Were the moon landings faked?

.

 

Shaggie

Yah,, Hubble ultra deep field pics have changed our very place in
observed universe. Awesome.

Results of this alone justifies hubble x10

 

Hubble shot of the Moon:


.

 

.

 

.

 

Good point Shaggie, not enough to resolve detail of Apollo gear at a landing site.



.

 

Wow, this thread was started 6 months ago. That's insane

It's quite impressive how a person could orchestrate a symphony of completely unrelated conspiracies into a such an immense blanket of coherent paranoia.

Social engineering is a very powerful tool, just ask Hitler.
Do you think he is the only one to ever try to brainwash people?

Is it more plausible that somone is spreading rumors for their own personal benefit such as covert operatives?

Or is it more plausible that the entire planet has managed to globally conspire to hide the factual evidence of UFO's from the very people they are conspiring with and often even at war with?

 

?

 

Shit, 280 feet, sorry but thats about 90 meters in the real world LOL
We can get 1 meter res on earth with milsats
A milsat should be able to get 90 meter res on the moon...
something here does'nt add up.

Most probably it is occams ignorance of optics and how they work.

Occam

 

.

 

The same people who made Star Wars send us to the moon in 1969. by the 70s they figure out they could make money with a movie.

 

Shaggie
Yeh.. thats what occam was thinking.. but too many numbers confound this poor conceptualist
He can conceptualise the distance to centuari cluster[triplet] A straight distance.. but cant think in 'big' math. [ even out to barnards.. but thats a streach, aint easy to fit 10 ly in head.. but can do it without more than simple math]
Occam holds those that can conceptualize in math with awe.
but. yet.. so many seem to have tunnel vision
Maybe that is why einstein was what he was, he could do both.

occam

 

I've heard that the milsat ability to resolve at the earths surface is less than 1 meter but, of course, the value is classified. If we are talking about whether this is possible or not with existing (built and available) technology then, I believe,that we should reserve judgement in trying to answer our question about whether photo evidence of the landings can be obtained from earth.

 

Natural

Why bother.. we both know armstrong DID step on the moon.

Occam would question his own birthright from his parents before questioning if apollo 11 lem realy did land.
Faith...? no trust? no

100 trillion bytes of supportive data.
An funny enough.. the USSR

 

.

 

Shit, one would have hoped that a NASA engineer of that era would have caught that kind of error. Engineers tended to have a more practical bent in those days. I hope he was quickly escorted out the door of Mission Control, with Gene Kranz giving him a good kick in the ass....

Nowadays, most engineers (at least recent graduates) usually have little to no "intuitive" sense of what their results "should" show, and tend to trust blindly in whatever their calculator or CAD program tells them.

 

Im terrible at maths, well for what I do, I like to think I stand up quite well in general. I always prefered trying to picture what was happening. Which comes back go over reliance on computers really, I dont think students are taught to think about the physical meaning of their results. With some areas like EM and fluids where there are lots of components flying in all kinds of directions, you run of of fingers and pencils to point so its easier to to plug in components and trust the equations.

 

Complex calculations or not, one would think that an engineer would have at least some idea (within an order of magnitude, at least) what the result of a calculation should be. If for no other reason than a quick "sanity check" of the result.

I'm no math genius, either, but a result showing that there was MONTHS of fuel available on a spacecraft that was designed for a mission less than 2 weeks long should have raised some eyebrows, no?

 

.

 

The obvious wisdom is that specalization. Does not equate to general understanding.

That is why occam is a generalist. The greatest mathematician living may have NO understanding of geopolitics or evolutionary biophysics beyond that of the average human. To have great specific skill is wonderfull. But to have little general undestanding is the down side.

Generalists gather ALL information and filter it. And steal every bit of undestanding they can. From what every source. And filter it.
A generalist wants to SEE the BIG picture.
Not be intimately involved with a 'facet' of the big picture.

WE each have only so much time...A generalist will try to assemble the best 'big' picture' possible in the time they have.

The problem has always been.. how to deliver it to humanity.

One man did a fine job of describing 'his' big picture to all that would listen in 32 bc.. and it cost him his life.

Occam