Euclid wrote

TaDeDraGz wrote

Mazur wrote

TaDeDraGz wrote Tell me your thoughts, i think it was staged for numerous reasons, for example the flag waves with no wind to move it. As well as stars not being visible when there are no gases or atmosphere to block them etc. I also think that if we have landed on the moon why haven't we been back since 1972? And why would someone play golf on the moon? priorities at its finest. why would we try to inhabit people on Mars and not on the Moon? why wouldn't we go to the Moon first and then take it to the next level? what's wrong with the moon, nothing. so why stay away from it?

well the best proof I have is that mythbusters confirmed we went to the moon.
also, if gases or atmosphere block the ability to see stars then tell me what are the little dots in the sky that i see every night?
we haven't been back due to the space program budget being reduced.
he played golf because he sneaked what he needed onto the ship
the moon has literally 0 atmosphere and very little gravity. what's the point in trying to colonize a literal rock?

I'm saying that our atmosphere has gases, pollution etc. and this will mean the sun gets less light to us all the time, this will be the same for stars and if the stars have less light (that we see with the naked eye) then on the moon (where there is no atmosphere or gases blocking out any light) then we should be able to see at least some stars but we can't.

While stars are having their light blocked by the atmosphere, it still isn't enough to block them completely.

Atmosphere = more difficult [not impossible] to see stars.
No atmosphere = ability to see stars
The Moon = Place with no atmosphere, but a surface which is so reflective that it makes stars impossible to see, unless you are standing in shadow.

Just because the Moon has no atmosphere doesn't mean that no other factors need to be taken into account.

But I do feel as though this discussion has gone as far as it can, I'm simply repeating myself now.
Feel free to reply, but I won't be any more.

It seems like the only proof you will accept involves the invention of time travel, and having you sit on the Apollo 11 flight yourself.

i would only believe it if i saw it happen with my own eyes. and there were pictures took in the shadow and you still couldn't see the stars.

TaDeDraGz wrote

Euclid wrote

TaDeDraGz wrote

Mazur wrote

TaDeDraGz wrote Tell me your thoughts, i think it was staged for numerous reasons, for example the flag waves with no wind to move it. As well as stars not being visible when there are no gases or atmosphere to block them etc. I also think that if we have landed on the moon why haven't we been back since 1972? And why would someone play golf on the moon? priorities at its finest. why would we try to inhabit people on Mars and not on the Moon? why wouldn't we go to the Moon first and then take it to the next level? what's wrong with the moon, nothing. so why stay away from it?

well the best proof I have is that mythbusters confirmed we went to the moon.
also, if gases or atmosphere block the ability to see stars then tell me what are the little dots in the sky that i see every night?
we haven't been back due to the space program budget being reduced.
he played golf because he sneaked what he needed onto the ship
the moon has literally 0 atmosphere and very little gravity. what's the point in trying to colonize a literal rock?

I'm saying that our atmosphere has gases, pollution etc. and this will mean the sun gets less light to us all the time, this will be the same for stars and if the stars have less light (that we see with the naked eye) then on the moon (where there is no atmosphere or gases blocking out any light) then we should be able to see at least some stars but we can't.

While stars are having their light blocked by the atmosphere, it still isn't enough to block them completely.

Atmosphere = more difficult [not impossible] to see stars.
No atmosphere = ability to see stars
The Moon = Place with no atmosphere, but a surface which is so reflective that it makes stars impossible to see, unless you are standing in shadow.

Just because the Moon has no atmosphere doesn't mean that no other factors need to be taken into account.

But I do feel as though this discussion has gone as far as it can, I'm simply repeating myself now.
Feel free to reply, but I won't be any more.

It seems like the only proof you will accept involves the invention of time travel, and having you sit on the Apollo 11 flight yourself.

i would only believe it if i saw it happen with my own eyes. and there were pictures took in the shadow and you still couldn't see the stars.

This explains why, even when pictures were taken from the shadows no stars can be seen:

Pretend for a moment you are an astronaut on the surface of the Moon. You want to take a picture of your fellow space traveler. The Sun is low off the horizon, since all the lunar landings were done at local morning. How do you set your camera? The lunar landscape is brightly lit by the Sun, of course, and your friend is wearing a white spacesuit also brilliantly lit by the Sun. To take a picture of a bright object with a bright background, you need to set the exposure time to be fast, and close down the aperture setting too; that's like the pupil in your eye constricting to let less light in when you walk outside on a sunny day.

So the picture you take is set for bright objects. Stars are faint objects! In the fast exposure, they simply do not have time to register on the film. It has nothing to do with the sky being black or the lack of air, it's just a matter of exposure time. If you were to go outside here on Earth on the darkest night imaginable and take a picture with the exact same camera settings the astronauts used, you won't see any stars!

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

I only said that stars could be seen by the astronauts when they were in the shadows, not by the cameras.

If nothing that I say is going to change your mind on this entire topic then there really is no point in discussing this further.
It makes me question your motives for even making the topic, did you make it just to reaffirm your beliefs, or to have them challenged?
Saying that you would have to see it with your own eyes to believe it, when that is impossible now [and was impossible back then any way] means that no matter what anyone says to you or shows you, you will not believe them.

This is a very closed minded approach to have.

Euclid wrote

TaDeDraGz wrote

Euclid wrote

TaDeDraGz wrote

Mazur wrote

TaDeDraGz wrote Tell me your thoughts, i think it was staged for numerous reasons, for example the flag waves with no wind to move it. As well as stars not being visible when there are no gases or atmosphere to block them etc. I also think that if we have landed on the moon why haven't we been back since 1972? And why would someone play golf on the moon? priorities at its finest. why would we try to inhabit people on Mars and not on the Moon? why wouldn't we go to the Moon first and then take it to the next level? what's wrong with the moon, nothing. so why stay away from it?

well the best proof I have is that mythbusters confirmed we went to the moon.
also, if gases or atmosphere block the ability to see stars then tell me what are the little dots in the sky that i see every night?
we haven't been back due to the space program budget being reduced.
he played golf because he sneaked what he needed onto the ship
the moon has literally 0 atmosphere and very little gravity. what's the point in trying to colonize a literal rock?

I'm saying that our atmosphere has gases, pollution etc. and this will mean the sun gets less light to us all the time, this will be the same for stars and if the stars have less light (that we see with the naked eye) then on the moon (where there is no atmosphere or gases blocking out any light) then we should be able to see at least some stars but we can't.

While stars are having their light blocked by the atmosphere, it still isn't enough to block them completely.

Atmosphere = more difficult [not impossible] to see stars.
No atmosphere = ability to see stars
The Moon = Place with no atmosphere, but a surface which is so reflective that it makes stars impossible to see, unless you are standing in shadow.

Just because the Moon has no atmosphere doesn't mean that no other factors need to be taken into account.

But I do feel as though this discussion has gone as far as it can, I'm simply repeating myself now.
Feel free to reply, but I won't be any more.

It seems like the only proof you will accept involves the invention of time travel, and having you sit on the Apollo 11 flight yourself.

i would only believe it if i saw it happen with my own eyes. and there were pictures took in the shadow and you still couldn't see the stars.

This explains why, even when pictures were taken from the shadows no stars can be seen:

Pretend for a moment you are an astronaut on the surface of the Moon. You want to take a picture of your fellow space traveler. The Sun is low off the horizon, since all the lunar landings were done at local morning. How do you set your camera? The lunar landscape is brightly lit by the Sun, of course, and your friend is wearing a white spacesuit also brilliantly lit by the Sun. To take a picture of a bright object with a bright background, you need to set the exposure time to be fast, and close down the aperture setting too; that's like the pupil in your eye constricting to let less light in when you walk outside on a sunny day.

So the picture you take is set for bright objects. Stars are faint objects! In the fast exposure, they simply do not have time to register on the film. It has nothing to do with the sky being black or the lack of air, it's just a matter of exposure time. If you were to go outside here on Earth on the darkest night imaginable and take a picture with the exact same camera settings the astronauts used, you won't see any stars!

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

I only said that stars could be seen by the astronauts when they were in the shadows, not by the cameras.

If nothing that I say is going to change your mind on this entire topic then there really is no point in discussing this further.
It makes me question your motives for even making the topic, did you make it just to reaffirm your beliefs, or to have them challenged?
Saying that you would have to see it with your own eyes to believe it, when that is impossible now [and was impossible back then any way] means that no matter what anyone says to you or shows you, you will not believe them.

This is a very closed minded approach to have.

Stars are not faint objects, if their light can reach us from millions of light years away, then they are extremely bright objects! and the read my very first post i said i wanted peoples thoughts, opinions etc and we have had a little debate and that's what i like to see because no harm is done and it comes down to your own opinion, and i respect everyone's opinion. Why do i have a very close minded approach?

TaDeDraGz wrote

Euclid wrote

TaDeDraGz wrote

Euclid wrote

TaDeDraGz wrote

Mazur wrote

TaDeDraGz wrote Tell me your thoughts, i think it was staged for numerous reasons, for example the flag waves with no wind to move it. As well as stars not being visible when there are no gases or atmosphere to block them etc. I also think that if we have landed on the moon why haven't we been back since 1972? And why would someone play golf on the moon? priorities at its finest. why would we try to inhabit people on Mars and not on the Moon? why wouldn't we go to the Moon first and then take it to the next level? what's wrong with the moon, nothing. so why stay away from it?

well the best proof I have is that mythbusters confirmed we went to the moon.
also, if gases or atmosphere block the ability to see stars then tell me what are the little dots in the sky that i see every night?
we haven't been back due to the space program budget being reduced.
he played golf because he sneaked what he needed onto the ship
the moon has literally 0 atmosphere and very little gravity. what's the point in trying to colonize a literal rock?

I'm saying that our atmosphere has gases, pollution etc. and this will mean the sun gets less light to us all the time, this will be the same for stars and if the stars have less light (that we see with the naked eye) then on the moon (where there is no atmosphere or gases blocking out any light) then we should be able to see at least some stars but we can't.

While stars are having their light blocked by the atmosphere, it still isn't enough to block them completely.

Atmosphere = more difficult [not impossible] to see stars.
No atmosphere = ability to see stars
The Moon = Place with no atmosphere, but a surface which is so reflective that it makes stars impossible to see, unless you are standing in shadow.

Just because the Moon has no atmosphere doesn't mean that no other factors need to be taken into account.

But I do feel as though this discussion has gone as far as it can, I'm simply repeating myself now.
Feel free to reply, but I won't be any more.

It seems like the only proof you will accept involves the invention of time travel, and having you sit on the Apollo 11 flight yourself.

i would only believe it if i saw it happen with my own eyes. and there were pictures took in the shadow and you still couldn't see the stars.

This explains why, even when pictures were taken from the shadows no stars can be seen:

Pretend for a moment you are an astronaut on the surface of the Moon. You want to take a picture of your fellow space traveler. The Sun is low off the horizon, since all the lunar landings were done at local morning. How do you set your camera? The lunar landscape is brightly lit by the Sun, of course, and your friend is wearing a white spacesuit also brilliantly lit by the Sun. To take a picture of a bright object with a bright background, you need to set the exposure time to be fast, and close down the aperture setting too; that's like the pupil in your eye constricting to let less light in when you walk outside on a sunny day.

So the picture you take is set for bright objects. Stars are faint objects! In the fast exposure, they simply do not have time to register on the film. It has nothing to do with the sky being black or the lack of air, it's just a matter of exposure time. If you were to go outside here on Earth on the darkest night imaginable and take a picture with the exact same camera settings the astronauts used, you won't see any stars!

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

I only said that stars could be seen by the astronauts when they were in the shadows, not by the cameras.

If nothing that I say is going to change your mind on this entire topic then there really is no point in discussing this further.
It makes me question your motives for even making the topic, did you make it just to reaffirm your beliefs, or to have them challenged?
Saying that you would have to see it with your own eyes to believe it, when that is impossible now [and was impossible back then any way] means that no matter what anyone says to you or shows you, you will not believe them.

This is a very closed minded approach to have.

Stars are not faint objects, if their light can reach us from millions of light years away, then they are extremely bright objects! and the read my very first post i said i wanted peoples thoughts, opinions etc and we have had a little debate and that's what i like to see because no harm is done and it comes down to your own opinion, and i respect everyone's opinion. Why do i have a very close minded approach?

In comparison to the Moon's surface when sunlight is reflecting off it, stars are faint.

It's a closed minded approach because you are saying that even if every single piece of evidence you give as to why it didn't happen is refuted you still won't change your mind.
A debate is defined as an argument with the intent of changing the mind of your opponent.
Your mind cannot be changed so there is no debate here.

Euclid wrote

TaDeDraGz wrote

Euclid wrote

TaDeDraGz wrote

Euclid wrote

TaDeDraGz wrote

Mazur wrote

TaDeDraGz wrote Tell me your thoughts, i think it was staged for numerous reasons, for example the flag waves with no wind to move it. As well as stars not being visible when there are no gases or atmosphere to block them etc. I also think that if we have landed on the moon why haven't we been back since 1972? And why would someone play golf on the moon? priorities at its finest. why would we try to inhabit people on Mars and not on the Moon? why wouldn't we go to the Moon first and then take it to the next level? what's wrong with the moon, nothing. so why stay away from it?

well the best proof I have is that mythbusters confirmed we went to the moon.
also, if gases or atmosphere block the ability to see stars then tell me what are the little dots in the sky that i see every night?
we haven't been back due to the space program budget being reduced.
he played golf because he sneaked what he needed onto the ship
the moon has literally 0 atmosphere and very little gravity. what's the point in trying to colonize a literal rock?

I'm saying that our atmosphere has gases, pollution etc. and this will mean the sun gets less light to us all the time, this will be the same for stars and if the stars have less light (that we see with the naked eye) then on the moon (where there is no atmosphere or gases blocking out any light) then we should be able to see at least some stars but we can't.

While stars are having their light blocked by the atmosphere, it still isn't enough to block them completely.

Atmosphere = more difficult [not impossible] to see stars.
No atmosphere = ability to see stars
The Moon = Place with no atmosphere, but a surface which is so reflective that it makes stars impossible to see, unless you are standing in shadow.

Just because the Moon has no atmosphere doesn't mean that no other factors need to be taken into account.

But I do feel as though this discussion has gone as far as it can, I'm simply repeating myself now.
Feel free to reply, but I won't be any more.

It seems like the only proof you will accept involves the invention of time travel, and having you sit on the Apollo 11 flight yourself.

i would only believe it if i saw it happen with my own eyes. and there were pictures took in the shadow and you still couldn't see the stars.

This explains why, even when pictures were taken from the shadows no stars can be seen:

Pretend for a moment you are an astronaut on the surface of the Moon. You want to take a picture of your fellow space traveler. The Sun is low off the horizon, since all the lunar landings were done at local morning. How do you set your camera? The lunar landscape is brightly lit by the Sun, of course, and your friend is wearing a white spacesuit also brilliantly lit by the Sun. To take a picture of a bright object with a bright background, you need to set the exposure time to be fast, and close down the aperture setting too; that's like the pupil in your eye constricting to let less light in when you walk outside on a sunny day.

So the picture you take is set for bright objects. Stars are faint objects! In the fast exposure, they simply do not have time to register on the film. It has nothing to do with the sky being black or the lack of air, it's just a matter of exposure time. If you were to go outside here on Earth on the darkest night imaginable and take a picture with the exact same camera settings the astronauts used, you won't see any stars!

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

I only said that stars could be seen by the astronauts when they were in the shadows, not by the cameras.

If nothing that I say is going to change your mind on this entire topic then there really is no point in discussing this further.
It makes me question your motives for even making the topic, did you make it just to reaffirm your beliefs, or to have them challenged?
Saying that you would have to see it with your own eyes to believe it, when that is impossible now [and was impossible back then any way] means that no matter what anyone says to you or shows you, you will not believe them.

This is a very closed minded approach to have.

Stars are not faint objects, if their light can reach us from millions of light years away, then they are extremely bright objects! and the read my very first post i said i wanted peoples thoughts, opinions etc and we have had a little debate and that's what i like to see because no harm is done and it comes down to your own opinion, and i respect everyone's opinion. Why do i have a very close minded approach?

In comparison to the Moon's surface when sunlight is reflecting off it, stars are faint.

It's a closed minded approach because you are saying that even if every single piece of evidence you give as to why it didn't happen is refuted you still won't change your mind.
A debate is defined as an argument with the intent of changing the mind of your opponent.
Your mind cannot be changed so there is no debate here.

Well we discussed our thoughts then if you're gonna be awkward. But we both have our opinions, i respect yours, and i know my mind won't change unless i see it happen with my own eyes, as i said before.

hell no why do you think we have area 51 thats where they made that little fake scene of the dude landing on the moon

TTGD3VIL wrote hell no why do you think we have area 51 thats where they made that little fake scene of the dude landing on the moon

Where is your evidence?
The statement, 'There's a pink unicorn flying around the sun right now' has just as much credibility.

Euclid wrote

TTGD3VIL wrote hell no why do you think we have area 51 thats where they made that little fake scene of the dude landing on the moon

Where is your evidence?
The statement, 'There's a pink unicorn flying around the sun right now' has just as much credibility.

Where is your evidence then? the statement 'we're going to Mars' has just as much credibility too. Because like the Unicorn statement , no one knows if it's real because there's no evidence.

TaDeDraGz wrote

Euclid wrote

TTGD3VIL wrote hell no why do you think we have area 51 thats where they made that little fake scene of the dude landing on the moon

Where is your evidence?
The statement, 'There's a pink unicorn flying around the sun right now' has just as much credibility.

Where is your evidence then? the statement 'we're going to Mars' has just as much credibility too. Because like the Unicorn statement , no one knows if it's real because there's no evidence.

We're going to Mars is a statement about the future, it's not happening right now.
And the proof that they intend to go to Mars is that they've built the ship and hired the astronauts.
They intend to go to Mars.

Once they have said that they are currently on their way to Mars, then you can start to say that they aren't, that is when your evidence will be available.

Saying that they built a set for the Moon landing in Area 51 needs evidence like that to be taken seriously.

Face it, every single piece of evidence you have given as to why the Moon landing was faked has been refuted.
You have absolutely no rational reason to believe that it was faked, and the only reason that you continue to hold onto that belief is because you want it to be true.
I don't know what it is that you have against the US Government, but it's obviously clouding your ability to think logically about this situation.

Given that you believe in the Moon landing being faked and Area 51 holding aliens, it seems like you've watched too many conspiracy theorist videos and movies, all of which cherry pick their information and won't give a balanced view.

NASA can demonstrate that they have the ability to get to Mars, you are going against the majority of the scientific community who agree with that view. You are going against the majority of the scientific community who agree that we did go to the Moon.
You are going against the majority of the scientific community who simply want evidence that aliens are in Area 51, rather than conjecture.

Yet you state on your topic about God that you are 'with science' ?
You are not with science, you are with faith and belief about almost every topic you have posted in the Conspiracy Forum.

Euclid wrote

TaDeDraGz wrote

Euclid wrote

TTGD3VIL wrote hell no why do you think we have area 51 thats where they made that little fake scene of the dude landing on the moon

Where is your evidence?
The statement, 'There's a pink unicorn flying around the sun right now' has just as much credibility.

Where is your evidence then? the statement 'we're going to Mars' has just as much credibility too. Because like the Unicorn statement , no one knows if it's real because there's no evidence.

We're going to Mars is a statement about the future, it's not happening right now.
And the proof that they intend to go to Mars is that they've built the ship and hired the astronauts.
They intend to go to Mars.

Once they have said that they are currently on their way to Mars, then you can start to say that they aren't, that is when your evidence will be available.

Saying that they built a set for the Moon landing in Area 51 needs evidence like that to be taken seriously.

Face it, every single piece of evidence you have given as to why the Moon landing was faked has been refuted.
You have absolutely no rational reason to believe that it was faked, and the only reason that you continue to hold onto that belief is because you want it to be true.
I don't know what it is that you have against the US Government, but it's obviously clouding your ability to think logically about this situation.

Given that you believe in the Moon landing being faked and Area 51 holding aliens, it seems like you've watched too many conspiracy theorist videos and movies, all of which cherry pick their information and won't give a balanced view.

NASA can demonstrate that they have the ability to get to Mars, you are going against the majority of the scientific community who agree with that view. You are going against the majority of the scientific community who agree that we did go to the Moon.
You are going against the majority of the scientific community who simply want evidence that aliens are in Area 51, rather than conjecture.

Yet you state on your topic about God that you are 'with science' ?
You are not with science, you are with faith and belief about almost every topic you have posted in the Conspiracy Forum.

No you're wrong in everything you said about me. I never said the words 'NASA can't get to Mars' and i believe what i believe in. I am with science that proves God doesn't exist, God and that sort of topic is totally different. And fyi i don't really watch theory videos, movies etc. Respect what i believe in and if you had made this topic i would've given evidence that you couldn't reply to. And stop bringing my other topics on this one.