First satellite images of the Apollo landing sites released - Polidicks

[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]How do we got satellites and the ISS then?[/B] 2. The shadows in the pictures of them on the moon show obvious signs of artificial light. [B]Explained on Mythbusters[/B] 3. No dust clouds, no dust on the lander, nothing. It's like they never even landed. [B]How the hell do you know there is no dust on the lander? The lander is released during return and never gets back to earth, so how can we know this?[/B] 4. The lander looks like it's made of tin foil and plastic. [B]It is. It doesn't need to be solid, because its designed for space flight only.[/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]Explained on Mythbusters[/B] 6. The rock seems to be made of paper machete. [B]If you mean the sticking footprints: explained on Mythbusters[/B] 7. There is a recorded conversation of the crew talking to Houston about how they're faking the landing. pollo 11 talking to houston about faking the landing [B]Unless you can post a link, this video is nonexistent.[/B][/QUOTE] I know this is old but I felt like commenting to it, because I am bored.

[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] Blast craters are made by high speed impacts. Jet wash from the lander would not make a crater. The crosses in the images ARE FROM THE CAMERA. They are literally on the lens of the goddamn camera.

[QUOTE=spike12;16271674]Blast craters are made by high speed impacts. Jet wash from the lander would not make a crater. The crosses in the images ARE FROM THE CAMERA. They are literally on the lens of the goddamn camera.[/QUOTE] I though the crosses were added by the camera's system later on, and not on the actual lens?

[QUOTE=bigdoggie;16272644]I though the crosses were added by the camera's system later on, and not on the actual lens?[/QUOTE] [quote]The Data Camera was fitted with a so-called Reseau plate. The Reseau plate was made of glass and was fitted to the back of the camera body, extremely close to the film plane. The plate was engraved with a number of crosses to form a grid. The intersections were 10 mm apart and accurately calibrated to a tolerance of 0.002 mm. Except for the larger central cross, each of the four arms on a cross was 1 mm long and 0.02 mm wide. The crosses are recorded on every exposed frame and provided a means of determining angular distances between objects in the field-of-view. [media]http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11-hass3.jpg[/media] [/quote] From [url=http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11-hass.html]here[/url].

[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] You are still a dumbass.

[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] There is no evidence that says the moon landing was fake. There's severely misinterpreted facts, but they can all be shot down if you've ever been to a fucking high school physics class. I know the first few arguments you'll make, so let me address them. The stars aren't in view on the camera, the sky is black: Cameras at the time had trouble adjusting for the light levels such as what would be reflecting off the lunar surface. The stars are there, just washed out by how bright the ground is. Shadows pointing in the wrong direction: Go into a rocky field at sunset and look at the ground. The shadows aren't pointing the wrong direction, they're following the contours of the ground. Crosshairs on the camera appear to move behind the astronauts: The crosshairs are etched into the lens. When there's an object that doesn't reflect light in just such a way, they're less visible. They also wash out from the intense brightness coming from white equipment under direct sunlight. They're still there if you look without trying to be a sensationalist asshole. the rest can be debunked [url=http://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~jscotti/NOT_faked/]here[/url]

[B]If there was any chance the moon landing was faked, the USSR would have jumped all over it.[/B]

[QUOTE=Bengley;16259140]ITT facepunch scientists try and prove that the moon landing is fake.[/QUOTE] ITT: People who slept through physics class try and make arguments against basic scientific principles by using bullshit "evidence" [editline]12:35PM[/editline] [QUOTE=PrismatexV6;16289340][B]If there was any chance the moon landing was faked, the USSR would have jumped all over it.[/B][/QUOTE] exactly! They fucking tracked the mission with every piece of equipment they could find, how the hell could we have faked it with that kind of scrutiny?

Anyone ever seen the movie Capricorn One? It kind of has relevance here since it is basically about man sending it's first maned rocket to MARS and they pull the astronauts out of the rocket at the last minute and force them to go to a film stage and pretend they were on the moon. And they used pre-recorded flight data or there voices from training. The Mission control had no idea that the actual crew was still on earth even as the space craft left orbit with no crew and landed on mars and flew back with no crew and then promptly blowing up in the atmosphere but hey I don't wanna spoil a good movie. Heh it was a pretty interesting movie. And yes we went to the moon. But why are we going back? And this is a question I asked earlier but no one understood it and thought I was talking about the Alen Radiation Also I am not talking about a fucking radiation belt when I say ELECTRO-MAGNETIC barrier that doesn't allow spacecraft to pass with out switching there polarity..

[QUOTE=CobraZero;16289566] And yes we went to the moon. But why are we going back? [/quote] Two reason I can think of off the top of my head: 1. So we can launch rockets to mars, since it's a hell of a lot easier to launch from the moon. 2. To research whether it's viable to mine the moon for stuff like Helium3, a potential fuel for nuclear fusion. [QUOTE=CobraZero;16289566] And this is a question I asked earlier but no one understood it and thought I was talking about the Alen Radiation Also I am not talking about a fucking radiation belt when I say ELECTRO-MAGNETIC barrier that doesn't allow spacecraft to pass with out switching there polarity..[/QUOTE] I don't understand. You say you're not talking about radiation...but then you say it's an electro-magnetic barrier? Electromagnetism [I]is[/I] radiation. The Van Alen belt is a barrier of [I]electro-magnetic radiation[/I] caused by trapped charged particles from the solar wind. You don't have to 'switch polarity' to pass through this. The only other two sources of radiation is the Sun and the surrounding universe (pulsars, other stars, cosmic microwave background etc.) All of these are sources of [I]electromagnetic[/I] radiation and you don't need to switch the polarity of anything to stop them being harmful. Also, the radiation received from passing through the van Alen belts is under the yearly limit for a nuclear power plant worker. It's a significant amount, but it's not lethal.

So your saying the Electro-magnetic field around the Earth is radiation... That repels radiation??? That makes no sense at all.

They waited so long to release them because they had to wait for Photoshop to be invented.

[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. [/QUOTE] Lol are you comparing [B]illustrated pictures[/B] to the real thing? Well there's anime that shows people jumping hundreds of feet in the air, doesn't mean it happens irl

[QUOTE=CobraZero;16295323]So your saying the Electro-magnetic field around the Earth is radiation... That repels radiation??? That makes no sense at all.[/QUOTE] No, the electromagnetic field around the Earth traps radiation in the form of charged particles, which creates the barrier. I never said it repels any radiation.