Did man ever make it to the moon?

ha ha ha ha ... erm occams razor or sherlock holmes theory is the best thing to think about..don't show the real footage , what a laugh.

http://www.space1999.net/~catacombs/ based on a true story

 

The conspiracy theories about the Apollo missions are nicely debunked here:

http://www.badastronomy.com

I think the question that needs to be asked is why the fuck we haven't gone back (or even farther) in 3 decades....

 

Because Americans spend most of their time now debating whether or not we went to the Moon instead of working hard and accomplishing things like the astronauts in the 60s did.

When Neil Armstrong was 12, he drove his bike ten miles to an airport to work for free in a hangar. Today, young people sit at the computer ten hours a day debating issues that don't even matter. It's like a psychological illness.

 

Theres some dispute on neil armstrong wont comment either. Well if i was old and been asked a billion times about the moon and told my story, I definetly wouldnt talk to some jack ass telling me that i didn't go. Neils not availible because hes old and prolly has better things to do, like not die.

 

.

 

Let us allow Mr. Aldrin explain it in an efficient manner...

 

.

 

If I was old and angry and someone tried to tell me my whole life was a lie, I would punch theyre dumbass too.

 

The people who are old and angry are the ones who are frustrated that the world doesn't agree completely with their warped religious views and try to belittle the accomplishments of others that they perceive as conflicting with their personal religious beliefs.

 

How in the fuck did this get pulled into religion? Godammit stay on topic. I was saying, ole Neil hit the man because thats like someone walking up to him and saying "bullshit, your not Neil Motherfucking armstrong, your bozo the clown."

(Now if you can get religion outta that statement, there ya go, have at it, or just go to the religion boards.)

 

My friend introduced me to this topic; I was skeptical at first, but after talking with him about it for awhile, I'm of the belief that landings may have happened, and if they did, much of the footage is, however, fake. If you look at the quality of the still photos for one, and the manner in which the cameras were affixed to the suits, the fact that the composition always seems to be professional looking is dubious. Moreover, there's questions as to whether the film could have even survived in space. I think what happened was that the US needed pictures of the moon landings for propaganda purposes, and because they couldn't get actual pictures worthy of this purpose, they staged a moon landing and used those pictures. The thing that has always gotten me, though, is the whole thing about the cross-hairs. If you look at these pictures of the moon landings, you'll see that the photos all have little crosshairs; in some of the pictures, these crosshairs are all unbroken, but in others, objects--such as an astronaut--cover part of the crosshair. This should not be the case, since the crosshairs are part of the camera. This means that someone tampered with the image. Now you could argue that conspiracy theorists are the ones who tampered with the picture to make them look faked, but at the local used book store, he has a number of books on the moon landings, and sure enough some of the pictures in this book has pictures in which the crosshairs are partially covered. And these photos were straight from NASA. Sorry, but this and other aspects of the moon landings should make one question the authenticity of what we've been led to believe, and I don't think that this is a waste of time at all.

 

And what makes you think that you have seen ALL the pictures? When you take pictures on vacation, do you display the ones that are out of focus, cut off heads, redeye, over/underexposed etc? Why do you assume that NASA would use the inevitable shitty shots as publicity photos? I'm sure there was a hell of a lot of film shot that ended up on the "darkroom floor", just like any other heavily photographed event. The public gets to see the shots that came out well. There are literally thousands of boring, repetitive shots available for viewing on NASAs website, or in the national archives if you are really interested in seeing the "blooper reel".

Why? Film is quite rugged stuff. In fact, early spy satellites used to use film canisters that were dropped back to earth in reentry capsules and recovered after splashdown. Film survives x-ray scanners at airports, high/low temperatures, and other extreme conditions quite well.

No it doesn't. The crosshairs are very thin lines that will easily wash out if a light colored object is behind them in the image. Kind of like scratches on an eyeglass lens that are only annoying/visible in certain lighting conditions, and just about invisible in others.

 

:yawn:

So, your right. Some of the most important pictures to be taken at the time should have looked like shit. We will not mention the fact that hundreds upon hundreds of pictures were taken, and hardly all of them were perfect, if most of them. Now I dont know about you, but when I take pictures, I take several pictures for the simple fact that they are never going to be the same. I want the good ones.

Well, I think that if they were trying to cover it up, they would have just reshot the image "on set". If they had time to "create this hoax", something as little as crosshairs wouldn't have to be "covered up"... oh wait... maybe they just drew the crosshairs on whatever they were taking a picture of, that way when the picture was taken it looked like it was being covered up!

Have you ever taken an image that is overexposed? White parts bleed into the film around them, making them look white too. That's all that happened here...the white object in the image ``fills in'' the black crosshair. It's a matter of contrast: the crosshair becomes invisible because the white part overwhelms the film. This is basic photography. Live It. Learn It. Get a Life

C'mon buddy, i thought you could do more then this. I can knock down anything you bring up.

Maybe in the next argument you can bring up how "the pictures show no stars" or "why the flag waves" or I know I know how about the radiation belt... or even better the fact that the dust is undisturbed on the rockets landing....

Man people are idiots...
:slaps forhead:

 

The religious aspect is relevant to this thread. I will elaborate on it whenever it is warranted.

 

.

 

.

 

http://genesismission.jpl.nasa.gov/

I cannot believe they are still going with this thing. I thought enough was enough by mid April. Where are the photos of the spacecraft being assembled prior to launch. Where are the photos of it being mounted to its rocket and fitted with a fairing. Sure, they have the sketches and even color drawings, but all the other spacecraft are there. There are even pictures of the plutonium "batteries" being delivered and installed on Cassini and the Voyagers. But lets see a picture of that Genesis being assembled.

 

Got a link to this story? AFAIK, the Chinese have launched one mission in october 2003, with a single "taikonaut". The next mission is planned with 2 passengers, for sometime in 2005.

 

.

 

Well, I see that no one has made any valid points as to why the pictures of the Moon Landing were fabricated.