Conspiracy Theory The Moon landing - 40 years on

Remove this Banner Ad

Mrzach said:
I don’t have an opinion if the moon landing was fake or not but a lot of the development of trips and technology to space was a pissing contest out of fear between the USA and Russia as part of the Cold War. But a video for the conspiracists
View attachment 1511334
for the conspiracists
Click to expand...
I nearly s**t myself 😂
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Lebbo73 said:
Wtf did I just watch?
Click to expand...

I didn't enjoy it as much as I thought I would. It's on SBS's site. I can't really recommend it too strongly, but we obviously don't all have the same tastes

www.sbs.com.au

Iron Sky

An army of Nazis, hidden in a moon base for 70 years, prepares a gigantic warship for an invasion of Earth in 2018.
www.sbs.com.au www.sbs.com.au
 
If the moon appears x big to us from here, then the earth should appear y big to us from there, not x big....given the same distance exists between the two, and given the very big differences in size between the two.

It's common sense. And as simple as that.

Any talk of camera lens, depth of field etc is nonsense. Small differences like a 6'5" man appearing to be the same height as a 5'11" man in a celeb photo, sure, but not planetary-sized differences.

If it's fact that the earth should be 10:1 times sized on the moon horizon and the moon 1:1 sized on the earth horizon, and yet the earth appears 1:1 sized on the photo taken from the moon, lens etc cannot do that, especially when the people and the moon lander still retain their proportion and normalcy, because otherwise they too would have to be 10 times smaller in those photos.
 
If Jupiter was parked where the moon is, it would take up so much of the sky on the earth horizon, so therefore the Earth in Jupiter's sky would appear like the moon does to us, even smaller.

It cannot be argued that Jupiter would only appear to us as big as the moon. So it cannot be said the Earth would appear only as big as the moon does to us to people on the moon -- the Earth is Jupiter-like compared to the moon so it should take up by far more of the moon sky than those Apollo photos.

Thats why its such a simple slam dunk.
 
GG.exe said:
Tell-tale sign moon landings were fake ...

1) size difference between Earth and Moon

2) relative distance between Earth and Moon

3) NASA photo of Earth on Moon horizon...a false ratio that mimics the Moon on Earth horizon

4) what the Earth on Moon horizon SHOULD'VE resembled instead....

View attachment 1597584View attachment 1597585View attachment 1597586View attachment 1597587
Click to expand...

GG.exe said:
The Earth is too huge to capture from a distance. NASA admits the blue marble pictures are pieced together from millions of segments and can't show Earth in its whole in one image. Further evidence that the Earth on Moon horizon pictures are fake then. Thus, Moon landing fake.
Click to expand...

GG.exe said:
If the moon appears x big to us from here, then the earth should appear y big to us from there, not x big....given the same distance exists between the two, and given the very big differences in size between the two.

It's common sense. And as simple as that.

Any talk of camera lens, depth of field etc is nonsense. Small differences like a 6'5" man appearing to be the same height as a 5'11" man in a celeb photo, sure, but not planetary-sized differences.

If it's fact that the earth should be 10:1 times sized on the moon horizon and the moon 1:1 sized on the earth horizon, and yet the earth appears 1:1 sized on the photo taken from the moon, lens etc cannot do that, especially when the people and the moon lander still retain their proportion and normalcy, because otherwise they too would have to be 10 times smaller in those photos.
Click to expand...


GG.exe said:
If Jupiter was parked where the moon is, it would take up so much of the sky on the earth horizon, so therefore the Earth in Jupiter's sky would appear like the moon does to us, even smaller.

It cannot be argued that Jupiter would only appear to us as big as the moon. So it cannot be said the Earth would appear only as big as the moon does to us to people on the moon -- the Earth is Jupiter-like compared to the moon so it should take up by far more of the moon sky than those Apollo photos.

Thats why its such a simple slam dunk.
Click to expand...
Do you have any links to any actual evidence to back up any of this? I mean, the earth does look pretty big in the NASA photos from the moon when you consider how tiny the moon generally shows up in photos taken here on earth. Plus there are well-known optical illusions about how we perceive the size of the moon depending on how close to the horizon it is.
 
Father Jack said:
Do you have any links to any actual evidence to back up any of this? I mean, the earth does look pretty big in the NASA photos from the moon when you consider how tiny the moon generally shows up in photos taken here on earth. Plus there are well-known optical illusions about how we perceive the size of the moon depending on how close to the horizon it is.
Click to expand...
It's just common sense.

Lenses aren't magic makers. Lenses just uniformly distort a scene, squish or stretch in minor ways, everything in frame (eg fish-eye). A lense can't make a gigantic earth suddenly look small in the midst of a photo while everything else stays in proportion. A lense is just an eye.

Put an ant on a golf ball, and put a basketball proportionately at a distance from the baseball, to scale, and put a powerful camera at the ant's perspective looking toward the basketball....it will still fill up the ant's horizon view, still be in proportion despite whatever other lense distortions come about.

Same as a person taking a selfie with Mt Everest behind them, on location. You can't make something hovering over the skyline suddenly look like it's the size of a two-storey house unless you drive hundreds of miles further away and take the selfie there instead. Lenses engage in minor distortions, they are not graphics software that can manipulate individual items. Everything still works to proportion.

If the Earth should be, say, 10:1 times bigger on the moon horizon, let's say thats fact, and yet the photo shows it moon-sized like on earth's horizon, 1:1 sized, that's not all because of lense and tricks of perspective, otherwise people and moon lander would appear ten times smaller too.

We're not talking about small differences between a 6'5" man appearing to be the same size as a 5'11" man in a celeb photo due to lens and frame and depth of field ... we're talking about a massive planetary-sized difference between Earth and moon, things that lens etc do not drastically change the dimensions of in terms of proportion.

If Jupiter was parked where the moon is, it would take up so much of the sky on the earth horizon, so therefore the Earth in Jupiter's sky would appear like the moon does to us, even smaller.

It cannot be argued that Jupiter would only appear to us as big as the moon. So it cannot be said the Earth would appear only as big as the moon does to us to people on the moon -- the Earth is "Jupiter-like" compared to the moon so it should take up by far more of the moon sky than those Apollo photos.

Even if that Earth-rise photo was taken in orbit around the moon, the Earth would be "Jupiter-like" in the sky. Same with that video footage of Apollo astronauts looking out the window and showing the Earth in the distance as they travel to the moon ... it's doctored, fake. The Earth would fill up the view from the window, it wouldn't look that small. It's a "Jupiter" to a small craft only a hundred thousand KMs away.

There is clear evidence of fakery in many of the moon photos, I don't think anyone can really dispute this any longer. With modern forensic analysis and basic physics (vanishing point analysis in moving frames, etc.).

I believe this had more to do with the politics at the time, we were going to the moon even if we didn't get to the moon. The government would not accept a loss after all the money and hype invested into the program...likely there was a lot of money that went into deep pockets that would not welcome an audit from a failed program.

It is also possible that we got to the moon, but the actual photos were all garbage and they used the "plan B" propaganda reel. It is also possible that the trip to the moon was fatal to the real crew, maybe they are still up there... once you start on this line of speculation it is easy to get lost without any evidence. It is interesting about how they didn't really address the Van Allen belts even though they spent years researching how to deal with them beforehand... couple that with the new trip around the moon where the capsule is loaded with radiation monitoring equipment.

A couple years ago, NASA also requested that they change the rules of the X-prize since a group was planning on landing near on of the Apollo sites to return photos of the historic site.

This conspiracy is interesting, but also annoying. I believe that the public is capable of handling the truth of many of these situations and our self-proclaimed "gate keepers" are doing us and themselves a disservice by maintaining all this unnecessary secrecy. It holds us back as a society.
Click to expand...

I am referring to vanishing point in a moving frame. You can use well compressed images or the raw originals.

There are many series of images from the moon where the camera is either moving, or it is stationary and sweeping out a field of view.

Objects closer to the camera move more than objects further away. This should be a smooth transition from the foreground to the background. When you do this analysis there is a rigid cutoff where the horizon ends pointing to either a stage backdrop or doctoring of the photo to exclude anything further than a certain distance away.

This type of analysis is robust and does not care about any image artifacts. It points to "clear evidence of fakery". The how and the why are unknown, but it is clear that the photos were doctored.
Click to expand...
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

GG.exe said:
It's just common sense.

Lenses aren't magic makers. Lenses just uniformly distort a scene, squish or stretch in minor ways, everything in frame (eg fish-eye). A lense can't make a gigantic earth suddenly look small in the midst of a photo while everything else stays in proportion. A lense is just an eye.

Put an ant on a golf ball, and put a basketball proportionately at a distance from the baseball, to scale, and put a powerful camera at the ant's perspective looking toward the basketball....it will still fill up the ant's horizon view, still be in proportion despite whatever other lense distortions come about.

Same as a person taking a selfie with Mt Everest behind them, on location. You can't make something hovering over the skyline suddenly look like it's the size of a two-storey house unless you drive hundreds of miles further away and take the selfie there instead. Lenses engage in minor distortions, they are not graphics software that can manipulate individual items. Everything still works to proportion.

If the Earth should be, say, 10:1 times bigger on the moon horizon, let's say thats fact, and yet the photo shows it moon-sized like on earth's horizon, 1:1 sized, that's not all because of lense and tricks of perspective, otherwise people and moon lander would appear ten times smaller too.

We're not talking about small differences between a 6'5" man appearing to be the same size as a 5'11" man in a celeb photo due to lens and frame and depth of field ... we're talking about a massive planetary-sized difference between Earth and moon, things that lens etc do not drastically change the dimensions of in terms of proportion.

If Jupiter was parked where the moon is, it would take up so much of the sky on the earth horizon, so therefore the Earth in Jupiter's sky would appear like the moon does to us, even smaller.

It cannot be argued that Jupiter would only appear to us as big as the moon. So it cannot be said the Earth would appear only as big as the moon does to us to people on the moon -- the Earth is "Jupiter-like" compared to the moon so it should take up by far more of the moon sky than those Apollo photos.

Even if that Earth-rise photo was taken in orbit around the moon, the Earth would be "Jupiter-like" in the sky. Same with that video footage of Apollo astronauts looking out the window and showing the Earth in the distance as they travel to the moon ... it's doctored, fake. The Earth would fill up the view from the window, it wouldn't look that small. It's a "Jupiter" to a small craft only a hundred thousand KMs away.
Click to expand...
So many words based on so many assumptions with absolutely nothing to back them up. All of that can be debunked with about five or ten minutes worth of googling.
 
Severe underestimating of the actual distance between Earth and the Moon going on here.
 
The earth is about 3.5 times the diameter of the Moon. If you hold your hand at arms length (while standing on earth), you can cover the moon with your little finger. The moon covers about 1/2 a degree of the sky - so 1/360th of the sky (assuming you had a clear view horizon to horizn).
So if you are standing on the moon, you would be able to cover the earth with 3 fingers. It would cover a bit over 1.5 degrees of the sky (abput 1/100th horizon to horizon).
Hold 3 fingers up and see how little of the sky it covers.
 
There's an Adam Ruins Everything episode that brilliantly debunks the 'moon landing conspiracy' points.
 
GG.exe said:
It's the same distance between the two, thats not important, what is the size difference between the two
Click to expand...

It matters when you post this image:

shutterstock-1596301156-jpg.1597585



to justify this image:

1675168615279-png.1597587
 
The requirement for cell towers every three miles is a generalization and not a fixed rule. The density of cell towers is determined by many factors, including the density of the population and the terrain of the area being served.

The ability of the President to call the moon in 1969 was a result of the use of specialized communications equipment and the availability of large, highly directional antennae that could transmit signals over vast distances. This kind of communication is not suitable for providing mobile voice and data services to the general public.

Cell towers, on the other hand, are designed to provide coverage over a more limited area, typically several kilometers in radius. They use lower power transmitters and smaller antennae, which are optimized for mobile communication. Multiple cell towers are positioned in close proximity to each other to provide continuous coverage and to ensure that the signals can penetrate buildings and other structures.

In conclusion, the requirement for cell towers every three miles is a rough estimate that may vary based on the specific requirements of each network, but it is driven by the need to provide reliable and seamless voice and data services to mobile users, which is different from the specialized long-distance communications equipment used for calling the moon in 1969.

Well, that's what the robot said when I asked it.
 
GG.exe said:
A generalized throwaway "specialized communication equipment"
Click to expand...
In 1969, the first successful telecommunication with the moon was achieved using radio waves. To understand how this was possible, it's important to have a basic understanding of how radio waves work.
Radio waves are a type of electromagnetic radiation that can travel through the vacuum of space. They are generated by oscillating electric and magnetic fields, which are created by the movement of charged particles. The wavelength of radio waves can range from millimeters to kilometers and they are used for a variety of purposes, including television and radio broadcasting, cell phone communication, and radar.
To telephone the moon, two separate systems were used: a transmission system on Earth and a receiving system on the moon's surface. On Earth, a powerful radio transmitter was used to send a signal to the moon. This signal was then received by a specialized antenna on the moon's surface, which was part of the Apollo Lunar Module.
The radio waves that were transmitted from Earth had to travel through the vacuum of space and overcome several obstacles, such as the Earth's ionosphere and the moon's surface. However, radio waves have the advantage of being able to penetrate through solid objects and travel long distances, making them well-suited for communication over vast distances such as the Earth-moon system.
Once the radio signal arrived at the moon, it was picked up by the specialized antenna and then transmitted to the Lunar Module, where it was processed and transmitted back to Earth. On Earth, the signal was received by a large dish antenna, which was part of the Deep Space Network.
The success of this telecommunication marked a major milestone in space exploration and paved the way for future missions to the moon and beyond. It demonstrated that it was possible to send and receive communication over vast distances in space, and showed the importance of electromagnetic radiation, such as radio waves, in space exploration and communication.
 
provide a more technical explanation

The first successful telecommunication with the moon in 1969 involved the use of radio waves. The radio wave frequency used was S-band (2.29 GHz), which is a portion of the microwave frequency spectrum that is suitable for deep space communication.
On Earth, a powerful radio transmitter was used to generate and send the radio wave signal to the moon. The transmitter had an output power of about 20 kilowatts and was located at the Goldstone Deep Space Communications Complex in California. The signal was then sent to a parabolic dish antenna with a diameter of 70 meters, which acted as a high-gain antenna and provided a highly directional beam of radio waves to the moon.
On the moon, a specialized antenna, known as the Lunar Module Antenna, was used to receive the radio wave signal. The antenna was a directional, dual polarized, patch antenna with a gain of about 17 dBi and an effective aperture of 0.15 square meters. This type of antenna was chosen for its ability to provide a high directivity and gain, as well as its compact size, which was necessary for use on the Lunar Module.
Once the radio wave signal reached the moon, it was picked up by the Lunar Module Antenna and then transmitted to the Lunar Module, where it was processed and amplified before being sent back to Earth. The return signal was received by the parabolic dish antenna at the Goldstone Deep Space Communications Complex and was then processed to extract the original audio signal.
In summary, the telecommunication with the moon was achieved through the use of radio waves and specialized equipment such as high-power transmitters, parabolic dish antennas, and specialized antennas on the moon's surface. The success of this telecommunication demonstrated the feasibility of sending and receiving communication over vast distances in space and laid the foundation for future missions to the moon and beyond.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
50 YEARS OF FAlLED CLIMATE PREDICTIONS. WITH LINKS TO MAINSTREAM LIARS OLD ARTICLES.
Replies
24
Views
2K
alethephobia
alethephobia
Shane Heard
Conspiracy Theory Fall asleep to 5 hours of Bill Burr ranting on about conspiracy theories.
Replies
1
Views
543
Mofra
Mofra
PieLebo87
Conspiracy Theory The New Silk Road - Israel
Replies
11
Views
1K
Kurve
Kurve
peetoo
Conspiracy Theory The 15 minute city
2
Replies
37
Views
2K
Chief
Chief
Exe Gesis
Revisionism The Aryan Religion
Replies
0
Views
437
Exe Gesis
Exe Gesis
HaveCrankOnMe
Conspiracy Theory The strange death of Loretta Fuddy
Replies
5
Views
616
Exe Gesis
Exe Gesis
Malifice
Conspiracy Theory There actually are people (State and non-State actors) who ARE brainwashing you, and most of you don't actually know it's happening.
20 21 22 23 24
Replies
575
Views
16K
CM86
CM86

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top