I had an interesting "chat" about themoon landing.

Open discussion about any topic, as long as you abide by the rules of course!
Don Carlos
Posts: 17513
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am

I had an interesting "chat" about themoon landing.

Post by Don Carlos »

...with my step dad today.
We browsed the internet for pics and fact and figures and things
like that and we found some really interesting stuff. We concluded
that the moon has been landed on, but what they found there was
so shocking that they did make the tapes that were released to
world in a film set. There are too many things for this not to be
true. Find pic of the landing sites and look at the "mountains" in
the back ground....on both landing sites they look the same. No,
they are the same. Same hight, same width apart same everything.

This has got to be more than a slight conincidence...especially
when you look at the radio transmitions that were "caught" by
people back down on earth.

Anyone have any ideas about this? :icon30:
Freakaloin
Posts: 10620
Joined: Tue May 07, 2002 7:00 am

Post by Freakaloin »

yeah its obvious men have never been up there...
a defining attribute of a government is that it has a monopoly on the legitimate exercise of violence...
bitWISE
Posts: 10704
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 1999 8:00 am

Post by bitWISE »

My thoughts are that I don't really give a fuck whether or not the moon landing was staged.

However, to contradict your conclusion I have one good point. For a while now, people have been able to buy telescopes powerful enough to see the moon's surface. If there was anything shocking someone would have seen it...
^misantropia^
Posts: 4022
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 6:24 pm

Post by ^misantropia^ »

You weren't watching this documentary, were you?
Wizard .3
Posts: 529
Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2000 8:00 am

Post by Wizard .3 »

bitWISE wrote:My thoughts are that I don't really give a fuck whether or not the moon landing was staged.

However, to contradict your conclusion I have one good point. For a while now, people have been able to buy telescopes powerful enough to see the moon's surface. If there was anything shocking someone would have seen it...
Ya, I believe you can actally see the landing spots with a powerful enough telescope too. Probably be able to see all the equipment and moon lander...
Nightshade
Posts: 17020
Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2000 8:00 am

Post by Nightshade »

bitWISE wrote:My thoughts are that I don't really give a fuck whether or not the moon landing was staged.

However, to contradict your conclusion I have one good point. For a while now, people have been able to buy telescopes powerful enough to see the moon's surface. If there was anything shocking someone would have seen it...
This is incorrect. A telescope with enough resolution to see the things that the astronauts left would require a 115m diameter primary mirror.
Shmee
Posts: 501
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 11:50 pm

Re: I had an interesting "chat" about themoon land

Post by Shmee »

Don Carlos wrote:...with my step dad today.
We browsed the internet for pics and fact and figures and things
like that and we found some really interesting stuff. We concluded
that the moon has been landed on, but what they found there was
so shocking that they did make the tapes that were released to
world in a film set. There are too many things for this not to be
true. Find pic of the landing sites and look at the "mountains" in
the back ground....on both landing sites they look the same. No,
they are the same. Same hight, same width apart same everything.

This has got to be more than a slight conincidence...especially
when you look at the radio transmitions that were "caught" by
people back down on earth.

Anyone have any ideas about this? :icon30:
Go to sleep Geoff :D
[color=red]You're Pretty When I'm Drunk[/color]
Shmee
Posts: 501
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 11:50 pm

Post by Shmee »

Nightshade wrote:
bitWISE wrote:My thoughts are that I don't really give a fuck whether or not the moon landing was staged.

However, to contradict your conclusion I have one good point. For a while now, people have been able to buy telescopes powerful enough to see the moon's surface. If there was anything shocking someone would have seen it...
This is incorrect. A telescope with enough resolution to see the things that the astronauts left would require a 115m diameter primary mirror.
LET'S GET TO WORK!
[color=red]You're Pretty When I'm Drunk[/color]
+JuggerNaut+
Posts: 22175
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2001 7:00 am

Post by +JuggerNaut+ »

bitWISE wrote:My thoughts are that I don't really give a fuck whether or not the moon landing was staged.

However, to contradict your conclusion I have one good point. For a while now, people have been able to buy telescopes powerful enough to see the moon's surface. If there was anything shocking someone would have seen it...
:dork:
Bdw3
Posts: 3348
Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2000 8:00 am

Post by Bdw3 »

1998 Battlezone. :icon14:
FlamingTP
Posts: 2713
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2005 11:29 pm

Post by FlamingTP »

Nightshade wrote:
bitWISE wrote:My thoughts are that I don't really give a fuck whether or not the moon landing was staged.

However, to contradict your conclusion I have one good point. For a while now, people have been able to buy telescopes powerful enough to see the moon's surface. If there was anything shocking someone would have seen it...
This is incorrect. A telescope with enough resolution to see the things that the astronauts left would require a 115m diameter primary mirror.
Just use hubble fss, there is nothing to block its view like the Earth's atmosphere.
User avatar
Scourge
Posts: 15559
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2002 8:00 am

Post by Scourge »

FlamingTP wrote:
Nightshade wrote:
bitWISE wrote:My thoughts are that I don't really give a fuck whether or not the moon landing was staged.

However, to contradict your conclusion I have one good point. For a while now, people have been able to buy telescopes powerful enough to see the moon's surface. If there was anything shocking someone would have seen it...
This is incorrect. A telescope with enough resolution to see the things that the astronauts left would require a 115m diameter primary mirror.
Just use hubble fss, there is nothing to block its view like the Earth's atmosphere.
Ok, let me get them on the line.
Canidae
Posts: 2351
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 5:29 am

Post by Canidae »

He's talking about angular resolution not about anything in the way.
[img]http://www.subliminaldissonance.com/popehat.jpg[/img] [img]http://www.subliminaldissonance.com/images/smilies/nothing.jpg[/img]
+JuggerNaut+
Posts: 22175
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2001 7:00 am

Post by +JuggerNaut+ »

FlamingTP wrote:
Nightshade wrote:
bitWISE wrote:My thoughts are that I don't really give a fuck whether or not the moon landing was staged.

However, to contradict your conclusion I have one good point. For a while now, people have been able to buy telescopes powerful enough to see the moon's surface. If there was anything shocking someone would have seen it...
This is incorrect. A telescope with enough resolution to see the things that the astronauts left would require a 115m diameter primary mirror.
Just use hubble fss, there is nothing to block its view like the Earth's atmosphere.
yeah, for sake's sake, call NASA!
User avatar
Scourge
Posts: 15559
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2002 8:00 am

Post by Scourge »

:icon19:
Freakaloin
Posts: 10620
Joined: Tue May 07, 2002 7:00 am

Post by Freakaloin »

Nightshade wrote:
bitWISE wrote:My thoughts are that I don't really give a fuck whether or not the moon landing was staged.

However, to contradict your conclusion I have one good point. For a while now, people have been able to buy telescopes powerful enough to see the moon's surface. If there was anything shocking someone would have seen it...
This is incorrect. A telescope with enough resolution to see the things that the astronauts left would require a 115m diameter primary mirror.

uhm..i heard VLT was gonna try to spot the landings a few years ago...but then never heard anything after that...guess they couldn't find it...and thats the best telescope on the planet i think...

i don't know how u fucks think ppl went to the moon...the ships they used to get there weren't made of lead...the radiation would have killed them in the van allen belt or whatever the fuck that thing is called...
Bdw3
Posts: 3348
Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2000 8:00 am

Post by Bdw3 »

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/05 ... snoop.html
the SMART-1 orbiter circling the Moon has already covered the Apollo 11, 16, 17 landing sites, as well as spots where the former Soviet Union’s Luna 16 and Luna 20 automated vehicles plopped down.
Hubble did photograph the Moon, in 1999.

"Anything left on the Moon cannot be resolved in any Hubble image," According to the Space Telescope Science Institute, which operates Hubble for NASA. "It would just appear as a dot."
Freakaloin
Posts: 10620
Joined: Tue May 07, 2002 7:00 am

Post by Freakaloin »

lets see the pics...when the aliens show up, they will cover that up as well...
Bdw3
Posts: 3348
Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2000 8:00 am

Post by Bdw3 »

Freakaloin wrote:lets see the pics...when the aliens show up, they will cover that up as well...
As yet unreleased...


But it's an ESA probe sooo...
Freakaloin
Posts: 10620
Joined: Tue May 07, 2002 7:00 am

Post by Freakaloin »

i don't want to see a shiny dot either...i wanna see panels and shit or its fake...
a defining attribute of a government is that it has a monopoly on the legitimate exercise of violence...
Freakaloin
Posts: 10620
Joined: Tue May 07, 2002 7:00 am

Post by Freakaloin »

ur a moron nightshade...

"Anything left on the Moon cannot be resolved in any Hubble image," According to the Space Telescope Science Institute, which operates Hubble for NASA. "It would just appear as a dot."


Nightshade wrote:
bitWISE wrote:My thoughts are that I don't really give a fuck whether or not the moon landing was staged.

However, to contradict your conclusion I have one good point. For a while now, people have been able to buy telescopes powerful enough to see the moon's surface. If there was anything shocking someone would have seen it...
This is incorrect. A telescope with enough resolution to see the things that the astronauts left would require a 115m diameter primary mirror.
Bdw3
Posts: 3348
Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2000 8:00 am

Post by Bdw3 »

Hubble does not have a 115m mirrior... :icon27:

Hubble has a 94.5-inch mirror.... That 2.4m
+JuggerNaut+
Posts: 22175
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2001 7:00 am

Post by +JuggerNaut+ »

Bdw3 wrote:198x Battlezone. :icon14:
Image
Bdw3
Posts: 3348
Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2000 8:00 am

Post by Bdw3 »

indeed!


But I was refering to the story of the 1998 game. :) :icon14:
+JuggerNaut+
Posts: 22175
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2001 7:00 am

Post by +JuggerNaut+ »

i know, but you made me reminisce.
Post Reply