I am sure USSR would see the fake in 60's; and they are still silent.
P.S. Gravity on moon is six times lesser then on Earth.
Printable View
I am sure USSR would see the fake in 60's; and they are still silent.
P.S. Gravity on moon is six times lesser then on Earth.
This is really quite tedious. A simple search for the original posters name will reveal a multitude of similar posts to lots of other forums. The content is much the same though: An abundance of links. Clicking those links will provide the linked sites with more traffic. Simple as that. Don't go there.
/Claes
As I said in a previous post, I keep an open mind on the subject.
However, there are certainly some interesting questions that remain to be answered:
1. How did they get through the van Allen belt? Given that, even at the speed they were travelling, they would have been exposed long enough to have killed them.
2. Why does some of the photographic material released by NASA show EXACTLY the same rock formations in different parts of the photos?
3. Why did Neil Armstrong flatly refuse to swear on the bible that he had walked on the moon when asked by an enquirer to do so?
Perhaps some of the forums members can explain.
never heard of the van Allen belt before *blush*, but here's what wiki says. not that I consider wiki a 100% reliable source
edit to add:Quote:
Originally Posted by wikipedia
bleh, would that be gamma rays?Quote:
The outer belt consists mainly of high energy(0.1–10 MeV) electrons trapped by the Earth's magnetosphere
I'm with baz. I wouldn't put it past the U.S. to fake a moon landing just to win the space race. After all the Soviet space dog (whatsname? Leika?) died a few minutes after take-off and the barking from space was taped. But the USSR would have called their bluff. I'm sure they were on the look-out for evidence that disproves an American moon landing.
oops, sorry Virge, I didn't mean to sound anti-American. Plus, I don't think it was a fake. I wouldn't have put it past the USSR either to fake a moon landing, given the political climate of the day. But I was only speaking hypothetically.
I seem to remember that DER SPIEGEL said she died a lot earlier.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Bean
Actually I have seen them....being a retired science teacher..
my curious nature has led me to watch these clips before..
have also watched the UFO clips and the clips on 911 and various other conspiracy type theory clips....
always been curious and willing to try and see the other side of things..
but really....:)
Well I wouldn't like to contradict one of my favourite magazines, but I remember when the event took place. I even bought a packet of Russian cigarettes named Laika at the Soviet exhibition held in London shortly afterwards. BBC radio reported that the dog died as I have stated.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...84657963455824
also: the JFK "incident", the gulf war, weapons of mass destruction in iraq, the terrorist paranoia, area 51...
I'm leaving this insane conversation. Nuts belong with nuts.
yeah ok.
anyhow:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...29448192753501
That is a common misconception. The fact is that the astronauts were only in the belts a short period of time, and the walls of the CM were enough to block much of the radiation.
There is little argument to this. Literally hundreds of satellites from many different countries reside within the belts, so the amount of radiation within them is well known.
Could you give some links that show this? I'm not quite sure what you mean by "rock formations".Quote:
Why does some of the photographic material released by NASA show EXACTLY the same rock formations in different parts of the photos?
Because the man that "asked" him, Bart Sibrel (the same man that was punched in the face by Buzz Aldrin), tresspassed on his property in order to get access to him.Quote:
3. Why did Neil Armstrong flatly refuse to swear on the bible that he had walked on the moon when asked by an enquirer to do so?