View Single Post
Old 04-19-2007, 08:36 AM   #46 (permalink)
Rabbit
Citizen
 
Rabbit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: London
Posts: 37
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

Points: 837, Level: 15
Points: 837, Level: 15 Points: 837, Level: 15 Points: 837, Level: 15
Level up: 16%, 63 Points needed
Level up: 16% Level up: 16% Level up: 16%
Activity: 0%
Activity: 0% Activity: 0% Activity: 0%

Quote:
Originally Posted by tyreay View Post
Triangulation is only possible with a directional antenna, and with readings from more than one location, thus the word triangulate.
Yes, I know, and with thousands of radio hams all over the world listening to the spacecraft, all it takes is for two of them far enough apart to form a useful baseline and compare notes. If the source of the transmission wasn't where it was supposed to be, they would have known.

Quote:
Yes there is alot of evidence that some shots were shot in a studio. There is also alot of evidence, on the supplied site, that there was no shots taken on the moon. Also comparing inconsistencies from a known movie to a actual even in history really does fit very well here as support for the moom landing.
My point with that analogy is simply that faking the evidence does not prove that the mission itself was faked. In addition, the existence of fake evidence casts at least as much suspicion on the conspiracy theorists as it does on NASA. How better to discredit something real than to manufacture fake evidence of it?

Quote:
These bits of evidence have been pointed to long before PCs. I actually read a book on this in the early 80's.
I had my first computer in 1981.

Quote:
Of course everyone is entitle to there opinions, but the proof is pretty strong, to dismiss this totally. Most of the footage from the landing is quite laughable, actually.
That's not "proof". If I were to make a paper plane and film it, then tell you it was footage of a test flight of a real plane, you'd find it laughable, but you wouldn't know whether I or someone else had actually built a real one and NOT filmed it.

Quote:
'The earth has a band of radiation around her, 500 mies out, that would take 10 feet of lead, to protect a human from'. This is a statement by a NASA scientist.
It's a very unscientific statement. 10 feet would protect... for how long? How much shielding do you need for a week in space? Or an hour? Or a year? Do you know? I don't, but if that "scientist" is trying to imply that anything less than 10 feet of lead will be lethal in all cases, that would mean every manned space mission there's ever been has been a fake and that, frankly, is impossible.
__________________
THIS IS NOT WAR. THIS IS PEST CONTROL!
Rabbit is offline   Reply With Quote