Whould you get in this if I told you it goes to the moon?

a reply to: samkent

If that doesn't convince you then maybe WW2 never happened too.

While I have yet to see WWII deniers, there are Holocaust deniers... even though there is photographic proof and testimonials from those involved.

originally posted by: Barcs

Can't you just buy a telescope that would be able to zoom enough to see the landing site and the flag?

Actually, no. There's a maximum amount of detail any telescope can give you, based on its aperture and the wavelength of light you're looking with.

No matter what magnification or how perfect the lenses are, you can't get better resolution. Even lunar orbital telescopes would have trouble seeing the site in any detail, much less an Earth ground based scope.

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: Barcs

Can't you just buy a telescope that would be able to zoom enough to see the landing site and the flag?

Actually, no. There's a maximum amount of detail any telescope can give you, based on its aperture and the wavelength of light you're looking with.

No matter what magnification or how perfect the lenses are, you can't get better resolution. Even lunar orbital telescopes would have trouble seeing the site in any detail, much less an Earth ground based scope.

Damn, that's a shame. I was hoping we could put it to bed once and for all.

originally posted by: zatara
Maybe you have mentioned it a dozen times before Phage but I am very curious about what fact...or outstanding facts.. make you convinced that Apollo 11 did most certainly land on the Moon?

I can't speak for Phage, but I wanted to respond to this.

While I'm not saying that this is your view particularly there seems to be an implicit assumption amongst those who insist we didn't go that those who know we did have done no research into the subject, that we're just sucking this information up from [insert bogeyman of choice here] unquestioningly and without any kind of knowledge or understanding involved.

This is as insulting as it is incorrect. I for one have spent years looking into Apollo. I have read, and bought, countless books, scientific reports, magazines and newspapers about it. Some of these books and journals are original NASA publications from the time, others are supporting material also from the time. There are also many modern publications and analyses of the subject, and biographies and autobiographies of the people involved.

I have personally produced a website that has looked at every single image of Earth taken by Apollo's still, 16mm and TV cameras and matched them up with satellite images that prove they were taken when (and where) they were claimed to be taken.

I have looked at countless lunar probe images (from many countries, not just the USA) that show details featured in lunar surface images taken by Apollo that were not known about in advance.

I have looked the way that the lunar terminator progresses across Apollo's orbital images as missions progress and found that it matches exactly what should be there.

I've looked at the way surface shadows change as missions progress.

I've looked at images of stars and planets taken by Apollo (yes, there are plenty) and found they match exactly what should be visible.

I've attended presentations given by 6 Apollo astronauts (including 3 who have walked on the surface) and heard their personal testimony and found it matches exactly what is recorded in the history books. I'll be attending another this weekend.

Not once have I found anything in any of the documentation that contradicts the official narrative.

Not once.

On the other side of the coin I have listened to, or watched, or read, countless arguments by people claiming expertise and found their arguments wanting, ill-founded, inaccurate, or frankly just out and out lies. I have even (as in the case of our now missing OP) suffered the contempt and dismissive sneering of many people who have not even bothered to look into the subject, and have no intention of doing so, but who still proclaim their version of the truth as if it was gospel. Intuition, gut feelings and mistrust of some nebulous and undefined authority are seen as adequate proofs of their argument.

My support for Apollo is about defending the truth against ignorance. All of the evidence for it provides a completely coherent and consistent narrative. There is no evidence against it that holds any kind of water.

originally posted by: zatara

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: bassface09
Correct. They are not on the Moon. No one is.
But 12 men have been on the Moon.


Strange how some want to believe so strongly that it didn't happen. I wonder why.

Maybe you have mentioned it a dozen times before Phage but I am very curious about what fact...or outstanding facts.. make you convinced that Apollo 11 did most certainly land on the Moon?

I'm not Phage, but I'll provide my answer anyway

Landing on the moon may be a big feat for humanity, and for some people it may be really hard to imagine that we could pull off such a thing. Just like it must've been hard for people 150 years ago to imagine that we'd ever be able to fly in a flying machine. Imagine the look on the faces of medieval people at the sight of a Boeing 747 flying low over their town. Certainly they'd think Satan Himself was descending from hell to invade their town, and they'd try to shoot it with their bows.. or something along those lines.

But here we are. Flying is as normal as anything else these days. Airplanes fly overhead all day every day. We've also launched literally thousands of satellites in all sorts of orbits, providing all sorts of useful services that we couldn't even begin to dream of say 50 years ago. You can use navigation that's accurate to the yard on your cellphone, thanks to geostationary satellites floating out there in space.

We've built a space station, there's the Hubble telescope that makes fantastic photo's of all sorts of space stuff, we've got rovers on Mars, a whole bunch of spin-off inventions as a result of the space program, and the list goes on.

Despite all this, some people (like you) have difficulties when it comes to the Apollo program. In fact, there has been quite an effort to 'debunk' the idea that we actually went to the moon. It started kindof innocently with people pointing out what they thought were weird shadows on the moon, no stars in the sky on the moon pictures, and all sorts of other stuff that was explained pretty quickly and easily.

But do you think that settled the matter? Of course not! This thread is evidence that people still look to discredit the Apollo program, albeit with the flimsiest of arguments (the lander looks flimsy, so why do you think we went to the moon?). OF course that speaks volumes to the amount of ignorance it takes these days to come up with such a silly argument, and think/hope that that's going to sway anyone.

So what convinces me that 'we' went to the moon? Well after the gigantic effort of the deniers to discredit the Apollo program, literally NOTHING has stuck! And they tried and tried and tried! Every single attempt failed! Can you imagine that?

On the other hand, I don't see a single reason NOT to believe we went. So many people were involved with the Apollo program (some 400.000, apparently). The technology was there, the will was there and the nation was in the right spirit to support such an undertaking.

In fact there were a number of independent corroborations that confirmed that the landing did take place. Keep in mind, if these were hoaxed too, then that just adds to the number of people 'in the know', who could possibly start blabbering:

-The Bochum Observatory director (Professor Heinz Kaminski) was able to provide confirmation of events and data independent of both the Russian and U.S. space agencies.[15]

-A compilation of sightings appeared in "Observations of Apollo 11" by Sky and Telescope magazine, November 1969, pp. 358–359.

-At Jodrell Bank Observatory in the UK, the telescope was used to observe the mission, as it was used years previously for Sputnik. At the same time, Jodrell Bank scientists were tracking the unmanned Soviet spacecraft Luna 15, which was trying to land on the Moon. In July 2009, Jodrell released some recordings they made.

-Larry Baysinger, a technician for WHAS radio in Louisville, Kentucky, independently detected and recorded transmissions between the Apollo 11 astronauts on the lunar surface and the Lunar Module.[19] Recordings made by Baysinger share certain characteristics with recordings made at Bochum Observatory by Kaminski, in that both Kaminski's and Baysinger's recordings do not include the Capsule Communicator (CAPCOM) in Houston, Texas, and the associated Quindar tones heard in NASA audio and seen on NASA Apollo 11 transcripts. Kaminski and Baysinger could only hear the transmissions from the Moon, and not transmissions to the Moon from the Earth.

So yeah, to me that's pretty persuasive. On the other hand, the arguments from the deniers are stupid at best, and complete hoaxes in their own right at worst (such as Bart Sibrels' work.. But hey, lying is OK as long as you do it for Jesus, apparently).

Anyway here's a video that pretty much sums it up for me:

youtu.be...

I ask you this because you seem to be an open minded person who is willing to listen, "weigh" and investigate counter arguments. And having done so, the many different indications of possible faul play failed to convince you that Armstrong and Aldrin didn't walk on the Moon.

Am I right when I say that you are willing and able to change your mind when the evidence says the truth is different than you always thought it was?

Once again, I'mnot Phage, but I'm certainly open to good counterarguments. It's just that the 'counterarguments' offered so far have been utterly laughable How many false counterarguments are we meant to suffer before concluding that those who offer them are full of it?

a reply to: Barcs


Resolution of Hubble at the distance of the Moon objects about 300 ft across.

Seems pretty flimsy so i personally would not.

But I'm sure there's lots of adrenaline junkies and scientists who would.

Yes that thing was strapped to some huge rockets and didn't fall apart etc.

The whole moon landing does have some iffyness to it but at this time I sit on the fence - ya they could have been faked but same that's a pretty big con job

But I always wonder why we have not gone back after so long and our tech is now so much more advanced.

originally posted by: LibraJustice
Seems pretty flimsy so i personally would not.

But I'm sure there's lots of adrenaline junkies and scientists who would.

Yes that thing was strapped to some huge rockets and didn't fall apart etc.

The whole moon landing does have some iffyness to it but at this time I sit on the fence - ya they could have been faked but same that's a pretty big con job

What makes it seem iffy to you? In other words: what arguments from the hoax camp do you find convincing? Or what about the Apollo program do you find unconvincing? How much do you know about the subject anyway?

But I always wonder why we have not gone back after so long and our tech is now so much more advanced.

The Apollo mission cost 25.4 Billion US dollars. In today's money, that's about 150 Billion dollar.

That may be a good reason, right?

In comparison, the cost of the International Space Station, including development, assembly and running costs over 10 years, comes to €100 billion.

a reply to: ProfessorPatternfish

It looks totally safe to me!

For making a moon landing video.

I love the taking off part the most!

a reply to: ignorant_ape

u have a problem with too much respect for "authorities"

a reply to: ProfessorPatternfish

You think aeronautical engineers wouldn't be able to look at that and say "that's cardboard, egg boxes and wrapping paper and would never survive a trip to the moon"? Of course they would, but they don't. Why? Because it could and did.

originally posted by: reddragon2015
a reply to: ProfessorPatternfish

It looks totally safe to me!

For making a moon landing video.

I love the taking off part the most!

I take it you didn't watch the video posted above about how the moon landings could not have been faked due level that film cameras and digital cameras were in the 60?

It contains facts which you are free to refute. It's not opinion.

Or you going to ignore it cuz it doesn't fit in with your "opinion"

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: Barcs

Can't you just buy a telescope that would be able to zoom enough to see the landing site and the flag?

Actually, no. There's a maximum amount of detail any telescope can give you, based on its aperture and the wavelength of light you're looking with.

No matter what magnification or how perfect the lenses are, you can't get better resolution. Even lunar orbital telescopes would have trouble seeing the site in any detail, much less an Earth ground based scope.

Damn, that's a shame. I was hoping we could put it to bed once and for all.

Actually, lunar orbital telescope, the LRO, photographed a lot of detail such as the LM descent stages, the hardware left there by the astronauts, and even their foot tracks in the lunar soil:

www.lroc.asu.edu...
www.nasa.gov...

Let's not forget who built the thing.

Grumman. It was called the Grumman Ironworks for a very simple reason. What they built, worked. ...and you had to work really hard to break it.

a reply to: butcherguy

there are some basic questions about the holocaust that aparently cant be asked because someone will call you a denier, even on a site whos saying is deny ignorance , just because you have questions about something doesnt make you a denier , but the op went about it all wrong.

a reply to: ProfessorPatternfish I think the Apollo 11 capsule walls were Aluminum about 3 times as thick as a beer can how they made it through the Van Allen Belt has always mystified me.Its said that their exposure timewas brief.- I witnessed the night time launch of Apollo 17 from the VIP site so i know that was real.(looked unreal)where they went after that i cant say. Always wondered why Neil Armstrong shunned public view, Armstrong said when the lander was ready to leave the moon he hit the toggle switch to start the engines and the switch broke off falling back inside the panel so he stuck in a ball point pen which ignited the motors!! "come on man"

a reply to: 3danimator2014

ahem what? what are you talking about? They left a dude back there to pan the camera. Did you see that one? It's good, check it out.

a reply to: reddragon2015

Are you talking about the pan on the LM ascent stage takeoff on the later Apollo missions?

originally posted by: reddragon2015
a reply to: 3danimator2014

ahem what? what are you talking about? They left a dude back there to pan the camera. Did you see that one? It's good, check it out.

good example of the lack of research by the typical moon hoax believers.

originally posted by: PsychicCroMag
a reply to: ProfessorPatternfish I think the Apollo 11 capsule walls were Aluminum about 3 times as thick as a beer can how they made it through the Van Allen Belt has always mystified me.

dont know where you heard that from 3 times as thick as a beer can??



this is just the cross section of one wall of the command module there still the inner wall and insulation.

Its said that their exposure timewas brief.- I witnessed the night time launch of Apollo 17 from the VIP site so i know that was real.(looked unreal)where they went after that i cant say. Always wondered why Neil Armstrong shunned public view, Armstrong said when the lander was ready to leave the moon he hit the toggle switch to start the engines and the switch broke off falling back inside the panel so he stuck in a ball point pen which ignited the motors!! "come on man"

as opposed to faking it where they would not have made this public given all the editing time they had??