Do You Think that NASA Will Ever Go To Mars?? (Page 2)

DawnGurl
DawnGurl: Hey Corvy Im going for some lo mein. Want some? Wait....is that racist? omgomg
(Edited by DawnGurl)
10 years ago Report
2
Corwin
Corwin: <---- Mmmmm...... lo mein.
10 years ago Report
1
DawnGurl
DawnGurl: Bah-hahahahahaha
10 years ago Report
1
Big Bopper
Big Bopper: I think they should restrict their endeavours to developing an inhabitable structure on the moon. I doubt the moon landing was real. In those days, with the rudimentary television, it would have been easy and inexpensive to fake it.
10 years ago Report
0
Corwin
Corwin: "Moon landing hoax".

Stanley Kubrick released 2001 A Space Odyssey in 1968... one of the world's best film-makers of his time... and COULD NOT convincingly create the appearance of zero-G conditions, and almost laughably neglected to create the appearance of 1/6th-G during the scenes filmed within the Moon Base. There's almost 100 specific "fails" in that movie, such as a guy "floating" across the room, then "leaning" on something while he chats with another guy.
Even with his best efforts, you can "see" the 1-G gravity's influence in almost every scene.

Yet NASA, who are NOT professional film-makers, but rather an Aeronautics and Space organization, can somehow perfectly create a completely convincing recreation of a Moon landing... without a single flaw or "fail"... perfectly simulating zero-G, and 1/6th-G, and blowing Stanley Kubrick's less-than-intuitive film-making techniques completely out of the water... less than a year later after the release of his ground-breaking film?

So did this "rudimentary television in those days" somehow "improve" the ability to pull that off?... and made it easier to create a completely convincing hoax? I fail to see the logic in that.

You know what a better technique is to film convincing footage of a Moon landing? To actually go to the Moon, and let the natural surrounding environment do the talking.
I mean, why the hell WOULDN'T we go to the Moon?? We had the rocket technology, we had the computerized-navigation technology, ever since Isaac Newton's time we had the math to make it so... why would we fake something that was within our grasp?... something Man has dreamed of since the beginning of time?

We went to the Moon.... several times... twelve men in total walked on the surface... just deal with it.
10 years ago Report
1
Wordificationismness
Wordificationismness: No, but I heard the NSA has security cameras there and is keeping watch on anything that moves.
10 years ago Report
0
ghostgeek
ghostgeek: Clearly, one can't be too careful nowadays.
10 years ago Report
0
lori100
lori100: It would have been easy to fake the moon landing.....waving flag with no wind?? ----no stars showing,---and no crater-----------------The claim goes as follows: had NASA really landed us on the moon, there would be a blast crater underneath the lunar module to mark its landing. On any video footage or photograph of the landings, no crater is visible, almost as though the module was simply placed there. The surface of the moon is covered in fine lunar dust, and even this doesn’t seem to have been displaced in photographic evidence.---------and what seems to be a suspended studio light seen in the face-helmet reflection....-------------After photographs of the moon landings were released, theorists were quick to notice a mysterious object (shown above) in the reflection of an astronaut’s helmet from the Apollo 12 mission. The object appears to be hanging from a rope or wire and has no reason to be there at all, leading some to suggest it is an overhead spotlight typically found in film studios.

The resemblance is questionable, given the poor quality of the photograph, but the mystery remains as to why something is being suspended in mid-air (or rather lack of air) on the moon. The lunar module in other photos appears to have no extension from it that matches the photo, so the object still remains totally unexplained.
(Edited by lori100)
10 years ago Report
1
Corwin
Corwin: The flag wasn't waving. The flag was held upright by a stiff rod along the top, and a lead weight in the bottom corner. It was swaying like a pendulum after the astronauts twisted the flagpole into the Lunar soil... just as you would expect it to in a 1/6 G vacuum.

No stars were visible in the footage because the surface of the moon is extremely bright. To have the camera exposure sensitive enough to see stars would have made everything else extremely over-exposed.

No crater beneath the lander, because the lander was a relatively light-weight spacecraft (some parts of the hull were thinner than a sheet of paper to trim every available pound), and it only weighed 1/6th of that in Lunar gravity, so it required merely gentle thrust to soft-land on the surface.

No "studio lights" are seen in helmet reflections... these are figments of overactive imaginations. What is occasionally seen are the odd glares and reflections and lens-flares caused by a intense glaring Sun unhindered by atmosphere. Anything else seen in the helmet reflections is nothing that shouldn't be there.

And those still-photos taken by the astronauts are HARDLY "poor quality". Those cameras were specially designed by a reputable German manufacturer specifically for taking photos on the Moon. The Hassleblad EDC 70mm, nicknamed the "Hassie", was an exceptional piece of hardware, at a cost of about $60,000 apiece (in 1969 dollars).
And each Lunar astronaut received extensive expert photography training beforehand, to familiarize themselves with the workings of this unique camera, and to hone their photography skills.
Those photographs are nothing less than incredible from a photographer's standpoint... especially considering they were shooting in light conditions where no photographer had gone before. They're well-focused, properly exposed, and show incredible fine detail.
10 years ago Report
0
Wordificationismness
Wordificationismness: Gotta love conspiracy theories.
10 years ago Report
0