Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Moon landing anniversary

Jump to new
spooly74 said:
Oops, this is not correct.
Hubble has taken plenty of images of the moon, but it must not be in direct sunlight. Earthshine only.
Anyhooo, seeing as this is not what it was built for, it's a waste of resources.

Introducing LRO & LCROSS.


Looks like you won't have long to wait for your proof, Nulla. It launched last month.


http://www.planetary.org/blog/article/00001947/
Click to expand...


live video feed would be more convincing for the sceptics. not something computer enhanced by the spin doctors. Try to be objective Nakedshorts, it's nothing personal.
 
Woderful picture there happytown. I agree, would be something to be there looking back like that.

For anyone interested attending the Apollo-11 40th Anniversary celebration and Reunion (19th - 22nd July 2009) in Canberra Australia

here's a link and a list of the agenda.
http://jsaxon.org/space/hsk/Reunions/40th2009/
 
nulla nulla said:
live video feed would be more convincing for the sceptics.
Click to expand...
Here is one of the first images from the LRO mission. Resolution is 3 meters. :xyxthumbs

365431main_nacl000000fd_top_detail.jpg


http://cumbriansky.wordpress.com/2009/07/05/lro-and-the-apollo-hoax-believers/

But I’ve always though that’s the one fundamental flaw in their argument. If NASA faked it, they didn’t just fake “it”, thay had to fake it SIX TIMES! There were six succesful Moon landings, so that means they had to fake six landings, six sets of EVAs, six of everything.

Think about that.
Click to expand...
 

Attachments

  • 365431main_nacl000000fd_top_detail.jpg
    365431main_nacl000000fd_top_detail.jpg
    625.9 KB · Views: 10
nulla nulla said:
live video feed would be more convincing for the sceptics. not something computer enhanced by the spin doctors. Try to be objective Nakedshorts, it's nothing personal.
Click to expand...

The moon landing was a live video feed... 450million people watched it happen.

How is a live video feed today, with all the technology we have that makes faking something like that a hell of a lot easier, going to make you believe otherwise?
 
Naked shorts
The moon landing was a live video feed... 450million people watched it happen.
Click to expand...
..from a projected image on a screen which news crews had to film of the first landing - hence the terrible image.

People will defend the alleged landings because they are not ready to accept the alternative as reality. I have no answers, but believing the official story is rather hard to swallow. It is much akin to believing in Santa Claus when a kid. (Yes, he really does fit down the chimney! (Let's ignore the fact he has a gut and probably can't fit down it)
 
It's Snake Pliskin said:
..from a projected image on a screen which news crews had to film of the first landing - hence the terrible image.
Click to expand...
He said a live feed would do it for him, he didn't mention anything about the quality.

It's Snake Pliskin said:
I have no answers, but believing the official story is rather hard to swallow.
Click to expand...
Does you life really suck that much that the only way to get excitement is to believe in conspiracy theories?

If you had done any serious proactive investigation into the allegations, you will find they are not true.
 
Naked shorts said:
Does you life really suck that much that the only way to get excitement is to believe in conspiracy theories?

If you had done any serious proactive investigation into the allegations, you will find they are not true.
Click to expand...
Let's not get emotional about it. I won't villify you for your views and I am happy to accept that you believe the official story. Conspiracy theories are theories before the incident. Conspiracies are after the incident - the transition from theory to conspiracy is marked by the event in question.

Your second line presumes that I have not looked into the issue - serious proactive investigation as you like to put it. Speculation on what you do is not important. Let's stick to the accomplishment that a shrinking majority choose to believe.

For some light reading and source of the quote below:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-st...n-landing-the-doubts-persist-115875-21123653/
He's not alone in his doubts.

Brian OLeary says: "I can't be sure 100 per cent that man actually walked on the Moon."

Considering Brian was an astronaut in the 1960s, and an adviser during the Apollo programme, that's a bombshell.
Click to expand...
 
It's Snake Pliskin said:
Conspiracy theories are theories before the incident. Conspiracies are after the incident - the transition from theory to conspiracy is marked by the event in question.
Click to expand...
How embarrassing :rolleyes:

"Conspiracy theories" are speculation that two or more people agreed to commit an unlawful act.
"Conspiracy" is where two or more people actually agreed to commit an unlawful act.


It's Snake Pliskin said:
Your second line presumes that I have not looked into the issue - serious proactive investigation as you like to put it. Speculation on what you do is not important. Let's stick to the accomplishment that a shrinking majority choose to believe.

For some light reading and source of the quote below:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-st...n-landing-the-doubts-persist-115875-21123653/
Click to expand...

That quote doesn't mean anything, I cant be 100% sure I'm on ASF right now because all this could be a dream. I cant be 100% sure your on ASF because I didn't see you on it or you could just be a figment of my imagination, like an insane person talking to someone that isn't there.

Watch from 2:25, in HD
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLeCWdpa-mI&

Please explain to me how the dust behind the buggy gets so high, so close behind the buggy? If it was "supposedly" filmed on Earth, where there is gravity and air, this would not be possible.
 
Are the conspiracy theories (don't care for definition), that man has never walked on the moon, or only that the first landing was not real?
 
MRC & Co said:
Oh ok.

I have no expertise in this area, but I have personally met a man who is supposed to have walked on the moon and had a chat with him, I believe him.
Click to expand...
Wow MRC! There's only been a dozen men who achieved that. When? where? what did he have to say? cool.
 
Could somebody please do the numbers on:

  1. the number of people which would need to be involved in faking one and/or all of the moon landings;
  2. the cost involved, inclusive of the launches of the six missions which never happened, in order to fake these missions; and
  3. the probability that everyone of those involved in these fake missions have been able to keep quiet for 40 years about the exercise being a fake.

And also answer the simple question Why?
 
Judd said:
And also answer the simple question Why?
Click to expand...

The why part would be to beat the USSR to be the first nation to land a man on the moon.

JFK set the challenge to do this by the end of 1969.

So a plausible reason to fake it could be simply this, particularly if NASA found out the task would be impossible.

To win the Cold War - purely political reasons. Same as that movie - Capricorn One.

P.S. I'm not saying it didn't happen.
 
spooly74 said:
Wow MRC! There's only been a dozen men who achieved that. When? where? what did he have to say? cool.
Click to expand...

It was in Canberra (my home town) a few years back now at an event. On that note, thx for the link and info kam.

He basically had to say, that after walking on the moon and viewing the earth from such a place, nothing in life will ever live upto the same kind of feeling and moment and sadly, that most things after that end up becoming a disappointment. Very touchy touchy, and he appeared genuinely touched by what he was talking of, which leads me to believe him.
 
Judd said:
Could somebody please do the numbers on:

  1. the number of people which would need to be involved in faking one and/or all of the moon landings;
  2. the cost involved, inclusive of the launches of the six missions which never happened, in order to fake these missions; and
  3. the probability that everyone of those involved in these fake missions have been able to keep quiet for 40 years about the exercise being a fake.

And also answer the simple question Why?
Click to expand...

Good questions.

One thing that occurs to me is the extent to which the world is overrun with rabid, desperate, hungry journalists, all looking for the next scoop. Can you imagine anything as big as showing the moon landings were faked? And like you say, there were so many people involved surely ONE would talk? (Maybe NASA has had the talkative ones killed?:rolleyes:)

I somehow think those bleating about how the landings were faked feel gypped that the world doesn't pay them enough attention, and so they feel compelled to seek attention in this way? Could be wrong.
 
Top