Theres proof that we landed on the moon

[squeaky024]

Here's the thing, there are still people who think the earth is flat. Since there are people who still believe that despite years and years of evidence, It is better to just ignore them and move on, same with the people who think the entire moon landing is faked.

 

[Andy44]

Actually, computerex has a point. You can't "know" everything you think you know about something like Apollo. But the overwhelming evidence is in favor of the official story. And Occam's Razor leans heavily against those who think the landings or any of the films were faked.

I notice some of you get really upset over this, and joke about getting violent with the non-believers. Yes, the Buzz-punch video is greatly satisfying entertainment. Just remember, many of those non-believers love the attention and martyr status they get from being assaulted or threatened.

The way to defeat them is with logic to those who will listen, and to ignore those whose minds are closed.

 

[bujin]

Here's the thing, there are still people who think the earth is flat. Since there are people who still believe that despite years and years of evidence, It is better to just ignore them and move on, same with the people who think the entire moon landing is faked.

Yep, hence my now-deleted post with my method of dealing with them... :lol:

 

[computerex]

The way to defeat them is with logic to those who will listen, and to ignore those whose minds are closed.

I am sure that those "non-believers" say the same thing on their forums :rofl:

 

[statickid]

wait, aren't the moon rocks they brought back proof that we landed on the moon? how about all the photos? not the sketchy videos but the beautiful high res full color photos are infinitely more proof than the average quack has.

how about this:

HOW COME THERE AREN'T ANY PHOTOS OR EVIDENCE OF THE FAKE MOON SET AND PROPS??? :lol:

 

[Ghostrider]

HOW COME THERE AREN'T ANY PHOTOS OR EVIDENCE OF THE FAKE MOON SET AND PROPS??? :lol:

Because the Moon Hoax was FAKED! The whole conspiracy DOES NOT EXIST! They filmed the hoax movies on a fake sound stage with fake hoaxers!

 

[Xyon]

Wait, a hoax of a hoax? This is too much recursion!

 

[Spaceman379]

is the flag that was planted on the moon still there? and if it is could someone see it with a telescope or even hubble?

 

[Pilot7893]

I don't think they can bring Hubble to focus on something as close as the Moon.

 

[Izack]

I don't think they can bring Hubble to focus on something as close as the Moon.

Nor would they bother anyway. The real scientists have real science to do.

 

[Spaceman379]

are there any telescopes on earth that can see the landing site? that a averge joe could use

 

[Alexw95]

are there any telescopes on earth that can see the landing site? that a averge joe could use

probably not the moon is large compaired and far away that photo was taken with a satellite in orbit around the moon and the picture is still very pixelated

 

[Izack]

Well, the LM is only what, 10 metres across? On the surface of a bright object 3 500 000 metres across?
I don't think so! :lol:

 

[ddom2006]

are there any telescopes on earth that can see the landing site? that a averge joe could use

I asked the same question of a NASA scientist on Twitter the other day, I was informed you'd need a telescope roughly the size of the continent of Africa to get a decent image of an LM from the Earth directly. So... You'd need a pretty big back yard I guess :lol:

 

[McLowery]

fair enough i wont argue with anything there, i like a good conspiracy theory. So, i'd still like to see the high quality footage of the anomalous flag movement... or any footage of it... any of that on youtube or somewhere?

Well as for quality, YouTube isn't it, but here is the movement I am talking about in the following clip. The flag waves on the astronauts approach and seems to continue waving after he passes it.
The same footage Coolhand posted, I just realized...

I dont have the footage in high quality anymore, it is on a crashed HD in my closet. lol

Actually, I think my "argument" points more towards the government's involvement, playing their cold war propaganda games with the public than it is directed at NASA and all the great minds that worked so hard to achieve their set goal of getting to the moon.

 

[Urwumpe]

are there any telescopes on earth that can see the landing site? that a averge joe could use

No. Even Hubble can only resolve things on the surface of the moon, that are 85m large. The VLT could be better by joining all three telescopes - if the object would be WAY brighter than than background. That is not the case.

Galaxies are HUGE objects. You might not believe it, but the Andromeda Galaxy appears seven times larger than the full moon, if you can just gather as much light as a telescope could. The faint spot called Andromeda nebula that you can see with your eyes is just the bright center of the galaxy.

---------- Post added at 09:51 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:44 AM ----------

The flag waves on the astronauts approach and seems to continue waving after he passes it.

Continue waving is the critical aspect for telling that it was filmed in vacuum.

So the real question is: What made the flag pole move, so the flag can be moving. If you compare the size of the astronaut passing in front of the flag to the astronauts behind the flag, you get a hint...

 

[garyw]

I don't think they can bring Hubble to focus on something as close as the Moon.

A quick search using google disproves that:

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2005/29/image/

 

[McLowery]

I will try to go about his politely,but if I divulge into an rambling madman, I apologize now.

I will start by acknowledging that at least you believe we landed on the moon, that's tons better than most 'hoaxers'. But, in the above post, you say that you 'know' the levels of deception the government is willing to go to. How are you sure of this? You also point out the fact that if all of the footage is authentic, there wouldn't be so many details that are 'wrong' or 'out of place'. How do you determine that these are wrong, by taking your knowledge of space and saying 'hmm, that doesn't fit'. Now, I don't mean to be insulting with that statement, and I will admit that my knowledge of space is limited too, so I instead rely on NASA to confirm authenticity. All of the errors that are usually pointed out have valid explanations, that usually get tossed to the wayside. Why don't you believe those?

I think another xkcd is due here. http://xkcd.com/386/

There is this chasm when it comes to subjects such as "did we or didnt we land on the moon?" Both sides build up this wall of evidence that shows "definitive proof" that we did or that we didn't. For me to come to the conclusions I have come to, took me giving both sides a look with as much of an unbiased mind set as possible. I've been able to agree that certain footage clips, when highly scrutinized, expose their "sound stage" origins because I'm willing to actually watch them with an open mind and I try to understand how the evidence is laid out to claim it as a hoax.

I can say with certainty that this government has no problems with feeding the public COMPLETE and TOTAL disinformation when doing so will achieve it's goals. Two examples: The "intelligence package" supporting the idea that the US needed to urgently attack Iraq to avoid impending doom was nothing more than a fantasy. Played out on TV for public consumption to gain support for invading a country that had never committed any acts of aggression against the US. Second, What is happening in the Gulf of Mexico at this very moment. The government, along with BP, have fed the public nothing but complete disinformation as to what is really going on there.

Now if this government is willing to go this far, how or why could anybody trust anything told to them by these maniacs? And this deceptive behavior happened after the cold war! You can guarantee that the paranoid mind set during the cold war offered much darker behavior of the government.

 

[garyw]

There is this chasm when it comes to subjects such as "did we or didnt we land on the moon?" Both sides build up this wall of evidence that shows "definitive proof" that we did or that we didn't. For me to come to the conclusions I have come to, took me giving both sides a look with as much of an unbiased mind set as possible. I've been able to agree that certain footage clips, when highly scrutinized, expose their "sound stage" origins because I'm willing to actually watch them with an open mind and I try to understand how the evidence is laid out to claim it as a hoax.

But without a background in certain scientific fields all you have are you own expectations of what the moon "might" look like under certain conditions. Not exactly a fair comparison is it?

I can say with certainty that this government has no problems with feeding the public COMPLETE and TOTAL disinformation when doing so will achieve it's goals.

I'd be shocked if they didn't. Let's say that the USA decides a major offensive in Afghanistan. Lets say that the press get wind of it and lets say that the White house press office deliberately feeds them disinformation about the attack. Would you be offended about this? What if the USA Government KNEW that the information was being passed back to enemy commanders? Still in a state of indignation?

Most people have absolutely NO RIGHT to know the true inner workings of certain operations if those operations could compromise the operation and the lives of soldiers involved. I expect that in 40 or so years a lot more truth about the Iraq invasion will come out. Until there you have to expect that there are military secrets which must be kept or are you someone who believes that everything should be public and then complain when other countries steal your technology and ambush your troops?

Now if this government is willing to go this far, how or why could anybody trust anything told to them by these maniacs? And this deceptive behavior happened after the cold war! You can guarantee that the paranoid mind set during the cold war offered much darker behavior of the government.

You have a choice at the polls. If you think it's all corrupt why not stand yourself and set things right? I've found that many people complain about the duly and legally elected people but few will do anything about it such as challenge them. Please do so, you might have a shock and just how hard working and how serious some of them are.

 

[T.Neo]

The idea that a flag could be displaced by an astronauts "bow wave" in the air can be easily tested; anyone who can emulate a bouncing astronaut and who can suspend a piece of fabric rougly the size and shape of the flag could conduct such an experiment. Naturally the air displaced by a suited astronaut will be more than the air displaced by a plainclothes human, but still.

A lot of he misinterpretation in the videos is because things sometimes tend to act differently on the Moon than they do on Earth. The perspective in terms of lunar mountains are an example; many of the shots of Taurus-Littrow make it appear that the mountains are small hills within a short distance from the camera, whereas they are in fact huge mountains kilometers away. With no reference points such as atmospheric haze, or objects to compare the mountains to such as trees, buildings or clouds, visual distance estimation becomes far harder.

Likewise with the alledged "flag waving". A flag has a large area apparent to the air; it will stop swinging very quickly in Earth's atmosphere, whereas on the Moon no atmosphere is present to slow it down- leaving it to continue swinging like a pendulum. Indeed, such pendulum movement is clearly visible in the flag as it is swinging. However an uninformed person would assume that the flag is waving in the wind, as this is what flags normally do on Earth.

Displacement of the flagpole and/or the soil it is planted in by the impact of the astronaut is quite plausible considering the speed of the astronaut as he passes in front of the flag. Direct interaction with the flag is also possible as it is relatively difficult to judge distance with the grainy video.

Without any evidence of such events occuring, no serious claim of any sort of covered up event on the Moon (first contact, terrible accident, nervous astronauts) can be made. Occam's razor is very important relating to this and the various Moon Hoax claims as well. The last case is specifically implausible as the astronauts were trained to deal with stressful situations; most were test pilots.