Proof We Didn't Go To The Moon?

page: 4
19
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 25 2011 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by tom502

Originally posted by C3RB3RU5
reply to post by consigliere
 


If you really don't believe in the moon landing, consider two things:

1. The mirrors we placed on the moon that reflect light back to us :O

2. People who watched the moon landing through their own telescopes

We went to the moon. Oh, and astronauts brought back some rock samples from ze moon. But I guess we got those from the space-rock-black-market, right?


The Soviets placed mirrors on the Moon with unmanned missions. The US probably has too, that is not proof man landed and walked on the Moon.
No one can see from an Earth bound telescope of anyone landing on the Moon, it's just too far away.


No the moon isn't too faraway it's too close to us. The reason why is the sun's reflection would be so bright on that area and with as much magnification that would be needed to see something as small as a person it would be like putting your eye to a laser. And you can't use filters because it would block the person out. But it is possible to see a ship land on it by the shadow.
edit on 25-5-2011 by buster2010 because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 25 2011 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by phishyblankwaters
 


We have to accept then, what gravity on the moon is the same as on earth, and moon has atmosphere as well, or how would you explain water and wind erosion on the moon rocks?

You faith is the only proof, sorry.
I was impossible then, it's impossible now.
If experiment can't be repeated , it's a fiction .



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Karbofos
 


Huh????????



We have to accept then, what gravity on the moon is the same as on earth, and moon has atmosphere as well, or how would you explain water and wind erosion on the moon rocks?


Could you please organize your thoughts, and come back later with them?? Then, we can discuss you (apparent) misconceptions.....



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


So you are saying what moon videos where shot in 1/6 of earth gravity? Even mythbusters proofed that not to be the case.
There are a lot of wind and water eroosion marks on the moon rocks on NASA pictures. Only presence of atmosphere can explain that.



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Karbofos
So you are saying what moon videos where shot in 1/6 of earth gravity? Even mythbusters proofed that not to be the case.

Did you even watch the episode? They proved it was shot in 1/6th earth gravity and that the only way to re-create that on earth was to actually create 1/6th earth gravity in a vomit comet, which only works for a maximum of about 30 seconds at a time and in extremely cramped quarters.


There are a lot of wind and water eroosion marks on the moon rocks on NASA pictures. Only presence of atmosphere can explain that.

Funny that all the geologists say differently. But since you're making absolute statements based on your own personal expertise, I have to ask, are you an amateur geologist? Can I see some evidence of your geology education, experience, and work?



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Karbofos
 



So you are saying what moon videos where shot in 1/6 of earth gravity?


ALL videos of EVAs on the Lunar surface were *shot* in about 1/6 G because.....THAT is the actual gravitational constant that exists on the Moon.



Even mythbusters proofed that not to be the case.


You seem to have misinterpreted what MythBusters did, in any of their programs. Try watching again, hopefully you will learn something.



There are a lot of wind and water eroosion marks on the moon rocks on NASA pictures.


NO, there are not. Perhaps you have some source to substantiate this? Until you do, those claims are bogus.



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 


You should watch that episode again. They compare footage shot on the moon, to footage shot with different frame rate and footage shot in 1/6 of gravity , and nether matches moon footage, with means something, gravity or frame rate was different on the moon))

If geologist denying erosion when he seeing one, I would question his expertise.

It's not about my work in geology, it's about NASA failing to provide evidence of moon landing. I don't have to proove it, they do.
Doctored washed out video all there is. Not good enough for me, sorry.



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Karbofos
reply to post by ngchunter
 


You should watch that episode again. They compare footage shot on the moon, to footage shot with different frame rate and footage shot in 1/6 of gravity , and nether matches moon footage, with means something, gravity or frame rate was different on the moon

I've watched it multiple times, I suggest you have another look. They compare footage shot on the moon to footage shot at a faster frame rate and footage shot on a wire suspension system. Neither looked like the lunar footage. What it did match was the 1/6th gravity footage they shot on the vomit comet plane.


If geologist denying erosion when he seeing one, I would question his expertise.

Circular logic combined with a no true scotsman fallacy. No "true expert" would disagree with you because then they wouldn't be an expert on geology.


It's not about my work in geology,

Actually, it is. So where's the proof that you're qualified to determine what is atmospheric weathering and what isn't, especially to the point that if an expert geologist disagrees with you then he's automatically unqualified to be an expert geologist?



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 02:53 PM
link   
"which aimed to return astronauts to the moon by the 2020s"

Read more: www.foxnews.com...

Takeing only one sentence from a story and over analizing it seems a bit much


Cheers!



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 


You actually need to be an expert in micrometeorit erosion. Because that's what cause moon rocks look like they been eroded by wind and water.
Any experts on micrometeorit erosion in 1/6 of earth gravity you know?
If you knew one, he would tell, what wind and micrometerit erosion looks the same....
How about one modern photo of landing site with HUMAN steps around ar near by??

They do it on mars(!!)
Mars orbiter takes close up shoots of mars rover witch is two by two feet?
Show me one picture of landing site with details. I will publicly announce what I was dead wrong all this years.



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by consigliere
I can understand what you guys are saying,,,but he says "Human Exploration,beyond low Earth orbit".The key word to me is "exploration". Our current mission is not exploring the universe but building an international space station.So for him to say this,makes me think we havent "explored" beyond low Eart orbit,,,,,but i could be wrong


And Michelle Obama called Kenya his(barack's) homeland" just imho I think you are reading way too much in it.Certainly not "proof" of anything. but I alsothoroughly believe the Apollo missions went off as advertised.
edit on 25-5-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by consigliere
While reading this article on NASA's new deep space exploration spacecraft.
Article
A pretty cool article in itself

One quote jumped right out at me,,,

"We are committed to human exploration beyond low-Earth orbit and look forward to developing the next generation of systems to take us there," NASA adminstrator Charlie Bolden said in a statement.


If I'm not mistaken this implies we have never been beyond low Earth orbit! Which to me speaks volumes regarding our "moon missions". I personally don't believe we have.

Now don't get me wrong I'm a conspiracy theorist to the heart, and maybe I'm reading too much into this,,,,or am I? What do you think?










What? We don't go to the moon because we can't do it efficiently. It's still a very dangerous trip because of the amount of feul required to get there and back. Hence the reason we do low earth orbit space missions to the space station instead.

This does not have anything to do with going to the moon, as to actually repeatedly explore the moon with humans would be to expensive and dangerous with current systems.

That.Is.All.

Oh wait, no there is more....

Ifyoudontbelieveweeverwenttothemoonyouarecrazyfishpantsnuts.
edit on 25-5-2011 by Laokin because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Karbofos
You actually need to be an expert in micrometeorit erosion. Because that's what cause moon rocks look like they been eroded by wind and water.
Any experts on micrometeorit erosion in 1/6 of earth gravity you know?

Absolutely. One of the astronomers professors I know is a planetary geologist. She knows all about the effect of micrometeorite erosion, as well as the effects of other conditions unique to other celestial bodies.


How about one modern photo of landing site with HUMAN steps around ar near by??

They do it on mars(!!)
Mars orbiter takes close up shoots of mars rover witch is two by two feet?
Show me one picture of landing site with details. I will publicly announce what I was dead wrong all this years.

Actually the mars exploration rovers are 7.5 feet wide by 5.2 feet long, not 2 by 2 feet. I strongly suspect you are therefore over-estimating the resolution of the HiRISE camera (0.3 m/pixel vs 0.5 m/pixel for LROC), but in any case, here your goalpost is met:
lroc.sese.asu.edu...
Another example:
lroc.sese.asu.edu...



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 


And I supposed to believe it's human steps not unmanned device tracks?
Al right, is it some kind of cult? Why must I believe in order to accept the point?
Please look at the mars landing site photos, any similarities?



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 03:47 PM
link   
In order to protect the person involved I cannot divulge any details. However I can confirm that under the influence of alcohol (truth enhancer) the following was divulged : The US did go to the moon but it was a known one way trip and none of the real astronauts returned. The "evidence" is fake (obviously) hence why people think the US did not go there.

This is why evidence of both visitation and fakery exists!

NB yes I am from the UK........does not invalidate what I said, see first sentence.
edit on 25/5/11 by malcr because: added the NB



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Karbofos
reply to post by ngchunter
 


And I supposed to believe it's human steps not unmanned device tracks?

Occam's razor. Even if I could show you a live image of individual boot prints you could still claim it was made by an unmanned bipedal device wearing a boot. And again, I would say, Occam's razor. I gave you the proof you asked for, you just moved the goalposts.



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Laokin

Originally posted by consigliere
While reading this article on NASA's new deep space exploration spacecraft.
Article
A pretty cool article in itself

One quote jumped right out at me,,,

"We are committed to human exploration beyond low-Earth orbit and look forward to developing the next generation of systems to take us there," NASA adminstrator Charlie Bolden said in a statement.


If I'm not mistaken this implies we have never been beyond low Earth orbit! Which to me speaks volumes regarding our "moon missions". I personally don't believe we have.

Now don't get me wrong I'm a conspiracy theorist to the heart, and maybe I'm reading too much into this,,,,or am I? What do you think?










What? We don't go to the moon because we can't do it efficiently. It's still a very dangerous trip because of the amount of feul required to get there and back. Hence the reason we do low earth orbit space missions to the space station instead.

This does not have anything to do with going to the moon, as to actually repeatedly explore the moon with humans would be to expensive and dangerous with current systems.

That.Is.All.

Oh wait, no there is more....

Ifyoudontbelieveweeverwenttothemoonyouarecrazyfishpantsnuts.
edit on 25-5-2011 by Laokin because: (no reason given)




This does not have anything to do with going to the moon, as to actually repeatedly explore the moon with humans would be to expensive and dangerous with current systems.


But it was expensive and dangerous in the 60's with "outdated" technology. I see no validity in your arguent



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by treespeaker

"which aimed to return astronauts to the moon by the 2020s"

Read more: www.foxnews.com...

Takeing only one sentence from a story and over analizing it seems a bit much


Cheers!


Taking what he said at face value is hardly over analytical. The fact they are looking to return man to the moon by the 2020's leads me to believe we cant do in our present day nor did we do it in the 60's



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 


Oh no, not an individual step!
I want to see photo of the landing site, with steps around it. Moon rover, hundreds of pounds of left behind equipment. Micrometeorit eroded preferably))

Wouldn't mention Ocamm's razor in case with moon landing))



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Karbofos
I want to see photo of the landing site, with steps around it.

Already provided, you claim it's produced by an unmanned machine made to look like humans were there (which apparently traced out exactly the paths that the footage and maps showed for decades that the astronauts took). The same logic, or lack thereof, invalidates any level of evidence since it too can be hand waved away as "done by robots wearing boots to look like humans were there." It's an attempt to create a religious unfalsifiable belief.





new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join