Moonlanding

Sqaull20

cheater wrote: »

It would be pretty 'simple' to prove or disprove this CT, because naturally some of the 'spacebuggys' etc. should still be on the moon, that is if they were there in the first place. Would images of the moon where the astronauts landed be able to be gathered in this day and age? If there's no 'bits and pieces' left behind by the astronauts then wouldn't this prove that there was indeed a conspiracy.

Also as THEHEDGEHOG said above, why hasn't there been anymore moonlandings since?

EDIT: Answer to THEHEDHOGS question above

The Hubble telescope which isnt inhibited by atmosphere and stuff can see a object as small as 30 metres on the moons surface, but it would be the size of a dot.An object would have to be hundreds even thousands of metres in size for it to make out clearly.To see flags and bits of pieces you need a telescope with atleast 30 metre mirror in diameter ( 3 times larger the currently largest telescopes in the world )

I havent been keeping up with the latest news on the VLST ( Very Large Space Telescope ) which was suppose to replace the Hubble, which was only designed to last 10 years.The VLST which was very interesting idea had a resolution equivalent to seeing a soccer ball 7,500 miles away.

Anyone know the latest on that project?

It would go a long way to killing this theory.

HashSlinging

How come i can see my car parked outside my house on google earth. I'm sure it would be easy to do the same thing with the moon.

Sqaull20

HashSlinging wrote: »

How come i can see my car parked outside my house on google earth. I'm sure it would be easy to do the same thing with the moon.

The moon is 234,000 miles away depending on its orbit.

Google earth telescopes probably orbit a few hundred miles or so above the Earth.

Skeptic_Desu

HashSlinging wrote: »

How come i can see my car parked outside my house on google earth. I'm sure it would be easy to do the same thing with the moon.

Because we don't have thousands of satelites with really good cameras constantly orbiting the Moon.

Also the Apollo astronauts got about the equivalent to one chest x-ray's worth of radiation going through the Van Allen belts.
Not exactly being fried to a crisp.

Also it is interesting to note that all but three of the astronauts who did goes through the belts now have early stage cataracts that have been shown to be caused by radiation exposure to cosmic rays during their trip.

HashSlinging

Yeah so theres no need to have the worlds biggest telescope to view the thing. Mars has been mapped how come the moon hasnt been. Hiding something.

Sqaull20

HashSlinging wrote: »

Yeah so theres no need to have the worlds biggest telescope to view the thing. Mars has been mapped how come the moon hasnt been. Hiding something.

There are satellite image viewers like Google Mars and Google Moon. So far they're the only other bodies that we've put satellites around.

Images on Google Earth are not from NASA, they are from commercial satellites, anyone that wants to pay the money can have the photos.

NASA World Wind has full coverage of Venus, Earth, Moon, Mars and Jupiter. Mercury has less than half coverage.

If you download some plug-ins you can have access to photos from the Sun, Mercury, Venus, Earth, Moon, Mars, Phobos, Deimos, Jupiter, Io, Europa, Ganymede, Callisto, Saturn, Mimas, Enceladus, Tethys, Dione, Rhea, Iapetus, Uranus, Miranda, Ariel, Umbriel, Titania, Oberon, Neptune, Triton, Pluto and Charon.

The quality is not that good for most of them, but it is interesting.

Nice pics

http://hubblesite.org/gallery/album/entire_collection/

Diogenes

HashSlinging wrote: »

Yeah so theres no need to have the worlds biggest telescope to view the thing. Mars has been mapped how come the moon hasnt been. Hiding something.

Er the moon has been mapped.

Things line a lunar landing module or a the moon rover are about 5x5 foot, such small details aren't available on lunar or mars maps. Google has both Mars and Lunar maps.

http://www.google.com/moon/

www.google.com/mars/

Maps of Mars, the Moon, and er Earth generally don't include every bump and mound.

This is honestly such a pointlessly tenuous point.

Kernel

Diogenes wrote: »

You don't think the Soviets didn't had the means and technology to follow the source of the transmission signal, and not just pick it off CBS? Jesus.

Weirdly yes the Soviet Space Mission were one among many of the independent observers around the world who tracked the Apollo Missions.

In order for this conspiracy theory to work, every radio telescope in the World has to be in on it. Including the ones in Soviet hands. Radar tracked the module on it's journey and return.

Indeed amateurs even took images of the Apollo missions.

http://www.astr.ua.edu/keel/space/apollo.html

Oh hell as the above link shows a pilot on a Pam Am flight routing towards Australia maneuvered his plane to give his passengers a view of the injection burns.

Suggesting that the only evidence of the Moon Landings is what NASA presents, displays a profound ignorance of this subject matter.

None of this is proof that man landed on the moon. The whole theory is that the apollo missions did achieve earth orbit. The bone of contention is whether man walked on the surface of the moon or not. As I have stated, it is possible, but if they did achieve this, that odds were hugely stacked against them at that time.

Diogenes wrote: »

Never heard of Sergei Einstein? Andrei Tarkovsky? Nikita Mikhalkov?

Honestly...

No, I haven't. Should I have? I'm sure you haven't heard of them before your google searching. :rolleyes:

Skeptic_Desu

Would any hoax believe like to try to explain how a flag can remain absolutely motionless when a man in a large clunky suit hops by it not a foot away?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1UEv2PIzl4

bonkey

cheater wrote: »

It would be pretty 'simple' to prove or disprove this CT, because naturally some of the 'spacebuggys' etc. should still be on the moon, that is if they were there in the first place. Would images of the moon where the astronauts landed be able to be gathered in this day and age? If there's no 'bits and pieces' left behind by the astronauts then wouldn't this prove that there was indeed a conspiracy.

No telescope exists today with the capabilities of scanning the moon's surface to the necessary resolution.

The only way you could show pictures of them would be to send a spacecraft to the moon to send back pics.

If someone believes the moon-landing was faked...how, exactly, will they believe pictures beamed back from a space-craft in orbit around the moon???

This leads to the classic question for anyone who believes the landings were faked...

What do you require to prove to you that they weren't?

Kernel

Skeptic_Desu wrote: »

Would any hoax believe like to try to explain how a flag can remain absolutely motionless when a man in a large clunky suit hops by it not a foot away?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1UEv2PIzl4

Ehhhh extremely easily, if the flag is not made from cloth...........

Diogenes

Kernel wrote: »

None of this is proof that man landed on the moon. The whole theory is that the apollo missions did achieve earth orbit.

And this is where you show profound ignorance. The Russians sent a unmanned probe to the Moon, as did the Americans.

A theory that manned orbit of the earth could be used to fake a lunar landing ignores the massive evidence including radar, radio telescope, and visual evidence of the apollo missions from various sources. Not to mention it ignores the above mentioned Soviet and American probes to the Moon.

The bone of contention is whether man walked on the surface of the moon or not. As I have stated, it is possible, but if they did achieve this, that odds were hugely stacked against them at that time.

All of the above is the base just ignorant of sheer brilliance of one the greatest human endeavors in the history of mankind.

No, I haven't. Should I have? I'm sure you haven't heard of them before your google searching

I have have had the pleasure of watching Sergi Einstein' "Battle Ship Potemkin" with the score performed by the National Symphony Orchestra in harcourt street back in '99. I have copies of Tarkovsky's (superior) original version of "Solaris" and Mikhalkov seminal "burnt by the sun" in my DVD collection.

Oh bless you're just assuming you own base level of ignorance is the mean? Those of us who know (and I don't claim to have a superior knowledge of either russian cinema or the moon landings) anything don't assume we know everything.

Hey Kernel you are the personification of the term "ignorance is bliss"

Diogenes

Kernel wrote: »

Ehhhh extremely easily, if the flag is not made from cloth...........

Ah yes they made the flag out of steel, and the footage of them lacing up the flag, and letting it unfurl is just, er, em,


er... magic.

Kernel

Diogenes wrote: »

And this is where you show profound ignorance. The Russians sent a unmanned probe to the Moon, as did the Americans.

A theory that manned orbit of the earth could be used to fake a lunar landing ignores the massive evidence including radar, radio telescope, and visual evidence of the apollo missions from various sources. Not to mention it ignores the above mentioned Soviet and American probes to the Moon.

Did the soviet probes to the moon land where the 69 moon landing supposedly landed? Did it photograph said area? Show me a probe picture of the landing site.

Diogenes wrote: »

All of the above is the base just ignorant of sheer brilliance of one the greatest human endeavors in the history of mankind.

God, you're getting tiresome with the whole 'you're ignorant' thing. :rolleyes:

Diogenes wrote: »

I have have had the pleasure of watching Sergi Einstein' "Battle Ship Potemkin" with the score performed by the National Symphony Orchestra in harcourt street back in '99. I have copies of Tarkovsky's (superior) original version of "Solaris" and Mikhalkov seminal "burnt by the sun" in my DVD collection.

Potemkin? Now that was a conspiracy. Anyway, simple propoganda films aside, I think the US were well ahead of the Soviets in terms of producing movies.

Diogenes wrote: »

Oh bless you're just assuming you own base level of ignorance is the mean? Those of us who know (and I don't claim to have a superior knowledge of either russian cinema or the moon landings) anything don't assume we know everything.

Hey Kernel you are the personification of the term "ignorance is bliss"

You remind me of a child spitting out his dummy. Lol. Yeah, I'm ignorant.. whatever...

Kernel

Diogenes wrote: »

Ah yes they made the flag out of steel, and the footage of them lacing up the flag, and letting it unfurl is just, er, em,


er... magic.

Steel & magic? No, just not a traditional cloth flag. Pretty ****ing simple really. :rolleyes:

Tar.Aldarion

Kernel wrote: »

Ehhhh extremely easily, if the flag is not made from cloth...........

Kernel wrote: »

Steel & magic? No, just not a traditional cloth flag. Pretty ****ing simple really. :rolleyes:

Lol.

Diogenes

Kernel wrote: »

Steel & magic? No, just not a traditional cloth flag. Pretty ****ing simple really. :rolleyes:

Yes thats it, ignore the overall fundamental flaws in your idiotic theory, and focus on one little point.

Hey Kernel, what do you suggest that flag is made of? How can a material go from flexible to inflexible....

Oh and if you think the lunar landings were faked, how do you explain how lunar modules were tracked around the moon via radar? Or how visual evidence of LEM was faked. Or radio transmissions from the Apollo missions were tracked by organisation across the globe.

Go on Kernel gissus a go...

Kernel

Tara Le d'Arion wrote: »

Lol.

Read it again Tar.

Kernel

Diogenes wrote: »

Yes thats it, ignore the overall fundamental flaws in your idiotic theory, and focus on one little point.

Hey Kernel, what do you suggest that flag is made of? How can a material go from flexible to inflexible....

Oh and if you think the lunar landings were faked, how do you explain how lunar modules were tracked around the moon via radar? Or how visual evidence of LEM was faked. Or radio transmissions from the Apollo missions were tracked by organisation across the globe.

Go on Kernel gissus a go...

No, you're too rude to engage in further conversation. Grow up.

Kernel

Diogenes, I'm tired of your behaviour in this forum. You come in here for an argument, and simply insult people and call them ignorant if they do not agree with you.

As I have said, I'm not 100% on the moon landings being faked, however I sway more onto the side that they were, because there is evidence that they could not have happened. There is evidence on both sides, but frankly, I find your attitude rude, needlessly hostile and childish.

Diogenes

Kernel wrote: »

Diogenes, I'm tired of your behaviour in this forum. You come in here for an argument, and simply insult people and call them ignorant if they do not agree with you.

As I have said, I'm not 100% on the moon landings being faked, however I sway more onto the side that they were, because there is evidence that they could not have happened. There is evidence on both sides, but frankly, I find your attitude rude, needlessly hostile and childish.

And I find your willingness to take on board the compelling argument for the success of the apollo landings, combined with the patent absurdity of the conspiracy theories about the landing telling as to your close minded ignorance and inability to face actual facts.

I won't call someone ignorant just out of the barrel, but if someone just comes out with nonsense, and expects to have this absurdity with any degree of respect? What? I don't give the lunatic at my tube station the time of day, why should I not treat the guy who thinks the lunar flag was made of some kind of magic cloth, with the same kind of contempt?

Hey harsh words, but if you want to explain what the flag was made of, or how the transmission from the moon was faked, you'll get a rebuttal, but if you want to use this tired weak ass nonsense as a debate, I'll laugh at you.

Don't like it? Don't post nonsense.

Kernel

Diogenes wrote: »

I won't call someone ignorant just out of the barrel, but if someone just comes out with nonsense, and expects to have this absurdity with any degree of respect? What? I don't give the lunatic at my tube station the time of day, why should I not treat the guy who thinks the lunar flag was made of some kind of magic cloth, with the same kind of contempt?

So I am the equivalent of a lunatic at a tube station in your mind eh? Nice. Magic cloth? I never said anything of the sort - try to stick to correct statements. I merely pointed out that faking the flag would have been the easiest part of the landing if it was faked.

Diogenes

Kernel wrote: »

So I am the equivalent of a lunatic at a tube station in your mind eh? Nice. Magic cloth? I never said anything of the sort - try to stick to correct statements. I merely pointed out that faking the flag would have been the easiest part of the landing if it was faked.

No you said it would easy to make the flag go from unfurled cloth to taunt, and when challenged you said;

No, just not a traditional cloth flag.

No several posts later you refuse to elaborate, just telling us it would be easy, perhaps if it's so easy you could explain how it could be done.

Kernel, you're in a hole, please stop trying to "dig up".

Kernel

Diogenes wrote: »

No you said it would easy to make the flag go from unfurled cloth to taunt, and when challenged you said;

No several posts later you refuse to elaborate, just telling us it would be easy, perhaps if it's so easy you could explain how it could be done.

Kernel, you're in a hole, please stop trying to "dig up".

I'm not in a hole, it's difficult to make you understand that there are many ways to make a flag go from folded to 'taut', and they would be extremely easy to do. If there were a wire frame inside the flag, for example, it could be done. Easily. :rolleyes: Oh God.. why bother. Goodnight Diogenes. Hope you enjoyed tonights arguing.

FYI - isn't there a debate forum on boards.. perhaps you are merely practicing before going in with the big boys. I look forward to the day you contribute something to the conspiracy theories forum - like a conspiracy theory for example. :pac:

Diogenes

Kernel wrote: »

I'm not in a hole, it's difficult to make you understand that there are many ways to make a flag go from folded to 'taut', and they would be extremely easy to do. If there were a wire frame inside the flag, for example, it could be done. Easily. :rolleyes:

Then. It. Wouldn't. Look. Like. A. Normal. Flag. Going. Taunt.

Sorry if this is fecking basic logic.

Oh God.. why bother. Goodnight Diogenes. Hope you enjoyed tonights arguing.

FYI - isn't there a debate forum on boards.. perhaps you are merely practicing before going in with the big boys. I look forward to the day you contribute something to the conspiracy theories forum - like a conspiracy theory for example. :pac:

Kernel. how about the radio signal from the LEM, how about the amateur stargazers who saw the apollo missions? How about the radio telescopes across the globe who followed the mission.

I know you generally prefer to ignore evidence that upsets your worldview, but would you honestly like to bathe in ignorance your life, or just, try, at least, to challenge the evidence that refutes your ignorance.

Mahatma coat

Diogeness wrote:

NOTOriginally Posted by Kernel View Post
No you're mean and ask awkward questions which expose my base ignorance on this subject matter. Grow up.
LOL.

what do you mean to prove with this, that is Personal Abuse.

Reported

oscarBravo

Kernel wrote: »

As I have said, I'm not 100% on the moon landings being faked, however I sway more onto the side that they were, because there is evidence that they could not have happened. There is evidence on both sides, but frankly, I find your attitude rude, needlessly hostile and childish.

Kernel, I asked you a couple of simple questions earlier. Any chance you could answer them?

Ta.

toiletduck

What do the CT-ers think of the mirrors which were placed at the landing site and are used to calculate distances via laser?

Skeptic_Desu

Kernel wrote: »

Steel & magic? No, just not a traditional cloth flag. Pretty ****ing simple really. :rolleyes:

So NASA developed cloth that can go from flexible to inflexible and back again and then never used it again? You do know how ridiculous that sounds right?

Skeptic_Desu

toiletduck wrote: »

What do the CT-ers think of the mirrors which were placed at the landing site and are used to calculate distances via laser?

Unmanned missions and zionists no doubt.