Author Topic: Moon landing faked? Lets take a look... (Read 3902 times)

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #90 on:** May 01, 2003, 04:02:45 PM »

Even this picture you posted as "proof" proves nothing, the size of the reflection is paractically identical in both pictures.

Again I must ask you Hortlund, why do you think NASA would fake a moon picture and sun reflection unless you think the moon landings are fake. Why? And if you dont think the moon landings are fake and you belive NASA went to the moon then why would they fake a photograph or at least not explain their mysterios light source which looks like the sun but really isnt.

You are coming here telling us all how we are uneducted while the only proof and support you have given is saying the sun should be reflected the size of a quarter. How did you arriive at that conclusion? Other sapce pictures - well maybe they are fake too?

You have given absolutely no proof the reflection is too big...

And if you continue calling me or anyone else ignorant and keep dismissing our concersns over your utter lack of proof then I, and prolly others, will take that to mean you concede the argument,

So there Hortlund, plaease give us real proof, real evidence to support your view!

Time to put up or shut up....

X2Lee · « **Reply #91 on:** May 01, 2003, 04:10:34 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nifty
no, the moon is larger when it rises due to the angle you're viewing it through the atmosphere. The atmosphere kinda acts as a magnifying glass at the lower angles.

.

If you take your hand and make a tunnel to look thro about the size of a dime and look at the moon when its being magnified by the atmosphere you can see it at its normal size. The look back at it normal and its doubled in size again

I lil trick I showed my kids.

.

DA98 · « **Reply #92 on:** May 01, 2003, 05:47:07 PM »

Falstaff is correct. The image was taken with a primitive video camera, and those old tubes had trouble with intense lights.

"TV or Vidicon camera:

The operating principle of the vidicon camera is based upon the image pick-up tube often found in television cameras.

Image focused onto a photo-conductive target.

Target scanned line by line horizontally by an electron beam

Electric current produces as the beam passes over target.

Current proportional to the intensity of light at each point.

Tap current to give a video signal

Limited resolution: finite number of scan lines (about 625) and frame rate (30 or 60 frames per second)

Unwanted persistence between one frame and the next

Non-linear video output with respect to light intensity.

Suffer from blooming of the image around very bright light spots, geometrical distortion of the image across the photoconductor and sensitivity to environmental conditions."

That reflection is the sun, distorted by the poor response of the vacuum tube used on the camera to intense light. No conspiracy traces here

.

Frogm4n · « **Reply #93 on:** May 01, 2003, 05:53:25 PM »

are you retarded hortland? or is it possible that you make idiotic asumptions on things you have no clue about(im guilty on that sometimes as well).

Go take a basic photography lesson.

Mini D · « **Reply #94 on:** May 01, 2003, 06:11:22 PM »

What's funny to me is the way old hortlund will cling to any one sliver of hope to continue instigating people while completely forgetting the extremely stupid comments he made prior to that.

What happend to the "only the first one was faked" argument hortlund? Come now... run out of evidence for that one? Or did you finally read up on the theory a little bit and find the conspiracy theory people were pulling photos from all of the landings to prove their point?

That kinda blows the whole "How do you explain moon-rocks" "explanation" you offered up.

Oh well... this isn't really about you being right, this is about you being stupid and moving on to something else to be stupid about.

MiniD

AKIron · « **Reply #95 on:** May 01, 2003, 07:50:46 PM »

The sun and the moon aren't larger on the horizon than at apex. It's a perceptual illusion (not optical). Take a picture and compare them, you'll see they are the same size.

Pongo · « **Reply #96 on:** May 01, 2003, 07:53:04 PM »

Pretty dumb of those americans to not scale thier spot light after going to all that trouble.
Is there some facet involved in the technology of going to the moon that makes people believe its impossible?

dracken1 · « **Reply #97 on:** May 01, 2003, 08:16:57 PM »

well i used to think it may have been faked.
but there are so many people involved in a lunar mission i'm sure someone would have said something by now.
i wish they would cos i'm getting fed up with roswell repeatedly rearing its head.

one picture i did see was one of an astronaut where those black crosses you see on the pics, one went behind his helmet.
if those crosses are on the lens then that cant happen can it?

who knows.
voyager was a fake because i've been using it in my garden to grow roses in for the last 20 years:(

Suave · « **Reply #98 on:** May 01, 2003, 08:50:03 PM »

Hortlund the reflection in the visor is the face of Odin .

JoeSmoe · « **Reply #99 on:** May 01, 2003, 09:39:54 PM »

Hey hortlund.. you

Are dilusional. Its quite sad actually. I hear that you are a "Judge" of sorts?.. If that is the case, then you are someone who is supposed to have the abilty of perception, and understanding.

It is clear that you have not the slightest Idea of what you are seeing/perceieving. (this is truley sad).

Hey hortlund,.. psssst. (we've been to the moon.. AND back)..

and psssst (that very VERY bright light)... IS THE potato peelinG sun you dumboscar..

I bet you think that People really don't go into orbit either.,.

udet · « **Reply #100 on:** May 01, 2003, 09:52:32 PM »

Let's put it this way: there's plenty of Apollo hardware left over-including 2 Saturn V rockets. Somebody prove that the moon landing COULDN'T have been accomplished with that hardware. If you can't prove that-there is no motiv for faking the whole thing, since they had the possiblity to do it fo'real.

udet · « **Reply #101 on:** May 01, 2003, 09:58:21 PM »

I've read the autobiographies of Mike Collins,Gene Cernan,Buzz Aldrin, Charlie Duke, the biography of Alan Shepard and a bunch of other books. They all seemed very personal and real. I don't believe those people could've lied or kept silent about such an imporatnt event being a fraud. And besides the astronauts, there are mission controllers, engineers and so on. You are talking about a HUGE number of people. Has any CONCLUSIVE evidence appeared that the landing was faked????? NO!

p.s. Hortlund, what is your problem?

udet · « **Reply #102 on:** May 01, 2003, 10:02:21 PM »

OTOH, the Soviets could have faked a Moon landing and gotten away with it for decades, at least within their country.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #103 on:** May 01, 2003, 10:28:35 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hortlund
Check the other picture I posted of the two sun reflections, one from Mercury (I think its mercury) and the other from the moon.

No EVA's in project Mercury.

Ed White during Gemini was the first American to venture outside.

Bodhi · « **Reply #104 on:** May 01, 2003, 10:57:27 PM »

The funniest thing about this whole discussion is the fact that two absolutely total eurotrash tards are arguing that it did not happen, yet they have no proof to substatiate their argument. Makes you wonder why their nations are the way they are....