NASA goes to Hollywood for footage of Moon landing

[julius]

So I'm a bit confused.

There's tape of NASA locking the astronauts in the space capsule. There's tape of the blast-off and rocket going into space. There's telemetry following them to the moon. If they never went there, how did the 3 guys get back to give interviews? Are you saying that they orbited the moon, but never landed there?

And why wouldn't other countries go out of their way to prove we didn't go?

 

[Denny Crane]

The mirror on the moon should end this!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/jun/21/mcdonald-observatory-space-laser-funding

Exactly.

The astronauts left things on the moon that we can detect.

 

[Colonel Ronan]

If you are happy being a sheeple ignorant to the pure truth, that is your business. But don't expect me or REAL AMERICANS to play along.

I can refute all the arguments of the coincidence nuts with one hand, while using the other hand to raid a village of Billiborks in WOW.

Your brains would explode at that level of cognitive complexity.

Either you quoted the wrong person, or you were kidding--I have no idea.

 

[Tyler_Hansbrough]

People who believed we went to the moon should be embarrassed for themselves.

People who reject the obvious and irrefutable evidence of the moon landing being fake are vanilla flavored sheeple who will believe anything people tell them. It's people like them that carried out the Holocaust because they don't have brains, but rather automatic switching stations designed to service whichever master is currently in power.

I, on the other hand, collect comic books, have a level 40 wizard character in WOW, and have an IQ of 157 (verified by an online IQ test). I am far above the zombie like behavior of the sheeple and can ACTUALLY THINK FOR MYSELF. I pity the people who believe the official story. I call them "coincidence nuts".

Here are a couple of questions for the coincidence nuts:

1. Why was the flag fluttering in a windless environment?

2. WHY WERE THERE SHADOWS on the moon? Obviously there was no sun, so how could there be shadows?

3. Neil Armstrong was the first man on the moon, yet someone else was able to take his picture? Ooops!

4. Do you think IN SPACE there might be STARS? Yes? Oh wait.....nope. According to the videos in questions stars don't exist in outer space. Laughable.

5. Neil Armstrong actually admitted to a reported the whole thing was faked, then retracted his story. Why? Because someone got to him, and because the government is controlling all electronic communications (that's why google has no record of it).

Why don't you sheeple address the arguments?

Repped. I agree 100%. I believe the moon landing was fake. Just like 9-11 was an inside job. People believe anything the government tells them.

 

[barfo]

Exactly.

The astronauts left things on the moon that we can detect.

And that's why we'll be bringing sewage treatment equipment next time.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

And that's why we'll be bringing sewage treatment equipment next time.

barfo

Great. Now man is fucking up the moon's ecology.

In any case:

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/11jul_lroc.htm

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]​

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Above: The Apollo 17 moon buggy, circled, waits to film the departure of its mothership, Challenger.

[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Many people find this surprising, even disconcerting. Conspiracy theorists have long insisted that NASA never went to the Moon. It was all a hoax, they say, a way to win the Space Race by trickery. The fact that Apollo landing sites have not been photographed in detail since the early 1970s encourages their claims.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
Apollo landing sites. [More][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]And why haven't we photographed them? There are six landing sites scattered across the Moon. They always face Earth, always in plain view. Surely the Hubble Space Telescope could photograph the rovers and other things astronauts left behind. Right?[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Wrong. Not even Hubble can do it. The Moon is 384,400 km away. At that distance, the smallest things Hubble can distinguish are about 60 meters wide. The biggest piece of left-behind Apollo equipment is only 9 meters across and thus smaller than a single pixel in a Hubble image.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
Better pictures are coming. In 2008 NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter will carry a powerful modern camera into low orbit over the Moon's surface. Its primary mission is not to photograph old Apollo landing sites, but it will photograph them, many times, providing the first recognizable images of Apollo relics since 1972. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
The spacecraft's high-resolution camera, called "LROC," short for Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera, has a resolution of about half a meter. That means that a half-meter square on the Moon's surface would fill a single pixel in its digital images. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
Apollo moon buggies are about 2 meters wide and 3 meters long. So in the LROC images, those abandoned vehicles will fill about 4 by 6 pixels. [/FONT]