Please Debunk The Moon Landing Hoax For Me...

Originally posted by MisterBurns

Originally posted by Kitilani

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Kitilani

 

Yup. I don't blame him a bit.
"You're a liar, a coward and a thief."

I have seen the video. It does not help your case. If you have to punch people for calling you names then you are using very little of your brain. Monkeys hit when they are bothered. I am more evolved than that. I would hope most people are.

No one deserves to be assaulted for being annoying.

Its a little more than annoying, there are what, 2 cameras, soundmen and the bloke is coming out of his hotel into a set up and then repeatedly gets in Buzz's face, Buzz, a great pilot, an Astronaut, a fit bloke with a military background is gonna take that? Please, the guy got a punch in the chin to teach him a lesson, Buzz could have followed it up with a few.

As for swearing on the bible, do you think a man who has travelled to the moon and seen what he has gives a stuff about religion, and if he does care about religion, do you think that some nut saying swear on the bible like a 10 year old would change anything?

I think your an offesive person comparing Buzzs actions to a monkey, your not evolved enough to fly fighter jets and qualify to be an astronaut, so how dare you compare someone who has acheived what he has to you, its you who is the monkey, they can also type too inbetween twatting annoying religous folk obviously

I'm sure most people would take a swing getting pestered all the time.
No matter who you are.

reply to post by GrassyKnoll


The Van Allen radiation belt. I've always been skeptical of the moon landing for this reason alone.

Originally posted by geobro
if we were on the moon its not with that tech maybe some of that vril or hanibue craft the crew of apollo 11 looked pretty blank in the first interview they gave not a smile in sight .they looked pretty uncomfortable to me .i wonder how it was possible to open a door no airlock and throw out a backpack on the moon if its airless MOONGATE is a goodread .met one of those guys when i was a kid in the late 70s the eyes tell a different story .in richard hoglands the monuments of mars read the bit about how nasa is smashing satellites & rockets into areas of interest .boy does that guy love the bushes its interesting to see the moon under infared shows up things better

2nd

reply to post by GrassyKnoll


the crisp satelite pictures you refer to are taken by plane and not by satelite. google earth works in two ways - 1. the satelite view & 2. when you zoom in the image swaps to a high quality arial picture.

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
reply to post by ipsedixit

 

OK then. My job is not to convince you. I'm just sad you wont share in one of the greatest accomplishments of mankind!

TsukiLunar: Can you please explain to me why you believe the moon landings were real?

I doubt you will actually read this. But for the one or two people who will happen to notice this, take a look at the following pictures:

www.universetoday.com...

The one on the left was generated by a computer. It was generated from data from the Japanese (JAXA) spacecraft Selene/Kaguya. The way it is generated is by taking two photographs of the surface from different angles and using a computer program to construct an accurate height map of the surface.

The photo on the right was taken by an Apollo 15 astronaut.

Note that the topography is identical.

Unlike ATS members who don't have any means of judging for themselves whether we really landed on the moon, I personally wrote to the JAXA team before the data was made public to request a copy so that I could construct such a comparison for myself. If I want to know something, I don't post a lazy question on a conspiracy forum, but approach the scientists who have the data I need. (Sadly they did not make the data available to me at the time because they wanted to generate images of this kind for themselves -- fair enough, it is their project. They did reply to me to politely tell me this however!)

There is no way that NASA could have created the surface photo without landing there. I know this for a fact because all the orbital photos taken by NASA before 1971 are available online and so are the maps they produced of the lunar topography from this data.

Significantly the topographic maps show something different to what is shown in the photos. Reason: the orbital photos available to NASA at the time were not good enough to generate an accurate model of the shape of the surface.

In fact, this "anomaly" is sometimes used by people who do not believe in the moon landings, as evidence for their point of view. Now that we have the more accurate data from Selene we see that it is the NASA surface photographs that are correct, not the topographical maps constructed from orbital photos. This shows conclusively that the photograph was indeed taken on the surface.

We did land on the moon. Get over it. And please investigate the Apollo archives online. There's over 10 Terabytes of data, including high resolution scanned photos, videos, telemetry data, surface logs and much, much more. There's no fact of history so well established by real data as the fact that we landed on the moon.

Now to answer your question regarding high resolution photos of artifacts left on the moon by NASA. Consider that these are taken from orbit at a height of 100km (in the case of Selene) or more. You are asking for a high resolution image of an item that is a few metres across. Let's suppose you want it to be 30 pixels across (which would be pretty blurry). That means each pixel would have to correspond to 10cm. These craft are designed to map the surface of the moon, which has area 510 million square kilometres. At the resolution you want, the resulting image map of the surface would be 51,000,000,000,000,000 pixels. That would be something like 50 petabytes of data. Do you have a proposal as to how to get that much data back from the moon over a radio link using technology which was developed some time before today's date? If you do, let NASA or ESA or JAXA have it urgently please.

Maybe it is just not obvious and I am being unfair. But consider the fact that the speed you go at over the lunar surface and the height of the orbit are related. Similarly the amount of the moon you want to cover and the amount of fuel you need are also related. The LRO for example consumes about 150 m/s of fuel per year in the science phase. Moreover, you need to get the data back to earth. This is done at about 100 Mbps. On an average day the LRO generates about 450 Gbits of data. However data can only be sent when the space craft has line of sight with the receiving station. The faster you go over the moon's surface and the higher the resolution of the camera, the more data is generated. See how all the critical mission parameters are linked? It's a major engineering problem to come up with a satisfactory compromise which allows the mission to proceed.

Also, unlike ATS members, real scientists want usable data covering the surface of the whole moon, not pretty pictures of hardware left on the moon by astronauts four decades ago that they already know absolutely for certain are really there. Debunking cranks is not a high value scientific target.

I suppose NASA photos won't be acceptable to you, but here is the best they have of the descent stages from orbit:

www.nasa.gov...

That's a full 9 pixels for you. How much more do you want? Sheesh!

As added evidence, look at the pattern of astronaut footprints which is clearly visible in the photo. Now study the Apollo photo archives and see that indeed the astronaut footprints do indeed lie in that pattern. Moreover,in the video taken out the window of the ascent stage as they lifted off the moon you can clearly see this detail as they look back at the objects (and footprints) they left on the surface.

the moon landing debunked theory --- can be considered debunked..... These three factors come to mind:

I personally believe that other nations, we won't mention any by names, would have really, really, really wanted to be 1st..... Because they were not.... I don't need to spell this out, I don't think.

Other nations are trying to take advantage of America's openness and introspection - to turn it against this country. It's working, to a point.

(in whatever country) man has always had a tendency to criticize their government. Doing so makes them automatically feel superior. This is not always a conscious process, but a process nonetheless:

hey, if I can criticize the Pres., then that automatically implies that I know more than he does; and that also implies that I am better than him.

...It's a cheap shot, but ppl do it all the time.

Originally posted by karen61057

Originally posted by GrassyKnoll

Originally posted by theXammux
What i am saying is, if you want something that YOU (rather than 98% of the rest of the world) would call credible, then tell me what you might consider as credible evidence. If you consider nothing credible then the entire thrread is moot.

High resolution satellite photos of NASA Apollo artifacts lying on the moons surface.

98% of the world could easily be categorized as sheeple.

That is really quite insulting. What is harder to believe and even less credible is that you are in the 2% who have it all figured out. We are blessed with such a presence.
Fact is you've absorbed some bad information and since you don't have the scientific background to verify what you've been fed you just believe it hook line and sinker. It jives with your "its me against the world" mentality and that is good enough for you or any that think that we have faked the lunar landing, or think that the govt is lying to us at EVERY turn. You realize that the govt body changes so frequently there would have to be a constant hotline in effect to make sure all the new comers were informed of the "truth" while also making sure that those who have been voted out will remain quiet about the "truth". It would require that the only people to get elected are the ones who know how to keep a secret. ( we all know how that works on the hill don't we?) The fact is that everything we think we know is probably all there is to know or most of what there is to know and no big conglomeration exists that controls the world from some ivory tower. That sounds like a Saturday morning cartoon plot to me.

I have an engineering degree which is more than you probably have.

Please explain to me why do you believe that the moon landings were real?

I would be real interested to know because I haven't read a thing you posted that has made sense.

reply to post by XtraTL




Great post. This should be the added to the OP.

Originally posted by MisterBurns...noone coming forward saying they were part of the hoax...

There is a reason why government's hire assassins...

Originally posted by ooozy
This guy spent what seemed a life time debunking the official story
check it out at your leisure ..
Apollo Hoax

got it bookmarked...thanks

The front screen is so obvious in these pictures
www.hq.nasa.gov...
www.hq.nasa.gov...
www.hq.nasa.gov...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a82e28d46e0d.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c30e8df7ca8d.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by steveknows
reply to post by GrassyKnoll
[ If it were to be proven that the moon landings were hoaxes, wouldn't this be one of the greatest lies of all time?? ]

YAWN!!!!!!!!! Old news and debates. The Russians were there and of there was no evidence of the first moon landing the whole world would have been told about it.

Common sense

The Russians were there? The cosmonauts landed on the moon too?!?!

I would really love to hear your story.

I used to work with this guy that was CONVINCED that the moon landings we faked. You could not even get the word moon out of your mouth without him saying FAKE. But at the same time he firmly believed that Boeing 757 crashed into the Pentagon on 9-11-2001. I couldn’t get over it, how tha hell are you going to believe that they faked the moon landing and say that a 757 flew 45 feet above the ground at over 200 miles per hour into the Pentagon…….WHAT! O and we did land on the moon saw it on TV it has to be real.

Originally posted by RedShiftDrift

Originally posted by MisterBurns

Originally posted by Kitilani

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Kitilani

 

Yup. I don't blame him a bit.
"You're a liar, a coward and a thief."

I have seen the video. It does not help your case. If you have to punch people for calling you names then you are using very little of your brain. Monkeys hit when they are bothered. I am more evolved than that. I would hope most people are.

No one deserves to be assaulted for being annoying.

Its a little more than annoying, there are what, 2 cameras, soundmen and the bloke is coming out of his hotel into a set up and then repeatedly gets in Buzz's face, Buzz, a great pilot, an Astronaut, a fit bloke with a military background is gonna take that? Please, the guy got a punch in the chin to teach him a lesson, Buzz could have followed it up with a few.

As for swearing on the bible, do you think a man who has travelled to the moon and seen what he has gives a stuff about religion, and if he does care about religion, do you think that some nut saying swear on the bible like a 10 year old would change anything?

I think your an offesive person comparing Buzzs actions to a monkey, your not evolved enough to fly fighter jets and qualify to be an astronaut, so how dare you compare someone who has acheived what he has to you, its you who is the monkey, they can also type too inbetween twatting annoying religous folk obviously

I'm sure most people would take a swing getting pestered all the time.
No matter who you are.

What a sad lot you all turned out to be.
I have never had to be violent other than to defend myself against violence from some moron who was too stupid to use words. If you are all proud of being fist tossing monkeys who cannot take a little criticism then go for it.
It is civilized where I come from.

theres a few key pieces in the moon hoax theory,

1. is the flag waving video, theres a flag, an astronaut runs past it. and it waves as if being effected by air. this is a video that appears to prove that it was moving, before the astronaut could have physically contacted it.



2. the footprints under and around the lunar lander, which were allegedly from a previous apollo mission, which remained even after a rocket was fired over them. some claim there should be a huge crater below the nozzle.

this one seems like a pretty straight forward experiment, put a scale rocket in a vacuum chamber on a pile of dust and see what happens am i right?

3. all that radiation. nasa now claims the cosmic rays and stuff are too deadly for us to send astronauts back to the moon, even though we apparently got away with it 40 years ago. its worth noting that one apollo astronaut did die of cancer, although that cant be interpreted as causality.

so the above in combination with a general lack of evidence, the missing telemetry tapes, the moon rocks that are virtually identical to earth rocks and stuff, that adds weight to their arguments.

but again, who knows right.

Originally posted by MisterBurns
Its a little more than annoying,

I do not care how annoying you think it was or how much more than annoying you think it was. People do not deserve to get punched in the face for saying things to you unless you are some kind of caveman. I actually find only one thing worse than that and that would be making up blatant lies about judges dismissing cases no judge ever heard but that is a different story.

Originally posted by Kitilani

Originally posted by MisterBurns
Its a little more than annoying,

I do not care how annoying you think it was or how much more than annoying you think it was. People do not deserve to get punched in the face for saying things to you unless you are some kind of caveman. I actually find only one thing worse than that and that would be making up blatant lies about judges dismissing cases no judge ever heard but that is a different story.

Wow, you are a very judgmental individual.
While I in a similar situation would not have resorted to that, I can put myself in someones shoes and understand the desire.
I also believe a verbal assault like that is awful and people like that deserve anything that happens to them.

reply to post by conar


Please explain how piles of subsequent photographs have the perspective of that mountain absolutely correct. Did they create tens of thousands of different scenes on earth and photograph them for backdrops?

Maybe they used computers that were hundreds of times more powerful than actually available at the time.

These sorts of ridiculous claims are ruled out immediately by anyone worth their salt. They aren't even entertained as possible evidence.

Why don't you post something that couldn't be coincidence. In tens of thousands of photos of course there is going to be one with a fairly straight (look carefully it is not completely straight) line in it.

reply to post by Kitilani


You should do a little research into the context of the encounter before judging so harshly and self-righteously. Bart Sibrel is the man Aldrin punched. Sibrel been stalking most of the Astronauts for a few years at that point. Sibrel would set up interviews under false pretenses. He would outright lie and say he was with History Channel, Discovery, etc and then do ambush journalism. The lowest kind of journalism. Sibrel also harassed several of the Astronauts at public appearances. Neil Armstrong had Sibrel arrested for trespassing.

Sibrel is a radical Christian fundamentalist with some serious issues. While working as a cabbie a year or so ago, he was arrested in Nashville for jumping on the hood of a car driven by a woman who did not get out of a parking spot fast enough for him. Does that sound like someone you would like have interview you?

And not to mention that Sibrel has no idea what he's talking about when it comes to space exploration. His wacky theories have been thoroughly debunked.

Also, Buzz is a decorated Korean War combat pilot with almost 70 missions under his belt well as a being a reknown test pilot. To someone from that generation, being called a liar, coward and a thief are petty much fighting words.

Sibrel got what he deserved.