Do you realy think man landed on the moon in the 60s

blunt, ain't nobody trying to analyze taping technology from yesteryear versus today.

the point is... even if it's for purely historical purposes, HOW THE FUCK DO YOU 'LOSE' 10,000 fucking tapes?

i got microfilm records of when i was born in 1968; so why doesn't nasa, who has technology that NONE of us has ever seen, have those tapes of something that historical/

where are the 9-11 tapes from the fbi that are now 'lost'? what's your excuse for those?

Exactly. These cats are pawns of the government.
 
what conspiracy nucca? the tuskegee EXPERIMENT was a fucking EXPERIMENT ON BLACK PEOPLE and your ignorant ass is worried about the specifics of the experiment.

who gives a fuck it there were no transmissions. i give a fuck about black people being used as guinea pigs.

and if they didn't tell those black men about the 'disease' they were experimenting with, did they stop them from fucking?

now, why don't you show me where your no transmission data originates?

you must be a fucking cracker or something... worried about the semantics of a damn experiment and NOT being concerned about the experiment itself. :smh::smh::smh:

I was worried enough about the Tuskegee Expirement to study it @ Woodruff when I was Morehouse. But that's truly beside the point here. This thread is about Moon landings. YOU brought up Tuskeegee -- and your mention seemed ironic because the FACTS of the Tuskeegee experiment are generally misunderstood, because they have been passed along through a "folk history" more interest in general themes of white-trickery than in specific truths about what happened. This somewhat similar to the moon landing hoax. You've spent more time calling folks sellouts, and government-men than you have actually dealing with the data.

The Tuskeegee Experiment involves one of the worst ethics violations in America's history of medical experimentation, but there ARE NO instances reported or confirmed of black patients having been given syphillis. Rather the physicians in blatant (and unconscionable) disregard for their oaths, ethical obligations, and any general morality, treated the black patients who came to them already suffering from Syphillis, with a placebo -- without the patients knowledge -- so that they could "observe' how syphillis develops in its later fatal stages. As bad as this sounds, the worst of it was that the patients were denied access to treatment by other doctors. The local medical community was aware of the patients; they were "marked" so that no effective treatment received elsewhere would interfere with the progression of the disease.

Thats basic info you'll learn in you barely skim the surface of scholarship on the experiments. But you have to read the shit. Just "hearing about" the Tuskeegee experiments and passing that "the doctors gave them syphillis" bullshit along as knowledge on the subject will leave you in the unenviable (and uninformed) position of the man who has to wonder "where the no transmission data originates." (Plus you'll sound like fool if you ever try to use Tuskeegee in a argument for America's debt to black America and get that very important fact WRONG.)

Still none of this defends the experimenters -- the truth is still heinous, just as the truth of the moon landings doesn't excuse the government for the frauds it actually does perpetrate. But it does give an appropriate example of how general mistrust of a group doesn't STAND IN for Facts to prove a specific case against them.

The US gov does plenty of fucked up shit...none of which is evidence for 6 moon hoaxes. (Which of course is why you Hoaxers have no evidence, and only pose accusations and empty searching questions like "But then why come this" and "How come that...")

Do the fuckin knowledge and get your head out of your ass.
 

The very article you post says that all of the infected were hemophiliacs, and the SUBSTANTIAL MAJORITY were in fucking Europe & Japan!!!! How the fuck are you gonna infect the hood with aids by focusing distribution on Euro-Japanese Hemophiliacs!? Plus the article mentions nothing about a virus that can survive without a host (and if you didn't know, neither HIV nor Hepatitis C can survive outside a host body.) And mentions nothing about the government. Ironically the one thing you mention, Bayer's "unknowing" dispersal of infected blood, is contradicted by the lawsuit which alleges that that Bayer knowingly trafficked the infected blood to save $$$ on screening processes.

WTF man? Did you pull ALL of that out of your ASS? :confused:
 
Exactly. These cats are pawns of the government.

C'mon Dray? You the FIRST cat on BGOL playing devil's advocate over all KINDS of shit. NOBODY GIVES A SHIT ABOUT THE APOLLO MISSIONS. If it was a hoax, it was a waste of cash because NOBODY CARES DOG. This ain't Tuskegee, this ain't 9-11, this ain't GITMO, this ain't the AIDS epidemic, this is a bunch of fuckin' rocks and some dudes bouncing around on camera SIX FUKCING DIFFERENT TIMES and NOBODY cared after the first time. What's the conspiracy in this shit, what did it accomplish? A bunch of NASA dudes got laid off due to budget cuts? A couple of stamps were made, a couple of movies? John Glenn's failed bid to be president? Where is the conspiracy? We won the cold war because the USSR went broke, not other FUCKIN' reason DOG, none. Reagan didn't tear down no damn wall, there was no srategy, the world just turned capitalist and the USSR couldn't compete playing the game the old way. What was the upside to faking the Apollo missions, it's not like they could NOT launch the rocket and it wasn't gonna be watched all the way there and back by the USSR. I don't get this shit at all. Going to the moon is NOT a great accomplishment, all you need is MONEY to do it. The technology and science involved just isn't that deep.
 
I was worried enough about the Tuskegee Expirement to study it @ Woodruff when I was Morehouse. But that's truly beside the point here. This thread is about Moon landings. YOU brought up Tuskeegee -- and your mention seemed ironic because the FACTS of the Tuskeegee experiment are generally misunderstood, because they have been passed along through a "folk history" more interest in general themes of white-trickery than in specific truths about what happened. This somewhat similar to the moon landing hoax. You've spent more time calling folks sellouts, and government-men than you have actually dealing with the data.

The Tuskeegee Experiment involves one of the worst ethics violations in America's history of medical experimentation, but there ARE NO instances reported or confirmed of black patients having been given syphillis. Rather the physicians in blatant (and unconscionable) disregard for their oaths, ethical obligations, and any general morality, treated the black patients who came to them already suffering from Syphillis, with a placebo -- without the patients knowledge -- so that they could "observe' how syphillis develops in its later fatal stages. As bad as this sounds, the worst of it was that the patients were denied access to treatment by other doctors. The local medical community was aware of the patients; they were "marked" so that no effective treatment received elsewhere would interfere with the progression of the disease.

Thats basic info you'll learn in you barely skim the surface of scholarship on the experiments. But you have to read the shit. Just "hearing about" the Tuskeegee experiments and passing that "the doctors gave them syphillis" bullshit along as knowledge on the subject will leave you in the unenviable (and uninformed) position of the man who has to wonder "where the no transmission data originates." (Plus you'll sound like fool if you ever try to use Tuskeegee in a argument for America's debt to black America and get that very important fact WRONG.)

Still none of this defends the experimenters -- the truth is still heinous, just as the truth of the moon landings doesn't excuse the government for the frauds it actually does perpetrate. But it does give an appropriate example of how general mistrust of a group doesn't STAND IN for Facts to prove a specific case against them.

The US gov does plenty of fucked up shit...none of which is evidence for 6 moon hoaxes. (Which of course is why you Hoaxers have no evidence, and only pose accusations and empty searching questions like "But then why come this" and "How come that...")

Do the fuckin knowledge and get your head out of your ass.

man, fuck all that shit you typed.

doctors should NEVER deny patients access to curable diseases. there is NO EXCUSE for that shit.

period.
 
I was worried enough about the Tuskegee Expirement to study it @ Woodruff when I was Morehouse. But that's truly beside the point here. This thread is about Moon landings. YOU brought up Tuskeegee -- and your mention seemed ironic because the FACTS of the Tuskeegee experiment are generally misunderstood, because they have been passed along through a "folk history" more interest in general themes of white-trickery than in specific truths about what happened. This somewhat similar to the moon landing hoax. You've spent more time calling folks sellouts, and government-men than you have actually dealing with the data.

The Tuskeegee Experiment involves one of the worst ethics violations in America's history of medical experimentation, but there ARE NO instances reported or confirmed of black patients having been given syphillis. Rather the physicians in blatant (and unconscionable) disregard for their oaths, ethical obligations, and any general morality, treated the black patients who came to them already suffering from Syphillis, with a placebo -- without the patients knowledge -- so that they could "observe' how syphillis develops in its later fatal stages. As bad as this sounds, the worst of it was that the patients were denied access to treatment by other doctors. The local medical community was aware of the patients; they were "marked" so that no effective treatment received elsewhere would interfere with the progression of the disease.

Thats basic info you'll learn in you barely skim the surface of scholarship on the experiments. But you have to read the shit. Just "hearing about" the Tuskeegee experiments and passing that "the doctors gave them syphillis" bullshit along as knowledge on the subject will leave you in the unenviable (and uninformed) position of the man who has to wonder "where the no transmission data originates." (Plus you'll sound like fool if you ever try to use Tuskeegee in a argument for America's debt to black America and get that very important fact WRONG.)

Still none of this defends the experimenters -- the truth is still heinous, just as the truth of the moon landings doesn't excuse the government for the frauds it actually does perpetrate. But it does give an appropriate example of how general mistrust of a group doesn't STAND IN for Facts to prove a specific case against them.

The US gov does plenty of fucked up shit...none of which is evidence for 6 moon hoaxes. (Which of course is why you Hoaxers have no evidence, and only pose accusations and empty searching questions like "But then why come this" and "How come that...")

Do the fuckin knowledge and get your head out of your ass.

The reality of Tuskegee is FAR more fucked up than the myth. Who cares if they gave them the disease if they would have treated them. That would have been unethical, but at least semi-human. What those doctors did was MURDER, no, not MURDER, TORTURE, plain and simple. Just read up on what syphilis does to a body in later stages and you will see JUST HOW CRUEL that shit really was.
 
man, fuck all that shit you typed.

doctors should NEVER deny patients access to curable diseases. there is NO EXCUSE for that shit.

period.

:lol: :lol: Exactly...now go run tell dat, paying no attention to the facts as laid out...
(Reading what I wrote, instead of "fucking" it, would've taught you among others things that we agree on this point.)
 
Last edited:
man, fuck all that shit you typed.

doctors should NEVER deny patients access to curable diseases. there is NO EXCUSE for that shit.

period.

Agreed dog, that's why it just DOES NOT fit into this conversation. Once again, WHO REALLY GIVES A SHIT if some dudes bounced around and collected worthless rocks? Apollo just wasn't all that. The REAL crime of Apollo (if there was one) is the fact that cats DIED to go on a pointless mission whose ONLY purpose was COLD WAR PROPAGANDA. Scientists pretty much already knew the moon was just a bog worthless rock before they got there. They may have Helium3 on the moon, but that didn't mean SHIT in 1969 to ANYBODY.
 
The reality of Tuskegee is FAR more fucked up than the myth. Who cares if they gave them the disease if they would have treated them. That would have been unethical, but at least semi-human. What those doctors did was MURDER, no, not MURDER, TORTURE, plain and simple. Just read up on what syphilis does to a body in later stages and you will see JUST HOW CRUEL that shit really was.

I know...

Dert Bagg said:
the physicians in blatant (and unconscionable) disregard for their oaths, ethical obligations, and any general morality, treated the black patients who came to them already suffering from Syphillis, with a placebo -- without the patients knowledge -- so that they could "observe' how syphillis develops in its later fatal stages. As bad as this sounds, the worst of it was that the patients were denied access to treatment by other doctors. The local medical community was aware of the patients; they were "marked" so that no effective treatment received elsewhere would interfere with the progression of the disease.
 
im done with this thread. It has degenerated into arguing instead of knowledge. but " HAVE AT YE LADS!"

I'll join the next thread.
 
You say "miss the moon" as if it couldn't happen. You can miss the earth on reentry if your angle of reentry isn't correct. :eek: True, the moon has gravity, but not enough to slow and trap a capsule without some substantial assistance from that capsule.

Distance has nothing to do with heat??? The earth and moon are the same distance from the sun, and the temps here can get in the mid hundreds, only stopped by our atmosphere. No atmosphere on the moon, nothing to stop the heat from rising and rising. Are you telling me that the entire load of computers, cameras, film, etc was made of space age plastic? :lol:Even down to the circuits and soldering? :lol:If you turn off the fan in your computer at room temperature, watch what happens in a few mins, it'll shut off from over heating. :lol:

Have you seen the pics that were taken with the telescope you're mentioning of the lander? If so, post them here so i can learn something new today.

And radiation. Past the radiation belts, i guess none of us can truly answer what it's like out there, because only "a few have been." What i'm trying to say is, we have no choice but to believe what they say about the radiation past those belts.


And it has been said countless times, that a moon based station would be the perfect place to refuel and launch to MARS. :yes: But, why no station :confused::smh::confused:

How could you miss the earth if you're re-entering? The wrong angle might cook you but you wouldn't miss it. And here's a new flash bro, space is colder than a muthafucka, so the earth's atmosphere actually keeps heat IN. The moon is freezing.
Now, try to stay with me here. You can google a satalite picture of your front door in real time. You can do the same for the LEMs they left there.
Jeez, free school, dumb negroes.
 
Actually space (vacuum) is a very poor conductor of heat. I think the estimate is 1 fucking atom per cubic meter. I'm hoping some of you guys learn how heat is conducted on the atomic level.

To the above poster, the LEMs are too fucking small for our telescopes. Powerful telescopes like Hubble are designed to see shit thousands/millions/billions of lightyears away, not in the next room.

I could show you guys a pic of the landing sites, but the shit is so small (a pixel), why bother? You wouldn't believe it anyway. This shit is almost as bad as the creationist's/IDers.
 
Originally Posted by Blunt
Are you realy that stupid? There isn't a telescope powerful enough to capture a photo of that TINY SPECK of a rover.

What an idiot

You're an imbicile. They have microscopes that can track quarks and you're telling me they can't see a hooptie on the moon. I've seen the pictures. I'll try to find them.
 
Look you dumb whatever da fuck you are. There are telescopes
in space powerful enough to read a newspaper from over your
fucking shoulder, yet they can't see something as large as a got
damncar on the moon? Get your moronic ass outta here cousin it.
:smh:

http://calgary.rasc.ca/moonscope.htm

Are there telescopes that can see the Lunar Landers or the Lunar Rovers on the Moon?

Good question.

The Apollo Lunar Mission Astronauts left 6 Lunar Landers on the Moon, and 3 missions left Lunar Rovers parked beside them when they left.


So, what kind of telescope would be needed to observe them, sitting there, after 33+ years?

In order to answer the question, we're going to use some math using trigonometry and one of the many formulas that determine how well a telescope performs.

First, some information about the Apollo equipment:

Item Dimensions
Lunar Lander an octagonal prism 4.2 meters across
Lunar Rover length=3.1 meters (width=1.8 meters)

Next, some basic information about the Moon and the Earth:

Item Dimensions Dimensions
Moon Diameter 3,475 km Radius 1,737.5 km
Earth Diameter 12,756 km Radius 6,378 km
Moon's closest approach in 2006 (Feb 27) centre-to-centre = 356,884 km surface-to-surface = 348,768.5 km
Moon's furthest separation in 2006 (Sep 22) centre-to-centre = 406,500 km surface-to-surface = 398,384.5 km

From the two tables above we can calculate that the Lunar Lander body is 4.2 metres / 3,475 kilometres = 0.000 001 209 times the width of the Moon (or about 1 millionth its size) and the Lunar Rover is even smaller, about 0.000 000 892 times the width of the Moon (or less than 1 millionth its size).

So, if you were looking through a telescope at the Moon and it filled the eyepiece view, we would be looking for something 1/1,000,000 th that width.

Put another way, we would need 827,381 Lunar Landers parked side-by-side to equal the width of the Moon.



Telescope Resolution:

When trying to see things that are very small, or small things that are very close together, all telescopes are affected by something called the Smallest Resolvable Angle (known as the Dawes limit). You can read more about "Dawes Limit" and the related "Rayleigh Criterion" here.



**Note: Atmospheric limitation on the Smallest Resolvable Angle = 0.5 arc seconds, which means that without special, adaptive optics systems, the average Earth-based telescope can only resolve things down to 0.5".

From the above table, even ignoring the limitation imposed by Earth's atmosphere we can see that we would need an optical telescope with an objective mirror about 100 meters (about 328 feet) in diameter to just about be able to see the landers and the rovers.

Since the largest Optical telescope in the world is only 10 meters in diameter, it would probably be just as expensive to build the required telescope as it would cost to go there and take a picture with a normal camera.


How About Hubble?

But what about the Hubble Space Telescope? It's in orbit around the Earth and is not subjected to the same atmospheric problems as ground-based telescopes. Can Hubble see them?

Unfortunately, no. Hubble's primary mirror is only 2.4 meters in diameter which means its smallest resolvable angle is 0.00001833 degrees or 0.06600 arc seconds - about 30 to 40 times less than what is needed. Even the new Faint Object Camera with superb resolution of about 0.0072 arc-seconds can't see them either. (If we could put the Hubble Space Telescope a lot closer to the Moon we might be able to see them, but we can't do that.)


OK - what would it take to see them?

If we could put different sized telescopes in orbit around the Moon we could accomplish this.

The resolution of a space-based (diffraction-limited) telescope is given by the formula:

resolution (in radian measure) = 1.4 L/D
resolution (in arc seconds) = 1.4 L/D * 180 / π * 3600

Where:

* L = the wavelength of the light being observed (550 x 10-9 m for visible light)
* D = the diameter of the objective mirror (in metres)

We would need a resolution that could see the landers clearly, that's about 0.42 metres (1/10th of the lander size) to make sure we were seeing the lander and not just a big rock.

Using 0.42 metres for "W" and calculating the distance from the Moon for various telescope sizes we get:
D (mm) 100 200 400 800 1600 2400
D (metres) 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.6 2.4
D (inches) 3.94 7.87 15.75 31.50 62.99 94.49
D (feet) 0.33 0.66 1.31 2.62 5.25 7.87
Maximum
Lunar
Orbit
Distance 54.5 km 109 km 218 km 436 km 873 km 1309 km
In other words, Hubble would have to be in orbit around the Moon at an altitude of about 1300 km, instead of in orbit around the Earth at about 569 km.

But how can this be? Hubble takes fantastically detailed pictures of galaxies thousands of light-years away. Why can't it resolve things on the Moon which is right next door?

Answer: Hubble was designed to take pictures of things that are very far away, but which are also very, very big!



Hubble has taken Moon shots and they are very clear, but it just does not have the angular resolution we need.
 
sapo_S24.gif
 
Originally Posted by Blunt
Are you realy that stupid? There isn't a telescope powerful enough to capture a photo of that TINY SPECK of a rover.

What an idiot

You're an imbicile. They have microscopes that can track quarks and you're telling me they can't see a hooptie on the moon. I've seen the pictures. I'll try to find them.

Not a visible light one. The wavelength of visible light is 1 micron. Far too big for a quark, electron, nucleus, electron cloud, or most complex molecules. The smallest thing that you are going to see with a microscope in the visible light wavelength is probably a strand of DNA.

The only microscope(s) that are going to "track" atoms, electrons and subatomic particles are ones that "see" at gamma wavelengths. When it comes to the EM spectrum, humans are virtually blind.

KM, those pictures above are from the probe orbiting the moon. On further inspection, that last pic looks like it was taken in infrared.
 
Last edited:
You're an imbicile. They have microscopes that can track quarks and you're telling me they can't see a hooptie on the moon. I've seen the pictures. I'll try to find them.

Not with any detail, fool. Which is what these disbelievers want. They're still just grainy SPECKS and BLOBS. As the experts themselves have described when answering that common question.
 
North Dakota doesn't exist. Its one of the 22 so-called states that the Illuminati "added" to the total after the Revolutionary War as propaganda to make white Americans believe that Manifest Destiny was a success. And the sheeple believed it. If you can manage to get beyond the razor wire fences that the government claims "demarcate the boundaries of various National Parks" you would find a Native American society rivaling Atlantis. They produce all the technology that US citizens give white science credit for. We have been to the Moon, but haven't been back since the 70's because the Native Americans refuse to cooperate with NASA. They've been trying to reverse engineer the shuttle technology but can't get it right...hence the Challenger and Columbia disasters....folks need to read up and stop listenin to the government line.

:confused:
 
Well if you go to palomar on one of the days they are loking at the moon, you can see the module, through the telescope. In fact if you have a powerful enough telescope and th actual coordinates, plus be in the right lace on earth at the right time depending on the lunar cycle, you can se it yourself...... Technologically speaking, it wasnt hard to go to the moon in the 60's, it was just foolishly expensive. the niggas at nasa ARE GOOD AT TRIGONOMETRY, which with enought rocket fuel, will get you to the moon. Plain and simple. I went to space camp and flight command, got pretty close to the older saturn v rockets, saw the vab, flew one of the space shutle simulators (I could perform re-entry and land a space shuttle if I HAD to), i didnt really get the vibe from all the crap i saw that they even NEEDED to fake it. these nigas at nasa have so much shit, and they are such nerds, there is no way they didnt go. thats like telling star trek nerds heres an unlimited budget to throw a sweet convention. You think they are going to hire look-alikes? no fool, they spared no expense. NONE. Come on yall,the moon is only 244,000 miles away. in a vaccum so youve got as close to perptual motion as you can get. hmm lets se the space shuttle on high orbit (120)miles, is describing a circle lemme do some trig some 25,000 miles and change around in 42 minutes. So the space shuttle is traveling approx 29,000 miles an hour. so that would mean that they could be at the moon simply by breaking orbit in 10 hours....now has anyone SEEEN the saturn V roket? trust me that shit is gonna get you the moon i promise you. Wil E. coyote wouldnt ride that shit. yall trippin.....:lol:

LMAO, did this ninja say he could land the shuttle?:lol::lol::lol:
 
First off, those temperatures you rattled off are EASILY manageable in a space suit and vehicle (it's not like they drove a Dodge to the moon and wore courderoys), so that's a non-issue you proved yourself. That's also why we only hit certain spots on the moon at certain times. We never hit the darkside where it was coldest and everything was reflective to diffuse the affects of RADIANT heat, which leads to my second point and the reason why I know you stopped taking science courses in the 9th grade.

Know why the lunar lander looked like it was made of tin foil? Know why the space suits were all white and foil looking as well? Because, LIKE YOU SAID, a black car sitting in the sun absorbs radiant heat, but guess what a white or chrome car would do? REFLECT RADIANT HEAT. Without an atmosphere to CAPTURE RADIANT HEAT the reflected heat just bounces right back out into space in the form of reflected radiation (visible light is a form of radiation, BTW). Space suits are designed to capture certain wavelengths and reflect others and they have built-in climate control so no matter what the situation is outside, the wearer of the suit is comfortable.

If you are a scientist working for NASA, seems like you would assume that the various climates in space may vary somewhat from what is in Florida at the time and plan accordingly.

So basically, if your metal hammer is not BLACK or dark, it won't heat up as quickly. Add to that the fact that you are in SPACE and would hopefully (if you aren't a fuckin' idiot) be wearing gloves, you should be OK on the moon. And what country do you live in where they haven't invented the oven mitt yet? You act like a couple of hundred degrees is the surface of the Sun. 230 degrees is used to WARM meat, not even cook it and it will boil water, not melt steel. I figure if Wal-Mart can protect my hand from a 400 degree pot, NASA can come up with a glove that can handle 230 degrees (damn dog).

I mean, if I operate under your logic, I'd see your point, but nobody drove a black Cadillac to the moon and worked in a t-shirt, so it kinda falls by the wayside.

c/s. Not only that but yesterday I was in the sauna at the gym. Looked up at the thermostat, it was 190 degrees. Thats 190 butt assed naked wit a towel on. And this simple simon ass ninja think 240 is gonna bake an astronaut. LOL
 
Actually, I do know regarding temps on the moon that it can vary between 200+ degrees F to -200 depending if you are in direct sunlight or shade. And it is possible to skip off the Earth's Atmosphere or miss it all together if coming in with the wrong trajectory.

corridor.jpg
 
HHMMMMM I say No fuckn way they did. If we did it in the 60s why we never been back. Oh i know the moon men said come back again we might split ya wig, and that was the end of that. I have new information that was told to me as i typed this. My girl said thats where all her ass came from, so yup they went.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top