"Moon Landing is a Hoax" Believers, Explain This.

reply to post by ThePeopleParty

To measure it's distance more accurately, and I would assume it's rate of orbital decay (decay would be the wrong word, since that would insinuate that it is getting closer, rather than farther away, but it's getting late, and I don't feel like looking it up).
That or it was and added prop to convince they really went

Originally posted by ThePeopleParty
Why did NASA leave the reflector behind to bounce lazers off from earth?

2nd.

What VHaze said and to fine tune gravity and relativity coefficients for GPS, navigation and communication.

reply to post by ViktorHaze

I have seen it explained as washout on at least one sight, but it was set up by NASA.
Sorry, but I prefer independent analysis, not by the people making the claim for or against, just like I don't believe cops investigating cops aren't biased.
Some of the photos are obviously washed out, or overexposed, and lumping those in with others that aren't so cut and dried is a little disingenuous.
Like I said, I think they went.
But they aren't telling us everything, and what that is, I have no idea and no intention of speculating, out loud anyway..
The after landing interview is a little suspect as well.
Those guys look like they just lost their best friend.
Would you be sullen if you were the first man to step on the moon?
I don't buy the argument that after the moon, everything was a let down...
Bullcrap, you would be losing your mind with the excitement of it, not looking like you just got off of a red eye flight full of screaming babies.

As for the reticules, the explanation is the explanation. It does not matter whether it comes from NASA or the KGB. You are free to accept it or not. If you can afford it, you can buy or rent a Hasselblad and experiment for yourself.

Now ask yourself: if you had just spent two weeks stuck in a port-a-potty with two grown men that was plunging endlessly over a cliff, and then spent another two weeks stuck in a windowless cinder block room being stuck with needles, how would you handle yourself at a massive press conference?

reply to post by ViktorHaze
..........................................What ↑DJW001↑ said, and also....

Originally posted by ViktorHaze

The after landing interview is a little suspect as well.
Those guys look like they just lost their best friend.
Would you be sullen if you were the first man to step on the moon?

I don't buy the argument that after the moon, everything was a let down...

[color=FF8138]Bullcrap, you would be losing your mind with the excitement of it, not looking like you just got off of a red eye flight full of screaming babies.

Nonsense.

Have you been there?
Oh you haven't! Well then.... How could you possibly be so certain about how someone else would feel, after completing a task that you have never done?

Your entire conclusion is based upon the excitement that you imagine it would bring to you, but you do not know how you would feel afterwards. Excitement is always much more intense beforehand.

Aside from the feat itself, of just simply being there, what else did they do whilst on the Moon, that was fun and exciting? It's probably a rather boring area. There's not really a very large selection of leisure activities to choose from.

The best thing against the Moon Hoax is that the Soviets never said NASA didn't go...

They would have known if the signals (comms, telemetry, video etc) were coming from the Moon or not.

Surely if NASA faked it, they'd be the first to say so?

Originally posted by ViktorHaze
Why is it that if you believe that there is something fishy with the moon landing you are automatically a "moon hoax crackpot"?
There are plenty of unexplained anomalies that still have not been debunked.
The crosshairs in camera for instance...that one alone is worth looking at.

That old chestnut have you been asleep for years!!!



Press control and + to zoom in when viewing the picture to see the black line is there.

Here is another use ctrl and + again to zoom.



How it works because the object is very bright it makes the thin black line look like it's no longer there the white seems to bleed over the black line.

You can duplicate that here on earth and people have.

ALL repeat ALL the photographic problems have been debunked many times it's always people with no real undestanding of photography that ask them.

Hers is a link to a pdf document dealing with them.

austhink.com...

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by ViktorHaze
Why is it that if you believe that there is something fishy with the moon landing you are automatically a "moon hoax crackpot"?
There are plenty of unexplained anomalies that still have not been debunked.
The crosshairs in camera for instance...that one alone is worth looking at.

That old chestnut have you been asleep for years!!!



Press control and + to zoom in when viewing the picture to see the black line is there.

Here is another use ctrl and + again to zoom.



How it works because the object is very bright it makes the thin black line look like it's no longer there the white seems to bleed over the black line.

You can duplicate that here on earth and people have.

ALL repeat ALL the photographic problems have been debunked many times it's always people with no real undestanding of photography that ask them.

Hers is a link to a pdf document dealing with them.

austhink.com...

edit on 12-8-2012 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

So the fact that they are blurry is proof that they show what they are purported to.

How could anyone who was not actually on the moon mission know one way or the other?

I think proof either way is impossible, although common sence and the evidence I have seen favors a hoax.

Think about how much it cost and how much of it is just film and audio.

Why would someone think Moon landing is a hoax? Operation paperclip and others have brought Nazi scientists to work for the US, they helped them with rocketry and others, so naturally around 20 years after the end of WW2, the US would have their first rocket with help from Nazi scientists as well...

Also if you have watched the interview of Maximillien who was suddenly shut down and never heard of after saying Hitler didn't die in his bunker but moved onward to South America and then even Antractica... with a possible 4th Reich, there is certain such technology wasn't left behind after WW2 but became used by the US

read moongate by w.l .brian all will be revealed

reply to post by BrokenCircles

I sure as hell wouldn't be sitting there like someone just handed me a bowl of piss and cornflakes and said dig in.
I have been to far less interesting places than the fakking MOON, and was eager to tell anybody who would listen about it.
So, yeah....whatever, pal.
Like I said, I never said they didn't go, I said I think there is something not right about the whole thing.
If you and your fellow worshipers spent less time stroking your wee apollo, and more time actually paying attention, you might get past your blindness/ego/what-ever-the-F-your-problem-is.

reply to post by wmd_2008

Well, chucklenuts, that first photo does not show the line on top of the white, no matter how much you zoom in.
As I said earlier, washout explains some of them but not all, and that's one of them.
Being a smug wanna be know it all, only works if you actually are.
Trying to deride my questions about some of the things I find questionable, will not work on me, mostly because, I do not consider someone acting like an asshole on an internet forum to be an "expert".
To repeat:
I THINK THEY WENT.
I THINK THEY ARE NOT SHOWING US AN ACCURATE RECORD.
I DO NOT KNOW WHY, NOR DO I CARE TO SPECULATE.
I DO WANT TO KNOW WHY.
Clear enough for you, wise guy?

Originally posted by ViktorHaze
As I said earlier, washout explains some of them but not all, and that's one of them.

It's a photographic term called "bleeding", is that what you meant by "washout"? The white bleeds into black areas when it's over-exposed, not the other way around. So it looks just like it's expected to look given the exposure. If you don't think bleeding explains it, why not? It looks like bleeding to me.

reply to post by ViktorHaze

As I said earlier, washout explains some of them but not all, and that's one of them.

Could you maybe show an example of a picture with these "crosshair anomalies" that can't be explained by washout? I'm interested in seeing them because so far I've been satisfied with the "washout" explanation. It just seems like the most logical one. But maybe I will have to reconsider if contradicting evidence is presented.

Kubrick directed the moon landing footage . . .

He was THE BEST at what he did at the time.

Poor Kubrick . . .

"A11 work and no play makes Jack a dull boy."

reply to post by JPhish

Kubrick directed the moon landing footage . . .

He was THE BEST at what he did at the time.

Actually, the astronauts were too expressive to have been directed by Kubrick. If Kubrick directed, who was responsible for the special effects?

Originally posted by pirhanna
Its not that the moon landing was a hoax. That hoax is itself a hoax.
the point is to keep everyone distracted from what they really found there that
they are keeping secreted away from us.

100% correct!

reply to post by ViktorHaze

Originally posted by ViktorHaze

I have been to far less interesting places than the fakking MOON, and was eager to tell anybody who would listen about it.

......and if you jumped off a bridge, everyone else would follow you.


Just because you have the tendency to become excessively ecstatic about petty acts, similar to a young child on Christmas morning, that does not mean that everyone else does also.

Originally posted by ViktorHaze

If you and your fellow worshipers spent less time stroking your wee apollo, and more time actually paying attention, you might get past your blindness/ego/what-ever-the-F-your-problem-is.

I have heard/read ALOT of ignorant comments over the years, but you have just quickly jumped up to the top of that list. Honestly, I didn't think the previous #1 could ever be outdone, but you have somehow managed to overtake it.

Bravo 'New Number One'!! Bravo!!





[color=91F0FF]I've never been to the Moon before, dummy. I have made no definitive claims one way or the other. All I have said is that neither side of the argument has produced enough evidence to prove that their belief is the undeniable truth.

Originally posted by ViktorHaze
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

Well, chucklenuts, that first photo does not show the line on top of the white, no matter how much you zoom in.
As I said earlier, washout explains some of them but not all, and that's one of them.
Being a smug wanna be know it all, only works if you actually are.
Trying to deride my questions about some of the things I find questionable, will not work on me, mostly because, I do not consider someone acting like an asshole on an internet forum to be an "expert".
To repeat:
I THINK THEY WENT.
I THINK THEY ARE NOT SHOWING US AN ACCURATE RECORD.
I DO NOT KNOW WHY, NOR DO I CARE TO SPECULATE.
I DO WANT TO KNOW WHY.
Clear enough for you, wise guy?

HARK at her If you think there is a photographic problem give it your best shot what one FOOLS or stumps you the most, post it !!!

reply to post by Just Chris


What what did they find there???

Sorry if someone has mentioned this already: gravity is constant. Like 9.81m/s. Objects falling towards the ground do not fall because of weight, but because gravity is a constant force pulling them. Different objects fall at different rates because wind resistance. Put a feather and hammer in vacuum together they fall on the same speed. I don't think there is much air on the Moon. Also different gravity strength in Moon. Because it's smaller, there will be less gravity than on Earth. The Moon is not like a mini-Earth, it is a dead turd of rock floating in a vacuum.