russian cosmonauts don't think america went to moon...

Open discussion about any topic, as long as you abide by the rules of course!
Freakaloin
Posts: 10620
Joined: Tue May 07, 2002 7:00 am

russian cosmonauts don't think america went to moon...

Post by Freakaloin »

and now we are buying their spacecraft from them...its so obvious it never happened...

http://news.techwhack.com/2556/281107-n ... pacecraft/
Canis
Posts: 3798
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2001 8:00 am

Post by Canis »

NASA Denial! Apollo Denial! US Denial! Denial Denial....those-commie-bastards-dont-know-their -asses-from-a-hole-in-the-ground Denial!
neh
Posts: 662
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2001 8:00 am

Post by neh »

lol - moon landing denial - fucking hell where do you buy your drugs -



MASS HALUCINATION SUFFERED BY ENTIRE PLANET

ALL POINTS THAT REFUTE MOON LANDING DISPROVED ENDLESSLY WITHOUT QUESTION

HOUSE HUNSBAND FROM USA DREAMS OF WATCHING UK MEDIA SO HE DOESN'T HAVE TO TRAWL PARANOID BLOGS TO ASSESS FACTS OF MOST MATTERS ..

lol
Freakaloin
Posts: 10620
Joined: Tue May 07, 2002 7:00 am

Post by Freakaloin »

i'll believe it when i see the remains of the other lunar missions...as long as the footage hasn't been doctored...
a defining attribute of a government is that it has a monopoly on the legitimate exercise of violence...
MidnightQ4
Posts: 520
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2005 7:59 pm

Post by MidnightQ4 »

This can be settled quite easily.

All we need to do is just point one of our super duper telescopes at the moon landing site and get some footage of the flag, rover, etc that are still there on the moon.

Case closed.
Mr.Magnetichead
Posts: 2001
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2001 8:00 am

Post by Mr.Magnetichead »

I do not believe the US landed on the moon when they said they did either.
Freakaloin
Posts: 10620
Joined: Tue May 07, 2002 7:00 am

Post by Freakaloin »

MidnightQ4 wrote:This can be settled quite easily.

All we need to do is just point one of our super duper telescopes at the moon landing site and get some footage of the flag, rover, etc that are still there on the moon.

Case closed.
YEAH WELL THEY TRIED TWICE AND COULDN'T FIND ANYTHING...HMMMMM...
User avatar
MKJ
Posts: 32582
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2000 8:00 am

Post by MKJ »

Freakaloin wrote:...as long as the footage hasn't been doctored...
youll never know that do you. especially if you wear a tinfoil hat 24/7
[url=http://profile.mygamercard.net/Emka+Jee][img]http://card.mygamercard.net/sig/Emka+Jee.jpg[/img][/url]
DRuM
Posts: 6841
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2002 8:00 am

Post by DRuM »

Freakaloin wrote:
MidnightQ4 wrote:This can be settled quite easily.

All we need to do is just point one of our super duper telescopes at the moon landing site and get some footage of the flag, rover, etc that are still there on the moon.

Case closed.
YEAH WELL THEY TRIED TWICE AND COULDN'T FIND ANYTHING...HMMMMM...
that's because the flag, rover and everything else on the moon have been taken by the moonians to their secret laboratories to analyse the earthlings possessions.
User avatar
seremtan
Posts: 36021
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2003 8:00 am

Post by seremtan »

belgium landed on the moon in 1875 anyway. there are lithographs that PROOVE ITZ0RS
Guest

Post by Guest »

Why don't someone that has authority with the Hubble telescope try using it to scan the moon to find the American flag?
Canis
Posts: 3798
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2001 8:00 am

Post by Canis »

Because that would clearly be a doctored image...
DRuM
Posts: 6841
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2002 8:00 am

Post by DRuM »

pete wrote:Why don't someone that has authority with the Hubble telescope try using it to scan the moon to find the American flag?

I think I read or heard somewhere that the hubble, although it can take images billions of miles away, can't focus clearly for short distance objects, such as details on the surface of the moon. I guess it's long sighted :p
I'm pretty sure I heard that, but I might be talking out of my arse as well.
Nightshade
Posts: 17020
Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2000 8:00 am

Post by Nightshade »

As I've told you dinks before, it would take a telescope with a one hundred and fifteen meter primary mirror to resolve something the size of the moon rover. Now SHUT THE FUCK UP.
losCHUNK
Posts: 16019
Joined: Thu May 09, 2002 7:00 am

Post by losCHUNK »

a one hundred and fifteen meter primary mirror is ok, if thats all you can afford
[color=red] . : [/color][size=85] You knows you knows [/size]
MidnightQ4
Posts: 520
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2005 7:59 pm

Post by MidnightQ4 »

Nightshade wrote:As I've told you dinks before, it would take a telescope with a one hundred and fifteen meter primary mirror to resolve something the size of the moon rover. Now SHUT THE FUCK UP.
Sorry but I call bullshit :icon32: . Where is the math to back this up? Most mirrors today are around 7-9 feet across if I'm not mistaken, and these can see object billions of lightyears away. I'd say their resolving power is quite high. I did however read an article recently about a new system using many smaller mirrors together all refocused continuously, which will be something like 35 meters across, and should be able to see things all the way back to the beginning of time (aka the big bang). In other words it should be able to observe the most distant objects in the universe.
menkent
Posts: 2629
Joined: Sun Jul 23, 2000 7:00 am

Post by menkent »

you fucking knob. the things they're looking at that far away are GALAXIES. do you have any concept of how much bigger a galaxy is than a lunar rover? no. because people don't think in numbers that FUCKING BIG.
and the math is basic optics. if you need someone to do it for you, go back to the 16th century or freshman physics... whichever seems easier.
MidnightQ4
Posts: 520
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2005 7:59 pm

Post by MidnightQ4 »

um, the hubble which is by all accounts not even a top telescope anymore can see planets around stars light years away. I know that a 4 meter vehicle on the moon is extremely small, but our telescopes these days are pretty bad ass though too.
menkent
Posts: 2629
Joined: Sun Jul 23, 2000 7:00 am

Post by menkent »

no, it can not. it can detaect evidence of planets around distant stars by observing the effects of their gravity on their stars (the stars wobble). you know shit, and nasa isn't going to build a gigantic telescope with nada focal distance just to prove their own mission. if you're stupid enough to not believe they landed on the moon, you're too stupid to believe their pictures. personally, i think you've proven yourself in two posts to be exactly that stupid. time to cut your losses?
MidnightQ4
Posts: 520
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2005 7:59 pm

Post by MidnightQ4 »

hahaha, I just wanted to see what you would say rofl. gg. :D
R00k
Posts: 15188
Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2000 8:00 am

Post by R00k »

LOL menkent, was it your turn in the barrel today or something?
User avatar
Scourge
Posts: 15559
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2002 8:00 am

Post by Scourge »

R00k wrote:LOL menkent, was it your turn in the barrel today or something?
Jesus, I just heard that joke for the first time at work today. Lol.
andyman
Posts: 11198
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 8:20 pm

Post by andyman »

freakaloin you are a commie.
menkent
Posts: 2629
Joined: Sun Jul 23, 2000 7:00 am

Post by menkent »

i've seen people post some amazingly retarded shit on here and truly believe it. one can never underestimate the willfulness of a retard.
Freakaloin
Posts: 10620
Joined: Tue May 07, 2002 7:00 am

Post by Freakaloin »

menkent wrote:no, it can not. it can detaect evidence of planets around distant stars by observing the effects of their gravity on their stars (the stars wobble). you know shit, and nasa isn't going to build a gigantic telescope with nada focal distance just to prove their own mission. if you're stupid enough to not believe they landed on the moon, you're too stupid to believe their pictures. personally, i think you've proven yourself in two posts to be exactly that stupid. time to cut your losses?
moron alert???...
Post Reply