| | | Page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144 | APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!??
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 308933
10/15/2007 12:03 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
If one has no particular background in the area, and wasnt around when these things actually took place, it is understandable that such a person could watch Fox TV, see something like that lunar landing "special" they put on some years ago, and actually sit there saying, "Wow, hey...maybe they did fake it!" Quoting: HAZZARD 308422
Your logic is backwards. It is precisely those of us who were around at the time who now understand how easy it would have been to fake everything--because Americans were so gullible, trusting in a corrupt regime that in actuality had already murdered their President in 1963, and had already planned false-flag terrorist attacks in the Northwoods plan prior to that.
especially given the fact that Apollo is, as Ive probably stated before, the most documented project in human history. Quoting: HAZZARD 308422
There's a lot of documentation on the Star Trek universe, the Star Wars universe, the Lord of the Rings universe, and Harry Potter's universe. I've seen detailed manuals for learning the Klingon language. Does that make them real?
It would be as hard today as it was in the 1960s. Quoting: HAZZARD 308422
This is laughably absurd. Technology, particularly computing, has advanced dramatically in the past 38 years. Your comment is as idiotic as someone saying in 1941, "It would be as hard today to repeat the Wright brothers' flight as it was in 1903."
If a moonflight is essentially impossible today--as is obvious from the fact that no country can do it, even one like China that is willing to invest prodigious sums--it is quite clear that it was absolutely impossible 38 years ago.
The Saturn V "blueprints" exist, but all the tooling and manufacturing hardware were scrapped decades ago. Quoting: HAZZARD 308422
The Saturn V could only blast off from earth. Where are the blueprints for the magic Lunar Module?
[link to www.xenophilia.com]
---
There are some diagrams of the LM and Moon buggy on the Nasa web site, but the technical blueprints showing sizes, etc. do seem to be missing.
---
However, even if the US or someother country landed on the moon again, or the new Chinese lunar orbiter took pictures of the Apollo harweare at the landsites, it wouldnt put a stop to the HBs claims. They would just scream -Its impossible! -Its fake! Bla,Bla,Bla... Quoting: HAZZARD 308422
The last resort of a numbskull is to put words into other people's mouths in order to bring them down to his own level. |
| Barls Knarkley
User ID: 28648
10/15/2007 12:15 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Baloney. The original high-resolution video is "missing," and there is no similar-quality copy: Quoting: Anonymous Coward 308933
And you are continuing to insist that this is the only data capable of verifying the truth of Apollo. To put it in legal terms, a lawyer does not get to tell the judge that only the evidence he chooses to focus on can be admitted in court. All the evidence gets admitted, and there is plenty there in support of Apollo, however much you want to handwave it away.
Baloney. Try telling a judge in court that you mysterious "lost" an original document, but that the jury should believe your blurry "copy" anyway. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 308933
For a start, the missing footage from Apollo 11 will not be crystal clear - it will still be limited to the resolution of the slow scan, low res camera.
Secondly, why isn't the very clear footage from the later missions admissible?
Thirdly, the point you were responding to was that the missing footage was hardly the best evidence of the landings, and it can be proven via all the other evidence. Your continued insistence on the primacy of the tapes is beginning to look a bit trollish. It's like you are just grandstanding with your legal posturings, and you aren't prepared at all to admit all the evidence and examine it equally. Instead, you seem intent on rhetorical tricks.
An excellent example. If you mysteriously "lose" the original negatives from your wedding, but you have a blurry and suspicious-looking "copy," a certificate made out by the justice-of-the-peace who happens to be your brother, and a few chummy witnesses who refuse to swear to anything, you have no evidence worthy of presentation. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 308933
Case in point. You just dismiss all the other evidence with handwaving about its blurriness (all the photos? The post-A11 video?) or 'suspiciousness' without explaining why. Total straw man.
My goodness. If you don't understand the principles of evidence, you will be blown away in the courtroom. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 308933
You seem to have problems with the concept yourself. The lawyer does not get to determine what the jury sees, that's up to the judge. You have to make your case to the bench, not just handwave it away and refuse to address it in your prosecution.
The alleged moon rocks fooled geologists--who didn't know any better--only until they could examine real moon rocks. This article politely debunks the alleged Apollo moon rocks. It doesn't come right out and say they're fake, it simply says they are "unrepresentative" (and therefore unverifiable and scientifically worthless): Quoting: Anonymous Coward 308933
Oh, please. This is just laughable. Why don't you email a planetary scientist, any planetary scientist, and ask them if they believe this? They will laugh in your face. Why don't you write to the authors of the article and check if they think the Apollo samples are bogus? Why are papers still being written about the Apollo samples if the entire geological community now knows they are fakes? Where is the worldwide scandal if the fakery is so widely known? Are all geologists initiated into the mysteries of the hoax at graduation?
Troll.
The Apollo samples are an incomplete record of the lunar surface, they are not invalid.
Cite evidence for independent tracking of the Apollo spacecraft all the way to the moon. I know of none. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 308933
Have you ever looked? Google is your friend. Try "amateur tracking of apollo". Look up the Jodrell Bank record of their unsolicited tracking of the LM all the way to the surface, including the doppler shift they noticed as Armstrong piloted over a crater.
The fishy photos and grainy video are also worthless, because no one is willing to testify under oath and cross-examination to their creation and provenance. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 308933
Nobody has ever been asked to testify under oath about them. If they were, there would be plenty of people willing to do so. I doubt you would find they would support your contention.
Again, your bald assertion that the footage is fishy and grainy is entirely your own. You don't get to just stand up in court and say "Your honour, the evidence is fishy. Move to strike from the record". Your claims get examined just as rigourously as anyone else's.
I know of zero sworn testimony, with cross-examination, of NASA astronauts or other in-the-know personnel. Anything else is worthless hearsay. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 308933
And so we continue your endless straw man about sworn testimony. Nobody else seems to think it would be the slam dunk you seem to.
When did the courts become the sole arbiter of truth? How many published scientific papers have to be examined in court before they are accepted as truth? I'm pretty sure you are just trolling.
Our entire legal system is based on the premise that if enough ordinary citizens testify under oath and cross-examination, some of them will be reluctant to offend God and fry in Hell, and will therefore tell the truth rather than commit perjury. The few who tell the truth will eventually cause the entire web of lies to unravel. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 308933
And the only way that someone's guilty conscience would cause them to speak out is to put them on a witness stand. No deathbed confessions or Deep Throat anonymous tipoffs - nooo, only the bible in their hand in a courtroom can compel truth. Give me a break.
I am beginning to suspect that you have chosen this legal angle simply as a way to differentiate yourself from the herd of other HBs on this site - you want to stand out, so you have to make a 'novel' argument. Pity it makes no sense whatsoever.
If you have evidence to the contrary--of astronauts who have testified under oath and cross-examination about their alleged moon landing--please let us know. I have seen no report of any. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 308933
Ed Mitchell states that he swore on the Bible when confronted by Sibrel. Funnily enough, Sibrel doesn't use that footage, he just focuses on the ones where the astronauts, sick of his abusive stalking, refused to even talk to him.
Several of the Apollo astronauts are committed Christians. Jim Irwin founded the High Flight ministry, and used his experiences during his preaching. Are you saying that their public faith is hypocritical? If so, then why would swearing on the Bible make any difference?
One last thing to consider is that some Christians refuse to swear on the Bible, citing verses that proscribe such swearing. How do you know none of the astronauts refused on these grounds? |
| Barls Knarkley
User ID: 28648
10/15/2007 12:28 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Sounds like BS to me. Your telling us Hubble cannot see the moon?? I dont know whether to laugh or just shake my head. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 312577
Did you look at the Wikipedia page I mentioned? Your uneducated disbelief has zero impact on the laws of physics. If you choose to remain ignorant of the way the world works,that is your problem.
You are saying we have no technology to take pictures, good pictures, zooming in on a spot on the moon?? I dont buy that. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 312577
I said no such thing. I said that Hubble can't do it, and explained why in detail, with references. Of course we have the technology to do it, we just haven't yet spent the money on doing so.
Look at it this way - there are no submersibles, manned or unmanned, that can survive at the bottom of the Marianas trench. Does this mean that the only manned mission there, back in the sixties, is automatically fake? Or that we don't have the technology to get pictures from down there at all? The reality is that there is a submersible under development that will be able to do it in the next couple of years. There just isn't one now, because nobody has spent the money to build it.
So we could go to the moon and return, 40 years ago, but in 2007, we cannot take pictures of what was left on the moon? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 312577
You're being obtuse. Humans went to the South Pole in 1912, but nobody went back there for another 40 years. Were the original treks faked?
Barls, I have to say my gut just tells me you are trying to bamboozle everyone. Baffling with BS. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 312577
The thing about gut feelings, particularly when you avoid educating yourself about the facts, is that it can be completely wrong. Physics, on the other hand, cares nothing about opinions. It only cares about reality. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 289861
10/15/2007 12:31 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Also, from the Hubble website:
[link to hubblesite.org]
"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." |
| IDW
User ID: 312662
10/15/2007 1:03 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
All I've seen from the organized propaganda campaign defending NASA is a general lack of integrity. NASA's tactics seem to be to aatempt to villify and alienate the hoax exposure, without ever actually honestly addressing the hard questions. You attack me personally, while ignoring the questions that arent convienient or easy to answer using subterfuge alone.
Heres an example:
What if there was not enough chemical energy stored in the fuel tanks of Ascent stage of the lunar module to accelerate the known mass value to the known neccesary altitude and velocity? What if every attempt to rationalize the numbers fail, even assuming a 100% efficiency in the rocket engine?
another:
How was the Apollo spacecraft cooled with only 3500btu of heat extraction when so much more heat energy was being absorbed from the enviroment and produced internally?
and yet another:
What protection from radiation did the spacesuits and space craft actuall provide, given the known specifications? Was it possible, from a matehmatical standpoint to dodge solar x ray flares at the highth of a solar maximum, all with virtually no shielding from high energy ionizing radiation.
Now I challenge you to answer these questions concisely and with varifiable facts. YOU WONT. You will attack ME.
Many examples of this technique are in my personal archives. I can show a pattern. |
| HAZZARD
User ID: 308422
10/15/2007 1:09 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Barls is right. Neither the Hubble Space Telescope, nor the Clementine probe that recently maped the Moons surface, failed to show any Apollo artefacts left by Man during the missions.
Why is that?
Neither has the required optical resolution to see objects on the lunar surface as small as the Apollo hardware. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 312666
10/15/2007 1:09 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Yep. And galaxies are really, really big. The Apollo remains are much closer, but they are really, really small. The example I often use to illustrate this is to point out that you can see the Moon with your naked eyes, but you can't see geostationary communications satellites that are ten times closer. Because they are much, much smaller than the Moon. Quoting: Barls Knarkley 28648
Absolute & utter bollocks.You can see geostationary communications satellites & you dont even need a good telescope to do it. |
| IDW
User ID: 312662
10/15/2007 1:16 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Barls is right. Neither the Hubble Space Telescope, nor the Clementine probe that recently maped the Moons surface, failed to show any Apollo artefacts left by Man during the missions.
Why is that?
Neither has the required optical resolution to see objects on the lunar surface as small as the Apollo hardware. Quoting: HAZZARD 308422
ESA mapped the areas with two meter resolution and found nothing. The Japanese have alot of interest in the moon, and so do the Chinese. It is a matter of time before it is proved Apollo was hoaxed. How will you face your children when they know the lie you have knowingly perpetrated?
Its kind of like bragging about being a hero when youre really contemptuous liar defending the brainwashing of the human collective conscience. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 312577
10/15/2007 1:17 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Ya know what Barls,,Ive known a lot of guys like you that like to talk down to people, and tell them how intelligent you think you are.
You would not be here on this thread, desperatley trying to defend this sham, if you didnt realize, at some level, that its all a house of cards about to come tumbling down.
Werner Von Braun knew this was impossible, and said so. He said the rocket and fuel would have to be over 1,000 feet long.
The film is about as phony as it gets.
The astronauts seem to have a lot of memory lapses about a lot of things, when interviewed.
Anyone with experience, watching these astronaut interviews, starting with the first mission, can see they are extremely uncomfortable.
Thats a sure sign they are lying.
Interview a guy after he was part of a World Series team, or a Super Bowl team victory. They are ecstatic and love to talk about.
These astronauts are sullen. It doesnt add up.
And we cant go back there, 38 years later. So I call BS on all this. |
| HAZZARD
User ID: 308422
10/15/2007 1:23 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Was it possible, from a matehmatical standpoint to dodge solar x ray flares at the highth of a solar maximum, all with virtually no shielding from high energy ionizing radiation.
Now I challenge you to answer these questions concisely and with varifiable facts. YOU WONT. You will attack ME.
Many examples of this technique are in my personal archives. I can show a pattern. Quoting: IDW 312662
I think that these "attacks" are all in your head. If you go back on this thread alone I think that you will se that the ad hominem are comming from "your team". The HBs.
As far as the leathal radiation goes..Yes, you are right, solar particle radiation is a hazard to astronauts.
And it is, but a hazard is not necessarily an insurmountable obstacle. This general charge is usually made by people who dont understand very much at all about radiation.
After witnessing the horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the tragedy of Chernobyl it is not surprising that the idea of radiation should elicit an intuitively fearful reaction. But when you understand the different types of radiation and what can be done about them, it becomes a manageable problem to avoid radiation exposure.
Wet roads are a hazard to drivers, but people drive on them anyway.
There are many hazards in a voyage to the moon. Care is taken to minimize them, but in the end it's still a dangerous thing to do. Just as there are people willing to brave the hazards of mountainclimbing, there are those willing to brave the hazards of outer space.
By repeating ad nauseam the statement that radiation is hazardous, the conspiracists attempt to instill the notion that its unavoidably fatal or always there. Its not.
Remember, this is the same area of space where dozens of countries operate sensitive communications satellites.
According to records, more than 1,400 solar flares occurred during the Apollo missions. This is all public information and can be found everywere on the net.
This number represents the total number of detectable solar events, not major flares that would have posed a danger to the astronauts. The records also show that no major solar flares occurred during the Apollo missions, but the conspiracists dont care to look that closely.
The impressively large number is all they are interested in.
The closest call came when the Apollo 12 spacecrafts external radiation sensors detected a minor flare, but the interior sensors did not indicate that any appreciable amount of this radiation penetrated the spacecraft hull. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 312577
10/15/2007 1:23 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Barls is right. Neither the Hubble Space Telescope, nor the Clementine probe that recently maped the Moons surface, failed to show any Apollo artefacts left by Man during the missions.
Why is that?
Neither has the required optical resolution to see objects on the lunar surface as small as the Apollo hardware. Quoting: HAZZARD 308422
This is what I mean.
We are expected to believe the Hubble can see into other galaxies, (and I have no reason to doubt that it does) , but then when someone asks to show pics of what was left on the moon, the answer they give is, "Well its just too darn close. We cant see it. You know how it goes".
We can make great pics, extremely far away, but that stuff we left on the moon, ummm no, you cant see that.
(And we could go back there, ya know, we just dont want to)
Do they think we are 3 years old? |
| IDW
User ID: 312662
10/15/2007 1:27 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Ive been arguing with Barls for too long myself, he's lost all credibility repeatedly claiming victory in a battle he was never in.
Attacking the messenger does nothing to prove anything other than youre not interested in the truth being known.
It is a fool that defends a lie at the expense of his dignity.
SOme things have real value, but you cannot purchase them with fiat dollars. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 132975
10/15/2007 1:31 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Barls is right. Neither the Hubble Space Telescope, nor the Clementine probe that recently maped the Moons surface, failed to show any Apollo artefacts left by Man during the missions.
Why is that?
Neither has the required optical resolution to see objects on the lunar surface as small as the Apollo hardware. Quoting: HAZZARD 308422
The HST might not, but Clementine was a purely military mission.
Do you seriously think the military is going to truthfully tell you what imaging capabilities the Clementine probe had?
We know that Earth-orbiting spy-satellites, such as the KH series, can certainly read car number-plates from hundreds of miles up, through a thick atmosphere, too.
Apparently, the very old KH-10 camera (codename "Dorian"), could discern objects of softball size from orbit, if the link below is to be trusted (lol!).
[link to groups.msn.com] |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 312666
10/15/2007 1:31 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
After witnessing the horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the tragedy of Chernobyl it is not surprising that the idea of radiation should elicit an intuitively fearful reaction. But when you understand the different types of radiation and what can be done about them, it becomes a manageable problem to avoid radiation exposure. Quoting: HAZZARD 308422
So how come NASA was talking about the Shuttle not being able to go up too high, because of the radiation effecting the astro's.
So in 69 they managed the problem how? Especially since that to manage the problem these days, they stay in lower orbit. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 312577
10/15/2007 1:31 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Yep. And galaxies are really, really big. The Apollo remains are much closer, but they are really, really small. The example I often use to illustrate this is to point out that you can see the Moon with your naked eyes, but you can't see geostationary communications satellites that are ten times closer. Because they are much, much smaller than the Moon.
Absolute & utter bollocks.You can see geostationary communications satellites & you dont even need a good telescope to do it. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 312666
Exactly, total bollocks.
And for those who dont know what bollocks is, it means BS. |
| IDW
User ID: 312662
10/15/2007 1:40 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Was it possible, from a matehmatical standpoint to dodge solar x ray flares at the highth of a solar maximum, all with virtually no shielding from high energy ionizing radiation.
Now I challenge you to answer these questions concisely and with varifiable facts. YOU WONT. You will attack ME.
Many examples of this technique are in my personal archives. I can show a pattern. Quoting: IDW
I think that these "attacks" are all in your head. If you go back on this thread alone I think that you will se that the ad hominem are comming from "your team". The HBs. Quoting: HAZZARD 308422
I guess I called that one! I will not attack, but I will defend myself offensively.
As far as the leathal radiation goes..Yes, you are right, solar particle radiation is a hazard to astronauts.
And it is, but a hazard is not necessarily an insurmountable obstacle. This general charge is usually made by people who dont understand very much at all about radiation. Quoting: HAZZARD 308422
I understand more about radiation that you are capable of comprehending. You KNOW nothing unless the knowledge you possess correlates with reality.
After witnessing the horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the tragedy of Chernobyl it is not surprising that the idea of radiation should elicit an intuitively fearful reaction. But when you understand the different types of radiation and what can be done about them, it becomes a manageable problem to avoid radiation exposure. Quoting: HAZZARD 308422
No sir, not in near earth space between the moon and earth its not. Every living thing ever sent beyond the magnetosphere died.
Wet roads are a hazard to drivers, but people drive on them anyway.
There are many hazards in a voyage to the moon. Care is taken to minimize them, but in the end it's still a dangerous thing to do. Just as there are people willing to brave the hazards of mountainclimbing, there are those willing to brave the hazards of outer space. Quoting: HAZZARD 308422
Lol, yeah, many hazzards. What a story! Davy Crockett comes to mind.
By repeating ad nauseam the statement that radiation is hazardous, the conspiracists attempt to instill the notion that its unavoidably fatal or always there. Its not.
Remember, this is the same area of space where dozens of countries operate sensitive communications satellites.
According to records, more than 1,400 solar flares occurred during the Apollo missions. This is all public information and can be found everywere on the net.This number represents the total number of detectable solar events, not major flares that would have posed a danger to the astronauts. The records also show that no major solar flares occurred during the Apollo missions, but the conspiracists dont care to look that closely. Quoting: HAZZARD 308422
The closer I look and the more I think about the odds, the more outrageous your bragging looks. Ive said it befor and I'll say it a gain, killing a bear bare handed would have been childs play. What a fucking retard your making yourself out to be.A fucktard. The odds based on all the available information from the last three solar maximums indicate the odds of dodging a serious life ending solar x flare and resumtant CME are about the same as winning the powerball lottery. The numbers do not lie, but NASA does.
It is said politicians lie with the truth an artists tell the truth with lies. I discover the truth with other truths. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 289861
10/15/2007 1:43 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Attacking the messenger does nothing to prove anything other than youre not interested in the truth being known. Quoting: IDW 312662
Does the same count for the guy who called me a "paid-shill debunker bastard" and an "asshole", after I posted an explanation on how shutter speed and brightnesses work? |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 289861
10/15/2007 1:44 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Which, btw, was my first post on these forums? |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 312666
10/15/2007 1:46 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Attacking the messenger does nothing to prove anything other than youre not interested in the truth being known.
Does the same count for the guy who called me a "paid-shill debunker bastard" and an "asshole", after I posted an explanation on how shutter speed and brightnesses work? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 289861
You should have some pride in your work buddy. |
| IDW
User ID: 312662
10/15/2007 2:02 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Attacking the messenger does nothing to prove anything other than youre not interested in the truth being known. Quoting: IDW
Does the same count for the guy who called me a "paid-shill debunker bastard" and an "asshole",
That depends on if you fit that description or not. DO oyu? DOn't naswer me, answer yourself! I already know the answer. Big lies are frequently hidden among many tiny truths.
Since you are unwilling to give your identity like I have, you're just another lying bastard as far as I am concerned, If you were convicned your agruement was correct and not hiding your identity, youd have a bit more credibility. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 308933
10/15/2007 2:23 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
All the evidence gets admitted, and there is plenty there in support of Apollo, however much you want to handwave it away. Quoting: Barls Knarkley 28648
No evidence can be admitted unless whoever collected and preserved that evidence testifies under oath to its authenticity (or if both sides are willing to stipulate that the evidence is authentic).
Without sworn provenance, "evidence" is just another pile of garbage. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 98001
10/15/2007 2:25 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Why are the people saying it was real arguing against getting some damn pictures? Why are they saying Hubble cannot see it?
The laws of physics say it can't be seen. The maximum resolution of a telescope is a function of the wavelength of light you are observing and the size of your optics. Look up Rayleigh Criterion on Wikipedia to get an explanation.
If you plug the numbers for Hubble into the equation, you find that the best possible resolution it can get on the Moon is about 100 meters across. About two orders of magnitude too low to see the Apollo remains.
Note that this limit is one imposed by physics, it is due to the way light refracts. There is no way at all to make Hubble more precise than this. No matter how much you want it to. The only way to get better resolution is to move the telescope closer (not going to happen with Hubble) or build a bigger telescope - one the size of a football field if you want to see the Apollo remains from the ground or near Earth orbit.
Show me what Hubble CAN see. Use the dang thing to photograph the site on maximum.
Hubble has imaged the Moon, to map minerals. Have you ever gone looking for it?
I know Hubble could show that if they were there. It shows galaxies from the other side of the universe. Honestly. In pretty good detail, the arms and everything.
Yep. And galaxies are really, really big. The Apollo remains are much closer, but they are really, really small. The example I often use to illustrate this is to point out that you can see the Moon with your naked eyes, but you can't see geostationary communications satellites that are ten times closer. Because they are much, much smaller than the Moon.
The lander is very very close. No way could Hubble miss it. No way.
No matter how many times you tell yourself that, it won't change the laws of physics. Hubble does not have the resolution to see things on the Moon.
Sounds like BS to me. Your telling us Hubble cannot see the moon?? I dont know whether to laugh or just shake my head.
You are saying we have no technology to take pictures, good pictures, zooming in on a spot on the moon?? I dont buy that.
So we could go to the moon and return, 40 years ago, but in 2007, we cannot take pictures of what was left on the moon?
Barls, I have to say my gut just tells me you are trying to bamboozle everyone. Baffling with BS. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 312577
You are obviously too ignorant to know such things, but try it anyway. Calculate the angular diameter of a 13 foot wide descent stage at a distance of 235,000 miles. Then look up the angular diameter limitation of the Hubble telescope. There will be your answer. Hubble just simply does not have the angular resolution to photograph something that small at that distance. Distant galaxies are many arc-seconds wide...and in a lot of cases arc-minutes wide. Much larger in angular diameter than a lander on the moon. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 308933
10/15/2007 2:27 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Why are papers still being written about the Apollo samples if the entire geological community now knows they are fakes? Where is the worldwide scandal if the fakery is so widely known? Are all geologists initiated into the mysteries of the hoax at graduation? Quoting: Barls Knarkley 28648
Geologists studying rocks learn to lie for their regime the same way that engineers studying 9/11 building collapses learn to lie for their regime. In this regime, liars are the rule, not the exception. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 98001
10/15/2007 2:28 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Barls is right. Neither the Hubble Space Telescope, nor the Clementine probe that recently maped the Moons surface, failed to show any Apollo artefacts left by Man during the missions.
Why is that?
Neither has the required optical resolution to see objects on the lunar surface as small as the Apollo hardware.
This is what I mean.
We are expected to believe the Hubble can see into other galaxies, (and I have no reason to doubt that it does) , but then when someone asks to show pics of what was left on the moon, the answer they give is, "Well its just too darn close. We cant see it. You know how it goes".
We can make great pics, extremely far away, but that stuff we left on the moon, ummm no, you cant see that.
(And we could go back there, ya know, we just dont want to)
Do they think we are 3 years old? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 312577
You obviously are. Do the math. What is the angular diameter of a 13 foot wide object at a distance of 235,000 miles? |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 98001
10/15/2007 2:31 PM | | Anonymous Coward
User ID: 308933
10/15/2007 2:33 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Nobody has ever been asked to testify under oath about them. If they were, there would be plenty of people willing to do so. Quoting: Barls Knarkley 28648
Okay, we're now making some progress here. You agree on the desirability of a court case in which the astronauts and other NASA personnel, both executives and ordinary "grunts," would testify under oath, subject to cross-examination, on their knowledge of the alleged moon walks.
Great. Maybe we should just end the discussion right here, since we now agree on a resolution to the issue?
Note, however, that the "plenty of people willing to" testify are precisely the ones most likely to commit perjury. Any criminal (or civil) investigator knows that the truth is most likely to come precisely from those who are least willing to testify under oath. Perjurers who are headed for Hell anyway will be happy to lie under oath; but the virtuous ones who fear God will tremble on the witness stand, because they know that God requires the truth from them. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 289861
10/15/2007 2:35 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
That depends on if you fit that description or not. DO oyu? DOn't naswer me, answer yourself! I already know the answer. Quoting: IDW 312662
You already know the answer... well, knowing how biased you are it's rather pointless to continue trying to discuss with you. But I'll try (I've got nothing better to do at this moment anyways).
Let's say you came to a forum, and saw someone say, for instance, "The sky is blue because of the reflection of the water". Something which we both know is incorrect. You then type out a post to explain how it works (scattered air). Remember, you and this person have never met each other, nor know each other.
The reaction? "Shut up, you paid-shill bastard."
Would that reaction be justified? |
| IDW
User ID: 312662
10/15/2007 2:35 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Hubble cannot resolve an object the size of the LEM descent stage.
But orbiting probes can. The moon has no atmosphere, allowing very low altitude orbits. It's a matter of months or years now before the fraud is exposed.
How will you react when the Chinese plant thier flag in the location of a disproved apollo landing site?
I am being realistic. Von Braun agrees with me, not any of you. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 98001
10/15/2007 2:37 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Yep. And galaxies are really, really big. The Apollo remains are much closer, but they are really, really small. The example I often use to illustrate this is to point out that you can see the Moon with your naked eyes, but you can't see geostationary communications satellites that are ten times closer. Because they are much, much smaller than the Moon.
Absolute & utter bollocks.You can see geostationary communications satellites & you dont even need a good telescope to do it. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 312666
You see them as a sunlit bright dot with no detail against a black sky. This is a completely different scenario than trying to see a lander descent stage against a background of approximately the same reflectivity. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 98001
10/15/2007 2:39 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
The Clementine probe did spot the Apollo 15 landing site.
[link to www.space.com] |
| | Page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144 | |
|
