Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * - - 5 votes

NASA Edits Proof Of Apollo Moon Hoax!


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
547 replies to this topic

#241    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,344 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2005

Posted 03 August 2005 - 07:18 AM

QUOTE(frenat @ Aug 2 2005, 01:54 PM)
He has been posting at the Apollohoax.net board recently though just not with those questions.  The difference is there are engineers, rocket scientists and people whose life-long hobbies are studying Apollo on that board.  Many of them could easily answer the questions he's brought up.  They don't post here so he asks the questions here.

View Post


Wrong - my whole posting there was based on two things - the video footage from "A Funny Thing Happenned on the way to the Moon" and the stills I'm posting here. They haven't answered the questions on the stills to my satisfaction with alternatives such as "gold foil". Don't try and twist it around, bud. Check it out yourself - I'm also bringing up the VLT and that it can take images of the "Apollo landing sites". I haven't even started that one here. The claim over there was that they cannot take images that show much because of the fact there is no telescopes powerful enough on Earth. I pointed out that there are - the VLT can do just that, and was supposed to already have done so, but nothing was mentioned since. Guess you don't need to have a PhD in Astronomy to point out a mistake, after all.


#242    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,344 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2005

Posted 03 August 2005 - 07:24 AM

QUOTE(Nethius @ Aug 2 2005, 01:39 PM)
QUOTE(frenat @ Jul 30 2005, 06:05 PM)
Turbonium,
If you really want answers to your questions, why not ask them at the apollohoax.net board?  There are many people that post there much more qualified than me to answer any questions about testing, blueprints, comparison to the shuttle, etc.  However, I think you don't really want any answers.  You've made up your mind and don't care what evidence is out there to say otherwise.  I'd love you to prove me wrong about this but I think you won't.


I've suggested this before but to the Bad Astronomy site, he refuses, he thinks everyone just follows what Phil Plait says, and no one has their own opinion on anything.  He basically refuses to accept any answers from anyone with education in the specific fields...  Rockets/Space Travel/Film....  According to him they all do what Phil tells them to do.  But we both know why he wont post at those sites.

View Post



I joined Apollohoax back in June - check it out before you make things up like your entire post here. And I don't post and run - I back up my claims, as you'll see if you really take the effort to look. "Refusing to accept an answer" is quite the joke - "yes, I must accept the answer because you know and I don't". How cute.



#243    JMPD1

JMPD1

    Child of the Universe

  • Member
  • 6,022 posts
  • Joined:10 Mar 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:upstate New York

  • you want to know the answer? Hell, I'm still working on the question!

Posted 05 August 2005 - 12:16 PM

Anyone see the National Geographic special on the "Apollo Conspriacy"?

It was informative, and pretty much wiped out the theorists points, IMO.

Quote of the Year 2006: HAY! I did more then just say I wanna be ina a man sammich! - SC

You have the right to remain silent.  You might want to think about exercising that right more often

Not Another Moment Lost To Seizures

#244    The Skeptic Eric Raven

The Skeptic Eric Raven

    Master Blaster

  • Member
  • 11,067 posts
  • Joined:08 Dec 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Gulf Coast of Mississippi. Missing TX.

  • One day love will find me.....

Posted 05 August 2005 - 06:53 PM

Saw it last night. It was great. You crazy conspiracy theorists should really watch it. I guess it will be ignored though. It does a good job disproving hoax theories.

........the sleeper has awoken!
Sometimes we need a kick in the butt to wake us up. Well, I'm up now!Boo ya.


...there are many things in life that will capture your eye, but very few will capture your heart. These are the ones to pursue. These are the ones worth keeping..."

#245    MID

MID

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,490 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Male

  • ...The greatest error is not to have tried and failed, but that in trying, we did not give it our best effort.

Posted 06 August 2005 - 03:04 AM

There are other forums where people actually discuss the details of this lunar landing hoax theory, and they get answers to questions.

It is almost insane to put a couple frames of video on a message, say that they show a bare arm in the picture, and claim someone "pixelated" them to cover up the evidence od some moon hoax. These pictures show nothing...and, it should be noted that there was virtually no video of the Apollo 12 EVAs.  The camera was fried shortly after Conrad and Bean stepped out on the surface and inadvertently pointed the lens at the sun...essentially frying the poor thing.  

It is equally silly to have a bunch of people making ridiculous statements without backing them up with anything.   The Apollo moon landing hoax is the product of young people (given impetus by a couple of older ones who perhaps do know better(or at least, ought to), but want to make some money at the expense of the ignorance of an entire generation...i.e. Kaysing, Rene, etc.), removed from the events by sometimes over a generation, who live in a world where nothing quite so compelling and far-reaching has happened for over 30 years, and who are, as a result, gullible enough to believe in such a far-fetched joke as this Apollo moon landing hoax business.  

I participated in Apollo.  I can tell you, as one who lived it, that there is absolutely nothing in any actual photograph taken that shows anything but regular photographic results.  For some reason, the photographs, showing only natural phenomena that you simply never noticed and which are common on many an Earth photo, have become an issue supporting this idiocy.  I cannot see why.  

Hoaxters have no idea what they're talking about, they have little knowledge of what they speak of, mis-interpret, or actually mis-represent some things outright, and make themselves look...stupid (sorry, I can't think of a better word to describe some of the feeble arguements I've seen).

Please...ask a question.  Don't present feeble arguements and idiotic stills from some video that no one can see any detail in to support some ridiculous position.

Please also..."A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Moon" is junk, put together by another idiot out to make a buck on someone else's ignorance.  Apparently, he has!  Let it go.

There are no non-parallel shadows, no multiple light sources, no alien sightings by astronauts on the Moon...and oh, the VLT is the largest optical array in the world, but it's best images of the Moon have a resolution of 130 meters...the best ground based photos of the Moon ever obtained, but still about 6-7 times less than the resolution the Hubble is capable of, and even THAT IS NOT ENOUGH TO IMAGE OBJECTS THAT ARE AT THEIR LARGEST 4 METERS ACROSS.

How feeble can people get?




#246    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,344 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2005

Posted 06 August 2005 - 01:29 PM

QUOTE(MID @ Aug 5 2005, 08:04 PM)
There are other forums where people actually discuss the details of this lunar landing hoax theory, and they get answers to questions.

It is almost insane to put a couple frames of video on a message, say that they show a bare arm in the picture, and claim someone "pixelated" them to cover up the evidence od some moon hoax. These pictures show nothing...and, it should be noted that there was virtually no video of the Apollo 12 EVAs.  The camera was fried shortly after Conrad and Bean stepped out on the surface and inadvertently pointed the lens at the sun...essentially frying the poor thing.   

It is equally silly to have a bunch of people making ridiculous statements without backing them up with anything.   The Apollo moon landing hoax is the product of young people (given impetus by a couple of older ones who perhaps do know better(or at least, ought to), but want to make some money at the expense of the ignorance of an entire generation...i.e. Kaysing, Rene, etc.), removed from the events by sometimes over a generation, who live in a world where nothing quite so compelling and far-reaching has happened for over 30 years, and who are, as a result, gullible enough to believe in such a far-fetched joke as this Apollo moon landing hoax business. 

I participated in Apollo.  I can tell you, as one who lived it, that there is absolutely nothing in any actual photograph taken that shows anything but regular photographic results.  For some reason, the photographs, showing only natural phenomena that you simply never noticed and which are common on many an Earth photo, have become an issue supporting this idiocy.  I cannot see why. 

Hoaxters have no idea what they're talking about, they have little knowledge of what they speak of, mis-interpret, or actually mis-represent some things outright, and make themselves look...stupid (sorry, I can't think of a better word to describe some of the feeble arguements I've seen).

Please...ask a question.  Don't present feeble arguements and idiotic stills from some video that no one can see any detail in to support some ridiculous position.

Please also..."A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Moon" is junk, put together by another idiot out to make a buck on someone else's ignorance.  Apparently, he has!  Let it go.

There are no non-parallel shadows, no multiple light sources, no alien sightings by astronauts on the Moon...and oh, the VLT is the largest optical array in the world, but it's best images of the Moon have a resolution of 130 meters...the best ground based photos of the Moon ever obtained, but still about 6-7 times less than the resolution the Hubble is capable of, and even THAT IS NOT ENOUGH TO IMAGE OBJECTS THAT ARE AT THEIR LARGEST 4 METERS ACROSS.

How feeble can people get?

View Post



Wrong - the VLT can take hi-res images close-up of the landng sites - but they haven't. You don't (or don't want) to see a flesh toned arm moving about, that is OK. But, sorry, bud, it's not idiotic, it's there plain as day to me and many others I've shown them to. There is no adequate alternative explanation that I've heard yet, to make me believe it is otherwise. They DID pixelate the video as well, that's another thing myself and many others can easily see as well. So that's just how it is, you don't agree - OK by me, I don't care. If you can't see it I have my own opinion about that as well. The moon hoax, amazingly, is very touchy to people who might even believe in alien abductions before a moon hoax. It's a shock to some to think it even possible. Well, better brace yourself for a letdown, I believe the truth will eventually come out that it was a great big hoax.


#247    Nethius

Nethius

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 669 posts
  • Joined:24 Jun 2003
  • Location:Nova Scotia

Posted 06 August 2005 - 02:12 PM

QUOTE(turbonium @ Aug 6 2005, 01:29 PM)
Wrong - the VLT can take hi-res images close-up of the landng sites - but they haven't.

They can?  Better tell them!  Would you happen to have a source regarding this?  Let me guess we've got the European's in on the hoax too...


Try reading their website...
http://www.eso.org/

Would you be able to spot a Lunar Lander in this picture?
The Moon

Edited by Nethius, 06 August 2005 - 02:14 PM.


#248    The Skeptic Eric Raven

The Skeptic Eric Raven

    Master Blaster

  • Member
  • 11,067 posts
  • Joined:08 Dec 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Gulf Coast of Mississippi. Missing TX.

  • One day love will find me.....

Posted 06 August 2005 - 03:04 PM

Some people seem to have the need to believe in all of these conspriacies no matter what proof is shown. It is sad.

........the sleeper has awoken!
Sometimes we need a kick in the butt to wake us up. Well, I'm up now!Boo ya.


...there are many things in life that will capture your eye, but very few will capture your heart. These are the ones to pursue. These are the ones worth keeping..."

#249    MID

MID

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,490 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Male

  • ...The greatest error is not to have tried and failed, but that in trying, we did not give it our best effort.

Posted 06 August 2005 - 05:09 PM

QUOTE(ericraven2003 @ Aug 6 2005, 11:04 AM)
Some people seem to have the need to believe in all of these conspriacies no matter what proof is shown. It is sad.

View Post




Unfortunately, you are correct.

And the reply I received is pretty much exactly what I expected.  Quote my entire message and address only the VLT issue...which is so simplistic that it's almost hilarious.   There is no such resolving capacity on this planet, or in orbit, which he'll see if he visits the web page he was directed to.  

He didn't address the photo comments, or anything else.  He simply harped on his inadequate knowledge of the VLT resolution cpability.

There is precious little large telescope availability for professional astronomers.  There's a waiting list at every single unit worldwide.  There is also no way anyone's going to get time...or even attempt to waste time trying to image an Apollo lunar landing site.  There is no scientific value in the endeavor, especially given the fact that we have mapping images from lunar orbiting satellites and Apollo mapping cameras that far and away exceed anything that any Earth bound telescope, or even the HST can image.  The idea of imaging something that we know is there and has been documented more fully than any other human venture in history is ludicrous...especially to a professional astronomer.  The point is, even if we could image these sites clearly, we wouldn't bother.

The moon hoax is a reflection of the degradation in society's attitudes since the decade of the 1960s.  We have on the whole become a more comfort-conscious people, and, unfortunately lazy in many areas...intellectually being perhaps paramount among them.  The comforts, largely afforded by the technological explosion of the 1960s and early 1970s, are almost all the result of Apollo!  The computer our friend spends alot of time at is one of those things...

Short-sighted governments of course curtailed Apollo, and virtually all future applications and exploration programs.  Thus, as far as manned space exploration is concerned, there has been none since 1972.  The Shuttle is ignored by most people, save when there's a problem.   Young people, which our friend is likely one of (and if he's not, he's hopeless), have had nothing compelling to inspire them along these lines in their lives.  Education standards have lowered, and consciousness has become mired in a sort of evolutionary stasis.  

Given that reality, a few people, older one's, unfortunately, have played upon a generation and more who are removed from the glory days of space exploration, see a gold mine, and have mined it with innane arguements concerning a hoaxed lunar landing.  

It is somewhat understandable that an unknowledgeable younger generation could be swayed by such craftily constructed pieces that people like Bill Kaysing and Bart Siebrel have put together.  To those of us who lived the accomplishments of the past, such things are almost comically ridiculous, since it is apparent that these people have utterly no real knowledge about that which they speak.  But to younger and more impressionable people who aren't even tought anything about space flight and the accomplishments of the prior generation or so, these things can be very influential.

The only reason I ever get involved in discussions on the matter is to educate, and try to stimulate younger people to actually go find out what's really happened.  Perhaps that will be a stimulous for the younger folks to actually press forward and begin again what we started long ago.

However, that can be very difficult, when someone obviously has a difficult time following a moderately lengthy post, and whose opinions, based on little really, are seemingly etched in  stone.

It's a somewhat sad reflection on the state of intellect in the modern age...

To me, it is not a shock that the moon hoax exists.   It is a sad state of affairs perhaps, although somewhat humorous as well.   I am somewhat alarmed that a relatively significant number of young people actually buy into this idea...without ever having learned anything about it.  The smarter ones ask questions...they don't make assertions.   They also get answers which hopefully, will stimulate self-investigation into the technical complexities involved.   If they come with their "opinions", which of course are based on little substance, and insist upon them, rather than asking questions, then unfortunately they are a lost cause.



#250    MID

MID

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,490 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Male

  • ...The greatest error is not to have tried and failed, but that in trying, we did not give it our best effort.

Posted 06 August 2005 - 11:10 PM

[/quote]
SIX TIMES without a hitch...please don't try and dissect sentences to try and manipulate what has been said. It's a ridiculous tactic. And it's just as irrelevant to the issue to focus on the rounding to 40 years I put in. Make a logical reply to my postings of moon landing fakery, with some evidence of your own, or you're wasting your time and mine!
[right]View Post[/right]
[/quote]


The fact is that all manned lunar landing missions had "hitches" that turbonium is unaware of (as are most people who weren't actually involved...).   As pertains to landings, Apollo 11 (program alarms, and a very long final phase which had everyone holding their breath ), Apollo 14 (an aberrant abort mode indication which could've made the landing a very bad day had it not been cleared up prior to TIG), and Apollo 16 (a CSM SPS steering system malfunction)all had "hitches" which threatened to either cancel or abort their landing attempts.

Nothing went without a hitch.

...especially Apollo 1 and Apollo 13


#251    MID

MID

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,490 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Male

  • ...The greatest error is not to have tried and failed, but that in trying, we did not give it our best effort.

Posted 06 August 2005 - 11:32 PM

[/quote]

Funny that the astronauts never remarked about the stars while out in space - never. It would be spectacular seeing the stars from space -they said they never even SAW stars!!  laugh.gif  no.gif
No blast crater as there is even a FOOTPRINT under the lander. But not even a slight indent whatsoever from the counter boosters - do you know how stupid that is? They even kick up more dirt than that, and leave footprints ALL OVER the damn place, and the rover leaves tracks everywhere. But the area under the lander is UNTOUCHED!!  rolleyes.gif
The flag is moving way out of proportion to the so-called "twisting" into the ground of the pole used as the excuse for the waving. Air resistance is SO OBVIOUS by the way it erratically flutters every which way. Prove it would flutter like that in a controlled, independent test under simulated moon conditions? They can't, so they would never dare try it. They could quash that "theory" easily if it were possible.

Again, they could easily set up a controlled room that simulates moon conditions, but they never did before Apollo, and they won't dare do it now. Why would that be?   mean, they have zero gravity rooms, why not 1/6th gravity rooms?

Which reminds me, they never even TESTED the lem on earth prior to going to the moon. The prototypes crashed and burned. But they just KNEW the "moon" version would work flawlessly, right?  w00t.gif
[right]View Post[/right]
[/quote]
________________________________________________________________________
Ah...turbonium...he's an engineeer...OBVIOUSLY  hmm.gif

Some astronauts did see stars.  However, that was only on night side passes and in circumstances where they would turn off cabin lights and allow their eyes to adjust to the dark.  Otherwise, no stars were visible, since the sun was out!  Jesus...

What a "counter booster" actually is(other than an attempt at making yourself look smart) is not clear, but the fact is that there is disruption of the surface dust beneath the LM, obvious in many a lunar photo.  However, as noted by Neil Armstrong just 2 minutes into the first lunar EVA, there was no blast crater, simply some erosion of the surface around the engine bell area, and slight evidence of some rays moving out from that area.   This of course makes perfect sense given the low exhaust pressure of the LM DPS at touchdown (around 1.5-2.0 PSI), and the very firm nature of the lunar substrate.

There is nothing aberrant regarding the motion of the flag while men are manipulating it during setup.  Of course it waves about.  It's called inertia.   It's got a firm rod insertted through the top to allow it to stand out straight and evertime you manipulate the pole, the flag waves about.  Once you let it go in place, the flag stands there absolutely motionless, as is evidenced by every piece of Apollo lunar video or 16mm film taken with the flag in it (like the entire Apollo 11 video, for instance).  The flag arguements are feeble, as are these idiotic suggestions regarding "zero gravity rooms" and such nit wit constructs.  

A 1/6 g room...indeed!

There were no "LM prototypes" that crashed and burned. You're referring to the LLRV, which was a training device used to simulate the last 500 feet of ther lunar approach and was flown in Earths atmosphere.   That vehicle had some problems on occasion, and Neil Armstrong had to bail from one in 1968 because of a thruster problem...but that was not a "LM prototype".   The LM was not designed to fly in an atmosphere, it was designed to fly in space...you know, vacuum, etc.
And IT WAS TESTED IN THAT ENVIRONMENT.    Apollo 5 did so unmanned, Apollo 9 did so manned in Earth orbit, and Apollo 10 did so in lunar orbit.

The LM was sufficiently flight tested and refined prior to Apollo 11s landing flight.   That's what those prior missions were for....I'd bet you had no idea we had all those flights, did ya?


#252    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,344 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2005

Posted 07 August 2005 - 03:29 AM

QUOTE(Nethius @ Aug 6 2005, 07:12 AM)
QUOTE(turbonium @ Aug 6 2005, 01:29 PM)
Wrong - the VLT can take hi-res images close-up of the landng sites - but they haven't.

They can?  Better tell them!  Would you happen to have a source regarding this?  Let me guess we've got the European's in on the hoax too...


Try reading their website...
http://www.eso.org/

Would you be able to spot a Lunar Lander in this picture?
The Moon

View Post


Smart-ass remarks won't work, bud. I have looked at the site - obviously you haven't, or you would know what it is capable of doing. Bold text is from the links.
VLT
The Sunday Telegraph
11-25-2
Dr Richard West, an astronomer at the VLT, confirmed that his team was aiming to achieve "a high-resolution image of one of the Apollo landing sites".

The first attempt to spot the spacecraft will be made using only one of the VLT's four telescope mirrors, which are fitted with special "adaptive optics" to cancel the distorting effect of the Earth's atmosphere. A trial run of the equipment this summer produced the sharpest image of the Moon taken from the Earth, showing details 400ft across from a distance of 238,000 miles.

The VLT team hopes to improve on this, with the aim of detecting clear evidence for the presence of the landers. The base of the lunar modules measured about 10ft across, but would cast a much longer shadow under ideal conditions.

Dr West said that the challenge pushed the optical abilities of one VLT mirror to its limits: if this attempt failed, the team planned to use the power of all four mirrors. "They would most probably be sufficiently sharp to show something at the sites," he said.


Dr. West retired from the ESO in March of this year, but I'm still trying to get more information on the project.

Below is an article from this year - note the underlined text!!
VLT 2

The Very Large Telescope Interferometer (VLTI), equivalent to a single instrument with a mirror 16 m in diameter, combines the light from the four big Unit Telescopes and from several moveable 1.8-m Auxiliary Telescopes, spaced across baselines of up to 200 m, by way of the Interferometric Tunnel. Inside this 130-m-long underground cavern, the light beams gathered by the telescopes are passed through delay lines to compensate for the slightly different path-lengths they have taken in reaching the instruments. The delay lines help to synchronize the beams, before redirecting them to a central laboratory. The interference fringes produced when the beams are finally recombined provide the information needed to reconstruct the original image in unprecedented detail, giving a picture as sharp as if it had come from a single telescope 200 m across. If there were cars on the Moon, the Very Large Telescope would be able to read their number plates.




#253    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,344 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2005

Posted 07 August 2005 - 03:33 AM

QUOTE
And the reply I received is pretty much exactly what I expected. Quote my entire message and address only the VLT issue...which is so simplistic that it's almost hilarious. There is no such resolving capacity on this planet, or in orbit, which he'll see if he visits the web page he was directed to.

You can also look at the post above to see what the VLT is capable of doing. Quite "hilarious", isn't it? Of course, you can make yourself look even more foolish if you claim to know more than Dr. Darling, who does have a PhD in Astronomy.

Edited by turbonium, 07 August 2005 - 03:35 AM.


#254    TheLikeness

TheLikeness

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 478 posts
  • Joined:25 Jul 2005

Posted 07 August 2005 - 10:05 AM

we landed on the moon, relax!

"I had mustard...?"

#255    MID

MID

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,490 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Male

  • ...The greatest error is not to have tried and failed, but that in trying, we did not give it our best effort.

Posted 07 August 2005 - 04:00 PM

"You can also look at the post above to see what the VLT is capable of doing. Quite "hilarious", isn't it? Of course, you can make yourself look even more foolish if you claim to know more than Dr. Darling, who does have a PhD in Astronomy."
____________________________________________________________________

No, you can look at the above post, read it very carefully, and see what the VLT is theoretically capable of doing.  It has not been done, and, apparently, according to this source, they will test this capability in the future sometime. That of course, is just fine.  

Note that the LM descent stage is described to be about 10 ft across (close enough).  However, also note that it says that the stage will cast much longer shadows under ideal conditions.   This alludes to the fact that a resolving capability of 10M is likely not possible, but that with a long shadow, it might be possible to image something at the site.  

We do not have the capability.  This of course does not mean that we wont.  However, if they attain this capacity, you will not be seeing what you expect.  You will see a dark mark, and you won't accept it as evidence of the lunar landings either.

You are stuck on this almost irrelevant VLT issue, which, if successful in its attempt, will prove you wrong...despite the fact that you wont believe it.

That is what is hilarious here.  But not as hilarious as your inability to address the other issues that have been pointed out to you.  You're stuck on this little VLT issue.  We already have thousands of lunar surface photos, and more technical documentation about Apollo than we have concerning any other human endeavor in history.  If you don't believe that, you certainly aren't going to believe the VLT imaged Apollo artifacts...because you won't see flags, or gold foil, or footprints...you'll see obscure elongated black marks on the surface...sort of like we've already imaged from orbit on Apollo missions.  It won't do any good.

You make comments about ludicrous notions like we never flight tested the LM, you talk about flags waving in the wind, and the idea that there's absolutely no disruption beneath the LM DPS bell on the lunar surface...all silly things which are false and have been shown to be so.   You don't answer these, accept what is said, or even think about them, so as perhaps to ask a follow-up question so you might get an answer and better understand how things work.  You stick to a couple of obscure video frames supposedly showing an arm...and you harp on this VLT thing, which, if they're successful in attaining the capability they think they can, will prove you wrong.  That, is foolish.

It's an amazing thing to observe.  You have absolutely nothing to show that this incredible project, which took hundreds of thousands of people 8 years of unremitting effort to accomplish, and which produced tens of thousands of pages of scientific reporting, scads of data collected by observatories all over the world, hundreds of pounds of lunar samples, and a technological development that in fact produced the computer you use to make your "point"--was faked.   Nothing you present is evidence of any acceptible kind.   Yet, you insist on unsubstantiated assertions and don't listen to those who know something about what happened, how we did it, etc.

The problem with conspiracy sites is that in asserting unsubstanbtiated bilge like the lunar hoax business, you de-value research and investigation into the actual conspiracies that have occurred.  It's all lumped under one heading:  nut-cases.  Thus, real conspiracies, even if good researech and substantive evidence is shown, are ignored by the masses, because, hell, nowadays everything's a conspiracy!   So what!?  

The fact is, even if we return to the moon sometime in the future, and you're around to see it, you won't believe even that.  The only way you'll believe it is if you go there yourself and see the artifacts sitting there.  That, of course, isn't going to happen.  

No one's ever going to prove we didn't go to the moon, since we obviously did.  Heck, think about it, no one's ever going to step up and produce the person or people who actually killed Robert Kennedy.  No one's ever going to admit that it was a conspiracy.  Sirhan Sirhan is the accepted assassin, despite the fact that scientific evidence abounds proving he did not (incontrivertible proof, mind you, not the sort of proof you produce regarding this moon business).

If that's the case, and it is, what's the point in bantering about regarding this alleged moon hoax?  The lunar landings are "proved" beyond any reasonable standard of evidence in existence.  The fact is, you can't prove World War II ever happened either.  We have photos and documents and all sorts of artifacts...but it all could've been faked.  Of course, everyone knows it did happen, despite the fact that most of us weren't around, or were actually there to see it happen.

There is no point in what you do.  You merely want yourself heard.  Which is fine, of course.  Lots of people, knowledgeable or not, are in the same boat.  However, it is a waste of time, as I'm sure this post is...which is too long and says too much to be absorbed by you.

Like the prior poster said (in much more succinct fashion)..." we landed on the moon, relax."

Edited by MID, 07 August 2005 - 04:02 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users