Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 1,781 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 610,413
Pageviews Today: 779,837Threads Today: 140Posts Today: 2,620
06:38 AM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax

 
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 11980848
Australia
03/07/2012 12:46 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
How do we find out about this 'win 50000 euros' Hal, ive just searched for some information about it and can not find an actual link to any site associated with it.. actually one thing did come up in google,.. one of your own posts in another moon hoax thread saying you could win 50000 euros for proving it.. lmmfao..

bsflag so link or it didnt happen
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 11980848
Australia
03/07/2012 12:58 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
Does the Earth as shot from the Moon appear to be too small in comparison to the Moon from the Earth?

Anyone?
 Quoting: Spittin'Cesium


Here's what the moon looks like when photographed from earth using a Hasselblad and an 80mm lens:
[link to www.usefilm.com]
Here's what the earth looks like when photographed from the moon using a Hasselblad with an 80mm lens:
[link to i319.photobucket.com]
In short, no.
 Quoting: Astromut


In the interests of research, i was wondering if you could please find me a photo of the moon taken with a 60mm wide angle lens please Astro.. ive tried to find one myself, however i seem to come up blank.. i understand this is kind of in your field so when in rome...
nomuse (not logged in)
User ID: 2380183
United States
03/07/2012 01:05 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
Allow me to repeat, my expertise is in DIGITAL IMAGE MANIPULATION. I worked in a Kodak photo lab digitally restoring customer's old photos that had been badly damaged. I've had extensive experience in every kind of digital image manipulation/enhancement technique under the sun.
 Quoting: BrandonD


Sorry -- got you confused with one of the AC's from Canada. I had to go back forty pages to make sure. There are at least three people in this thread claiming professional experience in photography.

So I withdraw any questions to you on lighting for film or still photography, or calculation of lenses, depth of field, field of view.



Nowhere in my job description was I required to calculate distances, etc. However, along the course of my career I've learned quite a bit about lighting and how it affects different surfaces. Add to this my experience in video game design with 3D modeling software such as Blender, which is excellent for creating simulated environments with various types of surfaces and lighting.

All of this background is what led me to first notice the anomalies in the photos.

You've attempted to confuse and intimidate with a barrage of technical garbage, but I can boil ALL of your jargon down to one sentence:
 Quoting: BrandonD


Garbage? That sounds suspiciously like you are accusing me of techno-gibberish in order to befuddle.

Do you think I brought up Lambert surfaces because it was a cool-sounding technical term? Or are you willing to accept that I've not only used a variety of 3d rendering packages, I have also browsed books on programming for 3d rendering -- which go into the math extensively. I used to have a nice book by John Carmack drifting around (I gave it away to someone who needed it more.)



"There are no anomalies in the image, it looks completely normal."

This is just a lie, there ARE anomalies in the image and it does NOT look completely normal. And until you actually explain the anomalies instead of DISREGARDING them, these questions will keep coming up AGAIN and AGAIN.
 Quoting: BrandonD


Then show them. Be specific. I don't accept "I'm an expert, trust me" any more than anyone else does.
nomuse (not logged in)
User ID: 2380183
United States
03/07/2012 01:09 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
Just before I go: I notice none of the believer crowd here has yet addressed any of the points I've made. Wonder why?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 11390334


"Any?"

I think you meant "Some." At the rate new claims have been popping up on this thread (well, new posts about old retreads!) some are bound to get lost.
nomuse (not logged in)
User ID: 2380183
United States
03/07/2012 01:11 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
A question for someone with some photography experience, especially in the area of exposure.

Ive read that the hasselbald camera didnt have automatic exposure settings and that this had to be done manually.

I think (correct if wrong) someone here on this thread a while back said that Nasa had worked out the exposure time needed before they left and that the astronauts had some kind of instructions on how long to have the shutter open to get the right amount of exposure for the particular time of day depending on where the sun was, if this is correct, does anyone know where this information is stored in the nasa archives..

Could someone who has knowledge of exposure give me some education on the process of manually making sure exposure is correct... thanks..
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 11980848


Just talking about how it was done on Earth, but one can extrapolate the same method for the moon. The light value of a scene lit by full sunlight on a clear day is fairly constant. Once that constant is known, various combinations of aperture and shutter speeds (depending on speed of emulsion) can be worked out to give proper exposure.

If one reduces the shutter speed, the aperture must be enlarged accordingly, to give proper exposure. All the rolls of consumer film had those little scales of aperture and shutter speed combinations to use in different conditions, in case one had no meter or didn't know what to do to make a manual exposure.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 11390334


According to the guide on the magazine, the camera was never moved off of 1/250. Then they switched between 5.6 and 8.0 depending on upsun or downsun. There's a very nice picture of the exposure chart, which itself contains a cute little compass with the f stops on it.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 11390334
Australia
03/07/2012 01:18 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
This is just a lie, there ARE anomalies in the image and it does NOT look completely normal. And until you actually explain the anomalies instead of DISREGARDING them, these questions will keep coming up AGAIN and AGAIN.
 Quoting: BrandonD

Are you willing to put your money where your rather large mouth is?

Go hire a certified expert, the kind that testifies in court, and have a professional analysis done.

Than you will, in fact, have EVIDENCE, not just the opinion of some anonymous self-proclaimed expert on the internet.
And it pays for itself, considering that the award for proving fakery is 50,000 EURO.
And there will be book deals, Larry King interviews, and what-nots.
You can be rich and famous, if you are not only right, but can PROOF you are right.

Just shouting: "I'm right" of course does not in fact proof anything.
book

Just before I go: I notice none of the believer crowd here has yet addressed any of the points I've made. Wonder why?
 Quoting: Austrailian Coward 11390334

'Cause were tired of your Gish Gallop?

You haven't been able to proof a single claim you made.
Aren't you tired?
book
 Quoting: Halcyon Dayz, FCD


Lol, what a copout. I doubt you'd know how to reply constructively anyway. So I can just ignore you then?

Yep.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 11980848
Australia
03/07/2012 01:18 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
There have been many links posted here on this thread, and I truly believe the truth, and lie is within two photographs, both of which I wont discuss here, but would ask any interested person (please) to direct me to the most high resolution pictures of these particular two available.

Which are:

[link to www.hq.nasa.gov]

[link to www.hq.nasa.gov]

These two pictures alone prove in my opinion, NASA is lying.

PS: As a postscript has anyone, ever in researching anything, ever encountered so many 404 errors previously? Of which has enhanced my suspicion, that data is being 'pulled'. To quote a ...well we all who know who he was......and why!
 Quoting: ZIPUX


Hi Zipux, I was wondering, though you mentioned not discussing it here, if you could change your mind on that and tell me what your thoughts on these two photos are.

Ive referenced them both in previous posts yet none of our resident pro moon experts have touched either one, the footpad of the LM with the photographs sitting on it just blows my mind and i dont even know how to process that as i look at it.

I even linked a detailed copy of the one with the footprints showing exactly what i thought could be seen as a work boot print (yes orginally i said sneaker/boot but on further research into teads and toe arcs of these two options, ive settled on work boot) Only one poster chimed in and suggested it might be a rock.. im fairly confident its not a rock

here is the link to the pic with the questionable print pointed out if you care to view it or reference it

[link to i496.photobucket.com]
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 11980848


That same poster also said it could be a partial twisted print which would negate any attempt to measure the arc or match it up to a full print. It was also possible it was an impression from a tool or something else they were carrying. They suggest you check other photos in the sequence and the video taken at the same time. How convenient that you ignored that.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 12056455


Well if you look at my photobucket shot, you can see the arc can be measured and it is indeed complete and the width of the print is measurably smaller than the moon boot..

here is the before and after shots since you made such a fuss about it..

[link to www.hq.nasa.gov]

[link to www.hq.nasa.gov]
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 11390334
Australia
03/07/2012 01:22 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
Just before I go: I notice none of the believer crowd here has yet addressed any of the points I've made. Wonder why?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 11390334


"Any?"

I think you meant "Some." At the rate new claims have been popping up on this thread (well, new posts about old retreads!) some are bound to get lost.
 Quoting: nomuse (not logged in) 2380183


Sidestepping the issue. I see. You can't address them, that's quite obvious. Lol
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 11980848
Australia
03/07/2012 01:25 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
A question for someone with some photography experience, especially in the area of exposure.

Ive read that the hasselbald camera didnt have automatic exposure settings and that this had to be done manually.

I think (correct if wrong) someone here on this thread a while back said that Nasa had worked out the exposure time needed before they left and that the astronauts had some kind of instructions on how long to have the shutter open to get the right amount of exposure for the particular time of day depending on where the sun was, if this is correct, does anyone know where this information is stored in the nasa archives..

Could someone who has knowledge of exposure give me some education on the process of manually making sure exposure is correct... thanks..
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 11980848


Just talking about how it was done on Earth, but one can extrapolate the same method for the moon. The light value of a scene lit by full sunlight on a clear day is fairly constant. Once that constant is known, various combinations of aperture and shutter speeds (depending on speed of emulsion) can be worked out to give proper exposure.

If one reduces the shutter speed, the aperture must be enlarged accordingly, to give proper exposure. All the rolls of consumer film had those little scales of aperture and shutter speed combinations to use in different conditions, in case one had no meter or didn't know what to do to make a manual exposure.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 11390334


According to the guide on the magazine, the camera was never moved off of 1/250. Then they switched between 5.6 and 8.0 depending on upsun or downsun. There's a very nice picture of the exposure chart, which itself contains a cute little compass with the f stops on it.
 Quoting: nomuse (not logged in) 2380183


how did they switch between 6.5 and 8.0 nomuse? Ive been looking at the pics of the camera, is that what the numbers around the outside of the lens are?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 11390334
Australia
03/07/2012 01:30 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
A question for someone with some photography experience, especially in the area of exposure.

Ive read that the hasselbald camera didnt have automatic exposure settings and that this had to be done manually.

I think (correct if wrong) someone here on this thread a while back said that Nasa had worked out the exposure time needed before they left and that the astronauts had some kind of instructions on how long to have the shutter open to get the right amount of exposure for the particular time of day depending on where the sun was, if this is correct, does anyone know where this information is stored in the nasa archives..

Could someone who has knowledge of exposure give me some education on the process of manually making sure exposure is correct... thanks..
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 11980848


Just talking about how it was done on Earth, but one can extrapolate the same method for the moon. The light value of a scene lit by full sunlight on a clear day is fairly constant. Once that constant is known, various combinations of aperture and shutter speeds (depending on speed of emulsion) can be worked out to give proper exposure.

If one reduces the shutter speed, the aperture must be enlarged accordingly, to give proper exposure. All the rolls of consumer film had those little scales of aperture and shutter speed combinations to use in different conditions, in case one had no meter or didn't know what to do to make a manual exposure.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 11390334


According to the guide on the magazine, the camera was never moved off of 1/250. Then they switched between 5.6 and 8.0 depending on upsun or downsun. There's a very nice picture of the exposure chart, which itself contains a cute little compass with the f stops on it.
 Quoting: nomuse (not logged in) 2380183


What was the ASA/ISO of the film being used?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 11390334
Australia
03/07/2012 01:32 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
Don't worry, it must have been around 160ASA.
nomuse (not logged in)
User ID: 2380183
United States
03/07/2012 02:06 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
Just before I go: I notice none of the believer crowd here has yet addressed any of the points I've made. Wonder why?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 11390334


"Any?"

I think you meant "Some." At the rate new claims have been popping up on this thread (well, new posts about old retreads!) some are bound to get lost.
 Quoting: nomuse (not logged in) 2380183


Sidestepping the issue. I see. You can't address them, that's quite obvious. Lol
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 11390334


WHAT points?

You can spare the time to get all huffy, but you can't spare the time to re-post, or even synopsize?

I just went back two pages and I'm not grasping which point or points you think absolutely has to be addressed.
nomuse (not logged in)
User ID: 2380183
United States
03/07/2012 02:09 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
A question for someone with some photography experience, especially in the area of exposure.

Ive read that the hasselbald camera didnt have automatic exposure settings and that this had to be done manually.

I think (correct if wrong) someone here on this thread a while back said that Nasa had worked out the exposure time needed before they left and that the astronauts had some kind of instructions on how long to have the shutter open to get the right amount of exposure for the particular time of day depending on where the sun was, if this is correct, does anyone know where this information is stored in the nasa archives..

Could someone who has knowledge of exposure give me some education on the process of manually making sure exposure is correct... thanks..
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 11980848


Just talking about how it was done on Earth, but one can extrapolate the same method for the moon. The light value of a scene lit by full sunlight on a clear day is fairly constant. Once that constant is known, various combinations of aperture and shutter speeds (depending on speed of emulsion) can be worked out to give proper exposure.

If one reduces the shutter speed, the aperture must be enlarged accordingly, to give proper exposure. All the rolls of consumer film had those little scales of aperture and shutter speed combinations to use in different conditions, in case one had no meter or didn't know what to do to make a manual exposure.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 11390334


According to the guide on the magazine, the camera was never moved off of 1/250. Then they switched between 5.6 and 8.0 depending on upsun or downsun. There's a very nice picture of the exposure chart, which itself contains a cute little compass with the f stops on it.
 Quoting: nomuse (not logged in) 2380183


how did they switch between 6.5 and 8.0 nomuse? Ive been looking at the pics of the camera, is that what the numbers around the outside of the lens are?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 11980848


I don't know -- I'm not an expert on 1970's still cameras. I barely remember what the f ring looked like on my beloved old Minolta SLR.

All I can say is there is reference to a "tab" being added to make it easier to manipulate.
nomuse (not logged in)
User ID: 2380183
United States
03/07/2012 02:12 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
A question for someone with some photography experience, especially in the area of exposure.

Ive read that the hasselbald camera didnt have automatic exposure settings and that this had to be done manually.

I think (correct if wrong) someone here on this thread a while back said that Nasa had worked out the exposure time needed before they left and that the astronauts had some kind of instructions on how long to have the shutter open to get the right amount of exposure for the particular time of day depending on where the sun was, if this is correct, does anyone know where this information is stored in the nasa archives..

Could someone who has knowledge of exposure give me some education on the process of manually making sure exposure is correct... thanks..
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 11980848


Just talking about how it was done on Earth, but one can extrapolate the same method for the moon. The light value of a scene lit by full sunlight on a clear day is fairly constant. Once that constant is known, various combinations of aperture and shutter speeds (depending on speed of emulsion) can be worked out to give proper exposure.

If one reduces the shutter speed, the aperture must be enlarged accordingly, to give proper exposure. All the rolls of consumer film had those little scales of aperture and shutter speed combinations to use in different conditions, in case one had no meter or didn't know what to do to make a manual exposure.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 11390334


According to the guide on the magazine, the camera was never moved off of 1/250. Then they switched between 5.6 and 8.0 depending on upsun or downsun. There's a very nice picture of the exposure chart, which itself contains a cute little compass with the f stops on it.
 Quoting: nomuse (not logged in) 2380183


What was the ASA/ISO of the film being used?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 11390334


I don't know. I read part of a pdf but the films listed were for all missions, not just Apollo surface use.

I am not the NASA PAO. Why are you asking me these things?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 11980848
Australia
03/07/2012 02:30 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
...


Just talking about how it was done on Earth, but one can extrapolate the same method for the moon. The light value of a scene lit by full sunlight on a clear day is fairly constant. Once that constant is known, various combinations of aperture and shutter speeds (depending on speed of emulsion) can be worked out to give proper exposure.

If one reduces the shutter speed, the aperture must be enlarged accordingly, to give proper exposure. All the rolls of consumer film had those little scales of aperture and shutter speed combinations to use in different conditions, in case one had no meter or didn't know what to do to make a manual exposure.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 11390334


According to the guide on the magazine, the camera was never moved off of 1/250. Then they switched between 5.6 and 8.0 depending on upsun or downsun. There's a very nice picture of the exposure chart, which itself contains a cute little compass with the f stops on it.
 Quoting: nomuse (not logged in) 2380183


how did they switch between 6.5 and 8.0 nomuse? Ive been looking at the pics of the camera, is that what the numbers around the outside of the lens are?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 11980848


I don't know -- I'm not an expert on 1970's still cameras. I barely remember what the f ring looked like on my beloved old Minolta SLR.

All I can say is there is reference to a "tab" being added to make it easier to manipulate.
 Quoting: nomuse (not logged in) 2380183


Ok thanks... maybe Astro will know..
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 11980848
Australia
03/07/2012 02:33 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
There have been many links posted here on this thread, and I truly believe the truth, and lie is within two photographs, both of which I wont discuss here, but would ask any interested person (please) to direct me to the most high resolution pictures of these particular two available.

Which are:

[link to www.hq.nasa.gov]

[link to www.hq.nasa.gov]

These two pictures alone prove in my opinion, NASA is lying.

PS: As a postscript has anyone, ever in researching anything, ever encountered so many 404 errors previously? Of which has enhanced my suspicion, that data is being 'pulled'. To quote a ...well we all who know who he was......and why!
 Quoting: ZIPUX


Hi Zipux, I was wondering, though you mentioned not discussing it here, if you could change your mind on that and tell me what your thoughts on these two photos are.

Ive referenced them both in previous posts yet none of our resident pro moon experts have touched either one, the footpad of the LM with the photographs sitting on it just blows my mind and i dont even know how to process that as i look at it.

I even linked a detailed copy of the one with the footprints showing exactly what i thought could be seen as a work boot print (yes orginally i said sneaker/boot but on further research into teads and toe arcs of these two options, ive settled on work boot) Only one poster chimed in and suggested it might be a rock.. im fairly confident its not a rock

here is the link to the pic with the questionable print pointed out if you care to view it or reference it

[link to i496.photobucket.com]
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 11980848


before and after shots included.. fyi.. of course i checked the before and afters...

[link to www.hq.nasa.gov]

[link to www.hq.nasa.gov]
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 11980848
Australia
03/07/2012 02:40 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
Nomuse, while you are online, i have a quick clairfication about the flight path and the van allen belts.. i believe it was you that said they avoided them on their flight path, which from the donut shape of them basically means they left earth orbit from the south pole based on the flat drawing of it i was able to find.. however im looking at apollo 11 photos of the earth and if they are real, they went right the way around the earth.. now wouldnt this take them right through the middle of the most deadliest radiation bands?.. and since they extend over 50,000 kms out into space, it would be pretty hard to avoid them unless you kinda flew down and then back up toward the moon.. and if thats the case how did they know when to "dip" back up to the moon so to speak..

I know you said they travelled through a relatively thin part of the belt but what about the 2nd belt, and how did they know how to plot through that?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 529896
Australia
03/07/2012 02:50 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
The Apollo Program cost $25 Billion in 1969 dollars, that would be over $150 Billion in today's dollars. NASA's budget this year is $17 billion. You're right. They don't have the money to go back.
 Quoting: curlytail2000


im sure the government has been using the tax money to pay for secret trips, to go on vacation around space. money don't mean shit to the higher ups, if they want to go, they will go
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 6251259


Yes and my first computer had 3MB of RAM and cost $2,000, with the advances in technology what they used to get to the moon should be dirt cheap by now. So using that information a program that cost $250 Billion should now be a breeze at $2.5Billion.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 11980848
Australia
03/07/2012 03:02 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
The Apollo Program cost $25 Billion in 1969 dollars, that would be over $150 Billion in today's dollars. NASA's budget this year is $17 billion. You're right. They don't have the money to go back.
 Quoting: curlytail2000


im sure the government has been using the tax money to pay for secret trips, to go on vacation around space. money don't mean shit to the higher ups, if they want to go, they will go
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 6251259


Yes and my first computer had 3MB of RAM and cost $2,000, with the advances in technology what they used to get to the moon should be dirt cheap by now. So using that information a program that cost $250 Billion should now be a breeze at $2.5Billion.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 529896


Usually, the more you repeat something, the cheaper it gets, not more expensive..
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 3003132
United Kingdom
03/07/2012 05:15 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
NASA 2012 could have been , solar powered , remote control rovers are parked on hills overlooking the apollo landing sites with HD webcams streaming 24/7 for scientfic and historic value ????

Not even one webcam anywhere close = NASA FAIL !!!
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 8597527
United States
03/07/2012 06:45 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
Welcome to Shill-City everyone!

sockpuppetsockpuppetsockpuppet

moshpit



cruise
cruise
cruise
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 8597527
United States
03/07/2012 06:48 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
NASA 2012 could have been , solar powered , remote control rovers are parked on hills overlooking the apollo landing sites with HD webcams streaming 24/7 for scientfic and historic value ????

Not even one webcam anywhere close = NASA FAIL !!!
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 3003132


What do you mean? We have those blurry, distant, Google-Earth quality LRO photographs! Not bad for having 40 years to get a peak at the "landing site" huh?

cruisecruisecruise
Halcyon Dayz, FCD
Contrarian's Contrarian

User ID: 11757475
Netherlands
03/07/2012 08:05 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
How do we find out about this 'win 50000 euros' Hal, ive just searched for some information about it and can not find an actual link to any site associated with it.. actually one thing did come up in google,.. one of your own posts in another moon hoax thread saying you could win 50000 euros for proving it.. lmmfao..
 Quoting: Austraulian Coward 11980848

Why bother?
What makes you think you'll be the one that will proof the Massive EvilGubmint™ Conspiracy when thousands have failed over the decades?
You? The one who thinks that dust falls because it is stopped by the air?
You can't even find an obscure website.

But for anyone else: [link to www.mondlandung.net]

bsflag so link or it didnt happen
 Quoting: Austraulian Coward 11980848

Since you already disbelieve so many real things, why would I care that you disbelieve one more?

'Cause were tired of your Gish Gallop?
book
 Quoting: Halcyon Dayz, FCD

Lol, what a copout. I doubt you'd know how to reply constructively anyway.
 Quoting: Australian Coward 11390334

Since you demonstrated a cognitive bias the size of Antarctica why should I waste my breath?
If you wanted to get educated you'd had gone to an educational site.
You came here to find confirmation of your preconceived notions.
You're not actually listening to the constructive comments anyway.

Nobody owns you anything.
You are responsible for your education.
You are responsible for the validity of your claims.

So I can just ignore you then?
 Quoting: Australian Coward 11390334

As if you didn't already.

Yes and my first computer had 3MB of RAM and cost $2,000, with the advances in technology what they used to get to the moon should be dirt cheap by now. So using that information a program that cost $250 Billion should now be a breeze at $2.5Billion.
 Quoting: Australian Coward 529896

So how many pound-force of rocket thrust does a gigabyte of RAM produce?

Nice example of wild speculation based on complete ignorance, we should make you honorary Hoaxie of the Month
book
Hatred is a cancer upon the world.
It rots the mind and blackens the heart.


Hi! My name is Halcyon Dayz and I'm addicted to morans.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 12056455
United States
03/07/2012 08:07 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
There have been many links posted here on this thread, and I truly believe the truth, and lie is within two photographs, both of which I wont discuss here, but would ask any interested person (please) to direct me to the most high resolution pictures of these particular two available.

Which are:

[link to www.hq.nasa.gov]

[link to www.hq.nasa.gov]

These two pictures alone prove in my opinion, NASA is lying.

PS: As a postscript has anyone, ever in researching anything, ever encountered so many 404 errors previously? Of which has enhanced my suspicion, that data is being 'pulled'. To quote a ...well we all who know who he was......and why!
 Quoting: ZIPUX


Hi Zipux, I was wondering, though you mentioned not discussing it here, if you could change your mind on that and tell me what your thoughts on these two photos are.

Ive referenced them both in previous posts yet none of our resident pro moon experts have touched either one, the footpad of the LM with the photographs sitting on it just blows my mind and i dont even know how to process that as i look at it.

I even linked a detailed copy of the one with the footprints showing exactly what i thought could be seen as a work boot print (yes orginally i said sneaker/boot but on further research into teads and toe arcs of these two options, ive settled on work boot) Only one poster chimed in and suggested it might be a rock.. im fairly confident its not a rock

here is the link to the pic with the questionable print pointed out if you care to view it or reference it

[link to i496.photobucket.com]
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 11980848


That same poster also said it could be a partial twisted print which would negate any attempt to measure the arc or match it up to a full print. It was also possible it was an impression from a tool or something else they were carrying. They suggest you check other photos in the sequence and the video taken at the same time. How convenient that you ignored that.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 12056455


Well if you look at my photobucket shot, you can see the arc can be measured and it is indeed complete and the width of the print is measurably smaller than the moon boot..

here is the before and after shots since you made such a fuss about it..

[link to www.hq.nasa.gov]

[link to www.hq.nasa.gov]
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 11980848


What part of twisted and distorted do you not understand? What part of could be an impression from something else they had do you not understand (or just want to ignore)?
How do you know the terrain is the same in the two prints you are trying to compare? The upper print with the supposedly longer arc appears to be tilted toward the camera while the lower print appears to be tilted away. Have you bothered to consider how that might affect your measurements?

Funny how you think just one pic on either side is sufficient.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 12056455
United States
03/07/2012 08:08 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
The Apollo Program cost $25 Billion in 1969 dollars, that would be over $150 Billion in today's dollars. NASA's budget this year is $17 billion. You're right. They don't have the money to go back.
 Quoting: curlytail2000


im sure the government has been using the tax money to pay for secret trips, to go on vacation around space. money don't mean shit to the higher ups, if they want to go, they will go
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 6251259


Yes and my first computer had 3MB of RAM and cost $2,000, with the advances in technology what they used to get to the moon should be dirt cheap by now. So using that information a program that cost $250 Billion should now be a breeze at $2.5Billion.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 529896


Sure computers are cheaper but that was only a small part of the expense of Apollo. Most of the calculations were done on large mainframes or sliderules anyway. The Apollo Guidance Computer was used for guidance (acted on number fed into it) and didn't really do heavy calculations.
Rocket tech is largely the same and still expensive as hell.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 12056455
United States
03/07/2012 08:10 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax



 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 8597527


What's supposed to be so special about one astronaut obviouslly helping the other up? Do you not see the one that has fallen with his arm on the other?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 6028794
Sweden
03/07/2012 08:59 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax



 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 8597527


What's supposed to be so special about one astronaut obviouslly helping the other up? Do you not see the one that has fallen with his arm on the other?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 12056455


well the strange thing In the first part of the vid,

IS that if you note the guy that has tripped
note how his left leg/knee and ass.. is lifted up and slightly slightly away
from the other "A-nut"

did they have big magnets push them slightly away from each other ;)

or maybe that must be gods helping hand then or possible invisible aliens helping out ;) LOL
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 8597527
United States
03/07/2012 09:09 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax



 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 8597527


What's supposed to be so special about one astronaut obviouslly helping the other up? Do you not see the one that has fallen with his arm on the other?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 12056455


I'll help you with some more naturalistic responses. If you want to shill for Nasa, this is important.

Here's an example:

"Hey, that does look kinda weird. I've never seen anyone try and stand up while simultaneously lifting one leg in the air. But maybe there's a reason for it?"


or...


"Hey, that does look kinda weird. The standing astronaut does not seem to be burdened even slightly by the fallen astronaut's weight. But maybe there's a reason for it."

or...

"Hey, that does look kinda weird. The astronauts mass appears to move upwards ahead of his leg. And instead of his foot pushing off the ground, his toes actually drag forward as he's righting himself. But maybe there is a reason for it."




See? This way you come across as a regular person. Then you can spam all sorts of scientific facts that show how there is nothing abnormal about this video.

Remember, even though the Astronaut Suit's weight burdens them from jumping high, it can become exceedingly light and burden-free if you need it to corroborate your specific argument in defense of Nasa. It's the power of science!



However, if you just come out of the gate and say "LOOKS NORMAL TO ME, DUM DEE DUM" Then you just reveal yourself as a shill or total idiot.

Hope that helped!

cruise
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 8597527
United States
03/07/2012 10:56 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
moshpit
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 11661611
Chile
03/07/2012 11:34 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
This video is Excellent !!
It gave me a rare opportunity to understand the ingenuity of the whole operation . The Lunar Rover is a tremendous piece of engineering ( 8 million a piece) Theres also a close view on how hole drillers to collect data worked and stuff like that.
Astronauts seemed confident and well trained.

[link to www.youtube.com]

Worth your time !!

News