So the moon landing was faked!

I know everyone sick of the posts, sorry but had to point it out.

orderoftheflame said:
The bloke that made Apollo zero is trying to get half a billion raised so he can buy a trip and prove it was faked, no ammount of other evidence is sufficient for him. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

If you had the read the faq, he does state that he would accept viewing the landing zones through a land base telescope as proof and asks if anyone is willing to fund a trip to one of the land base telescopes.

You should watch his more recent videos on his youtube channel analysing some of the video footage, it is hilarious that nasa tried to pass some of the video footage off as real. :D
 
Q: Could you see the artefacts (if they were there) with a telescope?
A: Although propagandists say that you can’t, Jarrah disagrees and can prove it. There is a simple formula that scientists use to determine the angular size of an object in space.
(d ÷ D) x 206,265 = ?
Where d is the diameter of the object, D is the distance of the object and ? is the resolution in arc-seconds.

We know the lunar module is 4metres across and the moon is 380,000km away – or 380,000,000metres. So we plug those digits into the formula and get,
(4 ÷ 380,000,000) x 203,265 = 0.002arc-seconds.
So from this calculation, we know that we need a telescope with an angular resolution of 0.002arc-seconds.

According to an ESO Press Release, scientists working at The Very Large Telescope (VLT) array in Chile “were able to see details on the scale of one milli-arcsecond, corresponding to being able to distinguish, from the Earth, the headlights of a car on the Moon”. 1 milli-arcsecond is 0.001arc-seconds. This means the Very Large Telescope is perfect to resolve man made equipment left behind on the lunar surface. Indeed, in a 2002 Daily Telegraph article, Dr. Richard West stated that he would use the VLT to try and resolve the Apollo artefacts, but so far no luck.


Q: What will it take to convince Jarrah that the moon landings were real?
A: As stated above, the VLT has the perfect resolving capabilities to see the artefacts that NASA claims is on the surface. He will accept a view through a ground-based optical telescope as proof [Fig-48].

Additionally, Jarrah has started up a fundraise to see if any propagandist is willing to make good on the claim that he would not believe Apollo was real if he was flown to the moon and shown the relics [Fig-49]. The private company Space Adventures is offering tourists a circumlunar flight aboard the Soyuz for $150 million per seat. Jarrah aims to raise $300 million to pay for himself and an accompanying believer or propagandist to take such a trip and find out first hand whether or not the radiation is survivable.

An equally fair question to ask would be: What would it take to convince the pro-Apollo side that the landings were fake? As far as Jarrah can tell, the opposing side has not put forth any criteria that they would accept as proof on this point. This is neither fair nor scientific. In fact, a poll on the Bad Astronomy forum (a pro-Apollo site) revealed that no amount of evidence would sway the majority of its members to doubt the Apollo missions!

 
More BS you have fallen for its 0.001 to 0.65 depending on what instrument you are using and this what you are planning to capture.

So no, point remains, no land based telescope can resolve it, you really should stop falling for easily dis provable Bs.

At near uv wave length it can only resolve down to 0.07 which is roughly 130m, so yeah can really use that to look at the apollo landings.

Not even Hubble can resolve down to the size needed. Hubble would resolve down the entire lunar module to 1 pixel.

http://www.eso.org/public/news/eso0222/
Thirty-three years after the first manned landing on the Moon, the ESO Very Large Telescope (VLT) has obtained what may be the sharpest image of the lunar surface ever recorded from the ground . It was made with the NAOS-CONICA (NACO) adaptive optics camera mounted on the ESO VLT 8.2-m YEPUN telescope at the Paranal Observatory

The nominal image sharpness is 0.07 arcsec, or about 130 metres on the lunar surface (in the N-S direction). Elevation differences of a few tens of metres only are therefore visible by the shadows they cast. The VLT image represents what an astronaut (with normal eye acuity of 1 arcmin) would see from 400 km above the surface.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I know I'm gonna get flamed for this, but I'm really enjoying this thread. Now I don't need to be convinced it all happened, but some of the arguments and information being posted is really top notch and I've been made aware of some aspects that I had not even considered in the past. Likewise some of the books that have mentioned are now on my "to buy" list.

What makes it so compelling for me is the little human things that have been reported over the years. Astronauts seeing "sparklies" that turned out to be high energy particles crossing their eyes. Those sort of things are all but impossible to fake because unless you actually went you wouldn't be aware of them at all.
 
groen said:
I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot, I am an idiot

0exv1dc.gif
Click to expand...

Fixed
 
Last edited:
548px-Surveyor_3-Apollo_12.jpg


This must surely be the proof to end all proof that we went to moon. In November 1969, Apollo 12 touched down within a couple of hundred meters of e Surveyor 3 probe that landed there two years previously.

As part of the Apollo 12 mission, the two astronauts detached many parts of the Surveyor probe, including the camera, and brought them back to earth. These parts have been examined and are the genuine bits from the Surveyor probe (the correct serial numbers, evidence of micrometeorite impacts, solar wind particles etc). The camera can now be viewed in a museum in the USA. Photos exist of the Surveyor probe both before and after the detachment of these parts.

The is LITERALLY NO WAY that Pete Conrad and his crew could have splashed down with those parts in their command module unless they physically went to the moon to get them.

(Awaits barrage of disbeliever posts with some impossibly implausible, convoluted, pie in the sky methods of retrieving said artefacts, with blatant ignorance of basic facts and the point of view that as it's only their opinion, they're entitled to ignore as little or as much scientific fact as they like...)
 
timbob said:
548px-Surveyor_3-Apollo_12.jpg


This must surely be the proof to end all proof that we went to moon. In November 1969, Apollo 12 touched down within a couple of hundred meters of e Surveyor 3 probe that landed there two years previously.

As part of the Apollo 12 mission, the two astronauts detached many parts of the Surveyor probe, including the camera, and brought them back to earth. These parts have been examined and are the genuine bits from the Surveyor probe (the correct serial numbers, evidence of micrometeorite impacts, solar wind particles etc). The camera can now be viewed in a museum in the USA. Photos exist of the Surveyor probe both before and after the detachment of these parts.

The is LITERALLY NO WAY that Pete Conrad and his crew could have splashed down with those parts in their command module unless they physically went to the moon to get them.

(Awaits barrage of disbeliever posts with some impossibly implausible, convoluted, pie in the sky methods of retrieving said artefacts, with blatant ignorance of basic facts and the point of view that as it's only their opinion, they're entitled to ignore as little or as much scientific fact as they like...)
Click to expand...

Yeah groen will just say the probe didn't go to the moon either and they popped the camera in the microwave for 3 minutes to give it a radiated effect or something stupid like that.
 
timbob said:
(Awaits barrage of disbeliever posts with some impossibly implausible, convoluted, pie in the sky methods of retrieving said artefacts, with blatant ignorance of basic facts and the point of view that as it's only their opinion, they're entitled to ignore as little or as much scientific fact as they like...)
Click to expand...

I will answer for groen because I think I know his reasoning:

The Surveyor Probe never landed on the Moon and the tests were done by liars from NASA or their mates.

Next ...........
 
greyfox591 said:
Because finding evidence on the Internet that isn't fake is like finding a million pounds on the floor.
I was watching some videos and reading some articles about planet nibiru supposed to be colliding with earth in 2012 all the evidence supported this but it didn't actually happen
Click to expand...

I think you're somewhat overstating the difficulty involved. The internet is a wealth of information, you're right to be initially sceptical and consider the source carefully but by giving it a reasonable evaluation you should be able to narrow the field considerably regarding what you need to investigate further.

groen said:
An equally fair question to ask would be: What would it take to convince the pro-Apollo side that the landings were fake? As far as Jarrah can tell, the opposing side has not put forth any criteria that they would accept as proof on this point. This is neither fair nor scientific. In fact, a poll on the Bad Astronomy forum (a pro-Apollo site) revealed that no amount of evidence would sway the majority of its members to doubt the Apollo missions!
Click to expand...

Not really the same, it's effectively asking to prove a negative in the face of significant evidence for the positive. You could potentially make up criteria that were equally as unrealistic as Jarrah's demands e.g. interviews with all surviving members of the Apollo crews admitting that it was a hoax, signed confessions from all the ground and film crews, footage showing that the astronauts never left the Earth and for the factories that produced all the fake Moon rocks etc to produce replicas on demand with the same chemical properties. But that's basically a nonsense since it's not going to happen - it's as pointless a demand as that of Jarrah by either stating he (+passenger) needs to go to the site for $300m or by developing a telescope that doesn't exist to show him...
 
Groen. Why don't you put the obvious effort you've put in to discrediting NASA's view to those you currently uphold and come back and share your findings. In wanting to discredit and disbelieve the facts as the VAST majority see them, you simply become an even bigger sheep for those you seek to uphold, like so many fantasists and conspiracy theorists. So focused on not believing you lose any form of objectiveness whilst often criticising those who don't agree of doing the same. You're the bloke in a room of 500 people agreeing with the 1 who says the orange is blue not the 499 people who think it's orange, usually with an argument of how do you know what orange is.

Also there comes a time when simply not believing anything is madness and always taking the opposing view to be 'open minded' is in fact a bit silly.
 
Last edited:
groen said:
An equally fair question to ask would be: What would it take to convince the pro-Apollo side that the landings were fake?
Click to expand...

Well it would take NASA themselves to come clean and show the film studio they used and what advanced techniques they had at the time. I would want to see the ventriloquist communication technology they used to make it look like the astronauts were talking from space and which fooled 1000s upon 1000s of Ham Radio enthusiasts who turned there aerials to point at the trick. I would want to know how much they paid the Russian Government to keep quiet about it. Those three would do it for me.
 
groen said:
[..]
An equally fair question to ask would be: What would it take to convince the pro-Apollo side that the landings were fake? [..]
Click to expand...

Evidence.

To consider it possible that the landings were fake, I would need to see some evidence that it was possible to fake them. Currently, I have compelling evidence that it was flat out impossible to fake them and compelling evidence that they were real.

To consider it probable that the landings were fake, I would need to see that the evidence that they were faked was stronger than the evidence that they were real. Currently, there's compelling evidence that the landings were real and no evidence that they were faked (which the evidence indicates was impossible - not just improbable but impossible).

To consider it proven that the landings were fake, I would need to see compelling evidence that they were. Which is exactly the opposite of what is true.

Given the available evidence, I put the idea of the moon landings being fake on a par with the idea of the moon being fake. That's what the evidence indicates and I'm not going to adopt a faith-based position of accepting what I'm told without questioning as long as I'm told it by someone who I consider to be in a position of authority, as conspiracy believers do.
 
orderoftheflame said:
There's more than enough evidence to prove that they were real. Hense there's not much that could possibly dissuade me.
Click to expand...

Angilion said:
Evidence.
Click to expand...

Here's a thought -
If Obama announced on the TV that the moon landings were fake would you think there was some conspiracy going on to say they were fake because of all the evidence we have believed over the decades?
 
Man went to the moon.

End of discussion. If Groen wants to go through his life being ignorant then let him, I'm sure he thinks it makes him look and edgy to his conspiracy theory mates and that's all that matters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom