[juner]

RE: Prove me wrong!

FE: You're the one making a claim, the burden lies with you to prove it.

RE: I don't know what you're talking about, prove me wrong!

Lather, rinse, repeat.

[sandokhan]

One of the most informative works on the fake nasa missions...

http://web.archive.org/web/20080104131143/http://www.futuresunltd.com/sudarshan/MoonShadows/MoonShadows.htm#Videos

A brief excerpt.

How did they fake so many trips to Venus and Saturn, Mars, etc.?

Well, one day around 1978 I was also wondering the same thing myself. I had seen the pictures of Saturn and it's rings and moons and I was also wondering, wow, 10's of 1,000's of electronic photos were being transmitted from, what was it, Voyager?. I kept wondering, How?  Of course, they could just be models and photos were taken. But, then, one day, just after Star Wars II came out and Star Trek the movie (# 1) came out I had got hold of a movie industry magazine that was called Business Pictures. In it were ads from special effects companies who work for Hollywood. This was the dawn of computer graphics being used in motion pictures. Star Wars I was made using mostly models, but, after Star Wars I, George Lucas used some of the profits to set up a new lab called Pixar, which strove to push the technology and create stunning effects using state of the art Computer Workstations. CG, or Computer Graphics. I was looking at some of the ads and articles in the magazine and I found a peculiar one. Unfortunately I do not recall the name of the company running the ad. But, they were selling computer graphics "programming", not a finished program, but the algorythms and 'basic mathematical building blocks' used to create a program. What they claimed to be was a company that does contract work for JPL, NASA and the military. What they were selling were the software foundations and routines that did texture mapping and perspective, surface reflection, shadow mapping, etc. Then, what really caught my eye and peaked my interest was that the ad stated that the information they were selling had been developed over 10 years prior by NASA and the US military and had, up until now, been considered highly classified and secret information. With this technology and the use of super computers they claimed it was possible to create virtually any special effects scene. The reason given that the information was now being declassified and being offered for sale was that the movie industry (specifically the work done by Lucas's Pixar team - which became the foundation for Industrial Light and Magic, the premiere computer graphics company of the entire industry), had begun to catch up with the secret technology and it was decided there was no longer any reason to keep the information classified.

Wow. The same technology that helped to produce the visual effects of space, planets, and space crafts used for Star Wars II and Star Trek I had been developed and used by NASA and JPL for over 10 years earlier. That would mean that NASA and JPL had the ability to create virtual reality graphics effects as early as the late 1960's. Texture mapping, shadow mapping, light reflection, etc. Then I instantly realized how JPL was turning out 10's of 1,000's of electronic photos of Saturn and space. They had CG technology for a long time before Hollywood finally caught up and learned how to do it. The 'fly-by' probes that mapped Venus and Saturn, etc. all sent back to earth electronic data and photos. It was feasible to generate all of this on computer. JPL had at it's disposal the fastest and most powerful super-computers of the day, like the Cray. All they had to do was bounce signals off a distant satellite so that the ground crews would receive real signals that they thought were coming from deep space.

[Venus]

RE: Prove me wrong!

FE: You're the one making a claim, the burden lies with you to prove it.

RE: I don't know what you're talking about, prove me wrong!

Lather, rinse, repeat.

In other words you CAN'T prove them to be fake in any way... if all 14,223 photos were fakes you should be able to easily prove it but you can't !

Just like you can't provide a map of the flat earth which shows all continents, countries and oceans in their correct sizes and proportions as they were mapped out by surveyors and sailors (the Australian coastline was mapped in 1810 so we know that it is not the shape on either of your maps!) And providing a flat earth map on a flat piece of paper should be an easy straightforward task if indeed the earth IS flat ! But you can't!

And why on earth can't rabinoz and I see Polaris? Because we live in the southern hemisphere, so explain that!!! But you can't!!

So when faced with difficult questions ... you avoid them, and turn the tables ...

Did you know that 222 individuals have made 379 spaceflights to the ISS ... are they all dead now? Living a life of luxury on their NASA payouts??

533 people have been to space and have orbited the earth ... are they all dead now? Living a life of luxury on their NASA payouts??

Who bribed all of the astronomers to lie about the shape of the earth before NASA came into existence ?? You know the ancient Greeks 2500 years ago who knew the earth was a sphere ... and all of the ones listed on this website who died before NASA was created in the late 1950's and all believed the earth was a sphere !!
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=famous+astronomers&rlz=1C1CHWL_enAU637AU638&oq=famous+astronomers&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i65l3j0l2.3816j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

But the thing that I hate the most ... is that all of those thousands of astronomers since 500BC who spent every night for years and years looking at the night sky, collectively spent hundreds of thousands of hours, whole lifetimes spent observing, recording those observations, hypothesising ... and you FE'ers come along and after a couple of hours spent watching YouTube videos think you know more than 2500 years of astronomy, ... because... NASA, or because ... God (or the Bible...whatever)

Yet none of you know as much as Aristarchus did in 200BC !! And he knew then that the earth and other planets went around the sun, and the moon went around the earth, he even knew that the earth was the third planet from the sun, and the correct order of the rest of them which were visible to the naked eye (no telescopes until the 1600's!!). And he knew that the stars were much further away than any of the planets or the sun. He didn't figure all of that out by sitting on his ass in front of a computer ... he went out and looked at the night sky ... probably every night !! He worked all of this out by observing the paths of the sun, moon, stars and planets in the night sky!! Night after night after night !!
But you guys can't do that can you?? Hands up those FE'ers who own a telescope or have even used one??

And yet I bet most of you northerners could not go outside on a cloudless night and actually find Polaris !!! You are an insult to the intelligence, the patience and the sheer determination of all of those astronomers that contributed so much to our knowledge of our beautiful planet, our solar system, our galaxy and our universe, from Aristarchus and Eratosthenes to Hubble and Einstein !!

You give the world nothing !! If any of you had another brain cell you would have a binary system !!

Next time you go to your doctor tell him you don't want him to use the germ theory to treat your infection... tell him you want to be treated using the miasma theory of disease !!
Because if you want to reject the Copernican Theory, and the Theory of Relativity, gravity, space travel, satellites, you may as well reject the rest of what hard working Scientists have given us over the last 2500 years.

Oh and next time you need to use Velcro, or need a Cat scan, or use a cordless drill, or any device which uses a microchip, or have your temperature taken with an ear thermometer, or buy freeze dried food, or use a joystick, or install an LED light globe, or buy a mattress or pillow made of memory foam, or buy scratch resistant lenses, or a new smoke detector, or a water filter, or flame resistant clothing for your children ... thank NASA !!!

Over and out of here ... love to all the RoundEarthers from the girl downunder !!

[juner]

RE: Prove me wrong!

FE: You're the one making a claim, the burden lies with you to prove it.

RE: I don't know what you're talking about, prove me wrong!

Lather, rinse, repeat.

In other words you CAN'T prove them to be fake in any way... if all 14,223 photos were fakes you should be able to easily prove it but you can't !

Just like you can't provide a map of the flat earth which shows all continents, countries and oceans in their correct sizes and proportions as they were mapped out by surveyors and sailors (the Australian coastline was mapped in 1810 so we know that it is not the shape on either of your maps!) And providing a flat earth map on a flat piece of paper should be an easy straightforward task if indeed the earth IS flat ! But you can't!

And why on earth can't rabinoz and I see Polaris? Because we live in the southern hemisphere, so explain that!!! But you can't!!

So when faced with difficult questions ... you avoid them, and turn the tables ...

Did you know that 222 individuals have made 379 spaceflights to the ISS ... are they all dead now? Living a life of luxury on their NASA payouts??

533 people have been to space and have orbited the earth ... are they all dead now? Living a life of luxury on their NASA payouts??

Who bribed all of the astronomers to lie about the shape of the earth before NASA came into existence ?? You know the ancient Greeks 2500 years ago who knew the earth was a sphere ... and all of the ones listed on this website who died before NASA was created in the late 1950's and all believed the earth was a sphere !!
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=famous+astronomers&rlz=1C1CHWL_enAU637AU638&oq=famous+astronomers&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i65l3j0l2.3816j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

But the thing that I hate the most ... is that all of those thousands of astronomers since 500BC who spent every night for years and years looking at the night sky, collectively spent hundreds of thousands of hours, whole lifetimes spent observing, recording those observations, hypothesising ... and you FE'ers come along and after a couple of hours spent watching YouTube videos think you know more than 2500 years of astronomy, ... because... NASA, or because ... God (or the Bible...whatever)

Yet none of you know as much as Aristarchus did in 200BC !! And he knew then that the earth and other planets went around the sun, and the moon went around the earth, he even knew that the earth was the third planet from the sun, and the correct order of the rest of them which were visible to the naked eye (no telescopes until the 1600's!!). And he knew that the stars were much further away than any of the planets or the sun. He didn't figure all of that out by sitting on his ass in front of a computer ... he went out and looked at the night sky ... probably every night !! He worked all of this out by observing the paths of the sun, moon, stars and planets in the night sky!! Night after night after night !!
But you guys can't do that can you?? Hands up those FE'ers who own a telescope or have even used one??

And yet I bet most of you northerners could not go outside on a cloudless night and actually find Polaris !!! You are an insult to the intelligence, the patience and the sheer determination of all of those astronomers that contributed so much to our knowledge of our beautiful planet, our solar system, our galaxy and our universe, from Aristarchus and Eratosthenes to Hubble and Einstein !!

You give the world nothing !! If any of you had another brain cell you would have a binary system !!

Next time you go to your doctor tell him you don't want him to use the germ theory to treat your infection... tell him you want to be treated using the miasma theory of disease !!
Because if you want to reject the Copernican Theory, and the Theory of Relativity, gravity, space travel, satellites, you may as well reject the rest of what hard working Scientists have given us over the last 2500 years.

Oh and next time you need to use Velcro, or need a Cat scan, or use a cordless drill, or any device which uses a microchip, or have your temperature taken with an ear thermometer, or buy freeze dried food, or use a joystick, or install an LED light globe, or buy a mattress or pillow made of memory foam, or buy scratch resistant lenses, or a new smoke detector, or a water filter, or flame resistant clothing for your children ... thank NASA !!!

Over and out of here ...

Did anyone in this thread say they were fake? Why would anyone have to prove a claim that hasn't been made? The only person making a claim is you, and you've provided no evidence for it.

I'm not even going to read the rest of the nonsense you've posted. This is a fairly common RE tactic; realize you've been called out for a poor argument, then change the subject all while ignoring reasonable replies to your poor argument. Have fun with that.

[andruszkow]

RE: Prove me wrong!

FE: You're the one making a claim, the burden lies with you to prove it.

RE: I don't know what you're talking about, prove me wrong!

Lather, rinse, repeat.

In other words you CAN'T prove them to be fake in any way... if all 14,223 photos were fakes you should be able to easily prove it but you can't !

Just like you can't provide a map of the flat earth which shows all continents, countries and oceans in their correct sizes and proportions as they were mapped out by surveyors and sailors (the Australian coastline was mapped in 1810 so we know that it is not the shape on either of your maps!) And providing a flat earth map on a flat piece of paper should be an easy straightforward task if indeed the earth IS flat ! But you can't!

And why on earth can't rabinoz and I see Polaris? Because we live in the southern hemisphere, so explain that!!! But you can't!!

So when faced with difficult questions ... you avoid them, and turn the tables ...

Did you know that 222 individuals have made 379 spaceflights to the ISS ... are they all dead now? Living a life of luxury on their NASA payouts??

533 people have been to space and have orbited the earth ... are they all dead now? Living a life of luxury on their NASA payouts??

Who bribed all of the astronomers to lie about the shape of the earth before NASA came into existence ?? You know the ancient Greeks 2500 years ago who knew the earth was a sphere ... and all of the ones listed on this website who died before NASA was created in the late 1950's and all believed the earth was a sphere !!
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=famous+astronomers&rlz=1C1CHWL_enAU637AU638&oq=famous+astronomers&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i65l3j0l2.3816j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

But the thing that I hate the most ... is that all of those thousands of astronomers since 500BC who spent every night for years and years looking at the night sky, collectively spent hundreds of thousands of hours, whole lifetimes spent observing, recording those observations, hypothesising ... and you FE'ers come along and after a couple of hours spent watching YouTube videos think you know more than 2500 years of astronomy, ... because... NASA, or because ... God (or the Bible...whatever)

Yet none of you know as much as Aristarchus did in 200BC !! And he knew then that the earth and other planets went around the sun, and the moon went around the earth, he even knew that the earth was the third planet from the sun, and the correct order of the rest of them which were visible to the naked eye (no telescopes until the 1600's!!). And he knew that the stars were much further away than any of the planets or the sun. He didn't figure all of that out by sitting on his ass in front of a computer ... he went out and looked at the night sky ... probably every night !! He worked all of this out by observing the paths of the sun, moon, stars and planets in the night sky!! Night after night after night !!
But you guys can't do that can you?? Hands up those FE'ers who own a telescope or have even used one??

And yet I bet most of you northerners could not go outside on a cloudless night and actually find Polaris !!! You are an insult to the intelligence, the patience and the sheer determination of all of those astronomers that contributed so much to our knowledge of our beautiful planet, our solar system, our galaxy and our universe, from Aristarchus and Eratosthenes to Hubble and Einstein !!

You give the world nothing !! If any of you had another brain cell you would have a binary system !!

Next time you go to your doctor tell him you don't want him to use the germ theory to treat your infection... tell him you want to be treated using the miasma theory of disease !!
Because if you want to reject the Copernican Theory, and the Theory of Relativity, gravity, space travel, satellites, you may as well reject the rest of what hard working Scientists have given us over the last 2500 years.

Oh and next time you need to use Velcro, or need a Cat scan, or use a cordless drill, or any device which uses a microchip, or have your temperature taken with an ear thermometer, or buy freeze dried food, or use a joystick, or install an LED light globe, or buy a mattress or pillow made of memory foam, or buy scratch resistant lenses, or a new smoke detector, or a water filter, or flame resistant clothing for your children ... thank NASA !!!

Over and out of here ...

Did anyone in this thread say they were fake? Why would anyone have to prove a claim that hasn't been made? The only person making a claim is you, and you've provided no evidence for it.

I'm not even going to read the rest of the nonsense you've posted. This is a fairly common RE tactic; realize you've been called out for a poor argument, then change the subject all while ignoring reasonable replies to your poor argument. Have fun with that.

But you do mostly the same. It's always very meta with you, or semantics. Never any content.

Sandokhan, isn't his "testimony" a bit easy? "I once saw an ad bla de bleh" - And even so, it proves nothing.

Edit: Bounce signals off distant satellites. I'm confused. Your AFET and various posts on the subject state that there's no such thing, and we've never gone higher than 20 km

[Rama Set]

Please just admit that you (or OP) have no evidence. Continuing the discussion with phrases like "reasonable to think" doesn't get anywhere. Or just continue to make up things and present them as fact, doesn't really matter at this point.

Who is talking about a conspiracy? You guys have gone off the rails at this point.

Since the Flat Earthers (and other deniers of the moon missions) are the accusers the onus is on you (and them) to prove their case, but so often it is simply stated as "it has been accepted that" (or words to that effect), when it most certainly has not been proved!.

These "fake" claims have been answered numerous times. I suppose you have studied:
Examination of Apollo Moon photographs
and
Moon Base Clavius and refuted in detail the answers to many of the fake "fake" claims.

Until then I think it fair you "admit that you . . . .  have no evidence."

I get that you round earthers don't do logic very well, but please make an attempt. I'd suggest starting at the beginning of this thread, and then point out any claim made by a FE proponent that would put the onus on us. I have faith that you'll realize there were no claims made by us (hint: see the OP). You'll find the only claim that needs supporting evidence was made by the RE side. You'll also see the only thing provided is conjecture.

I really don't understand what's so difficult about this, but I imagine you'll keep dodging like RErs are known to do.

Well based on this history of CGI we see no evidence of photorealistic CGI being even remotely close to possible, with 1968 mainframes being required to create a 100 frames of extremely basic 2D imagery. It is obviously extremely difficult to prove a negative, which is why I have stayed away from trying to do so and have never claimed definitively that the photos could not be CGI; that would be an intellectually dishonest position.

It just seems that unless there is some sort of elaborate cover up going on, there is no good reason to think that the Apollo photos are other than what they say they are considering the scrutiny they have been put under and not to be found wanting, except by the hoaxsters, whose claims have been dealt with thoroughly in other venues.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

It is completely reasonable to think that 2001 was at or near the cutting edge of such visual effects, considering it was marveled at as a major cinematic achievement. What reason is there to think these reactions are unreasonable? 

Unlike FEers we will not posit a secret conspiracy to keep cutting edge photo manipulation away from the public eye, without evidence.

Please just admit that you (or OP) have no evidence. Continuing the discussion with phrases like "reasonable to think" doesn't get anywhere. Or just continue to make up things and present them as fact, doesn't really matter at this point.

Who is talking about a conspiracy? You guys have gone off the rails at this point.

I am still waiting for a half decent answer from any FE'er which proves the 14,233 photos from the Apollo missions are fake.

I very much doubt that any of you have even visited the link (after all you don't want to risk having to admit you were wrong by looking at absolutely amazing photos which might convince you that the earth really is a sphere!!)

1. Man DID go to the moon ... in fact SIX of the Apollo missions landed on the moon, and a total of 12 men have walked on the moon !!
AND
2. The earth is a sphere,

The "evidence" that proves 1. and 2. above are the 14,223 photographs taken by the Apollo missions and uploaded to the NASA flickr account.

I believe that we are agreed that no CGI was available at that time (1968-1972), which would have been capable of creating these photographs.
However even I will admit that perhaps some incredibly skilled artists could have drawn or painted some of them, but my view is that these photos are real.

So I am still waiting for you to point out which of these 14,223 photos are faked, and how they are faked.
You might want to especially focus (no pun intended!) on the photos which show the earth either from the Apollo spacecraft or from the moon.

NASA has uploaded these photos to flickr, so are obviously claiming that they are real.
Whereas you (FE'ers) claim they are fake... so the burden of proof is for you to show us how have they been faked... I want links to the exact photos, descriptions of the exact anomalies in the photos and an explanation of how these anomalies prove the photo or photos are faked.

Over to you !!

PS I might remind you that in a court of law a video or photos of a robbery or murder happening or of a person leaving the scene (eg CCTV surveillance) is accepted as proof and thousands and thousands of convictions have been made on the basis of CCTV footage. The burden of proof would be on the defendant's lawyer to prove that the CCTV footage had been tampered with in some way to have it removed from the court case.

The ball is in your court !

How about the sheer number of photographs? Compared to the amount of time supposedly spent on the surface. The math brings the rate of photos being taken at something like one every 50 seconds.

Just accept the possibility that it could have been faked. This desperate allegiance to an entity that is apart of an entity that isn't necessarily known for being forthcoming, honest, or trustworthy is clouding your judgement.

[UnionsOfSolarSystemPlanet]

How about the sheer number of photographs? Compared to the amount of time supposedly spent on the surface. The math brings the rate of photos being taken at something like one every 50 seconds.

Every argument you can think of, we already have explanation of it.

And please, if you don't want to refute the existing explanation, simply don't do it. Don't even try an Ad hominem, even if the page "seems" biased.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

How about the sheer number of photographs? Compared to the amount of time supposedly spent on the surface. The math brings the rate of photos being taken at something like one every 50 seconds.

Every argument you can think of, we already have explanation of it.

And please, if you don't want to refute the existing explanation, simply don't do it. Don't even try an Ad hominem, even if the page "seems" biased.

"We?" Are you part of some kind of online NASA defense brigade or something?

All I said was to attempt to open your mind to the possibility that it could have been faked. Not to believe that it has been, or campaign to prove that it was faked. Just to crack the window a little to let some fresh air in. Being so stubbornly adherent to a concept which you couldn't possibly validate personally, even with a hundred wikipedia articles and apologist websites, seems illogical to me. We're in a debate section, that isn't an ad hominem attack, that is a questioning of your logic itself, not of your character.

Apollo 17 photo archive (approx 1,986 taken on the actual surface)

Apollo 17 video gallery  (Some of this is very comical in its own right)

As you can see the astronauts are doing many things in the extensive amount of video available from the mission, constantly taking photos is not one of them.

Mission Objective

The lunar landing site was the Taurus-Littrow highlands and valley area. This site was picked for Apollo 17 as a location where rocks both older and younger than those previously returned from other Apollo missions, as well as from Luna 16 and 20 missions, might be found.

The mission was the final in a series of three J-type missions planned for the Apollo Program. These J-type missions can be distinguished from previous G- and H-series missions by extended hardware capability, larger scientific payload capacity and by the use of the battery-powered Lunar Roving Vehicle, or LRV.

Scientific objectives of the Apollo 17 mission included, geological surveying and sampling of materials and surface features in a preselected area of the Taurus-Littrow region; deploying and activating surface experiments; and conducting in-flight experiments and photographic tasks during lunar orbit and transearth coast. These objectives included deployed experiments, such as the Apollo Lunar Surface Experiments Package, or ALSEP, with a heat flow experiment; lunar seismic profiling, or LSP; lunar surface gravimeter, or LSG; lunar atmospheric composition experiment, or LACE; and lunar ejecta and meteorites, or LEAM. The mission also included lunar sampling and lunar orbital experiments. Biomedical experiments included the Biostack II experiment and the BIOCORE experiment.

Above is the stated mission for Apollo 17. Seems like a lot of tasks to be completed, and you'd see a lot of photographs of these tasks happening. However there seems to be very little photographic documentation of any of this stuff happening.

If taking photos was the only mission for the apollo landings, then yes, the amount of photos might make sense. But there was a ton of other tasks that astronauts were supposed to complete, such as constructing the rovers etc. It doesn't add up. Thus, there is cause for doubt. You'd have to be a fool to believe there isn't.

[Luke 22:35-38]

Here's something I was wondering about. If they had advance technology to fake the landings, shouldn't they have the technology to actually land on the moon?

[UnionsOfSolarSystemPlanet]

As you can see the astronauts are doing many things in the extensive amount of video available from the mission, constantly taking photos is not one of them.

If taking photos was the only mission for the apollo landings, then yes, the amount of photos might make sense.

Again

All that was needed to take a picture was to open the shutter. Film winding was automatic.

But there was a ton of other tasks that astronauts were supposed to complete, such as constructing the rovers etc.

It was already constructed, they just deploy it:

Deployment of the LRV from the LM's Quadrant 1 bay by the astronauts was achieved with a system of pulleys and braked reels using ropes and cloth tapes. The rover was folded and stored in the bay with the underside of the chassis facing out. One astronaut would climb the egress ladder on the LM and release the rover, which would then be slowly tilted out by the second astronaut on the ground through the use of reels and tapes. As the rover was let down from the bay, most of the deployment was automatic. The rear wheels folded out and locked in place. When they touched the ground, the front of the rover could be unfolded, the wheels deployed, and the entire frame let down to the surface by pulleys.

The rover components locked into place upon opening. Cabling, pins, and tripods would then be removed and the seats and footrests raised. After switching on all the electronics, the vehicle was ready to back away from the LM.

I have not checked the entire picture collection, do you mean that most of their task are not pictured such as deploying the rover?

It doesn't add up. Thus, there is cause for doubt. You'd have to be a fool to believe there isn't.

Considering the rovers were deployed early, they may have not yet start taking pictures, i'd pick the most simple explanation and an explanation that the landing was fake for something so minor facts should be the least to consider as it's hard to be consistent with the major facts.

"We?" Are you part of some kind of online NASA defense brigade or something?

It's my choice of wording, again you should take the complicated explanation as the least to consider.
And no, i may be a NASA enthusiast here, but i'm not their defender.

[Rama Set]

Here's something I was wondering about. If they had advance technology to fake the landings, shouldn't they have the technology to actually land on the moon?

Not really.  Doctoring photos is much different than rocket propulsion.

[Luke 22:35-38]

Here's something I was wondering about. If they had advance technology to fake the landings, shouldn't they have the technology to actually land on the moon?

Not really.  Doctoring photos is much different than rocket propulsion.

But rocket propulsion is feasible. You but them every Fourth of July.

[Rama Set]

Here's something I was wondering about. If they had advance technology to fake the landings, shouldn't they have the technology to actually land on the moon?

Not really.  Doctoring photos is much different than rocket propulsion.

But rocket propulsion is feasible. You but them every Fourth of July.

True, but that has nothing to do with your original argument.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

Here's something I was wondering about. If they had advance technology to fake the landings, shouldn't they have the technology to actually land on the moon?

Not really.  Doctoring photos is much different than rocket propulsion.

Much, much easier.

Can you tell me how me how they calculated A. The gravity of the moon prior to going there B. The rotational speed of the moon C. How much fuel they would need to reach a horizontal escape velocity and D. how they were so perfectly precise to rendezvous with the orbiter

[andruszkow]

Here's something I was wondering about. If they had advance technology to fake the landings, shouldn't they have the technology to actually land on the moon?

Not really.  Doctoring photos is much different than rocket propulsion.

Much, much easier.

Can you tell me how me how they calculated A. The gravity of the moon prior to going there B. The rotational speed of the moon C. How much fuel they would need to reach a horizontal escape velocity and D. how they were so perfectly precise to rendezvous with the orbiter

A: 1) Newtons Law of Universal Gravitation, and 2) Going from lithobraking probes to circularizing probes in orbit around the Moon

B: Rotational as in it's rotation around it's own axis, or it's orbital speed around Earth? In the latter, by observation. Observing an orbital period of 27.32 days, and knowing the radius and gravitational constant of the Earth, you can calculate a fairly precise orbital speed.

C: Horizontal escape velocity? Please elaborate. However, calculating delta-V budgets has been possible since the rocket equation was derived in 1903 (and even earlier than that IIRC)

D: With help of the satellites/probes, they knew the gravitational constant of the Moon. Taking off from a body with 1/6th the gravity of Earth is a major feat, but also much easier than taking off from Earth. You "only" fight the weak gravity of the Moon, where as on Earth, you also muscle your way through the soupy atmosphere. This allows you to adjust your path during ascent pretty precisely.

[Luke 22:35-38]

Here's something I was wondering about. If they had advance technology to fake the landings, shouldn't they have the technology to actually land on the moon?

Not really.  Doctoring photos is much different than rocket propulsion.

But rocket propulsion is feasible. You but them every Fourth of July.

True, but that has nothing to do with your original argument.

My original point was if they had this secret technology to doctor pictures then why couldn't they have the same advanced technology to send someone to the moon? Did they spent all of their technology to doctor pictures and not build anti gravity machines?

[Rama Set]

Here's something I was wondering about. If they had advance technology to fake the landings, shouldn't they have the technology to actually land on the moon?

Not really.  Doctoring photos is much different than rocket propulsion.

But rocket propulsion is feasible. You but them every Fourth of July.

True, but that has nothing to do with your original argument.

My original point was if they had this secret technology to doctor pictures then why couldn't they have the same advanced technology to send someone to the moon? Did they spent all of their technology to doctor pictures and not build anti gravity machines?

This doesn't help

[rabinoz]

Here's something I was wondering about. If they had advance technology to fake the landings, shouldn't they have the technology to actually land on the moon?

Not really.  Doctoring photos is much different than rocket propulsion.

Much, much easier.

Can you tell me how me how they calculated A. The gravity of the moon prior to going there B. The rotational speed of the moon C. How much fuel they would need to reach a horizontal escape velocity and D. how they were so perfectly precise to rendezvous with the orbiter

Your whole attitude since I have seen you posting has been "If TheTruthIsOnHere can't understand it, it is impossible! and MUST be a fake."

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

Here's something I was wondering about. If they had advance technology to fake the landings, shouldn't they have the technology to actually land on the moon?

Not really.  Doctoring photos is much different than rocket propulsion.

Much, much easier.

Can you tell me how me how they calculated A. The gravity of the moon prior to going there B. The rotational speed of the moon C. How much fuel they would need to reach a horizontal escape velocity and D. how they were so perfectly precise to rendezvous with the orbiter

Your whole attitude since I have seen you posting has been "If TheTruthIsOnHere can't understand it, it is impossible! and MUST be a fake."

Actually it's more like you pretending I don't understand something because I don't believe it.