First satellite images of the Apollo landing sites released - Polidicks

was photoshopped :downs:

[QUOTE=Gmod_Fan77;16140650]1. The Van Alen radiation belts stop all but the most shielded spacecraft from exiting the atmosphere. The combined weight of the Apollo ship and the shielding needed would render it flightless. 2. The shadows in the pictures of them on the moon show obvious signs of artificial light. 3. No dust clouds, no dust on the lander, nothing. It's like they never even landed. 4. The lander looks like it's made of tin foil and plastic. 5. If you speed up the "moon walking" clips in the videos taken, you'll notice they're jumping at a normal speed and height, barely going off the ground. 6. The rock seems to be made of paper machete. 7. There is a recorded conversation of the crew talking to Houston about how they're faking the landing.[/QUOTE] Don't be stupid.

[QUOTE=Gmod_Fan77;16140344]Doesn't matter if the satellite pictures look good, the moon landing never happened, bottom line. There's a shitload of evidence against them landing on the moon, but really, the best proof of all is THAT THERE IS A VIDEO RECORDING OF THEM TALKING ABOUT HOW THEY FAKED THE LANDING. What other proof do you need?[/QUOTE] :doh: 1. Link the video, no one has admitted the landings were faked. 2. Tell me about this shit load of evidence. Every bit of evidence I've seen has been completely disproved.

[QUOTE=Gmod_Fan77;16140650]1. The Van Alen radiation belts stop all but the most shielded spacecraft from exiting the atmosphere. The combined weight of the Apollo ship and the shielding needed would render it flightless. 2. The shadows in the pictures of them on the moon show obvious signs of artificial light. 3. No dust clouds, no dust on the lander, nothing. It's like they never even landed. 4. The lander looks like it's made of tin foil and plastic. 5. If you speed up the "moon walking" clips in the videos taken, you'll notice they're jumping at a normal speed and height, barely going off the ground. 6. The rock seems to be made of paper machete. 7. There is a recorded conversation of the crew talking to Houston about how they're faking the landing.[/QUOTE] Further evidence: 8. At a typical speed, it would take around 3 days to reach the moon. The Apollo crew acts as if they reached it in a matter of hours. 9. The "picture of Earth" they took is off in terms of the shadows on it. 10. There isn't a single star in any of the pictures,

[QUOTE=Gmod_Fan77;16140709]Further evidence: 8. At a typical speed, it would take around 3 days to reach the moon. The Apollo crew acts as if they reached it in a matter of hours. 9. The "picture of Earth" they took is off in terms of the shadows on it. 10. There isn't a single star in any of the pictures,[/QUOTE] I don't have the time to tell you you're wrong, so I'll copypasta it. [quote]The Russians independently tracked the Apollo missions. And why shouldn't they? They were being beaten, they should track it to make sure it wasn't all faked (for example). Second, there's an American flag on the moon, set up by American astronauts. Third, there are the Lunar Descent Modules still sitting on the surface. They allowed the lander to ... well... land. After the crew were done, it served as a launch platform to get the Ascent Module back into Lunar orbit. Time to debunk hoax theories. No stars in the photographs? Of course not, the cameras weren't set to an exposure long enough to allow for them to show up. Lunar dust didn't fly everywhere when the LM was landing? Of course not. Why should it? There's no atmosphere, nothing to carry dirt in little eddies and swirlies and such away from the landed. The only dust to be affected is that which is directly being hit by the expelled fuel. Flag waving? No. It can't do that as the moon has no atmosphere. What is occuring in the Apollo footage is that the flag is being moved. As it is moved, momentum travels through it. This makes a pseud-waving pattern. Kind of if you took a string, and moved it. The string may not blow in the wind, but it'll appear to wave around. Look up "intertia" and "momentum" for further details. Earth's magnetic field should've killed them? Well... no, quite simply, it shouldn't have, nor did it. In fact, many of the Apollo astronauts have radiation-related health problems due to their passage outside of Earth's magnetic field.[/quote]

[QUOTE=Gmod_Fan77;16140650]1. The Van Alen radiation belts stop all but the most shielded spacecraft from exiting the atmosphere. The combined weight of the Apollo ship and the shielding needed would render it flightless. [b]Explain why the ISS is outside out atmosphere them?[/b] 2. The shadows in the pictures of them on the moon show obvious signs of artificial light.[b]I have seen the pictures and there is nothing wrong with the light, it's just people like you being nit picky[/b] 3. No dust clouds, no dust on the lander, nothing. It's like they never even landed.[b]The moon Doesn't have an atmosphere and has lower gravity than earth, thus there wouldn't be a dust cloud[/b] 4. The lander looks like it's made of tin foil and plastic.[b] Well it isn't, get over it[/b] 5. If you speed up the "moon walking" clips in the videos taken, you'll notice they're jumping at a normal speed and height, barely going off the ground.[b] You honestly call that evidence?[/b] 6. The rock seems to be made of paper machete.[b]Don't be stupid[/b] 7. There is a recorded conversation of the crew talking to Houston about how they're faking the landing.[b] As it has been said, this video could easily have been a hoax[/b][/QUOTE] Well that's my explaination. I'm sure someone else will explain it better though.

Now I'm convinced.

What about the force of the engines? Since there's no gravity, the force of the engines kicking up dust would cause a massive dust cloud to form, as it would all immediately float up. Also, my other 7 points remain un-debunked. Saying "The video is probably a hoax" doesn't disprove that the Apollo crew talked to Houston about faking the landing.

[QUOTE=Gmod_Fan77;16140709]Further evidence: 8. At a typical speed, it would take around 3 days to reach the moon. The Apollo crew acts as if they reached it in a matter of hours. 9. The "picture of Earth" they took is off in terms of the shadows on it. 10. There isn't a single star in any of the pictures,[/QUOTE] Watch the Mythbuster episode on this topic boi. O wait, that won't really do you any good cause you'll think that's faked too You're just a hater man

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;16140574]What evidence? Stupid conspiracy theories created by fat nerds is not evidence.[/QUOTE] I'm not fat . eheh.

[QUOTE=Gmod_Fan77;16140650]1. The Van Alen radiation belts stop all but the most shielded spacecraft from exiting the atmosphere. The combined weight of the Apollo ship and the shielding needed would render it flightless. 2. The shadows in the pictures of them on the moon show obvious signs of artificial light. 3. No dust clouds, no dust on the lander, nothing. It's like they never even landed. 4. The lander looks like it's made of tin foil and plastic. 5. If you speed up the "moon walking" clips in the videos taken, you'll notice they're jumping at a normal speed and height, barely going off the ground. 6. The rock seems to be made of paper machete. 7. There is a recorded conversation of the crew talking to Houston about how they're faking the landing.[/QUOTE] 1. Yay for technology that can get passed this radiation belt your tool man wears. 2. [url]http://www.conspiracy-theories-hoax.com/apollo-moon-landing-hoax-photographic-evidence.html[/url] (bottom part of the post) 3. No dust on the lander? You mean when it returned or when it landed there? I'm confused? 4. There are tons of materials that look like tin foil and plastic, yet are some of the STRONGEST materials on this planet. 5. ... If you speed the video up? So the video was recorded in real time and it looks like they are actually slightly floating when they jump. But to prove you are right you want to artificially speed the video up. Okay. 6. [img]http://blog.rhapsody.com/rock06.jpg[/img] This rock is paper mache also... It just happens to weigh 200 pounds. 7. Again, just like EVERY conspiracy person, your FACTS are always more TRUE than everyone elses FACTS. Why is the moon landing video fake, but your recording not? It doesn't make sense.

[QUOTE=Gmod_Fan77;16140817]What about the force of the engines? Since there's no gravity, the force of the engines kicking up dust would cause a massive dust cloud to form, as it would all immediately float up. Also, my other 7 points remain un-debunked. Saying "The video is probably a hoax" doesn't disprove that the Apollo crew talked to Houston about faking the landing.[/QUOTE] No, because things don't work like on the earth. Also you're quick to say that the videos of them on the moon are a hoax, but you won't admit that your video could also be a hoax.

I don't care how desperately you people try to debunk my evidence of them never landing on the moon, I'll never believe they landed on the moon, no matter what the fucking idiots in the US government say or what NASA says.

[QUOTE=Gmod_Fan77;16140709]Further evidence: 8. At a typical speed, it would take around 3 days to reach the moon. The Apollo crew acts as if they reached it in a matter of hours. 9. The "picture of Earth" they took is off in terms of the shadows on it. 10. There isn't a single star in any of the pictures,[/QUOTE] You are a fucking moron, all of that can be explained if you actually looked up shit before you make conspiracies, we've been to the moon, get the fuck over it. [editline]03:36PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Gmod_Fan77;16140877]I don't care how desperately you people try to debunk my evidence of them never landing on the moon, I'll never believe they landed on the moon, no matter what the fucking idiots in the US government say or what NASA says.[/QUOTE] Guess what? We don't give a fuck, keep being an ignorant moron.

[QUOTE=Gmod_Fan77;16140650] 1. The Van Alen radiation belts stop all but the most shielded spacecraft from exiting the atmosphere. The combined weight of the Apollo ship and the shielding needed would render it flightless. [B]This is wrong. The Van Alen belt does contain a higher density of charged particles, but the radiation is not only survivable but causes no ill effect. [/B] 2. The shadows in the pictures of them on the moon show obvious signs of artificial light. [B]Wrong. The unparallel shadows are caused by the moons topography, not by multiple light sources. What conspiracy theorists seem to miss is that if there was more than one artificial light source, there would be [U]multiple[/U] shadows not just nonparallel ones[/B] 3. No dust clouds, no dust on the lander, nothing. It's like they never even landed. [B]You can't have dust clouds in an airless environment. Any dust kicked up won't swirl around and collect on things, it'll fly off in a straight line[/B] 4. The lander looks like it's made of tin foil and plastic. [B]Um no, it's covered in what is essentially a more advanced tin foil yes. So are most satellites and space craft today, are all those fake?[/B] 5. If you speed up the "moon walking" clips in the videos taken, you'll notice they're jumping at a normal speed and height, barely going off the ground. [B]No, this has been done and it looks unnatural. Even if it did look natural, it's not substantial evidence. [/B] 6. The rock seems to be made of paper machete. [B]Just because something looks different from what you're used to doesn't mean it's not real. The lunar soil and rock (regolith) is very different from what we have on Earth. It hasn't been weathered and has strange reflective qualities. [/B] 7. There is a recorded conversation of the crew talking to Houston about how they're faking the landing. [B]Again, I have no idea what you're talking about. Do you have a link to this?[/B] [/QUOTE] As for evidence for the moon landings: 1. Thousands and thousands of amateur astronomers tracked the Apollo modules using telescopes and radios, this couldn't be faked without actually sending a lunar module to the moon. 2. The hundreds of pounds of moon rock that is available for the public to study 3. The reflector placed on the moon to bounce laser beams back. Public observatories equipped with high powered gas lasers can fire a beam at this reflector and have it bounce back. If no reflector had been placed up there, the beam would not come back. 4. These pictures released by LRO. [QUOTE=Gmod_Fan77;16140877]I don't care how desperately you people try to debunk my evidence of them never landing on the moon, I'll never believe they landed on the moon, no matter what the fucking idiots in the US government say or what NASA says.[/QUOTE] If you don't trust the government or NASA that's fine, but ignoring hard fact is just plain dumb.

[QUOTE=Gmod_Fan77;16140877]I don't care how desperately you people try to debunk my evidence of them never landing on the moon, I'll never believe they landed on the moon, no matter what the fucking idiots in the US government say or what NASA says.[/QUOTE] You don't have to listen to them, you can just use common sense.

[QUOTE=Squad;16140859] 5. ... If you speed the video up? So the video was recorded in real time and it looks like they are actually slightly floating when they jump. But to prove you are right you want to artificially speed the video up.[/QUOTE] The video was recorded then sped-up to imitate a low-gravity environment. [editline]03:37PM[/editline] [QUOTE=petieng;16140893]3. The reflector placed on the moon to bounce laser beams back. Public observatories equipped with high powered gas lasers can fire a beam at this reflector and have it bounce back. If no reflector had been placed up there, the beam would not come back.[/QUOTE] I'm not saying no one ever landed on the moon, I'm just saying that no one landed there in 1969.

[QUOTE=Gmod_Fan77;16140877]I don't care how desperately you people try to debunk my evidence of them never landing on the moon, I'll never believe they landed on the moon, no matter what the fucking idiots in the US government say or what NASA says.[/QUOTE] I feel really sorry for people like you. You are pretty much admitting to your stupidity. You refuse to listen to anyone else, even when they come up with a logical explanation. Everything you posted was disproved (besides your hokey recording of them saying it is fake) and yet you still refuse to listen. Do you not realize that you are dumb to just ignore all of this? I really wish I knew what made you so ignorant and hard headed.

I'm not ignoring it, I'm not believing it, just like none of you believed me.

I hope better photos are released soon. [QUOTE=Gmod_Fan77;16140709]IT'S A CONSPIRACYYYYYY[/QUOTE] Get that troll stuff out of your ass and go away,

[QUOTE=Gmod_Fan77;16140953]I'm not ignoring it, I'm not believing it, just like none of you believed me.[/QUOTE] None of us believe you because your evidence is rubbish.

[QUOTE=Gmod_Fan77;16140899] I'm not saying no one ever landed on the moon, I'm just saying that no one landed there in 1969.[/QUOTE] But most of this insurmountable evidence applies to Apollo 11, so saying Apollo 11 didn't happen but the others did is still plain ignorance. [QUOTE=Gmod_Fan77;16140953]I'm not ignoring it, I'm not believing it, just like none of you believed me.[/QUOTE] I would believe you if you had some evidence the landings didn't happen.

[QUOTE=Gmod_Fan77;16140953]I'm not ignoring it, I'm not believing it, just like none of you believed me.[/QUOTE] We don't believe you because we have actual explanations behind everything you say. If you came up with an original idea that no one could explain of course we would believe you. If you say "Gravity doesn't exist" we aren't going to believe you because I can drop something and prove that it certainly does. How about this, we agree that every single thing that you stated was absolutely true and you are 100% correct, except for your claim that they admitted it was fake. Can you at least agree you are stupid for saying that the Moon Landing could be faked, but a recording of a few people saying it was fake has to be real?

[QUOTE=Gmod_Fan77;16140817]What about the force of the engines? Since there's no gravity, the force of the engines kicking up dust would cause a massive dust cloud to form, as it would all immediately float up. Also, my other 7 points remain un-debunked. Saying "The video is probably a hoax" doesn't disprove that the Apollo crew talked to Houston about faking the landing.[/QUOTE] How about you watch the Mythbusters episode on this, as you are obviously too thick to accept sound reasoning and facts we listed to counter your other stupid points.

[QUOTE=Gmod_Fan77;16140444]And how do you know it's fake? Just because no one admins it's fake doesn't mean it isn't fake.[/QUOTE] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nu97trWFFh0[/media] Watch it all. Might do you some good.

[QUOTE=Titan!;16141033]How about you watch the Mythbusters episode on this, as you are obviously too thick to accept sound reasoning and facts we listed to counter your other stupid points.[/QUOTE] He thinks that Mythbusters is staged... I heard that if you look closely you can see them using cameras!!! Obviously fake!

[QUOTE=Gmod_Fan77;16140899]The video was recorded then sped-up to imitate a low-gravity environment. [editline]03:37PM[/editline] I'm not saying no one ever landed on the moon, I'm just saying that no one landed there in 1969.[/QUOTE] [quote] [B] One of the NASA photos is fake because the shadows of the rocks and lunar lander are not parallel. [/B] busted The Mythbusters built a small-scale replica of the lunar landing site based on the photograph, using reflective sand similar to that found on the Moon, and a single light to represent the Sun. Next, they took a photo which was exactly the same as the NASA photo, including the differing shadows. The Mythbusters explained that the shadows were not parallel because of the way the light falls on the Moon’s natural topography. One of the NASA photos is fake because Neil Armstrong can be clearly seen while in the shadow of the lunar lander. busted To test this myth, the Mythbusters built a large-scale replica of the landing site, allowing them to take a photo which was nearly identical to the original NASA photo. The Mythbusters explained that Armstrong was visible because of ambient light being reflected off of the Moon’s surface. [B] A flag cannot flap in a vacuum. [/B] busted[B] The Build Team placed a replica of the American flag planted on the moon into a vacuum chamber at the Marshall Space Flight Center. They first tested at normal pressure and manipulated the flag. The momentum moved the flag around but the motion quickly dissipated. In vacuum conditions, manipulating the flag caused it to flap vigorously as if it were being blown by a breeze. This demonstrated that a flag could appear to wave in a vacuum, as the Apollo flag did.[/B] A clear footprint cannot be made in vacuum because there is no moisture to hold its shape. busted The Build Team first tested whether dry or wet sand made a more distinguishable footprint by stepping in them with an astronaut boot. It was clear that the wet footprint had more detail than the dry footprint. They then placed sand similar in composition to the Moon’s soil in a vacuum chamber and stepped on it with an astronaut boot, which made a clear print. The reason provided for this was that the unique composition of lunar soil allows it to behave differently than terrestrial soil. [B]The film of the astronauts moonwalking is actually film of the astronauts skipping in front of a high-framerate camera, slowing down the picture and giving the illusion they are on the Moon.[/B] [B] busted[/B] Adam donned a replica NASA spacesuit and mimicked the astronauts’ motions while being filmed by a slow motion camera. They also attached Adam to wires in order to mimic the Moon’s lower gravity. While comparing their new footage with the original footage, the Mythbusters noted an initial similarity, but there were several small discrepancies attributable to filming in Earth’s gravity. In order to film in microgravity, the Mythbusters boarded a Reduced Gravity Aircraft and filmed the exact same movements. Adam noted that the movements were more comfortable and more logical in microgravity, and their footage from the plane looked exactly like the original NASA film. The Mythbusters concluded that the moon landing film is authentic. The Apollo astronauts left behind special equipment on the Moon like reflectors that scientists can bounce lasers off of. confirmed The Mythbusters went to an observatory equipped with a high powered laser. They first fired at the bare lunar surface but did not detect the laser bouncing back. Then they pointed the laser at a reflector left behind by NASA and received a confirmed bounce.[/quote] God, people like you are so thick. Nothing makes me rage more than conspiracy theory morons.

[QUOTE=Gmod_Fan77;16140899]The video was recorded then sped-up to imitate a low-gravity environment. [editline]03:37PM[/editline] I'm not saying no one ever landed on the moon, I'm just saying that no one landed there in 1969.[/QUOTE] Already been tested. Didn't fucking work. Sorry. : ( [editline]07:48PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Titan!;16141080]God, people like you are so thick. Nothing makes me rage more than conspiracy theory morons.[/QUOTE] I think the conspiracy theory crowd is composed entirely of children and people with a strange condition that makes them both really fucking paranoid and [I]really[/I] fucking gullible.

it's a conspiracy man! The alien dudes told me, man! They're controlling you man, they're making you think stuff man. You weren't there there man. you weren't there...

[QUOTE=Rougelead;16138532]No its just 4 pixels wide Why is this strange? Even the Hubble cant see that close up. The Hubble only can see a mile in diameter on the moon. The LRO spacecraft can see things 1-2 meters insize. The LEM is 4 meters. If you were on the moon and pointed a telescope towards earth, could you see a car?[/QUOTE] If the goddamn Hubble Telescope can read a newspaper from orbit, it better sure as hell see the fine print on the side of the goddamn lunar lander. Goddamn, I say goddamn too much. Still, glad they do have pictures of this.