Did Man Set Foot On The Moon In The 60s, 70,s Or Ever?

Ahahahahaha!


Yes. We've been trying to point it out to you for pages.

Radio technology in the 60s was advance to the point we was able to launch probes to the outer solar system tens of thousands of times the distance to the moon and received messages that was send with five watts or so of power.

Now the more I think about it the more amused I get as once the mothership separated from the Lander there was now two sources of radio commutation one sitting on the moon and one moving in relationship to the moon of a ship in moon orbit.

Doppler effects would have clearly shown this surely to the USSR listeners as well as the US tracking people.

As your links claimed that this show was to impress the USSR the fact this was fake would had been plain at once to the USSR and surely others in zero time seem to blow that theory out of the water.

The above is just one of a thousand and one reasons that the moon landing could not had been fake.

As far as just taking my word for it how about taking the word of the thousands of people who was involved with the progress not to say anything about the people such as the USSR monitors that would had known about such a fake.

Or the man who the VA belt was name after or......and on and on we go.

Hi Bill!

So an OBJECT was sent to the moon. This would account for the reflector array. Another object was sitting in medium earth orbit - This would account for the pod.

What other detail could radio receivers have judged what was what?

Kind regards!
Mark...

ROFLMAO...

Right.. and the arab caricature that goes through the picture is found in space too.

1. you state stars aren't there because they are still pictures.
2. You claim you have the video from the still I posted
3. You give us links to flash videos made using still pictures as your evidence of stars in videos.

So, mark.. I posted the video from the still picture that I posted. Can you tell us why there are no stars in the video after you claimed there was?

Hi Parados!

Because the light from the camera is focused on the immediate object (Astronaut).

The video I watched. as I posted to you via link, showed many star shots, but none in the relative photo, there I was in err, but, in my defense, which you'll only insult me for delivering, I have watched an awful lot of footage this past few days and the shot you showed to me was a millisecond after a star shot.

I would also like to add, that the link you gave me only showed a picture of a bank. And all of that footage was quoted to be RESTORED. That means it has been tampered with, but not necessarily airbrushed.

I await your insulting rebuke for my error.

Mark...

Light from the camera?

Perhaps if you updated your browser you might see the video.

Hi Parados!

I tried, I have a pathway missing. I would have liked to have seen it though, I'm interested in stuff like that.

Thank you for not insulting me.

Kind regards!
mark...

Try this


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7K5DiKsZhTk

For one thing the doppler effect and the direction of the radio from your ship in hiding in a medium earth orbit would not had match a ship in moon orbit in fact no where near matching.

FYI the doppler effect allow you to measure the velocity of a radio source compare to the receiver to a fraction of a MPH and any ship in your medium orbit around the earth would have nowhere near the same numbers by a thousand MPH as a ship in low moon orbit or on the moon.

The radio signals was direction for the most point from Apollo and so can be located on a line of less the a degree or so. It would not at least constantly line up with the moon location.

And if you are soft landing large instruments packages on the moon why do you need to fake a moon landing instead of just doing it?

Thank you!

All of the arguments you suggest support a faked moon landing have been debunked repeatedly by independent sources. Now we come to a critical point: Do you accept the science disproving those arguments or take a position that you refuse to believe man went to the moon regardless of the evidence or how absurd that position becomes. There is more evidence of man going to the moon than there is of President Obama being born in Hawaii. Is there any argument that would put your skepticism to rest?

Hi Engineer!

I'm not sceptical, I just don't believe the 69 took place. It's not because I want or don't want to - It's because it didn't take place.

I watched Mr Aldrin about a year ago and I was mostly convinced he'd been to the moon, even after all the conspiracy theories - His genuiness convinced me to fall on the "for" side. It is only since I started delving, after this thread commenced, that I started doubting again. Now I am sure the 69 never took place. If you look closely yourself - you'll likely draw the same conclusions too.

Have a lovely day!
Mark...

Now.. you will notice that cameras from that time period don't show stars when shooting brightly lit astronauts. Well, film cameras from any period would act the same way. It's the nature of how film works.

In that case, how do you explain the alleged retroreflector at Apollo 11's alleged landing site? How do you explain that the first reflection from it was observed on August 1, 1969---nine days after it was allegedly installed?

PS: A lot of old hippies don't remember "the 69"---moon landing or otherwise. That doesn't mean it didn't take place.

Hi Thomas!

Though I don't doubt your sincerity in any way whatsoever - How do we know this to be true?

Kind regards!
Mark...

Mark---I'd be happy to answer your question. But how do I know you actually asked it?

Willful disbelief doesn't show you to be a thoughtful person mark. It shows you to be a complete buffoon. But that seems to be your MO.

Hi Thomas!

Because I put a question mark at the end!

Kind regards!
Mark...

You're not sure then?