The Moon Landing Was a Fake

So long as you don't send me to a dystopian future Earth
Click to expand...
Good news, bad news.
The good news is no, we're not going to send you...
The bad news is - we don't have to, you're already there.
 
Actually as far as the radiation thing, They didn't know. If you take a simple or basic Meteorology/Astronomy class ,it is often covered in most books that astronauts were exposed to a ridiculous ammoutn of radiation, enough to give them radiation poison and more.
 
Just adding to this, a thought and thats all it is.

With the whole argument about radiation poisening, has anyone heard of the saying BBQ roll?

The Apollo Command Module and all attached modules would roll around so's one side is not facing sun for a long period of time, and seeing that most of the radiation coming out of the sun is in the form of Electrons and EM waves, its hard to see where they could have gotten this massive dose of radiation.

I'm not saying that the BBQ roll is the reason behind this, but a thought just popped into my head, thats all
 
JoojooSpaceape said:
Actually as far as the radiation thing, They didn't know. If you take a simple or basic Meteorology/Astronomy class ,it is often covered in most books that astronauts were exposed to a ridiculous ammoutn of radiation, enough to give them radiation poison and more.
Click to expand...
Don't bring that up, it has already been covered and debunked.
 
JoojooSpaceape said:
If you take a simple or basic Meteorology/Astronomy class ,it is often covered in most books that astronauts were exposed to a ridiculous ammoutn of radiation, enough to give them radiation poison and more.
Click to expand...
Name one. Go on, name a single recognised reference work used as the standard text in a college or University level course that makes this claim.
Please accompany this statement with the edition and page number.
Otherwise, retract this nonsensical claim, reduce the amount of time you are thought a fool, and join the ranks of the thoughtful.
 
a good telescope could settle the issue

the comment was made that the camera wasn't focused on the stars was the reason for their apparent lack in the pics. however, the surveyor probe's cameras weren't focused at the stars either, yet a clear horizon and stars are there.

is this implying that better cameras were sent on an unmanned probe than were provided to document a major event in space exploration?
 
Grim it has absolutely nothing to do with camera focus and everything to do with relative brightness. The brightness of foreground objects required the camera speed and aperture to be set at a level where the stars could not be registered.
 
the moon is made of cheese and the night sky is just black velcro, thats why it can appear suspended without feet. Beyond that god is having a good sadistic laugh peeping in the little pinholes he poked through so he can spy unnoticed from which scientists like to provocatively call wormholes and blackholes because he is a bad seed of a child and we are his personal science project.
 
iam said:
the night sky is just black velcro, thats why it can appear suspended without feet.
Click to expand...
The Third Policeman:
De Selby believed that night was but an accumulation of 'black sooty substances' in the atmosphere. He held that darkness was simply an accretion of 'black air', i.e., a staining of the atmosphere due to volcanic eruptions too fine to be seen with the naked eye and also to certain 'regrettable' industrial activities involving coal-tar by-products and vegetable dyes.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
The landings were fake as dog-bone casserole on a tuesday night- the craft werent built for it, and as for the actual moon itself- well, need I go any farther? I would give you a link to armageddononline's thread on this which was quite long (1527 replies or something) But the sites temproarily down, so-good debating!

This site has a few posts on it:

http://z6.invisionfree.com/The_End_Days/index.php
 
...and as for the actual moon itself- well, need I go any farther?
Click to expand...

I always knew it was really made of cheese!

Thanks for supporting my view, Skynet12.
 
I for one am more in favour of actually answering questions than pouring hubristic scorn.
Unknown_user said:
I have read all the BS off this forum in the past regarding the lack of "stars". I will agree with the conclusion that the camera wasn't focused in such a way to capture stars.
Click to expand...
Good. That's a start.

Unknown_user said:
However, when it comes to the direction of shadows in various pictures facing different ways
Click to expand...
Go outside, preferably on a sunny day, and watch the traffic, keeping the shadows to your side. The shadows of the cars coming from the left are angled to the left, they sweep past you as the car goes past, and then they are angled to the right as they continue to your right. The shadows are only "in straight lines" when you see them directly from above. In the real world where you are looking at them with a perspective slant, they not only appear to angle in different directions, but they undulate with the unevenness of the ground (on a road this might be represented by the camber towards the kerb). Nothing you will see will be any more anomalous than anything highlighted by the "moon hoax" people in genuine Apollo photographs.

Secondly - multiple light sources. Try watching a floodlit game of football. Every player has multiple shadows that come from multiple light sources. Each shadow is not completely dark because of the light coming from the other light sources, except where the shadows coincide and get deeper in the area of overlap.

Photographs of the moon's surface with astronauts and the flag, and other equipment, are talked about as demonstrating multiple light sources because different shadows point in different directions. This is not possible. The dark single shadows are coming from a single light source (the Sun) regardless of what direction they appear to be going in the photograph, whereas multiple light sources would result in multiple shadows for each element in the photograph.

Unknown_user said:
and the landscapes matching up in spots supposedly to be in different areas
Click to expand...
Without being there it's simply impossible to convince you that those landscape features are simply further away than you think they are. It's the overall lack of identifying features that enable you to make the claim that there was a faked background, but the background does not in fact look that different from points maybe a couple of kilometers apart.

Unknown_user said:
, and the astronaut posing in front of the sun with his body fully exposed to light
Click to expand...
A light source directly in front of the astronaut would produce a shadow going behind him, something I certainly have never seen. As you can see, the ground is generally shining quite brightly, and it is this reflected light which shows up the astronaut. The deepness and blackness of shadows (due to no light scattering from atmospheric gas) promulgated by pre-Apollo era science fiction writers simply turned out to be incorrect. The lightness of shadow on Earth is not in fact generally caused by atmospheric light scattering

Unknown_user said:
, I would be interested to know why anyone of sound mind would think with this knowledge that the moon landing was real.
Click to expand...
Because people with sound minds know that the faking of the moon landing, in the overall, not simply the photographs and films, but the tons of paperwork that denoted the progress of the achievement, and the documented reminiscences of many different people who were involved, would be far, far harder than simply going to the Moon.

Unknown_user said:
When a movie budget then was a couple million and they had the means to spend a billion, what else do you need...
Click to expand...
To "fake" film like the lunar rover bouncing up and down on the lunar surface, throwing up dust that doesn't hang in the air but which describes perfect, Newtonian, parabolae, would require the evacuation of a fairly large movie studio of all the air in it. And regardless of the fantasies of the most die-hard Hoax believers, speeding the film up really does not resemble "Earth Gravity" reality, but looks like speeded up film, whereas the Moon Gravity speed film contains elements which are clearly at normal speeds.
 
Why don't you just go to one of these fucking observatories. look up the coordinates the Americans landed and and then look for the flag on the moon?
 
Muslim said:
Why don't you just go to one of these fucking observatories. look up the coordinates the Americans landed and and then look for the flag on the moon?
Click to expand...

Because the moon is too bright to look at with a telescope designed to look at faint stars. Also, even the best telescopes would not resolve the flag, it's too small.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top