What proof is there that the moon landing is a hoax

Prove there was an insert. The FULL video, not the heavily edited one that Sibrel likes to show you, shows otherwise.

What an amazing frog! Amazing how he mirrors the movements of the astronauts helmet exactly! How clever of that frog to look like a reflection so he can hide!

yes it can. But how precise a return does one get when just using the surface compared to a reflector? How much more power does one have to use to get a usable return?

that ... is a problem for the hoaxers to overcome

so the turbine shill are quickly here again... waiting for the others. 3 2 1 .. hydra will appear.

DING DING DING.. we have a wiener!

perfect post about this topic

well the nasa footage is proof of the hoax so sibrel is cool for including it in his doc. what's your point, gome?

Namecalling instead of refuting. Typical.

ad hominem noted. Sad you can't offer anything better.

Thanks for proving you didn't watch the videos or you would know the point. AGAIN, Sibrel heavily edited the video to show what he wanted you to see, not what is actually there. Other parts of the same video make it clear it can not possibly be an insert in the window.

further, weather analysis shows that the video was taken exactly when claimed from the location claimed in color, which could not have been done by satellites of the time.


Last Edited by LHP598 on 12/01/2012 10:37 AM

no adhom ~ you're clearly a shilling nazi w/ a mil connection

Prove it. I'll bet you won't even try. you're just trying to deflect from the fact you can't refute the evidence provided and would rather spew insults instead.

you've proven you're a nazi mil shill all by yourself. you deserve insults

Thanks for proving me right. Really sad that you're not capable of rational discussion.

u still here ~ nasa moon hoax proven years ago

And you prove me right again. Thank you.

Last Edited by LHP598 on 12/01/2012 11:14 AM

I didn't say that I went to the moon... Read the title instead of being stupid

Hubble could produce such a photo.

But then the question becomes, how crazy was the idea to plan, prepare and land a spaceship onto something unseeable from the launchpad? Shouldn't the first project have been, ...let's see where we're going?

Wrong. Hubble does not have the resolution. The math proves you wrong. At best the smallest object hubble can resolve at the distance of the Moon is a few hundred feet across.

From here
[link to hubblesite.org]

Can Hubble see the Apollo landing sites on the Moon?


No, Hubble cannot take photos of the Apollo landing sites.

An object on the Moon 4 meters (4.37 yards) across, viewed from HST, would be about 0.002 arcsec in size. The highest resolution instrument currently on HST is the Advanced Camera for Surveys at 0.03 arcsec. So anything we left on the Moon cannot be resolved in any HST image. It would just appear as a dot.

and here's some pics from when Hubble did view the Moon
[link to hubblesite.org]
[link to hubblesite.org]


As for your second part, that is why they sent multiple probes beforehand. Plus with a human pilot you can react to anything unexpected. You don't have to know every detail before you get there. Hilarious that you think they just went straight to the Moon without anything else though. Convenient to ignore the work of Gemini, the Surveyor probes and multiple others.

Last Edited by LHP598 on 12/01/2012 01:35 PM

and here's some pics from when Hubble did view the Moon
[link to hubblesite.org]
[link to hubblesite.org]


As for your second part, that is why they sent multiple probes beforehand. Plus with a human pilot you can react to anything unexpected. You don't have to know every detail before you get there. Hilarious that you think they just went straight to the Moon without anything else though. Convenient to ignore the work of Gemini, the Surveyor probes and multiple others.



Let me give you some advise. Don't try so hard. It's not going to lead anywhere.

This is, hands down, THE best article extant re: the "moon landings". Be patient (the article starts slowly) and by the time you've read the first few pages, you'll know the truth.

[link to davesweb.cnchost.com]

Yes, you'll know the author knows absolutely nothing about space travel, physics, astronomy, etc. That site is great but only for a laugh.

Example: The very fist quote is about supposedly needing a much larger rocket. What the author doesn't tell you because he never bothered to find out himself is that was only if they used the direct ascent method using the same rocket for all the way there and back and not the lunar orbit method that they used instead. The rocket they had was perfectly adequate. The math works and thousands of engineers have verified it before and since. The author doesn't understand any of that though so he thinks the quote means something.

Last Edited by LHP598 on 12/02/2012 09:40 AM

Hubble is federally funded. Of course it is not authorized to reveal anything on the moon, or attempt to. No, my friend, the moon was a leap too far.

The math doesn't lie. Hubble isn't big enough to resolve the objects left on the Moon. It has nothing to do with who funds it. Look up the Dawes' limit if you actually want to understand. Keep ranting about federal funding if you don't.

The Very Large Telescope (VLT) array in Chile could photograph the artifacts left on the moon from the Apollo missions. It is "able to see details on the scale of one milli-arcsecond, corresponding to being able to distinguish, from the Earth, the headlights of a car on the Moon."

Scientists working there even said they would try and image the Apollo landing sites 10 years ago. But of course, they never have, and never will...

[link to www.telegraph.co.uk]

I've had it with the speculation. Can we just return for crying out loud?

They pulled it off time after time more than forty f-ing years ago using Flintstone tech, and we can't even get our asses up there for a prolonged manned orbit? Or to establish moon-based telescope or or communication system? Or maybe a serious laboratory? Or way-point for other exploration? Or hell, how about just a solar powered moon cam and with a simple public internet moon space weather station right there at Tranquility base? Yeah, I'd even settle for THAT!

Don't tell me we can't afford it; That's absolute bullshit. We have proven we can literally lose two trillion dollars with a blink and a shrug with no measurable outrage.

The advancement in technologies over the past four decades allows it and demands it.

I already have their first scientific test when they get there. Show the effects on man-made materials after sitting on the moon for over four decades

It has that resolution when working in interferometry mode, not in a visible wavelength but in infrared. You won't be able to see much with that.
[link to www.eso.org]
[link to en.wikipedia.org]

More about the VLTI

For instance, an object with a relatively low surface brightness such as the moon cannot be observed, because its light is too diluted. Only targets which are at temperatures of more than 1,000°C have a surface brightness high enough to be observed in the mid-infrared, and objects must be at several thousands of degrees Celsius for near-infrared observations using the VLTI.

Sure we can waste money but ALL funding for NASA is controlled by Congress. If they decide to spend money then it happens. They haven't decided to mostly because they are all short sighted looking to the next election and the payoff is longer. Have you written to your Congressman asking for what you want? I'll bet you haven't.

What technology advancement are you talking about? Computers? How many megabytes does it take to get to orbit? Rocket tech is largely the same and still requiring massive expensive rockets.

Last Edited by LHP598 on 12/02/2012 10:27 AM

If it were true, we wouldn't have gotten to watch it live on tv.

And if we hadn't then you and others would be calling that suspicious. all you have is an "if I ran the zoo" argument.

I think that we had, and still have the technology and the know how to go and return to the moon. There´s just one thing that bothers me and is the Van Allen radiation belt.