There's a mountain of evidence that the Apollo moon missions were faked. I posted a partial summary of it on a science forum. Google "The Naked Scientists". In the "New Theories" section of the forum there's a thread entitled "Did We Land on the Moon?". The summary is on page 15. It's the 7th post from the top.
People who still think they went to the moon simply haven't seen the hoax evidence yet.
yea , they can use telescopes to tell us origin of the universe with big bang , but when it comes to looking at something on the moon , there technology not up to par :p its bs , Landing on the moon is pretty big deal to human species , and its sad so many ppl believe we didnt go , its unacceptable the nations should get together to build such a earth based high defintion telescope that everyone may use online to see real landing site photos
I think size is to blame - not the astronomers or NASA. The landers were only 4.3 meters in diameter. The moon is over 350,000 km from earth, and is 3.5x10^6 meters in diameter taking up ~30 arcmin of sky. Therefore, the lander is only 37x10^-6 arcmin wide, or 0.0022 arc-seconds. Hubble has a resolution of just 0.1 arc-seconds and the keck (I think this is the strongest land based one) observatory has a resolution of 0.04 arc-seconds, still >10 times too weak.
nah i wouldnt use hubble for the moon, im sure the salene satilte by the japs has a few high defifintion camereas with super zoom just not available to public (
i have =) i was very excited to see the pictures they came out with , and they had the adasity to render a 3d image of the landing sites, so dissapointed again ! waste of another few billion dollars
The lack of an atmosphere in space and the fact that the moons crust is not moving allow for the preservation of the craters on the moon while rather most visible craters on earth are only large ones
Good video, How many times the moon has been hit by meteors? Its just full of pock marks, craters. Thank goodness we have an atmosphere that just not allow us to breath, to live but also burns up hostile meteors falling on us from space tens maybe hundreds a day.
looks like my ass ;) no no.. just kidding... nice work man ;-)
Pitty1987 9 months ago
whats the name of the song?
wildwuchs3 1 year ago
Fantastic foto / Like
wojtopkp 1 year ago
Anyone know of an affordable way to do astrophotography with a telescope/binoculars and maybe a regular camera?
darius195 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This is off-topic but it's moon-related.
There's a mountain of evidence that the Apollo moon missions were faked. I posted a partial summary of it on a science forum. Google "The Naked Scientists". In the "New Theories" section of the forum there's a thread entitled "Did We Land on the Moon?". The summary is on page 15. It's the 7th post from the top.
People who still think they went to the moon simply haven't seen the hoax evidence yet.
Cosmored 2 years ago
The song is Adiemus-Adiemus
EnMenLuAna 2 years ago
Excellent
gmcweb 3 years ago
realy cool
1234qwerty09 3 years ago
anyone catch the apollo landing sites?
yourboycal 3 years ago
I think the sites are much too small to be visible via earth telescope. But I could be wrong, and in that case I would love to see it too!
ikedasquid 2 years ago
yea , they can use telescopes to tell us origin of the universe with big bang , but when it comes to looking at something on the moon , there technology not up to par :p its bs , Landing on the moon is pretty big deal to human species , and its sad so many ppl believe we didnt go , its unacceptable the nations should get together to build such a earth based high defintion telescope that everyone may use online to see real landing site photos
yourboycal 2 years ago
I think size is to blame - not the astronomers or NASA. The landers were only 4.3 meters in diameter. The moon is over 350,000 km from earth, and is 3.5x10^6 meters in diameter taking up ~30 arcmin of sky. Therefore, the lander is only 37x10^-6 arcmin wide, or 0.0022 arc-seconds. Hubble has a resolution of just 0.1 arc-seconds and the keck (I think this is the strongest land based one) observatory has a resolution of 0.04 arc-seconds, still >10 times too weak.
ikedasquid 2 years ago
nah i wouldnt use hubble for the moon, im sure the salene satilte by the japs has a few high defifintion camereas with super zoom just not available to public (
yourboycal 2 years ago
Go check out the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter - it has some images.
ikedasquid 2 years ago
i have =) i was very excited to see the pictures they came out with , and they had the adasity to render a 3d image of the landing sites, so dissapointed again ! waste of another few billion dollars
yourboycal 2 years ago
I wonder why the moon has so many craters and earth is bigger and doesn't have too many...
Ferbes47 3 years ago
The lack of an atmosphere in space and the fact that the moons crust is not moving allow for the preservation of the craters on the moon while rather most visible craters on earth are only large ones
faynart 3 years ago
@faynart
Hey buddy nice pics can u tell me the scope used by u pls ...thx
hotrodsid 1 year ago
@Ferbes47
Because Earth has atmosphere and Moon Don't have it, most asteroid who has on collision course with Earth burn-up in upper atmosphere.
PawelK198604 1 year ago
can you seen me this video plzz
goivanni10 3 years ago
Good video, How many times the moon has been hit by meteors? Its just full of pock marks, craters. Thank goodness we have an atmosphere that just not allow us to breath, to live but also burns up hostile meteors falling on us from space tens maybe hundreds a day.
Templemain 3 years ago
What's this music from?
RebelYank 4 years ago
Enigma
robinsoncobb 3 years ago
What's the song called?
Sunnygirl3333 3 years ago
wooow the best video about the moon that I've ever seen =)
happy2006283 4 years ago
Good one!
marczakflys 4 years ago