We never went to the moon.

Status
Not open for further replies.
More undisputable proof we went to the Moon from a man who parked his car on moon and this was accepted as evidence by a council


:)
 
Gawdzilla Sama said:
"You can't prove they came from the Moon, nobody's ever been there to get samples for comparison." /circularlogic
Click to expand...

And of course the Russians go there and collect samples for comparison the cry will be - they are fake samples from the same place as the Apollo ones

As I recall the Russians did bring back a small sample but via a small non manned probe

So it still boils down to we never sent men to the moon

:)
 
FatFreddy said:
There are plausible explanations that would explain the rocks.
Click to expand...
"Plausible" indeed.
Any single circumstance can plausibly be explained.
Which is why rational people don't accept just a single (or even several) data points.

What they accept is what is known as a preponderance of evidence. Such as that which points to the Apollo missions going to and returning from the Moon.
 
Has anyone watched the first video?
I got thru a bit and the concerns re photos seem reasonable and I wonder what others think?
Alex
 
I find two things curious.

Firstly
Although trivial I would have thought what presumably would have been hard not to notice (forget absence of stars in photos as cameras would not have picked them up at the low iso they used) would be the beauty of the stars.

Only last night looking up in a dark location it was so beautiful I find it strange no one ever commented .maybe they did and if so I would love to hear their words.

Maybe for some reason my belief that the sky would have taken your breath away is wrong.

Would the Moon have been the ultimate dark location for star gazing or not?

Secondly and this puzzles me because I expect the answer is very simple.

Why in a vacuum don't the suits inflate like say a weather balloon such that it bursts and that is well before it reaches conditions similar to the moon.

We all have seen the power of atmospheric pressure in the oil can collapse and I expect that the internal pressure of the suit against the external vacuum would have had them looking like the Michelin Man.

I doubt if anyone actually looks at the videos claiming fake, why bother we know they are all nutters who make them...
However the photos taken of the astronaut on the ladder in the shade poses a problem.

And this is my observation not anything I have seen.

The iso on the still camera would not pick up the stars, which is reasonable, but that iso would never get anything in the shadow side of the craft ...zip... That is in my view I think iso was 160 and I welcome guidance as to how such a photo could be taken and achieve a rather good image.

I noticed once, but I can't find footage in support, that there was no time delay between moon and Earth conversations similar to what you notice on the news when the desk in Sydney crosses to the reporter in London and the chap in London clearly waits as the signal travels to reach him. You could expect a noticeable 1-5 seconds... I think they were landing and as I recall the chat went back and forth and years ago I though some TV camera adjustment being guided from Earth did not seem to have a lag.

But I can't be bothered going thru this stuff simply to go over to the dark side...

I don't want to argue nor do I think we did not go but I do wonder about how the stars probably would blow you away and why their suits did not show any signs of blowing up like balloons free of wrinkles.

Alex
 
Last edited:
Xelasnave.1947 said:
Why in a vacuum don't the suits inflate like say a weather balloon such that it bursts and that is well before it reaches conditions similar to the moon.
Click to expand...

They do

Remember the Soviet cosmonaut had trouble getting back into his craft

And from memory so did one of the Gemini astronauts

Not sure about the time delay. Some years ago there was some sort of science show in Darwin. You could stand in front of a cam which sent the video to bounce off the moon and return to the monitor. Very noticeable delay

:)
 
There must be a delay but I will leave it to others to look for it.

I don't care strangely.
I would be just as happy if someone could pull off the hoax.

And frankly I think it is naive to believe that the USA could not fool the world let's face it people can be fooled..look at the church well all the religions. Folk will believe firstly what they want to believe and so many want to believe they have a special friend...so it would be easy to fool them for a start.

And how to keep a secret...no problem if there are billions of dollars available...discredit the nutters, and if they know something and open their mouths they are nutters for sure, and if they really look as though they could be a threat pay them off.

I can push a case for or against its only the client who is right.
Alex
 
Xelasnave.1947 said:
I find two things curious.

Firstly
Although trivial I would have thought what presumably would have been hard not to notice (forget absence of stars in photos as cameras would not have picked them up at the low iso they used) would be the beauty of the stars.

Only last night looking up in a dark location it was so beautiful I find it strange no one ever commented .maybe they did and if so I would love to hear their words.

Maybe for some reason my belief that the sky would have taken your breath away is wrong.

Would the Moon have been the ultimate dark location for star gazing or not?
Click to expand...

It was broad daylight on the Moon. They were either dazzled by the Sun, the reflection of the sun from the surface and other objects and dramatically had the incoming light reduced by heavy duty gold visors.

Secondly and this puzzles me because I expect the answer is very simple.

Why in a vacuum don't the suits inflate like say a weather balloon such that it bursts and that is well before it reaches conditions similar to the moon.

We all have seen the power of atmospheric pressure in the oil can collapse and I expect that the internal pressure of the suit against the external vacuum would have had them looking like the Michelin Man.
Click to expand...

The suit had an inner layer that was pressurised, tight to the body. The outer layers were not. The inner layer was only 4 psi.

I doubt if anyone actually looks at the videos claiming fake, why bother we know they are all nutters who make them...
However the photos taken of the astronaut on the ladder in the shade poses a problem.

And this is my observation not anything I have seen.

The iso on the still camera would not pick up the stars, which is reasonable, but that iso would never get anything in the shadow side of the craft ...zip... That is in my view I think iso was 160 and I welcome guidance as to how such a photo could be taken and achieve a rather good image.
Click to expand...

Armstrong is wearing a suit reflecting 80% of sunlight. The surface if the Moon is very much a retro reflecting nature that sends light back to source. Volcanic beads largely influence this. The light from the surface is very significant during the day

I noticed once, but I can't find footage in support, that there was no time delay between moon and Earth conversations similar to what you notice on the news when the desk in Sydney crosses to the reporter in London and the chap in London clearly waits as the signal travels to reach him. You could expect a noticeable 1-5 seconds... I think they were landing and as I recall the chat went back and forth and years ago I though some TV camera adjustment being guided from Earth did not seem to have a lag.

But I can't be bothered going thru this stuff simply to go over to the dark side...

I don't want to argue nor do I think we did not go but I do wonder about how the stars probably would blow you away and why their suits did not show any signs of blowing up like balloons free of wrinkles.

Alex
Click to expand...

The time delay claim is usually where edited videos have been put up. Quite often there were long delays between responses, so a lot of then had the gaps removed by various sources. On all original sound recordings and video, the time delays are quite normal. I am not aware of any releases from NASA where the sound has been edited like that.
 
And the conspiracy advocate doesn't have an attention span of even 4 seconds, so the doctored tapes are needed to keep them from wandering off to go cow tipping.
 
David C said:
It was broad daylight on the Moon. They were either dazzled by the Sun, the reflection of the sun from the surface and other objects and dramatically had the incoming light reduced by heavy duty gold visors.



The suit had an inner layer that was pressurised, tight to the body. The outer layers were not. The inner layer was only 4 psi.



Armstrong is wearing a suit reflecting 80% of sunlight. The surface if the Moon is very much a retro reflecting nature that sends light back to source. Volcanic beads largely influence this. The light from the surface is very significant during the day



The time delay claim is usually where edited videos have been put up. Quite often there were long delays between responses, so a lot of then had the gaps removed by various sources. On all original sound recordings and video, the time delays are quite normal. I am not aware of any releases from NASA where the sound has been edited like that.
Click to expand...
Thank you for taking the time to explain all of that I found all you have written most interesting.
Alex
 
Gawdzilla Sama said:
And the conspiracy advocate doesn't have an attention span of even 4 seconds, so the doctored tapes are needed to keep them from wandering off to go cow tipping.
Click to expand...

Given how the public tired of Moon flight TV NASA probably started the hoax rumours to at least get folk to look at their movies.
I did think my post may have had a few fat Freddie's appear , but no, so no entertainment.
At another site a chap has appeared who believes it was a fake but I think they crushed him.
Alex
 
Xelasnave.1947 said:
Given how the public tired of Moon flight TV NASA probably started the hoax rumours to at least get folk to look at their movies.
I did think my post may have had a few fat Freddie's appear , but no, so no entertainment.
At another site a chap has appeared who believes it was a fake but I think they crushed him.
Click to expand...
The proof that the moon missions were faked is so clear that, once people have seen it, there's really nothing you can do to make them think they weren't faked.

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/a-proposal-to-reduce-confusion.160313/#post-3491703
 
FatFreddy said:
The proof that the moon missions were faked is so clear that, once people have seen it, there's really nothing you can do to make them think they weren't faked.
Click to expand...
Demonstrably false.

And the fact that you falsely claim it to be true, is an independent data point that speaks poorly to your credibility.
 
FatFreddy said:
The proof that the moon missions were faked is so clear that, once people have seen it, there's really nothing you can do to make them think they weren't faked.

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/a-proposal-to-reduce-confusion.160313/#post-3491703
Click to expand...
I have watched a few moon landing fake stuff.
Nothing I have seen is compeling really.
Pick one thing not a vid in your words your main thing, one thing, that makes you believe what you do.. Your best shot in your words.
Alex
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top