Did nasa really send astronauts to the moon?

page: 6
12
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 08:35 PM
link   
reply to post by crawdad1914
 





Please guys look carefully who said there was no shadow..


edit on 27-8-2012 by denver22 because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 08:44 PM
link   
reply to post by denver22
 


Oh but that photo was photoshopped in the 60's to convince the masses that they are there.

You do know that's why computers were made for. Haha

Its a joke ain't it?


jra

posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainBeno
Anyhow, here's a nice shot of him in the studio, complete with Photoshop flag and NO SHADOW.

Shame on you NASA.


Shame on you for not using a higher resolution source.

Here's a high res version of AS11-40-5874

Here is a cropped version below. You can make out the thin shadow of the flag pole which I've highlighted, but due to the uneven surface, it's hard to see completely. The shadow of the flag itself would be out of frame due to the low sun angle.



Also, photoshop didn't come around till about 1990 (and was limited to B&W).



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheCaucasianAmerican
reply to post by denver22
 


Oh but that photo was photoshopped in the 60's to convince the masses that they are there.

You do know that's why computers were made for. Haha

Its a joke ain't it?


No the joke is when people follow the likes of bart sibrel son



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 08:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by CaptainBeno
Anyhow, here's a nice shot of him in the studio, complete with Photoshop flag and NO SHADOW.

Shame on you NASA.


Shame on you for not using a higher resolution source.

Here's a high res version of AS11-40-5874

Here is a cropped version below. You can make out the thin shadow of the flag pole which I've highlighted, but due to the uneven surface, it's hard to see completely. The shadow of the flag itself would be out of frame due to the low sun angle.



Also, photoshop didn't come around till about 1990 (and was limited to B&W).



Yup I saw that shadow without the need for a crop. Thanks for taking.g the time to show it though.
People believe only as far as their intelligence can take them. Which is shorter than a stones throw on the moon.



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 11:35 PM
link   
So do you understand now how it was done?
As the very first reply pointed out the total exposure was less than 4 hours total.
Think about it. How dangerous would a four hour chest x-ray be? Harmless right?
And while experts had claimed the astronauts would need anywhere from 3 to 8 feet of lead to protect them, the thin walls of the command module would also contain a great deal of plastic (wiring, cables, etc) which must have counted for something.
And then don't forget the radiation proof suits they wore. So good they are now used by workers to deal with radiation leaks at nuclear reactors. In fact I believe all the workers at that wrecked reactor in Japan are wearing them....they're not?...ooops...bad example
But we know they had sufficient protection as not a single astronaut has ever shown any signs of radiation poisoning and how else could that be explained except that their protection was adequate...say what? By never actually being exposed to it?.....No no
Of course they went and we have proof.
The Russians and Chines have imaged our crafts on the moon including rover tracks just like when they get to Mars they will be able to image our equipment there, including rover tracks proving we have been to Mars.....what?....we haven't....oops...bad example.
And why would they fake it? What possible motive would they have?
And if they didn't go what happened to the billions of dollars we allegedly spent on it?
The second question answers the first? I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

Bottom line ...We went to the moon and that's all there is to it.
To even suggest different would be to imply that our government would lie to us and now you're getting silly. You would have to be some kind of weird, nutty fanatic to think that our government does not deal with us in a totally honest and outright manner at all times.
I mean, do you think even the president would take part in a phony moon landing? That is outrageous to suggest that the president of the United States would lie. It is unforgivable. When Richard Nixon said the talked to these astronauts on the moon then of course he did. Would Richard Nixon lie to us?

Forgive me but I just find this whole subject too silly to continue


jra

posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 12:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Puck 22
As the very first reply pointed out the total exposure was less than 4 hours total.
Think about it. How dangerous would a four hour chest x-ray be? Harmless right?


Except that the radiation in the Van Allen belts aren't X-rays, they're a mix of electrons and protons.


And while experts had claimed the astronauts would need anywhere from 3 to 8 feet of lead to protect them, the thin walls of the command module would also contain a great deal of plastic (wiring, cables, etc) which must have counted for something.


Citation for the experts who claimed 3 - 8 feet of lead would be needed please.

Light metals and plastics of about 1cm can block protons for example.

I think it would be best if you went and researched the various kinds of radiation and what type the Apollo astronauts encountered and learn what is required to block those different types of radiation. Information on how much radiation each Apollo mission was exposed to is available as well. You can compare that data to what is considered to be safe levels.


And why would they fake it? What possible motive would they have?


A better question would be "how do you fake it?" How does one fake 1/6th gravity, (and not just for the astronauts, but for every object) as well as creating an airless environment, on Earth?


To even suggest different would be to imply that our government would lie to us and now you're getting silly.


Forget about the Government. I don't fully trust any Government either, but to suggest that Apollo was fake goes against basic science and logic.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 12:36 AM
link   
Thanks all.

I'm not basing my thoughts on the back of two photo's. There a literally hundreds of them that point out anomalies such as cross hairs behind objects, same scenery in different photo's (Um the moon lander could not move around the moon once landed!) Rocks with letters on them? The Moon lander looked like a kid had made it out of paper, foil and 100 mile an hour tape. Last and really not least, the odd light sources where it should be completely dark....the rocks in the foreground are, so why not the other objects on the set?

I'm not going to bother posting the amount of photos I have on this subject as I have dome it in lots of other moon hoax threads, but Google them and supply evidence why they are not faked? There's a nice little exercise for you?

But thanks for the input. Also, I am fully aware Photoshop was not around in the 60's but thanks for your sarcastic response anyway


Cheers

CB



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 12:49 AM
link   
Sorry, I could not help myself.






posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 01:01 AM
link   
check this out...



Definitely needs to be seen, showing the rest of what I posted about the moon landing

posted in a different thread here
edit on 28-8-2012 by r2d246 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 01:21 AM
link   
reply to post by CaptainBeno
 


We've been through all that nonsense already. Debunked to oblivion. If you have something new and undebunked then feel free to post it. I really would enjoy something new since we get all these same bollocks ideas all the time because people dont use the search function.

reply to post by r2d246
 


So your conspiracy theory is that they took cgi hardware / software from 2012 and then used a time machine to sent it back to 1969? Well that makes a whole helluva lot of sense...
edit on 28/8/2012 by PsykoOps because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 02:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by r2d246
check this out...

Definitely needs to be seen, showing the rest of what I posted about the moon landing


Interesting video, but even ignoring the fact this was done in 2012 there are multiple issues such as poor spill correction/the keying operation has damaged the color data blah blah etc etc ... Technically speaking those things can be solved, however they can also be detected. This isnt' even the problem though. Compositing objects onto a landscape isn't that hard.

The problem in my mind is it's easy to make a well composited hoax that would get past your average person but a technically correct scientific hoax. Not so much.

The compositing team are simply matching what they saw in the moon landing videos. The moon landing videos are their reference shots. You ask an artist to recreate something from reference footage, sure they can do it. Ask an artist to recreate another planet with no reference what so ever and get it right to the point a specialised scientist won't argue or notice anything amiss over time?

Totally different question.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 03:03 AM
link   
As I have said before...it would be harder to FAKE the MOON LANDINGS than actually do it!
Split Infinity



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 03:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainBeno
Thanks all.

I'm not going to bother posting the amount of photos I have on this subject as I have dome it in lots of other moon hoax threads,


Don't embarress yourself any further posting them captain.
Been there done that debunking these claims against the best of them.

But feel free to post them but be cautious as they can be easily debunked and have done.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 04:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainBeno
Thanks all.

I'm not basing my thoughts on the back of two photo's. There a literally hundreds of them that point out anomalies such as cross hairs behind objects, same scenery in different photo's (Um the moon lander could not move around the moon once landed!) Rocks with letters on them? The Moon lander looked like a kid had made it out of paper, foil and 100 mile an hour tape. Last and really not least, the odd light sources where it should be completely dark....the rocks in the foreground are, so why not the other objects on the set?

I'm not going to bother posting the amount of photos I have on this subject as I have dome it in lots of other moon hoax threads, but Google them and supply evidence why they are not faked? There's a nice little exercise for you?

But thanks for the input. Also, I am fully aware Photoshop was not around in the 60's but thanks for your sarcastic response anyway


Cheers

CB



The cross hair problem has been explained on here a thousands times the cross seems to disappear to due the lighter surface bleeding over the black line it happens here on earth.

Here is a link to a lot of your hoaxes

www.iangoddard.com...

Here is an example picture



If YOU actually knew anything about photography you would see that's not an issue, many of us on here are keen amatuer /semi or even professional photographers it's been a hobby of my for 30 plus yrs what about you


Like your quote here


I'm not going to bother posting the amount of photos I have on this subject as I have dome it in lots of other moon hoax threads, but Google them and supply evidence why they are not faked? There's a nice little exercise for you?


Cant take the heat come back when you learn something about photography
(say 30 yrs
)



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 05:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by r2d246
check this out...



Definitely needs to be seen, showing the rest of what I posted about the moon landing

posted in a different thread here
edit on 28-8-2012 by r2d246 because: (no reason given)


Funny they dont seem able to fake the movement correctly or the dust being kicked up by the Astronaut


Also how about this

First posted by jra he had the same idea as me.



Top half a frame from the DAC film as Apollo 17 left the Moon, bottom LRO image of the site even the tracks match


Also as NASA keeps detailed records of the landing sites showing objects,photograph positions and directions like below.



More info Apollo 11

These can be compared with the LRO images were even small rocks and craters can be matched for position from the pictures taken 40 yrs ago by the Astronauts



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 05:12 AM
link   
Isn't there already a hundred threads with a thousansd posts each on the same subject?

When will the blind see the light?



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 05:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by krs678
Hi there people
I have just one question if some body could enlighten me as to how nasa managed to send astronauts through the Van Allen radiation belt without them becoming fatally radiated ? I ask this question as its quoted in several documentaries as a significant hurdle in manned space travel outside a 1000miles radius of earth. thanks fa ya time



Do I believe the US has gone to the moon? Yes.

Do I believe they went to the moon in 60's? No.

von Braun was a visionary, and everything NASA is doing, is based on his visions at the time. But I find everything in the TV siries (Yes, I call them TV series) to be like an old B movie. There are just too many anomalies there, that don't make sense.

Of course, the average American believes in it. He's like a muslim, no questions asked ... this is what they grew up with, this is what they read, sang, drank and made love with. Saying anything different, is herasy ... obviously it is.

For the rest of us, I see NASA fighting to send a robot to Mars in 2012. It is dropping a ball on mars, and not landing anything that can return ... yet, it's 50 years since the moon landings. Those landings were easy ... we should've mastered landings on alien planets by now ... and back then, everybody was so optimistic, it was a moonbase on the moon next. It would be 24/7 human presence there. It would solve so many problems, and so many issues ... oh ... oh oh oh

No, we went to mars with a Rover instead to look at another dead rock in space. Instead of sending it to the moon, and master this one. No, we went to another dead rock ... and this time, we've got an excuse not to send human beings there.

I don't care about all the proofs and non-proofs, it's the NASA history that doesn't add up. It's gone 50 years now ... and all we're doing is sending billions of dollars to another dead rock in the galaxy. We could save a couple of billion, by sending them to the very next dead rock here ... as one dead rock, is just like another dead rock ... and we need to take one step at a time, into space ... we're not gonna jump from here to mars. We need the moon for it ...

And we're not even half way there yet ...

So, the answer is ... NO, I don't believe they did.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 06:09 AM
link   
The only thing that makes me question if they actually did land on the moon; is the lunar lander pads being perfectly clean and dust free...whereas Curiosity has rocks strewn all over the top of it; from a much smaller blaster. The only way that could happen is if one of the astronauts swept the pads...but I find that very highly unlikely, and suspect.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 06:59 AM
link   
They could have landed an unmanned vehicle on the moon and got it to plant the flag and set up the reflectors.

The flight data files could have been swapped with the data files from the unmanned mission and everyone at control HQ thinks it's all going well whereas the astronauts are actually chilling on a Stanley Kubrick set.





new topics




 
12
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join