Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax

they never went .it was a lie .

"optimum judgment"

I guess irony isn't lost on you then...

Actually, the idea that it is primarily visible in the infrared is kinda cool... making the X-ites a sort of Kardashev Class I civilization for their present distance.

Except the idea that it is +2 in infrared would make it more of a power generator. Characterize it then as the Stealth Death Star; massive power generation behind a black light-absorbing shell.

Maybe they only run their generators on state occasions, tho, which is why every long-wave astronomer isn't squawking about it?

Let's give him the benefit of doubt. Maybe the space bar is broken on his computer.

And the caps key.


Oh, never mind. I'm having trouble believing this is someone capable of critiquing the work of actual bona-fide "rocket scientists."

Golden-Vizor-Uppercut!

Vizor Uppercut!

Vizor,Vizor,Vizor Uppercut!

'I Absol-fuckin-lutely am standing on the Fuckin' Moon..'



: )

Last Edited by Spittin'Cesium on 04/10/2012 06:26 PM

Interesting observation - Aldrin is backlit, whereas the prominent rock in the background is front-lit, suggesting a localized light source between the two:

[link to images.nationalgeographic.com]

Those first photos are the most telling, the later ones seem to be much more authentic. So either we did actually go to the moon at a later date, or fakery techniques improved.

Shadow analysis fail.

hahaha
and who would that be?

anybody can claim anything on this stupid medium called the internet.

bona fide rocket scientists?
I thought the NAZI Werner Von Braun was one and he said it was essentially impossible to fly to the Moon based on what he knew....
But then his first real job in the USA was hooking up with Walt Disney to make cartoons suggesting it was possible to go the Moon...because if we can go the moon, aLIEns and UFOs can fly here...SEEDS need to be planted...for the (first born) generations to come.

Funny how the ignorant NASA NAZI plebes who show up to defend the honor of NASA are usually silent when discussions veer into rarely discussed associations, like what happens when you detonate bombs in the Van Allen Belts?

Or why the Van Allen Belts should be renamed after the fella who suggested they were there?

Van Allen only suggested a Geiger counter be put on board the satellite.

Or why we cannot get a decent HI-RES image of ROVER sitting on the Moon's surface, if the technology to deliver a HI-RES image of an object 3 inches square from 100 miles up has been available since the mid 1960s?????

STFU NASA stooges you are GROUNDED based on facts.

Like the fact is that NO HUMAN has ever gone into deep space, beyond 400-500 miles from Earth.

And when the ignorant twats show up to defend their NAZI masters I have another question for them.

What is the bigger deal here, getting sheeple to believe Jesus walked on water, Man walked on the Moon, or using the MOON to control the weather on Earth?

patri-idiots believe anything Uncle Sam tells em'

namaste

Last Edited by Raphael on 04/15/2012 06:05 AM

Three words. Again.

Van. Allen. Belt.

Man has never set foot on the moon.

Trust me.

That's why we demand evidence.


Londoners will tell you his rockets worked quite well.



Why do you lie?


His first job in the US was designing ballistic missiles for the US Army.


Wut.


Since bombs have been detonated in the VABs we know what happens when you do that.
What is the relevance of a DoD experiment to Apollo?


That's even less relevant.


Why do you lie?


With a spysat class satellite.
What would be the rational to send such a device into lunar orbit?


Which facts?


What would be the rational for going there?


Wut.


Hoaxies believe everything conspiracy mongers tell them.

Simple fact is you make numerous claims not supported by any evidence.

NASA has made a claim supported by a humongous amount of evidence.

End of story.

For once come with a fresh argument, you guys are getting boring.

Shadow analysis success.

(See how easy and lazy that is to do?)

The moon landing never happened.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
And we be shillin'...

I shill it to the east, I shill it to the west,
I shill it to the website that I love the best.
I be shillin'.

Point one of those super power telescopes at the moon landing site and show me!

And just what would you expect to see? Did you know that a telescope on Earth or in Earth orbit would have to be over 200 feet across to even BEGIN to see the artifacts left on the Moon? Try looking up the Dawes limit, educate yourself, and see why your question was crap.

Educate?? We are talking about Moon-hoax believers here. Ignorance is the basic requirement to be a fully fledged hoaxie. That and the ability to be rude and abusive when confronted with facts.

"The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense." -- Dr. James Van Allen

Anonymous Coward 14435734 why should I trust you when you seem to be telling lies?

If you are just misinformed, then you can try and LEARN more about the subject matter that you have chosen to discuss.

[link to www.clavius.org]

I never said "Trust me, I'm a rocket scientist." I have always said "Here is reality to the best of my understanding, here are independent sources where you can read more, here are experiments you can do yourself."



No. If you read any biographies, you learn he was always hoping to get to the Moon. He went to the US in part because he thought they had a better chance of letting him build his moon rocket.

You may be remembering -- because the hoax believers love to quote it -- Von Braun's original intent, which was single stage to Moon. Which would have been a huge rocket, probably un-buildable at the time of Apollo.

Not that Von Braun thought even that scheme was impossible.





If you say so.





Another claim without substantiation. Pot, meet kettle.





Says who?

Oddly enough, I was in a completely different discussion last week (about life on Earth ten years after an all-out nuclear war) and I brought up Starfish Prime.

I will admit I rarely follow the hoax believers into their efforts at pop psychology or the fringes of their extended political conspiracies. I follow the science. The rest of it simply doesn't interest me.




Doctor Van Allen did a great deal more work than that.




You've confused "can't" with "haven't." The performance of a spysat is dependent on the optical chain. Optics don't go through Moore's Law -- the basic principles are the same as they were in 1700. Which means, in short, you need a honking big lens in order to see something with a very small angular diameter, and you need a honking big satellite to put that lens in, and we haven't had a heavy lifter to put such a spacecraft in lunar orbit since Skylab was launched and the Saturn V retired.

But the specifics of your comment intrigue me. "Hi Res" is meaningless in the context of your sentence, so I have to assume what you mean is an optical resolution of 3 inches to the pixel. That is, I believe, within the range of some systems around Earth today. Or at least it is arguable without having to drag in suppositions of hidden super-science!

As a point of reference, the resolution of later satellites in the Corona series (1959 to 1972) was 1.8 METERS per pixel. So, no...the resolution you require was not around in the 60's.

In any case. The Lunar Rover's frame is about 10 feet long. At 3 inches per pixel, it would extend 40 pixels. Take a look at the "Bump" icon that gets posted in these threads. The LRV, in the image you are demanding, would roughly occupy the word "UMP" on that icon.

I fail to see how that would be a compelling proof of anything. Or of any particular scientific interest.




It's a well-used factino but not that compelling. It is a bit like claiming a sprinter isn't Olympic class because she doesn't run far enough, or that a cruise liner isn't seaworthy because it often exceeds the docking capability of its ports of call.

What is a more accurate measure is that we haven't boosted humans above orbital velocity since the last Apollo mission. To reach the height and velocity where the Space Shuttle operated is roughly 60% of the total energy costs of getting to the Moon.

Of course, since it is currently impossible for the US to put ANYONE in space, I suppose that Skylab, the ISS, and the Shuttle itself are all a hoax. Because we can't do it now, we obviously never could, right?





The woo is strong with this one.


I'm not going to even attempt to answer you. Honestly, I don't understand what you are trying to say. It sounds like a very complex theory and you might want to consider spending the time to actually outline it some time so other people can grasp the implications.

I will, however, point to the last part of your post for the benefit of all the conspiracy believers and hoax promoters who constantly claim the moral high ground; that THEY "never insult anyone" that THEY always "carry on a polite argument" and so on and so forth.

hi all,

just wanna share this new stunning image

Moon as seen from the ISS


:moonISSapril1520:
Enlarge!:
[link to spaceflight1.nasa.gov]

Hal you have to be one the biggest religious fanatics I have ever seen.

Every single time you post, you end it with a magical and vague reference to SCIENCE or EVIDENCE and your holiest of holies NASA Priesthood! Why not just scrawl out runes or sigils? What a joke your posts are.

What an awesome thread!

Truth and blessings brothers and sisters.

Listen you circus side show killer clown freaks, no apollo something or other ever landed a human on that moon you see once in a while up there in the sky.

To prove it never happened they had to make a law to keep anyone who just so happens to have a rocket with a camera from looking down on the designated apollo make believe landing locations, off limits by law.

Thats right you low level thinkers, they made a law last year to keep everybody away from all those areas they claim have a landing mark by apollo. You will see nothing so they had a law to keep everybody away from seeing nothing. That keeps the charade alive and well with more obscure pimpin the landing stories as real.

Citation, please.

If you think it's wrong then show evidence it's wrong.
All you ever do is clown around and whine "Ain't so!"

The evidence and science that supports the historicity of Apollo is hardly vague or hidden away.

You being to lazy to go look for it and at it tells us all we need to know, you are not a truth seeker.



Said the clown...

What's your stage name? Bombastico the Windbag?



Why do you lie?

Why do hoaxies lie so much?

Can't find any evidence to support your claims so you just invent some?

If you think it's wrong then show evidence it's wrong.


prove what wrong? you never say anything! your just a little lap dog that runs around yapping 'science!' 'science!'

what was that gem of yours earlier? "every professional in the world believes in the apollo moon landings" ? something like that?

what a little clown you are

His clowning appears to be worth a lot more than your handwaving.

You are the one who claims all the evidence was faked, yet you do not even know what the evidence actually is.

THAT tells us all we need to know about the value of your sorry excuse for an opinion.

Each time you decline the burden to proof your claim, and you've done so dozens of time, you reveal yourself for the ignorant internet blowhard you are.
You don't know shit.
You don't have an effing clue.


Pretty much every expert in relevant domains.
And I challenged you to disproof it.

But of course you didn't even try.
Why do some honest investigative work when pontificating away into a vacuum is so much easier?


I'm not the one who seems only capable of producing large volumes of hot air.
What page now?
Still not a single piece of evidence for your claim.
You're an embarrassment to conspiracy researchers the world over.

bump for the super moon.

kiss my aura dora

OK here is the fresh argument, what is more important >> please choose A or B.

A/ landing or pretending to land a bunch of chimps on the MOON

or...

B/ using the MOON to help control the weather down here on EARTH?

BTW here is a fact of life lost on the NASA NAZI supporters.

>> Weather, mother nature, the wrathful YHVH is our nemesis from genesis, and the battle rages on.

DUH

Science wankers filled to the brim with Apollo stats are twats who are metaphysically challenged.

Hey NASA Nazis WTF is Apollo the Sun God and Zeus' 'the Eagle has landed' doing on the MOON?

namaste

Last Edited by Raphael on 06/12/2012 08:26 AM