Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: zoofreakz on 29/05/2007 08:57:19
-
<< Watch that one.. very good, armstrong swears on the bible and his other peers didnt and then he starts cursing and shouting at the camra team LOL, what a lier
Also I would like to add.. THERE ARE NO STARS!! WHERE DID THE STARS GO?? WERE THEY ALL PAINTED BLACK??? and.. why does the flag seem to move a little? maybe im crazy but how does the moon have wind?
Any Questions?
-
I can't get the link to work.
Anyway, I can't see the stars at the moment because it's daylight. Were they taking pictures on the moon in the dark?
-
The hoax believers or conspiracy theorists cite all kinds of evidence.
For example, they point out that in all the photographs that supposedly show the astronauts on the airless surface of the Moon, you can't see the stars in the blck sky. The explanation is simple - even today's best film cannot simultaneously show both a very bright object (white spacesuit in sunlight) and a very faint object (star). Story Mugrave, an astronaut who has flown in the Space Shuttle six times, said that whenever he was outside the Shuttle in the bright sunlight, he couldn't see the stars either. But when the Shuttle was in the shadow of the Earth and his eyes had time to get adapted to the darker environment, he could then see the stars. As for the astronauts on the Moon, their short missions were all timed to land during the Moon's day (which lasts about 14 Earth days), so that they could see what they were doing.
The hoax believers also point out that in the photos, the shadows of the astronauts and their various pieces of scientific apparatus on the Moon's surface are not quite parallel. They should be parallel, these doubters claim, if lit only a single distant light source such as the Sun. This is true - but only if you have both a level surface and are operating in three dimensions. Once you have a rolling surface, and try to show 3-dimensionsal reality in a flat 2-dimensional photograph, the shadows will fall in different directions.
They conspiracy theorists also claim that the ripple seen in the still photos in the American flag on the Moon is proof that the movie was faked in a movie studio, because only moving air can make a flag ripple. This is silly for a few reasons. First, there is no wind in a movie studio - unless the wind machine is switched on. Second, if there was enough wind in a movie studio to ripple the flag, it would have also moved the dust at their feet. But most importantly and third, the ripple was an accident. The workshops at the Manned Spacecraft Center attached a nylon American flag to vertical and horizontal bars. These bars could telescope out, to save room when they were stored before they were used. Armstrong and Aldrin had trouble extending the horizontal telescoping rod, and could not pull it all the way out. This gave the flag a ripple. It "looked" realistic, so later Apollo crews intentionally left the horizontal rod partially retracted.
In fact, the wobbling flag that you can see in the movie helps prove that they were on the Moon. It wobbles because they have just set it up. And it continues to wobble for a little while in a very unusual fashion. This is because there is no air on the Moon that would quickly damp down the movement of the flag, and because of the gravity is one-sixth of our gravity on Earth.
But the incontrovertible proof that we did go to the Moon are the 382 kilograms of Moon rocks, that have been examined by thousands of independent geologists around the world. These rocks have been compared to a few dozen Moon rocks that were blasted by impacts off the Moon and that have landed in Antarctica, and to some Moon rocks that were recovered by robot Soviet explorers. These rocks all match.
They are very low in water, and riddled with strange tiny holes from millions of years of exposure to cosmic rays on the airless surface of the Moon. The Moon rocks are very different from Earth rocks, and could not be faked by any current technology. To make fake Moon rocks, we could have to squash them at about a thousand atmospheres, keep them at about 1,100 oC for a few years, and then cool them slowly for a few more years while keeping them under pressure all that time. And then, the NASA scientists back in 1969 would have to have worked out what new dating methods would be invented over the next 30 years, and add those elements in the exact proportions needed.
After looking at all the evidence, I prefer to follow the words of the 1937 Nobel Prize winner in Medicine, Albert Szent-Gyorgyi, "The Apollo flights demand that the word 'impossible' be struck from the scientific dictionary. They are the greatest encouragement for the human spirit."
© Karl S. Kruszelnicki Pty Ltd 2004.
-
Nice quote, could someone please forward it to Jolly.
-
I posted that and more in his first topic, it had no effect on him. [:(!]
-
I can't get the link to work.
Anyway, I can't see the stars at the moment because it's daylight. Were they taking pictures on the moon in the dark?
lol?? taking off the moon in the dark?? THERE IS NO ATMOSPHERE!! lol! being on the moon.. you should see every star in the universe, if we had telescopes on the moon, we could see anything we wanted. i just put up a new link. tons of videos etc.. hell.. look them up yourself on google video, they are everywhere.
here is another point.. how could they get on the moon without crashing? they have ONE jet engine. and each passenger is seated on a different spot, so that would mean the craft would tilt and well... CRASH. there is NASA footage of armstrong trying to control something like that in the sky here on earth, each attempt failed and he got out at the last second. basically what they did was shoot those guys in orbit for a week, make a video to the retarded public (who most still will not question their government) and tell everybody this impossible lie and its over with. *woohoo we are the first on the moon* was it really that important? who stood to gain? the stars were gone, looked like those guys were walking around with a wire on their suit.. hell.. it even picked one of them up off the ground. plus there is SO much radiation in outerspace, dark energy and dark matter.. anybody who would even attempt to go out .. by the time they would get back to our safe orbit, their heads would fall off, for the amount of protection and how much they knew of that threat back then. go on google video or youtube, type in moon landing exposed hoax or whatever, spend about 10 minutes of your time and look at that footage, any logical person can tell that those are fake. but there is nothing we can do about it because most of the world's populations ade just stupid in general so all we thinkers can do is know whats going on. thats all i gotta say, i just saw this user names jolly who couldn't support his claim and I'm just adding a little logic to it.
thanks for reading.
again, refer to the top post and check out the new links
-
As far as the stars in the sky go, try this sometime. Go outside during a full moon and take a picture of it. How many stars do you see near the moon? Likely, you won't see any because the moon is so much brighter than the nearby stars and the camera will either adjust to the increased amount of light by dimming everything or it won't adjust and you'll just get a washed out image.
I really don't know why I bother responding to this foolishness.
Dick
-
Jolly's claim was that they never reached the moon and nor will they ever reach it.
It wasn't just that they never reached the moon, Jolly's claim was that it is impossible to get to the moon.
-
I don't know what you are LOL ing about. It was a perfectly serious question. Given that, in fact, they went durnig the lunar day why would they see the stars any better than I can?
The contrast ratio would be enormous.
I'm sure Jolly needs help but I'm not sure this is the help he needs.
-
I wish i had the time to take notice of all of the conspiracy theories, then again, if i did i would do something more productive. No matter how sad my life may get, i will always be content that i never got to the point of believing the nutters.
-
As far as the stars in the sky go, try this sometime. Go outside during a full moon and take a picture of it. How many stars do you see near the moon? Likely, you won't see any because the moon is so much brighter than the nearby stars and the camera will either adjust to the increased amount of light by dimming everything or it won't adjust and you'll just get a washed out image.
Dick
umm, when we look at a fool moon, our earth is FACEING AWAY from our galaxy, thats why scientists always try to look up the sky during a solar eclipse. Now... if we WERE on the moon, LOOKING at the earth, we would be seeing EVERYTHING and it would be the most magnificent thing we have ever seen! and again if you didnt understand. light screws with our atmosphere so we CANT see the stars during the day!
use common sense, dick, the moon is just a huge rock in orbit, it has NOTHING, everything should be clear. and your telling me.. that if i was on the moon.. EVERYTHING would turn black?? so.. based on your logic, if i was floading in outerspace.. i would only see black?? where is the logic?
I really don't know why I bother responding to your' foolishness.
_
Paul, why is it you say this is a conspiracy theory? its a conspiracy because because of NASA and god knows who els conspired to produce this lie. if this was indeed a theory, there would be no logical evidence, say.. 'they never went to the moon because the ship just wasnt big enough' -thats a theory. this whole subforum is about 'New Theories' and this indeed is not one. so this whole topic belongs somewhere els, jolly did have a theory, because the only way to prove it was to test it, his presentation did not support ample evidence. this topic does. there are people thats been with NASA for years and years saying that trip was impossible and the videos gave more questions then answers. this is a sad age that nobody questions mainstream media anymore.. let alone government. and if you do, you are ridiculed. [B)]
-
our earth is FACEING AWAY from our galaxy
Last time I checked we were inside out galaxy. Facing away from something your inside is a new concept for me.
"that's why scientists always try to look up the sky during a solar eclipse."
I guess you can call night a solar eclipse; that's generally when scientists look at the sky. During the sort of eclipse where the moon geets in the way of the sun many scientists take the oportunity to look, not at the stars, but at the sun. Only during an eclipse can you see the corona properly.
Anyway, since the moon and the earth are moving lots of bits of the sky can sometimes be in the same field of view as the moon and sometimes they are not.
Wherever the moon is and whatever stars are near it they are damn near imposiible to photograph because the moonlight washes them out. From the point of view of a man on the moon the earth would have the same effect (actually much worse because it's bigger and brighter (higer albedo).) You seem to have overlooked this when you wrote " it has NOTHING". Trust me, I have good evidence to believe that the Earth exists.
"this is a sad age that nobody questions mainstream media anymore.. let alone government. "
Speak for yourself; I'm quite happy to question the "authorities".
"and if you do, you are ridiculed."
No, if you do ridiculous things like forget about the planet earth you get ridiculed.
On the other hand, I agree with you on one thing "Now... if we WERE on the moon, LOOKING at the earth, we would be seeing EVERYTHING and it would be the most magnificent thing we have ever seen! "
"I really don't know why I bother responding to your' foolishness"
-
our earth is FACEING AWAY from our galaxy
Last time I checked we were inside out galaxy. Facing away from something your inside is a new concept for me.
lol? maybe you should read up on our solar system my friend, we are on the edge of out solar system, and during the day we face into the middle of it, but during the night we face away from it.. always. think a little bit more before you place a comment
-
HERE WE GO AGAIN.
-
we are on the edge of out solar system
If we're on the edge, where does that put Mars, Jupitr, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto and simlar objects and the Oort cloud?!? You should take your own advice on being careful about what you post!
But I will agree we face outwards (away from the sun) at night... that's how we define night.
However, none of this has anything to do with our position in the GALAXY (we are in it but near the edge). Nor, has this position anything to do with observations during Solar Eclipses.
-
HERE WE GO AGAIN.
It brings tears to your eyes
-
And mine.. [:-\]
-
"I really don't know why I bother responding to your' foolishness"
-
Boredchemist,
If they ever give out awards for patience. . . I'll nominate you!
I'm glad you bother to respond. Remember, it is not just the people with the insane circular arguments who are reading what you write. There are people who are reading and not posting. Maybe something in your response may have an effect. If not, well, it's enough to drive some of us reading to drink, and I can always use a another justification for that.
[;)]
Colleen
-
we are on the edge of out solar system
If we're on the edge, where does that put Mars, Jupitr, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto and simlar objects and the Oort cloud?!? You should take your own advice on being careful about what you post!
But I will agree we face outwards (away from the sun) at night... that's how we define night.
However, none of this has anything to do with our position in the GALAXY (we are in it but near the edge). Nor, has this position anything to do with observations during Solar Eclipses.
oh.. sorry OUR SOLAR SYSTEM IS ON THE EDGE OF OUR GALAXY. dont be a [removed by moderator], this is a scientific forum. take your grabage some place els, we are disgussing theories, not arguments.
-
I'm only bothering to respond because I want to be sure that that if anyone who is looking for real science comes to this website they don't get, shall we say "speculative stuff" as the last word.
OK Zoofreakz; nevermind which way we are facing, As Batroost pointed out it's not important. What about the fact that the earth really is here and would reflect enough light to wash out the image? What about the rest of the stuff Paul quoted? While we are at it, here's a picture of the lander.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Lunar_Module_diagram.jpg
It clearly shows 2 main engines (ascent and descent)and a collection of other thrusters so your comment "how could they get on the moon without crashing? they have ONE jet engine. and each passenger is seated on a different spot, so that would mean the craft would tilt and well... CRASH" seems to be balderdash. It might have been an absolute pig to drive but it was perfectly possible.
Any sensible answers? otherwise I refer you to your own comment;
"take your grabage some place els"
-
Zoofreakz Love you man, are you starting to understand the utter hilariousness of the things they claim!
I must warn against annoying them, they take it all so personnally!....lol
And I totally agree with what you have said!
-
here is another point.. how could they get on the moon without crashing? they have ONE jet engine. and each passenger is seated on a different spot, so that would mean the craft would tilt and well... CRASH. there is NASA footage of armstrong trying to control something like that in the sky here on earth, each attempt failed and he got out at the last second. basically what they did was shoot those guys in orbit for a week, make a video to the retarded public (who most still will not question their government) and tell everybody this impossible lie and its over with. *woohoo we are the first on the moon* was it really that important? who stood to gain?
the Eagle did nearly crash. At two thousand feet the alarms went off. This time it was a 1201. Another overload alarm. Kranz shouted at Bales "Guido what about it?". "Go, just go" came the response.The message was passed on a quarter of a million miles "We're go, Eagle, hang tight we're go".
At thirteen hundred feet, Neil Armstrong took manual control of the Eagle. The computers had done their bit now it was down to Armstrong to fly to the moon's surface. Looking out of the small window, he expected to see the same surface features that he had seen in dozens of flight simulations. They weren't there. Eagle had overflown the landing site by four miles. Armstrong was looking at a boulder filled crater and his spaceship was running out of fuel.
As Armstrong flew the ship Aldrin called out the numbers, altitude, speed, fuel. There was nowhere to land. Armstrong pitched the Eagle to the left and spotted a site where the boulders thinned out. Eagle only had 90 seconds of fuel left. Having got this far they were perilously close to aborting the mission.
Mission control could see the fuel was down to sixty seconds and couldn't understand why the Eagle had not landed. Kranz keyed his mike, "This is flight, you'd better remind them there ain't no gas stations on the moon." This message was relayed to Eagle in three words, "Eagle thirty seconds". Aldrin's hand hovered over the abort button. They were now only 50 feet above the moon but their fuel was almost exhausted. In Houston a sense of panic was setting in. The Eagle was now too close to the moon's surface to abort. By the time the ascent engines kicked in they would have crashed on the moon. They had no get out clause and no fuel.
Everyone listened to the astronauts words,
"Two and a half down"
"Kicking up some dust"
"Faint shadow"
"Four forward"
"Drifting to the right a little"
"Contact light"
"Okay engine stop...descent engine command override off"
Houston responded "we copy you down Eagle".
All the consoles showed that they had landed but Houston needed voice confirmation. Neil Armstrong allowed himself a second to catch his breath and then sent word home.
Three seconds and two hundred and fifty thousand miles later his voice came through at mission control, "Houston, Tranquility Base here. The Eagle has landed".
-
umm, when we look at a fool moon, our earth is FACEING AWAY from our galaxy...
What utter piffle! Our orientation relative to the galactic centre (which I assume is what you meant) has absolutely nothing to do with it. It is sunlight that gives us full moons, not light emanating from the galactic core. If it was dependent on whether we were facing the galactic centre, then we would only see a full moon for 6 months of the year. You seem to be forgetting that the moon orbits the Earth which orbits the Sun.
-
Jolly's claim was that they never reached the moon and nor will they ever reach it.
It wasn't just that they never reached the moon, Jolly's claim was that it is impossible to get to the moon.
No it wasnt seany, we could go! I dont know why you posted this as we have disscussed it before! My point was that at this moment we cannot, that is not to say we couldnt in the future!
But considering how low the gravity is there, it would be very hard to hold on to it, should we go!
our earth is FACEING AWAY from our galaxy
Last time I checked we were inside out galaxy. Facing away from something your inside is a new concept for me.
lol? maybe you should read up on our solar system my friend, we are on the edge of out solar system, and during the day we face into the middle of it, but during the night we face away from it.. always. think a little bit more before you place a comment
yeah, As the earth spins it faces in all directions, along the line it travels, the axis however always points in the same direction, which is why one half of the year the south is closer and then the other half the north is closer, well Half- quater really!
here is another point.. how could they get on the moon without crashing? they have ONE jet engine. and each passenger is seated on a different spot, so that would mean the craft would tilt and well... CRASH. there is NASA footage of armstrong trying to control something like that in the sky here on earth, each attempt failed and he got out at the last second. basically what they did was shoot those guys in orbit for a week, make a video to the retarded public (who most still will not question their government) and tell everybody this impossible lie and its over with. *woohoo we are the first on the moon* was it really that important? who stood to gain?
the Eagle did nearly crash. At two thousand feet the alarms went off. This time it was a 1201. Another overload alarm. Kranz shouted at Bales "Guido what about it?". "Go, just go" came the response.The message was passed on a quarter of a million miles "We're go, Eagle, hang tight we're go".
At thirteen hundred feet, Neil Armstrong took manual control of the Eagle. The computers had done their bit now it was down to Armstrong to fly to the moon's surface. Looking out of the small window, he expected to see the same surface features that he had seen in dozens of flight simulations. They weren't there. Eagle had overflown the landing site by four miles. Armstrong was looking at a boulder filled crater and his spaceship was running out of fuel.
As Armstrong flew the ship Aldrin called out the numbers, altitude, speed, fuel. There was nowhere to land. Armstrong pitched the Eagle to the left and spotted a site where the boulders thinned out. Eagle only had 90 seconds of fuel left. Having got this far they were perilously close to aborting the mission.
Mission control could see the fuel was down to sixty seconds and couldn't understand why the Eagle had not landed. Kranz keyed his mike, "This is flight, you'd better remind them there ain't no gas stations on the moon." This message was relayed to Eagle in three words, "Eagle thirty seconds". Aldrin's hand hovered over the abort button. They were now only 50 feet above the moon but their fuel was almost exhausted. In Houston a sense of panic was setting in. The Eagle was now too close to the moon's surface to abort. By the time the ascent engines kicked in they would have crashed on the moon. They had no get out clause and no fuel.
Everyone listened to the astronauts words,
"Two and a half down"
"Kicking up some dust"
"Faint shadow"
"Four forward"
"Drifting to the right a little"
"Contact light"
"Okay engine stop...descent engine command override off"
Houston responded "we copy you down Eagle".
All the consoles showed that they had landed but Houston needed voice confirmation. Neil Armstrong allowed himself a second to catch his breath and then sent word home.
Three seconds and two hundred and fifty thousand miles later his voice came through at mission control, "Houston, Tranquility Base here. The Eagle has landed".
Couldnt of written a better story myself, I wonder how long it took them?
Ohh and zoofreakz should you still be here at christmas I´ll give you a little crash helmet troffy!
And on the back of a used crisp packet I shall write: ZOOFREAKZ has achieved level one in JOLLY´s school of EGONOMICS.
This will help you achieve level two, as they wave bits of paper at you, you shall wave back yours and yours shall be shiny, and recycled!
Then for stage two, You will need to sit a psycological exam with my assosiate EDAM, do not fear, for I shall translate to you, what EDAM has telepathically said!
There be many stages but all are free, you merely need to balls to pursue them!
-
Clearly the issue here is not about the science, but about who the science comes from.
Some people involved in this discussion do not trust reports that come from NASA, and therefore cannot be convinced that there was ever a manned moon landing.
Those who do trust NASA's reports have only NASA's own research, or research that subsequently came from data or material collected by NASA, to use to try and convince the others.
A decision has been reached as to what is the 'truth' by both parties, and evidence from either will not be considered rationally.
Therefore, this discussion is at a stalemate, and as such has become an arguement.
Time to move on?
-
Then for stage two, You will need to sit a psycological exam with my assosiate EDAM, do not fear, for I shall translate to you, what EDAM has telepathically said!
Now you're getting really cheesy
-
Then for stage two, You will need to sit a psycological exam with my assosiate EDAM, do not fear, for I shall translate to you, what EDAM has telepathically said!
Now you're getting really cheesy
LOL, you are welcome to mr beaver!
-
Clearly the issue here is not about the science, but about who the science comes from.
Some people involved in this discussion do not trust reports that come from NASA, and therefore cannot be convinced that there was ever a manned moon landing.
Those who do trust NASA's reports have only NASA's own research, or research that subsequently came from data or material collected by NASA, to use to try and convince the others.
A decision has been reached as to what is the 'truth' by both parties, and evidence from either will not be considered rationally.
Therefore, this discussion is at a stalemate, and as such has become an arguement.
Time to move on?
I dont not agree because all evidence is considered rationally by those true scientists as it is their job to question! The problem is that all evidence provided by NASA is extremely doubtful! ROCKS, FLAGS, VIDEOS, REFLECTORS all suspect!
The foot prints on the moon? hello there is no dust up there!
No stars in the video, even on the earth in day light you can see some stars the brightest as you see the moon! you would day or night see stars from the moons surfaces!
Plus the gravity is far lower than nasa say and as a result, there is no way they could have walked on it as they do!
The rubbish that is stated, as reasons to believe the moon landings happened, are laughtable. But you most of you probably as the majority, no sorry all the scientist I have spoken to privately except that we never went!
And yet in the public domain you fearfully defend what you know to be total rubbish!
Men of science question everything! Espeailly the things that dont make sense! in 1969 the scientific understanding was far lower than today, Which is why they made so many mistakes in faking it!
-
I think that until Jolly has explained what he thinks is on the moon that is bright enough to be used as a retroreflector the evidence is clearly in favour of the idea that it is, in fact, a retroreflector, left there as per the traditional NASA version. Since they need some degree of alignment just throwing them into space with a rocket and hoping they landed right is one of the more daft theories. If only NASA Had used these then Jolly might just have a point but the rest of the world can do the experiment; and they have.
Please explain why, for example, China hasn't blown the whistle on NASA?
The moon rocks, which have also been examined by labs outside NASA's control are also pretty solid evidence.
It's not just a matter of "I don't trust NASA" There are other sources of data that support the idea.
More importantly Jolly's posts in the past have claimed that orbital physics is also wrong.
Anyone got satelite TV? OMG! you must be part of the conspiracy, pretending to have lots of TV channels. Anyone seen a weather picture lately? Satelite or really tall bloke with a camera?
The evidence is overwhelming, but Jolly simply discounts anything that gets in the way of his theories then slanders us saying that he's the real scientist and the rest of us "fearfully defend what you know to be total rubbish!"
BTW, Jolly if you say no one has been to the moon how come you are so convinced there is no dust there; who told you?
Also please explain your comment "Plus the gravity is far lower than NASA say and as a result, there is no way they could have walked on it as they do!".
We know what the gravity of the moon is because we can feel it from here; it drives the tides.
-
I must warn against annoying them, they take it all so personnally!....lol
Jolly
I think you would find that almost every other forum out there would have deleted all of your Moon threads and banned you permanatly by now.
-
I must warn against annoying them, they take it all so personnally!....lol
Jolly
I think you would find that almost every other forum out there would have deleted all of your Moon threads and banned you permanatly by now.
Well mickey you have shut all of them except one and this one isnt mine so! I know your desperate to ban me for life!
and have pretty much been calling for it, for ages, sad that you fear me so! and feel such a sad need to supress me and my opinions.
Hopefully one you´ll grow up and stop trying to force people to see things as you do! or at least you´ll have enougth common decencey to allow people to think and act as they choose!
-
I know your're desperate to ban me for life!
Not so sure.... one thing Jolly's post do accomplish is that they force people to look for evidence/physical manifestations of effects they 'know'. As far as I can see none of Jolly's arguments have ever gone un-answered, though because of the outlandish nature of some his claims, we've had to think hard in looking for and explaining the counter-evience.
An agent provocateur has his uses....?
-
I know your're desperate to ban me for life!
Not so sure.... one thing Jolly's post do accomplish is that they force people to look for evidence/physical manifestations of effects they 'know'. As far as I can see none of Jolly's arguments have ever gone un-answered, though because of the outlandish nature of some his claims, we've had to think hard in looking for and explaining the counter-evience.
An agent provocateur has his uses....?
Thankyou batroost, you see atleast I get you thinking, and science is about thinking! atleast thinking about what the evidence points towords! and learning to see things differently, depends on your field, no?
For in explaining things you often understand them better! and arguement can help to hone the ideas! It is all gravy!
-
This topic is going nowhere, and as Ben has pointed out "this discussion is at a stalemate, and as such has become an argument." I am therefore locking this topic.