Conspiracies

[MrInBetween]

Originally Posted by rotobott

This has been done to death

Indeed it has. shlomotvr, just use Search This Thread for the word 'moon' and you'll find 216 posts, not counting the ones made today, which contain the answers to the questions that you're asking, and to others that you might be planning to ask.

[bp666]

Originally Posted by shlomotvr

had they said that the mission was imposible , there wouldnt be any job for them ,
and what about the flag ? the waving one , waving at the moon that is, where there is no air ?

That old fallacy has been debunked many many times, yet it keeps popping up. Have you looked into the discussion on this (wider than VEF) before you brought it up on here?

If so, please explain why you still think it needs to be further explained.

Otherwise your position becomes equivalent to the standard conspiracy theory approach of:

I believe in fairies. Prove to me that fairies don't exist.

When what is required:

I believe in fairies and here is my detailed analysis, repeatable, peer-reviewed along with proof that my position is based on factual evidence.

[squigg58]

Originally Posted by shlomotvr

had they said that the mission was imposible , there wouldnt be any job for them ,
and what about the flag ? the waving one , waving at the moon that is, where there is no air ?

We've actually been through all of this before. I don't know if you've read through the thread, or searched for key words in order to find the discussions on the moon landings but, almost without exception, whenever any named source who's an acknowledged expert in their field, such as James Van Allen, contradicts a conspiracy theory by explaining things in scientific terms, the response is "they must have been got at!" or "they must have been bribed". The obvious next question: "Is there any evidence of that?" is invariably met with a stony silence! No prizes for guessing why!

Who got at these people, or paid them off, and what did they actually have to gain? After all, we're supposed to believe that in the 1960's they "got at" all the American scientists and all the scientists from the Soviet Union, and they're now busy "getting at" all the European, American, Russian, Chinese, Indian and Japanese scientists!!

Why? To make the Americans look good in the 1960's?

There is a flip-side, of course. I could simply claim that all the conspiracy theory scientists have been got at or paid off! Would you accept that as evidence of the conspiracy theory being nonsense? I'm guessing you wouldn't ... but you will believe the opposite! That's convenient!

In the meantime, we keep hearing "scientists say this", or "lots of scientists say that". Fine ... let's have some names! After all, if we don't have any names, how do we even know they're scientists?

If there are all these credible scientists around with intimate knowledge of the Van Allen Belts, how come when Fox made a TV programme about the moon landing "hoax" they had to trot out someone who was introduced as a "physicist" but who, by his own admission, has no scientific qualifications whatsoever?

As for the waving flag; like bp666 I really thought this one had died a death a long time ago.

The flag moved when the astronauts moved it. It really is that simple.

There was an inverted L-shaped frame. The top and one side of the flag was attached to it. When the astronauts twisted the frame, the frame moved. When the frame moved, the flag moved. The flag was made of a flexible material so as the forces were transferred through the flag, it waved. All of that is explained by Newton's Laws of Motion, and those laws are universal. They do not change in a vacuum. No wind, no breeze, no air was required.

[shlomotvr]

Originally Posted by rotobott

This has been done to death

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMBCfuKs9i8

i dont buy it

[squigg58]

Originally Posted by shlomotvr

i dont buy it

On the one hand we have you "not buying it", and on the other we have Newton's Laws of Motion. I hope you won't take it personally if I say I'm more convinced by Sir Isaac's explanation.

[TCO95]

While we're on the subject of the moon and those old allies Russia and America.
Did you know the moon is hollow?

Neither did I but apparently Russian scientists discovered this 'fact' and it was later confirmed by NASA when they LANDED a craft there and the moon rang like a bell for hours afterwards. No one is quite sure how the moon became hollow but they are convinced it is.

http://users.belgacom.net/gc674645/grave/moon.htm

[squigg58]

Originally Posted by TCO95

While we're on the subject of the moon and those old allies Russia and America.
Did you know the moon is hollow?

Neither did I but apparently Russian scientists discovered this 'fact' and it was later confirmed by NASA when they LANDED a craft there and the moon rang like a bell for hours afterwards. No one is quite sure how the moon became hollow but they are convinced it is.

http://users.belgacom.net/gc674645/grave/moon.htm

When did NASA "confirm" this? I wasn't aware there was any scientific evidence to support this claim.

From a 2011 interview with NASA planetary scientist Dr. Renee Weber ...

Q: What do you think about hollow Moon theory? Is there any evidence that confirm this?

Renee_Weber: None of our results support that theory.

The article in the link talks about a hollow moon, but then states ...

"When NASA crashed the lunar landing craft after the astronauts had returned to their modules, the moon rang like a gong for hours. The speed of the tremors changed after passing through the outer layers of rock, and began to accelerate until it reached six miles per second -- which is the speed of sound traveling through metal."

According to that, it's not hollow. It's got a metallic core, and that's what NASA seems to be saying.

[MrInBetween]

Originally Posted by squigg58

According to that, it's not hollow. It's got a metallic core, and that's what NASA seems to be saying.

The Earth itself has a metallic core, and it rings too - though it stops if you don't pick it up after the eighth time.

The Earth rings like a bell after a large earthquake – the lowest ring tone is E flat in the 20th octave below middle C.

Download that ring tone by texting EARTHQUAKE to this number...

[shlomotvr]

Originally Posted by rotobott

This has been done to death

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMBCfuKs9i8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkxVUcjvmUA maybe the purple smurf is real as well ? he is on youtube so it must be real ...

[squigg58]

Originally Posted by shlomotvr

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkxVUcjvmUA maybe the purple smurf is real as well ? he is on youtube so it must be real ...

I would have hoped it was fairly obvious that the point of rotobott's posting was the science behind the explanation, not simply the fact that it was "on YouTube".