An End To The Moon Conspiracy!

page: 2
29
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 05:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
The funny thing is, the same people who say the US never landed on the moon are also the same ones who say that the US has contact with the Greys and are trading humans for technology.

Make up your damned minds people! Is the US building flying antigravity disks or are we so far behind what we say we are that we had to fake a landing on the moon???!?!?!


You just hit the nail on the head.




posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 05:44 AM
link   
To my mind there are two xtremely valid arguments which support and defy this conspiracy.

#1 Why pretend to go to the moon?

#2 Why bother going to the moon?

I have a theory that much of the money that supposedly goes to NASA is incorporated into other projects since the value of a lot of thier projects seems really minimal nd wasteful considering the condition of the world during the existence of NASA.

I am prepared to believe that we were well equipped to reach the moon in 1969 and probably did so. But I see no reason to lie about such an occurence either and by this I mean the genuine issues that arise from examining many of the photographic evidence taken during these expeditions. What could possibly have required these alleged alterations?
Moon expeditions create questions which we are powerless to address whilst NASA retains its virtual monopoly over space travel as it stands today. The task that NASA performs leaves it in a unique position to decieve people since we must accept all that it says at face value as we lack the means to confirm it individually.



posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 01:11 PM
link   


Hubble can't focus that close. It could barely get a clear shot of Jupiter when the meteors hit.



It can and has. Im tryin to find the link now!

I'll edit this when i find it!!!



Here's the link to the Hubble Moon photos!
hubblesite.org...

[edit on 1/3/2005 by MickeyDee]

[edit on 1/3/2005 by MickeyDee]



posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 12:03 AM
link   
this video may explain a few things

Apollo 11



posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 04:50 AM
link   
www.space.com...


Why not Hubble?

If SMART-1 can get an eyeful, why not use the Hubble space telescope to take photos of the Apollo landing sites? Hubble did photograph the Moon, in 1999.

"Anything left on the Moon cannot be resolved in any Hubble image," According to the Space Telescope Science Institute, which operates Hubble for NASA. "It would just appear as a dot."

Meanwhile, the trickiest task that the SMART-1 scientists have set themselves is to use a spacecraft spectrometer to look for the infrared signature of water ice, and perhaps frozen carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide too. Previous missions have provided evidence for water ice tucked away in permanently shadowed polar craters.

Any water on the lunar surface would be very helpful in the creation of permanent bases on the Moon, as outlined last year by President Bush. Other nations have Moon plans, too.

But to have survived, the water must be in the form of ice in places always hidden from the Sun. Such dark places exist, notably in the bottoms of small craters in the Moon’s polar regions.



posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 05:52 AM
link   
Do you think when we go back to the moon people will think NASA had faked that aswell?

And dont u think the Soviets would have gave the game away if the landings had been faked? Im sure the KGB would have easily been able to find out if NASA had faked them!



posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 11:26 AM
link   
What is really sad is in the last 30 years we hardly have done anything for the further exploration and study of the moon. SOmethign that is practically on our door step and all we can do is point telescopes at it, and at the most take pictures of it with sattilites



posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 11:37 AM
link   
Here is an article I just read on MSNBC. They are in the process of taking pictures right now.

www.msnbc.msn.com...



posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 02:31 PM
link   
Terapin has the same link that this came from.


The Hubble Space Telescope imaged the Moon in 1999. The view is the 58-mile-wide (93-kilometer) impact crater Copernicus. The inset at upper left is a full view of the Moon taken by a terrestrial telescope with the Hubble image area outlined. Credit: John Caldwell (York University, Ontario), Alex Storrs (STScI), and NASA

I was reading something on why the Hubble couldn't take clear shots of the moons surface and it was said that it's analogous to trying to look at bacteria with a telescope instead of using a microscope. Made since to me!

This link:
www.space.com...
is an attempt to confirm the Apollo missions as genuine. There will always be some that say that this is faked also.

Get it through your heads Naysayers, WE WENT TO THE MOON!



[edit on 5/3/05 by Intelearthling]



posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Terapin
Since the EUropean Space Agency has a probe that arrived in the moons orbit in November, Those who are foolish enough to disbelieve in the moon landings will now have to refute the new photos of the Apollo landing areas. There will also be photos of the Soviet robotic landing areas.
www.space.com...
It is sad to see some folks hanging on to a conspiracy theory this stupid, but I guess some still want to believe the Moon is made of cream cheese.


well..it's an european project and it would not surprise me, if this is the basic reason for some people over here that smart-1 simple has to be a fake. remember, even french scientists and engineers are allowed to work at esa.

i'm starting the countdown till the first one will start a "serious" discussion why (if smart-1 gets some closeup images) these are faked too.
but we can work both with the english and the metric system..are good enough to help develop ballistic missiles and nasa rockets, but hey...deny reality..

edit: of course it was "cooperation"


[edit on 5-3-2005 by Hannah]



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
The funny thing is, the same people who say the US never landed on the moon are also the same ones who say that the US has contact with the Greys and are trading humans for technology.

Make up your damned minds people! Is the US building flying antigravity disks or are we so far behind what we say we are that we had to fake a landing on the moon???!?!?!


So true! Yes we have alien technology. No we didn't land on the moon because we didn't have the technology. Blah, blah, blah......

However the acient indians obviously went there.



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 07:18 AM
link   
That is a good idea about hubble , but do we know we are still aligned correctly or will they find nothing because they dont have the right coordinates, that would just put us back to where we are now , someone with dummied up photos or real photos thought to be dummied.


Over 40 years the spot could not possibly be in the same place despited our delief that the moon stays in the same orbit , shifts do occur.

in fact our own axis was supposed to be shifted by the wobble effect caused by the massive earthquake in december.




The best what if to all this will be since people dought photos from the landing in the first place why would they trust new hubble pictures when hubble is controlled by NASA

[edit on 7/3/2005 by drbryankkruta]



posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 07:47 AM
link   
If the moon landings are just one of many of the greatest conspiracies ever, it would have cost the government billions over the years to keep the cover up going.
Wouldnt it have been alot cheaper just to send a man to the moon?
The Japanese will be there soon anyway so im sure they'll let us know if they come accross the US landers!



posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by MickeyDee
I truly believe that we did land on the moon back in '69, and so should everybody else.
So to finally end all the speculation regaurding the landings, why on earth doesnt NASA use Hubble to photograph the landing sites?
We've seen the amazing things that Hubble can do, so im sure it could give us amazing pics of the lunar surface.
It would be to NASA's advantage as their was no point them spending billions going to the moon if nobody believes they did!!!

One more thing! Why did they never fake a Mars landing!!


hey mickey, I'm gonna have to disagree with you about the landing on the moon in 69 I believe we did go to space but that is risky enough but nowhere near the moon look at all the evidence of moon landing back then I'm sure you will find a few anomilies.

They never faked a landing on mars because we simply don't have the tech to stay in space 3-4+ months or any ships that go that far without fuel or reusable fuel, nuclear would be good but no bugger is even thinking of going to mars yet. But if we pushed it we probly could land there in 3yrs but that might be over thinking.



posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 08:37 AM
link   

Besides, the KGB under former soviet rule would have exposed it long time ago, if that was possible....


Very good point, by the 60's, the KGB had penetrated some of the top layers of the CIA and it was infested with infiltrators throughout the Cold War...

As for water (ice) on the moon, Clementine found it, and this is even on the official military site for the pics...



posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 09:07 AM
link   
American Mad Man, you foolish person!

You expect logic or coherency from the hoax-believers?

Here is how it really happened:

The Greys exist, of course, and they have been selling us their technology since 1942 in return for people to eat.

The first deal was made at the Treaty of Nieue Schwabenland with the Nazis in 1943, where the Greys gave Hitler (who liked Antarctica so much he moved there and lived there until his death in 1989) the designs for their weaponry. The cost, of course, was three Jews per Grey per week (which is why the Holocaust isn't a hoax; but the Jews weren't gassed , they were given to the Greys).

For the next 25 years, the Nazis and their successors (John F. Kennedy, his half-brother Lee Harvey Oswald, Ho Chi Minh, and the entire Board of Directors of the International House of Pancakes) were too busy investigating and settling Pellucidar (the interior of the hollow Earth lit by a tiny sun in the exact center) after winning the Great Underground War with the Niburans and their Atlantean allies. By the time the war was over, they had begun the second phase of the Plan which was to design instructions to the center of the earth as well as the secrets of the Ancient Krishnavedanta Indian Nuclear devices. This work, carried out by Erich von Däniken and Cliff Carneycon, is available (in code) at the Denver International Airport for all to see.

The plan almost failed when Jeff Rense, a secret neocon and half-brother to both George Bush; and Art Bell, the illegitimate offspring of Queen Elizabeth as the result of a teenaged romantic fling with Nikita Krushchev and thus the Rightful King of England, both threatened to blow the whistle on the whole thing. They was killed, of course, and were replaced by cleverly-disguised Greys.

And that’s why we didn’t go to the Moon.



posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 11:53 AM
link   
drbryankkruta says:

"That is a good idea about hubble , but do we know we are still aligned correctly or will they find nothing because they dont have the right coordinates, that would just put us back to where we are now , someone with dummied up photos or real photos thought to be dummied."

It doesn't matter. The reason we cannot see the lunar lander or the soviet robotic landers is that the HST does not have a wide enough aperture.

Theoretical resolving power (that is being able to determine one thing from another, like the lander from the ground) is driven by what's called the Rayleigh criterion. It is an equation that says the theoretical lower size limit of something you can see is based on the aperture of the viewing device (~5 mm for your eye's pupil; ~2.4 m for the HST), the distance to the object, and some other derivatives. for those of you who are interested, it is:

Rt = (1.22 X w X A) / Do,

where

Rt is the theoretical resolution (how small something can be and still be seen as something different);
1.22 is a conversion factor;
w is the wavelength of light (say 600 nm for visible spectrum);
A is aperture;
Do is distance to the object.

If you plug in the numbers, the smallest thing we could see on the moon (given perfect eyes with a pupil diameter of 5 mm) and perfect viewing conditions would be an object 55.6 km across.

With the HST, given its aperture of about 2.4 m, the smallest thing you could see on the moon (and of course, in space the conditions are much better) is about 115 meters.

This means you could point HST at the Moon and see something about as big as a football stadium, but it'd still only be a dot.

Remember, the resolving power isn't driven by the magnification; once you get past the Rayleigh Limit, the extra magnification doesn't mean anything.

Resolving power is driven by the wavelength of light as well. If you used radio waves, UV, IR, or X-rays, you'd get more or less capability, but not all that much. And then you'd have to convert the image using special film!

If anyone here has Microsoft Excel, I just put together a spreadsheet that allows you to enter an aperture and a distance, and you can find how small something can be and still be seen.

U2U me, and I will be glad to send it to you.



posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 03:42 PM
link   
Thats quite a conspiracy youve got there Off_The_Street.

But we still went to the moon.



posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hunting Veritas
I believe we did go to space but that is risky enough but nowhere near the moon look at all the evidence of moon landing back then I'm sure you will find a few anomilies.

Here's all (or at least most) the photos from the apollo missions
www.apolloarchive.com...
There's no way you can fake all those...

Besides, if we did go into space (no one is disputing that as thousands saw the rockets take off), where did they go?
Did they just go in orbit for a while, dump the LMs into space, then come back?



posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 05:01 PM
link   


There's no way you can fake all those...


Imagin how long it would have took to fake all of them photos back in 69!
It would ahve taken a massive team months to modify every photo.

Now if they'd had photoshop it would have been different!!!





new topics
top topics
 
29
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join