Did we *not* go to the moon?

[Duckmanreno]

If you like the subject Gene Kranz book Failure is Not an option is a good read. Tells the story of the space race from a different perspective.

 

[Carcinogen]

I only remember 2 Moon landings, Neil Armstrong stepping on and trip with lunar rover, google says 6.

What puzzles me is no blast crater beneath and no dust on feet of lander feet.

They seem rather somber and not showing much joy after such a feat

 

[kiwigtx]

I can see it either way. I have questions. When I hear: We don't have a telescope big enough to look at the artifacts, I wonder why no one shoots a telescope at a landing site. Apparently, the Landing was done with a tin can, 1950's technology, and a slide rule, how hard can it be? NASA doesn't have enough money to fund a shot like that? One would think they would, just to put it to rest. The newest photos we have were made by Hubble and show nothing at all. The Government passed a law against going to the landing site, but don't they always "document" Historic Sites with photographs to preserve them? Of all the crazy ways they find to spend money, no one ever thought of a Moon photo shoot? They did LOLA which is interesting (see link at bottom)

In 1969, the weight of amplifiers, chokes, and all of the solder in a transmitter was a factor, but with today's technology, how much would it really cost to fire a live streaming smart phone at the Moon ?

I have often wondered why there are no telescopes to see the actual artefacts and vehicular remains on the surface of the moon. They did land on the side that is ALWAYS visible to Earth...so there should be no excuse.

The reasoning given for the Hubble being unable to be used is that the lenses are tuned for deep space observation.....and apparently close up objects like the Moon are only going to produce blurry images .....much like all the footage of JFK's assassination.

Surely, someone, somewhere on Earth has a telescope capable of capturing the required proof to put this to bed for good.

 

[Budnicks]

it's easier to think it was a conspiracy
instead of doing actual research, facts/truth

you can't fix stupid, they drink their bong water too

one of the best days on my life (8 days) right after my 10th birthday
July 20th 1969 Apollo 11 1st steps on the moon
I was & still am a NASA fan...

 

[Fran Blacker]

I have often wondered why there are no telescopes to see the actual artefacts and vehicular remains on the surface of the moon. They did land on the side that is ALWAYS visible to Earth...so there should be no excuse.

The reasoning given for the Hubble being unable to be used is that the lenses are tuned for deep space observation.....and apparently close up objects like the Moon are only going to produce blurry images .....much like all the footage of JFK's assassination.

Surely, someone, somewhere on Earth has a telescope capable of capturing the required proof to put this to bed for good.

And somebody would say that's fake. WTF wasted time space. Hmm a pun in there someplace.

 

[kiwigtx]

And somebody would say that's fake. WTF wasted time space. Hmm a pun in there someplace.

 

[Budnicks]

 

[Budnicks]

cool display in the Smithsonian Institute

 

[Budnicks]

 

[Budnicks]

Neil with the earth in the horizon
in space/on the moon, on the lunar module steps

 

[Budnicks]

Splashdown & recovery

 

[Budnicks]

Buzz & the reflections off his shield

IIRC there is a detailed/high-resolution photo from the earth
of their footprints & the USA flag still standing & lunar debris left behind

I thought I had it saved, may have to look now

 

[fratzog lover]

Buzz Aldrin Punch a Guy - Bing video

 

[Hemirunner]

I think we’re dumber today than we were in 1969 and we couldn’t land a man on the moon today if our very existence depended upon on.

 

[themechanic]

I can see it either way. I have questions. When I hear: We don't have a telescope big enough to look at the artifacts, I wonder why no one shoots a telescope at a landing site. Apparently, the Landing was done with a tin can, 1950's technology, and a slide rule, how hard can it be? NASA doesn't have enough money to fund a shot like that? One would think they would, just to put it to rest. The newest photos we have were made by Hubble and show nothing at all. The Government passed a law against going to the landing site, but don't they always "document" Historic Sites with photographs to preserve them? Of all the crazy ways they find to spend money, no one ever thought of a Moon photo shoot? They did LOLA which is interesting (see link at bottom)

In 1969, the weight of amplifiers, chokes, and all of the solder in a transmitter was a factor, but with today's technology, how much would it really cost to fire a live streaming smart phone at the Moon ?

https://www.usgs.gov/news/national-...es-first-ever-comprehensive-geologic-map-moon

Proof positive from NASA, any questions?

View attachment 1248927

Looks like a bad texture job on a wall.

 

[RemCharger]

I think we’re dumber today than we were in 1969 and we couldn’t land a man on the moon today if our very existence depended upon on.

I'm not well versed, but I believe they tried to reverse engineer the equipment and literally have no idea how they did it lol. Like getting a kid to change points in your slant 6.

 

[padam]

[quoteE="fratzog lover, post: 912169589, member: 16491"]Buzz Aldrin Punch a Guy - Bing video[/QUOTE]
What a freaking stud!

 

[Photon440]

I have often wondered why there are no telescopes to see the actual artefacts and vehicular remains on the surface of the moon. They did land on the side that is ALWAYS visible to Earth...so there should be no excuse.

The reasoning given for the Hubble being unable to be used is that the lenses are tuned for deep space observation.....and apparently close up objects like the Moon are only going to produce blurry images .....much like all the footage of JFK's assassination.

Surely, someone, somewhere on Earth has a telescope capable of capturing the required proof to put this to bed for good.

https://www.scienceabc.com/eyeopene...es-to-see-if-the-moon-landings-were-real.html

 

[wahya]

So regarding that guy, whoever he is, statement that everything will burn up:
The temperature of the thermosphere gradually increases with height. Unlike the stratosphere beneath it, wherein a temperature inversion is due to the absorption of radiation by ozone, the inversion in the thermosphere occurs due to the extremely low density of its molecules. The temperature of this layer can rise as high as 1500°C (2700°F), though the gas molecules are so far apart that its temperature in the usual sense is not very meaningful. This layer is completely cloudless and free of water vapor. However nonhydrometeorological phenomena such as the aurora borealis and aurora australisare occasionally seen in the thermosphere
This statement that I found on science direct. Maybe one of you experts can explain this”not very meaningful “.

 

[Photon440]

Lots of proof we will never ever see
you can bet the 'Warren report' is total BS
the one bullet nonsense is BS too
no way Lee Harvey Oswald could NOT have taken as many shots
as were "allegedly fired", especially with a bolt action Russian riffle
& actually hi the target, at that distance
besides he wasn't that great of a marksman/shot,
nobody is that quick & accurate too, not with that weapon...

Agreed, but the Carcano model 38 was Italian.