OK. Notwithstanding the other issues - namely, and in no particular order - the absence of the star bodies in photo's, the irregular shadow throws, the debacle about the properties of that flag, catalogue numbers clearly visible on those moon rocks, the issue regarding the physical impossibility of Armstrong negotiating the landers hatch in his full LPS and the studio quality of all the photos taken from a TTL camera velcroed to the front of presumably Conrads chest (as Aldrin refused to take part), the most damning piece of photography, supplied by NASA, is the imprint of Armstrongs boot in the "moon dust" clearly positioned at the bottom of the LEM access ladder.
If the LEM had actually settled on the Moons surface, the retro boosters would have delivered 3000 lbs of thrust each, and in the Moons near zero gravity that would have not only scattered any and all dust / debris for a country mile but also carved up a crater that you could bury your mother-in-law in. No such crater is evident / shown and there's that damning dust, and other rocks and debris clearly visible.
So, just stick all that in your pipe and smoke it. Conspiracy theory? - I don't think so - conspiracy to lie to a nation, defraud and murder their tax paying citizens?
Yep. Every time.
skeeter
Originally posted by PhlabibitIf we did that, it would be so fake no one would ever believe it. Not only that, it would be like spying or something and we might have to get a warrant.
Why doesn't anyone just aim a telescope right at the spot where the landing went down? We can see things in other galaxies, but we just won't aim a telescope at the landing spot on the moon?
Hmmmmm?
P-
Originally posted by skeeterOh hell you still don't get it do you?
OK. Notwithstanding the other issues - namely, and in no particular order - the absence of the star bodies in photo's, the irregular shadow throws, the debacle about the properties of that flag, catalogue numbers clearly visible on those moon rocks, the issue regarding the physical impossibility of Armstrong negotiating the landers hatch in his full LPS a ...[text shortened]... to a nation, defraud and murder their tax paying citizens?
Yep. Every time.
skeeter
The first film, the original film, of the supposed first moonwalk might actually be fake. All evidence supports that idea (and then I don't count in the fact that Kubric died under strange circumstances), but does that necessarily mean that no man has ever walked on the moon? How many times did the guys try? What do we actually know of the complete space program of the NASA?
The idea of walking on the moon, which in relatively close, and not spectacularly dangerous, is in itself not so strange. I cannot believe that it would be so hard to get a vessel up there and let some dude walk around for a few moments, and then get back in and take off again. So why oh why would we not have been on the moon? Facts please!
That first moonwalk film was probably fake because the USA wanted SO badly to be the first to have a guy on the moon. I still think they did have a guy on the moon, but not necessarily on that day in 1969.
(PS: I know your name is skeeter, it says so on the left of your posts)
Originally posted by skeeter😴
OK. Notwithstanding the other issues - namely, and in no particular order - the absence of the star bodies in photo's, the irregular shadow throws, the debacle about the properties of that flag, catalogue numbers clearly visible on those moon rocks, the issue regarding the physical impossibility of Armstrong negotiating the landers hatch in his full LPS a ...[text shortened]... to a nation, defraud and murder their tax paying citizens?
Yep. Every time.
skeeter
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html
http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/
etc.
Originally posted by PhlabibitThis thread is a gigantic waste of time, but your question seems to have merit on the face of it. But the fact is that it is a matter of resolution. No telescopes on earth (nor the Hubble) has good enough resolution to pick out the relatively tiny pieces of lunar hardware.
Why doesn't anyone just aim a telescope right at the spot where the landing went down? We can see things in other galaxies, but we just won't aim a telescope at the landing spot on the moon?
Hmmmmm?
P-
Yes, we can see objects over ten billion lys away, but those are HUGE objects. But the debris we left behind on the moon is so much smaller. I even wonder if we could see it from lunar orbit.
Originally posted by SuzianneShe, assuming Suzianne is a girl / lady, is correct....though none too gracious 😉
This thread is a gigantic waste of time, but your question seems to have merit on the face of it. But the fact is that it is a matter of resolution. No telescopes on earth (nor the Hubble) has good enough resolution to pick out the relatively tiny pieces of lunar hardware.
Yes, we can see objects over ten billion lys away, but those are HUGE objects. ...[text shortened]... left behind on the moon is so much smaller. I even wonder if we could see it from lunar orbit.
http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~durda/Apollo/landing_sites.html
http://hubblesite.org/reference_desk/faq/answer.php.id=77&cat=topten
I say this : If the BBC could film an entire series on the moon (The Clangers), then it stands to reason we must have been there !
(*smirk*)