In all your learned opinions do you think we actually went to moon at the end of teh 60's? I heard a prominant physicist doubt the possibility of surviving the radiation the Apollo crew would have been exposed too, as soon as they left the Van Allen Belt. Fact or Fiction, Why?
QUOTE (awozny+Dec 29 2004, 09:38 PM)
In all your learned opinions do you think we actually went to moon at the end of teh 60's? I heard a prominant physicist doubt the possibility of surviving the radiation the Apollo crew would have been exposed too, as soon as they left the Van Allen Belt. Fact or Fiction, Why?
Conspiracy theorists have argued that space travel to the moon is impossible because the Van Allen radiation would kill or incapacitate an astronaut who made the trip. In practice, even at the peak of the belts, one could live for several months without receiving a lethal dose, and launch sites and paths are chosen not to pass through said peak. Astronauts traveling to the moon probably have an increased lifetime risk of cancer, but would be expected not to (and did not) have noticeable illness. ~Wikipedia
For a more complete answer, check out the MAD Scientists answer The Van Allen Belts and Travel to the Moon
Conspiracy theorists have argued that space travel to the moon is impossible because the Van Allen radiation would kill or incapacitate an astronaut who made the trip. In practice, even at the peak of the belts, one could live for several months without receiving a lethal dose, and launch sites and paths are chosen not to pass through said peak. Astronauts traveling to the moon probably have an increased lifetime risk of cancer, but would be expected not to (and did not) have noticeable illness. ~Wikipedia
For a more complete answer, check out the MAD Scientists answer The Van Allen Belts and Travel to the Moon
in a word, yes we were there.
in a whole bunch of really nicely put together words, http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html
here's the bit about space radiation.
in a whole bunch of really nicely put together words, http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html
here's the bit about space radiation.
QUOTE
Bad: A big staple of the HBs is the claim that radiation in the van Allen Belts and in deep space would have killed the astronauts in minutes. They interview a Russian cosmonaut involved in the USSR Moon program, who says that they were worried about going in to the unknowns of space, and suspected that radiation would have penetrated the hull of the spacecraft.
Good: Kaysing's exact words in the program are ``Any human being traveling through the van Allen belt would have been rendered either extremely ill or actually killed by the radiation within a short time thereof.''
This is complete and utter nonsense. The van Allen belts are regions above the Earth's surface where the Earth's magnetic field has trapped particles of the solar wind. An unprotected man would indeed get a lethal dose of radiation, if he stayed there long enough. Actually, the spaceship traveled through the belts pretty quickly, getting past them in an hour or so. There simply wasn't enough time to get a lethal dose, and, as a matter of fact, the metal hull of the spaceship did indeed block most of the radiation. For a detailed explanation of all this, my fellow Mad Scientist William Wheaton has a page with the technical data about the doses received by the astronauts. Another excellent page about this, that also gives a history of NASA radiation testing, is from the Biomedical Results of Apollo site. An interesting read!
It was also disingenuous of the program to quote the Russian cosmonaut as well. Of course they were worried about radiation before men had gone into the van Allen belts! But tests done by NASA showed that it was possible to not only survive such a passage, but to not even get harmed much by it. It looks to me like another case of convenient editing by the producers of the program.
Good: Kaysing's exact words in the program are ``Any human being traveling through the van Allen belt would have been rendered either extremely ill or actually killed by the radiation within a short time thereof.''
This is complete and utter nonsense. The van Allen belts are regions above the Earth's surface where the Earth's magnetic field has trapped particles of the solar wind. An unprotected man would indeed get a lethal dose of radiation, if he stayed there long enough. Actually, the spaceship traveled through the belts pretty quickly, getting past them in an hour or so. There simply wasn't enough time to get a lethal dose, and, as a matter of fact, the metal hull of the spaceship did indeed block most of the radiation. For a detailed explanation of all this, my fellow Mad Scientist William Wheaton has a page with the technical data about the doses received by the astronauts. Another excellent page about this, that also gives a history of NASA radiation testing, is from the Biomedical Results of Apollo site. An interesting read!
It was also disingenuous of the program to quote the Russian cosmonaut as well. Of course they were worried about radiation before men had gone into the van Allen belts! But tests done by NASA showed that it was possible to not only survive such a passage, but to not even get harmed much by it. It looks to me like another case of convenient editing by the producers of the program.
of course they did!! what else would the american government spend all that money on if they hadn't? oh hang on thats a good point. hmmm maybe that film with OJ simpson was true!
Simple answer: yes.
around it - yes
on it - doubtfull
on it - doubtfull
Yes.
We broadcast TV from the moon -- if not real, why didn't the Soviets debunk it?
We have actual moon rocks that any accrediated geologist can slice bits off of.
We put up laser retroreflectors.
More facts at the link in a previous post.
---
Editing to re-endorse Matt's post
Go Matt !
We broadcast TV from the moon -- if not real, why didn't the Soviets debunk it?
We have actual moon rocks that any accrediated geologist can slice bits off of.
We put up laser retroreflectors.
More facts at the link in a previous post.
---
Editing to re-endorse Matt's post
Go Matt !
QUOTE (ARtone+Jan 2 2005, 01:17 AM)
on it - doubtfull
Why do you say "doubtfull"?
Why do you say "doubtfull"?
I reakon they got there alright. I mean, why not? Its not rocke.. oh wait..
No but, really, what stoped them? Its not that incredible just to land vertially, especially on the moon with a low g. Radiation? I think the body can take a fair beating before it starts messin up. And anyway, does it matter? It made everyone feel good!
No but, really, what stoped them? Its not that incredible just to land vertially, especially on the moon with a low g. Radiation? I think the body can take a fair beating before it starts messin up. And anyway, does it matter? It made everyone feel good!
I'll offer the same challenge I posed to Bush: point the bloody Hubble at it, and _show_ the site, in full detail. If that doesn't answer it once and for all, I don't know what will.
if military satelites can read the date on a dime and thats going through our atmasphere. Why not point them at the moon to check the odometer on the moon car???
I don't think Hubble has enough resolution to pick up the lander on the moon. keep in mind military spy sats are about 60 miles up. so reading a car's licence at 60 miles isn't that big of a feat (thought I'm not sure we can really do that. 1 meter resolution is good. say spy sats are 10 times better, that leaves us with decimeter resolution 1 pixel = 10 centimeters. and spy sats have pretty much the same power as hubble does. so when you turn that around and point it to the moon, which is 250,000 miles away, the lander, and possibley the whole site, is going to be smaller than a pixel.
all you'd see is a dot.
it's like the pics we get of the mars landers. they're just a little spot on the surface. 1 pixel maybe less, and those are taken by the sats we have in orbit around mars.
And even if we did get a pic from orbit from some new lunar orbiter, who's going to beleive it's real? faking a moon pic is easier than faking a landing. I could whip one up in paint shop that's passable. imagine what a talented graphic artist could do?
all you'd see is a dot.
it's like the pics we get of the mars landers. they're just a little spot on the surface. 1 pixel maybe less, and those are taken by the sats we have in orbit around mars.
And even if we did get a pic from orbit from some new lunar orbiter, who's going to beleive it's real? faking a moon pic is easier than faking a landing. I could whip one up in paint shop that's passable. imagine what a talented graphic artist could do?
In that case, then, it's up to the Europeans -- or China. They'll have to either prove or disprove it, one way or the other, because no-one of any real perception in this day and age is going to believe the American government. To quote from a recent Scientific American forum discussion (http://www.sciammind.com/article.cfm?articleID=0005FD7A-1069-1196-906983414B7F0000):
"Dictators and tyrants, in order to surround themselves with an army of abettors who will serve them without question, constantly invent new conspiracies against their regimes. And because their supposed opponents act in secret, they can be anywhere or everywhere, so constant alertness is mandatory. This is how autocrats justify their repressive security systems. Furthermore, because dictatorial regimes, in the eyes of their supporters, are always right, any problems they encounter must be the work of conspirators rather than mistakes."
"Dictators and tyrants, in order to surround themselves with an army of abettors who will serve them without question, constantly invent new conspiracies against their regimes. And because their supposed opponents act in secret, they can be anywhere or everywhere, so constant alertness is mandatory. This is how autocrats justify their repressive security systems. Furthermore, because dictatorial regimes, in the eyes of their supporters, are always right, any problems they encounter must be the work of conspirators rather than mistakes."
What I would like to know is why they did'nt just bypass the whole space station and put some kind of structure on the moon.
QUOTE (Guest_guest+Jan 7 2005, 02:28 PM)
What I would like to know is why they did'nt just bypass the whole space station and put some kind of structure on the moon.
You have to start small first. You can't just start by making a structure on the moon. We have to develop the tech and learn how to use it etc... The space station is much closer to earth in case something goes wrong, so it's idealy to learn thing.
You have to start small first. You can't just start by making a structure on the moon. We have to develop the tech and learn how to use it etc... The space station is much closer to earth in case something goes wrong, so it's idealy to learn thing.
"Cold-hearted orb, that rules the night... removes the colours from our sight.
Red is grey, and yellow white -- but "we" decide which is "right."
And -- which *is* an illusion??"
Red is grey, and yellow white -- but "we" decide which is "right."
And -- which *is* an illusion??"
The space station is a stepping stone to a colony on another planet. Obviously there will be structures on the moon before they are on mars, so we can learn what to expect. Sending a emergency repair supply to the moon is a lot closer then sending it to mars..
The space station will help us deliver things to the moon.
I think they should just drop a line from the spacestaion and tug up supplies...
Dummys.. The elevator will never work.
The space station will help us deliver things to the moon.
I think they should just drop a line from the spacestaion and tug up supplies...
Dummys.. The elevator will never work.
Hi marc
Doubtfull because of the photographic problems which all seemed too easy to overcome as did landing the lander despite earthly test crashes.
as for all other things suggested by Mr Penner these could have been done robotically or from moon orbit.
To Matt I would say: a dot in the correct location would be good and I agree faking photos is easy but they arnt always easy to stich together as the cycle track on mars proved
AR
Doubtfull because of the photographic problems which all seemed too easy to overcome as did landing the lander despite earthly test crashes.
as for all other things suggested by Mr Penner these could have been done robotically or from moon orbit.
To Matt I would say: a dot in the correct location would be good and I agree faking photos is easy but they arnt always easy to stich together as the cycle track on mars proved
AR
Hey Moron
Dont give us the job, we cant get them on the planet and admit it plus I cant afford the taxes
AR
Dont give us the job, we cant get them on the planet and admit it plus I cant afford the taxes
AR
QUOTE (Andy+Jan 8 2005, 09:19 PM)
The space station is a stepping stone to a colony on another planet. Obviously there will be structures on the moon before they are on mars, so we can learn what to expect. Sending a emergency repair supply to the moon is a lot closer then sending it to mars..
The space station will help us deliver things to the moon.
No, the space station is not a stepping stone to other planets, it is a distraction. When you do the math you learn it is easier and cheaper to go from Earth ground to another planet directly as opposed to going to LEO first, let alone the moon.
Given that Mars has much more of what humans need to survive -in readily available form- it is not obvious the moon will be first. Mars has what we need to produce oxygen, water, fuel, and food -in readily available form. The moon and space station are not suitable for food production unless you have truly enormous amounts of solar protection and thermal insulation and/or enormous amounts of energy to use in lighting greenhouses. You simply can not just put up some glass and start growing crops.
You'll need soil, which means either importing it or building it to the moon/orbit. The lunar regolith is not much help at all here.
Mars, however, can actually be a realistic catalyst to lunar and orbital colonies. It is cheaper to go from Mars to earth orbit or the moon than from the surface of the Earth.
Regarding emergency repairs:
If you are concerned with this you are not designing the outpost properly. In order for the colony to work it must be as close to self sustaining as possible. In either martian or lunar colonies if you are dependant on an emergency trip from Earth surface, you are toast. It isn't like you catch a flight to the moon for emergencies. Such things require time to prepare.
This is why one of the early requirements of a non_earth colony is local production of critical materials. This means food, water, construction materials, and fuel for "emergency" trips to Earth if needed, fuel for local transportation and energy needs, fuel for off-world adventures, and daily needs requirements such as cleaners, clothing, dishes, oils, and so on.
These are reasons why a Martian colony have the greatest chance for success when compared to Lunar and LEO. A LEO colony would be best supported with imports from Mars due to costs and the same goes for Lunar outposts.
Further, if you look at the numbers involved in trying to mine the asteroid belt you'll find it more likely Ronald Reagan will be the next President than it is we can do that from Earth, LEO, or the Moon. It simply is too costly in terms of mass and fuel, let alone money.
The annual costs of the ISS are going to exceed 5 billion dollars in 2006. It's construction costs so far, IIRC, is 14 Billion dollars or more. In ten years the ISS will have cost over 62 billion dollars. For half that you could have a colony on Mars of a couple dozen people in 10 years. For 62 billion you could put a thriving colony of over 48 people on Mars in 14 years - assuming no Martian births of course.
ISS costs are only bound to increase until resupply and maintenance is launched from a Martian colony.
However, with a Martian colony providing a base of operations for asteroid mining, it becomes quite workable economically and energy/mass-wise. Indeed it will be inevitable. The materials harvested from the asteroid belt would be suitable for use on Mars to produce finished goods/materials for use on Luna or in LEO, as well as on Earth. LEO and Luna are not economically viable until Mars colonization.
The key to the whole system is the fact that Mars provides us the cheapest and simplest method for non-earth clonoization. The same rocket that takes you to Luna takes you to Mars. But on a Mars trip the in situ production of key components we need, combined with an atmosphere to slow you down for landing means you can send more material/machines/people/supplies to Mars than you can to the moon. This is how it becomes cheaper and easier. You send more for the same amount, and need to send less to begin with. Mass leverage at it's finest.
The space station will help us deliver things to the moon.
No, the space station is not a stepping stone to other planets, it is a distraction. When you do the math you learn it is easier and cheaper to go from Earth ground to another planet directly as opposed to going to LEO first, let alone the moon.
Given that Mars has much more of what humans need to survive -in readily available form- it is not obvious the moon will be first. Mars has what we need to produce oxygen, water, fuel, and food -in readily available form. The moon and space station are not suitable for food production unless you have truly enormous amounts of solar protection and thermal insulation and/or enormous amounts of energy to use in lighting greenhouses. You simply can not just put up some glass and start growing crops.
You'll need soil, which means either importing it or building it to the moon/orbit. The lunar regolith is not much help at all here.
Mars, however, can actually be a realistic catalyst to lunar and orbital colonies. It is cheaper to go from Mars to earth orbit or the moon than from the surface of the Earth.
Regarding emergency repairs:
If you are concerned with this you are not designing the outpost properly. In order for the colony to work it must be as close to self sustaining as possible. In either martian or lunar colonies if you are dependant on an emergency trip from Earth surface, you are toast. It isn't like you catch a flight to the moon for emergencies. Such things require time to prepare.
This is why one of the early requirements of a non_earth colony is local production of critical materials. This means food, water, construction materials, and fuel for "emergency" trips to Earth if needed, fuel for local transportation and energy needs, fuel for off-world adventures, and daily needs requirements such as cleaners, clothing, dishes, oils, and so on.
These are reasons why a Martian colony have the greatest chance for success when compared to Lunar and LEO. A LEO colony would be best supported with imports from Mars due to costs and the same goes for Lunar outposts.
Further, if you look at the numbers involved in trying to mine the asteroid belt you'll find it more likely Ronald Reagan will be the next President than it is we can do that from Earth, LEO, or the Moon. It simply is too costly in terms of mass and fuel, let alone money.
The annual costs of the ISS are going to exceed 5 billion dollars in 2006. It's construction costs so far, IIRC, is 14 Billion dollars or more. In ten years the ISS will have cost over 62 billion dollars. For half that you could have a colony on Mars of a couple dozen people in 10 years. For 62 billion you could put a thriving colony of over 48 people on Mars in 14 years - assuming no Martian births of course.
ISS costs are only bound to increase until resupply and maintenance is launched from a Martian colony.However, with a Martian colony providing a base of operations for asteroid mining, it becomes quite workable economically and energy/mass-wise. Indeed it will be inevitable. The materials harvested from the asteroid belt would be suitable for use on Mars to produce finished goods/materials for use on Luna or in LEO, as well as on Earth. LEO and Luna are not economically viable until Mars colonization.
The key to the whole system is the fact that Mars provides us the cheapest and simplest method for non-earth clonoization. The same rocket that takes you to Luna takes you to Mars. But on a Mars trip the in situ production of key components we need, combined with an atmosphere to slow you down for landing means you can send more material/machines/people/supplies to Mars than you can to the moon. This is how it becomes cheaper and easier. You send more for the same amount, and need to send less to begin with. Mass leverage at it's finest.
For ARtone
The Aussies don't like being called robots. (Nor dupes, flunk, shills, etc.)
http://www.parkes.atnf.csiro.au/apollo11/tv_broadcasts.html
Color video of Apollo 16 + 17 -- watch the dust -- moves ballistically in low gravity.
Astronauts on the Moon
For Apollo 17, they spent 3 days on the moon, and STILL the Soviets did not debunk it. If in orbit, logically, radio positioning would be able to follow the transmissions, as the moon is 1800 arcseconds in diameter. If in orbit, this should have be easy to track by any radio telescope on Earth.
I give you this from MoonHoax
Finally, I give you a photo of a moon landing site: Apollo 15 Landing Site Spotted
The Aussies don't like being called robots. (Nor dupes, flunk, shills, etc.)
http://www.parkes.atnf.csiro.au/apollo11/tv_broadcasts.html
Color video of Apollo 16 + 17 -- watch the dust -- moves ballistically in low gravity.
Astronauts on the Moon
For Apollo 17, they spent 3 days on the moon, and STILL the Soviets did not debunk it. If in orbit, logically, radio positioning would be able to follow the transmissions, as the moon is 1800 arcseconds in diameter. If in orbit, this should have be easy to track by any radio telescope on Earth.
I give you this from MoonHoax
QUOTE
This lack of understanding is the source of many of the hoax theories. Rather than finding out how [X] worked, many hoax proponents prefer to take a poor guess at how they think it might have worked, and then show how their own guess wouldn't work.
Finally, I give you a photo of a moon landing site: Apollo 15 Landing Site Spotted
Mr Penner
The first link didnt work
in the second they dont cover the following problem
How did they manage to move the lander, two photos show 2 different lander views but with the same hills in the background.
The video shows nothing that could not have been done in any studio. for ILM too easy.
Last link - Thats a chocolate cake with icing. You will have to do better than that. What you are forgettng is I want to be convinced.
AR
The first link didnt work
in the second they dont cover the following problem
How did they manage to move the lander, two photos show 2 different lander views but with the same hills in the background.
The video shows nothing that could not have been done in any studio. for ILM too easy.
Last link - Thats a chocolate cake with icing. You will have to do better than that. What you are forgettng is I want to be convinced.
AR
AR,
what would it take to be convinced?
what would it take to be convinced?
You are, by convention allowed to have ONE loony idea per published paper, but then you have to support that idea.
QUOTE (ARtone+Jan 10 2005, 12:37 AM)
How did they manage to move the lander, two photos show 2 different lander views but with the same hills in the background.
Bwahaha. Those are MOUNTAINS, higher than many on Earth. The fact that you call them hills indicates the quality of the sources you trust.
Hundreds of pictures were taken at each landing site, and it would be insane to think that all pictures were taken from the same vantage point. Naturally, if the camera moves, near objects (lander) will seem to have moved more than distant objects (the rounded mountains most often cited).
Bwahaha. Those are MOUNTAINS, higher than many on Earth. The fact that you call them hills indicates the quality of the sources you trust.
Hundreds of pictures were taken at each landing site, and it would be insane to think that all pictures were taken from the same vantage point. Naturally, if the camera moves, near objects (lander) will seem to have moved more than distant objects (the rounded mountains most often cited).
QUOTE (ARtone+Jan 10 2005, 12:37 AM)
The video shows nothing that could not have been done in any studio. for ILM too easy.
Bwahaha. In 1969-1972, we barely had color television, let alone 3D-computer graphics. Star wars didn't come until 1978, and was totally state-of-the-art. George Lucas knew it had to be redone for today's audiences who find the 78-version's fuzziness and blue screening side-effects distracting.
The Apollo 11 shot of the first man on the moon was shot from an upside down camera, which gives the aussie team at Parks a nifty thrill.
Bwahaha. In 1969-1972, we barely had color television, let alone 3D-computer graphics. Star wars didn't come until 1978, and was totally state-of-the-art. George Lucas knew it had to be redone for today's audiences who find the 78-version's fuzziness and blue screening side-effects distracting.
The Apollo 11 shot of the first man on the moon was shot from an upside down camera, which gives the aussie team at Parks a nifty thrill.
QUOTE (ARtone+Jan 10 2005, 12:37 AM)
Last link - Thats a chocolate cake with icing. You will have to do better than that. What you are forgettng is I want to be convinced.
Bwahaha. You are a loony fellow. Actual lunar environmental damage is visible from space and you doubt the astronauts were out there doing donuts.
Try the Aussie link again -- it still works for me.
Also look at my sources at the MoonHoax site above.
-- Added:
The 2001 paper discussed above.
Map of Apollo 15 excursions
Bwahaha. You are a loony fellow. Actual lunar environmental damage is visible from space and you doubt the astronauts were out there doing donuts.
Try the Aussie link again -- it still works for me.
Also look at my sources at the MoonHoax site above.
-- Added:
The 2001 paper discussed above.
Map of Apollo 15 excursions
QUOTE (Marc G+Jan 7 2005, 05:18 PM)
QUOTE (Guest_guest+Jan 7 2005, 02:28 PM)
What I would like to know is why they did'nt just bypass the whole space station and put some kind of structure on the moon.
You have to start small first. You can't just start by making a structure on the moon. We have to develop the tech and learn how to use it etc... The space station is much closer to earth in case something goes wrong, so it's idealy to learn thing.
that, and because the Russians were building space stations. We went to the moon becuase the Russians wanted too. we couldn't let them get ahead of us there either.
not to mention the threat and allure of space based weapons.
artone:
are you talking about these photos?
http://www.hypnoide.com/moon/
look closely and you can see the parallax showing that the photos are taken from different angles.
are you talking about these photos?
http://www.hypnoide.com/moon/
look closely and you can see the parallax showing that the photos are taken from different angles.
Regarding emergency repairs:
If you are concerned with this you are not designing the outpost properly. In order for the colony to work it must be as close to self sustaining as possible.
I think you have a valid point. but we're still not there yet. we can't even get Biosphere to work on earth. On mars a similar project would be a disaster.
then you have to account for the psychological issues of people being so far away from home for so long, and so close to their team. I can't spend 8 hours with some of my co-workers without wanting to kill them. 2-4 years would be impossible.
You have to start small first. You can't just start by making a structure on the moon. We have to develop the tech and learn how to use it etc... The space station is much closer to earth in case something goes wrong, so it's idealy to learn thing.
that, and because the Russians were building space stations. We went to the moon becuase the Russians wanted too. we couldn't let them get ahead of us there either.
not to mention the threat and allure of space based weapons.
artone:
QUOTE
How did they manage to move the lander, two photos show 2 different lander views but with the same hills in the background.
are you talking about these photos?
http://www.hypnoide.com/moon/
look closely and you can see the parallax showing that the photos are taken from different angles.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| How did they manage to move the lander, two photos show 2 different lander views but with the same hills in the background. |
are you talking about these photos?
http://www.hypnoide.com/moon/
look closely and you can see the parallax showing that the photos are taken from different angles.
Regarding emergency repairs:
If you are concerned with this you are not designing the outpost properly. In order for the colony to work it must be as close to self sustaining as possible.
I think you have a valid point. but we're still not there yet. we can't even get Biosphere to work on earth. On mars a similar project would be a disaster.
then you have to account for the psychological issues of people being so far away from home for so long, and so close to their team. I can't spend 8 hours with some of my co-workers without wanting to kill them. 2-4 years would be impossible.
Hi Mr Penner
I really dont want to waste time on this argument. I was delivering newspapers when it happened and I was as excited as everyone else.
The whole point I am making is that things are not always as they appear, it really could be a chocolate cake for all I or you know there are no size indicators, which has always been the problem with many faked UFO pictures.
Im not sure if the same applies on the moon but Everest is as big as mountain can be on earth. (tv documentory cant remember exactly when)
As for the view of the MOUNTAINS, if you take a picture from one side of the lander then the other the two backgrounds should be different. However this does present problems on a studio set.
How would I be convinced - dont know. Why am I now convinced they have 2 vehicles on mars despite the early cycle track. because the pictures look genuine, they show vast distance, there are good size indicators, thousands of different pictures, nothing which does not make sense.
Quite frankly I couldnt care less they have never taken a second mission to the same site if they did it might add to your argument but whats the point?
Too many problems here.
AR
I really dont want to waste time on this argument. I was delivering newspapers when it happened and I was as excited as everyone else.
The whole point I am making is that things are not always as they appear, it really could be a chocolate cake for all I or you know there are no size indicators, which has always been the problem with many faked UFO pictures.
Im not sure if the same applies on the moon but Everest is as big as mountain can be on earth. (tv documentory cant remember exactly when)
As for the view of the MOUNTAINS, if you take a picture from one side of the lander then the other the two backgrounds should be different. However this does present problems on a studio set.
How would I be convinced - dont know. Why am I now convinced they have 2 vehicles on mars despite the early cycle track. because the pictures look genuine, they show vast distance, there are good size indicators, thousands of different pictures, nothing which does not make sense.
Quite frankly I couldnt care less they have never taken a second mission to the same site if they did it might add to your argument but whats the point?
Too many problems here.
AR
Hi Matt
Im not sure if they are the ones its a long time since the TV debunk but here again that could be a model on the top of a table. I dont read french though but it looks pretty good evidence to me. There is a slight camera angle difference but not enough to loose the object perporting to be a moon lander.
On a second look I dont think they are. The pictures I saw have oposite sides of the lander in view and much closer.
Im not sure if they are the ones its a long time since the TV debunk but here again that could be a model on the top of a table. I dont read french though but it looks pretty good evidence to me. There is a slight camera angle difference but not enough to loose the object perporting to be a moon lander.
On a second look I dont think they are. The pictures I saw have oposite sides of the lander in view and much closer.
well I can't read the french either, but keep two things in mind, one, those mountains are several miles away. without the atmosphere and any other point of reference, it's impossible to gauge distance. and two, that site is using those pics to prove your point. not mine.
the site I posted earlier. http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html
will go thru and explain each of the most commonly contested points, and show several reasons and examples to show you why arguments against the landing are invalid.
However, like most things, absolute proof is impossible.
even if we loaded you up onto a space ship and flew you to the moon and showed you the landing sites, let you get out and touch them and look around at the foot prints, you could still claim that the whole thing was an elaborate light show put on for your benifit. you could have been taken into low earth orbit to simulate weightlessness, while the "windows were nothing more than high def display screens showing you what you think you should see,
though faking the 1/6 gravity would be a little tougher.
and even then, it doesn't prove that welanded there in the 60s. we could take you to the moon and show you things we've since planted in orbit.
so in the end, we could argue about this forever. all the objections have simple and logical explanations. most can be tested by observation of other footage, or by direct experiment.
and in the end, The US isn't that good at keeping secrets. if we faked it, I guarentee the KGB, the best intelligence agency in the world, would have known about it and there is absolutly no reason for them to keep it hush hush. they would have loved the chance to embarass us before the rest of the world. in fact I'm almost suprised that they didn't claim the whole thing was fake right then and there.
the site I posted earlier. http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html
will go thru and explain each of the most commonly contested points, and show several reasons and examples to show you why arguments against the landing are invalid.
However, like most things, absolute proof is impossible.
even if we loaded you up onto a space ship and flew you to the moon and showed you the landing sites, let you get out and touch them and look around at the foot prints, you could still claim that the whole thing was an elaborate light show put on for your benifit. you could have been taken into low earth orbit to simulate weightlessness, while the "windows were nothing more than high def display screens showing you what you think you should see,
though faking the 1/6 gravity would be a little tougher.
and even then, it doesn't prove that welanded there in the 60s. we could take you to the moon and show you things we've since planted in orbit.
so in the end, we could argue about this forever. all the objections have simple and logical explanations. most can be tested by observation of other footage, or by direct experiment.
and in the end, The US isn't that good at keeping secrets. if we faked it, I guarentee the KGB, the best intelligence agency in the world, would have known about it and there is absolutly no reason for them to keep it hush hush. they would have loved the chance to embarass us before the rest of the world. in fact I'm almost suprised that they didn't claim the whole thing was fake right then and there.
BTW, what's with these cycle tracks on mars you keep talking about?
Hi matt
I wondered when anyone would ask?
One of the first mars pics was badly stitched together. An x axis joint was about 1/8 off in both x and y planes which duplicated all of the rocks. It looked like a cycle track but it was not obvious that it was a straight line due to the terain in the picture.
AR Fake spotting
I wondered when anyone would ask?
One of the first mars pics was badly stitched together. An x axis joint was about 1/8 off in both x and y planes which duplicated all of the rocks. It looked like a cycle track but it was not obvious that it was a straight line due to the terain in the picture.
AR Fake spotting
Matt re your last para - isnt that exactly what has happened and the progenitor of this discussion?
AR
AR
except it wasn't the soviet government that raised the questions, or any other government, or anyone with any sort of real scientific expertese. it was a televison station famous for such hard hitting documentaries such as when animals attack 3, the worlds scariest police chases 2 and who wants to marry a multi millionaire.
it's sensationalism at it's finest. they take something and present it in a manner that sounds impressive to the ignorant masses who were failed by the poor US education system (see now i'm bringing several posts together)
these are the same people who chase UFOs and vote to put the phrase "evolution is only a theory") in all the text books.
in fact, the same techniques it's illustrated very well Here
it's also quite funny. but it's the same thing.
it's sensationalism at it's finest. they take something and present it in a manner that sounds impressive to the ignorant masses who were failed by the poor US education system (see now i'm bringing several posts together)
these are the same people who chase UFOs and vote to put the phrase "evolution is only a theory") in all the text books.
in fact, the same techniques it's illustrated very well Here
it's also quite funny. but it's the same thing.
sorry Matt but I dont think you can say that, Just a word in the ear of anyone from anyone on a contraversial topic will have it around the world in a few hours. Many government officials especially in the UK end up booted out or forced to resign simply because of minor comments.
We have had a recent documentory produced by UK TV the worlds most highly rated, pointing out all the lunar landing reality problems which do seem problematic. They presented them "as is" without bias from both viewpoints We get the junk TV from other countries, possibly yours.
I agree with the progs mentioned they are appalling, who on earth made that clown a ex sheriff.
AR
We have had a recent documentory produced by UK TV the worlds most highly rated, pointing out all the lunar landing reality problems which do seem problematic. They presented them "as is" without bias from both viewpoints We get the junk TV from other countries, possibly yours.
I agree with the progs mentioned they are appalling, who on earth made that clown a ex sheriff.
AR
are you sure it wasn't the same show?
and why is it just coming out now? 35 years after the fact?
and you have yet to show me the silver bullet that I can't shoot down with only a little bit of research.
and why is it just coming out now? 35 years after the fact?
and you have yet to show me the silver bullet that I can't shoot down with only a little bit of research.
Hi Matt,
Quite right...
There is one tangible "visible" remnant on the Moon. The laser retro-reflector left there to measure the distance to the moon. It is still being used to meaure the creep away of the moon from the earth year by year. It is not "rock solid" proof but it is an historical link to the events that happened there all those years ago. It wasn't put there the other day and is a continuing record of the landings. You could technically use this reflector to determine the distance to the moon independently of the astronomers and prove that the landing had occured.
Cheers
QUOTE
However, like most things, absolute proof is impossible.
Quite right...
There is one tangible "visible" remnant on the Moon. The laser retro-reflector left there to measure the distance to the moon. It is still being used to meaure the creep away of the moon from the earth year by year. It is not "rock solid" proof but it is an historical link to the events that happened there all those years ago. It wasn't put there the other day and is a continuing record of the landings. You could technically use this reflector to determine the distance to the moon independently of the astronomers and prove that the landing had occured.
Cheers
the reflector could have been put there by an un manned lander. dropped off while we were going around the moon.
this unmanned robotic lander could have even planted the flag, dropped a golf ball and made a buch of foot prints.
this unmanned robotic lander could have even planted the flag, dropped a golf ball and made a buch of foot prints.
QUOTE (Marc G+Jan 7 2005, 05:18 PM)
QUOTE (ucntcme+)
Regarding emergency repairs:
If you are concerned with this you are not designing the outpost properly. In order for the colony to work it must be as close to self sustaining as possible.
I think you have a valid point. but we're still not there yet. we can't even get Biosphere to work on earth. On mars a similar project would be a disaster.
then you have to account for the psychological issues of people being so far away from home for so long, and so close to their team. I can't spend 8 hours with some of my co-workers without wanting to kill them. 2-4 years would be impossible.
Your first point: Biosphere.
The experience of Biosphere I and II is only applicable if you are trying to create a fully self-running closed loop ecosystem as BSI and BSII were trying to do. And yes, that is not possible given our current knowledge. But fortunately, we don't need to do that. By processing hydrogen via steam injection (assuming no subsurface aquifer is found) to melt and bring up the water under the surface, then using solar and/or "small nuke" powerplants to electrolyse the water to hydrogen and oxygen, as well as saving some off for water, we don't need a self-sustaining ecosystem.
With a water/H/O supply that is effectively limitless until very large (tens of thousands) of humans are living on Mars the crucial elemets (no pun intended) are readily avilable. Add to this processing of atmospheric carbon and nitrogen, and mining/processing of potassium (also plentiful -2x as much as here), the salts extracted from the surface and you have the supplies to produce fertilizer and soil (composting, earthworms - marsworms after a few generations? ) or hydroponics and you've got plenty to support an initial and then booming colony. Add in a few specifically chosen species such as rabbits (which provide excellent fertilizer, food, fur, etc.) and proper recycling of human waste and a 100% closed loop is not needed. I personally view closed loop as a bit of a red herring since we don't actually need one. Sure we recycle and reuse as much as we can, but we don't need it all handled. I doubt we'll ever get to that point; certainly not for a long time to come
Don't get me wrong, BS1 and BS2 were awesome undertakings and I don't consider them a failure per se even though their stated mission failed (at least BS2 anyway) - we learned that we don't know nearly as much as we thought we did. But they aren't applicable to a Martian colony operating on significantly less than a fully closed loop duplicating an environment. We can recycle basically all of our biological waste, especially if organic soaps and so on are used. Agricultural waste can also mostly be utilized: compost it ourselves as opposed to letting it happen "in the field" on it's own, and so on.
Between that and storage of surpluses, food, food based products, "air" and water are a done deal (as is fuel). Beyond that you'll require certain pharmaceuticals (in the early phases) and complex electronics components and initially spares of mining/transportation machinery. Once you've imported the based components for manufacturing things like walls, clothing, engine parts, etc. your import list shrinks dramatically. A bit early into that phase the "emergency" scenarios are irrelevant for all but extreme medical emergencies requiring medical procedures not able to be done remotely. Most of these however are not things a lunar base's proximity would make the difference in life/death. LEO, perhaps, but not Luna. And these are quite rare with the odds against them ocurring anytime in the early phases of construction; and yes this applies to a lunar base as well IMO. This is why, IMO, the "emergency/rescue" is a red herring for anything but LEO and even then still somewhat of one.
Regarding your second point: also a valid concern, but also easily worked out.
There are several ways to alleviate this condition. One way is to provide plenty of space (oh man the pun opportunities abound) so that the individuals do not feel cramped. The space available on say a mars Direct style mission is actually much more than many US Navy personell have for extended periods of time. When united by a common goal that is worthy (to the participants) of undertaking such acts, bonds tend to form more often than cause fatal (to the project) friction.
If husband/wife pairs are available, these represent stonger bonds that also serve well. Regarding colonization, the concept of home is important. if you are a colonist to Mars, the expectation is Mars is now your home. Sure we may miss certain things on Earth, indeed it's all but certain. However, the novelties and challenges of living on Mars are not to be dismissed easily.
Of course, much of this applies to lunar and free-floating colonies as well. Though I would suspect that Mars offers a distinct advantage in that it would be more 'Earthy" and thus a bit less alien. On the less alien bit, the more "normal" products can be made with relative ease on a given colony the more "homey" it will feel and less of an issue this becomes.
Initial selection of colonists and expeditionary crews will naturally be influenced by these factors. Since they apply to any colonization effort off-world (if the crew is rotated it's an outpost, not a colony ; )) it seems logical to me to reduce the technical issues prior to giving significant concern to the psychological one. Given that we've got at least 8 years before a launch, this aspect is one of the easiest to test; and the crew and alternates would have plenty of time to form bonds and learn enough about their interactions to head off most impedances.
But then again, I've only got a couple years of psychology study, and some time in isolation with fellow soliders under intense circumstances, so I'm *far* from an expert on it.
My expertise lies elsewhere.
Cheers
If you are concerned with this you are not designing the outpost properly. In order for the colony to work it must be as close to self sustaining as possible.
I think you have a valid point. but we're still not there yet. we can't even get Biosphere to work on earth. On mars a similar project would be a disaster.
then you have to account for the psychological issues of people being so far away from home for so long, and so close to their team. I can't spend 8 hours with some of my co-workers without wanting to kill them. 2-4 years would be impossible.
Your first point: Biosphere.
The experience of Biosphere I and II is only applicable if you are trying to create a fully self-running closed loop ecosystem as BSI and BSII were trying to do. And yes, that is not possible given our current knowledge. But fortunately, we don't need to do that. By processing hydrogen via steam injection (assuming no subsurface aquifer is found) to melt and bring up the water under the surface, then using solar and/or "small nuke" powerplants to electrolyse the water to hydrogen and oxygen, as well as saving some off for water, we don't need a self-sustaining ecosystem.
With a water/H/O supply that is effectively limitless until very large (tens of thousands) of humans are living on Mars the crucial elemets (no pun intended) are readily avilable. Add to this processing of atmospheric carbon and nitrogen, and mining/processing of potassium (also plentiful -2x as much as here), the salts extracted from the surface and you have the supplies to produce fertilizer and soil (composting, earthworms - marsworms after a few generations?
) or hydroponics and you've got plenty to support an initial and then booming colony. Add in a few specifically chosen species such as rabbits (which provide excellent fertilizer, food, fur, etc.) and proper recycling of human waste and a 100% closed loop is not needed. I personally view closed loop as a bit of a red herring since we don't actually need one. Sure we recycle and reuse as much as we can, but we don't need it all handled. I doubt we'll ever get to that point; certainly not for a long time to comeDon't get me wrong, BS1 and BS2 were awesome undertakings and I don't consider them a failure per se even though their stated mission failed (at least BS2 anyway) - we learned that we don't know nearly as much as we thought we did. But they aren't applicable to a Martian colony operating on significantly less than a fully closed loop duplicating an environment. We can recycle basically all of our biological waste, especially if organic soaps and so on are used. Agricultural waste can also mostly be utilized: compost it ourselves as opposed to letting it happen "in the field" on it's own, and so on.
Between that and storage of surpluses, food, food based products, "air" and water are a done deal (as is fuel). Beyond that you'll require certain pharmaceuticals (in the early phases) and complex electronics components and initially spares of mining/transportation machinery. Once you've imported the based components for manufacturing things like walls, clothing, engine parts, etc. your import list shrinks dramatically. A bit early into that phase the "emergency" scenarios are irrelevant for all but extreme medical emergencies requiring medical procedures not able to be done remotely. Most of these however are not things a lunar base's proximity would make the difference in life/death. LEO, perhaps, but not Luna. And these are quite rare with the odds against them ocurring anytime in the early phases of construction; and yes this applies to a lunar base as well IMO. This is why, IMO, the "emergency/rescue" is a red herring for anything but LEO and even then still somewhat of one.
Regarding your second point: also a valid concern, but also easily worked out.
There are several ways to alleviate this condition. One way is to provide plenty of space (oh man the pun opportunities abound) so that the individuals do not feel cramped. The space available on say a mars Direct style mission is actually much more than many US Navy personell have for extended periods of time. When united by a common goal that is worthy (to the participants) of undertaking such acts, bonds tend to form more often than cause fatal (to the project) friction.
If husband/wife pairs are available, these represent stonger bonds that also serve well. Regarding colonization, the concept of home is important. if you are a colonist to Mars, the expectation is Mars is now your home. Sure we may miss certain things on Earth, indeed it's all but certain. However, the novelties and challenges of living on Mars are not to be dismissed easily.
Of course, much of this applies to lunar and free-floating colonies as well. Though I would suspect that Mars offers a distinct advantage in that it would be more 'Earthy" and thus a bit less alien. On the less alien bit, the more "normal" products can be made with relative ease on a given colony the more "homey" it will feel and less of an issue this becomes.
Initial selection of colonists and expeditionary crews will naturally be influenced by these factors. Since they apply to any colonization effort off-world (if the crew is rotated it's an outpost, not a colony ; )) it seems logical to me to reduce the technical issues prior to giving significant concern to the psychological one. Given that we've got at least 8 years before a launch, this aspect is one of the easiest to test; and the crew and alternates would have plenty of time to form bonds and learn enough about their interactions to head off most impedances.
But then again, I've only got a couple years of psychology study, and some time in isolation with fellow soliders under intense circumstances, so I'm *far* from an expert on it.
My expertise lies elsewhere.Cheers
Hi Matt,
Matt Posted on Jan 11 2005, 01:48 AM
True. But that would be almost as hard as a real landing.
At the same time the US was landing Apollo 11 on the Moon, the Russians had sent an unannounced unmanned probe into low orbit that coincided with the period of the landing. It was a large probe powered by a proton launcher, the most powerful there was in the Russian arsenal. I think it was on a photo-reconnaissance mission. Its purpose was and still is secret. I think it was to confirm the fact that the US had done what it said it did. If the US had duped the public I think the people would have been told about it by the rather crestfallen Communists at the time (rightfully so considering the prestige to be gained from it). The Americans had stolen their glory (Sorry Russian friends – no offence).
Their silence is a great testament that it indeed had happened as reported. I have never heard any doubt from the Russians on this matter. They were the experts of many unmanned lunar landers and sample returns, and were masters of metallurgy and engineering. The Space Station Freedom is a testament to that. The probe eventually deliberately crashed into the surface after the moon landing but quite long enough to take appropriate pictures.
Cheers
Matt Posted on Jan 11 2005, 01:48 AM
QUOTE
the reflector could have been put there by an unmanned lander. Dropped off while we were going around the moon. this unmanned robotic lander could have even planted the flag, dropped a golf ball and made a buch of foot prints.
True. But that would be almost as hard as a real landing.
At the same time the US was landing Apollo 11 on the Moon, the Russians had sent an unannounced unmanned probe into low orbit that coincided with the period of the landing. It was a large probe powered by a proton launcher, the most powerful there was in the Russian arsenal. I think it was on a photo-reconnaissance mission. Its purpose was and still is secret. I think it was to confirm the fact that the US had done what it said it did. If the US had duped the public I think the people would have been told about it by the rather crestfallen Communists at the time (rightfully so considering the prestige to be gained from it). The Americans had stolen their glory (Sorry Russian friends – no offence).
Their silence is a great testament that it indeed had happened as reported. I have never heard any doubt from the Russians on this matter. They were the experts of many unmanned lunar landers and sample returns, and were masters of metallurgy and engineering. The Space Station Freedom is a testament to that. The probe eventually deliberately crashed into the surface after the moon landing but quite long enough to take appropriate pictures.
Cheers
Good Elf: that last one makes sense to me. I think that if someone should dig deep down inside some *verifiably old* Soviet secret archives and *find* those actual picture records, then that should suffice to settle it -- _if_ they are still of any reasonable quality (or indeed, still existent -- they may have been "recycled", in much the same manner as many of Patrick Troughton's "Doctor Who" episodes were?). Otherwise, we'll have to wait for the Chinese to go up there and bring back some chunks of it -- seeing as how Mr. Tone doesn't want to foot the tax bill for any sort of European effort. ;-)
did the japenese ever launch their orbiter?
The program Apollo cost roughly 40 billions dollars. The same period the US government fought in the Vietnam for certain square kilometres of jungle and had to face the enormous cost of war, with tens of thousands dead American soldiers, and the opposition the world and American public opinion.
Here are some questions:
1. Why US stoped the missions?
2. Why if did achieve US to send astronauts in the moon it stopped the missions at the time where it tried it acquires technology better than the Soviets? (better materials etc.)
3. How it achieved also land the ship to the moon, while for enough years later, when
astronauts return to earth parachuted in the sea (!!).
4. Why Soviets continued being better in the exploration of Space. (Soviets sent probes
first to Venus, to Mars and to Mars' satellites. The Soviets accomplished remain in the
space for hundreds days, while the Americans only for few days.
P.S.
Here is a link of the former official Communist's Party of the Soviet Union:
http://english.pravda.ru/science/19/94/377/9994_moon.html
Sorry fo my bad english.
Alsino
Here are some questions:
1. Why US stoped the missions?
2. Why if did achieve US to send astronauts in the moon it stopped the missions at the time where it tried it acquires technology better than the Soviets? (better materials etc.)
3. How it achieved also land the ship to the moon, while for enough years later, when
astronauts return to earth parachuted in the sea (!!).
4. Why Soviets continued being better in the exploration of Space. (Soviets sent probes
first to Venus, to Mars and to Mars' satellites. The Soviets accomplished remain in the
space for hundreds days, while the Americans only for few days.
P.S.
Here is a link of the former official Communist's Party of the Soviet Union:
http://english.pravda.ru/science/19/94/377/9994_moon.html
Sorry fo my bad english.
Alsino
1. The US stopped the missions (orginally planned out to Apollo 21) after the USSR publically announced that they would not attempt a moon landing, ending the space race, which was a PR campaign between the Soviets and the US and a try-out of missile technology. Live color television (Apollo-11 was Black and White) from the moon is a better PR victory than Mars or Venus probes.
2. Someone better at English than I should try to read your question and explain it to me. I think by acquired you mean developed, but even so I do not understand the question.
3. Soviet cosmonauts landed hard on soil. Americans prefered to land at sea. There is no water on the moon, nor air for parachutes, so Americans did what they had to do.
4. Actually, the best exploration of space is the Hubble and the WMAP anisotropy study. "Getting there first" was the thinking of empires and colonies.
5. The Pravda page has links to stories like "russian time machine" -- the story's only named sources are guys who make money selling books -- the story has outright lies about what evidence is avaliable to the public, and makes obviously false claims in support of it's story.
Ralph Rene -- Mr Rene's qualifications amount to being a "self taught engineer"
Bill Kaysing -- has a degree in English
This web site examines the theories that suggest the NASA Apollo moon landings were faked. It hopes to prove, without any doubt, that these theories are wrong and a combination of a poor understanding of basic science and a desire to make a fast buck. Ultimately, however, you're going to have to reach your own decision.
Digitally Scanned Apollo Images
-- new edit
It didn’t do the ... story’s credibility much good that it first appeared on the pages of the newspaper Pravda .... In Soviet days, Pravda was the propaganda arm of the Soviet Communist Party, but under new management, it became a tabloid-style scandal sheet with a special penchant for wild paranormal tales.
2. Someone better at English than I should try to read your question and explain it to me. I think by acquired you mean developed, but even so I do not understand the question.
3. Soviet cosmonauts landed hard on soil. Americans prefered to land at sea. There is no water on the moon, nor air for parachutes, so Americans did what they had to do.
4. Actually, the best exploration of space is the Hubble and the WMAP anisotropy study. "Getting there first" was the thinking of empires and colonies.
5. The Pravda page has links to stories like "russian time machine" -- the story's only named sources are guys who make money selling books -- the story has outright lies about what evidence is avaliable to the public, and makes obviously false claims in support of it's story.
Ralph Rene -- Mr Rene's qualifications amount to being a "self taught engineer"
Bill Kaysing -- has a degree in English
This web site examines the theories that suggest the NASA Apollo moon landings were faked. It hopes to prove, without any doubt, that these theories are wrong and a combination of a poor understanding of basic science and a desire to make a fast buck. Ultimately, however, you're going to have to reach your own decision.
Digitally Scanned Apollo Images
-- new edit
It didn’t do the ... story’s credibility much good that it first appeared on the pages of the newspaper Pravda .... In Soviet days, Pravda was the propaganda arm of the Soviet Communist Party, but under new management, it became a tabloid-style scandal sheet with a special penchant for wild paranormal tales.
I'm amazed this debate even exists...
Actually, not likely.
SMART-1's AMIE imager has a estimated best resolution of 30 meters/pixel
Which means 10-meter artifacts (landers) will not be visible.
Some lunar regolith disruption may be seen, but not rover tracks, footprints, or flags -- so it is unlikely the photos will rise to whatever standard of proof ARtone uses to drive his belief system.
--- Edit
SELENE has a terrain camera which is estimated to be good to 10-meter resolution, which means if the shadows are long, we might get some reasonablly fuzzy pictures of 1-3 pixels.
SMART-1's AMIE imager has a estimated best resolution of 30 meters/pixel
Which means 10-meter artifacts (landers) will not be visible.
Some lunar regolith disruption may be seen, but not rover tracks, footprints, or flags -- so it is unlikely the photos will rise to whatever standard of proof ARtone uses to drive his belief system.
--- Edit
SELENE has a terrain camera which is estimated to be good to 10-meter resolution, which means if the shadows are long, we might get some reasonablly fuzzy pictures of 1-3 pixels.
rpenner
It's a pity
It's a pity
The odd nature of most of the views that attempt to debunk the moon landings also tend to abstain from the accomplishments from that timeframe to date.
Do the Hoax Believers (HBs) also call all other accomplishments in space a hoax? Do they call the mars rovers a hoax? The landing on Titan? Are all these pictures of these various planets a hoax? Is the space station a hoax? Are the shuttles a hoax? Is the hubble space telescope a hoax?
There's an crucial point being made here.
Say for instance that the attempt to go to the moon was a hoax due mainly because we didn't have the funding, technology, and were consumed by other worldly events. Is that the same today? Was it that way for every year since we allegedly did not landed on the moon? Why would we claim to continue to go to the planets and the moons of those planets with robot vehicles if we didn't have the technology or the funding or the the interest due to other worldly events?
If we have the technology to send them now why are we not going to the moon in an effort to at least debunk the debunkers? It can't be that much more expensive to go there now then it was then considering the state of our technology. I think the answer is because we've already been there and there's nothing of real practical interest. There's alot of potential on the moon but that's more for the future than now. There's too much knowledge that we seek due to our infancy in this knowledge arena, that spending too much time revisiting somewhere we've already been to pay off.
With simple telescopes we can see the moon more clearly than ever before. With the cheap technology anyone can peer into space and look at the satellites, the mountain ranges on the moon, and the space station.
More simply we know we can get into space and put a human in space and we can bring them back. The US is a nation which spends billions and billions on space exploration and science. We even have private individuals that have managed to create spacecraft that can enter the closest regions of space at relatively modest costs. Our measuring instruments, our ability to broadcast that to millions of homes with the technology (computers) to monitor and measure the information would give ample proof as to whether there are irregularities in any attempt to reach the moon (again) or even farther. These provide evidence that we are progressing and we are progressing from the standpoint of a major accomplishment--putting a man on the moon and bringing him safely back.
Why would mankind have taken the direction he had if spaceflight was not feasable even to the closest neighbor, the moon? Why would we have advanced propulsion? Why would we have advanced our attempts at measuring science in space? Why would we be creating the international space station? Why would we have put a space telescope into space? Why would we be sending landers to mars, titan, venus, and even probes into the atmosheres of giant planets if we weren't advancing a technology developed 4 decades ago?
Even as far back as Hipparchus with his star catalog we have evidence that we are indeed looking out and advancing farther. Why would so many things be measured, written about, examined, revised, and rehashed so many times throughout our history and now investigated even more critically and precisely if indeed we were not legit in one our most basic, yet fantastic explorations, which must have existed for us to advance to our current accomplishments?
Do the Hoax Believers (HBs) also call all other accomplishments in space a hoax? Do they call the mars rovers a hoax? The landing on Titan? Are all these pictures of these various planets a hoax? Is the space station a hoax? Are the shuttles a hoax? Is the hubble space telescope a hoax?
There's an crucial point being made here.
Say for instance that the attempt to go to the moon was a hoax due mainly because we didn't have the funding, technology, and were consumed by other worldly events. Is that the same today? Was it that way for every year since we allegedly did not landed on the moon? Why would we claim to continue to go to the planets and the moons of those planets with robot vehicles if we didn't have the technology or the funding or the the interest due to other worldly events?
If we have the technology to send them now why are we not going to the moon in an effort to at least debunk the debunkers? It can't be that much more expensive to go there now then it was then considering the state of our technology. I think the answer is because we've already been there and there's nothing of real practical interest. There's alot of potential on the moon but that's more for the future than now. There's too much knowledge that we seek due to our infancy in this knowledge arena, that spending too much time revisiting somewhere we've already been to pay off.
With simple telescopes we can see the moon more clearly than ever before. With the cheap technology anyone can peer into space and look at the satellites, the mountain ranges on the moon, and the space station.
More simply we know we can get into space and put a human in space and we can bring them back. The US is a nation which spends billions and billions on space exploration and science. We even have private individuals that have managed to create spacecraft that can enter the closest regions of space at relatively modest costs. Our measuring instruments, our ability to broadcast that to millions of homes with the technology (computers) to monitor and measure the information would give ample proof as to whether there are irregularities in any attempt to reach the moon (again) or even farther. These provide evidence that we are progressing and we are progressing from the standpoint of a major accomplishment--putting a man on the moon and bringing him safely back.
Why would mankind have taken the direction he had if spaceflight was not feasable even to the closest neighbor, the moon? Why would we have advanced propulsion? Why would we have advanced our attempts at measuring science in space? Why would we be creating the international space station? Why would we have put a space telescope into space? Why would we be sending landers to mars, titan, venus, and even probes into the atmosheres of giant planets if we weren't advancing a technology developed 4 decades ago?
Even as far back as Hipparchus with his star catalog we have evidence that we are indeed looking out and advancing farther. Why would so many things be measured, written about, examined, revised, and rehashed so many times throughout our history and now investigated even more critically and precisely if indeed we were not legit in one our most basic, yet fantastic explorations, which must have existed for us to advance to our current accomplishments?
QUOTE (moron+Jan 8 2005, 05:26 PM)
"Cold-hearted orb, that rules the night... removes the colours from our sight.
Red is grey, and yellow white -- but "we" decide which is "right."
And -- which *is* an illusion??"
Why do you keep quoting the lyrics from The Moody Blues? Those lyrics have no validity in this conversation. They had some good songs and inventive lyrics and I enjoyed some of their music but I don't quote anyone's lyrics as proof of fact. Why would you? You are hurting your cause more than supporting it.
Red is grey, and yellow white -- but "we" decide which is "right."
And -- which *is* an illusion??"
Why do you keep quoting the lyrics from The Moody Blues? Those lyrics have no validity in this conversation. They had some good songs and inventive lyrics and I enjoyed some of their music but I don't quote anyone's lyrics as proof of fact. Why would you? You are hurting your cause more than supporting it.
haahha being a human being is so much fun to tease and turn ones back so easily at any thing deemed a fake.
in 50 years we have tech /leaps and bounds despite many disbelievers and if we can get together with all countries we would achieve a mars mission so successful we would re-write human history.
ohh well looks like years and years will go by before we open our minds to actually get the hell off the earth and go explore just like our forefathers and mothers to extend to science and political and religious idears along with well its out there so i want to go there .
in 50 years we have tech /leaps and bounds despite many disbelievers and if we can get together with all countries we would achieve a mars mission so successful we would re-write human history.
ohh well looks like years and years will go by before we open our minds to actually get the hell off the earth and go explore just like our forefathers and mothers to extend to science and political and religious idears along with well its out there so i want to go there .
could you imagine what we could accomplish if we didn't have to fund multiple militaries?
"Why do you keep quoting the lyrics from The Moody Blues? Those lyrics have no validity in this conversation."
_Keep_ quoting? I only posted that once. Unless you are referring to the quotation marks themselves -- which, outside of strictly 'formal' English, are colloquially employed in modern times to indicate skepticism and/or scorn.
"You are hurting your cause more than supporting it."
Cause? What cause? I wasn't aware that I had one -- I thought I was simply expressing a mere opinion.
Hmph. Must've went right over his head completely, I suppose. Oh well.
_Keep_ quoting? I only posted that once. Unless you are referring to the quotation marks themselves -- which, outside of strictly 'formal' English, are colloquially employed in modern times to indicate skepticism and/or scorn.
"You are hurting your cause more than supporting it."
Cause? What cause? I wasn't aware that I had one -- I thought I was simply expressing a mere opinion.
Hmph. Must've went right over his head completely, I suppose. Oh well.
I don't believe in the moon hoax. The most compelling evidence in favor of a hoax was the nasa footage, on the moon, with a shooting date five days before the actual live event(assuming such footage is accurate.). But nasa probably made a reasonable mistake there.
Anyway, there's this anomaly video, I'm a bit curious about:
flag waving after standing still without touching(note: this is not the common flag vid, the first part is as flag moves while moving the flagpole and setting it in the first segment of the vid, the second part is what's controversial amongst hoaxers.)
which is used in this later video:
'UN-DEBUNKABLE MOON HOAX PROOF. Apollo's Atmospheric Moon'
undebunkable moon hoax proof
Obviously the aerodynamics model presented is a joke, and doesn't merit attention. But the flag allegations should be addressed to silence him up. The person who posted this video claims he accepts any polite argument to the contrary in the comments box(after review to stop spamming). So I'd like to see what's the physics explanation for the first vid. I've read static could be a reason, but I think it could be the ground conveying the shock of the quick hops to the flagpole and thus moving the flag.
Anyway, there's this anomaly video, I'm a bit curious about:
flag waving after standing still without touching(note: this is not the common flag vid, the first part is as flag moves while moving the flagpole and setting it in the first segment of the vid, the second part is what's controversial amongst hoaxers.)
which is used in this later video:
'UN-DEBUNKABLE MOON HOAX PROOF. Apollo's Atmospheric Moon'
undebunkable moon hoax proof
Obviously the aerodynamics model presented is a joke, and doesn't merit attention. But the flag allegations should be addressed to silence him up. The person who posted this video claims he accepts any polite argument to the contrary in the comments box(after review to stop spamming). So I'd like to see what's the physics explanation for the first vid. I've read static could be a reason, but I think it could be the ground conveying the shock of the quick hops to the flagpole and thus moving the flag.
QUOTE (Guest+Jan 20 2005, 04:12 PM)
The program Apollo cost roughly 40 billions dollars. The same period the US government fought in the Vietnam for certain square kilometres of jungle and had to face the enormous cost of war, with tens of thousands dead American soldiers, and the opposition the world and American public opinion.
Here are some questions:
1. Why US stoped the missions?
People were getting bored with the moon. They wanted new, exciting things. The US decided to spend the money on other projects.
2. Why if did achieve US to send astronauts in the moon it stopped the missions at the time where it tried it acquires technology better than the Soviets? (better materials etc.)
I'm afraid that question is too badly worded for me to understand what the heck you are getting at.
I'm afraid that question is too badly worded for me to understand what the heck you are getting at.
3. How it achieved also land the ship to the moon, while for enough years later, when
astronauts return to earth parachuted in the sea (!!).
The lander landed on the moon. The top half of the lander separated, and docked with the command module. The command module then went back to Earth. The top half of the command module then separated, and re - entered Earth's atmosphere for a splashdown in the ocean.
4. Why Soviets continued being better in the exploration of Space. (Soviets sent probes
first to Venus, to Mars and to Mars' satellites. The Soviets accomplished remain in the
space for hundreds days, while the Americans only for few days.
P.S.
Here is a link of the former official Communist's Party of the Soviet Union:
http://english.pravda.ru/science/19/94/377/9994_moon.html
Sorry fo my bad english.
Alsino
Plenty of American probes have stayed up for a very long time.
This kind of conspiracy - type thinking makes me sick.
Don't listen to it - we DID land on the moon.
Unless you count StuffYouCanUse's great evidence to the contrary
: http://stuffucanuse.com/fake_moon_landings/moon_landings.ht
- Gehn
LOL
if you knew physics you would know it was all FAKE
they can't go there now, they could not go there them.
LOL
if you knew physics you would know it was all FAKE
they can't go there now, they could not go there them.
Instead, if we spent that money feeding and clothing the poor of the world, which it would pay for many times over, not one human being excluded...not one...we could as one race explore outer space together in peace, for ever.
Nah, human beings really are STUPID... MAD, they would be certifiable but there are too many to lock away.
So there is no hope of them holding together
they will soon destroy themselves.
EDIT P.s. (I) too was alive when all of this Happened, and Yup! it happened & they were there! ON the surface, Broadcast LIVE (sorta as there is a time delay due to the distance of transmission)
For once, Mr. Parsons said something intelligent!
The broadcast was not fake. The sites you refer to give roundabout evidence which can easily be proven wrong. In essence, they ignore all the facts which prove the landing, and try to search for anything which might suggest a hoax.
- Gehn
For once, Mr. Parsons said something intelligent!
I'll even go so far as to say he's higher on the intelligence bell curve than a Moon Hoax believer.
Here are some questions:
1. Why US stoped the missions?
People were getting bored with the moon. They wanted new, exciting things. The US decided to spend the money on other projects.
QUOTE
2. Why if did achieve US to send astronauts in the moon it stopped the missions at the time where it tried it acquires technology better than the Soviets? (better materials etc.)
I'm afraid that question is too badly worded for me to understand what the heck you are getting at.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
2. Why if did achieve US to send astronauts in the moon it stopped the missions at the time where it tried it acquires technology better than the Soviets? (better materials etc.) |
I'm afraid that question is too badly worded for me to understand what the heck you are getting at.
3. How it achieved also land the ship to the moon, while for enough years later, when
astronauts return to earth parachuted in the sea (!!).
The lander landed on the moon. The top half of the lander separated, and docked with the command module. The command module then went back to Earth. The top half of the command module then separated, and re - entered Earth's atmosphere for a splashdown in the ocean.
QUOTE
4. Why Soviets continued being better in the exploration of Space. (Soviets sent probes
first to Venus, to Mars and to Mars' satellites. The Soviets accomplished remain in the
space for hundreds days, while the Americans only for few days.
P.S.
Here is a link of the former official Communist's Party of the Soviet Union:
http://english.pravda.ru/science/19/94/377/9994_moon.html
Sorry fo my bad english.
Alsino
Plenty of American probes have stayed up for a very long time.
This kind of conspiracy - type thinking makes me sick.
Don't listen to it - we DID land on the moon.Unless you count StuffYouCanUse's great evidence to the contrary
: http://stuffucanuse.com/fake_moon_landings/moon_landings.ht- Gehn
Did the US go to the moon???
Yes.
Grumpy
Yes.
Grumpy
QUOTE (solidon+Jan 21 2008, 04:38 PM)
I don't believe in the moon hoax. The most compelling evidence in favor of a hoax was the nasa footage, on the moon, with a shooting date five days before the actual live event(assuming such footage is accurate.). But nasa probably made a reasonable mistake there.
Anyway, there's this anomaly video, I'm a bit curious about:
flag waving after standing still without touching(note: this is not the common flag vid, the first part is as flag moves while moving the flagpole and setting it in the first segment of the vid, the second part is what's controversial amongst hoaxers.)
which is used in this later video:
'UN-DEBUNKABLE MOON HOAX PROOF. Apollo's Atmospheric Moon'
undebunkable moon hoax proof
Obviously the aerodynamics model presented is a joke, and doesn't merit attention. But the flag allegations should be addressed to silence him up. The person who posted this video claims he accepts any polite argument to the contrary in the comments box(after review to stop spamming). So I'd like to see what's the physics explanation for the first vid. I've read static could be a reason, but I think it could be the ground conveying the shock of the quick hops to the flagpole and thus moving the flag.
An aerodynamic explanation just doesn't cut it. The most important thing to note in this video is the initial movement of the flag as the astronaut bounds by. The flag moves towards the astronaut. If the movement was due to air currents caused by the passing astronaut, the initial movement would have been away. Also note that the flag's waving continues for some time after the astronaut passes with the magnitude of the the back and forth motion slowly decreasing. The flag is acting like a damped harmonic oscillator after an initial disturbance and not as if it's being governed by turbulent vortexes in a gas.
I'm not sure if we have enough information decide in favor of a particular alternative though. The astronaut may have compressed the soil causing the flag pole to tip towards him as he passed. The Youtube video is low resolution, the pole movement would be parallel to the camera's line of sight, and the astronaut blocks part of the shot, so no pole movement is apparent. The electrostatic theory has some merit. The flag material may have accumulated some charge after several minutes exposure to the unfiltered sunlight, but naturally electric fields are invisible.
Anyway, there's this anomaly video, I'm a bit curious about:
flag waving after standing still without touching(note: this is not the common flag vid, the first part is as flag moves while moving the flagpole and setting it in the first segment of the vid, the second part is what's controversial amongst hoaxers.)
which is used in this later video:
'UN-DEBUNKABLE MOON HOAX PROOF. Apollo's Atmospheric Moon'
undebunkable moon hoax proof
Obviously the aerodynamics model presented is a joke, and doesn't merit attention. But the flag allegations should be addressed to silence him up. The person who posted this video claims he accepts any polite argument to the contrary in the comments box(after review to stop spamming). So I'd like to see what's the physics explanation for the first vid. I've read static could be a reason, but I think it could be the ground conveying the shock of the quick hops to the flagpole and thus moving the flag.
An aerodynamic explanation just doesn't cut it. The most important thing to note in this video is the initial movement of the flag as the astronaut bounds by. The flag moves towards the astronaut. If the movement was due to air currents caused by the passing astronaut, the initial movement would have been away. Also note that the flag's waving continues for some time after the astronaut passes with the magnitude of the the back and forth motion slowly decreasing. The flag is acting like a damped harmonic oscillator after an initial disturbance and not as if it's being governed by turbulent vortexes in a gas.
I'm not sure if we have enough information decide in favor of a particular alternative though. The astronaut may have compressed the soil causing the flag pole to tip towards him as he passed. The Youtube video is low resolution, the pole movement would be parallel to the camera's line of sight, and the astronaut blocks part of the shot, so no pole movement is apparent. The electrostatic theory has some merit. The flag material may have accumulated some charge after several minutes exposure to the unfiltered sunlight, but naturally electric fields are invisible.
These moon-hoax threads are always good for a laugh. With the latest crop of loonies, idiots and trolls there is bound to be at lest one who supports it.
... StevenA maybe?
... StevenA maybe?
hi awozny
i think we actually went to moon at the end of teh 60's? and in my opinion it is true
i think we actually went to moon at the end of teh 60's? and in my opinion it is true
QUOTE (Guest_guest+Jan 7 2005, 10:28 AM)
What I would like to know is why they did'nt just bypass the whole space station and put some kind of structure on the moon.
Because the ISS is still within the Van Allen Belts' protections from solar storms the moons surface is not.
Because the ISS is still within the Van Allen Belts' protections from solar storms the moons surface is not.
QUOTE (Mr. Robin Parsons+Jan 24 2008, 04:39 PM)
Because the ISS is still within the Van Allen Belts' protections from solar storms the moons surface is not.
Not to mention the huge amounts of fuel necessary and the toxic dust.
Not to mention the huge amounts of fuel necessary and the toxic dust.
I'm sorry we fight wars, guys...I am sorry just as much as all of you that we'd rather fight over space on one rock than to find another to live on so that we may enjoy peace and comfort, and even more space than those who are holding us back care to dream of.
Your conversation started to remind me of Bill Hicks' cynicism and distrust for peoples' ways. Here's my favorite quote from him:
"I had a vision of a way we could have no enemies ever again, if you're interested in this. Anybody interested in hearing this? It's kind of an interesting theory, and all we have to do is make one decisive act and we can rid the world of all our enemies at once. Here's what we do. You know all that money we spend on nuclear weapons and defense every year? Trillions of dollars.
Instead, if we spent that money feeding and clothing the poor of the world, which it would pay for many times over, not one human being excluded...not one...we could as one race explore outer space together in peace, for ever."
Your conversation started to remind me of Bill Hicks' cynicism and distrust for peoples' ways. Here's my favorite quote from him:
"I had a vision of a way we could have no enemies ever again, if you're interested in this. Anybody interested in hearing this? It's kind of an interesting theory, and all we have to do is make one decisive act and we can rid the world of all our enemies at once. Here's what we do. You know all that money we spend on nuclear weapons and defense every year? Trillions of dollars.
Instead, if we spent that money feeding and clothing the poor of the world, which it would pay for many times over, not one human being excluded...not one...we could as one race explore outer space together in peace, for ever."
QUOTE (PinkFloyd+Jan 24 2008, 04:52 PM)
(SNIP) Instead, if we spent that money feeding and clothing the poor of the world, which it would pay for many times over, not one human being excluded...not one...we could as one race explore outer space together in peace, for ever." (SNoP)
Whoohoo! Yeah! Yahooooo! go for it!! WOOT! WOOT! WOOT!
PAN PAX
EDIT P.s. (I) too was alive when all of this Happened, and Yup! it happened & they were there! ON the surface, Broadcast LIVE (sorta as there is a time delay due to the distance of transmission)
PAN PAX
EDIT P.s. (I) too was alive when all of this Happened, and Yup! it happened & they were there! ON the surface, Broadcast LIVE (sorta as there is a time delay due to the distance of transmission)
QUOTE
(I) too was alive when all of this Happened, and Yup! it happened & they were there! ON the surface,
LOL
if you knew physics you would know it was all FAKE
they can't go there now, they could not go there them.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| (I) too was alive when all of this Happened, and Yup! it happened & they were there! ON the surface, |
LOL
if you knew physics you would know it was all FAKE
they can't go there now, they could not go there them.
Instead, if we spent that money feeding and clothing the poor of the world, which it would pay for many times over, not one human being excluded...not one...we could as one race explore outer space together in peace, for ever.
Nah, human beings really are STUPID... MAD, they would be certifiable but there are too many to lock away.
So there is no hope of them holding together
they will soon destroy themselves.
QUOTE (Zarkov+Jan 26 2008, 04:37 PM)
Nah, human beings really are STUPID... MAD, they would be certifiable but there are too many to lock away.
In your case I'm in 100% agreement.
In your case I'm in 100% agreement.
QUOTE (Zarkov+Jan 25 2008, 11:37 PM)
if you knew physics you would know it was all FAKE they can't go there now, they could not go there them. Nah, human beings really are STUPID... MAD, they would be certifiable but there are too many to lock away. So there is no hope of them holding together they will soon destroy themselves.
It isn't the 'holding them together', although that too would be a problem - getting them all to control themselves well enough for there to be 'World Peace' (Pan Pax) but it is - also - well, in our nature that such successes generally cause us to Breed more and thereby Burgeon the Population to proportions wherein we threaten ourselves - by our very numbers - as that - circumstantially - ends up threatening the Available amounts of Food as per the space to grow it.
Education is the Key to the success along that pathway.
And it is a Beautiful 'Ideal' to Aim For.
Worth an effort ~ anyways ~ as it is a pathway that expresses compassion ~ the destination of the Learning adventure that this existence offers us as journey.
Pan Pax
BTW some of the other people on this planet DO believe that (I) do know - at least - a little bit about 'Physics' so ~ YUP! ~ they were there.
Education is the Key to the success along that pathway.
And it is a Beautiful 'Ideal' to Aim For.
Worth an effort ~ anyways ~ as it is a pathway that expresses compassion ~ the destination of the Learning adventure that this existence offers us as journey.
Pan Pax
BTW some of the other people on this planet DO believe that (I) do know - at least - a little bit about 'Physics' so ~ YUP! ~ they were there.
QUOTE (Brave Sir Robin Parsons (affectations deleted)+)
BTW some of the other people on this planet DO believe that I do know - at least - a little bit about 'Physics' so ~ YUP! ~ they were there.
And a quick look through your feedback gives a list. Not one to be proud of, which you would be aware of had you any grasp of physics.
And a quick look through your feedback gives a list. Not one to be proud of, which you would be aware of had you any grasp of physics.
QUOTE (rpenner+Jan 2 2005, 06:42 AM)
Yes.
We broadcast TV from the moon -- if not real, why didn't the Soviets debunk it?
We have actual moon rocks that any accrediated geologist can slice bits off of.
We put up laser retroreflectors.
More facts at the link in a previous post.
---
Editing to re-endorse Matt's post
Go Matt !
With all due respect rpenner, but we don't have sufficient proof, that we actually have the moon rocks,
a news reporter jumps on TV and states that a TV decided to fly, because NASA wanted it to, in my opinion , i reckon you would believe them
we don't have proof that there are moon rocks here on earth brought back......
and the American "broadcast" was a fake, many websites offer considerable amount of evidence to support this fact
Here is one of them
here as well
neutrinos
We broadcast TV from the moon -- if not real, why didn't the Soviets debunk it?
We have actual moon rocks that any accrediated geologist can slice bits off of.
We put up laser retroreflectors.
More facts at the link in a previous post.
---
Editing to re-endorse Matt's post
Go Matt !
With all due respect rpenner, but we don't have sufficient proof, that we actually have the moon rocks,
a news reporter jumps on TV and states that a TV decided to fly, because NASA wanted it to, in my opinion , i reckon you would believe them
we don't have proof that there are moon rocks here on earth brought back......
and the American "broadcast" was a fake, many websites offer considerable amount of evidence to support this fact
Here is one of them
here as well
neutrinos
QUOTE (Neutrinos+Jan 26 2008, 10:46 PM)
With all due respect rpenner, but we don't have sufficient proof, that we actually have the moon rocks,
a news reporter jumps on TV and states that a TV decided to fly, because NASA wanted it to, in my opinion , i reckon you would believe them
we don't have proof that there are moon rocks here on earth brought back......
and the American "broadcast" was a fake, many websites offer considerable amount of evidence to support this fact
Here is one of them
here as well
neutrinos
Since when did conspiracy theory sh!t count as evidence
?
- Gehn
a news reporter jumps on TV and states that a TV decided to fly, because NASA wanted it to, in my opinion , i reckon you would believe them
we don't have proof that there are moon rocks here on earth brought back......
and the American "broadcast" was a fake, many websites offer considerable amount of evidence to support this fact
Here is one of them
here as well
neutrinos
Since when did conspiracy theory sh!t count as evidence
?- Gehn
QUOTE (Neutrinos+Jan 26 2008, 10:46 PM)
With all due respect rpenner, but we don't have sufficient proof, that we actually have the moon rocks,
a news reporter jumps on TV and states that a TV decided to fly, because NASA wanted it to, in my opinion , i reckon you would believe them
we don't have proof that there are moon rocks here on earth brought back......
and the American "broadcast" was a fake, many websites offer considerable amount of evidence to support this fact
Here is one of them
here as well
neutrinos
Pure crackpottery. I took a look at one of your sites, the APFN site. The following caught my eye:
9 SPACE ODDITIES:
1. Apollo 14 astronaut Allen Shepard played golf on the Moon. In front of a worldwide TV audience, Mission Control teased him about slicing the ball to the right. Yet a slice is caused by uneven air flow over the ball. The Moon has no atmosphere and no air.
2. A camera panned upwards to catch Apollo 16's Lunar Landerlifting off the Moon. Who did the filming?
3. One NASA picture from Apollo 11 is looking up at Neil Armstrong about to take his giant step for mankind. The photographer must have been lying on the planet surface. If Armstrong was the first man on the Moon, then who took the shot?
4. The pressure inside a space suit was greater than inside a football. The astronauts should have been puffed out like the Michelin Man, but were seen freely bending their joints.
5. The Moon landings took place during the Cold War. Why didn't America make a signal on the moon that could be seen from earth? The PR would have been phenomenal and it could have been easily done with magnesium flares.
6. Text from pictures in the article said that only two men walked on the Moon during the Apollo 12 mission. Yet the astronaut reflected in the visor has no camera. Who took the shot?
7. The flags shadow goes behind the rock so doesn't match the dark line in the foreground, which looks like a line cord. So the shadow to the lower right of the spaceman must be the flag. Where is his shadow? And why is the flag fluttering if there is no air or wind on the moon?
8. How can the flag be brightly lit when its side is to the light? And where, in all of these shots, are the stars?
9. The Lander weighed 17 tons yet the astronauts feet seem to have made a bigger dent in the dust. The powerful booster rocket at the base of the Lunar Lander was fired to slow descent to the moons service. Yet it has left no traces of blasting on the dust underneath. It should have created a small crater, yet the booster looks like it's never been fired.
_______________________
My responses follow the numbering of the "Oddities."
1. When the line about the slice was uttered, Shepard had just muffed his shot and drove the ball two or three feet. It wasn't really a slice.
2. The Lunar Rover was left on the surface, and it had a video camera that could be remotely controlled from Earth. Even a basic amount of research should have uncovered this fact.
3. The author is probably confusing Armstrong with Aldrin.
4. Pressure inside Apollo spacesuits was around 3.7-3.9 psi. American footballs are pressurized to 12.5–13.5 psi, so we've already caught them in a lie. Also, a football feels hard because its material can't stretch much. When you press on one side, the internal volume of the football decreases because other parts of the football can't stretch to compensate. Because the volume is decreasing, the pressure must increase, and thus it takes a considerable amount of work to indent the side of a football. Spacesuits are designed differently. When a joint is flexed, the volume of air in the inner side of the joint decreases but special folds called gores on the outer side of the joint unfold and increase the air volume there. The net result is no change in volume, no change in pressure, and hence very little work to flex the joint. See this wiki article for more details.
5. Even with modern telescopes scientists feel lucky when they see a blast on the dark side equivalent to 70 kg of TNT. A magnesium flare would release a lot less energy and spread it out over a large period of time. Seeing such a flare on the sunlit side with 60s or 70s era equipment would have been impossible.
6. They had their cameras mounted on their chests. No good trying to bring a camera to your face when there's a glass bubble in the way. The idiot that wrote number 6 must have looked at the photo for half a second before deciding he didn't see a camera.
7. The photo referred to is an interesting one. What the hoaxer has failed to realize is that the astronaut in this photo has decided to jump and salute simultaneously. The astronaut's shadow is there, but significantly lower down than one might expect if one was unaware of the jump (which is a nice high jump considering the bulky spacesuit, evidence of low gravity). There are some other thin shadows in the area, one due to the flag. Considering the rocks and scientific equipment scattered around the area it's hard to say what is what, especially since this version of the photo is such low resolution. The flapping flag has been discussed already in this thread, not that a still photo can show flapping.
8. Oh where are those stars. This is the classic moon-hoax argument, and it displays a basic ignorance of photography. The stars aren't there because the photographer didn't want to overexpose the shot. And the brightly lit flag? Just by the photo one can see that it wasn't completely parallel with the sun light. It is also partially lit by light reflected from the lunar surface. And the flag is newly unfurled and clean, whereas the astronaut and everything else is covered with dark lunar soil.
9. The Lunar Module's pads were given a large surface area specifically to spread the weight out. Even so, they were capable of depressing the soil far more than the astronauts did, as can clearly be seen in the following photo. The comments about the "booster" seem out of context, probably referring to a photo that isn't shown on the site. The engine was cut off before landing so it's not surprising there isn't a blast crater.
This is what happens every time I read a Moon hoax site. Almost every single claim can be proven false with a few minutes of research.
a news reporter jumps on TV and states that a TV decided to fly, because NASA wanted it to, in my opinion , i reckon you would believe them
we don't have proof that there are moon rocks here on earth brought back......
and the American "broadcast" was a fake, many websites offer considerable amount of evidence to support this fact
Here is one of them
here as well
neutrinos
Pure crackpottery. I took a look at one of your sites, the APFN site. The following caught my eye:
9 SPACE ODDITIES:
1. Apollo 14 astronaut Allen Shepard played golf on the Moon. In front of a worldwide TV audience, Mission Control teased him about slicing the ball to the right. Yet a slice is caused by uneven air flow over the ball. The Moon has no atmosphere and no air.
2. A camera panned upwards to catch Apollo 16's Lunar Landerlifting off the Moon. Who did the filming?
3. One NASA picture from Apollo 11 is looking up at Neil Armstrong about to take his giant step for mankind. The photographer must have been lying on the planet surface. If Armstrong was the first man on the Moon, then who took the shot?
4. The pressure inside a space suit was greater than inside a football. The astronauts should have been puffed out like the Michelin Man, but were seen freely bending their joints.
5. The Moon landings took place during the Cold War. Why didn't America make a signal on the moon that could be seen from earth? The PR would have been phenomenal and it could have been easily done with magnesium flares.
6. Text from pictures in the article said that only two men walked on the Moon during the Apollo 12 mission. Yet the astronaut reflected in the visor has no camera. Who took the shot?
7. The flags shadow goes behind the rock so doesn't match the dark line in the foreground, which looks like a line cord. So the shadow to the lower right of the spaceman must be the flag. Where is his shadow? And why is the flag fluttering if there is no air or wind on the moon?
8. How can the flag be brightly lit when its side is to the light? And where, in all of these shots, are the stars?
9. The Lander weighed 17 tons yet the astronauts feet seem to have made a bigger dent in the dust. The powerful booster rocket at the base of the Lunar Lander was fired to slow descent to the moons service. Yet it has left no traces of blasting on the dust underneath. It should have created a small crater, yet the booster looks like it's never been fired.
_______________________
My responses follow the numbering of the "Oddities."
1. When the line about the slice was uttered, Shepard had just muffed his shot and drove the ball two or three feet. It wasn't really a slice.
2. The Lunar Rover was left on the surface, and it had a video camera that could be remotely controlled from Earth. Even a basic amount of research should have uncovered this fact.
3. The author is probably confusing Armstrong with Aldrin.
4. Pressure inside Apollo spacesuits was around 3.7-3.9 psi. American footballs are pressurized to 12.5–13.5 psi, so we've already caught them in a lie. Also, a football feels hard because its material can't stretch much. When you press on one side, the internal volume of the football decreases because other parts of the football can't stretch to compensate. Because the volume is decreasing, the pressure must increase, and thus it takes a considerable amount of work to indent the side of a football. Spacesuits are designed differently. When a joint is flexed, the volume of air in the inner side of the joint decreases but special folds called gores on the outer side of the joint unfold and increase the air volume there. The net result is no change in volume, no change in pressure, and hence very little work to flex the joint. See this wiki article for more details.
5. Even with modern telescopes scientists feel lucky when they see a blast on the dark side equivalent to 70 kg of TNT. A magnesium flare would release a lot less energy and spread it out over a large period of time. Seeing such a flare on the sunlit side with 60s or 70s era equipment would have been impossible.
6. They had their cameras mounted on their chests. No good trying to bring a camera to your face when there's a glass bubble in the way. The idiot that wrote number 6 must have looked at the photo for half a second before deciding he didn't see a camera.
7. The photo referred to is an interesting one. What the hoaxer has failed to realize is that the astronaut in this photo has decided to jump and salute simultaneously. The astronaut's shadow is there, but significantly lower down than one might expect if one was unaware of the jump (which is a nice high jump considering the bulky spacesuit, evidence of low gravity). There are some other thin shadows in the area, one due to the flag. Considering the rocks and scientific equipment scattered around the area it's hard to say what is what, especially since this version of the photo is such low resolution. The flapping flag has been discussed already in this thread, not that a still photo can show flapping.
8. Oh where are those stars. This is the classic moon-hoax argument, and it displays a basic ignorance of photography. The stars aren't there because the photographer didn't want to overexpose the shot. And the brightly lit flag? Just by the photo one can see that it wasn't completely parallel with the sun light. It is also partially lit by light reflected from the lunar surface. And the flag is newly unfurled and clean, whereas the astronaut and everything else is covered with dark lunar soil.
9. The Lunar Module's pads were given a large surface area specifically to spread the weight out. Even so, they were capable of depressing the soil far more than the astronauts did, as can clearly be seen in the following photo. The comments about the "booster" seem out of context, probably referring to a photo that isn't shown on the site. The engine was cut off before landing so it's not surprising there isn't a blast crater.
This is what happens every time I read a Moon hoax site. Almost every single claim can be proven false with a few minutes of research.
People love conspiracy theories.
QUOTE (Mr. Robin Parsons+Jan 25 2008, 05:39 AM)
Because the ISS is still within the Van Allen Belts' protections from solar storms the moons surface is not.
The Earths Magnetosphere provides protection, the Van Allen radiation belts represent a zone of risk within the Magnetosphere (but even within them, there is a safe zone that we utilize.
The tricky thing about the Van Allen Radiation belts is that they shift with changes in strength in the solar wind, and when they do shift, they release torrents of high energy protons and electrons.
The Earths Magnetosphere provides protection, the Van Allen radiation belts represent a zone of risk within the Magnetosphere (but even within them, there is a safe zone that we utilize.
The tricky thing about the Van Allen Radiation belts is that they shift with changes in strength in the solar wind, and when they do shift, they release torrents of high energy protons and electrons.
QUOTE (Neutrinos+Jan 27 2008, 11:46 AM)
With all due respect rpenner, but we don't have sufficient proof, that we actually have the moon rocks,
a news reporter jumps on TV and states that a TV decided to fly, because NASA wanted it to, in my opinion , i reckon you would believe them
we don't have proof that there are moon rocks here on earth brought back......
and the American "broadcast" was a fake, many websites offer considerable amount of evidence to support this fact
Here is one of them
here as well
neutrinos
See, here's a problem with your idea.
We know there are corner reflectors on the moons surface.
Here's another problem with your idea. The moon rocks were completely devoid of water, something we couldn't replicate in the '60s, and would represent a challenge even now.
a news reporter jumps on TV and states that a TV decided to fly, because NASA wanted it to, in my opinion , i reckon you would believe them
we don't have proof that there are moon rocks here on earth brought back......
and the American "broadcast" was a fake, many websites offer considerable amount of evidence to support this fact
Here is one of them
here as well
neutrinos
See, here's a problem with your idea.
We know there are corner reflectors on the moons surface.
Here's another problem with your idea. The moon rocks were completely devoid of water, something we couldn't replicate in the '60s, and would represent a challenge even now.
QUOTE (Neutrinos+Jan 27 2008, 11:46 AM)
and the American "broadcast" was a fake, many websites offer considerable amount of evidence to support this fact
That shows just what a gullible idiot you are. All of the, so called, evidence ni those moon hoax websites has been proven false.
The USA had the technology to go to the moon in the 60's, what it didn't have was the technology to fake it.
This has been discussed in several threads already. But since you are obviously too stupid to look these up, we'll go over it all again for you.
I won't go into the science, it's obviously beyond your limited intellect. But a scientific argument isn't necessary.
The moon landings were done during the cold war. THe Soviet Union would have taken any chance they could to disgrace the US by proving the landings false. The USSR understood the technology, they were watching and tracking the landings, they were intercepting all the transmissions, it's a safe bet that they had several spies in the moon program. And yet the USSR did not, and never has, claimed the US faked the moon landings were fake. The only reason they didn't is because they know it happened.
By saying the landings were fake, you are accusing tens of thousands of scientists, engineers, technicians of lying. Actually, you are accusing them all of being criminals, of stealing billions of dollars by fraud. You are also accusing some of them of murder. These people were passionate about the advancement of science, they would not have willingly gone against their ideals. And they lived in a relatively free country, one where a scandal of this magnitude could never be achieved.
Politicians love scandal, yet no US politician has ever uncovered this scandal in the space program.
You accuse all the people who believe the moon landings were real of being gullible fools, yet the gullible fool here is you.
The astronauts were, and still are heroes. They risk their lives for this, yet scum like you call them liars, frauds, criminals and traitors.
That shows just what a gullible idiot you are. All of the, so called, evidence ni those moon hoax websites has been proven false.
The USA had the technology to go to the moon in the 60's, what it didn't have was the technology to fake it.
This has been discussed in several threads already. But since you are obviously too stupid to look these up, we'll go over it all again for you.
I won't go into the science, it's obviously beyond your limited intellect. But a scientific argument isn't necessary.
The moon landings were done during the cold war. THe Soviet Union would have taken any chance they could to disgrace the US by proving the landings false. The USSR understood the technology, they were watching and tracking the landings, they were intercepting all the transmissions, it's a safe bet that they had several spies in the moon program. And yet the USSR did not, and never has, claimed the US faked the moon landings were fake. The only reason they didn't is because they know it happened.
By saying the landings were fake, you are accusing tens of thousands of scientists, engineers, technicians of lying. Actually, you are accusing them all of being criminals, of stealing billions of dollars by fraud. You are also accusing some of them of murder. These people were passionate about the advancement of science, they would not have willingly gone against their ideals. And they lived in a relatively free country, one where a scandal of this magnitude could never be achieved.
Politicians love scandal, yet no US politician has ever uncovered this scandal in the space program.
You accuse all the people who believe the moon landings were real of being gullible fools, yet the gullible fool here is you.
The astronauts were, and still are heroes. They risk their lives for this, yet scum like you call them liars, frauds, criminals and traitors.
QUOTE (Mr. Robin Parsons+Jan 25 2008, 12:03 AM)
EDIT P.s. (I) too was alive when all of this Happened, and Yup! it happened & they were there! ON the surface, Broadcast LIVE (sorta as there is a time delay due to the distance of transmission)
For once, Mr. Parsons said something intelligent! QUOTE
With all due respect rpenner, but we don't have sufficient proof, that we actually have the moon rocks,
a news reporter jumps on TV and states that a TV decided to fly, because NASA wanted it to, in my opinion , i reckon you would believe them
we don't have proof that there are moon rocks here on earth brought back......
and the American "broadcast" was a fake, many websites offer considerable amount of evidence to support this fact
Here is one of them
here as well
neutrinos
a news reporter jumps on TV and states that a TV decided to fly, because NASA wanted it to, in my opinion , i reckon you would believe them
we don't have proof that there are moon rocks here on earth brought back......
and the American "broadcast" was a fake, many websites offer considerable amount of evidence to support this fact
Here is one of them
here as well
neutrinos
The broadcast was not fake. The sites you refer to give roundabout evidence which can easily be proven wrong. In essence, they ignore all the facts which prove the landing, and try to search for anything which might suggest a hoax.
- Gehn
QUOTE (Gehn+Jan 28 2008, 10:29 AM)
For once, Mr. Parsons said something intelligent! I'll even go so far as to say he's higher on the intelligence bell curve than a Moon Hoax believer.
And (believe it ~ or not) N O M said something (I) agree with....
Like a true modern child of the masses, ready and eager to believe
any propaganda that is transmitted, without even a second thought.
1984, V and others are appalled
Keep propping up this modern world, it will soon crumble, and the sheep will stop bleating and start bleeding.
LOL
Like a true modern child of the masses, ready and eager to believe
any propaganda that is transmitted, without even a second thought.
1984, V and others are appalled
Keep propping up this modern world, it will soon crumble, and the sheep will stop bleating and start bleeding.
LOL
Typical conspiracy theorist. Believing everything to be false, obsessed with deception, and unable to provide an intelligent argument.
- Gehn
QUOTE (N O M+Jan 27 2008, 04:08 PM)
You accuse all the people who believe the moon landings were real of being gullible fools, yet the gullible fool here is you.
The astronauts were, and still are heroes. They risk their lives for this,
yet scum like you call them liars, frauds, criminals and traitors.
The astronauts were, and still are heroes. They risk their lives for this,
yet scum like you call them liars, frauds, criminals and traitors.
STRONGLY AGREE WITH!
Pan Pax
Pan Pax
QUOTE
he's higher on the intelligence bell curve than a Moon Hoax believer.
Like a true modern child of the masses, ready and eager to believe
any propaganda that is transmitted, without even a second thought.
1984, V and others are appalled
Keep propping up this modern world, it will soon crumble, and the sheep will stop bleating and start bleeding.
LOL
QUOTE (Zarkov+Jan 28 2008, 09:22 AM)
Like a true modern child of the masses, ready and eager to believe
any propaganda that is transmitted, without even a second thought.
1984, V and others are appalled
Keep propping up this modern world, it will soon crumble, and the sheep will stop bleating and start bleeding.
LOL
Typical conspiracy theorist. Believing everything to be false, obsessed with deception, and unable to provide an intelligent argument.
- Gehn
This is an excerpt from my LJ, penned in September 2005 (No, I wont link to my LJ, because it contains personal info, you're just going to have to take my word for it.
There was a letter in the local daily newspaper:
My Reply:
My Reply:
Dear sir.
I would like to express my dismay at K. Parks’ assertions that the moon landings were a hoax, published September 9, 2005.
I would like to begin by saying that perhaps he biggest, and most logical piece of evidence against this assertion is the scale of the alleged hoax. Are we expected to believe that the American Government, even in this day and age, has managed to keep quiet not only all those personnel involved in NASA at the time, but also any of a number of Scientific and Tertiary institutions, not only in the United states, but Europe and the former Soviet Union?
Perhaps it is not widely known that then President Kennedy extended an invitation to the Soviets as a gesture of good will? The intention being to send a Soviet Cosmonaut along on the mission, so that although the first person on the moon would have been an American, the second would have been a Russian. This, sadly, did not occur because after President Kennedy was assassinated, his successor did not renew the invitation to the Russians.
Perhaps people are unaware of the fact that even today, in publicly accessible Observatories around the world, an experiment is routinely carried out where Blue-Green LASERs are bounced of specially designed mirrors, left on the surface of moon by the Apollo missions that allow us to measure the distance from here to the moon with an accuracy of centimetres? Is it being suggested that the National Geographic magazine is part of some global conspiracy to conceal the truth?
There is also the question of results of the Apollo missions, namely the moon rocks that were bought back, these held no trace of water, something that does not occur naturally on the earth, and that, I believe can not be replicated. Attempting to do so would also produce other observable, and measurable effects on the rocks in question.
Maybe it’s not widely known that an Amateur astronomer recently observed an asteroid in Earth orbit. Once the details of the orbit were measured, it was discovered that it had only recently settled into its current orbit, and that it had last been in our vicinity in the early 70’s, at the same time, incidentally as one of the Apollo missions was making the journey between here and there. Observations later revealed it to be the Stage 2 section of one of the Saturn V rockets used in the Apollo program.
I would also like to take the time to point out that NASA has a probe scheduled, I believe in the next 12-18 months, that will photograph the entire lunar surface in such great detail that the rovers used by the Apollo missions are expected to be visible, and NASA has named attempting to photograph them as being one of the goals of the mission. I suppose the next thing will be that the photographs have been faked, and I imagine that even when we are able to stand beside these monuments to our ingenuity that the claim will then be that they were placed there as part of this conspiracy.
The Apollo missions were funded because of National pride, the fact that although the Soviets had beaten the Americans into space, and again at getting a person into space, the Americans were the first to safely land a man on the moon, and return them. Even before the Apollo 13 mission, public interest had waned rapidly, it ceased being spectacular, and became mundane, even expected, so as the public lost interest, so did Congress, and the Program was canned, because it was decided that there were more important things to do, like build better Nuclear weapons, and quieter Submarines. The seeming inability of Humanity to return to the moon isn’t NASA’s fault, it’s the fault of the near sighted penny pinchers that cut NASA’s funding to the point where they considered scrapping the shuttle program before it got off the ground. I believe that Voyager also almost met the same fate.
Finally I would like to state that I am appalled at the apparent insensitivity of people who propagate this conspiracy, towards the 17 men and women who have lost their lives in advancing Science, and especially towards Virgil "Gus" Ivan Grissom, Edward Higgins White, II, and Roger Bruce Chaffee, who lost their lives in the Flash fire that engulfed the Apollo 1 Command Module on January 27 1967.
Yours Sincerely
########
########
Dunedin.
as if !!
I have given a VERY valid reason and no one here understood it
why? because y'all have no idea re rocket physics !!
LOL, so sheep keep bleating.
mmmh
do you know what a Lagrangian point is ?
this is technical and does require math, and much theory, and I AM NOT going to educate you on the theory re theses points
Established theory determines the L1 point between Earth and Sun at such and such distance.. look it up
they have failed to demonstrate the equilibrium of this point
the satellite they have placed there is unstable and requires station keeping..
LOL, they now conclude L1 points are unstable!
well their Earth-Sun L1 point is only 1000000 km too close to earth, so of course it is unstable
now that point is determined by their theory, which is totally incorrect
now for the Moon-Earth L1 point
the established value back at Apollo time was about 30000 km too close to the Moon
so if that was the "Moon-fall-in-point"
by the time they got there they were already crashing into the Moon.
Russia tried 18 times to get the L1 point correct.... no success... certainly not "user-friendly", all their probes crashed or flew by
and yet the USA just went there and landed !!!! despite totally incorrect data
today the L1 point has been determined by trial and error and the value given is still 1000 km out The established theory is in ruins and THEY have no theory!!!
this 1000km is not enough to prevent orbit but still enough to prevent a user-friendly landing. Rocket velocities need to be predictable, not chaotic
If you look at the L1 and L2 points for the Moon-Earth system you will note that a "stable orbit" is highly eccentric, it is not circular as an orbit is around the major planets.
Landing from an accelerating +/- orbital velocity is impossible with current technology, given there is almost no atmosphere for braking and fuel is still a premium
They can not land on the Moon now and they certainly did not way back then.
NO!!!, I am not going into theory, but much of it is on my web site... not enough to satisfy you though..... but the background theory I have developed is completely correct.
Minor other reasons
Dust
Radiation
Politics of the time
You believe what you will, Oh poster with little knowledge
I believe the math and what reality demands.
mmmh
do you know what a Lagrangian point is ?
this is technical and does require math, and much theory, and I AM NOT going to educate you on the theory re theses points
Established theory determines the L1 point between Earth and Sun at such and such distance.. look it up
they have failed to demonstrate the equilibrium of this point
the satellite they have placed there is unstable and requires station keeping..
LOL, they now conclude L1 points are unstable!
well their Earth-Sun L1 point is only 1000000 km too close to earth, so of course it is unstable
now that point is determined by their theory, which is totally incorrect
now for the Moon-Earth L1 point
the established value back at Apollo time was about 30000 km too close to the Moon
so if that was the "Moon-fall-in-point"
by the time they got there they were already crashing into the Moon.
Russia tried 18 times to get the L1 point correct.... no success... certainly not "user-friendly", all their probes crashed or flew by
and yet the USA just went there and landed !!!! despite totally incorrect data
today the L1 point has been determined by trial and error and the value given is still 1000 km out The established theory is in ruins and THEY have no theory!!!
this 1000km is not enough to prevent orbit but still enough to prevent a user-friendly landing. Rocket velocities need to be predictable, not chaotic
If you look at the L1 and L2 points for the Moon-Earth system you will note that a "stable orbit" is highly eccentric, it is not circular as an orbit is around the major planets.
Landing from an accelerating +/- orbital velocity is impossible with current technology, given there is almost no atmosphere for braking and fuel is still a premium
They can not land on the Moon now and they certainly did not way back then.
NO!!!, I am not going into theory, but much of it is on my web site... not enough to satisfy you though..... but the background theory I have developed is completely correct.
Minor other reasons
Dust
Radiation
Politics of the time
You believe what you will, Oh poster with little knowledge
I believe the math and what reality demands.
Naturally if Zarkov is involved in a discussion it will devolve into wild claims about L1.
It has been known for centuries that L1 is an equilibrium point but is unstable because it is a saddle point. Zarkov is clueless about such matters and apparently assumes that equilibrium points are always supposed to be stable, but that is not necessarily so. The people who designed the halo orbits around L1 did so intentionally knowing that it is unstable. If the designers were off by a million km then they wouldn't be able to even keep the halo orbits working.
A good way to ascertain that Zarkov is full of B.S. is to ask for references or his own mathematical derivation. None will be forthcoming, I suspect.
There was a letter in the local daily newspaper:
QUOTE
It seems that a group of three or four countries are going to combine tyheir resources and expertise on a plan for putting man on the moon by 2020. I thought this had been done 36 years ago.
I have always been convinced the whole thing was a Gigantic hoax and, this latest proposal confirms it. Even now, 2005, man has only dipped his toes into space, a few hundred miles. No-one has been any further than the space station and they have enough trouble getting there and back. Yet, we are expected to beleive that 36 years ago they blithely hopped onto some sort of spacecraft and went a quater of a million miles out and back, and landed on the moon.
#######
Abbotsford.
I have always been convinced the whole thing was a Gigantic hoax and, this latest proposal confirms it. Even now, 2005, man has only dipped his toes into space, a few hundred miles. No-one has been any further than the space station and they have enough trouble getting there and back. Yet, we are expected to beleive that 36 years ago they blithely hopped onto some sort of spacecraft and went a quater of a million miles out and back, and landed on the moon.
#######
Abbotsford.
My Reply:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| It seems that a group of three or four countries are going to combine tyheir resources and expertise on a plan for putting man on the moon by 2020. I thought this had been done 36 years ago. I have always been convinced the whole thing was a Gigantic hoax and, this latest proposal confirms it. Even now, 2005, man has only dipped his toes into space, a few hundred miles. No-one has been any further than the space station and they have enough trouble getting there and back. Yet, we are expected to beleive that 36 years ago they blithely hopped onto some sort of spacecraft and went a quater of a million miles out and back, and landed on the moon. ####### Abbotsford. |
My Reply:
Dear sir.
I would like to express my dismay at K. Parks’ assertions that the moon landings were a hoax, published September 9, 2005.
I would like to begin by saying that perhaps he biggest, and most logical piece of evidence against this assertion is the scale of the alleged hoax. Are we expected to believe that the American Government, even in this day and age, has managed to keep quiet not only all those personnel involved in NASA at the time, but also any of a number of Scientific and Tertiary institutions, not only in the United states, but Europe and the former Soviet Union?
Perhaps it is not widely known that then President Kennedy extended an invitation to the Soviets as a gesture of good will? The intention being to send a Soviet Cosmonaut along on the mission, so that although the first person on the moon would have been an American, the second would have been a Russian. This, sadly, did not occur because after President Kennedy was assassinated, his successor did not renew the invitation to the Russians.
Perhaps people are unaware of the fact that even today, in publicly accessible Observatories around the world, an experiment is routinely carried out where Blue-Green LASERs are bounced of specially designed mirrors, left on the surface of moon by the Apollo missions that allow us to measure the distance from here to the moon with an accuracy of centimetres? Is it being suggested that the National Geographic magazine is part of some global conspiracy to conceal the truth?
There is also the question of results of the Apollo missions, namely the moon rocks that were bought back, these held no trace of water, something that does not occur naturally on the earth, and that, I believe can not be replicated. Attempting to do so would also produce other observable, and measurable effects on the rocks in question.
Maybe it’s not widely known that an Amateur astronomer recently observed an asteroid in Earth orbit. Once the details of the orbit were measured, it was discovered that it had only recently settled into its current orbit, and that it had last been in our vicinity in the early 70’s, at the same time, incidentally as one of the Apollo missions was making the journey between here and there. Observations later revealed it to be the Stage 2 section of one of the Saturn V rockets used in the Apollo program.
I would also like to take the time to point out that NASA has a probe scheduled, I believe in the next 12-18 months, that will photograph the entire lunar surface in such great detail that the rovers used by the Apollo missions are expected to be visible, and NASA has named attempting to photograph them as being one of the goals of the mission. I suppose the next thing will be that the photographs have been faked, and I imagine that even when we are able to stand beside these monuments to our ingenuity that the claim will then be that they were placed there as part of this conspiracy.
The Apollo missions were funded because of National pride, the fact that although the Soviets had beaten the Americans into space, and again at getting a person into space, the Americans were the first to safely land a man on the moon, and return them. Even before the Apollo 13 mission, public interest had waned rapidly, it ceased being spectacular, and became mundane, even expected, so as the public lost interest, so did Congress, and the Program was canned, because it was decided that there were more important things to do, like build better Nuclear weapons, and quieter Submarines. The seeming inability of Humanity to return to the moon isn’t NASA’s fault, it’s the fault of the near sighted penny pinchers that cut NASA’s funding to the point where they considered scrapping the shuttle program before it got off the ground. I believe that Voyager also almost met the same fate.
Finally I would like to state that I am appalled at the apparent insensitivity of people who propagate this conspiracy, towards the 17 men and women who have lost their lives in advancing Science, and especially towards Virgil "Gus" Ivan Grissom, Edward Higgins White, II, and Roger Bruce Chaffee, who lost their lives in the Flash fire that engulfed the Apollo 1 Command Module on January 27 1967.
Yours Sincerely
########
########
Dunedin.
sounds like some people need telescopes, also our astronaut hero's didnt just risk they GAVE their lives along w/an untold# of cosmonauts
QUOTE (Trippy+Jan 29 2008, 06:21 AM)
My Reply:
Excellent letter.
These moon-hoax theorists need to be told just how disgusting their lies and slander are.
I'm not sure if it's rumour, but I heard that one of the Apollo astronauts once thumped someone for claiming the landings were a hoax. If it happen, good on him. I would too. Imagine someone claiming that everything you had achieved in your life was a lie, that you were a traitor, a fraud and a conspirator to cover up the murders of good friends who had died for nothing.
So Neutrinos (AKA einstienear), Zarkov and all scum like you, keep posting and showing how gullible you are. But be aware of the scale of the stupidity you are claiming, of the number of people you are grossly insulting.
Excellent letter.
These moon-hoax theorists need to be told just how disgusting their lies and slander are.
I'm not sure if it's rumour, but I heard that one of the Apollo astronauts once thumped someone for claiming the landings were a hoax. If it happen, good on him. I would too. Imagine someone claiming that everything you had achieved in your life was a lie, that you were a traitor, a fraud and a conspirator to cover up the murders of good friends who had died for nothing.
So Neutrinos (AKA einstienear), Zarkov and all scum like you, keep posting and showing how gullible you are. But be aware of the scale of the stupidity you are claiming, of the number of people you are grossly insulting.
QUOTE (N O M+Jan 28 2008, 09:01 PM)
Excellent letter.
These moon-hoax theorists need to be told just how disgusting their lies and slander are.
I'm not sure if it's rumour, but I heard that one of the Apollo astronauts once thumped someone for claiming the landings were a hoax. If it happen, good on him. I would too. Imagine someone claiming that everything you had achieved in your life was a lie, that you were a traitor, a fraud and a conspirator to cover up the murders of good friends who had died for nothing.
So Neutrinos (AKA einstienear), Zarkov and all scum like you, keep posting and showing how gullible you are. But be aware of the scale of the stupidity you are claiming, of the number of people you are grossly insulting.
Hear, hear!
- Gehn
These moon-hoax theorists need to be told just how disgusting their lies and slander are.
I'm not sure if it's rumour, but I heard that one of the Apollo astronauts once thumped someone for claiming the landings were a hoax. If it happen, good on him. I would too. Imagine someone claiming that everything you had achieved in your life was a lie, that you were a traitor, a fraud and a conspirator to cover up the murders of good friends who had died for nothing.
So Neutrinos (AKA einstienear), Zarkov and all scum like you, keep posting and showing how gullible you are. But be aware of the scale of the stupidity you are claiming, of the number of people you are grossly insulting.
Hear, hear!
- Gehn
QUOTE (awozny+Dec 29 2004, 09:38 PM)
In all your learned opinions do you think we actually went to moon at the end of the 60's? I heard a prominant physicist doubt the possibility of surviving the radiation the Apollo crew would have been exposed too, as soon as they left the Van Allen Belt. Fact or Fiction, Why?
Everyone knows we made it to the moon, how else could we have built that moon base?
Seriously, I've read many articles on this and I'm convinced we did indeed make it. As for the U.S.S.R it didn't go so well for them or their last chance non-man mission. (Crashed and burned! so to speak)
Everyone knows we made it to the moon, how else could we have built that moon base?
Seriously, I've read many articles on this and I'm convinced we did indeed make it. As for the U.S.S.R it didn't go so well for them or their last chance non-man mission. (Crashed and burned! so to speak)
QUOTE
unable to provide an intelligent argument.
as if !!
I have given a VERY valid reason and no one here understood it
why? because y'all have no idea re rocket physics !!
LOL, so sheep keep bleating.
QUOTE (Zarkov+Jan 29 2008, 12:09 PM)
why? because y'all have no idea re rocket physics !!
You clearly have no idea of any physics. Your posts show you are nothing but an idiot troll.
NASA, Russia, China, Japan and India all have plenty of people who do understand rocket physics. They all know the moon landing was possible and indeed happened.
But, I'll play your stupid little game. Show some evidence of technology that the US lacked in the 1960's. Back your pathetic claims with more than word salad, or misunderstood photos.
You clearly have no idea of any physics. Your posts show you are nothing but an idiot troll.
NASA, Russia, China, Japan and India all have plenty of people who do understand rocket physics. They all know the moon landing was possible and indeed happened.
But, I'll play your stupid little game. Show some evidence of technology that the US lacked in the 1960's. Back your pathetic claims with more than word salad, or misunderstood photos.
Just for another sheeple's point of view.
I can't verify all the information I'm given, but within the context of my education vs. reality: I've been able to verify some things in the lab (from projectile motion to the double slit exp), some things in life (the world is round (I've been on planes that brought me all the way around it in multiple trips), and I accept the explanations given to me about the moon vs. planets vs. stars and galaxies (the telescopes at BU are open every weds. nite). I cannot personally verify that the moon is not made of cheese (but the moon rocks at the Smithsonian help me think it's not).
Point being I'm not a rocket scientist, but I have listened to many. I pick my fights more carefully than random questions about cover ups. I'll take this one at face value (which, to me is an Ace.).
Peace,
Ron
I can't verify all the information I'm given, but within the context of my education vs. reality: I've been able to verify some things in the lab (from projectile motion to the double slit exp), some things in life (the world is round (I've been on planes that brought me all the way around it in multiple trips), and I accept the explanations given to me about the moon vs. planets vs. stars and galaxies (the telescopes at BU are open every weds. nite). I cannot personally verify that the moon is not made of cheese (but the moon rocks at the Smithsonian help me think it's not).
Point being I'm not a rocket scientist, but I have listened to many. I pick my fights more carefully than random questions about cover ups. I'll take this one at face value (which, to me is an Ace.).
Peace,
Ron
But being uneducated and/or stupid enough to think that the technology was lacking is one thing. It takes a first class tosser to accuse tens of tousands of people of being involved in a criminal conspiracy.
QUOTE
It takes a first class tosser to accuse tens of tousands of people of being involved in a criminal conspiracy.
mmmh
do you know what a Lagrangian point is ?
this is technical and does require math, and much theory, and I AM NOT going to educate you on the theory re theses points
Established theory determines the L1 point between Earth and Sun at such and such distance.. look it up
they have failed to demonstrate the equilibrium of this point
the satellite they have placed there is unstable and requires station keeping..
LOL, they now conclude L1 points are unstable!
well their Earth-Sun L1 point is only 1000000 km too close to earth, so of course it is unstable
now that point is determined by their theory, which is totally incorrect
now for the Moon-Earth L1 point
the established value back at Apollo time was about 30000 km too close to the Moon
so if that was the "Moon-fall-in-point"
by the time they got there they were already crashing into the Moon.
Russia tried 18 times to get the L1 point correct.... no success... certainly not "user-friendly", all their probes crashed or flew by
and yet the USA just went there and landed !!!! despite totally incorrect data
today the L1 point has been determined by trial and error and the value given is still 1000 km out The established theory is in ruins and THEY have no theory!!!
this 1000km is not enough to prevent orbit but still enough to prevent a user-friendly landing. Rocket velocities need to be predictable, not chaotic
If you look at the L1 and L2 points for the Moon-Earth system you will note that a "stable orbit" is highly eccentric, it is not circular as an orbit is around the major planets.
Landing from an accelerating +/- orbital velocity is impossible with current technology, given there is almost no atmosphere for braking and fuel is still a premium
They can not land on the Moon now and they certainly did not way back then.
NO!!!, I am not going into theory, but much of it is on my web site... not enough to satisfy you though..... but the background theory I have developed is completely correct.
Minor other reasons
Dust
Radiation
Politics of the time
You believe what you will, Oh poster with little knowledge
I believe the math and what reality demands.
QUOTE (Zarkov+Jan 29 2008, 07:52 PM)
mmmh
do you know what a Lagrangian point is ?
this is technical and does require math, and much theory, and I AM NOT going to educate you on the theory re theses points
Established theory determines the L1 point between Earth and Sun at such and such distance.. look it up
they have failed to demonstrate the equilibrium of this point
the satellite they have placed there is unstable and requires station keeping..
LOL, they now conclude L1 points are unstable!
well their Earth-Sun L1 point is only 1000000 km too close to earth, so of course it is unstable
now that point is determined by their theory, which is totally incorrect
now for the Moon-Earth L1 point
the established value back at Apollo time was about 30000 km too close to the Moon
so if that was the "Moon-fall-in-point"
by the time they got there they were already crashing into the Moon.
Russia tried 18 times to get the L1 point correct.... no success... certainly not "user-friendly", all their probes crashed or flew by
and yet the USA just went there and landed !!!! despite totally incorrect data
today the L1 point has been determined by trial and error and the value given is still 1000 km out The established theory is in ruins and THEY have no theory!!!
this 1000km is not enough to prevent orbit but still enough to prevent a user-friendly landing. Rocket velocities need to be predictable, not chaotic
If you look at the L1 and L2 points for the Moon-Earth system you will note that a "stable orbit" is highly eccentric, it is not circular as an orbit is around the major planets.
Landing from an accelerating +/- orbital velocity is impossible with current technology, given there is almost no atmosphere for braking and fuel is still a premium
They can not land on the Moon now and they certainly did not way back then.
NO!!!, I am not going into theory, but much of it is on my web site... not enough to satisfy you though..... but the background theory I have developed is completely correct.
Minor other reasons
Dust
Radiation
Politics of the time
You believe what you will, Oh poster with little knowledge
I believe the math and what reality demands.
Naturally if Zarkov is involved in a discussion it will devolve into wild claims about L1.
It has been known for centuries that L1 is an equilibrium point but is unstable because it is a saddle point. Zarkov is clueless about such matters and apparently assumes that equilibrium points are always supposed to be stable, but that is not necessarily so. The people who designed the halo orbits around L1 did so intentionally knowing that it is unstable. If the designers were off by a million km then they wouldn't be able to even keep the halo orbits working.
A good way to ascertain that Zarkov is full of B.S. is to ask for references or his own mathematical derivation. None will be forthcoming, I suspect.
Hold, Zarkov did point us to his equations in a way, by mentioning his website. There (though I'll let you find the site on your own) you'll find such gems as
Gcentral-spin, the inconstant constant. I love it.
Gcentral-spin, the inconstant constant. I love it.
So what does all this mean...
Well the field spin of the Sun is 'as per this constant' all the way out to ....
So the satellites of the Sun, the planets, all point back to the centre of spin, the Sun.
The field spin of the Earth is 'as per this constant' all the way out to the L1 and L2, so the satellite(s) of the Earth points to the centre of spin, the Earth.
All the way out to what? How are those satellites pointing?
Pure gibberish.
QUOTE
So I will start with the concept of Gcentral-spin
This is the spin constant for the Universe... its numerical value depends upon the specific spin system you are interested in.
This is the spin constant for the Universe... its numerical value depends upon the specific spin system you are interested in.
Gcentral-spin, the inconstant constant. I love it.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| So I will start with the concept of Gcentral-spin This is the spin constant for the Universe... its numerical value depends upon the specific spin system you are interested in. |
Gcentral-spin, the inconstant constant. I love it.
So what does all this mean...
Well the field spin of the Sun is 'as per this constant' all the way out to ....
So the satellites of the Sun, the planets, all point back to the centre of spin, the Sun.
The field spin of the Earth is 'as per this constant' all the way out to the L1 and L2, so the satellite(s) of the Earth points to the centre of spin, the Earth.
All the way out to what? How are those satellites pointing?
Pure gibberish.
Zarkov says that Gcentral-spin = r*v^2 where r is the orbital radius and v is the orbital velocity. He furthermore says it is constant for any given mass but different for different masses. I believe him.
Consider, for example, planets orbiting the Sun. A planet's orbit is approximately circular, so its speed is approximately constant around that orbit. Let us say that it orbits the Sun in a period of time P. Its speed would then be the circumference of its orbit divided by P, or 2pi r/P. Then Gcentral-spin = r * (2pi r/P)^2
=4 pi^2 r^3/P^2. Since Gcentral-spin is a constant, we will divide both sides by the constant 4 pi^2, and the left hand side will then be a new constant we'll call K with K = Gcentral-spin/(4 pi^2).
K= r^3/P^2
Golly, where have I seen that before?
Oh yeah, that's Kepler's Third Law.
Zarkov then goes on to note that "The concept of a point sourced force is not entertained." One of the strengths of Newton's model of gravitation, which treats gravity as if the masses were point sources of force, was that Kepler's laws could be derived from it. A demonstration of Kepler's Third Law could not possibly invalidate Newtonian gravity, and yet Zarkov claims that it does.
Gee, buddy, you're going to have to do a whole lot better than reviving a well-known 400 year old law if you're going to overturn modern physics.
Consider, for example, planets orbiting the Sun. A planet's orbit is approximately circular, so its speed is approximately constant around that orbit. Let us say that it orbits the Sun in a period of time P. Its speed would then be the circumference of its orbit divided by P, or 2pi r/P. Then Gcentral-spin = r * (2pi r/P)^2
=4 pi^2 r^3/P^2. Since Gcentral-spin is a constant, we will divide both sides by the constant 4 pi^2, and the left hand side will then be a new constant we'll call K with K = Gcentral-spin/(4 pi^2).
K= r^3/P^2
Golly, where have I seen that before?
Oh yeah, that's Kepler's Third Law.
Zarkov then goes on to note that "The concept of a point sourced force is not entertained." One of the strengths of Newton's model of gravitation, which treats gravity as if the masses were point sources of force, was that Kepler's laws could be derived from it. A demonstration of Kepler's Third Law could not possibly invalidate Newtonian gravity, and yet Zarkov claims that it does.
Gee, buddy, you're going to have to do a whole lot better than reviving a well-known 400 year old law if you're going to overturn modern physics.
so my major contentions are correct
OK now what is done with them make for a new theory....
Newtonian mechanics re gravitation has only a basic structure that is correct
unfortunately it is STATIC, Newton could not think of a dynamic mechanism... basically the physics was not known
but when these concepts are incorporated into a dynamic system a fuller understanding of the structure of this solar system is seen
and then into the universe
BUT... I leave you at the doorstep
oh bears of little brain.
BTW the L1 etc points are not a gravitational saddle
that is the theory that has led to erroneous values
the L1 etc points are at a magnetic Bloch wall. They are an equilibrium point between two sources of magnetic/electric energy
where the electric field spin of each bodies cancels.
But believe what you will, no bother to me.
I will not share any more on this.
OK now what is done with them make for a new theory....
Newtonian mechanics re gravitation has only a basic structure that is correct
unfortunately it is STATIC, Newton could not think of a dynamic mechanism... basically the physics was not known
but when these concepts are incorporated into a dynamic system a fuller understanding of the structure of this solar system is seen
and then into the universe
BUT... I leave you at the doorstep
oh bears of little brain.
BTW the L1 etc points are not a gravitational saddle
that is the theory that has led to erroneous values
the L1 etc points are at a magnetic Bloch wall. They are an equilibrium point between two sources of magnetic/electric energy
where the electric field spin of each bodies cancels.
But believe what you will, no bother to me.
I will not share any more on this.
Man did really go to the moon. It started with the Cold War, the Russian Sputnik and then President Kennedy's dream and mandate. Landing on the moon symbolized the end of the masculine America coming out of WWII. The moon has historically been a feminine symbol. After reaching the moon, culture symbolically, became more feminine. Males are willing to take risks unless the females think it is dangerous. Guys will improvise, but the ladies prefer it store bought, which costs more. Guys will sit in discomfort for glory or honor. The ladies what creature comforts. The guys will make each other Guinea pigs, if that gets the program a boost in speed. The lady want to protect the poor animals, It got too expensive and to dainty to go even return to the moon after 40 years. Back then, one assumed Mars in twenty years. But culture got lady-like and it takes her much longer to get ready to go.
QUOTE (Zarkov+Jan 30 2008, 08:52 AM)
LOL, they now conclude L1 points are unstable!
You clearly don't understand what they mean by "unstable". The Lagrange points are where the combination of the gravity and centripetal force cancels. L1 happens to be in the line directly between the two objects. By unstable, it just means that an object such as a satelite would not remain in this point without powered assistance. L2 and L3 are similar. The L4 and L5 points are stable, this is evident with Jupiter's L4 and L5 points both having several asteroids in stable orbits.
You clearly don't understand what they mean by "unstable". The Lagrange points are where the combination of the gravity and centripetal force cancels. L1 happens to be in the line directly between the two objects. By unstable, it just means that an object such as a satelite would not remain in this point without powered assistance. L2 and L3 are similar. The L4 and L5 points are stable, this is evident with Jupiter's L4 and L5 points both having several asteroids in stable orbits.
QUOTE
the L1 etc points are at a magnetic Bloch wall. They are an equilibrium point between two sources of magnetic/electric energy where the electric field spin of each bodies cancels.
What a load of garbage. Lagrange points have, by definition, nothing to do with either magnetic or electric energy. Keep going though, this is entertaining. It in no way helps your cause.
QUOTE (N O M+Jan 30 2008, 04:03 PM)
You clearly don't understand what they mean by "unstable". The Lagrange points are where the combination of the gravity and centripetal force cancels. L1 happens to be in the line directly between the two objects. By unstable, it just means that an object such as a satelite would not remain in this point without powered assistance. L2 and L3 are similar. The L4 and L5 points are stable, this is evident with Jupiter's L4 and L5 points both having several asteroids in stable orbits.
What a load of garbage. Lagrange points have, by definition, nothing to do with either magnetic or electric energy. Keep going though, this is entertaining. It in no way helps your cause.
More over, as i have pointed out before, the L1 point has nothing to do with the apollo program which utilized th lunar-l1 point...
and given that the furtherest the moon gets from the earth is a little over 400,000 kms, an error of 1,000,000 km is...
What a load of garbage. Lagrange points have, by definition, nothing to do with either magnetic or electric energy. Keep going though, this is entertaining. It in no way helps your cause.
More over, as i have pointed out before, the L1 point has nothing to do with the apollo program which utilized th lunar-l1 point...
and given that the furtherest the moon gets from the earth is a little over 400,000 kms, an error of 1,000,000 km is...
Forgive me the comment, but....
QUOTE (N O M+Jan 28 2008, 05:01 PM)
(SNIP) I'm not sure if it's rumour, but I heard that one of the Apollo astronauts once thumped someone for claiming the landings were a hoax. If it happen, good on him. I would too. Imagine someone claiming that everything you had achieved in your life was a lie, that you were a traitor, a fraud and a conspirator to cover up the murders of good friends who had died for nothing. (SNoP)
(I) am exceedingly happy to see that you do Understand the Concept...
Pan Pax
P.S. Nasa Almost went back ~ to prove that they had gone, then they decided not to give the deniers the credibility of warranting proving anything to them as the proofs already exist, and there probably is no proof that would satisfy those who deny exceptional amounts of evidence coupled to Exceptional amounts of Human Testament to the realities that the Humans ~ involved in it ~ experienced.
Oh Wait! (I) can Check it out, find an astronaut who has gone and feeel it from/with them....Oooops no need, been there ~ done that, KNOW it is True that they went, know it like (I) know Banging my head on Concrete ~ HURTS!
Of course there are people who will claim banging your head on Concrete is Just an "Illusion of the mind" just like these deniers of the reality of the Moon landings are doing, so just keep banging your own heads and deny it hurts.
But stop Hurting the others ~ the people who did do the work.
Pan Pax
P.S. Nasa Almost went back ~ to prove that they had gone, then they decided not to give the deniers the credibility of warranting proving anything to them as the proofs already exist, and there probably is no proof that would satisfy those who deny exceptional amounts of evidence coupled to Exceptional amounts of Human Testament to the realities that the Humans ~ involved in it ~ experienced.
Oh Wait! (I) can Check it out, find an astronaut who has gone and feeel it from/with them....Oooops no need, been there ~ done that, KNOW it is True that they went, know it like (I) know Banging my head on Concrete ~ HURTS!
Of course there are people who will claim banging your head on Concrete is Just an "Illusion of the mind" just like these deniers of the reality of the Moon landings are doing, so just keep banging your own heads and deny it hurts.
But stop Hurting the others ~ the people who did do the work.
QUOTE (Mr. Robin Parsons+Jan 31 2008, 02:53 AM)
Forgive me the comment, but....
(I) am exceedingly happy to see that you do Understand the Concept...
Pan Pax
Just a shame you can't display the same degree of empathy towards others eh?
(I) am exceedingly happy to see that you do Understand the Concept...
Pan Pax
Just a shame you can't display the same degree of empathy towards others eh?
QUOTE (Trippy+Jan 30 2008, 01:20 PM)
Just a shame you can't display the same degree of empathy towards others eh?
??????????????
??????????????
so y'all have had your fun,
I have given many (5) valid reasons why there has never been a man set foot on the Moon
Now I would like the Valid reasons why there has been a man on the Moon
other than the lies and deceitful propaganda of the most shameful and underhanded bureaucracy on the planet.
If a man has set foot on the Moon, you prove it !
PS for those who do not understand L1
if a probe approaches a planet/moon, there is a point off that body that is critical for a successful orbit
This point is the L1 point.... for below that point the probe will be "pulled in" (in your terminology... pushed in in mine) towards the body at an ever increasing rate (ie via gravity in your language)
If the exact position of this point is not known then the controllers of the probe will/may lose control (depending upon fuel for braking) and the probe will either crash or flyby, depending on the velocity of the probe as it passed the L1 point.
If a user-friendly landing is to be made, knowledge of the L1 point is critical, and even more so when there can be no atmospheric or active (fuel) braking to reduce velocity.
A similar argument is invoked when a user-friendly landing has to be made from an eccentric orbit (orbital velocity is varying... it speeds up and slows down per orbit). The orbital characteristics around a cosmic body are dependent upon the L1 and l2 points between that body and the cosmic centre of spin (the Earth in this case)
Even with current technology a user-friendly landing from an eccentric orbit is impossible at present.
Without an accurate knowledge of these "Lagrangian points" ( the L1 and the L2 )
NO USER-FRIENDLY landing can take place (unless the probe has a large energy reserve as fuel or unless an inertial drive is used for power, and AFAIK, no nation has such a fuel capability or an inertial drive device )
You claim man landed on the Moon, YOU now prove it.
I have given many (5) valid reasons why there has never been a man set foot on the Moon
Now I would like the Valid reasons why there has been a man on the Moon
other than the lies and deceitful propaganda of the most shameful and underhanded bureaucracy on the planet.
If a man has set foot on the Moon, you prove it !
PS for those who do not understand L1
if a probe approaches a planet/moon, there is a point off that body that is critical for a successful orbit
This point is the L1 point.... for below that point the probe will be "pulled in" (in your terminology... pushed in in mine) towards the body at an ever increasing rate (ie via gravity in your language)
If the exact position of this point is not known then the controllers of the probe will/may lose control (depending upon fuel for braking) and the probe will either crash or flyby, depending on the velocity of the probe as it passed the L1 point.
If a user-friendly landing is to be made, knowledge of the L1 point is critical, and even more so when there can be no atmospheric or active (fuel) braking to reduce velocity.
A similar argument is invoked when a user-friendly landing has to be made from an eccentric orbit (orbital velocity is varying... it speeds up and slows down per orbit). The orbital characteristics around a cosmic body are dependent upon the L1 and l2 points between that body and the cosmic centre of spin (the Earth in this case)
Even with current technology a user-friendly landing from an eccentric orbit is impossible at present.
Without an accurate knowledge of these "Lagrangian points" ( the L1 and the L2 )
NO USER-FRIENDLY landing can take place (unless the probe has a large energy reserve as fuel or unless an inertial drive is used for power, and AFAIK, no nation has such a fuel capability or an inertial drive device )
You claim man landed on the Moon, YOU now prove it.
You do not need a large fuel supply in 1/6th earth gravity, you only need enough to slow you down, and since it is 1/6th earth gravity even that is waaaaaay less then needed here.
Zarkov You are in denial, were you alive when it happened or were you born after the fact?
Pan Pax
Zarkov You are in denial, were you alive when it happened or were you born after the fact?
Pan Pax
QUOTE (N O M+Jan 28 2008, 09:01 PM)
I'm not sure if it's rumour, but I heard that one of the Apollo astronauts once thumped someone for claiming the landings were a hoax.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.