The Apollo 11 Moon Landing Site --Now Seen in Unprecedented Detail

page: 4
14
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter
 


Mate....have you ever heard the expression "when your in a hole.....stop digging"?

You've had your ar#e handed to you here!.......give up already!




posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by JustBreathe11

What I don't understand is why can't we go back? Is it because NASA retired the Saturn V rockets and lost the capability to make them? Or is it because its too expensive and NASA doesn't have the funding? I would think the Moon would be a great place to build a laboratory or a base.



Basically, for every dollar the government spends, one half of one cent goes towards NASA funding and manned missions are incredibly expensive. It's not that there's not enough money, it's that the money is being spent in all the wrong places.

Exploring space should be a top priority, but it seems as if the apes that run our world think otherwise.



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 06:19 PM
link   
these pictures are as bad as all of the other moon proof pics, or just about any other nasa pic.



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 07:31 PM
link   
Every hour a person spends researching this myth, is a wasted hour unless they have found a way to profiteer off of the myth. I'm sure some just do it for attention and to be contrary and I doubt they truly believe it themselves. Like the kids in school who always told tall tales for attention and you could tell they were making it up. Same thing.

No amount of proof would satisfy those who bought into it hook, line and sinker.

Problem is when a real conspiracy comes along, rational people won't even look at the evidence because of stuff like this. In this case the myth is the real conspiracy.

I work with a guy who bought into this and he must spend at least a hundred dollars a month on bizarre publications and books on topics like this. If I showed him the picture from this thread his face would turn red and he would be unbearable for the rest of the day. He's intelligent enough but once he sinks his teeth into a clearly irrational myth, he won't let go. That pales to the thousands a year he spends on the latest snake oil from the local health Guru who keeps him broke with worthless products. The same products are for sale on all the phony health sites all over the Internet. There is clearly money to be made.



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 07:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


That is a great image of a bald eagle.

I gave you a star for your prose.
edit on 14-3-2012 by Illustronic because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 08:29 PM
link   
The craft looks like a small metal virus attaching itself to the wall of a host cell...lol. Beautiful pic...
edit on 14-3-2012 by coastlinekid because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swills
Mythbusters did a great job of proving that NASA didn't fake the moon landings.



And Jarrah White did a great job of debunking the Mythbuster's false testing.




posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by paradox
reply to post by Lord Jules
 


Put a 5' tall flag in your front yard and then take a picture from 13 miles up.

Tell me how that goes for you.

And no, those are rover tracks.


5' flag ?? What about foot print that is even smaller ?? There is no flag but footprint is clear to see ?? Are you serious ??



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by LordDrakula

Originally posted by paradox
reply to post by Lord Jules
 


Put a 5' tall flag in your front yard and then take a picture from 13 miles up.

Tell me how that goes for you.

And no, those are rover tracks.


5' flag ?? What about foot print that is even smaller ?? There is no flag but footprint is clear to see ?? Are you serious ??


How many times do you have to be told that no footprint is visible?

edit on 3-14-12 by paradox because: manners



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 09:10 PM
link   
reply to post by paradox
 


Let me tell you one thing...

If you have managed to have a Muslim in oval office how hard it can be to fake a moon landing ?? Piece of cake...

It was recorded in Walt Disney studio and that's it...



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 09:12 PM
link   
reply to post by LordDrakula
 


Why are you bringing racism, completely irrelevant topics, and unsubstantiated fantastical claims into this thread?



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by paradox
reply to post by LordDrakula
 


Why are you bringing racism, completely irrelevant topics, and unsubstantiated fantastical claims into this thread?


No racism only facts and it is relevant because you are defending your theory and I am defending mine. And my theory has more proofe than yours.



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by LordDrakula

Originally posted by paradox
reply to post by LordDrakula
 


Why are you bringing racism, completely irrelevant topics, and unsubstantiated fantastical claims into this thread?


No racism only facts and it is relevant because you are defending your theory and I am defending mine. And my theory has more proofe than yours.


The religion of Obama has nothing to do with the moon landings, and is not relevant to the topic at all. All it does is show hatred and sub par intelligence.

There is absolutely no proof of your claim even if you would like to think so.
Deluded people are immune to facts, so this conversation is finished. The point of this forum is to LEARN things, and accept when you are wrong. The ones who believe in this silly theory apparently are incapable of doing either.

Peace
edit on 3-14-12 by paradox because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 09:23 PM
link   
reply to post by paradox
 


If there is clear to see a moon base or a UFO than it has to be some photo particle or flair or swamp gas or something but if there is a small dot that should be apolo11 than this is it. Sorry but I don't buy this crap.



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 09:33 PM
link   
reply to post by LordDrakula
 


Well your entitled to your opinion even if it is wrong



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by LordDrakula
 


Its more like a 3-foot flag, maybe you are confused by 5 square feet. Anyway, flags do not make footprints, and they don't walk about, so how do you expect to resolve such a thing from overhead, you know, its not laying on the ground. Your view point would be edge on, virtually zero square or linear feet. Forget about looking for the shadow also, the imaging is done to the best of their ability to minimize light directional differences, after all, they are surveying the terrain, not wet nursing hoax believers.

You see the imaging process requires good light for fast shutter speeds, the spacecraft is flying by between 2800 and 3500 mph, and image blur can be introduced in lower lit areas, so they want a high angle sun light source, and they want it consistent if they are going to skin the passes together for a large array. That means minimal shadow for your flag!
edit on 14-3-2012 by Illustronic because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by coastlinekid
The craft looks like a small metal virus attaching itself to the wall of a host cell...lol. Beautiful pic...
edit on 14-3-2012 by coastlinekid because: (no reason given)


That is essentially what happened. Good call.



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 12:47 AM
link   
Well, I'll think of this as one of the more entertaining threads to read through in awhile. The good, the bad and the ugly.


I'll just say thanks for the op and other contributions that show new angles or ways of viewing the lunar surface. It's so close, it's alien and it doesn't move. Talk about all that's required for rich imagination in both the young and old.


The only conspiracy here in my mind would be why NASA got spooked and scrapped the last mission to the Moon while it was on the pad and everything was good to go. Then, we never go back. Apollo went there in bi-planes compared to the technology a Stealth combat aircraft has for systems and computing power. Why we haven't been back to start the foundation of a jump-off point or much more is a very good thing to question.

I've got absolutely no doubt we went though. The laser reflectors stand as a way anyone can verify that and while it's new for the general public to have the means to use them in any way, it hasn't been for everyone..and these have been there all along. Apollo really went....and I'd so much hope to see men return in my lifetime.



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 12:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Dude (Dudette??)....THIS never, ever happened:


The only conspiracy here in my mind would be why NASA got spooked and scrapped the last mission to the Moon while it was on the pad and everything was good to go. Then, we never go back.


Wherever you happened to be fed that line of BS, would you care to source it? Because, if you saw it at a "hoax" site of some sort, I'd like to know....just "for the record"...

Do I need to go to the historical records (again)? (**) Can't resist, see below....

Short Form:

Congressional budget cuts first scrapped Apollo 20....back even before Apollo 13 ever launched! Later, 18 and 19 were cut.

As it became clear what was happening (from Congress), then Deke Slayton, and the others planning Apollo missions, chose to combine as best they could, and do as much science as they could, in the remaining missions that didn't have their funding cut.

Please, do the research before spouting rumor and innuendo that is known to be factually incorrect.....

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
EDIT:

(**) "Long Form"


The Apollo flight schedule that was published on the eve of the first lunar landing called for nine additional flights before June 1971-a launch every 11 weeks. Apollo 12-15 would develop man's capability to work in the lunar environment; 16-20 would extend the astronauts' stay time on the moon to three days and increase their range of exploration. A primary purpose of the latter missions was to study the technological requirements for a potential lunar base



The decline in Apollo funding was even more severe; a reduction of nearly 50% dropped the program's budget below the $1 billion mark for the first time in eight years. While much of the decline represented an expected slowdown in costs, the shortage of funds forced drastic program changes. Edward Mathews, KSC's Apollo Program Manager, notified Debus in March 1970 that FY 1971 funding constraints had eliminated the Apollo 20 mission. There would be an average interval of six months between launches, with Apollo 18-19 put off until 1974 after a year of Skylab missions. Further budget cuts in September included a $50 million reduction for Apollo. NASA officials reluctantly cancelled missions 18 and 19. The flight of Apollo 17 in late 1972 would bring the program to a close


FACTS ^ ^ ^ and history.

Here, the SOURCE for the above snippets.

Another wonderful source is you local library. I highly recommend it.......
edit on Thu 15 March 2012 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 01:31 AM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 


If your local library hasn't been closed by budget cuts...God forbid that we educate our children, or ourselves...but then, no one listens to the reality of history anyway.





new topics
top topics
 
14
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join