Quake3World

...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:

yeah its obvious men have never been up there...

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...

You weren't watching this documentary, were you?

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...

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.

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

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!

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...

1998 Battlezone. :icon14:

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.

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.

He's talking about angular resolution not about anything in the way.

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!

:icon19:

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...

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."

lets see the pics...when the aliens show up, they will cover that up as well...

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...

i don't want to see a shiny dot either...i wanna see panels and shit or its fake...

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.

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

Hubble has a 94.5-inch mirror.... That 2.4m

Bdw3 wrote:198x Battlezone. :icon14:

indeed!


But I was refering to the story of the 1998 game. :icon14:

i know, but you made me reminisce.