Was the 1969 moon landing real?

Status
Not open for further replies.

DeletedUser

If the fire happened before the moon landing, he wasn't killed because he was going to testify about something that hadn't happened. If the fire that killed him was intentional, there's no reason to believe it had anything to do with the moon landing.
 

DeletedUser13682

I think that if they were photoshopped, you wouldn't have that, because they would pay a lot of money, and not let them out, until they're perfect.
 

DeletedUser

Here's a quote from a debunking site specifically talking about this picture.

"Film is not a perfect recorder and in the case where an object is so bright white, it will saturate and bleed over into adjacent parts of the emulsion. If you look at the very edge of the cross-hair where it hits the antenna on the rover you will see that it is slightly darker and does slightly cut into the image of the antenna despite its saturation. You need to look at the original image, however."

To even further prove this, look at the photograph very carefully and tell me how many cross-hairs you see. There should be 12 (four rows of three) but you can really only make out five and partials of a few others. Some have entirely disappeared due to color saturation from the bright white.
 

DeletedUser

ok.maybe its bad quality because of the moon surface.some of the crosshairs are hard to see too.see below the rover and the crosshair
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Adelei, the OP doesn't know what he is talking about. The guy from #7 died 2 years before an event happened that he was supposed to testify was fake. The guy from #8 supposedly died to cover up the fact that #7 was killed in order to stop his testimony. So unless NASA had the ability to travel through time in 1967 but not the ability to land on the moon in 1969 it just doesn't make sense.

/facepalm
 

DeletedUser

Trainman, watch The Dish. If you still don't believe it happened, then you're simply being stubborn.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

i checked my sources and i realized i made a mistake the astronuat wasnt going to testfy he was going to tell the press that NASA was a wate of money and that it should be shut down which after he died in the apollo fire and the fire expert was going to say that the apollo fire was no accident and was going to shut them down
source- An hour long documentary about the 1969 moon landing and if it is a hoax or not.

no one has still explaned why they can position the camera pefectly in all the pictures when you cant even see whats its going to look like and when its at your chest

what about the radiation im not talking about the Van alllen belt im talking about the solar flair that increased the radiation 1000x
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Do you have a link that explains what all those numbers mean? I don't see anything that looks like times and dates either.
 

DeletedUser

in 1969 we did not have the technology to withstand that amount of radiation the astronuat would have died
 

DeletedUser

I think what adelei is trying to say is where does it say on there that there was a solar flair with 1000 times radiation at the time of the lunar landing.
 

DeletedUser

i may have been mistaken about that but still we didnt have the tech to with-stand the radiation levels that the solar flairs produced.
The suits were made of layers of foil and other things and if you say they could withstand the raidation then why doesnt someone get a suit made in 1969 and clean up 3 mile island?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top