What proof is there that the moon landing is a hoax

The guy who discovered them and named them is on record as having no problem with the trip. The radiation within them is primarily particle radiation which is far easier blocked than other types of radiation. Plus they went around the thickest parts of the belts

Thread: What proof is there that the moon landing is a hoax (Page 2)

There are a lot of anomalies in the photographs from the moon. But the all the photos we have are in the public arena and in the end it could be said well someone must of tampered with the photos and put the anomalies into them. At that point the deciding factor would be the originals, so since the anomalies are real, and referring back to the originals would substantiate that the moon mission was a hoax, NASA had to destroy the evidence and get rid of the pics, videos, voice tapes, etc.... Get it?

the proof is in the pudding! whatever the fuck that means

Don't know about the entire mission, but it is patently obvious that many of the Apollo photos were not taken under the conditions that were said to exist during the moon landings.

If you're genuinely interested in the subject and not merely a troll, then all you need to do is LOOK at the Apollo photos, without a pre-formed conclusion.

The rest is a matter of deduction: The photos were not taken under the conditions said to exist during the moon landings. So this discrepancy means it's very likely that the photos were taken in a studio.

Why were they taken in a studio? There are multiple speculations, one of them being that the mission never occurred. I think that is the most likely reason, but I don't consider it set in stone.

Except the originals were not destroyed. The ONLY "missing originals" is television from the Apollo 11 EVA. Television from inside the CM is still held. Every other EVA is still held. The original still and motion picture record of Apollo 11 is still held.

Your scenario requires a much more substantial hole in the primary evidence.

Oh, yes...and the voice record was intercepted by third parties in transmission. So that would be pretty hard to go out an erase.

Bolding mine.

Even better, look at them without a background in photography, lighting, lunar conditions...or a working knowledge of geometry.

Waste money? Are you shitting me? I wasn't kidding about the 2 trillion dollars you know. 2 trillion. Gone. Poof! Oh well, nothing to see here, GONE!
As far as advancements I'm not just talking on board computers, I'm talking about every aspect. Automated Machining processes, Manufacturing, Materials and equipment advancement, Engineering, Testing and measuring, Communication tech, video tech, and where do you want me to stop?
All this and you don't think the industry could shit out a module and an Apollo rocket in half the time with greater quality and control?

As far as funding is concerned, the fact is they wouldn't even have to front the expense. All congress REALLY has to do is issue partial support of a massive world funded prize upon completion- say $250 billion or so- for the successful manned mission which meets certain goals.
Imagine the effort it would produce.
Just give the program a catchy name, have the government step aside, and watch it happen the way things are supposed to.

Anyone that says it can't happen has a conflicting agenda.

the proof is in the pudding

 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1287633

I thought it was green cheese....

Easy!

See the russian lunokhod 2 rover...
No need for a manned mission to place a reflector on the moon.

[link to en.wikipedia.org]

debunk that!

If you're referring the to the 2 trillion that COULDN'T BE TRACKED because of multiple different systems, that wasn't gone. They had multiple accounting sstems that were incompatible with each other. They admitted it and commenced work on fixing it.


They still have to design it, build the infrastructure, build it, test it, refine it, etc. It is still expensive and the greatest expense is the rocket tech that is still largely the same.


Then tell congress that. I'll bet you haven't. And you still run into the problem that the payoff is not during their current term. Few politicians want to allocate money for something that is unlikely to benefit them.



How convenient. Anyone that disagrees with you mush have an agenda.

Last Edited by LHP598 on 12/03/2012 01:07 PM

Tell Congress.


So it could be done then but not now. Just say it.

Why? That isn't true. It can be done anytime. You just have to have the political will to do so. We had it then. We don't have it now.

watch astronauts gone wyild - america's fucking spacemen are liars and violent assholes. they're also funny as a motherfucker and riveting in their contributions to the great deception. military fuckers

Yes, watch a heavily edited video made by a sleazy stalker who only wants to sell you something. and that proves what exactly?

Last Edited by LHP598 on 12/04/2012 10:57 AM

nerve strike!

So you can't say what it proves then? thought so.

moooooooooonies

What a well thought out response! I can tell you put a lot of effort into that. I hope you didn't strain yourself.

Exactly.

Thats why they have the birds going there by tube....to fly back pieces for us.

This is directed at everyone BUT Nomuse, whose opinion I have no interest in.

DO NOT let someone else tell you what you can and cannot recognize for yourself.

With the magic of verbiage and rhetoric, people can be convinced that day is night and up is down.

Don't take anyone's words as fact, simply LOOK and SEE for yourself.

If someone like "Nomuse" has a problem with such a simple request as LOOKING AT A PHOTOGRAPH without a pre-conceived opinion, that certainly does imply that there is something odd to be seen in that photograph, does it not?

If there is nothing to hide and nothing strange to be found, then NO ONE should feel the need to speak up in protest at such a modest and simple suggestion. It is laughable, really.

Think about it.

Last Edited by Urban on 12/04/2012 08:50 PM

Okay Weazee,

Never mind the public arena that politicians swim in. I don't dare for a second to dip my toe in that festering trough.
Instead, let's say Congress doesn't need to approve a dime.
Would you support a lottery, i.e., A "Trip to the Moon" lottery?

I'm talking private-sector moon shot, fully funded in advance, in four phases:

Phase 1. Unmanned orbit with lunar module and return
Phase 2. Manned orbit in lunar module and return
Phase 3. Unmanned landing and return
Phase 4. Manned landing and return

Keep in mind that I don't give a rat's ass if they tool around the moon in a silly rover; that was a god-damned ridiculous stunt to pull in the first place.

We need simple. We need easy peasy. We need feet on the ground and some general survey work and prep for placement of the future lunar station. That is all nothing more.


What do you say weasel? Are you on board?

I'd support it but I doubt there'd be enough interest to get it off the ground. The vast majority of the public just doesn't really care. I don't think phase 1 and 3 are really necessary though.

As for the rover, as a proof of concept, if they had continued with the original vision of establishing a base and later moving on to Mars, it was good. As executed, with the few trips they ended up with and the stagnation of the shuttle program, no it wasn't worth it.

Last Edited by LHP598 on 12/04/2012 11:06 PM

You don't think there is enough interest? Don't be so negative. You know what people 'love'? Money.
For every dollar into the lottery, 40% back to the people. 15% toward operating cost, 45% toward the program.
Don't allow yourself to get hung up on marketing when the original Apollo program was, from beginning to end, a massive marketing effort.
I believe that people would wholeheartedly support a new Internet-Era moon shot. They only need to be provided the opportunity.

No, I don't think there would be enough interest. The majority of people are too involved in TV and playing with their phones to care about science. We'll just have to agree to disagree. But hey, if you think it will work, get some investors and do it. you could be right.

Last Edited by LHP598 on 12/04/2012 11:54 PM

[link to wikispooks.com]

Read this.

Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?
(video)
[link to www.archive.org]

And yet you reply.



Good advise, but to a point. The trick is learning how to observe. The senses are easy to fool. Once glance at a page of optical illusions should tell you that. And charlatans will play on these illusions -- go to any live magic show.

The larger part of the discipline of any art -- from music to painting -- is learning how to discern what you think you hear or see and what you think something sounds like or looks like from what it IS.

The larger part of the discipline of science is the panoply of tools designed to -- most of the time! -- keep you from fooling yourself. This is why there are repeated experiments, why there are statistical methods, why there is double-blinding, why there is peer review. And, over and over, scientists still discover they allowed themselves to be deceived; to see what they expected in the data instead of what was actually there. And that's why the method of science works; because they DID find out. They discovered -- or were helped to discover -- their mistake.



"Look" with what tools?

No-one is born knowing the scale and modes of the Western Classic tradition (I'm going to skip over here an entertaining but distracting discussion on the mathematics and physiology of musical intervals). They have to be learned. If you were brought up without ever hearing even the slightest scrap of music, could you confidently identify the F# above middle C with nothing but your ears?

Just a single example of the great many things we have to learn to perceive.

And let's take two other interesting elements of the audio field that may be useful examples. One is the concept of the masking effect. A loud pitch will literally cause a pitch adjacent to it to disappear. This appears to happen in the ear itself and is an artifact of the imperfect response of the cilia. Another is the concept of precedence effect, and this occurs in the brain; a sound will perceptually localize towards the first impulse received at the ears, even if it is followed within a few milliseconds by a louder sound from a different location.

The latter effect is so powerful that even if you know it is there, it will yank your perception sideways like a good optical illusion. It takes tremendous practice and skill in order to cut through this illusion and hear both sources in their proper spacial relationship.

Right. The subject here is image, not audio. I reached for those examples which are closest to me.

The point being, it is entirely possible to not know what you do not know. To not know that your senses are fooling you. This is what training is for.

Training is NOT -- as is your ill-thought-out, knee-jerk response, on WHAT to see. It is on HOW to see; and when you understand the tools and the ways your eyes can be fooled, then you can indeed, as you asked, "look for yourself."

Until then, you are only fooling yourself -- like the nearly-deaf aunt who fancies herself an excellent singer.




But you aren't doing that. Nor is that what I complained about!

My complaint is that you can't assume you are a perfect observer. That your experience on Earth is a good guide to what things should look like on the Moon.

And I'm not guessing here.

I've been around the Apollo Deniers before. I've read practically all of Jack White's "Studies," for instance. I've watched the Fox Special. I am -- my experience leads me to believe -- probably more familiar with more specific claims about impossible Apollo images than you are.

And the vast majority of them break down to failures to understand basic geometry, or other fairly simple aspects of real-world light and surfaces that most of us -- most non-artists, most non-photographers -- simply do not have sufficient experience in to be properly analytic.

Tin foil does not shield against solar particles.