🚀 go-pugleaf

I know we shouldn't feed the trolls but what the heck...
John Revill (jrevill@optushome.com.au) wrote:
: I wont even waste my time with this. You are so out of touch with what
: really happened. You will believe anything they tell you.
: 
: 1/ The Flag was in a wire frame to give it wind like movement. There is not
: wind on the moon, so without the wire frame, it would lay limp.
The motion on the flag can be simulated on earth.  Build a frame
like the one in the flag and it too will move like the one on the
film. The physics behind how it moves is commonly called the multiple
pendulum problem.  If you get a bunch of 15cm (6 in) pieces of wire.
Arange them in a flag shaped frame about 45cm x 60cm while allowing
them move freely and you get very close to the motion seen on the
film.  Now go look at a flag that is flaping in the wind.  They
move differently.

: 2/ There is not atmosphere on the moon, so no air, hence no sound.
If you look at the dust from the back of the rover, you see there is
no wind or air dispersing the dust.  So they could have filmed it
on earth with fast film but they would need a vacumm chamber bigger
than any on earth to film that trick.

: 3/ The engines on the Lander did not produce any smoke.
: You know it is possible to have an engine that does not produce smoke. My
: car doesn't smoke. What about a jet Airplane, or even the space shuttle.
: They don't produce smoke, so obviously they must be fakes.
Smoke is a result of the chemistry of the flame and the air.  No air,
no smoke.  

: Oh, and do you even know what the Van Allen belt is. In space flight, it
: takes about 2 minutes to pass through it. Quick enough to pass through it
: safely. Are you telling me that since the "fake" moon landing that the Van
: Allen belt disappeared and it is now safe.
The Allen belt disapears every time the poles reverse.  That may happen
ever 10 to 20 thousnad years.  People seemed to have lived through that
last time.

The harder things to explain are the crosshairs on some photos.
Its not something I can explain but I've seen it before and it
is related to where the cross hairs are located vs where the camera
is focussed.

Many people also seem to buy into the background all looking the same.
With out any air, you wouldn't get the hazyness that you get on earth
when you take a pictuer of a distant moutanin.  Some of the small hills
in the background were quite large and very far away.

: I could keep on going, but I really couldn't be bothered.
Do you know how many millions of people now belive this crud?
I think our schools are doing a very bad job in teaching science
these days.

-tim
http://web.abnormal.com

: 
: "xganon" <remailer@xganon.com> wrote in message
: > That's right. More than mere claims as the facts
: > in evidence prove the whole thing was a big fake.
: >
: > Flags fluttering in the high-desert breeze, sand
: > buggies & actors running along in their deflated
: > monkeysuits-obviously recorded on highspeed film,
: > conspicuous absence of blast craters, impossibly
: > silent running under invisible exhaust emissions,
: > laughably obvious backdrops that contrast sharply
: > against the nearby high-desert terrain, etc. etc.
...