If you believed they put a man on the moon....

Markus Antonius

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119551558#Comment_119551558

Not sure what you're getting at but do you deny that Jeff Bezos and Richard Branson are astronauts?

Capt'n Midnight

In 1957 Sputnik was launched. Anyone with a decent radio could pick it up. There was no way to fake a transmitter moving at nearly 8 kilometres per second back then. Doppler shift, line of sight, reception range, and predicted times across multiple continents.

Getting to Low Earth Orbit means you are 'halfway to anywhere' (very nearly ,it's 7.6Km/s for minimum stable earth orbit vs 16.6Km/s to escape the Solar System and tour the galaxy with gravity assists. Escaping the Galaxy is a tad more difficult.) The Titan II rockets that sent the Gemini Astronauts into orbit weighed 150 tons. Saturn V weighed nearly 3,000 tons and put 140 tons into LEO. Very simple physics, just use a much, much bigger rocket.

Mountaineers call anything above 8,000 the Death Zone, because like going under water, you will die if you stay too long but it's OK for a short time. Or a bit longer if you are properly prepared. Just like transiting the Van Allen belts. Concorde had a radiation detector so would reduce altitude if there was too much stuff coming from space, and because the crew were using it very day rather than once in a lifetime.

The early astronauts were military test pilots during a cold war. Dying was an occupational hazard. 50:50 was an acceptable risk.

You used to need something like Jodrell Bank's 76m dish to pickup the Russian pictures from the far side of the moon. Thanks to electronics amateurs can now pickup signals from Mars on a 60cm dish.

Capt'n Midnight

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119551693#Comment_119551693

The Kármán line at 100Km is the point where the air is so thin that an aircraft would have to go so fast to gain lift with it's wings that it would be in orbit anyway even if it had no wings. The speed is what counts, not the altitude. If you are only counting altitude then the target is 35,786Km where you can orbit at zero ground speed.

Richard Branson has put stuff in orbit. That puts him ahead of 100+ aerospace companies including Blue Origin who have rocket plans at various stages.

Jeff Bezos has his snout in the trough. He was able to reduce a bid on a NASA contract by $2Bn (against the rules) and still came in $1Bn over the winner. Until the Be-4 works reliably he'll have done nothing of note except divert funds and delay others with lawsuits. He's aiming low as doesn't need to match SpaceX on cost. All he has to do is beat ULA on cost to get the slot as backup provider for large US govt and military satellites. And Bezos sets the price and availability of ULA's engines, because ULA's accountants didn't go with Aerojet. Go figure.

Jeff's rocket works on autopilot. He wasn't doing any astronautics as he was just dead weight.

PeadarCo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119551601#Comment_119551601

Markus you are a good comedian. Your post is typical of conspiracy theorists. You haven't addressed a single point I've made. You will continue to gish gallop in this thread and hope people forget or won't read the rubbish you've posted that's been debunked.

The moon landing are established fact. Anything else is a conspiracy theory that only benefits conmen/women.

o1s1n

Really looking forward to revisiting this thread once Artemis takes off 😁

o1s1n

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119548777#Comment_119548777

Exactly, and what you are seeing in that photo with the crosshair is just a photographic anomaly.

Even if it were to provide proof of something, what exactly is it proving? How does what you are seeing prove it to be fake?

You seem to enjoy parroting the usual disproven 'facts' about the moon landings being faked without actually giving your own input as to how they actually prove anything was faked.

Let me get you started:

Markus Antonius: 'The crosshair vanishing behind a prop in this photograph proves the moon landing was fake because >insert your hypothesis here<'

Fabio

Christ above. There are some absolute dummies on this thread. Real grade-A dummies.

Fair play to @Wibbs for going into detail in the replies and absolutely breaking apart the "theories" that some folks have.

silliussoddius

Forget it Jake, it's Jonestown.

Pinch Flat

https://www.tesco.ie/groceries/en-IE/products/304789586

Every little helps

Capt'n Midnight

Here's the up goer five some people may need to study the diagram.

Markus Antonius

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119559798#Comment_119559798

You proved it was a fake picture in your first post 😆 I appreciate that.

That fact that they are superimposing objects/layers onto the official images is proof that they are dishonest and likely faking a lot more.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119560608#Comment_119560608

There are indeed. @Wibbs gave a lot of ramble and spurious paraphrasing but very little detail despite his best efforts. Do you know what would break apart the "theories"? A snippet of footage that would have been impossible to fake in the 60/70s along with a snifter of the "physics and engineering" that remove all doubt that we landed on the moon. I desperately want to see it, honestly.

Markus Antonius

300 is a good sample size for an Irish snapshot. Very interesting that it landed on 1 in 5 - exactly halfway between the UK and European polls

Interesting to see if Artemis will improve or worsen this fairly dire statistic.

Conall Cernach

Artemis will prove nothing for conspiracy theorists because any footage it provides will naturally be labelled as fake. Even if you personally strapped these people into a capsule and flew them to the moon they would still claim that they were just sitting on the ground watching faked footage through TV screens posing as windows.

Wibbs

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119562750#Comment_119562750

That fact that they are superimposing objects/layers onto the official images is proof that they are dishonest and likely faking a lot more.

They are not superimposing anything onto "official images". The reticles are in the film grain at the point of exposure because of an optical plate in the camera body.

This was part of the custom build by Hassleblad. Such plates are used for ranging and measurement purposes. Why would they go to the extra bother of adding these crosshairs in a fake? Why would they take large format high definition photos in the first place if they were faking things? They could have quite easily claimed that the harsh environment would make taking such pictures difficult, or they didn't have the technology and stick with low definition photos. Just like every chancer who claims he's got pics of Bigfoot, Nessie and ET. Instead the quality and definition and sheer number of photos, video and film got better as the missions went on.

A snippet of footage that would have been impossible to fake in the 60/70s along with a snifter of the "physics and engineering" that remove all doubt that we landed on the moon. I desperately want to see it, honestly.

You've already been shown it.

To fake the above video footage you would need to shoot in a vacuum and at lower gravity. Dust doesn't, can't act like that in atmosphere or at one G.

Your response? Slow motion. The goto for the ignorant. Because you don't understand two things; the basic physics of motion and there quite simply wasn't a slow motion video camera available in 1971 that could take such long sequences or with that clarity. But it's easier to shout fake!!

TBH this isn't for you. You're too far gone, too far down the rabbit hole and there's no climbing out. It's for the passers by who may have read some website or Tube vid and thought the chancers/morons were actually making valid points, relying on people naturally enough not being particularly interested or into the minutiae of how this kinda thing works and figure yeah the Yanks lied to us.

Wibbs

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119559798#Comment_119559798

Oh and further on the crosshair stuff...

The conspiracy nuts regularly use crappy low res pics grabbed from the interwebs to "prove" their points that look like they were taken with a potato, not a large format flim camera. EG from the first page:

Oh noes! the crosshair goes behind the object!!! Though of course they can't explain why this would be the case with a fake.

However if you go directly to NASA'a high res images...

Well I never. Probably photoshop dontcha know.

The other problem with this nonsense is all these so called behind objects "proofs" is in not a single case are they observed going behind correctly or under exposed objects.

randd1

I think the most amazing thing about the moon landings are that there are some people that still don’t believe it happened despite the obvious and clear evidence.

What’s even more amazing is that people engage with these lunatics (pun intended) as if they’re genuine when quite clearly they are someway damaged in the head.

They’re to be pitied. Arguing with them will only make them worse, and the last thing people with mental problems need is to be further isolated. Better to ignore and tolerate than push them further down the rabbit hole.

MrCostington

Just scanned through this so sorry if these points have been already made. Some great technical points made, but for me the most compelling evidence is actually the absence of two things.

IIRC 400,000 people were involved in the program. But let's say it was faked and that just took 5,000 people to do. The tin foil brigade obviously don't get out much, because one thing I know about people is they love to gossip. We would have had countless leaks and book deals etc from insiders exposing the fake landings.

Secondly, the Russians have never said it was faked. I'm pretty sure they would have if it was.

Ten of Swords

Mod - OK I think this thread would be better continued in the CT forum, and since one already exists there this one can be closed

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2055822925/moon-landing-hoax#latest