Mars Landing, May 25th

[Akira]

It's a perfectly good way to discredit someone, just change one word.

[Doombrain]

Explain why it's 'extremely easy' to take pictures of the landing sites, buzz lightyear

This is due to the fact that unlike a planet, the moon has no gravity, therefore satellites orbit at a much lower altitude, no friction to slow it down, and absolutely no atmospheric distortion on the lenses, therefore not requiring correction, meaning less weight. At the moon the satellites orbit reaches about 80km from the surface at Perigee, this requires lower power on the camera. This, coupled with the fact the moon is much smaller than a planetary body, thus requiring lower orbiting speeds, meaning even lower rez pictures come out sharper.

Now lets say you have a perfectly legit scientific mission like the upcoming NASA satellite and the Japanese one already there, they orbit around and take the pictures they need to accomplish that mission, meanwhile whole this satellite is orbiting the moon, it shifts it's orbit, like the Earth satellites, this would cause it to pass over the moon landing spots many times during this mission, giving them a perfect opertunity to take the photos, while not diverting them from their regular mission.

Let me just destroy your little fantasy.

It to pass over the moon landing spots many times during this mission - The moons surface area is 37.8 million square km.

the moon has no gravity - not true

meaning less weight. - rubbish

This requires lower power on the camera - lol, no.

meaning even lower rez pictures come out sharper. - rubbish

[Nightshade]

It's a perfectly good way to discredit someone, just change one word.

Or, we could just rely on the fact that you're a moron and tend to discredit yourself.

[Doombrain]

Isn't it in a very low decaying orbit, as in a short term orbit? As in there's never been a man made object in a short term decaying orbit over the moon so no images could be taken.

There was a rather large number of moon orbiting satellites that where crashed in to the moon surface on purpose (decaying orbit) near the end of the mission. Both by NASA, Russia, and the European Space Agency.

None fitted with a camera with a lens the size of a cow.

[andyman]

It's a perfectly good way to discredit someone, just change one word.

yeah you're really on to something

[Akira]

the moon has no gravity - not true

It was meant to say no atmosphere.

[Akira]

None fitted with a camera with a lens the size of a cow.

True.

[andyman]

the moon has no gravity - not true

It was meant to say no atmosphere.

So instead of manning up to your typo you instead decide to try and pull the wool over everyone and say someone magically changed your post?

[xer0s]

STOP CHANGING POSTS AND DISCREDITING HIS INTELLIGENCE!!

[andyman]

It took him 5 minutes of us telling him he's a moron to go in and change it himself

[Nightshade]

Well, he admitted that he changed it. No fucking way that's not what he originally typed, though.

[scared?]

lol u guys r in major denial...tis funny...

[Nightshade]

So let's see all your 'proof', nutball. Oh wait, you'll just tell me to go research it myself.
I'll never understand why you get such enjoyment out of passing your time trolling people with your crackpot bullshit.

[scared?]

i don't have to prove...the onus is on the believers...

btw...the weight of the lenses needed for high rez pics need to view the apollo sites is not that heavy...

[andyman]

i don't have to prove...the onus is on the believers...

I'm faster than Michael Johnson but I don't have to prove it

[scared?]

no really...christians try the same shit..."prove there isn't a god" uh. no...thats on u...

[andyman]

no really...christians try the same shit..."prove there isn't a god" uh. no...thats on u...

yeah but god is more of the human condition. space exploration, not so much

[scared?]

u don't ask some to prove it isn't...or how it didn't....proving a negative is about as gay as theist who claim proving a negative is a misconception...lol idiots...

[andyman]

u don't ask some to prove it isn't...or how it didn't....proving a negative is about as gay as theist who claim proving a negative is a misconception...lol idiots...

so since you can't prove that we did land on the moon, and won't prove that we didn't, ... wtf are you going on about?

[Akira]

Landing on the moon is very possible, and "easy". There is no doubt in my mind that we went there, it would be crazy to believe otherwise. However, I find in intriguing why they don't photograph the site for both historical and novelty reasons. Due to this fact, I love discussing the issue, but when it comes down to it, going to the moon is doable.

[scared?]

no dipshit...it's a logical fallacy to ask someone to prove a negative...so if they can't prove we landed on the moon(and they haven't) i'm not convinced we did....when i see some legit quality pics of the apollo sites i will believe...

[Akira]

But how can someone beleive that it's impossible to get to the moon, when you look at the math and the technology it it very doable. How about this, in their desperate need to beat the USSR they sent the landers there but with no people in them. So taking photos will show the sights but no footprints.

And once they got there and beat the USSR, the missions after that where with real people in the cockpit?

Do you accept that?

[Nightshade]

u don't ask some to prove it isn't...or how it didn't....proving a negative is about as gay as theist who claim proving a negative is a misconception...lol idiots...

Nice try dipshit, but you're the one claiming the negative position here. There's shitloads of evidence proving the landings took place, and lots of nutjobs with nothing to back it up (like you) claiming we never went.

[scared?]

did u know there r almost 1000 BOXES of tapes now missing from the apollo era?...this was only revealed a few years ago...hmmmm...

[Nightshade]

Landing on the moon is very possible, and "easy". There is no doubt in my mind that we went there, it would be crazy to believe otherwise. However, I find in intriguing why they don't photograph the site for both historical and novelty reasons. Due to this fact, I love discussing the issue, but when it comes down to it, going to the moon is doable.

Again, there's no reason to photograph it as the only people that have a vested interest in it are lunatic conspiracy theorists.

Do you assume that all the existing photos are fake?