[Round fact]

http://phys.org/news/2009-09-indian-satellite-moon-scientist.html

This should be investing.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

That photo doesn't look like anything that would indicate foot prints or where a space craft would've landed or taken off from.

Does it to you?

[Round fact]

That photo doesn't look like anything that would indicate foot prints or where a space craft would've landed or taken off from.

Does it to you?

Where in the link does it say the picture shows foot prints or even the decent stage of Apollo 15?

It DOES say the confirmed the landing and the place of the landing.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

Where? Are you looking at the same "photo" as me?

[Round fact]

Where? Are you looking at the same "photo" as me?

I am and I am messing with you a bit.  The article explains the image and it is clear where the foot prints are and are not.

I was hoping you'd you go back and look with an open mind. My bad

[Rounder]

Where? Are you looking at the same "photo" as me?

In an article about verifying the Apollo 15 landing, they illustrate with a photo of an entirely different part of the moon?  (The caption calls it "over the polar region", which is nowhere near the Apollo 15 landing site)  What the hell!  It would have been better to have NO photo, than an irellevant one.

[Woody]

Here is a picture the article linked did not use for some reason.



"Three-dimensional view of Apollo-15 landing site by TMC showing front of Apennine Mountain, parts of Rima Hadley Rille and ‘halo’ around the landing site of the Apollo-15 Lunar module. [Ref: Prakash Chauhan et al. Current Science, 97, 630-631, 2009]"

http://www.vssc.gov.in/VSSC_V4/index.php/chandrayaan-1/55-science/1005-chandrayaan-1mission


Here is one from China's Chang 2:



It was taken with an higher resolution camera and easier to see stuff.

Japan's Selene also took some pictures.

[Round fact]

Where? Are you looking at the same "photo" as me?

In an article about verifying the Apollo 15 landing, they illustrate with a photo of an entirely different part of the moon?  (The caption calls it "over the polar region", which is nowhere near the Apollo 15 landing site)  What the hell!  It would have been better to have NO photo, than an irellevant one.

Rounder keep in mind the article was written by a reporter NOT a scientist.

I remember Walter Cronkite, CBS News' claimed "Expert" reporter/anchor on the Apollo Space Missions.  And I remember him being corrected by Robert Heinlein over and over and over again.

I don't think  Cronkite could have found a Full Moon on a cloudless night in middle of the ocean with all the ship''s lights off.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

Where? Are you looking at the same "photo" as me?

In an article about verifying the Apollo 15 landing, they illustrate with a photo of an entirely different part of the moon?  (The caption calls it "over the polar region", which is nowhere near the Apollo 15 landing site)  What the hell!  It would have been better to have NO photo, than an irellevant one.

Rounder keep in mind the article was written by a reporter NOT a scientist.

I remember Walter Cronkite, CBS News' claimed "Expert" reporter/anchor on the Apollo Space Missions.  And I remember him being corrected by Robert Heinlein over and over and over again.

I don't think  Cronkite could have found a Full Moon on a cloudless night in middle of the ocean with all the ship''s lights off.

So thanks for the pointless article then.

[Round fact]

Where? Are you looking at the same "photo" as me?

In an article about verifying the Apollo 15 landing, they illustrate with a photo of an entirely different part of the moon?  (The caption calls it "over the polar region", which is nowhere near the Apollo 15 landing site)  What the hell!  It would have been better to have NO photo, than an irellevant one.

Rounder keep in mind the article was written by a reporter NOT a scientist.

I remember Walter Cronkite, CBS News' claimed "Expert" reporter/anchor on the Apollo Space Missions.  And I remember him being corrected by Robert Heinlein over and over and over again.

I don't think  Cronkite could have found a Full Moon on a cloudless night in middle of the ocean with all the ship''s lights off.

So thanks for the pointless article then.

Are you calling the article fake just because the reporter called it the polar region when he should have said northern latitude?

[Rounder]

He called it "pointless", which is not the same as calling it "fake".  I have little doubt he believes it to BE fake, but that's not what he said.

The reason it is pointless is that the photo WAS of the polar region, which is pointless in an article about an Apollo mission.  They should have used the photo OF the Apollo site, not some other photo taken by the probe. 

It makes as much sense as me telling you I went to Texas, and illustrating with a photo of Oklahoma.  Sure, I went there too, but photos of other places don't prove I went to Texas. 

[Round fact]

Objection!  Relevance?

Objection noted and sustained. I'll delete the post

[Pongo]

http://phys.org/news/2009-09-indian-satellite-moon-scientist.html

This should be investing.

Okay, so their magic spacecraft proved the existence of another magic spacecraft? How convenient.

[Round fact]

http://phys.org/news/2009-09-indian-satellite-moon-scientist.html

This should be investing.

Okay, so their magic spacecraft proved the existence of another magic spacecraft? How convenient.

So saying something that is proved to exist, doesn't exist, makes it not exist?  Does that fantasy work in reverse?

[Pongo]

http://phys.org/news/2009-09-indian-satellite-moon-scientist.html

This should be investing.

Okay, so their magic spacecraft proved the existence of another magic spacecraft? How convenient.

So saying something that is proved to exist, doesn't exist, makes it not exist?  Does that fantasy work in reverse?

It's like saying I proved that faeries existed by using my fairy wand.

[Round fact]

http://phys.org/news/2009-09-indian-satellite-moon-scientist.html

This should be investing.

Okay, so their magic spacecraft proved the existence of another magic spacecraft? How convenient.

So saying something that is proved to exist, doesn't exist, makes it not exist?  Does that fantasy work in reverse?

It's like saying I proved that faeries existed by using my fairy wand.

Well as least you admit your proof of a fake Space Program is a fairy wand.

What I don't understand is why you're terrified of the truth to point that you believe just saying something is fake will make is so. It would seem some part of you, no matter how small knows your FE is fantasy.

I had the unfortunate job of having to deal with a brilliant engineer that one day just jumped off the sanity train. Stark raving nuts and when I had to deal with him, he'd been nuts for almost 13 years. But one thing that always struck me, he KNEW he was nuts and he'd tell you so. Some sane part of him, even after all that time was screaming to get out. Whats your problem?

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

Well as least you admit your proof of a fake Space Program is a fairy wand.

What I don't understand is why you're terrified of the truth to point that you believe just saying something is fake will make is so. It would seem some part of you, no matter how small knows your FE is fantasy.

I had the unfortunate job of having to deal with a brilliant engineer that one day just jumped off the sanity train. Stark raving nuts and when I had to deal with him, he'd been nuts for almost 13 years. But one thing that always struck me, he KNEW he was nuts and he'd tell you so. Some sane part of him, even after all that time was screaming to get out. Whats your problem?

Ironic for you to accuse someone of being terrified of the truth.

You do realize the phenomenon of confirmation bias is a lot stronger the longer someone holds a particular belief.

You've believed in the moon landing ever since you watched it in black and white on one of the three channels in 1969.

You can't possibly fathom such an obvious motive to fake it as 'winning' the space race against a nuclear arch enemy.

You so willingly accept any piece of information to support your belief, no matter how poorly written or factually wrong.

Space fantasy and patriotism is so core to who you are, you accept nothing that jeapordizes that. Who is terrified here?

[Round fact]

Well as least you admit your proof of a fake Space Program is a fairy wand.

What I don't understand is why you're terrified of the truth to point that you believe just saying something is fake will make is so. It would seem some part of you, no matter how small knows your FE is fantasy.

I had the unfortunate job of having to deal with a brilliant engineer that one day just jumped off the sanity train. Stark raving nuts and when I had to deal with him, he'd been nuts for almost 13 years. But one thing that always struck me, he KNEW he was nuts and he'd tell you so. Some sane part of him, even after all that time was screaming to get out. Whats your problem?

Ironic for you to accuse someone of being terrified of the truth.

You do realize the phenomenon of confirmation bias is a lot stronger the longer someone holds a particular belief.

You've believed in the moon landing ever since you watched it in black and white on one of the three channels in 1969.

You can't possibly fathom such an obvious motive to fake it as 'winning' the space race against a nuclear arch enemy.

You so willingly accept any piece of information to support your belief, no matter how poorly written or factually wrong.

Space fantasy and patriotism is so core to who you are, you accept nothing that jeapordizes that. Who is terrified here?

I'm not the one shaking in my boots, making false statements based on debunked "evidence" just to hold to a fantasy of a mathematically impossible FE.

Your "proof" boils down to "because I said so."

But, yeah I watched landings. Yep I watched Saturn V engines being tested (we lived less than 10 miles from the test site in the Santa Susanna Hills, above Simi Valley; my dad built the engines) I have talked to BOTH Armstrong and Aldrin,(Apollo 11) and Walter Cunningham (Apollo 7) is a friend of family close family.  I met others when I was in the Air Force. NOTHING about them says liar.  They can back up what happened, with more than; FOOT STOMP, TEARS, POUTING, "Because I said it was a lie and THAT settles it." FOOT STOMP sudden arms folding across the widdle chest and more pouting.

The fact is the math, the photos, the testimony, EVERYTHING points to the US Manned Space Program is real and continuing flights.

One more fact, Ya got nada as proof. And saying it didn't happen won't change the fact that it did and still does.

I pity you for what you are missing in life. 

You on the other hand are believing hearsay based on more hearsay all of which have been completely debunked for more that 50 years.

[BlueMoon]

You do realize the phenomenon of confirmation bias is a lot stronger the longer someone holds a particular belief.

Oh hey, thanks for outlining the reasons why the FES continues to exist despite being proven wrong time and time again. 

You can't possibly fathom such an obvious motive to fake it as 'winning' the space race against a nuclear arch enemy.

Yes we can.  That's what it took to get to the moon within a decade.  But we pulled it off, and we've proven it multiple times. 

Space fantasy and patriotism is so core to who you are, you accept nothing that jeapordizes that. Who is terrified here?

Still you.  You would know that there's no way the earth could be anything but round, if you had done even one scrap of unbiased research in your life. 

You so willingly accept any piece of information to support your belief, no matter how poorly written or factually wrong.

Says the guy whose username is TheTruthIsOnHere. 

[Ironic for you to accuse someone of being terrified of the truth. /quote]
I'm not sure it's possible to convey the level of irony that statement contains. 

[Chicken Fried Clucker]

I have a unique view into aerospace from what I do. I have stated my feelings on the flat and round earth debate. However, even I will say it is strange they will zoom in on "foot prints and tracks" yet never once any left behind equipment anywhere. Let's instead try to find "disturbances" "foot wide tire tracks or show impressions". Though I don't know what orbit they are holding, so I can't speak with absolute certainly. I will say the moon landing never set right with me, I have had experience with too much aerospace propulsion systems, and their math of the mission bugs me.

However, this was in the 60s, still the old generation. People weren't argumentative little politically correct babies yet, spending all day whining and speaking about what could be done, but being too lazy and ignorant/arrogant (interchangeable) to do it. People of this time worked together and did what had to be done without excuse, still plenty of the world war 2 mentality was left when this happened. These are the people that made the country great and a success at the time. All bite, no bark. Also, NASA had a 20 billion dollar budget, and if requested more they would get it if it meant to win. So considering these two things, the moon landing is certainly plausible despite my doubts.

Also view it...with the old mentality and 160 billion dollars, what would NASA be able to do now?