I'm sure MID is too modest to mention it, but he started a question and answer thread in the Space and Astronomy section HERE. If your questions are not related to the hoax theories this would be an excellent place to ask them.

You know, you're just too sweet, Waspie!

So is arsenic.

OK you two, enough of the love-in, you're making me feel queasy.

Back to the Apollo 17 clip shown in the Percy video, where there is an alleged reflection off a cable above an astronaut (the flag scene). Strange that whenever we see the antenna reflecting sunlight, it tends to be split up into green and blue (possibly due to the colour wheel in the TV camera? Maybe some other optical effect). The artefact at the top of the screen is completely different - it appears to be a white blotch with no "colourisation", which suggests to me it's a video artefact. On top of that, when you stop through frame by frame, reflections off surfaces such as the antenna, helmet etc, visibly grow then recede across several frames (in a fraction of s second). The artefact in question doesn't, it just pops into view then disappears next frame. More evidence that it's some kind of video artefact rather than a genuine reflection. On top of that, the artefact is a very strange shape compared to other reflections - pause the video and see for yourself.

Just my tuppence worth.

Am I missing something here? I was under the impression that interferometric images were essentially fringe patterns that could enable very accurate measurements to be made, for example the disk size of stars. I didn't think they produced the kind of images images we would expect with a normal telescope. If that's the case, then the VLT in interferometry mode would not be able to take actual photos of Apollo artefacts, regardless of its angular resolution at the moon. It may be able to measure the size of an object, but I'm not convinced of that either (low contrast).

This is what I thought an interferometric image looks like:-



I'm unclear as to how this would be useful photographing objects on the moon (and measuring objects would be difficult due to the lack of contrast between the lunar surface and Apollo artefacts). Turbs, how do you propose the telescopes would be able to actually image Apollo artefacts?

Thanks

Dr. Boffin of the ESO told me that in IF mode, full images of objects, etc. are "constructed" by combining several different "partial" images (ie: from various angles).

And as I said, he confirmed it is indeed possible for the VLT to capture an image of an object the size of the LM.

Cheers

I have a question. Where is all the dust when they take off?

Dr. Boffin of the ESO told me that in IF mode, full images of objects, etc. are "constructed" by combining several different "partial" images (ie: from various angles).

And as I said, he confirmed it is indeed possible for the VLT to capture an image of an object the size of the LM.

Cheers

I have a question. Where is all the dust when they take off?

Posty is correct.
There wasn't any appreciable dust visible on liftoff because the LM descent stage acted as a launch platform for the ascent stage.
The exhaust from the LM APS engine was impacting the top of the descent stage, not the surface of the Moon.

What was seen was a bunch of descent stage material blasting out in all directions, and you'd see in the DAC films the flag blow over maybe, but not much in the line of disturbed lunar surface dust.

C'mon, Mid, you know we didn't go.

C'mon, Mid, you know we didn't go.

I think we landed on the moon. So what, who cares? This kind of debate can go on forever. Show me absolute proof (no theory please) we did NOT and I will eat my words. Yum!
Okay now I'll go back and read the thread from the beginning.

I'll do my best to answer some of your questions. Usually, NASA people don't answer this stuff because it requires basic knowledge of physics to completely understand. From my experience, it's hard enough to convince people that objects under Earth's gravity fall independent of mass. I can't imagine what NASA feels trying to convince people that their claims are physically wrong.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ruven
If there is no atmosphere in space, no wind on the moon, etc.... why does the flag move in the video ?

Conservation of momentum ALWAYS wins.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ruven
Why are the same backgrounds used for various pictures that NASA say are from areas that are supposed to be miles away from each other ?

Because moutains in the moon are GIANT and in order to make them no longer in the background, they'd have to travel a ridiculous distance. Also, it's VERY hard to judge distance on the moon's surface.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ruven
Why are the shadows in some of the pictures going in different directions when NASA claims that there was no exterior source of light, except the sun ?

In photographs, they're (usually) pretty poor 2d representations of 3d objects. Any sort of HORIZONTAL LINE HERE is guess work and usually a terrible guess at the light source.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ruven
Why was the surface of the moon described as being like powder/dust... yet a rocket landed on the moon and the pictures show ZERO dirt/dust on the landers footpads ?

Any blast from the lander's rocket would throw the dust down and to the side,very little would land on the feet. There is no air disturbance for the dust to billow around in. Throw the dust to the side and it will go that way, it won't come back to land on the feet.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ruven
Why are there no stars visible in the pictures, the sky is supposed to be super clear if you are on the moon.

Can you see stars during the day on Earth? It's the same damned thing on the moon. The sun bleaches out any chance of seeing stars.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ruven
Why havent we gone back to the moon since the 70's ?

Money. Also, the military doesn't care anymore about putting people into space.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ruven
Whatever happened with colonizing the moon ?

You're kidding, right? How is this proof that we didn't go in the first place, aside from that we have no real way to generate oxygen.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ruven
If the lunar lander has a huge rocket that thrusts down as you land on the moon... why is there no blast crater under the lander on the pictures shown by NASA ?

Its impossible for the Lander to land without making a crater, specially if how they say that the moon's surface is like powder/dust.

Um, the LEM didn't require much blast at all to leave the moon, you need a massive blast to leave the kind of crater you want.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ruven
How is it that we can hear the astronouts talking while they are approaching the moon... live rockets are burning at the same time, there should be no way to make out the astronauts words, yet he is heard clearly.

Have you ever been in an airplane cockpit? Pilots use microphones to talk to each other. The astronauts also had the same thing.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ruven
When the rocket lifts up from the moon... why is there no exhaust coming out of the rocket ?

Hydrazine and dinitrogen tetroxide burn invisible in a vaccum.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ruven
And no dust cloud either, specially with how the moon is supposed to be covered by powder fine dust ?

I covered this in the question about the take off. Also, dust falls much faster in less atmosphere. The ONLY reason dust floats on Earth is due to the atmosphere.

I think we landed on the moon. So what, who cares? This kind of debate can go on forever. Show me absolute proof (no theory please) we did NOT and I will eat my words. Yum!

Okay now I'll go back and read the thread from the beginning.

derrr...uhhh i believe in a spagetti monster,so what who cares? just show me absolute proof(no theories) that NO spagetti monster exists and i will eat my own sentences..doh!
the moon haox is just like 9/11 full of holes and with enough circumstantial evidence to eliminate all doubt yet the pyscological distress of the intellects that cant believe they were bamboozled is too great for them to rationalize the fact that they have been had-- such a vast number of intellects whose egos were fed to a level of grandeur and dignified by accopmlishing super-human false realites will never accept the truth on the grounds humiliation-- to think we could have successfully completed a consecutive number of flawless missions(no fatalities) back in the 60's and NOT maintained a sustained campaign or returned since then is imo the bldg 7 of the moon hoax --turbo has provided serious anamolies above and beyond the known falacies contained within the moon hoax documentary which were never addresed with any ration-- the big picture is clearly evident once common sense and reason are applied outside the confines of preconceived assumptions and blind faith

I think we landed on the moon. So what, who cares? This kind of debate can go on forever. Show me absolute proof (no theory please) we did NOT and I will eat my words. Yum!

the big picture is clearly evident once common sense and reason are applied outside the confines of preconceived assumptions and blind faith
whooooo....blows on smoldering embers rekindling the flame of truth

NASA exposes their
Apollo moon landing hoax!

20 June 2007

Was it an accident? Did they realize what they were doing? Or are some NASA employees getting tired of supporting the lies?


The image above is at the NASA site, Astronomy Picture of the Day, for tomorrow, 21 June 2007:
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070621.html

It is a drawing of what the Earth's sky would look like during the daytime if the atmosphere did not scatter sunlight.

NASA admits that even with the sun shining, the stars would be visible.
Eric Hufschmid's Science Challenge asked if Apollo astronauts would be able to see stars while they were on the moon:
www.EricHufschmid.net/Science_Challenge_24.html

And would astronauts see stars as they traveled to and from the moon? Would astronauts in the space shuttle be able to see stars?

To read full article follow this link

Love Ya!! LMAO...

Edit: I really do love ya...I have no business being on this thread ...you're funny. ...and yes, I understand... Damn Spaghetti Monster... lmao... new favorite post

Okay whew that was a LONGGGGGGGGG Read ( okay had to skip some pages because my brain started spinning). Back to the OP...Now I'm on the FENCE here (I HATE TO BE WISHY-WASHY Damnit but some of you had some GREAT points):

I found this and thought it may be interesting to share:
Thoughts? Comments?

Edited to add: Sourced from OP Link

The whole thing was shot on a Hollywood lot. Stanly Kubrick did around the time he shot 2001 a Space Odyssey

we landed on the moon. deal with it.

I recently started to question the authenticity of the moon landing. My biggest reason is due to the loss of bone density/muscle tissue all astronauts suffer after just a few days in space. The Russians sent people up and after 5 days they had lost so much bone density and muscle that they couldn't even walk, sit up etc. I believe the moon landing was 7 or 8 days total and I have never heard of any reports that they suffered this type of physical stress. They also appear happy, healthy and holding themselves up just fine in the pictures in the quarantine trailer. If anyone has any info about their physical state could you please let me know?

Another aspect of the moon landing that has always made me wonder a little bit is the radiation of the Van Allen Belt, which Nasa claims is harmless.

This just seems a little fishy to me. But I really can't say that it didn't happen. I need more concrete evidence.

I recently started to question the authenticity of the moon landing. My biggest reason is due to the loss of bone density/muscle tissue all astronauts suffer after just a few days in space. The Russians sent people up and after 5 days they had lost so much bone density and muscle that they couldn't even walk, sit up etc. I believe the moon landing was 7 or 8 days total and I have never heard of any reports that they suffered this type of physical stress. They also appear happy, healthy and holding themselves up just fine in the pictures in the quarantine trailer. If anyone has any info about their physical state could you please let me know?

Another aspect of the moon landing that has always made me wonder a little bit is the radiation of the Van Allen Belt, which Nasa claims is harmless.

This just seems a little fishy to me. But I really can't say that it didn't happen. I need more concrete evidence.

I saw that documentary also. It shows Donny Rumsfeld, Henry Kissinger and some others. Nixon was behind that big scam and the people bought and still buy it. Nobody seems to bring up the Van Allen belt that'll fried them with the high levels of radiation. When a free lance reporter asked an ex-Astronaut about the belt he claims to not have felt anything different when passing through it...REALLY

Van Allen Belt. It was impossible back then it's impossible today.

You can of course point to a scientific paper that confirms this?

Thought not.

Did you watch the supposed "mockumentary?" Thought not.

Navigating carefully between lies and truth, the film mixes fact with pure invention. We will use every possible ingredient : ‘hijacked’ archive footage, false documents, real interviews which have been taken out of context or transformed through voice-over or dubbing, staged interviews by actors who reply from a script and, of course, interviews with astronauts such as Neil Armstrong who refute our claim or still others who believe for all what it’s worth that it was all a hoax.

sorry if have been posted before

And if these rockets and capsules were made but destroyed, there must also be a handful of people, probably from the army who could stand out and affirm the fakeness of the Apollo mission.

There is no "supposed" about it. This film was not, is not, and never will be a factual documentary. This is from the films official web site:

Source: Point du Jour

Couldn't you separate the lies from the truth, the fact from the pure invention? Thought not.

Do you still want to claim that a film, which admits it is full of lies, is proof of anything?

I guess you believe the lie about going to the moon as well. Well believe what you want, the photographic evidence is clear as day,no indentation on the lunar module leg pads, no dust in the surrounding areas,different light sources I can go on and on. You know what this forum sucks most people here are either misinformed by the corporate media. Just to point out this isn't the only documentary out there or the only source of information,if one trully wants to get to the truth one must search for it like looking for treasure you gotta dig deep.

I guess you believe the lie about going to the moon as well. Well believe what you want, the photographic evidence is clear as day,no indentation on the lunar module leg pads, no dust in the surrounding areas,different light sources I can go on and on.

You know what this forum sucks most people here are either misinformed by the corporate media.

Just to point out this isn't the only documentary out there or the only source of information,if one trully wants to get to the truth one must search for it like looking for treasure you gotta dig deep.

if one trully wants to get to the truth one must search for it like looking for treasure you gotta dig deep.

You know what this forum sucks

Jesus, you need professional help.

PS. I do consider him saying "this forum sucks" a personal attack also, since "this forum" is just the people who post here.

*edit: is the forum automagically merging posts if you post twice?

So that leaves the following questions for the hoax believers:

• If a manned Moon landing is impossible, because of the Van Allen Belts, why is the USA going back? What possible benefit can there be for NASA to fake it all again and increase the chances of being caught?

FUNDING-- compare nasa's "budget" with the highest grossing movie ever made and tell me it wasnt fiscally beneficial to them

the same question asked two different ways-- no one said it was "fake"--they obviously used the hardware to leave earths atmosphere and remain in orbit for extended periods of time-- a very complicated achievment none the less but no more than what the russians had achieved before being humbled by the van allen radiation belts

-- a very complicated achievment none the less but no more than what the russians had achieved before being humbled by the van allen radiation belts

and as far as having intellects come forward to debunk it they would first have to admit they were wrong and completely incapable of determining their mistakes for years which would by default call into question their own credibility

Of course if all these scientists are lying and all the data is false the obvious question is, how the hell does Sunofone and his fellow conspiracy theorists know that the Van Allen belts are deadly?

You can't have it both ways, either there is no reliable information, in which case you can not possible know whether the Van Allen belts are deadly or not OR the information IS reliable in which case you are wrong about the Van Allen belts being deadly. Either way you have no real argument.

FUNDING-- compare nasa's "budget" with the highest grossing movie ever made and tell me it wasnt fiscally beneficial to them

I guess you believe the lie about going to the moon as well. Well believe what you want, the photographic evidence is clear as day,no indentation on the lunar module leg pads, no dust in the surrounding areas,different light sources I can go on and on. You know what this forum sucks most people here are either misinformed by the corporate media. Just to point out this isn't the only documentary out there or the only source of information,if one trully wants to get to the truth one must search for it like looking for treasure you gotta dig deep.

Acually, If you go to page one the OP had a link to his "questions".

My quote reply in blue was sourced by someone who had responded in that link. I thought the answers were valid.

PLEASE comment on any one of the questions!!! Or if any of the answers you think posted may be incorrect.

Thank You!! Jody

If there is no atmosphere in space, no wind on the moon, etc.... why does the flag move in the video ?

Conservation of momentum ALWAYS wins.

Why are the same backgrounds used for various pictures that NASA say are from areas that are supposed to be miles away from each other ?

Because moutains in the moon are GIANT and in order to make them no longer in the background, they'd have to travel a ridiculous distance. Also, it's VERY hard to judge distance on the moon's surface.