Moonlanding a hoax?

[Wrymouth3]

Why can't this be a thread on 16TH CENTURY MAPS OF THE MOON?

 

[sophie]

Why can't this be a thread on 16TH CENTURY MAPS OF THE MOON?

Because it would very shortly thereafter become a thread on POLISH 16TH CENTURY MAPS OF THE MOON

 

[CivCube]

I think the Declaration and Constitution were forged in 1941. Prove me wrong.

 

[History_Buff]

I think the Declaration and Constitution were forged in 1941. Prove me wrong.

Right after you prove that JFK wasn't assassinated by a shapeshifting alien who thought we were trespassing.

 

[Krajzen]

You forgot about chemtrails.

 

[MilesGregarius]

But what about all the other things I listed? All of the photo and video evidence, all the technology developed, all the hardware that's still sitting on the moon. That is evidence.

But, but, but you have no evidence that your evidence is evidence.

 

[ParkCungHee]

But, but, but you have no evidence that your evidence is evidence.

Is this an epistemology thread now?

 

[r16]

There's tons of Apollo hardware sitting on the moon too that you can see if you have a good enough telescope

is that correct ? Had read it somewhere that powerful telescobes would be developed "soon" so that everybody could see the base sections of the landers on the Moon , implying it was not yet possible to see them in 2010s.

edit : or maybe the claim was for the footprints of the atronauts , ı don't really know .

 

[Louis XXIV]

In other words you dont have any evidence other than some slogans.

How are thousands of people not evidence but merely a slogan? People can disbelieve it or find the evidence not credible, but pointing to people who worked on a project isn't a slogan. How could it be?

 

[History_Buff]

is that correct ? Had read it somewhere that powerful telescobes would be developed "soon" so that everybody could see the base sections of the landers on the Moon , implying it was not yet possible to see them in 2010s.

edit : or maybe the claim was for the footprints of the atronauts , ı don't really know .

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/apollosites.html

The resolution of the descent stage isn't great, but it's clearly there. The Apollo 14 shot also shows the trail of their footprints, even though any particular footprint is too small to be resolved.

If we wanted a better picture, we could take our existing telescope technology (not our existing telescopes though, they're usually too specialized for deep field viewing) and see them better. But there's just no reason to, because there's no reason to doubt the moon landing happened, and we're not likely to learn anything new about the moon by pointing a giant telescope at it.

 

[Antilogic]

In b4 someone claims those photos were doctored.

(But they are very interesting and I appreciate the post.)

 

[North King]

Yes, so i figured. And no doubt he believes in this "logic" much like the ancient people believed in the Sun god going around the Earth in his golden chariot. Cause, newsflash logic isnt proof, and far stranger things have happened in the world than keeping a hundred people silent. Happens even on a daily basis, called NDA. But, ofc arguing with believers is a risky undertaking, not sure why im doing it, mb because im bored.

Prove literally anything using your standard of evidence.

 

[Samez]

The reflectors on moon are quite a proof for someone having been up there.

 

[Roller123]

But what about all the other things I listed? All of the photo and video evidence, all the technology developed, all the hardware that's still sitting on the moon. That is evidence.

There is not a single specific thing in that list. As for the video records, even here on Earth video records do not automatically count in court. Googling for UFO, gives enough irrefutable video proof about alien invasion as well. "Hardware", well that would count if said "hardware" would be used elsewhere but it didnt, the whole thing can be assumed as to never even existed at all. Are you using anything from the Apollo program tech currently? Me neither. So how comes you are convinced it is proven to exist in working condition.

is that correct ? Had read it somewhere that powerful telescobes would be developed "soon" so that everybody could see the base sections of the landers on the Moon , implying it was not yet possible to see them in 2010s.

A simple retroreflector left on the Moon and interested scientists can check whether or not something was on the Moon without pointing the Hubble telescope on it.

 

[Roller123]

The reflectors on moon are quite a proof for someone having been up there.

No. Unless you are implying they are alive?

 

[History_Buff]

There is not a single specific thing in that list. As for the video records, even here on Earth video records do not automatically count in court. Googling for UFO, gives enough irrefutable video proof about alien invasion as well. "Hardware", well that would count if said "hardware" would be used elsewhere but it didnt, the whole thing can be assumed as to never even existed at all. Are you using anything from the Apollo program tech currently? Me neither. So how comes you are convinced it is proven to exist in working condition.

I didn't give specifics, because there's too many things to list. If you google for UFO, you see a bunch of blurry images that don't really show anything. If you search for records from the Apollo program, you'll find all sorts of stuff, like pictures and videos of astronauts in the various spacecraft, pictures and video of them on the moon, and pictures and video of them talking about the moon.

And are you disputing the fact that the hardware even exists? You mean to say that the thousands of engineers that worked on the Saturn V and it's systems are all in on it? That nobody watched a Saturn V launch? That a bunch of Russians didn't float around an Apollo CM? That the lunar descent stages aren't still on the moon? That spent Saturn stages aren't still floating around the solar system? What about all the stuff we brought back from the moon, including not just the rocks, but the spacesuits that are just coated in lunar regolith?

You're using countless things that were first developed for use on the Apollo program, most notably a miniaturized computer that happens to use a priority based operating system. I have a bunch of IMUs on my desk that are used for strap-down inertial navigation, a technique first used in the lunar module abort guidance system.

In the face of the overwhelming evidence to suggest that we did land people on the moon, there is nothing to suggest that we did not. All there is is a bunch of conspiracy nuts, repeating the same debunked talking points over and over again, and demanding that it be proved that the landings were not faked, which is logically impossible.

Just for grins, have a picture of Gene Cernan inside the LM, taken from the CM.

Spoiler :

A simple retroreflector left on the Moon and interested scientists can check whether or not something was on the Moon without pointing the Hubble telescope on it.

For the record, you would never seriously use the Hubble telescope to image the moon. It has been done, but it can't track nearly fast enough to really take advantage of all the equipment on board.

 

[Antilogic]

No. Unless you are implying they are alive?

Dude, there is a massive conspiracy. Did you know those very reflectors on the moon are listed on the cargo manifests carried by the Apollo missions that those foolish conspirators failed to cover up? And those same missions each had 3 astronauts assigned to them? THREE!? Sloppy work, NASA, they shouldn't have left such an obvious connection. And when you follow the money trail to unravel this thing, it all leads back to NASA and its puppet master Uncle Sam.

 

[r16]

thanks to History Buff and Roller123 for the answers and the links . ı don't doubt the Apollos landing there , my thing was a surprise that no Earth bound telescobe had the pictures already , unless of course they already did . Surprising that we can see galaxies billions of lights away , yet ...

 

[Dachs]

my thing was a surprise that no Earth bound telescobe had the pictures already , unless of course they already did .

r16 has now graduated to mocking American sportswriter blowhards. "When last we left Nazi coffee enthusiast Peter King..."

 

[History_Buff]

The reason that there aren't many modern high detail images of the moon is just that there isn't much more we can learn by pointing telescopes at it. Usually when they do it it's a novelty, or as a calibration field, since the moon is pretty uniform at low resolution.

There's still a basically infinite amount of stuff we have to learn to by pointing the telescopes at distant galaxies though, which is why that's all the rage.