+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 16 of 33

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    3,715

    Why was the moon landing actually a hoax?

    For those who believe that the moon landing was a hoax, please explain how you came to this conclusion.
    Why did NASA orchestrate this hoax? What was their motive?

    Submit your proof so that we may dissect it and discuss.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    366

    Re: Why was the moon landing actually a hoax?

    Quote Originally Posted by bibleman View Post
    For those who believe that the moon landing was a hoax, please explain how you came to this conclusion.
    Why did NASA orchestrate this hoax? What was their motive?

    Submit your proof so that we may dissect it and discuss.

    Recent pictures of the Surface of the moon have revealed that lander's platforms and footprints visible from orbiting space probes.

    ....

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    198

    Re: Why was the moon landing actually a hoax?

    Are you sure that is'nt the Nazi moon base ?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    26,300

    Re: Why was the moon landing actually a hoax?

    Quote Originally Posted by edmund129 View Post

    Recent pictures of the Surface of the moon have revealed that lander's platforms and footprints visible from orbiting space probes.

    ....
    i'll bet the HUBBLE could see the whole shebang in detail!? heck i would think some of the ground based scopes we have now could too!? ::chicken::yelcutelaughA::
    i do not endorse/recommend any advertising on scam.com associated with my name /posts or otherwise. thank you

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    366

    Re: Why was the moon landing actually a hoax?

    Quote Originally Posted by lexx View Post
    i'll bet the HUBBLE could see the whole shebang in detail!? heck i would think some of the ground based scopes we have now could too!? ::chicken::yelcutelaughA::

    Humans are smaller in size to the moon than bacteria is to the human body. You need more than a powerful telescope, you also need a powerful microscope in combination with a powerful telescope. Unfortunately there are limitations on how powerful telescopes can be, cranking the magnification up even by several hundred still doesn't bring you close enough to see any of the landing sites. But recent probes sent to the moon have captured images of the 6 Apollo landing sites.

    Increasing magnification also magnifies the graininess of the mirror and optics in addition to narrowing the focal plane to an impossibly thin focal plane.

    ...

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    366

    Re: Why was the moon landing actually a hoax?

    Here are the photographs taken by recent probes sent to orbit the moon an map it in detail:


  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    366

    Re: Why was the moon landing actually a hoax?

    Here is are more detailed picture of the Lunar landing site taken by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter.

    http://www.space.com/12796-photos-ap...sites-lro.html

    ...


  8. #8
    LogicallyYours's Avatar
    LogicallyYours is offline Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings. User Rank
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,352

    Re: Why was the moon landing actually a hoax?

    Quote Originally Posted by bibleman View Post
    For those who believe that the moon landing was a hoax, please explain how you came to this conclusion.
    Why did NASA orchestrate this hoax? What was their motive?

    Submit your proof so that we may dissect it and discuss.
    They saw it on YouTube and lack the brains to do the research themselves.
    "Religion is a heavy suitcase: all you have to do is put it down."
    -----------------------------------------------------------
    "I have read the bible...more than once. I was not impressed nor was I so moved to give up my ability to think for myself and surrender my knowledge of facts for the unfounded belief in a mythical sky-fairy." - Me.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    366

    Re: Why was the moon landing actually a hoax?

    Television Technology back in the late 1960's and early 1970's was very primitive. They could barely produce video with any kind of special effects like compared to today's technology. Super Computers filled 10 story and 20 story buildings and could barely Add, Subtract, multiply and divide, much less to complicated video image manipulation and Matrix math on the fly; like today's PC's and Laptops do with ease.

    In 1977 a Video recorder cost $75,000 and a Color Video camera was the size of a suite case and cost $150,000. And this is with no special graphics or text special affects abilities either. And clearly was unavailable to the public at any reasonable cost.

    So the technology to pull of a Moon Mission hoax with percision and special effects didn't exist in 1969 through 1972.

    ...


  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Stow, OH SOL III
    Posts
    3,231

    Re: Why was the moon landing actually a hoax?

    As usual ole Ed appears to be just making stuff up again.

    Videocassette recorder (Wiki);
    History

    Early machines and formats

    The history of the videocassette recorder follows the history of videotape recording in general. Ampex introduced the Quadruplex videotape professional broadcast standard format with its Ampex VRX-1000 in 1956. It became the world's first commercially successful videotape recorder using two-inch (5.1 cm) wide tape. Due to its US$50,000 price, the Ampex VRX-1000 could be afforded only by the television networks and the largest individual stations.

    In 1963, Philips introduced their EL3400 1" helical scan recorder (aimed at the business and domestic user) and Sony marketed the 2" PV-100, their first reel-to-reel VTR intended for business, medical, airline, and educational use.

    First home video recorders
    The Telcan, produced by the Nottingham Electronic Valve Company in 1963, was the first home video recorder. It could be bought as a unit or in kit form for £60. However, there were several drawbacks: it was expensive, not easy to put together and could only record 20 minutes output at a time in black-and-white.

    The Sony model CV-2000, first marketed in 1965, was their first VTR intended for home use and was based on half inch tape. Ampex and RCA followed in 1965 with their own reel-to-reel monochrome VTRs priced under US $1,000 for the home consumer market.

    The EIAJ format was a standard half-inch format used by various manufacturers. EIAJ-1 was an open reel format. EIAJ-2 used a cartridge that contained a supply reel, but not the take-up reel. As the take-up reel was part of the recorder, the tape had to be fully rewound before removing the cartridge, a slow procedure.

    The development of the videocassette followed the replacement by cassette of other open reel systems in consumer items: the Stereo-Pak 4-track audio cartridge in 1962, the compact audio cassette and Instamatic film cartridge in 1963, the 8-track cartridge in 1965, and the Super 8 home movie cartridge in 1966.

    In 1967, videocassettes of movies became available for individuals to use.

    Sony U-matic
    Sony demonstrated a videocassette prototype in October 1969, then set it aside to work out an industry standard by March 1970 with seven fellow manufacturers. The result, the Sony U-matic system, introduced in Tokyo in September 1971, was the world's first commercial videocassette format. Its cartridges, resembling larger versions of the later VHS cassettes, used 3/4-inch (1.9 cm) tape and had a maximum playing time of 60 minutes, later extended to 90 minutes. Sony also introduced two machines (the VP-1100 videocassette player and the VO-1700 videocassette recorder) to use the new tapes. U-matic, with its ease of use, quickly made other consumer videotape systems obsolete in Japan and North America, where U-matic VCRs were widely used by television newsrooms, schools and businesses. But the cost—US$1,395 for a combination TV/VCR, or $7,069 in 2007 dollars—kept it out of most homes.

    Philips "VCR" format
    In 1970 Philips developed a home videocassette format. Confusingly, Philips named this format "VCR" (although it is also referred to as "N1500", after the first recorder's model number). The format was also supported by Grundig and Loewe. It used square cassettes and half-inch (1.3 cm) tape, mounted on co-axial reels, giving a recording time of one hour. The first model, available in the United Kingdom in 1972, was equipped with a crude timer that used rotary dials. At nearly £600 ($2087), it was expensive and the format was relatively unsuccessful in the home market. This was followed by digital timer version in 1975, the N1502. In 1977 a new (and incompatible) long-play version ("VCR-LP") or N1700, which could use the same tapes, sold quite well to schools and colleges.
    Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science. -C. Darwin

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    nc
    Posts
    236

    Re: Why was the moon landing actually a hoax?

    Quote Originally Posted by edmund129 View Post
    Here is are more detailed picture of the Lunar landing site taken by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter.

    http://www.space.com/12796-photos-ap...sites-lro.html

    ...

    I am on neither side, but would love to know if we just have to take for granted that those things pointed to in the picture are really what they say they are. It would be nice to see a much better picture. Where the hell is that flag?

    Wonder how many more years till we do it "again"? Or how many years until our technology has evolved so that we can more clearly see what those arrows are pointing to in the pictures?
    whack it:judges:

  12. #12
    Yawn...'s Avatar
    Yawn... is offline I ain't got time for pedantic Ghandi type internet nerds User Rank
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    6,289

    Re: Why was the moon landing actually a hoax?

    Quote Originally Posted by tig View Post
    I am on neither side, but would love to know if we just have to take for granted that those things pointed to in the picture are really what they say they are. It would be nice to see a much better picture. Where the hell is that flag?

    Wonder how many more years till we do it "again"? Or how many years until our technology has evolved so that we can more clearly see what those arrows are pointing to in the pictures?
    1000's of Pic from Apollo 16 >>>

    http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/images16.html#18340


    http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/alsj.funpix.html







    Another place to find photos>>>>>>>

    http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollopanoramas/

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    nc
    Posts
    236

    Re: Why was the moon landing actually a hoax?

    Thanks. But I was speaking it would be good if the technology for looking to see those objects from space or earth were better. It would shut the conspiracy theory down, if one could see the flag, or discarded items, from earth, or a space satilite or something.

    I like the pictures you sent a link to. I really don't doubt we landed.

    On another note, if the hubble is not good at looking at something as close as the moon, I wonder how accurate it could be looking at stars that are so far out. Seems alot of our science is speculation, not observable, recordable fact.
    whack it:judges:

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    6,549

    Re: Why was the moon landing actually a hoax?

    Quote Originally Posted by tig View Post
    Thanks. But I was speaking it would be good if the technology for looking to see those objects from space or earth were better. It would shut the conspiracy theory down, if one could see the flag, or discarded items, from earth, or a space satilite or something.

    I like the pictures you sent a link to. I really don't doubt we landed.

    On another note, if the hubble is not good at looking at something as close as the moon, I wonder how accurate it could be looking at stars that are so far out. Seems alot of our science is speculation, not observable, recordable fact.
    Why the Hubble cannot see the lunar landing artifacts.

    http://astrobob.areavoices.com/2012/...-the-moon-yes/

    One of the most common questions asked by the public when we’re looking at the moon through a telescope is why we can’t we see the American flags or any other sign of Apollo with the Hubble Space Telescope. It IS the most powerful telescope, right? Here’s the rub. The smallest possible thing Hubble can see on the moon is about 328 feet across or the length of a football field. While impressive feat of resolution, no Apollo spacecraft comes anywhere near that size. Every piece of man-made hardware is below the space telescope’s resolution limit.
    Also see: http://hubblesite.org/reference_desk...swer.php?id=77

    And while I'm no astronomer... amateur or otherwise... much of what we know of the universe is observable fact. Astronomical observations take a wide variety of forms such as: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectroscopy

    .

    .
    Last edited by PaulM; 02-02-2013 at 11:51 PM.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    nc
    Posts
    236

    Re: Why was the moon landing actually a hoax?

    Quote Originally Posted by PaulM View Post
    Why the Hubble cannot see the lunar landing artifacts.

    http://astrobob.areavoices.com/2012/...-the-moon-yes/
    So...we have a ways to go before we can "prove" we actually landed on the moon? Since the hubble in not capable and the orbiting telescopes are not capable of clear photos, until then we will just have to take for granted that those extremely blurry objects are actually what we have been told they are.

    And that was what I was commenting on, that it will be awhile before we can put the moonlanding conspiracy to rest. Hopefully we have better technology in the works.

    Also see: http://hubblesite.org/reference_desk...swer.php?id=77

    And while I'm no astronomer... amateur or otherwise... much of what we know of the universe is observable fact. Astronomical observations take a wide variety of forms such as: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectroscopy

    .

    .
    Yes, the things we know about the known universe is observable fact. The rest, until it is observable (through better technology hopefully) is mere speculation. The stars being so much further out, our knowing will just have to wait until we can actually prove through "clear" observation, same goes for the moons or planets near earth. We are very poorly equipped to be stating we have facts about far off points that we cannot clearly observe (which goes for the history of the earth also), if it is not observable then it cannot be stated that it is known facts.

    Just because the governments of the world have people who call themselves experts don't mean they have facts on all they say they do, just like the religious organizations have their own experts who state as fact many things that are not. Course, if you act like you know what you are doing, then it very often is assumed you do know what you are doing, and then you may be able to take advantage of others through that "acting".
    whack it:judges:

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    6,549

    Re: Why was the moon landing actually a hoax?

    Quote Originally Posted by tig View Post
    So...we have a ways to go before we can "prove" we actually landed on the moon? Since the hubble in not capable and the orbiting telescopes are not capable of clear photos, until then we will just have to take for granted that those extremely blurry objects are actually what we have been told they are.

    And that was what I was commenting on, that it will be awhile before we can put the moonlanding conspiracy to rest. Hopefully we have better technology in the works.



    Yes, the things we know about the known universe is observable fact. The rest, until it is observable (through better technology hopefully) is mere speculation. The stars being so much further out, our knowing will just have to wait until we can actually prove through "clear" observation, same goes for the moons or planets near earth. We are very poorly equipped to be stating we have facts about far off points that we cannot clearly observe (which goes for the history of the earth also), if it is not observable then it cannot be stated that it is known facts.

    Just because the governments of the world have people who call themselves experts don't mean they have facts on all they say they do, just like the religious organizations have their own experts who state as fact many things that are not. Course, if you act like you know what you are doing, then it very often is assumed you do know what you are doing, and then you may be able to take advantage of others through that "acting".
    SMH...

    Yeah, sure, whatever you say. Can't see it in real time so it is not fact...

    dumb .

Similar Threads

  1. FAKE Moon landing director: Stanley Kubrick
    By eugene66 in forum Conspiracy Theories
    Replies: 627
    Last Post: 01-06-2014, 04:52 AM
  2. MOON LANDING HOAX - satanic celebration FULL STORY
    By TruthIsNeverTooHorrible in forum Conspiracy Theories
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 01-14-2010, 06:04 PM
  3. Landing on the moon.
    By myglobalresults in forum Conspiracy Theories
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 08-31-2009, 06:26 PM
  4. Pantheon of History's biggest scam's-Moon Landing
    By steve burns in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-12-2008, 05:27 PM
  5. The Hard Landing For Housing is Already Here
    By Solve et Coagula in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-25-2006, 07:54 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •