Now let me prove to NASA how stupid they are.
Ah, proof. Would that more people understood what constituted “proof”. “You can’t explain that” isn’t proof, especially when, yes, we can explain it.
The most powerful telescope on earth can’t show you these objects. Why? Because they don”t exist.
Or, maybe because they’re too small to resolve from a quarter of a million miles away. Even the most powerful telescope has limits. Hubble can’t make out individual boulders on the lunar surface; are you going to claim that there aren’t any boulders on the lunar surface? Yeah, Hubble can image galaxies millions of light years away, but galaxies are also hundreds of thousands of light-years across.
The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter has imaged the equipment left on the lunar surface, because it’s a helluva lot closer. See the following:
http://featured-sites.lroc.asu.edu/view_site/1
http://featured-sites.lroc.asu.edu/view_site/2
http://featured-sites.lroc.asu.edu/view_site/3
http://featured-sites.lroc.asu.edu/view_site/4
http://featured-sites.lroc.asu.edu/view_site/5
http://featured-sites.lroc.asu.edu/view_site/6
And furthermore, The technology that was available then wouldn’t have allowed man to travel to the moon. Remember this was 1969, not 2009.
1969 wasn’t the bloody dark ages. We had nuclear power, we had rockets that could launch nuclear bombs to the other side of the planet, we had digital computers, we had launched human beings into orbit on those rockets.
Getting to the Moon wasn’t trivial, but it wasn’t beyond the bounds of what we could accomplish in ’69.
the rover is on the “dark side” of the moon, meaning the other half of the “round” moon that cannot be seen from earth
Whoa there, g temps — all of the landing sites (and equipment) are on the near, Earth-facing side; there were no landings on the far side for the simple reason that there would have been no communications. There won’t be any missions to the far side without at least a couple of satellites to relay communications.
More Comments by jfb
His name was Ed Fendell, a controller in Houston in charge the remotely-controlled camera on the LRV.
Yes, he had to take the signal delay into account – he had to anticipate the liftoff and rate of ascent. …
It doesn’t have to be pretty to work.
The foil acted as a thermal blanket, reflecting as much of the sunlight as possible to keep the base of the LM from overheating. The foil was only about 125 microns thick, …
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Scientific Evidence
The blueprints *weren’t* destroyed; they’re on file at the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, AL. Not that it matters; we couldn’t build the Saturn V today if we wanted to, because most of the technology it used is …
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – More Photographic Proof
Did you know that many of the people involved in the moon landing died from a car crash?
Upwards of 90 people die *every day* in car crashes in the US; it’s not at all surprising that a lot people “involved …
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Camera Problems
It’s not a C, it’s an O.
And it *looks* like some kind of inclusion (a pebble embedded in a slightly softer matrix rock). It looks like the surrounding matrix has eroded a bit, leaving a small channel around the …
More Comments on Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Scientific Evidence by jfb
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Scientific Evidence
The blueprints *weren’t* destroyed; they’re on file at the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, AL. Not that it matters; we couldn’t build the Saturn V today if we wanted to, because most of the technology it used is …
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Scientific Evidence
This question has been answered several times by myself and others, but it basically boils down to 3 things, mainly:
1. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. Everything boils down to money, as in, too goddamned much of. Manned lunar missions are fiendishly …
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Scientific Evidence
Which tests? Citations, please.
The following report has been discussed elsewhere in the thread: http://ston.jsc.nasa.gov/collections/TRS/_techrep/CR188427.pdf
Here was the conclusion:
The effects of radiation for STS-48 are apparent in the final images produced
by the high speed (above 400 ASA) flight …
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Scientific Evidence
However, they show flame even from a large distance. The NASA videos show no flame from a close distance
What do you mean by “large distance” and “close distance”? Are you talking about altitude?
My point with the Falcon …
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Scientific Evidence
Flame in rocket exhuast varies depending on ambient pressure and fuel type.
Go to SpaceX’s web site (http://www.spacex.com) and check out the launch videos for the Falcon 9. As the booster ascends into the upper atmosphere, the ambient …