| | | 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: 313176
10/16/2007 1:30 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
So Knarls is trying to tell us that you CAN see the lunar surface thats been disturbed by the LM but you CAN NOT see the lunar surface that's been disturbed by the Rover wheels? Even when those Lunar wheels have trawled for more than 30KM ?
To summarise, the lunar surface under the LM magical & so diferent in color that it can be seen from Clementine taking photos from lunar orbit, lunar surface every where else, none marking magical surface, that is invisible(even though its 35km's big)
Knarls, please explain. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 313022
10/16/2007 1:31 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
A half million people around the world worked for a decade on the Apollo program. Do you discount them all?
Simulators are deliberately designed to "fool" as much of the system (and its staff) as possible. The number of humans who need to know the difference between a simulation and an actual event need not be large. And as we know from 9/11, it is apparently quite easy to coerce large numbers of bureaucrats into silence, especially when the mainstream media are ready and able to persecute whistleblowers.
You expect us to believe this when Clinton couldn't even keep a blow job a secret? And this all occured on international television?
How gullible are YOU? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 98001
This another one of the believers arguments.
"How could they have kept it secret??"
Pretty simple. People dont question things.
I could stand on a beach in Florida, with palm trees behind me, and be interviewed on camera, and claim I am in southern California.
You would have no reason to think I am lying. But if little things start coming out , over time, and you see some things dont add up in the video, you might start to question things.
People have no idea how much shit they are fed on a daily basis.
I knew a woman who did traffic reports in a helicopter for a radio station.
She told me that when the pilot didnt feel like flying, they would do the on air traffic reports, sitting in the helicopter, on the ground, while he ran the engine. Parked on the ground. And she would put the live report over the radio, saying they were over Freeway 101 or whatever.
People listening to the radio, never guessed that the helicopter was on the ground, nowhere near the hi-way.
People are gullible.
Never under estimate the gullibility of the public. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 313176
10/16/2007 1:44 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Are you completely stupid, or just ignorant? How wide are the tracks? What is the angular resolution of the Hubble?
Can you see a thread from a distance of 100 miles...no matter how long it is? Obviously not. You have to be able to see the width of the thread to detect it. It doesn't matter if it's 50 miles long, you still won't see it. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 98001
We can see a packet of cigarettes from 500 miles up so a thread from 100 is definitely possible.Well at least that's what they say about the new KH series of spy satellites, so they probably have twice that capability. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 313022
10/16/2007 1:45 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
The entire mission smells like BS.
They say you cant see any stars on the moon. Then they say, well when u are in the shade of the lunar module, well,, you can see some stars. Maybe. But maybe not.
So sometimes you can see stars, but usually you can see no stars.
The astronuts all act very guilty and sullen when asked about the mission. Yet interview a Concorde pilot about his time flying it, and he is happy to tell you all about super sonic flight. Question an astronut, and they practically flip out about it.
Then we are told the Hubble the super telescope, cannot see things on the moon. Sure , it can see other galaxies and stuff, they just didnt build it with the idea of looking at the moon. (Angular reticulation, ya know)
Then they say the space suits are pressurized..although they show no signs of pressurization. Point this out, and they say, well, the pressurized part is UNDER the surface of the suit.
Show them video of an astronaut being picked up by wires on the moon, and well, thats the "spring loaded knee joint" in the suit.
Or the wires are just antennas. But the antennas are like 6 feet over their head.
Ask why we havent been back to the moon, and, well, its just because we dont to. No money, you see. We could, though.
Ever get the feeling that its a lot like being at the Mad Hatter's Tea Party? |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 313176
10/16/2007 1:57 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
So Knarls is trying to tell us that you CAN see the lunar surface thats been disturbed by the LM but you CAN NOT see the lunar surface that's been disturbed by the Rover wheels? Even when those Lunar wheels have trawled for more than 30KM ?
To summarise, the lunar surface under the LM magical & so diferent in color that it can be seen from Clementine taking photos from lunar orbit, lunar surface every where else, none marking magical surface, that is invisible(even though its 35km's big)
Knarls, please explain. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 313176
 |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 313022
10/16/2007 2:17 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
So Knarls is trying to tell us that you CAN see the lunar surface thats been disturbed by the LM but you CAN NOT see the lunar surface that's been disturbed by the Rover wheels? Even when those Lunar wheels have trawled for more than 30KM ?
To summarise, the lunar surface under the LM magical & so diferent in color that it can be seen from Clementine taking photos from lunar orbit, lunar surface every where else, none marking magical surface, that is invisible(even though its 35km's big)
Knarls, please explain.
Angular reticulation, dude!
There is no way we can ever see anything in detail from the moon.
That darn angular reticulation.
We can see other galaxies.
We can take pictures of you reading the newspaper from satellites.
But the moon? No sir.
Angular reticulation, you know.
(Since Barls went to bed, I figured I'd do his "angular reticulation" rant) |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 313176
10/16/2007 2:24 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
So Knarls is trying to tell us that you CAN see the lunar surface thats been disturbed by the LM but you CAN NOT see the lunar surface that's been disturbed by the Rover wheels? Even when those Lunar wheels have trawled for more than 30KM ?
To summarise, the lunar surface under the LM magical & so diferent in color that it can be seen from Clementine taking photos from lunar orbit, lunar surface every where else, none marking magical surface, that is invisible(even though its 35km's big)
Knarls, please explain.
Angular reticulation, dude!
There is no way we can ever see anything in detail from the moon.
That darn angular reticulation.
We can see other galaxies.
We can take pictures of you reading the newspaper from satellites.
But the moon? No sir.
Angular reticulation, you know.
(Since Barls went to bed, I figured I'd do his "angular reticulation" rant)
It would have been more believable if you threw in an insult at the beginning, but nice try. |
| HAZZARD
User ID: 308422
10/16/2007 3:02 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Yet another thought that occurred to me after hitting "Post":
As any HB will tell you, video evidence counts for nothing. Eyewitnesses are easily duped, and officials can be bought or threatened.
So the only way that a world record 100m sprint can be confirmed is to get the winning athlete to replicate his run and get the same time, every time. If his record run isn't reproducible at an arbitrarily chosen time, then they are a liar who probably has never run a race in their life.
Your notion of proof of events is purely your own.
The litmus test for me as to whether someone who posts in this thread is a troll or a misguided true believer is if they think their arguments can convince a regular member of the public who has never been near a conspiracy site. IDW, for instance, seems to genuinely believe that he is the greatest genius in human history, and that his arguments are unaddressable by the scientific community, and when published will strike the public like a hammer blow and sweep away all pretence of maintaining the hoax.
Then you have someone liek SpaceCadet and his "runnig down the track" nonsense that he likes to trot out at any given opportunity. I keep asking him when he's going to forward his argument to Sibrel or Percy for inclusion in their next books. I mean, he believes his own nonsense, right? He genuinely believes that it is an argument that will stand up to public scrutiny, right? Because the alternative is that he is spouting silly nonsense that not even he believes, purely in order to wind people up.
So go on. Take your argument to the masses. I'm sure you won't be ridiculed as illogical and trollish. Go on. Really. Quoting: Barls Knarkley 28648
I could not agree more.
Moonhoaxbelievers...Rather than believe what evidence of all stripes seems to demonstrate beyond a doubt, they create a world of sound stages and cover-ups, whistle blowers and—GASP!!—murder.
No matter that each of their “anomalies” are explained using simple, easily verifiable evidence. Its simply more comforting to believe that either their evidence is better, or those disproving their claims are in on the conspiracy.
Part of the allure of conspiracism seems to be the excitement of believing something that few other people believe. Its a way of saying, "Im different."
We can go beyond that, they think their beliefs are not only different but also better.
But simply the difference is enough to worry about here.
After all, what good is being different if no one notices?
What needs to be done regarding the various credulous hypotheses,and crack pot ideas that are all too common here, is to apply a good solid dose of critical reasoning.
If an argument is based on nothing more than assumptions and blatantly lacks any factual corroboration, its just a bunch of anecdotal observations from people saying its true because they "say so", then its just not credible.
Also, study science, real science.
This will really help when it comes time to look at someones argument and be able to know if what they are saying actually "holds water", or is just a belief based on nothing remotely valid or scientifically confirmed.
This is because they are interested in lashing out at the perceived power structure, not in discovering any kind of objective truth.
In the end, the moonhoax believers are just annoying, but the Holocaust and 911 hoaxbelievers are dangerous and the most despicable of them all. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 263900
10/16/2007 3:12 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
So Knarls is trying to tell us that you CAN see the lunar surface thats been disturbed by the LM but you CAN NOT see the lunar surface that's been disturbed by the Rover wheels? Even when those Lunar wheels have trawled for more than 30KM ?
To summarise, the lunar surface under the LM magical & so diferent in color that it can be seen from Clementine taking photos from lunar orbit, lunar surface every where else, none marking magical surface, that is invisible(even though its 35km's big)
Knarls, please explain. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 313176
Good point. Either the dust doesnt move that much or it moves so much that it can be photod from orbit & if they can photograph that, then they can photograph the Apollo 17 site which was enormous. I think some people are making up their own science to describe irregularity's. They be telling us that skyscrapers collapse at the speed of gravity next.Oh wait, im too late already. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 98001
10/16/2007 3:21 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
The entire mission smells like BS.
They say you cant see any stars on the moon. Then they say, well when u are in the shade of the lunar module, well,, you can see some stars. Maybe. But maybe not.
So sometimes you can see stars, but usually you can see no stars. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 313022
Ah, the old stars story that has been debunked a 1000 times.
OK, see if you can follow along this time...
Go outside during a bright clear day and using a single lens reflex camera, set the exposure (f-stop and exposure time) to properly expose an object in direct sunlight. Then, using the same camera with the settings still the same, go outside at night and see if you can take a picture of stars.
Your eyes work that way as well...in bright sunlight, your pupils shut way down, if you then try to see details in the dark, you can't until some time passes and your eyes get dark adapted.
You really don't think much about these things, do you? You just grab the old worn out HB handbook and toss out any old ridiculous excuse and hope it sticks. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 98001
10/16/2007 3:22 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
The astronuts all act very guilty and sullen when asked about the mission. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 313022
Oh really? Have you ever seen an interview with Buzz Aldrin? |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 263900
10/16/2007 3:31 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
The entire mission smells like BS.
They say you cant see any stars on the moon. Then they say, well when u are in the shade of the lunar module, well,, you can see some stars. Maybe. But maybe not.
So sometimes you can see stars, but usually you can see no stars.
Ah, the old stars story that has been debunked a 1000 times.
OK, see if you can follow along this time...
Go outside during a bright clear day and using a single lens reflex camera, set the exposure (f-stop and exposure time) to properly expose an object in direct sunlight. Then, using the same camera with the settings still the same, go outside at night and see if you can take a picture of stars.
Your eyes work that way as well...in bright sunlight, your pupils shut way down, if you then try to see details in the dark, you can't until some time passes and your eyes get dark adapted.
You really don't think much about these things, do you? You just grab the old worn out HB handbook and toss out any old ridiculous excuse and hope it sticks. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 98001
Why the Hostility? Is it that unbelievable that your Government may have lied to you?
Or do you believe that Iraq & WMD's was the 1st time that ever happened.
(Dont tell me that they found WMD's, you will look like a tard if you do!) |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 313022
10/16/2007 3:31 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Yet another thought that occurred to me after hitting "Post":
As any HB will tell you, video evidence counts for nothing. Eyewitnesses are easily duped, and officials can be bought or threatened.
So the only way that a world record 100m sprint can be confirmed is to get the winning athlete to replicate his run and get the same time, every time. If his record run isn't reproducible at an arbitrarily chosen time, then they are a liar who probably has never run a race in their life.
Your notion of proof of events is purely your own.
The litmus test for me as to whether someone who posts in this thread is a troll or a misguided true believer is if they think their arguments can convince a regular member of the public who has never been near a conspiracy site. IDW, for instance, seems to genuinely believe that he is the greatest genius in human history, and that his arguments are unaddressable by the scientific community, and when published will strike the public like a hammer blow and sweep away all pretence of maintaining the hoax.
Then you have someone liek SpaceCadet and his "runnig down the track" nonsense that he likes to trot out at any given opportunity. I keep asking him when he's going to forward his argument to Sibrel or Percy for inclusion in their next books. I mean, he believes his own nonsense, right? He genuinely believes that it is an argument that will stand up to public scrutiny, right? Because the alternative is that he is spouting silly nonsense that not even he believes, purely in order to wind people up.
So go on. Take your argument to the masses. I'm sure you won't be ridiculed as illogical and trollish. Go on. Really.
I could not agree more.
Moonhoaxbelievers...Rather than believe what evidence of all stripes seems to demonstrate beyond a doubt, they create a world of sound stages and cover-ups, whistle blowers and—GASP!!—murder.
No matter that each of their “anomalies” are explained using simple, easily verifiable evidence. Its simply more comforting to believe that either their evidence is better, or those disproving their claims are in on the conspiracy.
Part of the allure of conspiracism seems to be the excitement of believing something that few other people believe. Its a way of saying, "Im different."
We can go beyond that, they think their beliefs are not only different but also better.
But simply the difference is enough to worry about here.
After all, what good is being different if no one notices?
What needs to be done regarding the various credulous hypotheses,and crack pot ideas that are all too common here, is to apply a good solid dose of critical reasoning.
If an argument is based on nothing more than assumptions and blatantly lacks any factual corroboration, its just a bunch of anecdotal observations from people saying its true because they "say so", then its just not credible.
Also, study science, real science.
This will really help when it comes time to look at someones argument and be able to know if what they are saying actually "holds water", or is just a belief based on nothing remotely valid or scientifically confirmed.
This is because they are interested in lashing out at the perceived power structure, not in discovering any kind of objective truth.
In the end, the moonhoax believers are just annoying, but the Holocaust and 911 hoaxbelievers are dangerous and the most despicable of them all. Quoting: HAZZARD 308422
In other words, believe what the powers that be feed you, or you are "dangerous".
Dont believe the Apollo missions?
You are dangerous.
Thinking outside the box? Danger.
All BS, of course. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 98001
10/16/2007 3:32 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
The entire mission smells like BS. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 313022
Simply because of your obvious ignorance of basic science.
They say you cant see any stars on the moon. Then they say, well when u are in the shade of the lunar module, well,, you can see some stars. Maybe. But maybe not.
So sometimes you can see stars, but usually you can see no stars. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 313022
Explained for the 1000ths time above. Obviously you have no experience or knowledge of cameras.
The astronuts all act very guilty and sullen when asked about the mission. Yet interview a Concorde pilot about his time flying it, and he is happy to tell you all about super sonic flight. Question an astronut, and they practically flip out about it. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 313022
You've obviously never seen very many astronaut interviews...Buzz Aldrin for one.
Then we are told the Hubble the super telescope, cannot see things on the moon. Sure , it can see other galaxies and stuff, they just didnt build it with the idea of looking at the moon. (Angular reticulation, ya know) Quoting: Anonymous Coward 313022
Apparently, you're too stupid to have followed the math given in the examples before on angular resolution.
Then they say the space suits are pressurized..although they show no signs of pressurization. Point this out, and they say, well, the pressurized part is UNDER the surface of the suit. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 313022
It is. The pressurization bladder is next to the body underneath the loose outer layer.
Show them video of an astronaut being picked up by wires on the moon, and well, thats the "spring loaded knee joint" in the suit.
Or the wires are just antennas. But the antennas are like 6 feet over their head. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 313022
Now you're just being silly.
Ask why we havent been back to the moon, and, well, its just because we dont to. No money, you see. We could, though. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 313022
Call your Congressman and ask him that question. I'm sure you'll get "Oh, yeah...we'll be happy to commit billions of dollars to re-do something we've already done just to satisfy a few internet kooks who due to their lack of basic education think we never went." Yeah, right. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 289861
10/16/2007 3:38 PM | | Anonymous Coward
User ID: 313022
10/16/2007 3:42 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
The astronuts all act very guilty and sullen when asked about the mission.
Oh really? Have you ever seen an interview with Buzz Aldrin? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 98001
Yes, I have.
Aldrin gets violent when asked about the faked mission.
Violence is his last resort. He knows he cant back it up. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 3222
10/16/2007 3:51 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Yes, I have.
Aldrin gets violent when asked about the faked mission.
Violence is his last resort. He knows he cant back it up. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 313022
Being falsely accused of faking would make me angry, probably you too, so why shouldn't Aldrin get angry once in a while?
Besides:
How many interviews have been made with him?
How many of those interviews were with interviewers who accused him of faking?
How many times has he gotten "angry"?
Do you have any numbers to back up your claim? |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 313022
10/16/2007 3:55 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
"we'll be happy to commit billions of dollars to re-do something we've already done just to satisfy a few internet kooks who due to their lack of basic education think we never went." ""
Well, when they discovered the Americas, they didnt stop and say, "why commit lots of money to go back there? Just to satisfy some kooks who say we never went there"?
Progression.
You dont go to the moon and then just call it quits.
There are other planets out there. Human nature compells us to go further.
Whether your education is high school, a BS, a Masters or PhD, is irrelevant.
Common sense and reasoning requires no formal education.
Lets proceed. Go back to the moon.
Mars, Venus, etc.
Otherwise, its all lies. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 313235
10/16/2007 3:57 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Ah, the old stars story that has been debunked a 1000 times.
OK, see if you can follow along this time...
Go outside during a bright clear day and using a single lens reflex camera, set the exposure (f-stop and exposure time) to properly expose an object in direct sunlight. Then, using the same camera with the settings still the same, go outside at night and see if you can take a picture of stars.
Your eyes work that way as well...in bright sunlight, your pupils shut way down, if you then try to see details in the dark, you can't until some time passes and your eyes get dark adapted.
You really don't think much about these things, do you? You just grab the old worn out HB handbook and toss out any old ridiculous excuse and hope it sticks. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 98001
Sunlight on the moon is not bright, because there is no atmosphere to scatter the sunlight. On the moon, a day should be like a clear night on Earth with no light pollution and with a big light bulb on the sky, the sun. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 313235
10/16/2007 3:58 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Another thing: what about the repetitive background in most pictures? no one has debunked that, either in apollohoax or in badastronomy. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 313022
10/16/2007 3:59 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Yes, I have.
Aldrin gets violent when asked about the faked mission.
Violence is his last resort. He knows he cant back it up.
Being falsely accused of faking would make me angry, probably you too, so why shouldn't Aldrin get angry once in a while?
Besides:
How many interviews have been made with him?
How many of those interviews were with interviewers who accused him of faking?
How many times has he gotten "angry"?
Do you have any numbers to back up your claim? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 3222
Sounds more like he is frustrated by a life of lies.
Military pilots no doubt start with altruisic ideas.
If I was a pilot and someone confronted me saying I didnt do this or that, Id either laugh or ask them to sit down with me, have a cup of coffee, and we could discuss it.
At his age, he shouldnt be that full of anger.
Maybe all the BS is getting to him. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 299322
10/16/2007 4:05 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Why hasn't anyone mentioned how absurd it was to expect a computer with a max of 32K ram to manage the landing of the LEM? |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 313022
10/16/2007 4:12 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Another thing: what about the repetitive background in most pictures? no one has debunked that, either in apollohoax or in badastronomy. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 313235
The background is simply ludicrous. We are expected to believe that one cannot see beyond 50 or 100 feet on the moon. The horizon just disappears.
Its like if they walked 100 feet away, they would just disappear into toal darkness.
Like the sun doesnt illuminate beyond their little landing area.
We should be able to see for miles. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 98001
10/16/2007 4:17 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
"we'll be happy to commit billions of dollars to re-do something we've already done just to satisfy a few internet kooks who due to their lack of basic education think we never went." ""
Well, when they discovered the Americas, they didnt stop and say, "why commit lots of money to go back there? Just to satisfy some kooks who say we never went there"?
Progression.
You dont go to the moon and then just call it quits.
There are other planets out there. Human nature compells us to go further.
Whether your education is high school, a BS, a Masters or PhD, is irrelevant.
Common sense and reasoning requires no formal education.
Lets proceed. Go back to the moon.
Mars, Venus, etc.
Otherwise, its all lies. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 313022
You're so full of shit it's hilarious.
Yes, let's by all means go back.
But remember, the space race occurred in the middle of the Vietnam War. Once the goal was reached and the Soviets beat, the politicians were the ones who killed the missions. The hardware for Apollo 18 was ready to go when the Congress cut the funding. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 98001
10/16/2007 4:19 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Ah, the old stars story that has been debunked a 1000 times.
OK, see if you can follow along this time...
Go outside during a bright clear day and using a single lens reflex camera, set the exposure (f-stop and exposure time) to properly expose an object in direct sunlight. Then, using the same camera with the settings still the same, go outside at night and see if you can take a picture of stars.
Your eyes work that way as well...in bright sunlight, your pupils shut way down, if you then try to see details in the dark, you can't until some time passes and your eyes get dark adapted.
You really don't think much about these things, do you? You just grab the old worn out HB handbook and toss out any old ridiculous excuse and hope it sticks.
Sunlight on the moon is not bright, because there is no atmosphere to scatter the sunlight. On the moon, a day should be like a clear night on Earth with no light pollution and with a big light bulb on the sky, the sun. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 313235
Again, your ignorance seems to know no bounds. It's just the opposite. The sun has no atmosphere to scatter it and it's immensely bright in space and on the moon. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 313235
10/16/2007 4:19 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Another thing: what about the repetitive background in most pictures? no one has debunked that, either in apollohoax or in badastronomy.
The background is simply ludicrous. We are expected to believe that one cannot see beyond 50 or 100 feet on the moon. The horizon just disappears.
Its like if they walked 100 feet away, they would just disappear into toal darkness.
Like the sun doesnt illuminate beyond their little landing area.
We should be able to see for miles. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 313022
Just compare the Mars pictures with the Moon pictures! vast difference: in Mars pictures, what we see is a quite credible version of a landscape that stretches for miles. With the moon pictures, we see the same mountains in the background and nothing beyond. It is ridiculus.
Something no one has ever mentioned: they could have faked the signals coming from the moon by launching a module that went to the moon. All they needed is a small satellite transmitter. Then the signals where transmitted from the capsule which was in orbit to towards the moon (and therefore no Earth device would caught it) and then back to Earth through this device. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 98001
10/16/2007 4:19 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Another thing: what about the repetitive background in most pictures? no one has debunked that, either in apollohoax or in badastronomy. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 313235
What about it? |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 98001
10/16/2007 4:23 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Another thing: what about the repetitive background in most pictures? no one has debunked that, either in apollohoax or in badastronomy.
The background is simply ludicrous. We are expected to believe that one cannot see beyond 50 or 100 feet on the moon. The horizon just disappears.
Its like if they walked 100 feet away, they would just disappear into toal darkness.
Like the sun doesnt illuminate beyond their little landing area.
We should be able to see for miles. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 313022
Apparently you have never read how everything you are bringing up has been debunked MANY times over.
Try:
[link to www.dimaggio.org]
Then get back with us. For now you're just wasting everyone's time. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 98001
10/16/2007 4:24 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Another thing: what about the repetitive background in most pictures? no one has debunked that, either in apollohoax or in badastronomy.
The background is simply ludicrous. We are expected to believe that one cannot see beyond 50 or 100 feet on the moon. The horizon just disappears.
Its like if they walked 100 feet away, they would just disappear into toal darkness.
Like the sun doesnt illuminate beyond their little landing area.
We should be able to see for miles.
Just compare the Mars pictures with the Moon pictures! vast difference: in Mars pictures, what we see is a quite credible version of a landscape that stretches for miles. With the moon pictures, we see the same mountains in the background and nothing beyond. It is ridiculus.
Something no one has ever mentioned: they could have faked the signals coming from the moon by launching a module that went to the moon. All they needed is a small satellite transmitter. Then the signals where transmitted from the capsule which was in orbit to towards the moon (and therefore no Earth device would caught it) and then back to Earth through this device. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 313235
Except that the delay in conversations would have been twice as long.
You really don't think much, do you? |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 313235
10/16/2007 4:27 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Sunlight on the moon is not bright, because there is no atmosphere to scatter the sunlight. On the moon, a day should be like a clear night on Earth with no light pollution and with a big light bulb on the sky, the sun.
Again, your ignorance seems to know no bounds. It's just the opposite. The sun has no atmosphere to scatter it and it's immensely bright in space and on the moon. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 98001
The sun is immensely bright, indeed, but not the areas around the sun in the sky! what makes stars not seen in day here on Earth is that the light coming from the stars is lost in the atmosphere. Since the moon has no atmosphere, stars are visible.
Do this experiment: go out in a field at night, without any light nearby. Also get a really big flashlight with you. Then hold the flashlight above your head towards your face. Do you see the stars or not?
You will not see the stars which are around the flashlight's halo, but you will see all the others. Especially if you turn your back to the flashlight or block it with your hand. |
| | 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 | |
|
