This right here. I always felt this was a possibility. Who knows what the hell they saw up there.
Moon Landing Hoax
- Thread starter SaviorMachine
- Start date
The threat of cutting off space program ties is NOT on the brink of War. Try again.
I'm not understanding your point. What does it matter if scientists from every nation were in cahoots? It's the governments of these nations I'm talking about. The politicians to whom P.R. was as big a weapon as any, and national pride was everything.
There is no way at the height of the Cold War that the Soviet Union would have let the United States pull off a hoax beating them to the moon.
Why hasn't Russia embarrassed the US with the news of there ever being a hoax? Especially with the Cold War where both nations were at odds.....if there was ever a rumor of a hoax, wouldn't Russia have found the truth and brought it to light, to make the US look like a bunch of fakers? Oh don't tell me, they were in collusion. Two rival nations chose to lie to the entire world about a fake moon landing.
So let me get this right. If the Russian would have came out an said that the moon landing was a HOAX you would have believe it.
With all the scientific evidence that we have today to prove that the moon landing was a hoaxes (an people still believe). The Russian would have look like sore loser to the world. The question that you should be asking is. Why haven't they gone to the moon? Why haven't any other country in that matter have? The cost for a round trip to the moon today would cost 155 million. It's a lot less cheaper now then it was back then. That the question. Think about it. Everything that America has done the Russian has done except the moon landing. Why because it can't be done. Atom Bomb, Nuclear, Submarine, Aircraft Carrier, Space Station, Etc... If it can be done the Russian have done it.
Researchers have found evidence of the world that crashed into the Earth billions of years ago to form the Moon.
Analysis of lunar rock brought back by Apollo astronauts shows traces of the "planet" called Theia.
The researchers claim that their discovery confirms the theory that the Moon was created by just such a cataclysmic collision.
The study has been published in the journal Science.
It was getting to the stage where some people were suggesting that the collision had not taken place”
Theia was named after a goddess in Greek mythology who was said to be the mother of Selene, goddess of the Moon. It is thought to have disintegrated on impact with the resulting debris mingling with that from the Earth and coalescing into the Moon.
It is the simplest explanation, and fits in well with computer simulations. The main drawback with the theory is that no-one had found any evidence of Theia in lunar rock samples.
Earlier analyses had shown Moon rock to have originated entirely from the Earth whereas computer simulations had shown that the Moon ought to have been mostly derived from Theia.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-27688511
China and Russian have landed rovers on the moon.So let me get this right. If the Russian would have came out an said that the moon landing was a HOAX you would have believe it.
Did they land people on the moon?
So let me get this right. If the Russian would have came out an said that the moon landing was a HOAX you would have believe it.
Bruh Im so done with this conversation. Its like telling Christians the bible is bull shit. No matter what you say they not gonna change their mind and they will make it seem like you are the retarded one.
I read it. It talked of a sanctions imposed forcing a cut in ties with the US regarding their space programs.
Again, for the umpteenth time, Where is your evidence that the moon landing was fake? Why are you avoiding this question. Please provide an answer without deflecting to another illogical conspiracy tin foil hat wearing claim.
No, but they did land rovers. Is that not an accomplishment? Does the fact that they didn't land people and only rovers prove that the US faked the moon landing? What does one have to do with the other?
You are more like a Christian who believes the bible bull shit. Just like one of them Christians who cannot provide evidence of the existence of God, you cannot provide evidence of the moon landing hoax. The onus is on you to provide evidence when Scientific circles and pretty much the entire world has agreed that the US landed men on the moon.
We are still waiting.....
What planet do you live on if you think we are now on the brink of another warJust making shit up as you go....where is the evidence?
Original Question
Your response
Guess you miss that part about " the escalating crisis in eastern Ukraine" , NATO and PutIn saying fuck the U.S. and if he crosses the Redline he testing our nutts.? Guess you missed all that huh?
Escalating Crisis in the Ukraine (which has actually cooled off a lot since Crimea has been annexed) is not ON THE BRINK of a fucking War.
For the last time.....WHERE IS THE FUCKING EVIDENCE? Are you HALO? Show us them books.
No, but they did land rovers. Is that not an accomplishment? Does the fact that they didn't land people and only rovers prove that the US faked the moon landing? What does one have to do with the other?WTF
Clearly your joking right? The reason that the moon landing was a hoaxes because of the Van Allen Belt. Which you clearly know nothing about. The Russian and Nazi Germany knew about this way before the US. That why Russia was training dogs to fly the spacecraft HINT HINT.
Yep looks like its cooling down over there alright, because American media told you so. March on conformist, march on.
http://www.google.com/url?q=http://...bHuGzw&usg=AFQjCNH7xaS6wmLN4ChFDJejt6ClO4LkxQ
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/gee...0-debunked-moon-hoax-arguments-211040304.html
#1: The astronauts would have died from radiation exposure
This is probably the most common 'Moon hoax' claim that I've seen: The astronauts would not have been able to survive the trip because they would receive a lethal dose of radiation, both from passing through the Van Allen radiation belts and from being beyond Earth's magnetic field and on the Moon's surface.
The truth is, for their entire trip to the Moon and back, the astronauts only received a dose equal to around one-tenth of one per cent of the radiation needed for a lethal dose (their total exposure was roughly 11 millisieverts and a lethal dose is at 8,000 millisieverts).
The reason for this is that the harmful effects from radiation are based on strength of the radiation and the time of exposure. You'd need to spend nearly four months inside the Van Allen belts to accumulate a lethal dose. The astronauts passed through them in roughly one hour. As for their time spent beyond Earth's magnetic field, where they were exposed to cosmic radiation, as I discussed back at the end of May, an astronaut could make a one-way trip to Mars and not receive a dose that exceeds NASA's lifetime limits (and those don't even come close to lethal levels).
Yep looks like its cooling down over there alright, because American media told you so. March on conformist, march on.
Evidence? Where is it? I'd rather take the information Scientists have given, then what a conspiracy theorist tin foil hat wearer would believe, especially when they refuse (or can't) back it up...Keep on conforming to your stupid conspiracy theory that have no leg to stand on. You're just like a Christian sheep.
the moon does not rotate on an axis - it revolves around the earth, if it rotated it would have a stronger / larger gravity field.
you will never have a direct view of the moon's "dark side" as it will always face away from the earth.
As for Asimov- he was a chemist and a writer of fiction, but not an astronomer nor physicist - learning about planetary bodies from him would be like having Stevie Wonder teach you how to set a sub 10' lap on the Nurburgring
but please consider our solar system has 11 planets and dwarf planets with moons, only Mercury n Venus are without.
Last edited:
The Hubble can't focus on something that small.
This argument runs along the lines that as the HST can provide images of galaxies millions of light years away, why can't it provide images of a lander on the Moon, which is on our door step?
Bit of a funny question really, anyone with normal eyesight can see the Andromeda Spiral Galaxy easily with the naked eye, and that's over 2 million light years away, yet cannot see a lander on the Moon! As an amateur astronomer of some 40 years standing I have always understood why the HST could not provide images of the lunar landers on the surface of the Moon, but to get the correct figures I checked out the HST site at Hubble Space Telescope Its all down to the size of Hubble's main mirror, which is 2.4 metres. One of the factors of the worth of a telescope is its resolution, the smallest amount of detail it can see, and this depends on the size and quality of the mirror. Hubble's resolution is an amazing 0.048 arc seconds. This is how I calculate the minimum size object that HST can image on the Moon, in as simple a way as I could devise.
HST resolution = 0.048 arc seconds (formula for this is 116 divided by aperture in mm. = 116 divided by 2400)
Visual maximum diameter of full Moon = 31'40" = 1900 arc seconds (a fraction over 1/2 a degree)
Therefore HST can resolve an object on the Moon of (1900 divided by 0.048 ) = 1/39,583 of the Moon's diameter
Actual diameter of Moon = 3476 km
Therefore resolvable object size = 3476 km divided by 39,583 = 87 metres
As the landers are only around 9 metres across it is not possible for the HST to resolve them, they just wouldn't show up on any image of the area under examination. I emailed the HST site to make sure I had got my sums right, explaining why I needed it for this site, and their reply was as follows:
"You are correct. Hubble's resolution is good and can resolve objects and areas as small as 280 feet, (86 metres) which rules out the Apollo debris on the moon. Hope this helps!"
Yes it does! Thanks to the HST Office of Public Outreach.
PS. The current largest ground based telescope is the 10 metre Keck, far bigger than the HST and therefore has a far better resolution of 0.012. But this is a theoretical limit that cannot be achieved through an atmosphere, so the HST, being in the vacuum of space, is still number one.
link: http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Did we land on the Moon.htm
C'mon Max. Are you a tinfoil head too?
Lets just clarify that the space race/ race to the moon was never really about the moon. The race was about building the most superior/ dependable rocket, and the US won that race.
Placed in that context it's not about going to the moon or not going to the moo, or calling someone out. The US proved it could build a rocket that could deliver a weapon from anywhere on the planet... That victory was ours.
Again race to the moon... Not about the moon... Just the propaganda to build big powerful weapons openly without criticism.
With that said, do you believe the moon landing was a hoax? And if so, do you believe Russia would actually keep quiet of said hoax?
the moon does not rotate on an axis - it revolves around the earth !
you will never have a direct view of the moon's "dark side" as it will always face away from the earth.
As for Asimov- he was a chemist and a writer of fiction, but not an astronomer nor physicist - learning about planetary bodies from him would be like having Stevie Wonder teach you how to set a sub 10" lap on the Nurburgring
but please consider our solar system has 11 planets and dwarf planets with moons, only Mercury n Venus are without.
Dude look at that picture. If the moon didn't "rotate" and just orbited "fixed" it would appear to rotate.
The moons rotation is the same as it's orbit. It takes the same amount of time to spin as it does rotate.
Neil use to be jacked!
The Hubble can't focus on something that small.
This argument runs along the lines that as the HST can provide images of galaxies millions of light years away, why can't it provide images of a lander on the Moon, which is on our door step?
Bit of a funny question really, anyone with normal eyesight can see the Andromeda Spiral Galaxy easily with the naked eye, and that's over 2 million light years away, yet cannot see a lander on the Moon! As an amateur astronomer of some 40 years standing I have always understood why the HST could not provide images of the lunar landers on the surface of the Moon, but to get the correct figures I checked out the HST site at Hubble Space Telescope Its all down to the size of Hubble's main mirror, which is 2.4 metres. One of the factors of the worth of a telescope is its resolution, the smallest amount of detail it can see, and this depends on the size and quality of the mirror. Hubble's resolution is an amazing 0.048 arc seconds. This is how I calculate the minimum size object that HST can image on the Moon, in as simple a way as I could devise.
HST resolution = 0.048 arc seconds (formula for this is 116 divided by aperture in mm. = 116 divided by 2400)
Visual maximum diameter of full Moon = 31'40" = 1900 arc seconds (a fraction over 1/2 a degree)
Therefore HST can resolve an object on the Moon of (1900 divided by 0.048 ) = 1/39,583 of the Moon's diameter
Actual diameter of Moon = 3476 km
Therefore resolvable object size = 3476 km divided by 39,583 = 87 metres
As the landers are only around 9 metres across it is not possible for the HST to resolve them, they just wouldn't show up on any image of the area under examination. I emailed the HST site to make sure I had got my sums right, explaining why I needed it for this site, and their reply was as follows:
"You are correct. Hubble's resolution is good and can resolve objects and areas as small as 280 feet, (86 metres) which rules out the Apollo debris on the moon. Hope this helps!"
Yes it does! Thanks to the HST Office of Public Outreach.
PS. The current largest ground based telescope is the 10 metre Keck, far bigger than the HST and therefore has a far better resolution of 0.012. But this is a theoretical limit that cannot be achieved through an atmosphere, so the HST, being in the vacuum of space, is still number one.
link: http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Did we land on the Moon.htm
C'mon Max. Are you a tinfoil head too?
i also believe that WTC #7 was imploded bc no plane hit it.
Moon Landing skeptics
I sure wished some of y'all had put as much effort in earth science class as you did this thread.
Unbelievable.
What's really crazy is this isn't the first time this debate has happened on here.
that dude can talk all that bullshit he wants....
look at this pic...
he cant and wont explain the reflection on the helmet... look at the shadows...
if only one source of light was used...(the sun) then how in the hell is his shadow off to the side and front while the others in the background are behind them
tell him to explain how in the hell on this day only did light decide to travel around the space craft and just make hit dead on the american flag symbol while all the other areas are in shadow
i got more if you still falling for the bullshit
Osca
my man
you trippin. i mean jay from dade is SUPER trippin, but he got all them damn chiefing gifs, so he might just be on one for a few hours
but not my boy Osca
y'all have not thought these arguments out at ALL mane mane. the answers to everything you asked about the lighting is in the same damn pictures you asking about man.
now this i've always found intriguing. especially considering all the odd shit that has been observed there, fast walkers and whatnot
jesus man. you should not be allowed to discuss stuff like this.
this is so funny it ain't even funny. man i would bet my ass that your van allen belt research stopped cold at the hoax shit.
thank you. it's like they just see this shit and totally disregard it.
man some of the dumbest shit ever said on this damn board just happened in here. and fuck me, that's saying a whole lot.
it's fucking ASTOUNDING.Unbelievable.
What's really crazy is this isn't the first time this debate has happened on here.
then look at how many of these cats are on this shit?
jay said that shit is like religion. LIKE RELIGION.
this thread is depressing lol
the moon does not rotate on an axis - it revolves around the earth, if it rotated it would have a stronger / larger gravity field.
you will never have a direct view of the moon's "dark side" as it will always face away from the earth.
As for Asimov- he was a chemist and a writer of fiction, but not an astronomer nor physicist - learning about planetary bodies from him would be like having Stevie Wonder teach you how to set a sub 10' lap on the Nurburgring
but please consider our solar system has 11 planets and dwarf planets with moons, only Mercury n Venus are without.
I never mentioned an axis, the moon rotates/orbits around the earth once every 28 days.
as far as the planets, well they are saying that now, five years from now it will be something else...
first pluto was a planet, now its a dwarf planet wtf??
and whats up with the moon rotating around the earth but never showing its far side...
that is not by chance son!!
but the Moon does spin on its axis tho,
The regular daily and monthly rhythms of Earth's only natural satellite, the moon, have guided timekeepers for thousands of years. Its influence on Earth's cycles, notably tides, has been charted by many cultures in many ages. The moon moderates Earth's wobble on its axis, leading to a relatively stable climate over billions of years. From Earth, we always see the same face of the moon because the moon is spinning on its axis at the same speed that it is going around Earth (that is, it is in synchronous rotation with Earth).
https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/profile.cfm?Object=Moon&Display=OverviewLong
Last edited:
man i think either y'all niggas are all somewhere together eating shrooms by the fucking cupful or y'all are just fuckin with everybody
no way y'all are really truly being serious but still know how to operate personal electronic devices
Thats what makes this whole moon shit crazy, it manages,
to spin in such a way that we never ever fuckin ever see the far side,
and they say there is all types of crazy shit poppin off on that far side...
We can down this rabbit hole if you want?
Red pill or Blue ??
to spin in such a way that we never ever fuckin ever see the far side,
and they say there is all types of crazy shit poppin off on that far side...
We can down this rabbit hole if you want?
Red pill or Blue ??
you dont know pluto is considered a dwarf planet now???
what are you having trouble comprehending grasshopper??
Pluto was discovered in 1930 by an astronomer from the United States. An astronomer is a person who studies stars and other objects in space.
Pluto was known as the smallest planet in the solar system and the ninth planet from the sun.
Today, Pluto is called a "dwarf planet." A dwarf planet orbits the sun just like other planets, but it is smaller. A dwarf planet is so small it cannot clear other objects out of its path.
http://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/k-4/stories/what-is-pluto-k4.html
Similar threads
