|
Post by gillianren on Jun 15, 2010 19:08:53 GMT -4
One thing I've never heard HBers satisfactory address though is the fact that the USSR would've known and gleefully called us out had we faked the Apollo landing. What, you've never heard the wheat explanation? Just because it doesn't make sense doesn't mean that they won't use it; it's never stopped them before.
|
|
|
Post by ultima1 on Jun 15, 2010 20:11:07 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by ultima1 on Jun 15, 2010 20:13:06 GMT -4
There were several contries and people watching and tracking the manned moon landing, if it was faked they would have said something, unless you believe in a worldwide conspiracy.
|
|
|
Post by archer17 on Jun 15, 2010 20:19:45 GMT -4
One thing I've never heard HBers satisfactory address though is the fact that the USSR would've known and gleefully called us out had we faked the Apollo landing. What, you've never heard the wheat explanation? Just because it doesn't make sense doesn't mean that they won't use it; it's never stopped them before. Oh, I heard the "wheat" explanation before, even here IIRC, but always found that exceptionally lame, even for HBers. The Soviet Union wouldn't have kept such a thing to themselves even if we threw in Alaska along with the wheat as the opportunity to devastate the reputation of their Cold War adversary would have been too enticing. Then again, we are talking about hoax-believers here...
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jun 15, 2010 20:21:30 GMT -4
Not only would throwing in Alaska not be enough, it would be a hint noticeable.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Jun 15, 2010 20:23:28 GMT -4
Second, no evidence of photshop, already debunked. Nah, it only shows they faked it really well.
|
|
|
Post by ultima1 on Jun 15, 2010 20:36:56 GMT -4
Well if you cannot show anything to show photoshop then the evidence stands.
Move on to something else to try to prove your theory/fantasy.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jun 15, 2010 20:47:42 GMT -4
Well if you cannot show anything to show photoshop then the evidence stands. Move on to something else to try to prove your theory/fantasy. BertL is just kidding. He is not an HB. (He's in a mischievous mood because of the Netherlands victory yesterday )
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 15, 2010 21:03:22 GMT -4
Well if you cannot show anything to show photoshop then the evidence stands. Move on to something else to try to prove your theory/fantasy. BertL is just kidding. He is not an HB. (He's in a mischievous mood because of the Netherlands victory yesterday ) Well sure, anyone can win if the other team keeps scoring on their own goal.
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Jun 15, 2010 21:11:41 GMT -4
I don't think the Chang'e-1 pictures had enough resolution to prove anything about Apollo. AFAIK, the 120m resolution was nowhere near enough to image things like LM descent stages. (I'm not a hoax believer.)
|
|
|
Post by ultima1 on Jun 15, 2010 21:23:36 GMT -4
But photo experts can tell if there is something on the photos.
There is way too much information that would hold up in court that we went to the moon.
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Jun 15, 2010 21:27:44 GMT -4
But photo experts can tell if there is something on the photos. There is way too much information that would hold up in court that we went to the moon. What can photo experts tell about Apollo from the Chang'e-1 photos?
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jun 15, 2010 22:21:45 GMT -4
Firstly, what Chinese probes? Secondly, Photoshop. I believe that ill-fated Indian probe "verified" the Apollo landing sites although PW correctly points out the HBers can dismiss that kind of thing. There were claims to that extent, but they were rather unlikely. Selene is the best other than the "photoshopped" LRO ones, and all that does is prove that NASA used similar 3D technology on the Lunat Orbiters so they could create their landscape models for the Moon set. That's why the Apollo Photos and the Selene Models don't match exactly. Nixon gave them a good deal on Wheat to shut up about it and cancel and hide their own program.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jun 15, 2010 22:27:17 GMT -4
Well if you cannot show anything to show photoshop then the evidence stands. Move on to something else to try to prove your theory/fantasy. No you have it wrong, you have to prove that they weren't photoshopped, sheeze don't you know anything?
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jun 15, 2010 23:07:29 GMT -4
Move on to something else to try to prove your theory/fantasy. Just so you know, we're rather short on HBs at the moment. They've all gone off to YouTube where the format doesn't permit presentation of any real evidence.
|
|