Well with all the progs on TV about NASA and the Moon landings etc at the moment - a mate of mine is convinced it didn't happen and the only thing that'll persuade him otherwise is if I can come up with a recent picture (pref taken from Earth or satellite) which shows the Lunar Rover or the remains of the Lunar Module that would have been left on the Moon but still visible. Can anyone help? Cheers
Chat Forum
[closed]
Trying to settle an argument
-
Posted 2 years ago #
-
I can't believe that some people still believe the 'moon landing' took place.
Next you'll be saying that Diana died in an 'accident' ..... ffs
Posted 2 years ago # -
If he's not convinced already I doubt anything else will help.
I'm not sure you can get a photo of the lander or rover. It's 250,000 miles away and they are only a few metres across.
But if he gets a laser he can bounce it off the mirror they left up there.
Posted 2 years ago # -
I know, I know but his theory is that no pic has ever been taken because there's nothing there...and it did get me thinking why this might be!
Posted 2 years ago # -
Just for a moment, let's assume it was actually possible to photograph something so small, so far away. wouldn't he just counter that whatever photo you showed him was "photo-shopped"?
Best let him be an idiot and have other folk make fun of him.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Mmmm you're probably right but just thinking about it wouldn't a telescope or the Hubble telescope be able to do it?
Posted 2 years ago # -
It would be fairly easy to fake a picture - why is your mate so trusting of pictures?
There was a picture of a double decker bus on the moon once, followed up in the same paper the next week by an undoctored pic and the headline "Double decker bus disappears from the moon".
Posted 2 years ago # -
no
Posted 2 years ago # -
no - to hubble question
Posted 2 years ago # -
...also, if they parked the lunar rover behind the bus it wouldn't show up. It wouldn't mean it wasn't there though...
Posted 2 years ago # -
wouldn't a telescope or the Hubble telescope be able to do it?
I don't think Hubble can focus on something that close! Only 1/4 million miles.
Posted 2 years ago # -
It would be fairly easy to fake a picture
Absolutely.
As is wonderfully illustrated here :
Posted 2 years ago # -
Posted 2 years ago #
-
What about a terrestrial telescope then?
Posted 2 years ago # -
There's a mirror or some such reflector that was left by one of the mission so that NASA could take accurate distance measurements.
Posted 2 years ago # -
er...aracer it would really need to be the one left on the moon...oh, I see, you're joking, I get it
Posted 2 years ago # -
Of course, there is the possibility that NASA failed to get any real footage off the Moon, and had a 'contingency plan'.
I'm not going to deny categorically, that Mankind has ever stepped on the Moon or not, as I was not there myself to witness it, but that flag, fluttering in the 'breeze'? Come on...
Anyone who unquestionably believes everything the Americans claim, is a bigger fool than anyone who has a penchant for metal foil headgear. The Yanks had too much at stake, for the Moon missions to fail. And for a country who's government has lied on numerous occasions, I woon't put it past them at all.
Posted 2 years ago # -
nickc - I thought that lasers became unreliable when fired through the Earth's atmosphere?
Posted 2 years ago # -
RudeBoy - I know where you're coming from.
Posted 2 years ago # -
So Tyger is your "mate" still not convinced?
* sniggers *
Posted 2 years ago # -
On balance I believe NASA's evidence more than I believe anything you've asserted Rudeboy, boils down to that essentially
Posted 2 years ago # -
I'm convinced but his argument is appearing annoyingly still valid.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Thread no good without pictures.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Nico - LOL!
Posted 2 years ago # -
There's not really an argument, it's just a bunch of random "stuff" and noise that makes it seem like there's a coherent conspiracy. It's all pretty low level bits and pieces that can be easily shown to be, not to put to finer a point on it, crap.
They went to the Moon, they came back, that's pretty much the start, middle and finish of it really. People are free to believe what they want, don't change it though.
Posted 2 years ago # -
I'm not saying it's all lies, get a grip. I'm merely hypothesising that considering the globally significance and importance of the Moon landings, I doubt the Yanks wooduv relied entirely on the possibility that footage from the Moon would in fact be viewable. Do you really think, during that Cold War period, the Yanks wooduv risked losing face, and being the object of ridicule for the World's press? Would they bollocks. That fluttering flag is proof of such 'contingency plans'.
Oh, and the film in the cameras, used to take such wonderful images, would not have been sufficient temperature for the chemical reaction to take place, in order to have silver halide crystals react to light. The surface of the moon, being devoid of an atmosphere, would be proper bastard cold, well below the effective range in which film can work. The material itself wooduv been extremely brittle, and prone to cracking. Those cameras had no heating systems. They conveniently left the cameras on the Moon, and only brought back the film...
Nice studio shots, though!
Posted 2 years ago # -
but that flag, fluttering in the 'breeze'? Come on
Rudy - the flag didn't 'flutter in the breeze'. Check it out here :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMINSD7MmT4
However, that clip is definitely a hoax. Because everyone knows that there's no gravity on the moon, so that herbert jumping about all over the place would just have taken off into outer space.
Plus he's not even doing the proper 'moon walk' ffs
.....they must think we're all stupid or something.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Oh, and when James May was driving the Lunar Rover thing, it had a petrol engine, rather than the leccy one the 'real' ones wooduv had to use. 'Cos of course, a petrol engine woodun't work on't Moon...
Nickc; you sound like you're trying to convince yourself, tbh...
Posted 2 years ago # -
Without using the internet for reference and being that it's late, i've got issues un be known to anyone and am tired yet can't sleep therefore anything i write maybe taken down and use against me to put me in a home may i say this.
30 years or so ago man supposedly landed on the moon, since then what has been learnt and to what benefit, how much has the space programme progressed why isn't the moon subjected to further landing for testing and an understanding of it's make up and to test for it's stability as a mass....is it assumed it's stable and safe from sudden deterioration, for without we'd certainly be unable to survive here.
So why do they explore the further expanses of the universe, to the outer reaches searching for the unknown, i appreciate it's importance and the intrigue but have they tested the moons structure?
recently they have taken pics of the lack of solar flares coming from the suns surface and with concern they explore something they'll never be able to explore...
It all seems pointless and of little direct significance to the now.
What i'm saying is it's likely they have landed there, but not when they said they did, just some big willy waving mission and then off they go to find a bigger willy to wave.
Posted 2 years ago # -
proof that it happened
Posted 2 years ago # -
his argument is appearing annoyingly still valid.
His argument is typical conspiracy theorist - suggesting that something can't have happened the official way unless you can provide some evidence which is actually impossible to provide (and of course their understanding is so limited they don't realise that). Meanwhile failing to provide any halfway decent evidence to support their own POV. Rather like suggesting you have to provide documentary proof of what our beloved Maggie was thinking to prove she had the miners' interests at heart all along - when it was quite clearly the case to anybody who has half a brain.Posted 2 years ago # -
It's probably on the T'net somewhere, must be true, eh?
Posted 2 years ago # -
Shit video, ernie. Here's a better one.
Gotta LOL at the pathetic attempts to defend it, mind.
People are free to believe what they want, don't change it though.
Indeed. And I will chose to believe , based on the actual incontrovertible proof that the American Regime has repeatedly lied about all manner of things, that not everything that comes out of America is in fact the Truth. WMDs, anyone?
Posted 2 years ago # -
Anyway, can somebody provide me with definitive proof that STW is real?
Posted 2 years ago # -
Next you're be telling me that Evolution is true
Posted 2 years ago # -
Shit video, ernie. Here's a better one.
You're having a laugh aincha ?
The flag in your video isn't 'fluttering in the breeze'.
It's moving cause the **** won't stop moving the **** flagpole.
What do you expect it to do ? Remain stiff like a piece of cardboard ? You daft div.
.... however, that alleged 'moon walk'
Posted 2 years ago # -
The Moon's gravity is 1/6th of Earth's, allegedly.
So why does not in any way the flag gradually flop down? Eh? Eh?
Plus, the astronauts are only jumping a foot or two off the ground. In 1/6th gravity, they'd be able to jump a lot higher, and further, surely? Even with those heavy suits on.
Nah, sorry, FAKE.
does not in any way necessarily mean they jolly well have not been to the Moon, just that that footage ain't shot on the Moon...
Had millions fooled, though.
Anyway, my work here is done. Good Night all! XXX
Posted 2 years ago # -
So why does not in any way the flag gradually flop down? Eh? Eh?
Obviously because there's a **** rod in it.
If it had been allowed to 'flop down' it would have been pointless.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Flag "flutters" because it was being moved about by hand and as there is no air to resist it it flutters more than it would here on earth.
I know because I was there. Posted 2 years ago #
Topic Closed
This topic has been closed to new replies.
