distance away - your image]

http://web.bryant.edu/~history/h453proj/spring_02/hoaxes/backdrop1.jpg
[your other image]
http://www.nasm.si.edu/galleries/attm/atmimages/lm.diag.2.f.jpg
[Diagram]

In this case, what to you seems part of the mountain, is actually part of the LM.

Originally posted by Meksilon
the fact that NASA has lied before

Hmm, surelly you have lied your selfe at some point in your life. Does that mean you may be lying now?

People and institutions lie sometimes. But that does not mean they are cronic liers, as I´m sure you are not .

Originally posted by Meksilon
the fact that all missions to the the moon came back with 100% success in terms of the astronaunt's health

So what´s so troubling about that. They didn´t stay very long, so their exposure time wasn´t enormous.

About radiation two things matter, i.e. the intensity of it and the exposure time. You can survive a potentially lethal radiation if you are exposed to it for only a short period. A super intense radiation, like during a nuclear explotion, may kill you instantly.

Originally posted by Meksilon
fact that we haven't gone back to the moon since Apollo

You can thank Nixon budget reductions for that. Subsequent budget reductions have sealed the case.

Originally posted by Meksilon
we haven't even sent manned spaceships (apart from apollo) through Van Allen

http://www.lbl.gov/Education/CSEE/cup/Su00/Bailey/radeffectswebpage1.html

As you can see the radiation belt do vary in thickness. Therefore you can pass through them where theyr are relativelly thin.

http://srag-nt.jsc.nasa.gov/FAQ/SpaceRadiation.htm

The radiation belts are created in interaction between the solar vind and the Earth´s magnetic field.

The magnetic sphere protects the Earth and orbiting spacecrafts against most of the ravages of the solar vind and interstellar radiation [thus radiation inside the mangetic sphere actually is relativelly benign]. However through interaction with this external radiation [pcharged particles from the sun, cosmic rays] the magnetic sphere it self is charged up to an extend. It contains fairly low level radiation, when compared to the outside space environment, which even so is lethal given enough exposure time.

http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/wenpart1.html

However as it´s not a powerful high level radiation, simple shielding suffices. A thin peace of metal will contain most of it [Note how much poverful comsic rays can be, fortunatelly space is not so thick with them that a human will be exposed to great many of them during a fairly brief space trip].

http://srhp.jsc.nasa.gov/Newsletter/Volume1-2/Index.html

The so called radiation belts are actually then fairly benign. What space officialdom is really vorried about is raditaion beyond the relative protection of the Earth´s magnetic sphere.

It will be challenging to protect future astronauts in deep space from the ravages of sun storms and long term exposure to cosmic rays.

Acrylic
08-23-2002, 11:48 AM
You know....I wonder if we did land on the moon.....I mean, how could anyone fly in such a dinky little aircraft through space.....thats almost impossible....

Joshi
08-23-2002, 12:26 PM
Originally posted by Meksilon
Technology, the fact that NASA has lied before and the fact that all missions too the the moon came back with 100% success in terms of the astronaunt's health. The fact that we haven't gone back to the moon since Apollo, and that we haven't even sent manned spaceships (apart from apollo) through Van Allen (and it was discovered they are actually much bigger then NASA said they were). Photographic Spotlights, Photographic repetitions (hills/backgrounds), footprints around the LEMs. But it all comes back to technology. We didn't have the technology to do it.

=mek=

okay, i still don't believe that it was faked, but if it were faked, technology would have been an important factor in their reasons, but not the chief factor, the focal factor would have infact been the cold war and the U.S's ongoing technological war with russia of which the main factors there are defense, offence and the space race.

Originally posted by Meksilon
We didn't have the technology to do it.


you really think that. you belive that NASA and the U.S. goverment covered up something as big the moon landing but are still going to tell us truthfully how powerfull and technologically advanced they are. the U.S. goverment are crazy, not stupid. an example, if we (england) were to sell a hi-tech stealth nuclear weapon to russia (for whatever reason, in all fairness, i don't think we'd ever do that) and russia turned on us and used it against us, we would be fine because we would have our little "secrets", i.e, some kind of radar that would be able to detect it even though we told them that no radar wouldn't be able to and then stop them somehow. each goverment has it's own secrets, the U.S would tell everyone that they are 'so far' with their technology when really they are further, that way, people like russia wouldn't know how far they have to go to be better than the U.S and the U.S wouldn't know about russia either. that's how it all works (my brother in law is a martial arts teacher to littel kids, he was told to teach them what they need to nkow, but don't tell them your secrets, that way if they turn on him, they wouldn't nkow how to beat him, logical really)

so don't think that the U.S didn't have that technology back then, if anything, they were probably further than we think.

think about it, DVD's didn't become big until a few years ago, but they were around for longer than that, the only reason that they weren't marketed until recently was because they wanted to do it when they had something else in the works. it's the same here, they won't tells us about their advances until they have something else that people won't know about in a long time.

Originally posted by AcrylicGuitar
You know....I wonder if we did land on the moon.....I mean, how could anyone fly in such a dinky little aircraft through space.....thats almost impossible....
is that even worth an argument. First of all, they don’t fly, they just float faster and as long as there is something to propel it along in space with no air controlling it would be quite easy. In fact, I can’t see how ”impossible” it would be.

Acrylic
08-23-2002, 01:51 PM
u huh....well, im just 13.........we didnt study that stuff yet :P

Joshi
08-23-2002, 02:10 PM
actually quite a lot of peoploe have made that mistake so don't feel bad. :p

Al-back from the BigWhoop
08-23-2002, 03:13 PM
i had something to say in this topic, but im trying to say as less as possible cause my lips are hurt, so im gonna say it later (this morning when i was shaving, one of my cats jumped on the sink to drink water, and bumped on my elbow, making me cut myself and feel horible annoying pain)

Meksilon
08-23-2002, 09:49 PM
Originally posted by Neil Joshi


okay, i still don't believe that it was faked, but if it were faked, technology would have been an important factor in their reasons, but not the chief factor, the focal factor would have infact been the cold war and the U.S's ongoing technological war with russia of which the main factors there are defense, offence and the space race.



you really think that. you belive that NASA and the U.S. goverment covered up something as big the moon landing but are still going to tell us truthfully how powerfull and technologically advanced they are. the U.S. goverment are crazy, not stupid. an example, if we (england) were to sell a hi-tech stealth nuclear weapon to russia (for whatever reason, in all fairness, i don't think we'd ever do that) and russia turned on us and used it against us, we would be fine because we would have our little "secrets", i.e, some kind of radar that would be able to detect it even though we told them that no radar wouldn't be able to and then stop them somehow. each goverment has it's own secrets, the U.S would tell everyone that they are 'so far' with their technology when really they are further, that way, people like russia wouldn't know how far they have to go to be better than the U.S and the U.S wouldn't know about russia either. that's how it all works (my brother in law is a martial arts teacher to littel kids, he was told to teach them what they need to nkow, but don't tell them your secrets, that way if they turn on him, they wouldn't nkow how to beat him, logical really)

so don't think that the U.S didn't have that technology back then, if anything, they were probably further than we think.

think about it, DVD's didn't become big until a few years ago, but they were around for longer than that, the only reason that they weren't marketed until recently was because they wanted to do it when they had something else in the works. it's the same here, they won't tells us about their advances until they have something else that people won't know about in a long time.


is that even worth an argument. First of all, they don’t fly, they just float faster and as long as there is something to propel it along in space with no air controlling it would be quite easy. In fact, I can’t see how ”impossible” it would be. And yes Neil, those motives are fairly obvious.

Drunken_Sailor
08-24-2002, 06:34 AM
Originally posted by AcrylicGuitar
You know....I wonder if we did land on the moon.....I mean, how could anyone fly in such a dinky little aircraft through space.....thats almost impossible....

Correction: SPACECRAFT! I don't believe there's any AIR up there!

Have you ever rented the movie "Apollo 13"?

You have to realize that the astronauts that flew those spacecraft were picked directly from the ranks of America's Air Force/Navy pilots. THEY COULD FLY, no doubt about it.

Then add in the fact that the Apollo crews rehearsed every aspect of their missions in the training capsules until they could do it in their sleep. Then don't forget all the scientists in mission control with their slide rules hammering out all the navigation stuff for the Apollo computers (which is why, by the way, the computers only required a piddly amount of memory; the computer didn't do the calculations, WE did!). It is entirely possible.

Meksilon
08-24-2002, 08:22 AM
Originally posted by Drunken_Sailor
Have you ever rented the movie "Apollo 13"?Isn't it interesting when the crew loose power they start worrying about freezing to death? They should be more concerned with how hot it's going to get! If it's such an accurate movie, how come something as important as the heat of space is ignored and turned into the chill of space?

Try watching Fortress 2 and see what happens when they put our "hero" in a chamber with a dome glass roof which allows the heat and intensity of the sun's rays to take their toll.

=mek=

Drunken_Sailor
08-25-2002, 12:45 PM
To fly through space you don´t need to be aerodynamical, as there is no air, and you don´t need wings as you can´t use them anyway without air and you don´t need them as you are floating weightless in space.

What you need is a lifesupport system with sufficient supply of air and air schrubbers to clean out the carbon monoxide. You also need a supply of fuel which suffices and engines powerful enough to do the job. In addition you require to be able to navigate, and actually for that you don´t absolutelly need to have computers. It´s possible to use fixed coordinates and stars for to navigate and world war 2 era periscope for to take those observations. Calculations could be done on a pad with old fashioned slide rule and tables. OK, a tad slow but doable.

During your voiage you can simply push a button to activate rockets and release it to deactivate. For to land you would peer through a scope with markers in it and try to judge your speed and nearness to the ground. All this is doable, but very inefficient.

When using computers, laser sights and such you can be so much more efficient, i.e. burns can be more precise, thus saving fuel, your judgement of your speed will be more accurate, also saving fuel and making navigation more accurate, and with your laser you can judge your distance from the ground much more accuratelly. Your computer could do the navigation basigly for you. Modern tech makes it much easier and safer.

When they were going to the moon, as the Moon is only a light second away, the astronauts could take measurements and make observations with their on board equipment and then could tell that to the ground control. Ground control and it´s hundred´s of technicians then told them when and how long to do a burn and excactly where they were based on the astronaut´s observations [so this was a teamwork, with most of the team on ground]. So the navigation was actually done here on ground by the ground control using old fashioned but usable computers that filled whole rooms. The Astronauts them selves didn´t need to have powerful computers with them.

They did it then on manual but with ground control supervision.

And the fastest black and white film they had in 1969 was ASA 400.

Much faster films were available, but generally too expensive to the market for general use.

Joshi
08-25-2002, 03:43 PM
Originally posted by Meksilon
And yes Neil, those motives are fairly obvious.

did you really have to quote the entire thing when you could have keyed in at the point/s that you thought was/were relevent. what exactly are you refering to, the bit about the cold war or the bit about govermental secrets? that's really annoying, you know that? i'm guessing it the cold war thing which basically gives a motive for staging the moon landing, (and probably helping your argument) but i still don't believ it was faked, and that's all there is to it.(no, i don't mean that that proves we landed on the moon, it proves that you cannot change my ideas whatever new evidence you give me some of which btw, can be classed as circumstancial)

Joshi
08-25-2002, 03:54 PM
Originally posted by Meksilon
Isn't it interesting when the crew loose power they start worrying about freezing to death? They should be more concerned with how hot it's going to get! If it's such an accurate movie, how come something as important as the heat of space is ignored and turned into the chill of space?

Try watching Fortress 2 and see what happens when they put our "hero" in a chamber with a dome glass roof which allows the heat and intensity of the sun's rays to take their toll.

=mek=

depending on where you are, space can be quite cold. remember, heat has to radiat through space to get to earth (i tried to forget all this stuff after my exams, didn't seem to work), not conduction or convection (which would be stupid, there is not up in space(btw, light a match in the spacecraft with air whilst in space with no gravity, which way would the flame go?)) and therefore, if there is dsomething in the way i.e., a planet, i.e. planet earth, then it would be very cold and they may have frozen to death. remember, they actually worked with skilled qualified scientists whilst writing and making this movie who knew a little more about space than say, oh i don't know, you, becasue in all fairness, you are not a skilled scientist and no matter what you think you do not know everything in the world. (sorry, repressed anger there)

Drunken_Sailor
08-26-2002, 03:10 AM
Originally posted by Meksilon
They should be more concerned with how hot it's going to get!



Funny. I always thought it was very cold up there.;P

Deadmeat_X
08-26-2002, 06:37 AM
Well no, cause there is no protection from the sun like clouds or an atmosphere), and the heat the body loses can't go anywhere cause there's no air, and so it gets hot in the suit.

Drunken_Sailor
08-26-2002, 09:55 AM
I think you missed the point. It was a joke.

Btw, that´s why the suits had both heating and cooling.

Originally posted by Meksilon
I'm still waiting for solid proof that we went to the moon. I mean NASA didn't bother to point Hubble at the moon and take pictures of the remnants from the six sucessful Apollo missions.

As for the solid evidence, what of the reflectors left on the surface to allow astronomers to determinee the distance to the moon? Non-government astronomers have bounced lasers off of those reflectors, and detected photons of the correct wavelength and frequency on their way back. The moon's surface isn't reflective enough for that that type of experiment without the reflectors.

This week's issue of US News & World Report, page 78, lower right-hand column: "And what about the reflectors left behind so researchers can precisely measure the moon's distance by shooting laser beams at them and timing the return of a few photons? 'I've fired photons, and I've gotten photons back,' says astrophysicist Tom Murphy of the University of Washington.

Seriously, man (or woman, as the ecase may be), the "evidence" cited by the conspiracy theorists is far too easily explained away. For instance: as for the absence of stars in the photographs, ever take a snapshot of the night sky? I have, with 1,000 speed film, even, and still gotten absolutely zero stars. The eexposure times were too short, and the ambient sunlight would have washed them out, anyway. As for the Van Allen Belts, the level of radiation you would recieve, when traveling through them at the 25,000 mph required to break the immediate pull of the Earth's gravity, is about the same as a couple of cheest X-rays, certainly not enough to cause radiation sickness.

If you want more, you can go to:

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

The "evidence" you have cited is systematically dismantled on the above site.

Breton
09-04-2002, 04:13 PM
Originally posted by Natty At School
Mek just lives in lala land, who knows what drugs he's on. I'd hate to be a homophobic racist who believes the most stupid of conspiracy theories

Natty you really deserves to get banned. You really really do. Flaming people such, and with no reason at all, is a LF crime. So I am telling every mod or administrator that looks at my post, please ban those who should be banned.

Natty never ever do such a stupid action again, flaming is a hundred times worser than spamming.:mad:

Joshi
09-06-2002, 12:36 PM
okay, i'm guessing that you just got here (efmi) and so have no idea who natty is and to that i say, don't comment on something you don't know about. also, this whole thing blew over ages ago so don't try bringing it back.

Breton
09-06-2002, 04:14 PM
I am new here indeed, I'm mostly at swamp, but that does not change the fact that flaming=bad and that there are too few admins here.

Meksilon
09-07-2002, 08:58 AM
Originally posted by JM Qui-Gon Jinn
I am new here indeed, I'm mostly at swamp, but that does not change the fact that flaming=bad and that there are too few admins here. There's one admin many moderators and yes Natty did flame but that's over now we've moved on.

=mek=

Natty
09-07-2002, 09:29 AM
JM that was so 2weeks ago, get with the programme. Sheeeesh :rolleyes: Stop trying to cause problems and believe me, if you think I'm bad at flaming then, don't try and mess with me when its that time of month (if your smart enough to figure that out)

In the MX (a Melbourne newspaper, tis free and pretty much usless but it has some cool stuff in it, gets given away at all the city train stations) there was an article saying that NASA is gonna upgrade the parkes sattelite. The sattelite which (assuming we landed on the moon) the images came from. I know that's kinda not relevent. I just love saying that the images of man on the moon came from Australia. It makes me proud :D

Kjřlen
09-07-2002, 12:24 PM
Natty thas not flaming, there are NO admins or super mods here (met's gone refuses to use admin powers), and EMI is unprotected.

HelenW
09-07-2002, 12:44 PM
Has met actually said he won't use his admin powers? If this is so then an admin is needed here!! But i didn't get that impression when I spoke to him about something the other week!!

Breton
09-07-2002, 01:17 PM
JM that was so 2weeks ago, get with the programme. Sheeeesh Stop trying to cause problems

There's one admin many moderators and yes Natty did flame but that's over now we've moved on.

Natty thas not flaming, there are NO admins or super mods here (met's gone refuses to use admin powers), and EMI is unprotected.

Has met actually said he won't use his admin powers? If this is so then an admin is needed here!! But i didn't get that impression when I spoke to him about something the other week!!

................whatever...


I think I'll just stick to the swamp

Natty
09-07-2002, 10:19 PM
Murta is a super mod isn't he?

Joshi
09-09-2002, 02:23 PM
um, stop me if i'm wrong, but if we lose an admin or supermod or whatever (really, what's the difference?) then don't we just promote and existing mod. hmm, i think another vote is due.;)