The faking of the moon landing.... i have a simple question

[Esquire]

ok so were is the rover? i mean i can see 3 inches in las vagas thanks to google, what bout the moon, has nasa russa or any 1 taken pics?

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: Esquire
ok so were is the rover? i mean i can see 3 inches in las vagas thanks to google, what bout the moon, has nasa russa or any 1 taken pics?

Hmm, well, let's list the number of high-resolution satellites orbiting the earth.

Holy crap, there's HUNDREDS!

Orbiting the moon?

Didn't think so. We've got good pictures of the moon...but nowhere near the resolution of the earth pics. Because...who cares? We don't need 3-inch resolution to pick a landing site, not even close.

But explain the MIRROR that scientists bounce lasers off of. How did that get there?

 

[BigLouis]

We never went to the moon. The Van Allen belts would have irradiated the astronauts.

 

[ScottMac]

The moon landing was faked .... but WWF wrestling is *real*

Keep your eye on the National Geographics Channel schedule ... they run the show occasionally on the Lunar Conspiracy (and why the people that believe the conspiracy theory are flaming idiots).

This is why I (sorta) hate clever movies ... every time one comes out, a whole batch of nutcases crawl out of the woodwork. There wasn't any doubt until Capricorn I (I think that was the title) came out.

.02

Scott

 

[secretanchitman]

i swear i thought i saw "get directions: to here, from here" lolol...

still, google moon is pretty cool.

 

[Kevin1211]

Originally posted by: Scarpozzi

Originally posted by: mugs
Would we even be able to see the stuff we left behind from this far away?

Yes, but it would take one heck of a lens.

I will be honest and say that a Saturn 5 rocket could definitely reach the moon. The whole thing is solid fuel. The modern day shuttles could never get there. They burn too much fuel just leaving the Earth's atmosphere and don't have enough left over to make the long trip to the moon. It makes me want to ask the question....what proof is there that it was faked? (aside from the claims that there was a studio somewhere that it was filmed in)

i hope you're being sarcastic..

if not, then you have no concept of physics whatsoever..

 

[Scarpozzi]

Originally posted by: Kevin1211

Originally posted by: Scarpozzi

Originally posted by: mugs
Would we even be able to see the stuff we left behind from this far away?

Yes, but it would take one heck of a lens.

I will be honest and say that a Saturn 5 rocket could definitely reach the moon. The whole thing is solid fuel. The modern day shuttles could never get there. They burn too much fuel just leaving the Earth's atmosphere and don't have enough left over to make the long trip to the moon. It makes me want to ask the question....what proof is there that it was faked? (aside from the claims that there was a studio somewhere that it was filmed in)

i hope you're being sarcastic..

if not, then you have no concept of physics whatsoever..

Sarcastic about what? The shuttle not being able to make the trip? Aside from the landing issue, the shuttle just doesn't have the delta-v needed to get into a trans-lunar orbit. There is simply too much dead weight and not enough fuel. The Saturn V rockets had so many stages and if you ever get a chance to see the one that's in FL, you'll see what I'm talking about....the thing is HUGE, yet the cargo is only the tip of the rocket.

 

[Esquire]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
It's fairly simple: the people running things like the Hubble are smart enough to realize that simply pointing their telescope at the moon to show a high res photo of footprints will do nothing more than get the conspiracy nuts to say "yeah, sure. They're just showing pictures taken from the scaffolding above the sound stage. See, you can see the shadow on the ground of..." Plus, the scientists can't be bothered with wasting their time appeasing a small group of nutcases. It's sort of like Listerine... kills 99.9% of bacteria. In this case, it's the .1% that can't be bothered with.

Ok last aand my point, NASA is being accusses of offing men & women and children... point the thing at it... take the pic, thats serious man

seriously if they want to build their they sould google map it.... they do have world wind moon
http://ti.arc.nasa.gov/projects/worldwind/moon.php

so why cant i ee a nice clear shot of sites... i'd like to... oh well thanks

 

[Powermoloch]

Originally posted by: Analog
here is a good one:

http://moon.google.com/

lol it looks like cheeese seriously

 

[imported_LoKe]

In case is hasn't been mentioned, even if the moon landing was fake at that time, they would certainly have put up a flag by now.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: Scarpozzi


I will be honest and say that a Saturn 5 rocket could definitely reach the moon. The whole thing is solid fuel.




Mostly liquid fuel, actually.

 

[Rubycon]

Originally posted by: feralkid

Mostly liquid fuel, actually.

Yes and most people don't know that the first stage was basically kerosene (RP1) with O2.

 

[HombrePequeno]

No you can't see any of the crap we left on the moon because we haven't taken high enough resolution pictures of it yet. We don't exactly have a satellite orbiting the moon so it's kind of hard to take an extremely detailed shot of the moon. Hubble can't even do it because it's too far away (not really designed for that type of shot anyway).

 

[Feldenak]

Originally posted by: Esquire

Originally posted by: DrPizza
It's fairly simple: the people running things like the Hubble are smart enough to realize that simply pointing their telescope at the moon to show a high res photo of footprints will do nothing more than get the conspiracy nuts to say "yeah, sure. They're just showing pictures taken from the scaffolding above the sound stage. See, you can see the shadow on the ground of..." Plus, the scientists can't be bothered with wasting their time appeasing a small group of nutcases. It's sort of like Listerine... kills 99.9% of bacteria. In this case, it's the .1% that can't be bothered with.

Ok last aand my point, NASA is being accusses of offing men & women and children... point the thing at it... take the pic, thats serious man

seriously if they want to build their they sould google map it.... they do have world wind moon
http://ti.arc.nasa.gov/projects/worldwind/moon.php

so why cant i ee a nice clear shot of sites... i'd like to... oh well thanks

What exactly do you want? We don't have high res satellites orbiting the moon. If you actually believe the moon landings were faked, you are an idiot beyond help.

 

[Armitage]

Originally posted by: virtualgames0
I read sometime back that the hubble has the power to resolve a footstep on the moon.

Not even close. Hubble would need an order of magnitude better resolution just to see the lander, much less a foot print.

http://hubblesite.org/reference_desk/faq/answer.php.id=77&cat=topten

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: Esquire

Originally posted by: DrPizza
It's fairly simple: the people running things like the Hubble are smart enough to realize that simply pointing their telescope at the moon to show a high res photo of footprints will do nothing more than get the conspiracy nuts to say "yeah, sure. They're just showing pictures taken from the scaffolding above the sound stage. See, you can see the shadow on the ground of..." Plus, the scientists can't be bothered with wasting their time appeasing a small group of nutcases. It's sort of like Listerine... kills 99.9% of bacteria. In this case, it's the .1% that can't be bothered with.

Ok last aand my point, NASA is being accusses of offing men & women and children... point the thing at it... take the pic, thats serious man

seriously if they want to build their they sould google map it.... they do have world wind moon
http://ti.arc.nasa.gov/projects/worldwind/moon.php

so why cant i ee a nice clear shot of sites... i'd like to... oh well thanks

Are you drunk, or just retarded?

 

[jadinolf]

Originally posted by: LoKe
In case is hasn't been mentioned, even if the moon landing was fake at that time, they would certainly have put up a flag by now.

True. They sent RUSS to plant it and we haven't heard from him since.

 

[Scarpozzi]

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: Scarpozzi


I will be honest and say that a Saturn 5 rocket could definitely reach the moon. The whole thing is solid fuel.




Mostly liquid fuel, actually.

Ahh...well, I didn't mean solid in the state of matter sense. I meant it in the "every ounce of free space" sense..... I think my mind has been brainwashed by the solid fuel boosters we keep hearing about attached to the shuttle.

I'm surprised the first stage would be kerosene because of it's low temp...but then again....it would definitely be good enough to set off more powerful stages. My orthodontist from years ago used to design rockets and shoot them off in the desert. I wish I had asked him what kinds of fuels he uses.

Rocket Fuel #2 Recipe

 

[thehstrybean]

Originally posted by: Analog
here is a good one:

http://moon.google.com/

Hahaha...Zoom in to the max...Hilarious...

 

[MisterJackson]

All I know is they better not photograph the acreage on the moon that I bought from that internet guy......what I do on that land is my own business!!!

 

[phantom309]

Originally posted by: Esquire
i would think we'd as humans would have scanned every inch of the moon... high res google earth like stuff

Why would we spend billions of dollars doing that? We've landed on it. We know there's nothing interesting there. It's a big pile of rocks. We have hi-res imagers orbiting Mars because Mars has an atmosphere, and evidence of liquid water, and possibly evidence of life.

 

[DaShen]

Not faked, but some of the film of the moonlanding and walking on the moon quite possibly could have been.

But this is all a matter of opinion since I believe that most of us had no direct connection (worked on, related to, witnessed directly) to any of the lunar landings.

"History is what you make of it."
China's rewriting of history to fit their purposes is a prime example.