Now we are suppose to believe that it didn't happen because someone said so on the internet. Personally, I care very little eithe way.
Now we are suppose to believe that it didn't happen because someone said so on the internet. Personally, I care very little either way. The world and our country have much more pressing issues to face.
His point exactly, you don't just put something on TV without many, many people being involved. Especially in 1969. We didn't have graphics programs to produce that kind of magic then. At a minimum, dozens of people would have been involved, and the greatest stretch of all is to believe that not a single one of them would ever confess to the sham. Come on man, that aspect alone is enough to sway even the most doubtful. Even Hillary can't keep the fact that she deleted emails under wrap, and there were only a handful of people involved with that. Secrets of that magnitude are NEVER kept. Not to mention the fact that other countries have orbited the moon close enough to record our landing sites. Countries that would have taken tremendous joy in outing us for a lie.
I never told you or anyone else to believe anything one way or another, we're having a discussion, everyone is free to believe whatever they want. I'm not advocating one way or another, I'm simply making a point that those that say it would be impossible to pull off such a scam may be wrong. No graphics programs would have been needed at all. If sets were used then they would have been simple. all that would be needed is to adjust the speed of the film. They could have used simple props...2001 a space odyssey... Movies were putting men in space in a believable way long before we supposedly went to the moon. You can believe that if you want but secrets have been kept successfully, you just wouldn't know about those because they were secrets that were successfully kept. My only argument would be that maybe they have not orbited the moon or they would have discovered the fakery. Have you ever worn a foil hat? If not then I'd suggest you try it before you knock it, you may like it.
We left stuff up there you can see with a couple hundred dollar telescope. Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
Then your only argument is not valid. Sorry, but the evidence is there. We may have gotten lucky, but we did it.
False, you cannot see it with a high powered million dollar telescope. That image was taken by a NASA orbiter. All I see there is a pic with specs and labels...You'd have to simply have faith enough to buy that. How to See All Six Apollo Moon Landing Sites - Sky & Telescope As you're well aware, no telescope on Earth can see the leftover descent stages of the Apollo Lunar Modules or anything else Apollo-related. Not even the Hubble Space Telescope can discern evidence of the Apollo landings. The laws of optics define its limits. Are there telescopes that can see the flag and lunar rover on the Moon? (Beginner) - Curious About Astronomy? Ask an Astronomer Yes, the flag is still on the moon, but you can't see it using a telescope. I found some statistics on the size of lunar equipment in a Press Kit for the Apollo 16 mission. The flag is 125 cm (4 feet) long, and you would need an optical wavelength telescope around 200 meters (~650 feet) in diameter to see it. The largest optical wavelength telescope that we have now is the Keck Telescope in Hawaii which is 10 meters in diameter. The Hubble Space Telescope is only 2.4 meters in diameter - much too small! Resolving the larger lunar rover (which has a length of 3.1 meters) would still require a telescope 75 meters in diameter. Even barely resolving the lunar lander base, which is 9.5 meters across (including landing gear), would require a telescope about 25 meters across. And in reality you would want a couple (or a few) resolution elements across the object so that it's possible to identify it. (Otherwise it'll look like a one pixel detection, not an image, and I don't think people would be convinced by a couple pixels!) Not valid to you...meh, you don't get the luxury of dismissing my argument as "not valid" on the whole. Like everything else presented, it takes faith to believe it. Just a note - arguing against the conspiracists' claims on the basis of their faulty reasoning or misunderstanding of science is not evidence that the landing occurred. Rather, one must provide affirmative and supporting evidence to support the "hypothesis" that the landing was real. That in itself may be more impossible than actually landing on the moon.
