Can't remember. it said when the ice melts is the best time to find them. von Braun went with a team to collect some at one point.. the film claimed they are the moon rocks supposedly brought back from the the moon. it said the marks of burning as it came through the atmosphere are removed, can't recall how, then the a laser is used to make it look ike it was actually from the moon
I watched this film because i was looking at Nexus in a bookshop and it had an ad for his book.
The claim that astronauts weren't on board is made up. Likewise the claim that Kubrick was involved.
The hoax is usually along the lines of: "it was shot in a studio", but no one has ever provided credible evidence of it. Most of these videos work by bamboozling viewers with disinfo and debunked claims and if someone doesn't know much about the landings they can fall for it
It is not possible to use meteorites to fake moon rocks.
Hand waving "they used a laser" is nonsense.
The flights did not "go by the poles" as this is also nonsense.
What do you mean by this? How exactly did they go by the poles and what does this have to do with proving a hoax?
how do you know? what qualifications have you to say that?
The flights did not "go by the poles" as this is also nonsense.What do you mean by this? How exactly did they go by the poles and what does this have to do with proving a hoax?
if you don't know what it means how do you know its nonsense?.it's NASA that say they went by the poles
It's impossible to use meteorites to fake moon rocks. If you believe otherwise, please point out some examples. Or please explain how you believe this was accomplished.
And ok. If you believe Nasa said this, point out where. Or please explain what you believe it means exactly.
science.thewire.in/the-sciences/apollo-11-van-allen-radiation-belts-translunar-injection/
who are you to demand all the explanations.? if you want it watch the film do your own research. i have seen you on many threads here. you seem to think you know everything and are some sort of authority over what people believe. you have a deep need for conspiracys not to be true
you show this when you jump in with
you don't know what it means but still say its nonsense?.
you didn't answer what are your qualifications to say "It's impossible to use meteorites to fake moon rocks."
yes what the film says is they would n't have enough fuel. they claim it is NASA spiel to explain the belts and that the telemetry that could confirm it is issing.
Okay and how does this internet video support this claim?
It's important to question everything, including the claims into the video.
Also there's a space forum on this site, posters there have good knowledge about this stuff if you want to know more
If the apollo programme was a hoax, why hoax apollo 13?
If it never happened why are there hours of audio tapes capturing the whole mission, why make these up? With such scientific and engineering detail.
The reason why we didnt go back is because of money, getting to the moon in the 60s had unlimited funding.
Are Katherine Johnson and Maragaret Hamilton just paid actors?
Why bother with all the Gemini missions?
Is the Earth flat?
Ughhhhhh
Ok. Questions dodged. You cannot provide any explanations for these things.
You cannot show that the missions "went by the poles" because they didn't and the term makes no sense.
You aren't able to explain what you mean because it makes no sense.
I don't have any qualifications to say that it's impossible. I don't require any to do so. Why would I need qualifications?
It's not possible to use meteorites to fake moon rocks. You cannot explain how it is possible.
And It's always funny to see people demand that anyone who questions them to do their own research.
I have done my research. I know a lot about the moon landings and the conspiracy claims about them. That's why I know the conspiracy theories are all false and all a bit silly.
People who believe the conspiracy theories generally do not know the extent of space missions and of NASA's research. They have not idea about how much footage and data and material is out there documenting the whole thing.
It's not all that rare for them to not even know there were multiple moon landings.
A lot of the people who claim there is a conspiracy do so because they believe that the world is indeed flat. Or they are getting their arguments from people who make those or similar claims.
Why wouldn't they have enough fuel?
I don't have any qualifications to say that it's impossible. I don't require any to do so. Why would I need qualifications?It's not possible to use meteorites to fake moon rocks. You cannot explain how it is possible.
you cannot explain how it is impossible. you have no qualifications to be able to have an opinion and i w ill not be replying to you again. you seem to think you have some right to bullypeople to produce evidence while admitting you have no evidence and say questions dodged if someone doen't play. i have seen your use of this on other threads. you are either a troll or a shill,do your own research
Lol. I didn't say that I couldn't explain how it's impossible. I can.
I didn't say that I couldn't produce any evidence that it's impossible. I can.
I don't need any qualifications to do so. It's a weird thing for you to demand.
You are now running away rather than just answer simple questions about your theory.
I have seen this on other threads from many other conspiracy theorists also.
Also, lol, I'm a shill again? Pray tell, who am I a shill for? Why would I be paid disagree with people who claim the moon landings were faked?
One thing both the flat earthers and the moon landing hoaxers have in common is that they can never actually explain WHY they believe these things. They can never explain who actually benefits from these theories
The usual refrain is that America benefited cause they needed to beat the Russians, but it was impossible for them to actually go to the moon. (Why it's impossible is never really explained in any detail. And despite it now being a requirement apparently no conspiracy theorists ever explain how they're qualified to make such a statement.)
The claim for Flat earthers is that the world is secretly controlled by satanists or some such and those people are trying to trick people into not believing the bible.
There's no convincing conspiracy behind moon landings. What's the point of repeating the same hoax?
Capricorn One has a lot to answer for...
Neither side can provide any proof of theirclaims
NASA controlled the feed so could have faked it and can't prove they didn't. The fake believers cannot prove anything either . It's just a matter of belief.
I have seen claims the Russian s did a bit of fakery too
I find it amusing that that several moon fake believers have phds while many people who contradict them are uneducated spoofers and only 'know' what NASA told them.
Whether they went to the moon or not the recent orion spectacle was pathetic.
It's a reasonable question how come they can't even take off now when they went in 69 with the computing power of a calculator
One thing is for sure.they will have no problem faking mars if they are fakers
With the cameras and software available now I could fake a trip to mars myself
No, the people who don't believe the conspiracy can provide proof and evidence to back up their beliefs. It's not a matter of faith.
It's not reasonable to believe that there was a giant impossible conspiracy in the 60s because of launch delays now. That's a bizarre and silly argument to make.
Which moon hoax believers are your referring to and what are their doctorates in?
What i posted is my opinion i am not ge6 into an argument about it
Yes they can. This isn't a case of one person claiming there are fairies at the bottom of the garden and one person claiming there aren't and saying neither side can prove it either way. In this case there are photos of the fairies, film footage of the fairies flittering around in fairyland (with audio), footage of the fairies taking flight and landing (with audio), interviews with the fairies, interviews with the fairy support experts, the science behind fairyness has been clearly explained and is understood and not disputed, and even the jealous next-door neighbour that wanted their own fairies to be spotted first has acknowledged that the original claimant's fairies are genuine.
The evergreen question for me - if NASA had faked it, why did the Russians stay quiet about it? You can be damn sure they bounced lasers off the mirrors on the moon, or would have know whether or not a capsule spent several days getting to and from the moon.
The "both sides" argument. First of all, there isn't another side to this, no one has ever presented any coherent alternative.
Secondly, we know exactly what happened, minute-by-minute, almost second-by-second.
? They were hampered by weather, and they have had technical issues. It's a new rocket system. SpaceX has had plenty of technical issues and launch issues with their new rockets. There's nothing "pathetic" about it, it's highly complex and nothing is guaranteed.
One which has been addressed countless times. It didn't actually require that much computing power, the math isn't that complex, it's more about radar and guidance, they even broke out the slide rule in one mission. The Soviets landed a rover on the moon a year later. The yanks went to the moon five more times.
Paging @Wibbs again. They're back.
hello and welcome to an internet discussion forum.
Cool. You're not able to actually defend your opinion then.
#rollsupsleeves.. 😁
Maybe, but it would be a very tall order to do so. Meanwhile back in the 60's and early 70's with the camera technology in film and especially video and no software to speak off at all, you really couldn't.
In the early 70's I could book a flight on a supersonic aircraft, but I can't do that now. We have incredible machines to build all sorts of structures, yet nobody is building pyramids anymore(maybe in Vegas...). Greek fire was a weapon of the Byzantines and we have no real clue how to make it today. And computing power is all about what you do with it and if it meets what you need. In the early 40's the Germans were building and flying sub orbital liquid fuelled rockets, while in the death rattles of a war they were losing, using analogue tech. The transister hadn't even been invented yet, never mind the integrated circuit, while the two computers in the world at the time filled the space of a semi dee and had about one kilobyte of memory.
Even if you had software there's weren't any fast computers back then to run it on.
Fastest supercomputer in 1969 was Seymour Cray's $5 million (base price, $9m-$15m was typical) CDC 7600. It ran at 36.4 MHz and could do 15 million instructions per second. It used 95KW of electricity. It was 50 times faster that anything IBM had in 1963 so it's not like NASA could have sourced alternatives.
The A15 processor in the iphone 13 can do a million times more calculations per second. To get that level of performance in 1969 you'd need a million CDC 7600's which would use 95GW of electricity and cost $5 trillion - $15 trillion. GDP back then was only $1.1099 trillion and you'd need the output ALL of the US nuclear power stations most of which weren't even built back then. Also they were hand built so you couldn't ramp up production.
And the reality is that CGI for movies today uses web farms to do the rendering, not a single phone, and it still looks fake.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://www.boards.ie/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w8.vanillicon.com/v2/867a9f20e705add43a3ada2e4f4480cc.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/b1891d95e9e926c005ad3f5c153aacc5.svg)
