• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Apollo Moon Missions Were Faked in a Studio

Antitroll said:
Prediction 2 - he will say pictures are all fakeable so the LROC images don't prove anything. He won't say how a continuous realtime data stream is fakeable.
Click to expand...

You just cannot make up this crap. The spamming is scripted, it's tedium embodied. You missed this post about the moronic China faked it objectivity test -

Re: China's Spacewalk Was Fake - YouTube

"I don't think 911 or the Moon landing were faked"

An objectivity test of moronic proportions where the 99% bulk of your evidence comes from somebody who rejects the premise of this thread. Hahaha, you simply cannot make up this crap.
 
Last edited:
Aulis is referenced!! Bunch of long ago debunked nonsense.

The "Coke bottle" that one woman in all the workd saw but its twue its twue. The dust thrown up by the wheels of the rover fell too fast, never mind that dust must drop slower on earth due to air friction than it would on the moon.(small particles reach terminal velocity extremly quickly whereas on the moon that term never applies)

Oh I bought "Dark Moon" years ago and read it cover to cover. Suprising given the number of times I felt more like throwing it in the trash.

As science writers Percy and Bennet demonstrate their talents would be better utilised digging latrines.
 
Oh my lord! This is comic gold! I clicked on a few of those "Apollo Moon Landing Hoax" YouTube clips. One old guy is arguing that Armstrong and Aldrin could not have been talking to Houston on the radio during the landing phase because the noise of the rocket would have drowned out any conversation. The "noise" of the rocket. Noise. Sound. In a vacuum. Oh my.
 
Tristan1961 said:
Oh my lord! This is comic gold! I clicked on a few of those "Apollo Moon Landing Hoax" YouTube clips. One old guy is arguing that Armstrong and Aldrin could not have been talking to Houston on the radio during the landing phase because the noise of the rocket would have drowned out any conversation. The "noise" of the rocket. Noise. Sound. In a vacuum. Oh my.
Click to expand...

That is funny, anti-science at undefined heights of silly.
Fake moon landing fantasy - in the correct area, Conspiracy Theories.
Do "they" know this is not in the reality section of the forum ...
 
Tristan1961 said:
Oh my lord! This is comic gold! I clicked on a few of those "Apollo Moon Landing Hoax" YouTube clips. One old guy is arguing that Armstrong and Aldrin could not have been talking to Houston on the radio during the landing phase because the noise of the rocket would have drowned out any conversation. The "noise" of the rocket. Noise. Sound. In a vacuum. Oh my.
Click to expand...

By and large, conspiracy theorists are raving nutters. But the moon hoaxers are the 1% of kookdom crazy blithering idiots.

Something so completely proved and proved and proved, but no amount of any actual proof is enough for these nuts. Before the internet, they were just the crazy guys talking to themselves on the subway, now they feel they have to spread their maniac theories.
 
Look at this.

Start watching this at the 16:40 time mark.
Physics of the Moon Flag - YouTube
"Physics of the Moon Flag"

Watch as the swinging gets narrow before it stops.

It looks a little faster than the Apollo flag which could be explained by the slow-motion at which the Apollo footage is shown (sixty seven percent according to Jarrah White).
Apollo 15 flag waving - YouTube
(2:37 time mark)

The Apollo flag is moving much faster than the speed at which the video shows it should be moving at the 18:50 time mark.

Let's hear some analyses of this from the pro-Apollo posters.
 
Is there such a thing as a rational conspiracy theorist? Is it even possible?
 
Quag said:
Is there such a thing as a rational conspiracy theorist? Is it even possible?
Click to expand...

It varies by degrees. Some have the ability to eventually work their way out of the mindtrap. Some don't.
 
The reason why I think the moon missions were most likely faked is because its a much safer bet. If America wants to win the moon race then why go all in, hail Mary with a chance to fail and be embarrassed when you could just fake it in a studio for a guaranteed success? From a shrewd person's perspective it makes more sense than actually going to the moon. Then they could use the money for much more "useful", or personal things.

Remember when India found water on the moon? Oh wait. You probably think it was America. Because when India discovered proof of water America quickly sacrificed a piece of equipment and shot it into the moon to "analyze the dispersion and conclude there must be water".
 
Last edited:
dirtpoorchris said:
The reason why I think the moon missions were most likely faked is because its a much safer bet. If America wants to win the moon race then why go all in, hail Mary with a chance to fail and be embarrassed when you could just fake it in a studio for a guaranteed success? From a shrewd person's perspective it makes more sense than actually going to the moon. Then they could use the money for much more "useful", or personal things.
Click to expand...

The Russians confirmed US arrival on the moon. They could hear the communications and determine the origin. They could also see, via telescopes, the moon landing itself.

If they were unable to confirm the moon landing, they would have said so.
 
ecofarm said:
The Russians confirmed US arrival on the moon. They could hear the communications and determine the origin. They could also see, via telescopes, the moon landing itself.

If they were unable to confirm the moon landing, they would have said so.
Click to expand...

Technically, you cannot see the moon landing via a telescope from earth, it is completely impossible, the area is much too small, and it would take a telescope so large that it would be impossible to build.

However, the landing sites have been imaged in detail down to about 6ft by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, as well as (much less resolution), the Clementine lunar Orbiter.

Now, the spacecraft were imaged by astronomers as they were heading to the moon, much like you would take a picture of a satellite in the sky.

Most importantly, we landed on the moon, and every single crazy assed claim by the conspiracy theorists has been debunked over and over and over and over and over and over and over.

This is a great view of the Apollo 17 landing site as imaged by LRO.

b80a5c73642df4a750ac37f14d531f78.jpg
 
beefheart said:
Technically, you cannot see the moon landing via a telescope from earth, it is completely impossible, the area is much too small, and it would take a telescope so large that it would be impossible to build.

However, the landing sites have been imaged in detail down to about 6ft by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, as well as (much less resolution), the Clementine lunar Orbiter.

Now, the spacecraft were imaged by astronomers as they were heading to the moon, much like you would take a picture of a satellite in the sky.

Most importantly, we landed on the moon, and every single crazy assed claim by the conspiracy theorists has been debunked over and over and over and over and over and over and over.

This is a great view of the Apollo 17 landing site as imaged by LRO.

View attachment 67167929
Click to expand...

I thought the telescope thing was probably wrong, but I wasn't sure how to specify. Thanks for the correction.
 
Ya mean there really ain't no ISS, no satellites, no space shuttle? :lol:
 
ecofarm said:
I thought the telescope thing was probably wrong, but I wasn't sure how to specify. Thanks for the correction.
Click to expand...

Close enough
Observers of all missions

The Soviet Union monitored the missions at their Space Transmissions Corps, which was "fully equipped with the latest intelligence-gathering and surveillance equipment."[6] Vasily Mishin, in an interview for the article "The Moon Programme That Faltered," describes how the Soviet Moon programme dwindled after the Apollo landing.[7]

The missions were tracked by radar from several countries on the way to the Moon and back.
Third-party evidence for Apollo Moon landings - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...
 
ecofarm said:
I thought the telescope thing was probably wrong, but I wasn't sure how to specify. Thanks for the correction.
Click to expand...

Several issues, the mirror would have to be so incredibly huge, that it couldn't support its own weight and would not be stable, nor could you move it easily. Plus, the amount of atmospheric effects at that high of a magnification would not let you see anything. Even Hubble couldn't resolve to an area that small, nor would you want to point it at something that bright.

I'm an amateur astronomer, I have an old 10 inch Meade scope, seen some amazing things with it, but so much light pollution near my house...

I was at a scope shop the other day and saw one I really want, $5,000, and I would get $1,000 in trade in... What kills me is that you can hook a PC or tablet into a scope, but they still don't build them with easy USB data ports. I have to hook a USB to Serial, to phone plug to communicate with my scope, worked fine with XP, not so much with Windows 7...
 
beefheart said:
What kills me is that you can hook a PC or tablet into a scope, but they still don't build them with easy USB data ports. I have to hook a USB to Serial, to phone plug to communicate with my scope, worked fine with XP, not so much with Windows 7...
Click to expand...

There's a member, Mycroft (iirc), that seems to be an expert on Windows OS. He might be able to help. If you check threads on Win8, you'll see his posts and if that's the right name.
 
beefheart said:
Several issues, the mirror would have to be so incredibly huge, that it couldn't support its own weight and would not be stable, nor could you move it easily. Plus, the amount of atmospheric effects at that high of a magnification would not let you see anything. Even Hubble couldn't resolve to an area that small, nor would you want to point it at something that bright.

I'm an amateur astronomer, I have an old 10 inch Meade scope, seen some amazing things with it, but so much light pollution near my house...

I was at a scope shop the other day and saw one I really want, $5,000, and I would get $1,000 in trade in... What kills me is that you can hook a PC or tablet into a scope, but they still don't build them with easy USB data ports. I have to hook a USB to Serial, to phone plug to communicate with my scope, worked fine with XP, not so much with Windows 7...
Click to expand...
There were several sightings through telescope though that could be considered good enough.
Apollo 8

On December 21, 1968, at 18:00 UT, amateur astronomers (H.R. Hatfield, M.J. Hendrie, F. Kent, Alan Heath, and M.J. Oates) in the UK photographed a fuel dump from the jettisoned S-IVB third rocket stage.[5]

Pic du Midi Observatory (in the French Pyrenees); the Catalina Station of the Lunar and Planetary Laboratory (University of Arizona); Corralitos Observatory, New Mexico, then operated by Northwestern University; McDonald Observatory of the University of Texas; and Lick Observatory of the University of California all filed reports of observations.[5]

Dr. Michael Moutsoulas at Pic du Midi Observatory reported an initial sighting around 17:10 UT on December 21 with the 1.1-metre reflector as an object (magnitude near 10, through clouds) moving eastward near the predicted location of Apollo 8. He used a 60-cm refractor telescope to observe a cluster of objects which were obscured by the appearance of a nebulous cloud at a time which matches a firing of the service module engine to assure adequate separation from the S-IVB. This event can be traced with the
Apollo 8 Flight Journal, noting that launch was at 0751 EST or 12:51 UT on December 21.[5]

Justus Dunlap and others at Corralitos Observatory (then operated by Northwestern University) obtained over 400 short-exposure intensified images, giving very accurate locations for the spacecraft.[5]

The 2.1m Otto Struve Telescope at McDonald Observatory, from 01:50–2:37 UT on December 23, observed the brightest object flashing as bright as magnitude 15, with the flash pattern recurring about once a minute.[5]

The Lick Observatory observations during the return coast to Earth produced live television pictures broadcast to United States west coast viewers via KQED-TV in San Francisco.

An article in the March 1969 issue of Sky & Telescope contained many reports of optical tracking of Apollo 8.[5]
The first post-launch sightings were from the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory (SAO) station on Maui.[5] Many in Hawaii observed the trans-lunar injection burn near 15:44 UT on December 21.

Third-party evidence for Apollo Moon landings - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...
 
ecofarm said:
There's a member, Mycroft (iirc), that seems to be an expert on Windows OS. He might be able to help. If you check threads on Win8, you'll see his posts and if that's the right name.
Click to expand...

Its a driver thing, getting a good handshake was tough, even before USB!
 
Scott said:
The evidence that the Apollo moon missions were faked in a studio is crushing. The US government can't censor the evidence that's on the internet but it can bury it with disinformation and obfuscation. If you enter "Apollo hoax" in Google, you'll find about fifteen pro-Apollo sites for every hoax site. I made a collection of some of the hoax evidence the government is trying to bury. I you've probably guessed, I've debated about Apollo before so, in this first post, I addressed all of the explanations that the pro-Apollo people usually come up with in the first ten pages or so of a thread such as the rocks, or the idea that the Russians would have snitched, etc.

continued...
Click to expand...

Usually I read the National Enquirer for a good laugh. Here you brought it to me with a belly buster and I didn't even need to stand in line at the super market. Thank you.
 
Perotista said:
Usually I read the National Enquirer for a good laugh. Here you brought it to me with a belly buster and I didn't even need to stand in line at the super market. Thank you.
Click to expand...

Yeah...the Internet exposed the moon landing hoax...fifty years after the fact.


Sometimes I worry about my neighbors.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom