First satellite images of the Apollo landing sites released - Polidicks

[QUOTE=abiderpirate;16181238]I love how you guys are all retards, and Gmodfan77 is trolling you horribly, and you're all playing along with him.[/QUOTE] It's sometimes funny to see trolls like this one. Trolls that fail horribly. With ignoring everything they get confronted with.

[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. Take it from someone who majors in earth science, the Van Alen belt is about as thick as a bowl of soup. Explain satellites moron. 2. The shadows in the pictures of them on the moon show obvious signs of artificial light. Proof? Q3. No dust clouds, no dust on the lander, nothing. It's like they never even landed. A: 1/6 Gravity, good luck finding dirty objects on a rock without an atmosphere. Q4. The lander looks like it's made of tin foil and plastic. A: It is. Q5. 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. A: Yeah because you're speeding up the fucking video you genie, anything FAST FORWARDED will be faster. Q6. The rock seems to be made of paper machete. A: Paper Machetes? On the MOON? Was it advanced paper or a hoax? Q7. There is a recorded conversation of the crew talking to Houston about how they're faking the landing. A: I've personally talked to several mission control operators and an engineer who worked on the Apollo project. If they haven't slipped up now at the ripe old ages of 60+ then this is one WELL PLANNED HOAX. Fuck you, I've seen an Apollo rocket. And explain to me how congress spends what, 22 billion bux on a hoax? (all activities and more! John F. Kennedy Space Center!) [/QUOTE] I have rebutle. Har Har. And it's fun to feed shitty trolls. It's like watching a hamster on a wheel.

Shopped.

Well, explain this if my evidence is so fake. Why isn't there a blast crater or any sign for that matter of the jet propulsion the landing module would've had? Why in all of the photos are there flat backgrounds (you can tell they look like flat movie backdrops) with + signs on them? How come several scientists/engineers who designed the rocket and a few astronauts saying it could be hoaxed? Why would America want to waste their money on landing on the moon and getting no profit in return? Even if they did actually land on the moon, the Soviet Union still had superior nuclear weaponry, a superior army, and they still beat America and NATO to space.

[QUOTE=Gmod_Fan77;16224581]Why in all of the photos are there flat backgrounds (you can tell they look like flat movie backdrops) with + signs on them?[/QUOTE] Maybe because the camera's had that as a measurement reference?

This conversation is about as interesting as watching Atheists and Christians fight only its about science vs science fiction [B]IMMA BLOW UP THE MOON[/B]

[QUOTE=Gmod_Fan77;16224581]Why in all of the photos are there flat backgrounds (you can tell they look like flat movie backdrops) with + signs on them?[/quote] The Hasselblad cameras issued by NASA at the time had those crosses. [url]http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11-hass.html[/url] Look at this photo taken during Apollo 13 [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Apollo_13_LM_with_Mailbox.jpg[/url]

[QUOTE=Gmod_Fan77;16224581]Well, explain this if my evidence is so fake. Why isn't there a blast crater or any sign for that matter of the jet propulsion the landing module would've had? Why in all of the photos are there flat backgrounds (you can tell they look like flat movie backdrops) with + signs on them? How come several scientists/engineers who designed the rocket and a few astronauts saying it could be hoaxed? Why would America want to waste their money on landing on the moon and getting no profit in return? Even if they did actually land on the moon, the Soviet Union still had superior nuclear weaponry, a superior army, and they still beat America and NATO to space.[/QUOTE] Holy shit first of can't a mod ban you for trolling for so man flipping pages. Blast craters? really the lower part of the lander is still there. And the rocket wouldn't make a craterthat we would be able to see if at all. A rocket may be a controlled explosion but is not nearly as destructive as a regular explosion(somebody correct me on that if that is a false statement) The back rounds look flat because we can't see that the moon is round from that picture just like on earth if your at the ocean looking into the horizon [img]http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/samples/apollo/tools/images/radial_lg.gif[/img] [img]http://www.math.toronto.edu/jjchew/images/wallpaper/sun-on-horizon.jpg[/img] both back rounds both look flat How come several scientists/engineers who designed the rocket and a few astronauts saying it [b]could[/b] be hoaxed? You say could not was. There is a difference So what if America didn't get monetary benefits for going to the moon, it was a big propaganda thing:patriot: and space is the next frontier and the moon would be a excellent base of operation for further maned exploration of our solar system.

Fake. [img]http://www.problogger.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/mojo.jpg[/img]

[QUOTE=redsoxrock;16229868]Holy shit first of can't a mod ban you for trolling for so man flipping pages. Blast craters? really the lower part of the lander is still there. And the rocket wouldn't make a craterthat we would be able to see if at all. A rocket may be a controlled explosion but is not nearly as destructive as a regular explosion(somebody correct me on that if that is a false statement).[/QUOTE] Well, it was 10,000-12,000 pounds of explosive force. Better yet, illustrated pictures of the moon landing show it blasting up dirt and rock, while the real photos show nothing. Also, when the top module blasts off from the landing gear, there's no jet exhaust or flames, just a movie-style explosion. Also, didn't they make and crash a prototype lander a few months before? NASA even has a video of it: the lander was uncontrollable, and it crashed and exploded. This happened a few months before the supposed landing, and I don't think in 3-5 months any nation could completely perfect a lander.

Did they ever prove why the flag was blowing in a few videos, but perfectly still in others? Also, did they prove why it was in a difference place in one photo, or those + things in a photo... I can't remember the details. It's not that I don't believe it, I just find some of the ways scientists seem to prove "Conspiracies" a bit far fetched. Obviously gmod fan777 trolling by saying that the shuttle looks like tin foil is a bit silly because several shuttles do, hell some of the stuff we use today still does. Can anyone remember that conspiracy about how we can always see the same side of the moon on earth, yet they landed on the opposite side of the moon and could still see earth? Something like that anyway... Another thing that annoys me, why haven't we gone back... I understand that someone explained that it was a "who has the biggest cock" race and now america has accomplished it they don't need to do it again, that tyes in with the propoganda 'conspiracy'. [editline]02:10AM[/editline] [QUOTE=Gmod_Fan77;16230122]Well, it was 10,000-12,000 pounds of explosive force. Better yet, illustrated pictures of the moon landing show it blasting up dirt and rock, while the real photos show nothing. Also, when the top module blasts off from the landing gear, there's no jet exhaust or flames, just a movie-style explosion. Also, didn't they make and crash a prototype lander a few months before? NASA even has a video of it: the lander was uncontrollable, and it crashed and exploded. This happened a few months before the supposed landing, and I don't think in 3-5 months any nation could completely perfect a lander.[/QUOTE] I have seen the video and it is indeed completely uncontrollable, also the fact no dust seems to be unsettled is a weird.

No crater should be expected. The Descent Propulsion System was throttled very far down during the final landing. The Lunar Module was no longer rapidly decelerating, so the descent engine only had to support the module's own weight, diminished by the 1/6 g lunar gravity and by the near exhaustion of the descent propellants. At landing, the engine thrust divided by the nozzle exit area is only about 10 kilopascals (1.5 PSI). Beyond the engine nozzle, the plume spreads and the pressure drops very rapidly. (In comparison the Saturn V F-1 first stage engines produced 3.2 MPa (459 PSI) at the mouth of the nozzle.) Rocket exhaust gases expand much more rapidly after leaving the engine nozzle in a vacuum than in an atmosphere. The effect of an atmosphere on rocket plumes can be easily seen in launches from Earth; as the rocket rises through the thinning atmosphere, the exhaust plumes broaden very noticeably. To reduce this, rocket engines designed for vacuum operation have longer bells than those designed for use at the Earth's surface, but they still cannot prevent this spreading. The Lunar Module's exhaust gases therefore expanded rapidly well beyond the landing site. However, the descent engines did scatter a lot of very fine surface dust as seen in 16mm movies of each landing, and many mission commanders commented on its effect on visibility. The landers were generally moving horizontally as well as vertically, and photographs do show scouring of the surface along the final descent path. Finally, the lunar regolith is very compact below its surface dust layer, further making it impossible for the descent engine to blast out a "crater".In fact, a blast crater was measured under the Apollo 11 Lunar Module using shadow lengths of the descent engine bell and estimates of the amount that the landing gear had compressed and how deep the lander footpads had pressed into the lunar surface and it was found that the engine had eroded between 4 and 6 inches of regolith out from underneath the engine bell during the final descent and landing. 5 [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Moon_Landing_hoax_conspiracy_theories[/url] yes some of the stuff looks a bit odd. Originally three additional lunar landing missions had been planned, as Apollo 18 through Apollo 20. In light of the drastically shrinking NASA budget and the decision not to produce a second batch of Saturn Vs, these missions were canceled to make funds available for the development of the Space Shuttle, and to make their Apollo spacecraft and Saturn V launch vehicles available to the Skylab program. But their working to go back and stay longer with the new constellation program though plans for the United States to return astronauts to the Moon no later than 2020 (with the first human landing -- Orion 15 -- currently planned for 2019 Can't help it 50 years after apollo 11.

[QUOTE=Gmod_Fan77;16140709]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.[/QUOTE] Are you comparing them to the modern shuttles? Who don't even travel that far. Mind comparing the engine sizes too? [IMG]http://img413.imageshack.us/img413/6646/aresshuttlesaturncomparl.jpg[/IMG] The first one is the Saturn IV and all of it except the very tip where the "tinfoil landing module" was located was filled with rocket fuel. A normal space shuttle at the top of its acceleration at moving at about 8km/s (18,000 mph), the Saturn IV goes along at 12,33km/h or about 27,500 mph. There is a difference in speeds there.

[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] [QUOTE=Gmod_Fan77;16140417]There was, but it says it got removed for "terms of use violations". Search "apollo 11 talking to houston about faking the landing". There should be a Youtube video as one of the search results.[/QUOTE] [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] [QUOTE=Gmod_Fan77;16140524]Just think about. 1969, Soviet Union is kicking America's ass in the space race and in Vietnam. What can we do to rally America? Use propaganda. What are the monetary profits of going to the moon? None. What are the costs? Extremely high. Best idea? Fake a moon landing, use it for propaganda. Facts. You believe the landing is real because some politcians and NASA say so. I believe it's fake because evidence says so.[/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. 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] [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] [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] [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] [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=Gmod_Fan77;16140953]I'm not ignoring it, I'm not believing it, just like none of you believed me.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Gmod_Fan77;16160865]That's what my opinion was. I believe that the 1969 "landings" were faked, but I never said the more recent landings are. Really, you never know if something like a space landing is real or not. Just because NASA or another presitgious group says it did, or just because there are photographs of it, doesn't mean it's true. Hell, there was a report of these two people faking a supposed "picture of real-life fairies" back in the early 1900s. If two kids can fake a photograph in 1920, then what makes you think NASA can't fake photographs in 1969?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Gmod_Fan77;16165212]Well, explain this. If I remember, light isn't visible in the vacuum of space, so explain how they "lit up" the ground of the moon if the area around the moon is a vacuum.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Gmod_Fan77;16168563]Eh, my whole point's fucked up now that I think about. I meant light can't be seen in space unless it reflects off an object, but never mind, the point was messed up. I still don't believe anyone landed on the moon in 1969 though.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Gmod_Fan77;16175616]Well, why do you people have to keep giving me evidence? What's the point of believing no one went to the moon? No matter what the government says, what NASA says, what the MythBusters say, or what anyone else says, I believe no one landed on the moon in 1969. That's my opinion, deal with it.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Gmod_Fan77;16224581]Well, explain this if my evidence is so fake. Why isn't there a blast crater or any sign for that matter of the jet propulsion the landing module would've had? Why in all of the photos are there flat backgrounds (you can tell they look like flat movie backdrops) with + signs on them? How come several scientists/engineers who designed the rocket and a few astronauts saying it could be hoaxed? Why would America want to waste their money on landing on the moon and getting no profit in return? Even if they did actually land on the moon, the Soviet Union still had superior nuclear weaponry, a superior army, and they still beat America and NATO to space.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Gmod_Fan77;16230122]Well, it was 10,000-12,000 pounds of explosive force. Better yet, illustrated pictures of the moon landing show it blasting up dirt and rock, while the real photos show nothing. Also, when the top module blasts off from the landing gear, there's no jet exhaust or flames, just a movie-style explosion. Also, didn't they make and crash a prototype lander a few months before? NASA even has a video of it: the lander was uncontrollable, and it crashed and exploded. This happened a few months before the supposed landing, and I don't think in 3-5 months any nation could completely perfect a lander.[/QUOTE] I just facepalmed so hard my hand went out the back of my head, god you're dumb. [b]We landed on the moon in 1969, deal with it![/b]

[QUOTE=SixtyNine;16230185]Did they ever prove why the flag was blowing in a few videos, but perfectly still in others? Also, did they prove why it was in a difference place in one photo, or those + things in a photo... I can't remember the details. It's not that I don't believe it, I just find some of the ways scientists seem to prove "Conspiracies" a bit far fetched. Obviously gmod fan777 trolling by saying that the shuttle looks like tin foil is a bit silly because several shuttles do, hell some of the stuff we use today still does. Can anyone remember that conspiracy about how we can always see the same side of the moon on earth, yet they landed on the opposite side of the moon and could still see earth? Something like that anyway... Another thing that annoys me, why haven't we gone back... I understand that someone explained that it was a "who has the biggest cock" race and now america has accomplished it they don't need to do it again, that tyes in with the propoganda 'conspiracy'. [editline]02:10AM[/editline] I have seen the video and it is indeed completely uncontrollable, also the fact no dust seems to be unsettled is a weird.[/QUOTE] The flag was moving because the astronaughts had to force the flag in and because it's a vacuum it still moves.

[QUOTE=markg06;16237724]The flag was moving because the astronaughts had to force the flag in and because it's a vacuum it still moves.[/QUOTE] That's the same as saying a plane can fly in a vacuum or You're hinting that the moon is massless

[QUOTE=Alyx;16237945]That's the same as saying a plane can fly in a vacuum or You're hinting that the moon is massless[/QUOTE] What

[QUOTE=Alyx;16237945]That's the same as saying a plane can fly in a vacuum or You're hinting that the moon is massless[/QUOTE] How did he hint that? He said it was moving because they were forcing it down.

[QUOTE=BusterBluth;16238304]How did he hint that? He said it was moving because they were forcing it down.[/QUOTE] The flag shouldn't be flying in the first place as there's no air to support it and the moon's gravity would pull it down as if a rock is tied to the end of the flag. What he said would make sense if the moon was massless therefore it floats freely or there is a dense atmosphere on the moon like ours.

[QUOTE=Alyx;16238359]The flag wouldn't be flying in the first place as there's no air to support it and the moon's gravity would pull it down as if a rock is tied to the end of the flag. What he said would make sense if the moon was massless therefore it floats freely or there is a dense atmosphere on the moon like ours.[/QUOTE] [IMG]http://chnm.gmu.edu/worldhistorysources/unpacking/Resources/moon.jpg[/IMG] Look at the top of the flag: see that rod? Thats whats holding the flag up. The flag moving it caused by the flagpole moving when it was stuck in the ground, and since its in a total vacuum there are very little frictional forces to stop the flag moving; this is why it keeps fluttering for a while. Another nail in the coffin of stupidity.

[QUOTE=Alyx;16238359]The flag shouldn't be flying in the first place as there's no air to support it and the moon's gravity would pull it down as if a rock is tied to the end of the flag. What he said would make sense if the moon was massless therefore it floats freely or there is a dense atmosphere on the moon like ours.[/QUOTE] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMBCfuKs9i8[/media] I hinted at fuck all, there's a little bar underneath to stop it from falling down.

[QUOTE=Gmod_Fan77]We never went to the moon in 1969[/QUOTE] For the last time: If the USA hadn't visited the moon in 1969 the USSR would have been up their ass about how the USA lied. The USSR (and many amature astronomers) watched Apollo 11 travel to the moon. Thousands of people tracked the vessel with telescopes etc. FUCKING DISPROVE THAT. [url]http://www.manchester.ac.uk/aboutus/news/display/?id=4849[/url] [QUOTE=Source]In July 1969 the telescopes at Jodrell Bank were tracking the American’s Eagle Lander carrying astronauts onto the surface of the Moon.[/QUOTE]

Those pictures are still not convincing, I'm still waiting NASA

[QUOTE=Gmod_Fan77;16224581]Well, explain this if my evidence is so fake. 1: Why isn't there a blast crater or any sign for that matter of the jet propulsion the landing module would've had? 2: Why in all of the photos are there flat backgrounds (you can tell they look like flat movie backdrops) with + signs on them? 3: How come several scientists/engineers who designed the rocket and a few astronauts saying it could be hoaxed? 4: Why would America want to waste their money on landing on the moon and getting no profit in return? Even if they did actually land on the moon, the Soviet Union still had superior nuclear weaponry, a superior army, and they still beat America and NATO to space.[/QUOTE] 1: There isn't a blast "crater" because the pressure level was very low on the lunar lander. It had a large nozzle and in a vacuum, thrust would evenly distribute across the bell of the nozzle. This resulted in a very low pressure level, as the amount of thrust was already quite low. (Only around 45kN at max, and they never throttled it above 60%, and at landing, to give a smooth landing, they would've only been using a small fraction of the maximum, if I remember correctly.) So the pressure that was directed towards the moon was overall quite low, barely enough to disturb the regolith. With pressure levels like that, there's no way the lunar surface would have been ablated away. 2: Because it's fucking space. Space is black, except for stars, which don't show up at that exposure level. The plus signs are because the pictures were taken on Hasselblad cameras with measuring grids. The plus signs are just photographic aids that the camera adds, note how on the pictures, they aren't just in front of space, but over the astronauts and ground, as well. 3: You're just lying now, kindly shut the fuck up. 4: Because of Kennedy's directive? Because of the Space Race? A better question is why, if we had faked the landings, would Russia admit that we had beaten them to the moon, if Russia couldn't prove we didn't go, that's the biggest verification that you can get. They certainly had the resources to prove it, and the motive. Imagine the propaganda value of finding out that the US faked their moon landing.

[QUOTE=Gmod_Fan77;16230122]Well, it was 10,000-12,000 pounds of explosive force. Better yet, illustrated pictures of the moon landing show it blasting up dirt and rock, while the real photos show nothing. Also, when the top module blasts off from the landing gear, there's no jet exhaust or flames, just a movie-style explosion. Also, didn't they make and crash a prototype lander a few months before? NASA even has a video of it: the lander was uncontrollable, and it crashed and exploded. This happened a few months before the supposed landing, and I don't think in 3-5 months any nation could completely perfect a lander.[/QUOTE] Everything's pretty much been answered in the posts above, but the reason there's no visible flame when the LM takes off is because of two reaosons. 1. It's in a vacuum 2. The fuel used (dinitrogen tetroxide) produces no visible flame. Also, the reason the backgrounds look flat is because again, [b]it's in a vacuum.[/b] This means there's no atmospheric haze which we use to judge distances. There are also no familiar objects for us to judge sizes from. Those 'small hills' you can see in the background of most pictures can be mountains several miles away. All the evidence you're putting forward now is just how 'stuff doesn't look right.' Of course it doesn't look right, everything about the moon landings is completely alien to us because it's literally in an alien environment. How about you actually learn why something looks different instead of being ignorant and passing something off as fake just because it confuses you?

Yep, that's right, we didn't send some robot to plant our flag like Russia did under the arctic... we had a man go and put that som'bitch up there

All the conspiracy theorist who say there are multiple shadows are partially right. There are multiple light sources: the Sun and the Earth. Remember, the Earth reflects light just like the Moon does, except its much larger and much more reflective. [url]http://lunar.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/gallery/apollo08_earthrise.jpg[/url] Just like the Moon lights up our nights, the Earth does the same.

The moon dust is more reflective than dust or sand on earth, it acts as a bouncing light source.

ITT facepunch scientists try and prove that the moon landing is fake.

[QUOTE=Bengley;16259140]ITT facepunch scientists try and prove that the moon landing is [B]not[/B] fake.[/QUOTE] Fixed.