nici eu nu cred ca au ajuns pe luna. sunt prea multe care nu se leaga si care nu au fost explicate. le-au mai enumerat si altii si nu ma mai apuc acum sa le zic si eu.
am vazut filmul... pare regizat (luminile erau ca intr-un platou).
nici eu nu cred ca au ajuns pe luna. sunt prea multe care nu se leaga si care nu au fost explicate. le-au mai enumerat si altii si nu ma mai apuc acum sa le zic si eu.
am vazut filmul... pare regizat (luminile erau ca intr-un platou
cirozel ai credinte puternice si admir asta, dar nu esty esti expert in materie de avioane si de rachete. Avionul de care zici a fost proiectat si construit de Lockheed Martin in 1966(din fonduri proprii deja cheltuite pina in '66) nu de NASA si cumparat in acelasi an de catre USAF in urma unui contrac(primul zbor a fost in 1962). Ai zis ca nu ti-am dat dovezi : ele exista tu refuzi sa le vezi.Mesaj iniţiat de Cirozel
Da , 40 de miliarde de dolari s-au cheltuit, sau cel putin asa se declara. Puteau f frumos sa-i canalizeze in avioane scumpe si supersecrete ( vezi SR-71 Blackbird aparut in 1966, care este inca cel mai rapid avion cu o viteza maxima aproximativa de Mach 3.2, aparut dubios exact in mijlocul programului spatial inceput odata cu discursul lui Kennedy la 12 septembrie 1962) . Se presupune ca racheta decolat... si capsula a stat in orbita 8 zile cat a durat misiunea...ca apoi sa se intoarca . rocile au fost colectate ulterior de la pol pentru a da veridicitate evenimentului .
In legatura cu puterea de calcul , cum se face ca un computer cu puterea de calcul a unui calculator de buzunar a putut controla o nava spatiala, cand in 2002 un p2 cu 64 RAM avea dificultati in a rula simularea acelei misiuni?
Rocile de pe luna de la polul nord au urmele de arsuri specifice intrarii in atmosfera terestra.Ce vrei mai mult de atit?
filmul nu l`am vazut, dar am vazut imagini shi explicatzii de ce nu ar fi real.. nu pot sa ma pronuntz, nu`s sigur de nik, dar ma gandesc ca daca ar fi fost fals filmu ala nu ar fi inclus atatea gresheli in el.. ca la cat au investit presupun ca puteau sa faca steagu ala sa nu se mishte shi sa faca nishte stele pe cer.. oricum nu ma pronuntz
"I`d rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not" - Kurt Cobain
Life`s a sexually transmited disease...
A metal heart is hard to tear apart
Eu nu vorbeam de NASA eu vorbeam de "ei" adica de guvern.. (ps: nu ma dau expert si nici macar cunoscator, spun decat ce stiu, ce am citit, ce am vazut). Parerea mea e ca fondurile pentru "programul spatial" au fost canalizate catre lockheed
PS: Eu stiam ca Lockheed are divizia secreta "Skunkworks" care proiecteaza diferita aparate, este afiliata NASA, si beneficia de asa numitul "black buget" o parte din bugetul NASA care nu e explicata nimanui si este folosita pentru cercetari ultrasecrete
I love the nigger cock thrusting in my mouth. Cred ca incep la modul cel mai serios sa ma indoiesc de propria-mi heterosexualitate. once you go black, you never go back.
The best rebuttal to allegations of a "Moon Hoax," however, is common sense. Evidence that the Apollo program really happened is compelling: A dozen astronauts (laden with cameras) walked on the Moon between 1969 and 1972. Nine of them are still alive and can testify to their experience. They didn't return from the Moon empty-handed, either. Just as Columbus carried a few hundred natives back to Spain as evidence of his trip to the New World, Apollo astronauts brought 841 pounds of Moon rock home to Earth.
"Moon rocks are absolutely unique," says Dr. David McKay, Chief Scientist for Planetary Science and Exploration at NASA's Johnson Space Center (JSC). McKay is a member of the group that oversees the Lunar Sample Laboratory Facility at JSC where most of the Moon rocks are stored. "They differ from Earth rocks in many respects," he added.
Vino cu contra argumente si ai rezolvat misterul.
Normal ca sunt absolut unice ca doar sunt de pe luna, eu nu am zis ca nu sunt de pe luna, am spus ca nu au fost luate de acolo direct, ci au fost colectate din gheazta de la pol .
PS: MOON ROCKS HAVE BEEN FOUND IN ANTARCTICA.Ex-NAZI and NASA moon rocket chief Wernher Von Braun Makes Strange Trip to Antarctica two years prior to MOON LANDING....Why?
I love the nigger cock thrusting in my mouth. Cred ca incep la modul cel mai serios sa ma indoiesc de propria-mi heterosexualitate. once you go black, you never go back.
Lasa-l pe Wernher Von Braun in pace si explica diferenta dintre rocile de la pol si cele de pe luna: toate rocile de pe luna de la pol au urmele reintrarii in atmosfera cele de pe luna nu au, e simplu.Normal ca sunt absolut unice ca doar sunt de pe luna, eu nu am zis ca nu sunt de pe luna, am spus ca nu au fost luate de acolo direct, ci au fost colectate din gheazta de la pol .
PS: MOON ROCKS HAVE BEEN FOUND IN ANTARCTICA.
Ti-au zis ei ca nu au. Eu stiam ca nu s-au facut studii INDEPENDENTE asupra acelor roci, au studiat ei si au dat rezultatele lumii. Au studiat universitatile americane si centrele lor stiintifice care sunt finantate de.. statul american care nu vroia sa i se descopere marshavia
PS: Mereu o sa gasesc breshe in teoria ta si tu in a mea, deja depinde in care crezi mai mult, degeaba iti aduc eu dovezi sau tu imi aduci mie, eu o sa raman sceptic si tu la fel .... . Pentru mine dovezile de partea mea atarna mai greu decat dovezile de partea ta
I love the nigger cock thrusting in my mouth. Cred ca incep la modul cel mai serios sa ma indoiesc de propria-mi heterosexualitate. once you go black, you never go back.
sunt in muzee : poti sa te duci sa le atingi chiar si tu
Ma indoiesc ca te lasa sa le atingi cand se stie clar ca sunt tinute in medii sterile, fara particle pentru a evita "contaminarea" , intr-un laborator special din HOUSTON
"Scientists and technicians entering the laboratory had to strip off their clothes and put on lab clothing. Persons leaving had to strip off the lab clothes, shower, walk nude through a lock bathed in ultraviolet (UV) light and then they could put on their street clothes."
PS : Citeste postul meu de mai sus am facut niste modificari
I love the nigger cock thrusting in my mouth. Cred ca incep la modul cel mai serios sa ma indoiesc de propria-mi heterosexualitate. once you go black, you never go back.
"There are plenty of museums, including the Smithsonian and others, where members of the public can touch and examine rocks from the Moon," says McKay. "You can see the little meteoroid craters for yourself."
Fortunately not all of the evidence needs a degree in chemistry or geology to appreciate. An average person holding a Moon rock in his or her hand can plainly see that the specimen came from another world.
Apropo e chiar placut sa dezbat asta cu oricine si ar fi chiar plictisitor daca am fi de acord
Three robotic Soviet Luna probes returned about three quarters of a pound (301 grams) from three other lunar sites in the 1970s. Geologists also have found 19 fragments of lunar meteorites that were blasted off the surface by impacts and landed in parts of Antarctica, Australia, Morocco and Libya.
But the Apollo rocks by far are the most scientifically interesting because of their sheer numbers and variety.
"Compared with terrestrial samples, all lunar rocks are oddballs because they are so dry," Ryder said. "They contain no molecules of water, they're not oxidized and they contain no ferric iron. They're easy to distinguish from rocks on Earth."
One of the most famous, found on the Apollo 15 mission in 1971, was nicknamed the "genesis rock" because it was found to be nearly as old -- about 4 billion years -- as the moon itself.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...00522_MB_.html
gasii ceva super interesant... linku la pagina asta
Bun dar asta TOT nu demonstreaza ca ele vin direct de pe luna si nu de la poli. Demonstreaza ca exista niste roci de pe luna care pot fi studiate de publicul larg, am spus mai sus toate studiile privind originea, compozitia, aspect ,au fost efectuate de laboratoare si universitati americane care erau fondate de stata, institutii erau usor influentabile si puteau declara ca rocile nu au urme de intrare in atmosfera, datorita presiunii financiare din partea statului, fricos ca i s-ar putea descoperi manaria
"There are plenty of museums, including the Smithsonian and others, where members of the public can touch and examine rocks from the Moon," says McKay. "You can see the little meteoroid craters for yourself."
Fortunately not all of the evidence needs a degree in chemistry or geology to appreciate. An average person holding a Moon rock in his or her hand can plainly see that the specimen came from another world.
Apropo e chiar placut sa dezbat asta cu oricine si ar fi chiar plictisitor daca am fi de acord
PS: Incetam? ca nu ajungem niciunde
I love the nigger cock thrusting in my mouth. Cred ca incep la modul cel mai serios sa ma indoiesc de propria-mi heterosexualitate. once you go black, you never go back.
ok
Da' de ce sa incetati?? Acum, cand devenea mai interesant??? Continuati, baieti, mai aflam si noi, nestiutorii, cate ceva...Altfel, de ce e pus threadu' aici???
PS; ma bucur sa vad ca oamenii mai au interes si pt alte chestiii decat muzica, filme, sport si moda.
am vazut si eu filmul si nu prea stiu ce sa cred, sunt multe care se bat cap-in-cap poate au si ei dreptate, dar tinand cont ca au investit atatzia bani, de ce sa nu`l faca perfect filmul? oare nu aveau critici care sa le deschida ochii in legatura cu "defectele" de pelicula?
Life is dangerous, the one who lives may also die!
filmuletele de la prima aterizare bat legile fizicii , iar cei de la nasa raspund , chiar si in link'ul dat de yanya , cu 2-3 cuvinte . Si oricum , adevarul nu va iesii la iveala , daca a fost cea mai mare scamatorie a secolului , tocmai peste 100 de ani cand , asha cum e legea in state , se fac publice dosarele . eu zic ca atunci , ca o persoana care afla totul prin mass-media , si in anii 60 , vedeai si credeai doar ce vroiau ei sa iti arate ... multe se puteau masluii . abea acum oamenii iau la puricat filmele si constata chestii care nu se potrivesc ansamblului , si e logic sa se intrebe de ce asta si nu cum a zis newton ?
eniuei , eu sper intr'o aterizare , si un pas inainte pe alta planeta macar pana o sa mor eu
Servicii foto video Highlight Events Craiova
fotograf nunta craiova
uite cele 2 cuvinte (daca vreti va fac traducerea sau rezumatul) date in acel link:
The Great Moon Hoax
Moon rocks and common sense prove Apollo astronauts really did visit the Moon.
Listen to this story (requires RealPlayer)
February 23, 2001 -- Last week my phone rang. It was my mother ... and she was upset.
"Tony!" she exclaimed, "I just came from the coffee shop and there's an [adjective omitted] man down there who says NASA never landed on the Moon. Everyone was talking about it ... I just didn't know what to say!"
That last bit was hard to swallow, I thought. Mom's never at a loss for words.
But even more incredible was the controversy that swirled through her small-town diner and places like it across the country. After a long absence, the "Moon Hoax" was back.
Above: Astronaut Buzz Aldrin on the surface of the Moon in 1969. [more information]
All the buzz about the Moon began on February 15th when Fox television aired a program called Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon? Guests on the show argued that NASA technology in the 1960's wasn't up to the task of a real Moon landing. Instead, anxious to win the Space Race any way it could, NASA acted out the Apollo program in movie studios. Neil Armstrong's historic first steps on another world, the rollicking Moon Buggy rides, even Al Shepard's arcing golf shot over Fra Mauro-- it was all a fake!
Sign up for EXPRESS SCIENCE NEWS delivery
Fortunately the Soviets didn't think of the gag first. They could have filmed their own fake Moon landings and really embarrassed the free world.
Shows like Conspiracy Theory ought to be as tongue-in-cheek as they sound. Unfortunately, there was an earnest feel to the Fox broadcast, enough to make you wonder if the program's makers might have fallen under their own spell.
According to the show NASA was a blundering movie producer thirty years ago. For example, Conspiracy Theory pundits pointed out a seeming discrepancy in Apollo imagery: Pictures of astronauts transmitted from the Moon don't include stars in the dark lunar sky -- an obvious production error! What happened? Did NASA film-makers forget to turn on the constellations?
Most photographers already know the answer: It's difficult to capture something very bright and something else very dim on the same piece of film -- typical emulsions don't have enough "dynamic range." Astronauts striding across the bright lunar soil in their sunlit spacesuits were literally dazzling. Setting a camera with the proper exposure for a glaring spacesuit would naturally render background stars too faint to see.
Here's another one: Pictures of Apollo astronauts erecting a US flag on the Moon show the flag bending and rippling. How can that be? After all, there's no breeze on the Moon....
Not every waving flag needs a breeze -- at least not in space. When astronauts were planting the flagpole they rotated it back and forth to better penetrate the lunar soil (anyone who's set a blunt tent-post will know how this works). So of course the flag waved! Unfurling a piece of rolled-up cloth with stored angular momentum will naturally result in waves and ripples -- no breeze required!
Left: Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin deploy a U.S. flag on the Moon in 1969. [more]
The Fox documentary went on with plenty more specious points. You can find detailed rebuttals to each of them at BadAstronomy.com and the Moon Hoax web page. (These are independent sites, not sponsored by NASA.)
The best rebuttal to allegations of a "Moon Hoax," however, is common sense. Evidence that the Apollo program really happened is compelling: A dozen astronauts (laden with cameras) walked on the Moon between 1969 and 1972. Nine of them are still alive and can testify to their experience. They didn't return from the Moon empty-handed, either. Just as Columbus carried a few hundred natives back to Spain as evidence of his trip to the New World, Apollo astronauts brought 841 pounds of Moon rock home to Earth.
"Moon rocks are absolutely unique," says Dr. David McKay, Chief Scientist for Planetary Science and Exploration at NASA's Johnson Space Center (JSC). McKay is a member of the group that oversees the Lunar Sample Laboratory Facility at JSC where most of the Moon rocks are stored. "They differ from Earth rocks in many respects," he added.
"For example," explains Dr. Marc Norman, a lunar geologist at the University of Tasmania, "lunar samples have almost no water trapped in their crystal structure, and common substances such as clay minerals that are ubiquitous on Earth are totally absent in Moon rocks."
"We've found particles of fresh glass in Moon rocks that were produced by explosive volcanic activity and by meteorite impacts over 3 billion years ago," added Norman. "The presence of water on Earth rapidly breaks down such volcanic glass in only a few million years. These rocks must have come from the Moon!"
Right: A glass spherule (about 0.6 mm in diameter) produced by a meteorite impact into lunar soil. Features on the surface are glass splashes, welded mineral fragments, and microcraters produced by space weathering processes at the surface of the moon. SEM image by D. S. McKay (NASA Photo S71-48109).
Fortunately not all of the evidence needs a degree in chemistry or geology to appreciate. An average person holding a Moon rock in his or her hand can plainly see that the specimen came from another world.
"Apollo moon rocks are peppered with tiny craters from meteoroid impacts," explains McKay. This could only happen to rocks from a planet with little or no atmosphere... like the Moon.
Meteoroids are nearly-microscopic specks of comet dust that fly through space at speeds often exceeding 50,000 mph -- ten times faster than a speeding bullet. They pack a considerable punch, but they're also extremely fragile. Meteoroids that strike Earth's atmosphere disintegrate in the rarefied air above our stratosphere. (Every now and then on a dark night you can see one -- they're called meteors.) But the Moon doesn't have an atmosphere to protect it. The tiny space bullets can plow directly into Moon rocks, forming miniature and unmistakable craters.
"There are plenty of museums, including the Smithsonian and others, where members of the public can touch and examine rocks from the Moon," says McKay. "You can see the little meteoroid craters for yourself."
Right: Nick-named "Big Muley," this 11.7 kg Moon rock was the largest returned to Earth by Apollo astronauts. One side of Big Muley was peppered with meteoroid "zap pits." Below right: A close-up view of 1 mm diameter zap pits shows tiny craters lined with black glass surrounded by a white halo of shocked rock. [more]
Just as meteoroids constantly bombard the Moon so do cosmic rays, and they leave their fingerprints on Moon rocks, too. "There are isotopes in Moon rocks, isotopes we don't normally find on Earth, that were created by nuclear reactions with the highest-energy cosmic rays," says McKay. Earth is spared from such radiation by our protective atmosphere and magnetosphere.
Even if scientists wanted to make something like a Moon rock by, say, bombarding an Earth rock with high energy atomic nuclei, they couldn't. Earth's most powerful particle accelerators can't energize particles to match the most potent cosmic rays, which are themselves accelerated in supernova blastwaves and in the violent cores of galaxies.
Indeed, says McKay, faking a Moon rock well enough to hoodwink an international army of scientists might be more difficult than the Manhattan Project. "It would be easier to just go to the Moon and get one," he quipped.
And therein lies an original idea: Did NASA go to the Moon to collect props for a staged Moon landing? It's an interesting twist on the conspiracy theory that TV producers might consider for their next episode of the Moon Hoax.
"I have here in my office a 10-foot high stack of scientific books full of papers about the Apollo Moon rocks," added McKay. "Researchers in thousands of labs have examined Apollo Moon samples -- not a single paper challenges their origin! And these aren't all NASA employees, either. We've loaned samples to scientists in dozens of countries [who have no reason to cooperate in any hoax]."
Even Dr. Robert Park, Director of the Washington office of the American Physical Society and a noted critic of NASA's human space flight program, agrees with the space agency on this issue. "The body of physical evidence that humans did walk on the Moon is simply overwhelming."
"Fox should stick to making cartoons," agreed Marc Norman. "I'm a big fan of The Simpsons!"
Parents and Educators: Please visit Thursday's Classroom for lesson plans and activities related to the Moon Hoax.
SEND THIS STORY TO A FRIEND
Web Links
BadAstronomy.com - A point-by-point rebuttal of claims in Fox's Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon? (external site)
NASA's Moon Hoax -- This thorough site addresses recent and older claims that the Moon landings were faked (external site)
Comments on the FOX Moonlanding Hoax special -- from the University of Arizona's Jim Scotti.(external site)
JSC's Lunar Sample Laboratory Facility Tour -- see more pictures of Moon rocks in the Pristine Sample Laboratory Display Cabinet
Moon Rocks -- lots of Moon Rock links from NASA Spacelink
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Join our growing list of subscribers - sign up for our express news delivery and you will receive a mail message every time we post a new story!!!
MoreHeadlines
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Science and Technology Directorate at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center sponsors the Science@NASA web sites. The mission of Science@NASA is to help the public understand how exciting NASA research is and to help NASA scientists fulfill their outreach responsibilities.
For lesson plans and educational activities related to breaking science news, please visit Thursday's Classroom Author: Dr. Tony Phillips
Production Editor: Dr. Tony Phillips
Curator: Bryan Walls
Media Relations: Steve Roy
Responsible NASA official: Ron Koczor
eu NU cred ca au ajuns americanii pe luna!!!
pana si ei au recunoscut ca azi o masina obisnuita are mai multa tehnologie pe ea decat a avut naveta spatiala ce "i-a dus" pe Luna!
poate au ajuns, mai tarziu, dar toata parada la inceput a fost un raspuns pt rusi care lansasera un satelit artificial, trebuia sa iasa si americanii la rampa cu ceva nu?!
NU AVEAU TEHNOLOGIA NECESARA!
NU iti trebuie caclculator performant ca sa ajungi pe luna!!! Iti trebuie:eu NU cred ca au ajuns americanii pe luna!!!
pana si ei au recunoscut ca azi o masina obisnuita are mai multa tehnologie pe ea decat a avut naveta spatiala ce "i-a dus" pe Luna!
poate au ajuns, mai tarziu, dar toata parada la inceput a fost un raspuns pt rusi care lansasera un satelit artificial, trebuia sa iasa si americanii la rampa cu ceva nu?!
NU AVEAU TEHNOLOGIA NECESARA!
-Sistem de propulsie ffff puternic (ma imult decit va puteti imagina )
-Sistem de comanda: echipamente si sisteme hidraulice si pneumatice
-Sistem de navigatie: echipamente si sisteme giroscopice
-multe cunostinte de aerodinamica, mecanica, rezistenta materialeleor+ termoidinamica si tehnologia materialelor ptr a suprafietui reintrarii in atm si a zbura in sigurantza.
Cit despre puterea decalcul necesara: e de ajuns un ca**t de calculator de buzunar
Deci crede-ma aveau tehnologia necesara!!!!
Iata cateva variante:
Descarcati varianta potrivita:
Raspunde cu citat
