I wish I could find some definitive proof that the MOON LANDING IS REAL?

originally posted by: lavatrance
a reply to: WeRpeons

that's the thing the tech today is thousands of times beyond 1960's. Like a dollar store calculator that you buy for a buck has about 1000 times the computing power of the computers they had on board.

But they can't go back. It's so fake.

Like here's a thought. If they really can't afford to do a manned mission why don't they do like a mars rover type thing. Send that up there with modern cameras which would prove that at least it's plausible. But they dont' even do that. I'm sure the mars rovers are all faked to. It's just a way to steal billions from the tax payers.

What ? If they faked it like you say, why would they not fake it now ? Why if they go back now would you suddenly believe them with even easier methods to alter images thanks to photoshop and believable cgi/green screen tech ?

Short of taking you up there to see for yourself there is no way to prove they went that would satisfy you

What does it matter anyway ? We went to a dead rock floating around our living rock, space is huge, going to the moon isn't even close to us getting our foot out of the door of space, going to Mars isn't even close, neither is us managing to leave the solar system, our own galaxy is 100,000 light years across now times that by billions and you get a rough idea just how insignificant reaching the moon is

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
a reply to: lavatrance

The computer on board did not have to do much work, most of it was done by the massive mainframes on the ground.

Most of it was done by slide rulers since they were quicker than the computers they had back then. OMFG punch cards!!!

originally posted by: lavatrance

They can't even do space tourism yet and it's almost 2016. So much for 2001 a space oddesy. Moon landing back in the 1960's when a toaster was a novelty. We're way behind schedule, or technologically oppressed

Pictures/data of Pluto and many other planets/moons, rovers on mars, look at all the tech around you that was impossible 20 years ago much less 40 plus. Why do you want to go into specs again, or why do you see it as the greatest thing for an society that it is the most important thing to do? So you feel we are behind schedule so I guess you are now convince we went but are behind the space technical curve we should be. I guess we should have Enterprises all over the place if the movies can do it why not us?

Explain the 800+ lbs of moon rocks that have micro-craters on only one side (the sides facing up).
Come up with one reasonable scenario that would explain how it would be possible to have these, without going there.

a reply to: lavatrance

you request " definitive proof " of the veracity of the apollo program

tell me - that you you accept as " deffinive proof " that the island of east falkland exists

PS - if you dont understand why my counter question is germain - then theis thread is doomed

en.wikipedia.org...

Awful lot of trouble to fake...not saying impossible but ball achingly fraught with issues to also trick the none NASA pay-rolled worldwide scientific community.

Other countries have been poking around the moon with decent spec optics and I haven't heard or seen one piece of contradictory evidence to suggest at least US unmanned probes went to the moon as all the terrain photos check out.

If you look at the number of ex eagle scouts who have given their lives in lower survivability scenarios in the name of patriotic duty - I think the opportunity to go to the moon would still be over-subscribed today- never mind in an era when Russia was a real threat.

originally posted by: lavatrance
a reply to: TerminalVelocity

anyone can fake a photo. I'd need to see it through my own telescope to be convinced.

But then you might say the lander you see thorough a telescope was just put there robotically.

Even if you went there and saw the footprints yourself, you might say that those footprints were only recently planted by robotic probes with fake shoes.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: lavatrance
a reply to: TerminalVelocity

anyone can fake a photo. I'd need to see it through my own telescope to be convinced.

But then you might say the lander you see thorough a telescope was just put there robotically.

Even if you went there and saw the footprints yourself, you might say that those footprints were only recently planted by robotic probes with fake shoes.

Such is the mindset of moon hoax proponents...

Why even bother, the same type of person the blindly refuses that we went to the moon also most likely believes the Earth is flat or that Planet X is playing Hide and Seek in the Galaxy.

Some people are so tin-foiled up that no ammount of proof short of them doing it themselves is good enough. Unless of course they are pushing Planet X where YouTube videos with lens flare equal solid proof.

a reply to: Discotech

there's too much radiation in deep space is that so hard to understand???

a reply to: lavatrance

Your proof of this statement is ?

originally posted by: lavatrance
a reply to: Discotech

there's too much radiation in deep space is that so hard to understand???

How do you know or why do you believe this?

Has anybody just brought up the mirrors yet?

Ringed by footprints, sitting in the moondust, lies a 2-foot wide panel studded with 100 mirrors pointing at Earth: the "lunar laser ranging retroreflector array." Apollo 11 astronauts Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong put it there on July 21, 1969, about an hour before the end of their final moonwalk. Thirty-five years later, it's the only Apollo science experiment still running.

Source

They didn't just appear there out of nowhere and I doubt they were able to drop mirrors from orbit onto the Moon without them breaking.

So..there's your proof.

Also, this is confirmed by hundreds of amateur and semi professional star gazers who have the gear to literally look at them.

~Tenth

a reply to: lavatrance

It is likely you would not believe it unless you look it up for yourself.
There is a video of two astronaughts demonstrations Galileo's drop experiment on the moon.
One drops a hammer and a feather at the same time and they both land at the same time.
You can not do that on earth, even in a vacuum chamber unless you turn off gravity.

originally posted by: tinymind
a reply to: lavatrance

It is likely you would not believe it unless you look it up for yourself.
There is a video of two astronaughts demonstrations Galileo's drop experiment on the moon.
One drops a hammer and a feather at the same time and they both land at the same time.
You can not do that on earth, even in a vacuum chamber unless you turn off gravity.

But I think OP with their genius intellect will simply debunk that by bringing up string or fishing wire holding the hammer and making it descend at the same rate as the feather.

OP has convinced me we never went to the moon,

I mean look at the reasoning they provide, anyone can climb mount Everest so I guess we never went to the moon, it makes sense

a reply to: InhaleExhale

But I think OP with their genius intellect will simply debunk that by bringing up string or fishing wire holding the hammer and making it descend at the same rate as the feather.

It is not the hammer, it's the feather: it doesn't flutter, therefore there is no air.

last 10 or so.... re: hammer crap

you talk and act as if special effects dont' exist, or can't apply in this case. It's nuts.

They've had special effects since the 1800's for film. (Children...these are called special effects. They're generally used in movies. But they're not real.)










as for the radiation. well I've got a sun burn from time to time within the atmosphere. Outside it it's likely 1 mlllion times as bad.

HMMMMM....

this is funny....

a reply to: lavatrance

If you can't tell the difference between special effects and reality, you need to get out more.

What is the significance of you getting sunburn and then its 1 million times worse outside of the atmosphere.

I know science should be ignored in favor of tin-foil and YouTube videos but I need help understanding what comparison you were going for with that. I mean it can't be that you were trying to draw some analogy between the two so what were you going for?