Yea.... these professional photographers and image analysts don't know anything. ;)
How many times can a man turn his head,
And pretend that he just doesn't see.
The answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind,
The answer is blowing in the wind.
Why does it matter?
Also, for people so angered by the "religious" references in the original video I posted (limited only to the intro, really), they sure have a blind faith into what mass media is feeding them.
Are you saying that people that don't buy into creationism are blindly faithful to the media?
Ah, right sorry. Read it wrong. ;)
you'd cook the optic of the hubble if you tried. they're calibrated and designed for low light intensities. but i'm quite sure that there a some ground based units that could be converted by the willing.Given that IIRC there was consideration of disbanding hubble, frying it wouldn't necessarily matter. However, I've been reading this article (http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm) pointed to by steuben, and it seems to explain why not even hubble would be able to pick up the stuff (section: "Earth based telescopes should be able to see the Apollo hardware on the Moon, yet none is visible.").
I don't really know and haven't really bothered to go and find out. And the reason is... this is 30 year old stuff...
"If some of the film was spoiled, it's remotely possible they [NASA] may have shot some scenes in a studio environment to avoid ... all embarrassment."
- David Groves, PhD.
This compelling video throws into serious doubt the authenticity of the Apollo missions and features information that challenges the declared abilities of NASA to successfully send a man to the Moon and return him safely to Earth. New evidence clearly suggests that NASA hoaxed pictures allegedly taken on the lunar surface. These findings are supported by analysis and the testimony of experts from various disciplines, including photographer/filmmaker David S. Percy ARPS and physicist David Groves PhD.
Hear what NASA has to say in response to these disturbing findings.
"The bigger the lie, the easier it is for people to believe it"
- Hitler
"Initially, it's easier to dismiss outrageous ideas, even if they are eventually proven correct, simply because we might not want to face up to uncomfortable truths and because to acknowledge that truth would make us look complete fools"
- Ronnie Stronge
And just one more question, Vulcas. Do you know anything about any of the subjects that are supposedly given as proof, or just taking their word for it?
You are right. I did not watch the video, as I take my information from actual papers that don't try to tell you what to think with flashy graphics, smoke, and mirrors. Plus, if I wanted to see a bad SciFi movie (as these hoax things are) I would go the the cheap section and rent one. Explain to me the most proving point in the video. Better yet, find some actual text based papers to support the claims. Videos are all about the drama of the presention. Give me some cold, hard text and facts.
By the way, one of my uncles believes we never went to the moon. He also watches the sky for hours every night, trying to glimps one of the UFOs (of the alien kind) that he knows are out there.
And just one more question, Vulcas. Do you know anything about any of the subjects that are supposedly given as proof, or just taking their word for it?
Blah blah blah blah blah junk and garbage. Give an example of "hardcore evidence" and we'll poke holes in it.
Now, take that defining factor that makes you believe, and do some research and searching on your own to prove it is right. List both sides of the 'facts' either supporting or disproving it. I have done this already, and found all of the hoax 'facts' lacking. Have you? Or are -you- afraid of the truth?
The rest of the world would not have let the US get away with it...
...single example of hardcore evidence.
The video is not evidece - the video is a presentation of supposed evidence.
Prove it. :)
The targets disappear because of bright light sources; the photographs have not been editted. :)
I don't think your method of coming in saying 'this video is gospel!' is going to work. Don't act like it's totally infallible because chances are (I haven't watched the new one yet) that it isn't.
The burden of proof is on you, chuckles. Prove to me that you've actually watched the video by pointing out a specific evidence that you disagree with. Not something that some "moon hoax" site mentioned somewhere and another "debunked". Stick to the video, then we'll talk.
Remember that NASA has been confronted with this evidence and is unwilling to offer any of their own, generally just trying to dodge and brush it off like it doesn't exist or stating something entirely unconvincing. And you are certainly no NASA.
the bombardment is constant but not uniform on the time scales that we think of. the bombardment is only uniform on the geologic timescales.
the lunar dust is about as fine as powdered sugar. set some in a shallow pan and try leaving a footprint in it. you'll get the same effect as you see in the photos, and there is no water in that...
The surveyor probes showed that it was possible to land a spacecraft on the moon because the surface was crushed rocks, not deep, soft powder.
you'd cook the optic of the hubble if you tried. they're calibrated and designed for low light intensities.
Congratulations, you've watched roughly 20 minutes of the video, and even that is debatable because you did not provide the exact time index (you can link directly to time index). But I'll let it slide this once. Now onto the response:
Targets? You mean reticles. Bright light sources? You mean backgrounds. They claim there was only a single light source (unless there really wasn't). The problem with your "proof" is that there are several photographs with bright backgrounds but without disappearing reticles. The shot with american flag is not all white but red and blue as well that aren't nearly as bright. The center reticle is actually the largest on the camera and it is the one that hits (or blocks) the flag but there isn't even a hint of it anywhere across the white, red or blue. Ever study photography? :)
Anything else or do you agree with the rest? Post a time index next time, so I know you really watched it. ;)
You are a fanatic. You are nothing more than a fool who wants to believe a lie. You refuse to listen to reason. Your position is based on nothing but blind faith and ignorance. I'll have nothing more to do with you.
You are a fanatic. You are nothing more than a fool who wants to believe a lie. You refuse to listen to reason. Your position is based on nothing but blind faith and ignorance. I'll have nothing more to do with you.
Just change the "you" for "I", think about everything you believe in, and you will finally get the wisdom of an act named Self-criticism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-criticism).
the bombardment is constant but not uniform on the time scales that we think of. the bombardment is only uniform on the geologic timescales.
the lunar dust is about as fine as powdered sugar. set some in a shallow pan and try leaving a footprint in it. you'll get the same effect as you see in the photos, and there is no water in that...
There is moisture in the air we breath, A vacume is void of moisture, there is no comparison.QuoteThe surveyor probes showed that it was possible to land a spacecraft on the moon because the surface was crushed rocks, not deep, soft powder.
Ever try to make a foot print in crushed rock ?you'd cook the optic of the hubble if you tried. they're calibrated and designed for low light intensities.
Linky (http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/hubble_moon.html)
Second, I actually did not read any replies in this thread since the last time I posted. I will explain why.
Remember, always keep an open mind!
By all means, lets be open minded, just not so open minded that our brains fall out.
I have a really bad feeling that this whole process will get me agitated and frustrated with you, but I'm willing to give it a try.
Second, I actually did not read any replies in this thread since the last time I posted.
Remember, always keep an open mind!
***edit*** got it! Here is Apollo 11 landing. Dust is clearly flying http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/A11Landing.mov
No rover tracks? try this link http://www.clavius.org/rover2.html
Follow a few of his links and you can get more pictures of the same rover at the same time. I buy the explanation.
Simply put, the men are digging their footprints into the packed dust.
Now we move to the rover. It has four tires, meaning four points to rest on. The movement of the rover is caused by the rotation of these tires, not the individual placement of each. I would wager anything this was intended to reduce the tossing of dust from the treads onto the equipment. Why? That is what I would do. Also, the tires are rolling across the surface of the dust with very little pressure on each tire, which is the opposite of what the men are doing. (remember, they are digging in with each step)
There is no air on the moon, so dust can not be blown around.
Hmm. Can't figure that out yourself? Let me put it another way. The tires pick up dust, then toss it back into their exact tracks, partially filling them. Do not forget to take into account the rovers make shallow tracks in the first place.
The claims about the moon being solid rock are just completely bunk for anyone that knows anything about geology and the formation of rock.
"it shows the front tire with footprints right behind it, clear and visible,"Oh? And those footprints did not kick up any dust, I suppose? Fill yourself a sandbox with fine dust and roll a tire through it. Now, walk around in the dust for a bit, making sure you kick up the same amount of dust as the men's boots did. Now take a picture of it with ultra bright (blinding) spotlights on it. When done, report to me how much of the tire track shows.
Considering people have studied and are still studying the composition of moon dust brought back and using the results for practical purposes today, I very much doubt that we didn't land there. Otherwise we'd be producing research and results on non-existent material and that would be kinda weird. I suppose in 50 years people will disbelieve that we have a moon base and that we've landed on Mars too. Luckily this has no effect on anyone else.
I just laughed out loud when reading this thread.
That Vulcas guy is so sterotypical, he zealously relies on that silly movie and when a number of people start to explain why the video is wrong, he quickly leaves!
Anyway, why is everyone so obsessed with the darn landing or the trip through the radiation belts?
The trip to the moon was observed by hunderds of thousands of countries, scientists and amateurs.
What do they say to us? It's true, we did go to the moon.
Funny thing is, people like Vulcas cannot be argued with. He tells people to keep an open mind, but he has a very closed mind of his own.
Actualy i think you do and its a big cover up for somthing or other./me points at ThomPhoenix and shouts: Illuminatus!
At the origin, a phoenix was used for the seal instead of the eagle. The phoenix amongst other things symbolizes rebirth. Because the Phoenix stands for being destroyed in flames and then rising from the ashes, for the Illuminati it symbolizes Lucifer.>o)
He tells people to keep an open mind, but he has a very closed mind of his own.
As I said before. This thread is over, now time to move to another.
QuoteHe tells people to keep an open mind, but he has a very closed mind of his own.
Thats because the phrase 'open-minded' is used by people to indicate who agrees with them. It is a nonsensical phrase that has no meaning. Anybody who opposes some argument is close-minded, anybody who supports it is open-minded. Semantics.
Yes, I'm the devil, bow before me!/me looks at a certain Dan Brown book and says: Preposterous!
Etc, etc.
/me runs because his cover is blown
As I said before. This thread is over, now time to move to another.
Playing God? I thought that was my job.
Actually, I would be more worried about the Reynolds Wrap company creating the entire alien conspiracy. I mean come on, what better way to sell more aluminum than to invent aliens, then say the only way to block their mind rays is to stuff a beanie full of your product. Brilliant if you ask me.
Not to mention how all the UFOs seem to look as if they are made out of a flexible, metallic, shiny material. What better way to use Reynolds Wrap seconds that fail inspection?
Unless….the Reynolds Wrap people -are- aliens, and aluminum foil -increases- the reception of mind controlling rays…
/me gets rid of all aluminum foil in the house, and switches to wax paper.
Oh god! Unless that is what the Wax Paper folks wanted me to do, and wax paper contains mind control nanobots!
/me sells everything he owns including his clothing so he can not be tracked or mind controlled in any way, and lives in the northwoods for the rest of his life, which is not long, as he gets shot by Bigfoot hunters by mistake two months later.
Hail Eris! All hail Discordia!
According to the latest official figures, 43% of all statistics are totally worthless.