Please Debunk The Moon Landing Hoax For Me...

page: 4
15
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 12:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by theXammux
you still haven't actually explained what you think would be considered credible evidence. If i go to florida, and you see me get on the plane, take off, and come back, see all my pictures from the trip, and postcards, and videos, the seashells i brought back with me, airplane tickets, then there isn't anything i can do to make you beleive. If you deicde to ignore every bit of evidence, then you can't call for more. either, logically there are ways to bmake you reasonable certain of something, or its become some arbitrary religious principle that you'll choose to believe regardless of evidence. In essence, you'll have devolved to the level of politician.


Well maybe if you had a video log of yourself landing wherever you were going, getting out of the plane and walking off I would gladly accept that...




posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 12:19 AM
link   
I could'nt get the photos up. Thanks NASA.

LJ01 computer on fritz. Thanks nasa
edit on 5-9-2011 by liejunkie01 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 12:22 AM
link   
reply to post by jheated5
 


Why would you believe that? Can't videos be faked just as easily as photos? What makes a video better proof than a picture??



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 12:23 AM
link   
Assuming someone was willing to spend millions of dollars just to end this silly debate, you'd just cry that the images were photoshopped. at least with "LLRE" you're talking about a verifiable peice of material placed very specifically with data that spans decades, moreover, check out the specifications on thier design. very small precisely aligned very fragile mirror arrays should be the absolute proof you are looking for. Even today we probably could't have landed such a small fragile piece on the moon, given the noted stickiness of moon dust, even shooting it to the moon is an impossibility. In summation, the LLRE, with decades of supporting data, photographs of thier placement, and the nature of thier design, it would not, in fact be reasonable to believe anything other than that a small piece of technology was brought my man, and placed on the moon, and used by a multitude of agencies and universities to this day. Thus proving to any rational person that the human race, has, in fact landed on the moon.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 12:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by iNkGeEk
reply to post by jheated5
 


Why would you believe that? Can't videos be faked just as easily as photos? What makes a video better proof than a picture??


A video from above the moon to landing on it would be pretty hard to fake esp if they took that same recorder to walk off the shuttle with, streaming the whole time of course.....



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 12:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by jheated5

Originally posted by theXammux
you still haven't actually explained what you think would be considered credible evidence. If i go to florida, and you see me get on the plane, take off, and come back, see all my pictures from the trip, and postcards, and videos, the seashells i brought back with me, airplane tickets, then there isn't anything i can do to make you beleive. If you deicde to ignore every bit of evidence, then you can't call for more. either, logically there are ways to bmake you reasonable certain of something, or its become some arbitrary religious principle that you'll choose to believe regardless of evidence. In essence, you'll have devolved to the level of politician.


Well maybe if you had a video log of yourself landing wherever you were going, getting out of the plane and walking off I would gladly accept that...


for the apollo missions we have that... could i also say something cool like "that's one small step for man..."



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 12:27 AM
link   
reply to post by jheated5
 


But you'd have to assume that the video was legit and actually streaming. How would you prove that? How do you know that the link you go to, isn't actually a pre-recored fabrication that is made to look like its streaming? Don't they do that in Hollywood everyday?



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 12:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaDreamer
en.wikipedia.org...

Third-party evidence for Apollo Moon landings


Really?



These experiments have confirmed the age and origin of the rocks as lunar, and were used to identify lunar meteorites collected later from Antarctica.

Couldn't these have been collected prior to the moon landings?




The detection on Earth of reflections from retroreflectors (mirrors used as targets for Earth-based tracking lasers) on lunar laser ranging experiments left on the Moon is evidence of landings.


...of unmanned vehicles.

The photos are quite blurry and I think I can see a dinosaur there as well.




The joint Belgian/British/Dutch satellite TD-1 later scanned the sky for stars that are bright in UV light. The TD-1 data obtained with the shortest passband is a close match for the Apollo 16 photographs.


Close match? Shouldn't it be closer to exact match?

SELENE photographs...again with the "close match". I am sure if you took a picture of a desert you could find a close match.

The Russians tracked it all the way to the moon and back using radar? They had radar that would track them to the moon!? Wouldn't they have needed the trajectories? Weren't they in a cold war? Do you think the US would give them the info they needed to follow it?

So I guess we are waiting for the solid, credible proof still.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 12:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by GrassyKnoll
 

Since the descent stage stayed on the surface, what exactly would you expect to see?
edit on 9/5/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)


a high resolution satellite image of it.

The face that the moon has about 1/6 the gravity would cause a massive crater now that we are on that topic. Moon dust appears to look very dry and not densely packed. What could possibly prevented massive amounts of moon dust from not being ejected from the surface due to the huge force of the rocket thrust?

In your own words please. The link you provided gives an amateurish debunking explanation.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 12:31 AM
link   
reply to post by liejunkie01
 


The photo of the vehicle looks like it could have been taken anywhere



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 12:36 AM
link   
reply to post by iNkGeEk
 


I suppose you are right, with the level of technology we have now we can replicate the moon landing on a hollywood set itself...



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 12:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by jheated5

Originally posted by Insomniac
reply to post by GrassyKnoll
 


If no one went to the Moon how did 843 lbs of moon rock get here? Please don't say that it's not moon rock because then you'd have to explain how it's older than any rock found on Earth!



Older than any rock on the earth, when it's more likely the earth was here before the moon was?


Yes older because Earth is an active planet and due to volcanism etc rocks metamorphosise therefore the crust of the earth is 'young'. The moon is inactive therefore the rocks are older than any found on Earth. I wasn't saying that the earth is younger than the moon - they are the same age.
edit on 5/9/11 by Insomniac because: typo


+2 more 
posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 12:38 AM
link   
Alright. it's time to call this game. If you have deicded that ALL evidence is not credible then of course, you'll cry that there's no credible evidence. If you have a deep feeling that the moon landings are a lie, and choose to beleive that over the incredible amounts of evidence to the contrary then that's okay. That doesn't even mean that you are wrong. However, to pretend as though you are logical and looking for something reasonable is just dishonest. You have chosen to discount photos, video, artifacts from the moon, verifable proof of manmade technology on the moon (which you wanted pictures for, despite having already discounted pictures), historical record, eye witness testimony, and rational thought. Then you are intentionally NOT leaving open for the possibility of evidence. In which case you aren't actually looking for anything, just smugly trying to convince others of your personal dogma.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 12:41 AM
link   
and as far as "close match" goes, any two images taken from different locations will vary slightly. such is the nature of perspective in our 3d world.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 12:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Insomniac

Originally posted by jheated5

Originally posted by Insomniac
reply to post by GrassyKnoll
 


If no one went to the Moon how did 843 lbs of moon rock get here? Please don't say that it's not moon rock because then you'd have to explain how it's older than any rock found on Earth!



Older than any rock on the earth, when it's more likely the earth was here before the moon was?


Yes older because Earth is an active planet and due to volcanism etc rocks metamorphosise therefore the crust of the earth is 'young'. The moon is inactive therefore the rocks are older than any found on Earth. I wasn't saying that the earth is younger than the moon - they are the same age.
edit on 5/9/11 by Insomniac because: typo


You implying they formed at the same time???



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 12:44 AM
link   
The best thing would be is for a new manned mission to the moon. Then compare the results with the Apollo missions.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 12:45 AM
link   
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



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 12:48 AM
link   
reply to post by jheated5
 


Yes the current theory is that during the formation of the Solar System a large body collided with the forming Earth knocking a large part of it off... This is what became the Moon. A major piece of evidence for this is that the Moon doesn't have an iron core whereas the Earth does.
edit on 5/9/11 by Insomniac because: Typo



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 02:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaDreamer

Originally posted by patternfinder

Originally posted by CaDreamer

Originally posted by patternfinder

Originally posted by jheated5
reply to post by CaDreamer
 


Where's this evidence you are talking about?



i know for me, the only proof i need to know that we didn't really do it was the not a spec of dust on the landing feet and absolutely no evidence of the dust being stirred up under the rocket...there would be a huge crater under there, there is nothing....proof enough for me......


so now your a astrophysicist and an expert at molecular dynamics in a vacuum in low gravity.


ha ha, if you look at the pics you can clearly see dust on the astronauts boots, and their weight made footprints but 5000 psi of rocket 3 feet from the ground won't stir up the dust and dig a hole?
that would require atmosphere, air and an unfrozen planet. the boots remained soiled i imagine because they where INSIDE the capsule on the journey home.
and the thrust jets where designed to shut off before the lander actually landed . they had 3 foot legs on the feet of the lunar lander that once touching the surface killed the descent engines and a soft low G landing. no crater.
edit on 5-9-2011 by CaDreamer because: (no reason given)



ha ha ha, they were out walking around with soiled boots on...look at the pics, i'm not lying........the whole outside of the lunar landing mission their boots were soiled.....just sticking to their boots...i was laughing when i saw it because their boots were a mess and and the landing feet were sparkling clean you can eat off of them without getting any grit in your teeth.......



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 02:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by jheated5
reply to post by iNkGeEk
 


I suppose you are right, with the level of technology we have now we can replicate the moon landing on a hollywood set itself...



they were photoshopping just fine back then....theres a thread on this site that goes into detail about the techniques they had way back.....





new topics
 
15
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join