Naked Science Forum

On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: BP on 19/06/2003 19:25:32

Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: BP on 19/06/2003 19:25:32
I have a friend that does not believe we landed on the moon.  He says this because there are no stars in the backgroud of the pictures that were taken while up there on the moon.  Does anyone know why that is?
Title: Re: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Ians Daddy on 19/06/2003 20:03:03
As an ex-Navy photographer, I can speculate that it had alot to do with the lighting. Since there must have been an issue with lighting and apature (light allowance) settings, as well as flash issues, the amount of surrounding darkness would cause for a difficult shot. I've heard all the conspiracy theories about us not actually landing on the moon, but staging it in a studio in order to win the "Space Race". My belief is that we indeed landed there and the picture is authentic. The stars were there, we just couldn't see them. It would be like in a film where the subject comes into focus in the foreground after we've been focused on the background, or vice versa. The subject (astronaut) was in focus (foreground) and the stars were not (background).
Then again, it could all have been a hoax and we've all been duped into believing that we were there by a plotting and evil government.
Just a thought.

What's on the dark side of the moon? I've heard that we have clandestine labs for the ultra wealthy powers of the world and that Elvis and Colonel Sanders hang out up there... :)
Title: Re: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Donnah on 20/06/2003 02:22:41
quote:
Originally posted by Ians Daddy

What's on the dark side of the moon?


Pink Floyd.
Title: Re: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Quantumcat on 20/06/2003 03:03:28
That conspiracy theory is in my opinion something to increase TV channel ratings. Load of balderdash.

Am I dead? Am I alive? I'm both!
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.stupid-boy.com%2Fsmilies%2Fkao%2Fotn%2Fcat.gif&hash=e4b91a72c020cc1c5d28487fff5428f1)
Title: Re: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Ians Daddy on 20/06/2003 03:20:26
Hehehe...I actually visited the dark side of the moon once while listening to Pink Floyd. It was very smokey there and smelled of burning brush. It was quite dark there and I think the surface is covered in a bean-bag like substance. It must have been due to the lack of gravity, but I remember when I returned, I was famished.
Title: Re: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: cuso4 on 20/06/2003 08:01:43
Another weird thing about the photograph was that the USA flag was straight and taut. If there is no atmosphere on the moon, wind shouldn't exist and the flag shouldn't be like the one on the photograph

Angel (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsmilies.networkessence.net%2Fs%2Fcontrib%2Fruinkai%2FbiggrinangelA.gif&hash=7a3ab31861328a98db23edcb21639ab9)
Title: Re: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Jaramillo on 20/06/2003 08:23:29
When I was a kid I had a doctor that looked just like Colonel Sanders. I hated that guy, he was a sadistic ?#$%^&**((!

quote:
Originally posted by Ians Daddy

As an ex-Navy photographer, I can speculate that it had alot to do with the lighting. Since there must have been an issue with lighting and apature (light allowance) settings, as well as flash issues, the amount of surrounding darkness would cause for a difficult shot. I've heard all the conspiracy theories about us not actually landing on the moon, but staging it in a studio in order to win the "Space Race". My belief is that we indeed landed there and the picture is authentic. The stars were there, we just couldn't see them. It would be like in a film where the subject comes into focus in the foreground after we've been focused on the background, or vice versa. The subject (astronaut) was in focus (foreground) and the stars were not (background).
Then again, it could all have been a hoax and we've all been duped into believing that we were there by a plotting and evil government.
Just a thought.

What's on the dark side of the moon? I've heard that we have clandestine labs for the ultra wealthy powers of the world and that Elvis and Colonel Sanders hang out up there... :)

Title: Re: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Bin Laden on 20/06/2003 09:45:56
quote:
Originally posted by Ians Daddy

Hehehe...I actually visited the dark side of the moon once while listening to Pink Floyd. It was very smokey there and smelled of burning brush. It was quite dark there and I think the surface is covered in a bean-bag like substance. It must have been due to the lack of gravity, but I remember when I returned, I was famished.



I have some quality Afghan opiates i can send you if you ever want to go back there... my caves full of the stuff.

Bin.

catch me if you can!
Title: Re: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Ians Daddy on 20/06/2003 10:52:08
I appreciate the offer, Mr. Laden, but I gave all that up some years ago. I bet there are some officials in Washington that would love some though. Give 'em a call...They'd be glad to come to your place to pick it up.
Title: Re: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Nigel on 20/06/2003 19:11:57
The strange it's-a-hoax fairytale about Project Apollo not actually happening started with a Fox video feature. It caused a lot of amusement and bemusement among my friends in the US, and many did not get around to answering because of these reasons, because they thought it wasn't worth it, or just because they were gobsmacked. Fox did very very well in the US by cooking up this story, and had very high viewer ratings, but it actually was a piece of misleading science fiction. Orson Welles's radio reading of The War of the Worlds caused near-panic in the late 1930s, and some people believed the more recent re-run. I also remember an excellent fictional documentary that reported on how the US and (then) Soviets had set up a collaborative space station on the dark side of the Moon. Same sort of stuff, but with a real event to build on.

Anyway, I suggest the following sites for further information. No need for me to recapitulate what they have to say in this forum.

http://www.csicop.org/si/2003-03/commentary.html
http://www.asi.org/adb/j/02/noapollo.html http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/2001-04-09-ncguest1.htm
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html
http://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~jscotti/NOT_faked/


Title: Re: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Quantumcat on 21/06/2003 01:06:23
angel, the flag would be like that because there is hardly any gravity to pull it down, I think.

Am I dead? Am I alive? I'm both!
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.stupid-boy.com%2Fsmilies%2Fkao%2Fotn%2Fcat.gif&hash=e4b91a72c020cc1c5d28487fff5428f1)
Title: Re: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Ians Daddy on 21/06/2003 06:00:47
I believe the "flag" was more a board than a flag. A poster on a stick. I think they planned for the gravity / air factor. Just a thought.
Title: Re: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: PG on 26/06/2003 21:53:39
A couple of points

Arthur C. Clarke addressed all these issues in his book "A Fall of Moon Dust", written in the early sixties (?) well before the moon landings. The (very good) book was about a daring rescue of some tourists on the moon. One sub-plot was the TV reporters covering it. In it the reporter, who got the scoop, debated as to whether or not to show the stars in the TV picture. The true picture was was to not show the stars, because to the eye the sunlit moon is so bright you can't see the stars. But viewers expect them, and the camera could be set to pick them up. (Being a good cynical reporter, he did what the public wanted.) The reasoning still applies, except the cameras haven't gotten that good yet. The other thing is that after the rescue (sorry for giving the plot away) when the new tourist bus heads out, they have flags waving on the dock-side, moved by electric motors.

The flag issue was actually a well known one. The folks who put a man on the moon actually knew that there was no wind on the mood (how clever they were) and also that people wanted to see it. If you really look at the picture, there is a horizontal rod on the top of the flag. The flag came with the rod folded down, and they unfolded it on the  moon (also note the wrinkles in the flag from being folded up). Due to the low gravity on the moon, the joint for the rod didn't have to be very strong. If you do want to see the flag wave, go to the NASA web site. One of the downloadable movies is from a automatic camerea left on the moon that took a TV picture of one of the acsents from the moon. The rocket blast of the ascent engine turned the flag around and made it wave. (And yes to send the signal to the camera to look up and watch the ascent stage go up, they had to factor in the three second time delay it took for the signal to get there). And yes, I am old enough to have seen that live on TV.

The bigger point is that poeople would rather believe a big lie than a small one (Hitler actually said that). So the theory is that the moon landing was all staged. OK. And the poeople involved were clever enough to do that, but unfortunately were stupid enough to film it on a set where the wind was blowing. OK. And it was blowing hard engouh to make a flag stand straight, but not enough to blow any dust up. First you cross a probability and credibility barrier. Then you cross an impossibility barrier. Then you cross an ridiculous barrier. And the further you go out in that direction, the more (not less) people are willing to believe it. It's a superiorty thing. The trick is to claim that by reaching a state of stupidity that is almost physically impossible to reach, you can prove that you are smarter than people who actually work for a living. The point is to be so dim as to not to be able to figure out to put a rod on top of the flag so people could see it, but to still be smarter than the entire moon project put together. Well, its sentiment like that that Bush got elected and got his war.

The point of "if they could put a man on the moon..." was that for once in history you had a lot of people all pushing the same way to get something done, and look what a great thing they did. Outside of that,however, most people choose to be ignorant, and push against making things better.

One of the engineering managers at one of the airplane companies that built the command module, when asked why he was so excited about it said "we finally get to build something without guns in it".  Arthur C. Clarke was right in his broader message : the world needs a challenge. There has got to be more to life than watching wars on TV and buying dog food on-line. Without it, we are the exact same people who brought the world the Dark Ages. We need something to build that "doesn't have guns in it". The moon project was actually done for all of the wrong reasons, and NASA has never recovered, but it proved it could be done. It's either that, or burn witches.



Title: Re: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Ians Daddy on 27/06/2003 00:01:20
PG,
Very interesting. I'll have to take a look at that book. Maybe they'll make it into a film that won't do it justice.

I say we give the witches guns and send them to the moon and then burn NASA. I'll bet that hinge on that flagpole cost us in excess of $4 million.

I do believe that we should join together to do something positive. However, I don't agree with conquering the universe until you can fix the world until you can fix the nation until you can fix the state until you can fix the town until you can fix the home.

Just a thought.
Title: Re: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: McGee on 11/07/2003 23:29:30
I read a simple explanation for the star thing.  Think about the landing happening on the "day-side" of the moon.  The sky is not blue because there is no atmosphere.  Regardless of atmosphere, the sun's light is still bright enough to block the view of the stars.  You'd not even be able to see the "dark side" of the earth while on the moon.  How cool would that be?  Be on the moon to observe a lunar eclipse, which I guess would an 'earth eclipse' if you were on the moon.....

McGee

Teachers don't make a lot of money, but they make a lot of difference.
Title: Re: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: NakedScientist on 01/11/2003 23:15:51
This thread addresses the question raised by Bezoar in relation to the moon landings. I refer you specifically to the post by Nigel Hey on the subject.

TNS
Title: Re: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: tweener on 04/11/2003 04:19:31
There are some really good posts in this thread.  To me, one of the overwhelming arguments saying that we did go to the moon is that there is NO WAY that a coverup of that magnitude could have been kept secret with the thousands of people working on the project.  NO WAY!

Also, I believe that the human race needs a challenge.  We will never fix the problems "at home" (whatever level you want to choose).  There will always be people pushing backward.  There will always be poverty.  There will always be war. But if the top part of the race doesn't move ahead, we have the dark ages again.


----
John
Title: Re: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Ians Daddy on 04/11/2003 05:16:29
Very good point, John.
The cars do have to follow the engine.
Title: Re: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: tom on 06/11/2003 11:55:09
Ask KGB.
Title: Re: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Brad Guth on 29/12/2003 19:47:20
There actually is a thin sodium atmosphere near the surface, thus a flag in such low gravity might actually move, especially when considering that the solar weather at the time was anything but minimal.

Unfortunately, that thin sodium atmosphere isn't worth squat as far as fending off any of those pesky micro-meteorites.

Though regarding those missing stars. They were in fact there, and should even have been somewhat difficult to have avoided on even relatively slow film. Keeping in mind that the average lunar surface reflective index was supposedly 11%, mostly dark basalt, whereas some portions of the lunar surface had to have been nearly soot (5% reflective). Thus with a good (nondestructive) digital scan of some of those original negatives and/or transparencies would have pulled out the stars (even of the leader/trailer portions would have recorded the exposure dosage from solar and cosmic plus whatever secondary of hard x-ray issues). Though the 250+ millirems per day of radiation dosage should have rather noticeably damaged most images.
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/moon-04.htm
Title: Re: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Ylide on 30/12/2003 00:43:19
How is sodium present as a vapor in such a cold atmosphere?  I know sodium vapor is also used in near-absolute-zero experiments and I always kinda wondered how it can be vaporous at low temps where it SHOULD be a solid.



This message brought to you by The Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People
Title: Re: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: OmnipotentOne on 19/02/2004 00:37:05
Speaking on that topic, I read somwhere that Armstrong screwed up his grammer and said "One small step for mankind, and one giant leap for mankind"  Anyone else ever hear of that?
Title: Re: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: neilep on 23/02/2004 18:56:40
Yep....what he said was 'One  small step for man, one giant leap for mankind'...when he should have said...'one small step for A man, one giant leap for mankind'......I mean tcch!! tcch!!......it's not as if he was under any pressure or anything !!!!!

'Men are the same as women...just inside out !'
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: jolly on 03/07/2007 22:50:04
I have a friend that does not believe we landed on the moon.  He says this because there are no stars in the backgroud of the pictures that were taken while up there on the moon.  Does anyone know why that is?

Quite clearly it´s because they faked the video. and could´nt add in the stars as it would have been 1. too dificult and 2. Allowed people who understood astrology to prove it was fake.

The reason we dont see stars on the earth during the day is because we have an atmosphere.
The moon doesn´t have an atmosphere, some may contend it has a small one, either way the atmosphere doesnt glow a bright colour during the daytime and block out the stars; like the earths does!

O.K all put your helmets on and duck! Someone will no-doubt start throwing mud!
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: ukmicky on 03/07/2007 22:59:01
You think they couldnt fake a sky full off stars. If they wanted to fake a moon landing and thought that they needed stars in the sky that would have been one of the easiest part of the scam to pull off. However if you could see stars then it would be fake.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: jolly on 03/07/2007 23:14:00
How so when you consider that back then we had no hubble on so alot of the stars we wouldnt have known of,
also you then have to relate them to the position of the moon at the time of the landing and give them a luna prospective, I do not think thats as easy a feet as you claim.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: ukmicky on 03/07/2007 23:40:45
Placing a star in its position in the sky relative to all the other stars is easy if you know your stars or have a few star charts, seriously that part would very very easy to do even in them days.

As for Hubble whats that that got to do with stars viewable by the naked eye from the moon . Any star viewable whilst standing on the moon without the use of a telescope would be very easy to view from the earth by either by the naked eye, binoculars or a very cheap telescope.

The stars which are only viewable by Hubble could never be viewed through the naked eye whilst standing or filming through a normal camera on the moon.

Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/07/2007 21:01:02
I have to say that this "Quite clearly it´s because they faked the video. and could´nt add in the stars as it would have been 1. too dificult and 2. Allowed people who understood astrology to prove it was fake." is the best joke I have seen in a while.
People who understand astrology probably know a lot about fakes.
Surely this has been discussed at unnecessary length, before.
The only things missing are answers to the questions like if we didn't go to the moon how did the retroreflectors get there? and how come the Russians listened in to the transmissions from the moon by pointing an antenna at the moon?

Here's the past discussion of this "topic"
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=7973.0

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=7207.0

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=8042.0

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=7209.0
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: ukmicky on 04/07/2007 21:11:34
yes their have been a few and everything has probably been answered by now.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: jolly on 04/07/2007 22:30:16
Placing a star in its position in the sky relative to all the other stars is easy if you know your stars or have a few star charts, seriously that part would very very easy to do even in them days.

As for Hubble whats that that got to do with stars viewable by the naked eye from the moon . Any star viewable whilst standing on the moon without the use of a telescope would be very easy to view from the earth by either by the naked eye, binoculars or a very cheap telescope.

The stars which are only viewable by Hubble could never be viewed through the naked eye whilst standing or filming through a normal camera on the moon.



I do not agree that it is as easy as you say, the moon moves faster than the earth and the stars would also move if they were in the video, each individual star would need to be placed correctly it would be not small order if the film was a fake.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: ukmicky on 04/07/2007 23:48:30
Jolly

I'm not a scientist but just someone who enjoys learning about science,nature ,life etc. I don't try to prove you wrong because i think your being silly or stupid because we all get things wrong from time to time .

I try to show you why your wrong because you asked the question and i enjoy trying to help people with their understanding and learning about this stuff.  Many things i know nothing about and occasionally my ideas are hopelessly wrong but i have an open mind and I'm willing to learn from those much cleverer than me.  In the end if you don't wish to believe me or anyone else on this forum when we try to answer you then thats your right. It makes no real difference to me if you believe me or not because all i need to know to be happy with myself is the thought that i did try to help you.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: safertr on 05/07/2007 14:54:45
The most surprising thing to me about this ridiculous claim that it was a hoax, is that some people actually manage to believe it was! How do they manage it? If it really was a hoax do you not think that the Russians at least would have been able to expose it? After all, the ONLY reason for going to the Moon was to beat the Russians to it, yet they have never once even hinted at the possibility that it was a hoax, they know it was real! That is why they gave up their own attempt after they ran into problems with their booster, it kept exploding on take off! There was no point in them continuing once they realised the Americans had beaten them to it. Nobody in the world had more reason to want to prove it was a hoax than the Russians. The Russians are not daft, they were closely monitoring the Americans every inch of the way, and were able to determine for a fact that the Americans did actually land on the Moon, much to their annoyance. If the Russians say the Americans landed on the Moon, and they do, then the Americans landed on the Moon. It's that simple.

http://www.click2finding.com/click2.aspx?pr=Science/Physics/Astrophysics/ (http://www.click2finding.com/click2.aspx?pr=Science/Physics/Astrophysics/)
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: jolly on 05/07/2007 19:44:03
Jolly

I'm not a scientist but just someone who enjoys learning about science,nature ,life etc. I don't try to prove you wrong because i think your being silly or stupid because we all get things wrong from time to time .

I try to show you why your wrong because you asked the question and i enjoy trying to help people with their understanding and learning about this stuff.  Many things i know nothing about and occasionally my ideas are hopelessly wrong but i have an open mind and I'm willing to learn from those much cleverer than me.  In the end if you don't wish to believe me or anyone else on this forum when we try to answer you then thats your right. It makes no real difference to me if you believe me or not because all i need to know to be happy with myself is the thought that i did try to help you.

You know I could just as easyily say the same back to you, I won´t but I could. To be completely honest I really cannot be bothered to carry on about the moon. You believe they went others do not agree. I dont care...Lol
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: lyner on 05/07/2007 23:20:33
The best reason I ever heard for the moon landings not to have been faked was that the RUSSIANS would have got to find out and it would have been all over the news! THEY DIDN'T.
My personal 'clincher' was that, from the times that radio signals were received at various listening stations around the world, the ships must have been at positions corresponding to, at the very least, a journey to the Moon. If they had been in Earth orbit, their signals would have been heard once every 90 minutes or so. Also, there had to have been a landing - not just a Moon orbit - or the signals from the mission would have been interrupted every time they went 'round the back'. In fact, they were continuous.
PS There is no 'dark side'. The permanently invisible side is in full sunlight when the Moon is 'new' on Earth - between us and the Sun.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: paul.fr on 07/07/2007 15:37:52
Can we make the word "moon" when associated with the words "did" or "never" a banned word?
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/07/2007 16:47:52
Ukmicky, you said "yes their have been a few and everything has probably been answered by now." I don't agree; neither of those points has been answered. The lack of an explanation of the retroreflector (nothing else would be bright enough) is proof that they did go there. The fact that the Russians listened in also proves the ships were there (unless you want to say that the USSR was "in" on the conspiracy).
Unless the "we didn't go " crowd can explain these then they are simply wasting time going over old ground.
Since the stars are a lot further away than the distance from the earth to the moon the stars in the sky would look identical from earth or from the moon unless you took really sophisticated measuring gear. You simply wouldn't see a difference on a normal camera.
At any rate the point is moot because you can't see the stars on the pictures taken on the moon.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: maff on 13/07/2007 13:54:48
Can I add to this debate by discussing the Space Shuttle. The Shuttle is a very versatile piece of equipment, highly manouvarable within Earth orbit, it can seek out and repair any orbitting satalite. When the NASA Apollo missions first went to the moon, firsty they orbitted the Earth then at the critical time fired a rocket which took them out of orbit and on a trajectory that took them to the moon. Can I ask why the Shuttle being so much more advanced has never undertaken such an ordeal?
Ask NASA why the Shuttle has never been to the moon?
..maff
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: lightarrow on 13/07/2007 19:59:57
The most surprising thing to me about this ridiculous claim that it was a hoax, is that some people actually manage to believe it was! How do they manage it? If it really was a hoax do you not think that the Russians at least would have been able to expose it? After all, the ONLY reason for going to the Moon was to beat the Russians to it, yet they have never once even hinted at the possibility that it was a hoax, they know it was real! That is why they gave up their own attempt after they ran into problems with their booster, it kept exploding on take off! There was no point in them continuing once they realised the Americans had beaten them to it. Nobody in the world had more reason to want to prove it was a hoax than the Russians. The Russians are not daft, they were closely monitoring the Americans every inch of the way, and were able to determine for a fact that the Americans did actually land on the Moon, much to their annoyance. If the Russians say the Americans landed on the Moon, and they do, then the Americans landed on the Moon. It's that simple.

http://www.click2finding.com/click2.aspx?pr=Science/Physics/Astrophysics/ (http://www.click2finding.com/click2.aspx?pr=Science/Physics/Astrophysics/)
Did the Americans say anything about the russian war in Cecenia? It's because there isn't anything to cover? So, why did they kill Anna Politkovskaya and Litvinenko?
When big things are in action, it seems there is a sort of reciprocal non-interference agreement between Russia and America.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/07/2007 19:49:54
Things have changed since the cold war.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Lynda on 14/07/2007 23:14:44
Surely, if it was a fake, they would have put the stars in?
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: another_someone on 14/07/2007 23:41:44
The best reason I ever heard for the moon landings not to have been faked was that the RUSSIANS would have got to find out and it would have been all over the news! THEY DIDN'T.
My personal 'clincher' was that, from the times that radio signals were received at various listening stations around the world, the ships must have been at positions corresponding to, at the very least, a journey to the Moon. If they had been in Earth orbit, their signals would have been heard once every 90 minutes or so. Also, there had to have been a landing - not just a Moon orbit - or the signals from the mission would have been interrupted every time they went 'round the back'. In fact, they were continuous.
PS There is no 'dark side'. The permanently invisible side is in full sunlight when the Moon is 'new' on Earth - between us and the Sun.

I have, what I consider, a better reason for believing the moon landings were not fake - who in their right mind would have faked the Apollo 13 mission.

It is not when things work according to plan that you really find out about reality, but when things go wrong.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: another_someone on 14/07/2007 23:48:45
Can I add to this debate by discussing the Space Shuttle. The Shuttle is a very versatile piece of equipment, highly manouvarable within Earth orbit, it can seek out and repair any orbitting satalite. When the NASA Apollo missions first went to the moon, firsty they orbitted the Earth then at the critical time fired a rocket which took them out of orbit and on a trajectory that took them to the moon. Can I ask why the Shuttle being so much more advanced has never undertaken such an ordeal?
Ask NASA why the Shuttle has never been to the moon?
..maff

Because a small 3 man vehicle and lightweight lander can travel a quarter of a million miles and back on relatively little fuel; whereas a massive cargo ship capable of carrying a 7 man crew and massive payload simply cannot take up enough fuel to make the range.

The Apollo spacecraft could never have taken up the cargo load required to build the ISS, but the Space Shuttle cannot make the range to the moon and back.  They are different vehicles, with different design requirements.

I suspect that in future, moon launches may well by undertaken by modular spacecraft that are taken up by heavy lift spacecraft (the successor to the Space Shuttle), and then the modules put together in space (just as the ISS is today), before being launched towards the Moon or Mars.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: another_someone on 14/07/2007 23:56:37
Did the Americans say anything about the russian war in Cecenia? It's because there isn't anything to cover? So, why did they kill Anna Politkovskaya and Litvinenko?
When big things are in action, it seems there is a sort of reciprocal non-interference agreement between Russia and America.

I doubt that Litvinenko had anything to do with Chechnya but was simply settling old scores.

Politkovskaya could very possibly have been because of her reporting in the Caucuses, including Chechnya.

On the other hand, as mentioned above, things have changed in recent years, and now Russia glibly labels the Chechnya issue as part of the war on terror (this made more palatable because the Chechens are predominantly Muslim), and George W. Bush is then in a very difficult position to do much about it.  The fact that Russia has a veto in the UN, and George W. Bush has realised he can no longer ignore the UN as he thought he could so easily do in 2003, means he has to keep the Russians sweet, and they know it.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: paul.fr on 15/07/2007 07:02:02
If i remember correctly, the new design that NASA put out to tender are rockets. Similar to the old saturn 5, i think Lockheed won the contract.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: another_someone on 15/07/2007 10:54:01
If i remember correctly, the new design that NASA put out to tender are rockets. Similar to the old saturn 5, i think Lockheed won the contract.

The Shuttle is a rocket - the difference is that on return, it glides through the atmosphere to a touchdown on a runway, whereas they have decided that the new design will not be a glider (not sure how much of the launch platform will be reusable or not).

It does not alter the issue that I suspect that the majority of missions for the new system will still be to lift things into near Earth orbit (including servicing the ISS).  It would also seem unlikely that a mission to Mars could be launched from Earth, as the size of the craft would need to be significant, and sending up modules to be assembled in space, and then launched without need the need to lift the complete craft through the atmosphere (or have to worry about reentry on return).
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: maff on 15/07/2007 11:57:05
Can I add to this debate by discussing the Space Shuttle. The Shuttle is a very versatile piece of equipment, highly manouvarable within Earth orbit, it can seek out and repair any orbitting satalite. When the NASA Apollo missions first went to the moon, firsty they orbitted the Earth then at the critical time fired a rocket which took them out of orbit and on a trajectory that took them to the moon. Can I ask why the Shuttle being so much more advanced has never undertaken such an ordeal?
Ask NASA why the Shuttle has never been to the moon?
..maff

Because a small 3 man vehicle and lightweight lander can travel a quarter of a million miles and back on relatively little fuel; whereas a massive cargo ship capable of carrying a 7 man crew and massive payload simply cannot take up enough fuel to make the range.

The Apollo spacecraft could never have taken up the cargo load required to build the ISS, but the Space Shuttle cannot make the range to the moon and back.  They are different vehicles, with different design requirements.

I suspect that in future, moon launches may well by undertaken by modular spacecraft that are taken up by heavy lift spacecraft (the successor to the Space Shuttle), and then the modules put together in space (just as the ISS is today), before being launched towards the Moon or Mars.
The amount of required fuel to get to the Moon is irrelevant to the question. The Apollo craft orbitted the Earth then used a rocket to get out of Earth orbit. The velocity that the craft was orbitting at was the velocity used to reach the Moon, so in actual fact it used the 'slingshot' effect. No further fuel is required to get to the Moon because the craft is travelling in a vacuum. A very small amount of fuel was required along the way which was used by retro's to keep the craft on the correct course and correct any motion of the craft itself i.e spinning. The Shuttle would use no fuel apart from escaping Earth orbit and escaping Lunar orbit on the return. If any additional fuel is required it has a huge cargo bay for additional fuel. The real reason the Shuttle cannot go to the Moon and orbit for a couple of hours then return is simple - it can't.
The reason it can't is because the Shuttle cannot provide enough radiation protection for it's occupants during the trip. The amount of radiation going in and out of the Van Allen belts is so unpredictable due to solar winds, NASA is actually conducting an experiment soon to establish if we can survive them. An upcoming NASA mission, Radiation Belt Storm Probes will go further and gain scientific understanding (to the point of predictability) of how populations of relativistic electrons and ions in space form or change in response to changes in solar activity and the solar wind.
Yet we are supposed to believe nearly 40 years ago 3 guys just walzed through it with no problems.
Absolute and utter hogwash.
..maff
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: another_someone on 15/07/2007 12:41:48
The amount of required fuel to get to the Moon is irrelevant to the question. The Apollo craft orbitted the Earth then used a rocket to get out of Earth orbit. The velocity that the craft was orbitting at was the velocity used to reach the Moon, so in actual fact it used the 'slingshot' effect. No further fuel is required to get to the Moon because the craft is travelling in a vacuum.

But a 6 minute burn was still required to get out of orbit - that is fuel consumed - and if the craft had been heavier, it would have required more fuel.  This is excluding the fuel required to insert into lunar orbit, or to return from the moon.

Even with the mission they did perform, it could only be achieved by making significant weight savings on the lunar module.

I believe that the Shuttle does not even have the capability of reaching geostationary orbit, and if it needs to insert a satellite into geostationary orbit, it needs to provide an additional booster that will take the satellite from the Shuttle's parking orbit up to geostationary orbit.

A very small amount of fuel was required along the way which was used by retro's to keep the craft on the correct course and correct any motion of the craft itself i.e spinning. The Shuttle would use no fuel apart from escaping Earth orbit and escaping Lunar orbit on the return. If any additional fuel is required it has a huge cargo bay for additional fuel. The real reason the Shuttle cannot go to the Moon and orbit for a couple of hours then return is simple - it can't.
The reason it can't is because the Shuttle cannot provide enough radiation protection for it's occupants during the trip. The amount of radiation going in and out of the Van Allen belts is so unpredictable due to solar winds, NASA is actually conducting an experiment soon to establish if we can survive them. An upcoming NASA mission, Radiation Belt Storm Probes will go further and gain scientific understanding (to the point of predictability) of how populations of relativistic electrons and ions in space form or change in response to changes in solar activity and the solar wind.
Yet we are supposed to believe nearly 40 years ago 3 guys just walzed through it with no problems.
Absolute and utter hogwash.
..maff

This may possibly be an issue, although I am surprised in the Shuttle is less well protected than the Apollo craft (particularly the lunar landing module, in which the Apollo 13 crew had to shelter themselves when they had problems in the command module).
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: lightarrow on 15/07/2007 13:01:04
Things have changed since the cold war.
There are things which don't change.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: lightarrow on 15/07/2007 13:06:45
The most surprising thing to me about this ridiculous claim that it was a hoax, is that some people actually manage to believe it was! How do they manage it? If it really was a hoax do you not think that the Russians at least would have been able to expose it? After all, the ONLY reason for going to the Moon was to beat the Russians to it, yet they have never once even hinted at the possibility that it was a hoax, they know it was real! That is why they gave up their own attempt after they ran into problems with their booster, it kept exploding on take off! There was no point in them continuing once they realised the Americans had beaten them to it. Nobody in the world had more reason to want to prove it was a hoax than the Russians. The Russians are not daft, they were closely monitoring the Americans every inch of the way, and were able to determine for a fact that the Americans did actually land on the Moon, much to their annoyance. If the Russians say the Americans landed on the Moon, and they do, then the Americans landed on the Moon. It's that simple.
It seems to me that these "expositions" of "hoax" of any kind, from a nation against another, are not so usual. Does it mean that "hoaxes" of any kind don't happen? It would be naive to think it. The fact russians didn't say anything about John Kennedy murder, means we can be sure 100% there wasn't any conspiracy to kill JFK?
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: lightarrow on 15/07/2007 13:34:30
I have, what I consider, a better reason for believing the moon landings were not fake - who in their right mind would have faked the Apollo 13 mission.
I don't understand what you mean. The Apollo 13 mission didn't land on the moon. This, to me, is a reason more to conclude they still didn't have the knowledge/technology/preparation for a moon-landing.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: another_someone on 15/07/2007 13:34:50
It seems to me that these "expositions" of "hoax" of any kind, from a nation against another, are not so usual. Does it mean that "hoaxes" of any kind don't happen? It would be naive to think it. The fact russians didn't say anything about John Kennedy murder, means we can be sure 100% there wasn't any conspiracy to kill JFK?

The intelligence services don't really like their masters letting the other side know what information they have access to, lest it cause that source of information to dry up (I suspect the US intelligence community were less than happy when President Reagan went public on the Korean airliner downed by the Russians, since it alerted the Russians to the monitoring they were undertaking of their airforce.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: another_someone on 15/07/2007 13:39:53
I don't understand what you mean. The Apollo 13 mission didn't land on the moon. This, to me, is a reason more to conclude they still didn't have the knowledge/technology/preparation for a moon-landing.

It did not land on the moon, but it was equipped to land on the moon, and more critically, it was publicised that it would land on the moon.

The point is that information about a disaster was coming in in almost real time, and this indicated that there was not very strict controls on the information coming back from the moon missions (certainly not tight enough control of information to allow a cover up of a non-landing on the moon, otherwise they would have covered up the disaster as well).

If Apollo 13 had not been subject to a disaster, then how would they have explained when we were receiving information that it was on its way to the moon, but never got there?  The only way they could have done that is if Apollo 13 never existed, but then if it never existed, then how did it come to have a disaster?
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/07/2007 14:03:55
To compare the apolo missions with the JFK death like this
"It seems to me that these "expositions" of "hoax" of any kind, from a nation against another, are not so usual. Does it mean that "hoaxes" of any kind don't happen? It would be naive to think it. The fact russians didn't say anything about John Kennedy murder, means we can be sure 100% there wasn't any conspiracy to kill JFK?" seems patently absurd.
The Russians weren't there to see Kennedy shot. They were in a position to observe the moon landings- at least to track the radio transmissions.
All you are doing is adding to the number of people who would have had to be "in on the conspiracy". It's unrealistic to think it would have been kept secret all this time; adding more people "in the know" just makes it less plausible.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: paul.fr on 15/07/2007 14:21:23
All you are doing is adding to the number of people who would have had to be "in on the conspiracy". It's unrealistic to think it would have been kept secret all this time; adding more people "in the know" just makes it less plausible.


I have to say, this is my own personal answer too. Do you really think all of those at mission control, plus the Astronauts, ground crew...and not to mention the wives could have kept silent all those years?
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: ukmicky on 15/07/2007 17:34:54
Can I add to this debate by discussing the Space Shuttle. The Shuttle is a very versatile piece of equipment, highly manouvarable within Earth orbit, it can seek out and repair any orbitting satalite. When the NASA Apollo missions first went to the moon, firsty they orbitted the Earth then at the critical time fired a rocket which took them out of orbit and on a trajectory that took them to the moon. Can I ask why the Shuttle being so much more advanced has never undertaken such an ordeal?
Ask NASA why the Shuttle has never been to the moon?
..maff
The space shuttle could if required reach the moon and return and all it would need to do so is use some of its cargo space as fuel storage .However the shuttle is not designed to travel beyond the earths magnetisphere. If it were to travel beyond the magnetisphere the astronauts and equiptment in the shuttle could be bit by large levels of cosmic paticle's and radiation significatly reducing the lifespan of the astronauats and the shuttle.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: lightarrow on 15/07/2007 18:40:26
I don't understand what you mean. The Apollo 13 mission didn't land on the moon. This, to me, is a reason more to conclude they still didn't have the knowledge/technology/preparation for a moon-landing.
It did not land on the moon, but it was equipped to land on the moon, and more critically, it was publicised that it would land on the moon.
The point is that information about a disaster was coming in in almost real time, and this indicated that there was not very strict controls on the information coming back from the moon missions (certainly not tight enough control of information to allow a cover up of a non-landing on the moon, otherwise they would have covered up the disaster as well).
If Apollo 13 had not been subject to a disaster, then how would they have explained when we were receiving information that it was on its way to the moon, but never got there?  The only way they could have done that is if Apollo 13 never existed, but then if it never existed, then how did it come to have a disaster?

Maybe not even Apollo 13 mission was really equipped/prepared to land on the Moon, and only a few people knew it (not the astronauts), and someone intentionally sabotated the mission in order to avoid a bad impression to the world. Why that stupid order from the mission control to mix the liquified oxygen in the cylinders? That was the cause of the explosion. Just an accident?
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: lightarrow on 15/07/2007 18:57:07
To compare the apolo missions with the JFK death like this
"It seems to me that these "expositions" of "hoax" of any kind, from a nation against another, are not so usual. Does it mean that "hoaxes" of any kind don't happen? It would be naive to think it. The fact russians didn't say anything about John Kennedy murder, means we can be sure 100% there wasn't any conspiracy to kill JFK?" seems patently absurd.
The Russians weren't there to see Kennedy shot. They were in a position to observe the moon landings- at least to track the radio transmissions.
All you are doing is adding to the number of people who would have had to be "in on the conspiracy". It's unrealistic to think it would have been kept secret all this time; adding more people "in the know" just makes it less plausible.
This picture:
http://xoomer.alice.it/911_subito/studio3.jpg
shows glowing metal from the ruins of the North Tower of WTC, 16 days after 11.09.2001.
The metal's colour denote a temperature ranging 845 - 1000°C. What heated the metal to such temperature?
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: maff on 15/07/2007 20:16:39
Can I add to this debate by discussing the Space Shuttle. The Shuttle is a very versatile piece of equipment, highly manouvarable within Earth orbit, it can seek out and repair any orbitting satalite. When the NASA Apollo missions first went to the moon, firsty they orbitted the Earth then at the critical time fired a rocket which took them out of orbit and on a trajectory that took them to the moon. Can I ask why the Shuttle being so much more advanced has never undertaken such an ordeal?
Ask NASA why the Shuttle has never been to the moon?
..maff
The space shuttle could if required reach the moon and return and all it would need to do so is use some of its cargo space as fuel storage .However the shuttle is not designed to travel beyond the earths magnetisphere. If it were to travel beyond the magnetisphere the astronauts and equiptment in the shuttle could be bit by large levels of cosmic paticle's and radiation significatly reducing the lifespan of the astronauats and the shuttle.
So how did the Apollo missions avoid the cosmic particles?
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: ukmicky on 15/07/2007 21:13:01
Can I add to this debate by discussing the Space Shuttle. The Shuttle is a very versatile piece of equipment, highly manouvarable within Earth orbit, it can seek out and repair any orbitting satalite. When the NASA Apollo missions first went to the moon, firsty they orbitted the Earth then at the critical time fired a rocket which took them out of orbit and on a trajectory that took them to the moon. Can I ask why the Shuttle being so much more advanced has never undertaken such an ordeal?
Ask NASA why the Shuttle has never been to the moon?
..maff
The space shuttle could if required reach the moon and return and all it would need to do so is use some of its cargo space as fuel storage .However the shuttle is not designed to travel beyond the earths magnetisphere. If it were to travel beyond the magnetisphere the astronauts and equiptment in the shuttle could be bit by large levels of cosmic paticle's and radiation significatly reducing the lifespan of the astronauats and the shuttle.
So how did the Apollo missions avoid the cosmic particles?


They didnt , at the time they were just a theory. It wasnt until the astronauts reported that they were seeing flashes when they closed their eyes that someone realised what was causing them.

When they then looked at thier helmets under a electron microsocpe they saw the hole's they made as they passed through. pic below

 [ Invalid Attachment ]
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: another_someone on 16/07/2007 01:52:17
Maybe not even Apollo 13 mission was really equipped/prepared to land on the Moon, and only a few people knew it (not the astronauts), and someone intentionally sabotated the mission in order to avoid a bad impression to the world. Why that stupid order from the mission control to mix the liquified oxygen in the cylinders? That was the cause of the explosion. Just an accident?

Are you saying that you think that the Apollo 13 astronauts may have erroneously believed that the astronauts of Apollo 11 and Apollo 12 reached the moon, while despite the close nit community that is the world the astronouts live in (one of the crew of Apollo 13 was backup for Apollo 11), none of the crew of Apollo 11 or Apollo 12 enlightened the crew of Apollo 13 that they would never get to the moon?

In any case, why sabotage only Apollo 13, and not any of the other 5 Apollo missions that claim to have successfully landed on the moon after the Apollo 11 mission.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: lightarrow on 16/07/2007 08:15:09
Maybe not even Apollo 13 mission was really equipped/prepared to land on the Moon, and only a few people knew it (not the astronauts), and someone intentionally sabotated the mission in order to avoid a bad impression to the world. Why that stupid order from the mission control to mix the liquified oxygen in the cylinders? That was the cause of the explosion. Just an accident?

Are you saying that you think that the Apollo 13 astronauts may have erroneously believed that the astronauts of Apollo 11 and Apollo 12 reached the moon, while despite the close nit community that is the world the astronouts live in (one of the crew of Apollo 13 was backup for Apollo 11), none of the crew of Apollo 11 or Apollo 12 enlightened the crew of Apollo 13 that they would never get to the moon?

In any case, why sabotage only Apollo 13, and not any of the other 5 Apollo missions that claim to have successfully landed on the moon after the Apollo 11 mission.
Before Apollo 13, only Apollo 11 and Apollo 12 missions claimed to have landed on the Moon. Apollo 14 mission started 9 months after Apollo 13, so they could have had the time to prepare a Real Moon landing.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: another_someone on 16/07/2007 10:01:57
Before Apollo 13, only Apollo 11 and Apollo 12 missions claimed to have landed on the Moon. Apollo 14 mission started 9 months after Apollo 13, so they could have had the time to prepare a Real Moon landing.

That, at very least, means that one would have to acknowledge that the statement "We never landed on the moon" is incorrect, and at most, the claim is only that Apollo 11 never landed on the moon.

Nonetheless, I think it improbable that the astronauts on Apollo 13, one of whom was a backup astronaut for Apollo 11, were not aware of the success or failure of the preceding missions (some of which returned data that allowed improvements to future missions).
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: lightarrow on 16/07/2007 15:35:15
Before Apollo 13, only Apollo 11 and Apollo 12 missions claimed to have landed on the Moon. Apollo 14 mission started 9 months after Apollo 13, so they could have had the time to prepare a Real Moon landing.
That, at very least, means that one would have to acknowledge that the statement "We never landed on the moon" is incorrect, and at most, the claim is only that Apollo 11 never landed on the moon.
And Apollo 12.
Quote
Nonetheless, I think it improbable that the astronauts on Apollo 13, one of whom was a backup astronaut for Apollo 11, were not aware of the success or failure of the preceding missions (some of which returned data that allowed improvements to future missions).
Maybe only the astronaut you have cited, was aware of that.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/07/2007 20:34:42
I may be missing something here. Does anyone understand lightarrow's post
"Quote from: Bored chemist on 15/07/2007 15:03:55
To compare the apolo missions with the JFK death like this
"It seems to me that these "expositions" of "hoax" of any kind, from a nation against another, are not so usual. Does it mean that "hoaxes" of any kind don't happen? It would be naive to think it. The fact russians didn't say anything about John Kennedy murder, means we can be sure 100% there wasn't any conspiracy to kill JFK?" seems patently absurd.
The Russians weren't there to see Kennedy shot. They were in a position to observe the moon landings- at least to track the radio transmissions.
All you are doing is adding to the number of people who would have had to be "in on the conspiracy". It's unrealistic to think it would have been kept secret all this time; adding more people "in the know" just makes it less plausible.

This picture:
http://xoomer.alice.it/911_subito/studio3.jpg
shows glowing metal from the ruins of the North Tower of WTC, 16 days after 11.09.2001.
The metal's colour denote a temperature ranging 845 - 1000°C. What heated the metal to such temperature?"
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: lightarrow on 17/07/2007 18:40:24
I may be missing something here. Does anyone understand lightarrow's post
"Quote from: Bored chemist on 15/07/2007 15:03:55
To compare the apolo missions with the JFK death like this
"It seems to me that these "expositions" of "hoax" of any kind, from a nation against another, are not so usual. Does it mean that "hoaxes" of any kind don't happen? It would be naive to think it. The fact russians didn't say anything about John Kennedy murder, means we can be sure 100% there wasn't any conspiracy to kill JFK?" seems patently absurd.
The Russians weren't there to see Kennedy shot. They were in a position to observe the moon landings- at least to track the radio transmissions.
All you are doing is adding to the number of people who would have had to be "in on the conspiracy". It's unrealistic to think it would have been kept secret all this time; adding more people "in the know" just makes it less plausible.

This picture:
http://xoomer.alice.it/911_subito/studio3.jpg
shows glowing metal from the ruins of the North Tower of WTC, 16 days after 11.09.2001.
The metal's colour denote a temperature ranging 845 - 1000°C. What heated the metal to such temperature?"
Yes, I can become cryptic sometimes. I often prefer to go directly to a question, instead of making a lot of reasonings. The relation from the two things is: do American government or CIA or others high-level american institutions always say the truth? Let's take WTC collapse. What was its real origin? There are no mysteries about it? If we can have the doubt the someone could have put explosive charges on the buildings and the government or CIA ecc have covered it, then we can, with much more reasons, have a lot of doubts on many other claims, as to have gone to the Moon with Apollo 11.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/07/2007 19:10:34
I know very few people who seriously doubt that the wtc collapse was due to some **** crashing an aircraft full of fuel into it.
I also know no people who can reliably judge colour temperature from a video recording without a lot of complex calibration. I also know that a burning candle-wax flame can reach well over 1000C.
As far as I'm aware there are no real questions about the WTC collapse and no real questions about the manned moon missions.
On the related matter of do governments lie?- Yes they certainly do.
For example the combined "sexed up dossier" that led to the war in Iraq (anyone seen any WMDs?) was certainly cooked up by those high up in the government and/ or security services. It was found out as nonsense in a matter of weeks.
Govenments are quite good at lying; they are really bad at getting away with it. The idea that they got away with faking the moon landings (and that the Russians are "in on it" or missed their biggest propaganda oportunity for decades) is, at least in my opinion, unrealistic.
All the Russians needed to say was something like "we have a radio telescope like our peace-loving friends at Jodrell bank in the UK. Normally we use it for looking at the cosmos. Today we pointed it at the moon, and guess what- there's no signal from the Americans because they aren't there."
They didn't need to admit to any military stuff at all and the farce it would have made of America would have been priceless.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: lightarrow on 17/07/2007 20:21:54
I know very few people who seriously doubt that the wtc collapse was due to some **** crashing an aircraft full of fuel into it.
These skyscrapers didn't collapse:
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/highrisefires.html
And what about WTC building 7? Why did it collapse? It was just hit in small parts from the collapsing towers and there was a little fire inside. Why did it (as the towers) collapse in a perfect vertical line? Why during its collapse the smoke "puffs" comes out of the windows from down up and not the opposite?
Quote
I also know no people who can reliably judge colour temperature from a video recording without a lot of complex calibration. I also know that a burning candle-wax flame can reach well over 1000C.
When there is enough oxygen for a complete cobustion, not the case of the WTC fire (black smoke).
Quote
As far as I'm aware there are no real questions about the WTC collapse and no real questions about the manned moon missions.
On the related matter of do governments lie?- Yes they certainly do.
For example the combined "sexed up dossier" that led to the war in Iraq (anyone seen any WMDs?) was certainly cooked up by those high up in the government and/ or security services. It was found out as nonsense in a matter of weeks.
Govenments are quite good at lying; they are really bad at getting away with it. The idea that they got away with faking the moon landings (and that the Russians are "in on it" or missed their biggest propaganda oportunity for decades) is, at least in my opinion, unrealistic.
All the Russians needed to say was something like "we have a radio telescope like our peace-loving friends at Jodrell bank in the UK. Normally we use it for looking at the cosmos. Today we pointed it at the moon, and guess what- there's no signal from the Americans because they aren't there.
They could have launched signals from outside the Moon.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: another_someone on 17/07/2007 20:30:02
Govenments are quite good at lying; they are really bad at getting away with it.

This is a nonsense statement.  Lies that governments get away with are the one's you don't know about, so how can you possibly judge how good or bad they are at getting away with lies.  You can certainly say they have been caught out with lots of misinformation, and a good few lies (some other cases which we cannot show if it is a lie or just blatant stupidity), but there is absolutely no way you can say how many lies they have got away with.

The idea that they got away with faking the moon landings (and that the Russians are "in on it" or missed their biggest propaganda oportunity for decades) is, at least in my opinion, unrealistic.
All the Russians needed to say was something like "we have a radio telescope like our peace-loving friends at Jodrell bank in the UK. Normally we use it for looking at the cosmos. Today we pointed it at the moon, and guess what- there's no signal from the Americans because they aren't there."

I think it very unlikely that the Russians would taken such an overt action on the matter.  If they were going to act at all, then they would probably have someone else release the information on their behalf, without tracing its origin.

Nonetheless, I do agree, that for any lie to succeed, its primary requirement is that the number of people who know it is a lie must be absolutely minimal; and all the suggestions so far is for a conspiracy of such massive proportions as to make it wholly untennable.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: maff on 17/07/2007 21:04:49
You could quite easily keep the people who know about the hoax to a minimum. That would be the Astronauts, the folk in Groomlake where the filming was done who are sworn to secrecy anyway and a couple in the control room. People in the control room respond to what they see and hear. You feed them data they want to see and they'll respond positive. Time delay for the transmissions is easy, the Lunar spacecraft was in orbit all the time it was supposed to be on the moon. Bounce the signal around a few Earth stations then to the control room and you've cracked it.
Or just build an electronic delay device for that matter.
The Hubble is capable of seeing the stuff left on the Moon but do they show us? - No.
They would have had egg on their face if Kennedy's promise of putting a man on the moon before the end of the decade hadn't materialized especially after letting the Ruskies win the first round.
No ISO 400 film can survive the REMS in direct sunlight on the Moon - thats a fact. No glass can survive going into direct sunlight on the Moon of 200 degrees then be subject to a 400 degree temp change going into the shade. Thats the helmets and camera lenses smashed. Jesus you can't give a Pyrex dish 80 degrees instant temp variation without shattering it here on Earth never mind 400 degrees.
It's absolute utter hogwash. Use your loaf.
..maff
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: another_someone on 17/07/2007 22:55:25
You could quite easily keep the people who know about the hoax to a minimum. That would be the Astronauts, the folk in Groomlake where the filming was done who are sworn to secrecy anyway and a couple in the control room.

You are missing all the people responsible for creating the sophisticated hardware for it all.

What about the families of these people.  People who are trained in intelligence may be good at lying to their families, but these people were not from the intelligence community, and did not necessarily have the psyche to be able to lie to their waves and family about their experiences.

Personally, if I was going to generate such an illusion, I would not have had anyone leave the Earth at all - it just creates complexities and risks.  So why have astronauts involved at all?

Ofcourse, if we had no space missions, then we would never have had the Apollo 13 incident.

No ISO 400 film can survive the REMS in direct sunlight on the Moon - thats a fact.

So you use ISO 25 film, and add ND filters as needed - it is not rocket science<g>.

No glass can survive going into direct sunlight on the Moon of 200 degrees then be subject to a 400 degree temp change going into the shade.

http://www.pgo-online.com/intl/katalog/borofloat.html
Quote
BOROFLOAT® 33
Borosilicate Glass
Special Properties
  • High temperature load capacity:
    • - up to 450°C permanent load
      - up to 500°C temporarily (< 10h)
  • Low thermal coefficient of expansion
  • Thermal coefficient matches silicon (anodic bonding)
  • High thermal shock resistance
  • Clear practically colorless appearance
  • Low fluorescence
  • High UV-Transmission
  • High chemical resistance against acids, bases and organic substances
  • Low alkali content in the glass composition
  • Low specific weight
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: maff on 17/07/2007 23:34:30
You could quite easily keep the people who know about the hoax to a minimum. That would be the Astronauts, the folk in Groomlake where the filming was done who are sworn to secrecy anyway and a couple in the control room.

You are missing all the people responsible for creating the sophisticated hardware for it all.

What about the families of these people.  People who are trained in intelligence may be good at lying to their families, but these people were not from the intelligence community, and did not necessarily have the psyche to be able to lie to their waves and family about their experiences.

Personally, if I was going to generate such an illusion, I would not have had anyone leave the Earth at all - it just creates complexities and risks.  So why have astronauts involved at all?

Ofcourse, if we had no space missions, then we would never have had the Apollo 13 incident.

No ISO 400 film can survive the REMS in direct sunlight on the Moon - thats a fact.

So you use ISO 25 film, and add ND filters as needed - it is not rocket science<g>.

No glass can survive going into direct sunlight on the Moon of 200 degrees then be subject to a 400 degree temp change going into the shade.

http://www.pgo-online.com/intl/katalog/borofloat.html
Quote
BOROFLOAT® 33
Borosilicate Glass
Special Properties
  • High temperature load capacity:
    • - up to 450°C permanent load
      - up to 500°C temporarily (< 10h)
  • Low thermal coefficient of expansion
  • Thermal coefficient matches silicon (anodic bonding)
  • High thermal shock resistance
  • Clear practically colorless appearance
  • Low fluorescence
  • High UV-Transmission
  • High chemical resistance against acids, bases and organic substances
  • Low alkali content in the glass composition
  • Low specific weight

They used ISO 400-bog standard. Cannot possibly withstand the microwave radiation on the Moon. If you don't believe this stick your ISO 400 film on defrost in a microwave oven -about the same as the Moon, then try to develop it.
Your having a laugh buddy.
The glass in the camera's they used was bog standard lens glass - again your having a laugh buddy.
Cannot withstand the temp variation on the moon - no possible and variable way of doing so.
Don't try and kid us with modern glass specs, it don't work
I know - your doing it for a laugh.
..maff
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: another_someone on 18/07/2007 00:18:04
They used ISO 400-bog standard. Cannot possibly withstand the microwave radiation on the Moon. If you don't believe this stick your ISO 400 film on defrost in a microwave oven -about the same as the Moon, then try to develop it.

Where do you get these microwaves powers from?

It you put your hand in a microwave oven, it would not do it much good either?

In fact, since they were using modified Hasselblad 500EL cameras, with solid metal bodies, I doubt that much microwave would have reached the film, even if it was in a microwave filled environment.

The film they were using was 70mm (twice the standard 35mm that we would normally use).

There was nothing bog standard about the camera or the film, although it was based on a bog standard camera, if you would ever consider a Hasselblad to be bog standard (I wish I could afford something like that as bog standard).

Your having a laugh buddy.
The glass in the camera's they used was bog standard lens glass - again your having a laugh buddy.
Cannot withstand the temp variation on the moon - no possible and variable way of doing so.
Don't try and kid us with modern glass specs, it don't work
I know - your doing it for a laugh.
..maff

OK - I was trying to work out what it was you were exactly referring to.

Firstly, the temperature differences on the moon are no different from temperature differences in space, so that in the wider context, that same temperature differences have to be tolerated in space too.

Secondly, the temperatures you are talking about are due to radiation, and not convection or conduction.  As such, although you are correct that if left indefinitely in that environment, the temperatures will reach equilibrium at those temperatures, but it will be a very slow process to do so (the camera bodies will not give off much radiation, and so will take a very long time to cool down to those temperatures).

In any case, as I said above, the cameras were modified, and simply painting them white would have helped protect against radiation (although what I have seen of cameras purporting to be replicas of said cameras, they were not white, so I can only imagine that they felt radiation (light and infra-red) was not considered such a serious problem - although it seems that the data camera was painted silver for just such a reason.

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fhistory.nasa.gov%2Falsj%2Fa11%2Fa11-hass2.jpg&hash=b861aaca02672e339a7a842da584001b)

http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11-hass.html
Quote
The Data Camera, like the other two 500ELs, was a modified standard 500EL camera but differed from the others in several ways:

(1) The Data Camera was fitted with a so-called Reseau plate. The Reseau plate was made of glass and was fitted to the back of the camera body, extremely close to the film plane. The plate was engraved with a number of crosses to form a grid. The intersections were 10 mm apart and accurately calibrated to a tolerance of 0.002 mm. Except for the larger central cross, each of the four arms on a cross was 1 mm long and 0.02 mm wide. The crosses are recorded on every exposed frame and provided a means of determining angular distances between objects in the field-of-view.

(2) The Data Camera was fitted with a new Zeiss lens, a Biogon f-5.6/60 mm, specially designed for NASA, which later became available commercially. Careful calibration tests were performed with the lens fitted in the camera in order to ensure high-quality, low-distortion images. Furthermore, the lens of the camera was fitted with a polarizing filter which could easily be detached.

(3) The Data Camera was given a silver finish to make it more resistant to thermal variations that ranged from full Sun to full shadow helping maintain a more uniform internal temperature. The two magazines carried along with the Data Camera also had silver finishes. Each was fitted with a tether ring so that a cord could be attached when the Lunar Module Pilot lowered the mated magazine and camera from the lunar module to the Commander standing on the lunar surface. The exposed magazines were hoisted the same way.

(4) The Data Camera was modified to prevent accumulation of static electricity. When film is wound in a camera, static electricity is generated on the film surface. Normally, this electricity is dispersed by the metal rims and rollers that guide the film, and by the humidity of the air. In a camera fitted with a Reseau plate, however, the film is guided by the raised edges of the plate. As glass is a non-conductor, the electric charge that builds up at the glass surface can become so heavy that sparks can occur between plate and film - especially if the camera is used in a very dry environment or in vacuum. Sparks cause unpleasant patterns to appear on the film and can be a hazard if the camera is used in an atmosphere of pure oxygen. To conduct the static electricity away from the Reseau plate in the Data Camera, the side of the plate facing the film is coated with an extremely thin conductive layer which is led to the metallic parts of the camera body by two contact springs. Contact is effected by two projecting silver deposits on the conductive layer. The Reseau plate, or register glass, is not a new development in photography. What is most remarkable, however, is that the group of Hasselblad staff working on NASA camera projects in collaboration with Carl Zeiss was successful in applying the idea to a small camera - like the Hasselblad 500EL Data Camera. This camera is not only useful in space photography, it is particularly suitable for all kinds of aerial photography. The special cameras produced in the past for aerial photography were large and intended for a large negative-format - frequently meaning high prices. The Hasselblad 500EL Data Camera with its Reseau plate produced a small and comparatively low-cost camera which gave satisfactory results in aerial photographic work.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: maff on 18/07/2007 00:46:54
I suggest you read up on the amount of Solar radiation on the Moon. I also suggest you read up on the amount of radiation the Space Shuttle can withstand while it is within the protective belts known as Van Allen. If the Space Shuttle ever left the protection of those belts it would face dire consequences and NASA simply won't allow it.
Let me tell you something. If you stood on the Moon in direct sunlight you wouldn't live to tell the tale buddy.
Do you think that the NASA spacesuit they had on, through a little reflective colouring and a controlled pressure could stop radiation that will microwave you alive?
Behave sunshine.
You can be burned to hell in 20 minutes here on Earth in the hottest climate and thats with the atmosphere protecting you. The Moon has hundreds of times more microwave, untraviolet, gamma and alpha particles attacking you than here on earth with no atmosphere to protect you. You wouldn't last 5 minutes before you would be cremated and all your suit totally superheated like an oven.
Who are you trying to kid my friend?
You need to stop posting written data and specs then think about what your implying with suggestions of going to the Moon.
..maff
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: another_someone on 18/07/2007 01:11:10
I suggest you read up on the amount of Solar radiation on the Moon. I also suggest you read up on the amount of radiation the Space Shuttle can withstand while it is within the protective belts known as Van Allen. If the Space Shuttle ever left the protection of those belts it would face dire consequences and NASA simply won't allow it.


Are you suggesting that no space vehicle has ever left the protection of the Van Allen belts?

In any case, what problems exist with regard to Van Allen belts is more so about passing through the belts rather than what is beyond them.  In any case, the Van Allen belts only effect charged particles, and make zero difference to electromagnetic radiation.

Do you think that the NASA spacesuit they had on, through a little reflective colouring and a controlled pressure could stop radiation that will microwave you alive?

I am still waiting for you to provide some data to support this suggestion?

In fact, even the Earth's atmosphere provides very little protection against microwave radiation, which is why we can actually measure the cosmic background microwave radiation here on Earth (through the atmosphere), and do lots of other radio astronomy in the microwave region.  If there were such intense natural microwave radiation coming in, then all our radio telescopes would be blinded by it (and we would be fried by it here on Earth).

BTW, it is only a thin conductive coating and metal grill that protects you from the microwaves within a microwave oven - it is sufficient.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Soul Surfer on 18/07/2007 11:38:45
Maff  you are talking total rubbish.  As you always do.  so much rubbish that it is just not worth the effort of pointing this out to you in detail.  Your entire aim is to start and create arguments about fatuous and irrelevant subjects.  I would reccommend other users to ignore it and put some effort into more interesting and relevant topics.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: maff on 18/07/2007 16:09:37
Maff  you are talking total rubbish.  As you always do.  so much rubbish that it is just not worth the effort of pointing this out to you in detail.  Your entire aim is to start and create arguments about fatuous and irrelevant subjects.  I would reccommend other users to ignore it and put some effort into more interesting and relevant topics.

Ok God.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/07/2007 20:11:52
The earth's atmosphere is fairly transparent to microwaves- a lot of radioastronomy is done with them. The microwave radiation levels on the moon are, therfore, comparable with those on earth.
Similarly the atmosphere is fairly transparent to visible radiation so the light levels here (whereI can use 400 ASA film without any problems) are not that different from those on the moon. The UV levels are much higher but UV filters are easy to make (a piece of glass wil do).
The problem with sudden heating and cooling is a bit of a red herring too. The stuff is all insulated by a good vacuum so there's not much to change the temperature rapidly.

The given reason for the WTC collapsed compared to the lots of skyscrapers that stand up to fires is
1 perfectly well known
2 not very complicated
3 that the crash blasted the asbestos fire proofing off the structural steelwork and also dammaged other fire retarding structures. Drywall (gypsum sheet or plasterboard on this side of the pond) was not really chosen for impact resistance.
If there is really any call for a yet another thread on the web discussing the conspiracy theories about WTC then start one rather than muddling this one.

Like I said, I don't know anyone who believes the conspiracies.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: lightarrow on 19/07/2007 12:55:23
The given reason for the WTC collapsed compared to the lots of skyscrapers that stand up to fires is
1 perfectly well known
2 not very complicated
3 that the crash blasted the asbestos fire proofing off the structural steelwork and also dammaged other fire retarding structures. Drywall (gypsum sheet or plasterboard on this side of the pond) was not really chosen for impact resistance.
And do you think Al Quaeda knew this? I don't think so. But CIA (or FBI or both) did. They knew there would have been such an attack, and they put charges on the buildings to be sure of the collapse and exploit that to justify the subsequent wars, especially the war against Iraq, since the American government weren't able to convince anyone about the presence of mass-destruction weapons there.
Quote
Like I said, I don't know anyone who believes the conspiracies.
Excepting me, you mean?
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/07/2007 19:14:53
I think AQ may have known it- OBL is in the building trade, but I think it's more likely they just got lucky. Even if the buildings had stood I think the justification for the war would have been just as good (or bad) so the CIA (or...) wouldn't have needed to plant charges. Just the people on the aircraft would have been enough victims to provoke outrage (quite rightly) and the desire for revenge (less helpfully). The folks who died in the builings were, I think, pretty much a bonus for AQ.

"Like I said, I don't know anyone who believes the conspiracies.

Excepting me, you mean?"
I don't actually know you do I? For all I know you are just posting this as a joke.
For all anyone else reading this knows we might be the same person posting under 2 names just to try to gain publicity for the conspiracy. Not only that, but this is still in the wrong thread.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: G-1 Theory on 19/07/2007 19:25:35
To the poster BP

Quote BP;  Did we land on the Moon?

NO  “WE”  did not, but a few good Astronauts did!

Of course we landed on the Moon!

Ed

Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: lightarrow on 20/07/2007 13:37:55
To the poster BP
Quote BP;  Did we land on the Moon?
NO  “WE”  did not, but a few good Astronauts did!
Of course we landed on the Moon!
Yes, not before Apollo 14, however.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: om on 23/07/2007 05:25:54
To the poster BP

Quote BP;  Did we land on the Moon?

NO  ?WE?  did not, but a few good Astronauts did!

Of course we landed on the Moon!

Ed


You are right, Ed  Astronauts landed on the Moon and returned samples that provided totally unexpected information on the Sun.

 I analyzed some of those Moon samples.

We found that material coming from the surface of the Sun is highly enriched in the lightweight atoms (isotopes) of each element.  Here are the results:

http://www.omatumr.com/Data/1983Data.htm

Here is the elemental composition of the surface of the Sun:

http://www.omatumr.com/images/Fig1.htm

After correcting the surface composition for the mass-separation seen across isotopes of solar-wind implanted elements in the Moon, this is the unexpected composition of the interior of the Sun:

http://www.omatumr.com/images/Fig3.htm

The surface of the Sun is 91% Hydrogen and 9% Helium because those are the lightest and the next lightest elements, and the Sun selectively moves lightweight atoms to its surface .

Inside the Sun, the most abundant elements are the same ones that are most abundant in rocky planets and ordinary meteorites:

Iron, Oxygen, Silicon, Nickel and Sulfur

NASA did not fake the Moon landing, because the results of analysis on the Moon sample disproved one of NASA's most cherished illusions:

The Sun and all the other stars are balls of Hydrogen and Helium with only traces of heavier elements.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
www.omatumr.com

Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: another_someone on 23/07/2007 07:36:49
Welcome to the forum, Oliver.  I shall look at your links when I have a few moments, but it sounds like you will lot of interesting stuff to contribute to the forum, so I hope we shall see you around a while.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: lightarrow on 23/07/2007 12:57:05
To the poster BP

Quote BP;  Did we land on the Moon?

NO  ?WE?  did not, but a few good Astronauts did!

Of course we landed on the Moon!

Ed


You are right, Ed  Astronauts landed on the Moon and returned samples that provided totally unexpected information on the Sun.

 I analyzed some of those Moon samples.
Did you do it before Apollo 14 mission's return?
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/07/2007 19:25:15
Someone asked before why NASA didn't point the hubble 'scope at the moon and take pictures of the debris left behind. Well, the answer is simple. The same peopel who claim the original fil is a fake would say the hubble images were a fake. In the same way I'm afraid that Om's contribution won't help. the claim will be something like "He's only saying that because he's paid to" or"He may have analysed some rocks but they were fakes." (of course the bit about the expected nature of the sun was a clever fake too- double bluff)
For many questions and sources of information like these the matter is more one of theology than science. "Everything you say that proves the point is a fake" works perfectly- just like "proof denies faith".
However, would someone please tell me who put the retroreflectors on the moon if nobody went there and how did they fake the radio signals that the Russians picked up? (Or roughly as difficult, how did they persuade the Russians to keep quiet?)
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: lightarrow on 23/07/2007 20:24:47
Someone asked before why NASA didn't point the hubble 'scope at the moon and take pictures of the debris left behind. Well, the answer is simple. The same peopel who claim the original fil is a fake would say the hubble images were a fake. In the same way I'm afraid that Om's contribution won't help. the claim will be something like "He's only saying that because he's paid to" or"He may have analysed some rocks but they were fakes." (of course the bit about the expected nature of the sun was a clever fake too- double bluff)
For many questions and sources of information like these the matter is more one of theology than science. "Everything you say that proves the point is a fake" works perfectly- just like "proof denies faith".
However, would someone please tell me who put the retroreflectors on the moon if nobody went there and how did they fake the radio signals that the Russians picked up? (Or roughly as difficult, how did they persuade the Russians to keep quiet?)
If your questions were asked to me, as I wrote, I think they landed on the Moon, but not in the first and second mission as they claimed.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: om on 24/07/2007 00:10:28
Quote
Did you do it before Apollo 14 mission's return?

Good question, Lightarrow.

I did not receive Moon samples until 1971, after becoming suspicious about a report that strange nuclear reactions in the Moon produced the light isotopes (atoms) of Krypton.

Our analysis revealed mass separated isotopes of Krypton and other elements coming from the Sun, as shown here for Krypton and Xenon:

www.omatumr.com/Data/1972Data1.htm (http://www.omatumr.com/Data/1972Data1.htm)

Isotope data from samples returned by earlier missions showed the same mass separation of isotopes in material from the Sun.

For example, isotope data from the 1969 Apollo 11 mission showed a common mass fractionation across the isotopes of Neon and Xenon:

"Mass fractionation and isotope anomalies in Neon and Xenon," Nature 227 (1970) 1113-1116

www.nature.com/nature/journal/v227/n5263/abs/2271113a0.html  (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v227/n5263/abs/2271113a0.html)

With kind regards,
Oliver
www.omatumr.com

Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: lightarrow on 24/07/2007 19:50:51
Quote
Did you do it before Apollo 14 mission's return?

Good question, Lightarrow.

I did not receive Moon samples until 1971, after becoming suspicious about a report that strange nuclear reactions in the Moon produced the light isotopes (atoms) of Krypton.

Our analysis revealed mass separated isotopes of Krypton and other elements coming from the Sun, as shown here for Krypton and Xenon:

www.omatumr.com/Data/1972Data1.htm (http://www.omatumr.com/Data/1972Data1.htm)

Isotope data from samples returned by earlier missions showed the same mass separation of isotopes in material from the Sun.

For example, isotope data from the 1969 Apollo 11 mission showed a common mass fractionation across the isotopes of Neon and Xenon:

"Mass fractionation and isotope anomalies in Neon and Xenon," Nature 227 (1970) 1113-1116

www.nature.com/nature/journal/v227/n5263/abs/2271113a0.html  (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v227/n5263/abs/2271113a0.html)

With kind regards,
Oliver
www.omatumr.com



What exactly is "mass fractionation"?
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: om on 24/07/2007 21:07:21
Hi lightarrow,

Mass fractionation means sorted by mass.

In diffusive mass fractionation, each stage* enriches the abundance of the lighter atoms of mass L relative to that of the the heavier atoms of mass H by a factor, f, where f equals the square root of H/L.

f =(H/L)^0.5

Each stage of mass fractionation enriches the abundance of Xe-130 relative to that of Xe-131 by a factor,

f = (131/130)^0.5 = (1.0076923)^0.5 = 1.0038388 = 0.388388%

To enrich Xe-130 relative to Xe-131 by 3.5% -- as is observed in the Sun -- requires nine (9) stages of mass fractionation.

(131/130)^4.5 = 1.035

During World War II, U-235 was separated from U-238 by diffusion.  The plants in Oak Ridge, Tennessee had over 100 theoretical stages of mass separation.

The Sun, by comparison, has only about nine (9) theoretical stages of mass separation.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
www.omatumr.com

*For an example of one theoretical stage of mass fraction, imagine a balloon filled with equal number of atoms of He-4 and Ar-36.

Inside the balloon, He-4/Ar-36 = 1.00

A pin-hole in the balloon would cause one theoretical stage of mass fractionation.  The gas that would start leaking out of the hole would be enriched in Helium by a factor, f

f = (36/4)^0.5 = 9^0.5 = 3

So leaking from the balloon, He-4/Ar-36 = 3 x 1.00 = 3.00

ASSIGNMENT:  By what factor (f) would nine (9) theoretical stages of mass fractionation increase the Hydrogen/Iron ratio at the surface of the Sun?
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: om on 26/07/2007 02:18:10
ANSWER: Nine (9) theoretical stages of mass fractionation increase the Hydrogen/Iron ratio at the surface of the Sun by a factor, f, where

f = (56/1)^4.5 =

f = 73,600,000

So inside the bulk Sun, the Hydrogen/Iron ratio -- the (H/Fe) ratio is

(H/Fe)sun = [(H/Fe)photosphere]/73,600,000

These two figures show how mass separation increases light elements in the photosphere, making the surface of the Sun look like a ball of Hydrogen and Helium:

a.) Photosphere abundances
www.omatumr.com/images/Fig1.htm (http://www.omatumr.com/images/Fig1.htm)

b.) Bulk Sun abundances
http://www.omatumr.com/images/Fig3.htm (http://www.omatumr.com/images/Fig3.htm)

Iron, Oxygen, Silicon, Nickel and Sulfur are the most abundant element in the Sun, in the Earth, and in ordinary meteorites.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
www.omatumr.com
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: lightarrow on 26/07/2007 12:33:20
Thank you, Oliver.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Cosmored on 15/12/2007 21:15:53
There's lots of evidence that they didn't go to the moon.  Look at this.



At the 2 minute 35 second mark of the video the flag is still. When the astronaut goes past it, it starts to move.

There's an analysis of it here at the 3 minute 5 second mark.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: lyner on 15/12/2007 21:57:29
Did any of the 'unbelievers' actually see and follow the action as it happened when it happened?
I have been watching science fiction films before and since the Moon Landings. The Hollywood versions are always full of actual holes. I watched the Moon Landings in the company of about a dozen highly competent research engineers. Nothing about the 'show' was flaky.
Could just one of you unbelievers just explain how the radio reception at stations around the Earth fitted the scenario if
1. The Apollo craft were in orbit around the Earth.
2. The Apollo craft were in orbit around the Moon.
3. The mission never left the Earth?

In all other cases than the genuine one, the RUSSIANS (who really wanted it to be a fake) would have spotted that anomaly and publicised it.
Go on - answer that one.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Cosmored on 15/12/2007 22:28:33
Quote
In all other cases than the genuine one, the RUSSIANS (who really wanted it to be a fake) would have spotted that anomaly and publicised it.
Go on - answer that one.
You're just assuming what we read in the newspapers reflects what's really happening.

Have you read Chomsky's analysis of the cold war?

http://www.zmag.org/Chomsky/dd/dd-c01-s01.html
http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/sam/sam-3-1.html

This can't be ruled out.
http://www.nardwuar.com/vs/bill_kaysing/index.html
(excerpt)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, why did they keep faking the Apollo flights, I still don't understand. Did the Soviet Union know it was faked? Why did they keep shut up if they knew it was faked? 'Cause a lot of people would think they kept the moon race going to prove the U.S. was better than the Soviet Union. If the Soviet Union knew, why did they let the U.S. get away with this?
Well, I'll tell you - at the highest levels there is a coalition between governments. In other words, the Soviets said, if you won't tell on us - and they faked most of their space exploration flights - we won't tell on you. It's as simple as that. See, what Apollo is, is the beginning of the end of the ability of the government to hoodwink and bamboozle and manipulate the people. More and more people are becoming aware in the U.S. that the government is totally and completely public enemy number one.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Cosmored on 15/12/2007 22:31:20
Here's some more evidence that they didn't go to the moon.  Why don't you post something that you consider to be conclusive proof that they went and we can discuss whether it's really proof.

There's a noticeable difference in the body movements in these two clips.


http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11v.1101330.rm

What I hypothesize is that only slow-motion was used in Apollo 11. Later, they improved thier methods of simulating lunar gravity and started using a combination of slow-motion and support wires. The slow-motion in the later missions might not have been exactly half-speed. It might have been sixty five or seventy percent of natural speed. It looked better but it was inconsistent with Apollo 11 footage. The inconsistency is apparent.

At around the 21 minute mark of this video the above footage from Apollo 11 can be seen played at double speed.
http://video.google.es/videoplay?docid=4135126565081757736&q=apollo

It looks just like movement in earth gravity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------

If you look at the acceleration of the object that falls from the astronaut's backpack and the acceleration of the hammer and feather that fall, it's apparent that the there's a difference in the way gravity affects the objects differently.




Evidently the slow-motion speed is different.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------
Here are some videos.





http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=sgID31UpYfA

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5278489814268946247

Here are some articles.
http://www.nardwuar.com/vs/bill_kaysing/
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/moon.htm
http://www.aulis.com/skeleton.html
http://erichufschmid.net/Interview-with-Bart-Sibrel.html
http://www.geocities.com/apollotruth/


The astronauts look pretty nervous at the press conference.


Their behavior look pretty suspicious here too. It begins in the second half of the video.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2265515730495966561

Some people say the moon rocks prove we went to the moon.
There are a lot of plausible alternative scenarios for the moon rocks. All we have are documents that say they are real. If we aren't geologists in a laboratory looking at the rocks, we have no way of verifying that what we read is reflects reality.
There may be a lot of scientists who have sold out and are lying about the rocks and we only read what they say.
If there is video evidence that some of the footage was faked, it was probably all faked. Video evidence trumps what some documents or journals say as people can write lies.
Here are some possible scenarios for the rocks.
http://www.nardwuar.com/vs/bill_kaysing/index.html
(excerpt)
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------
Another point here is that the moon rocks were fake. Are the moon rocks real?
No, they are not real. NASA has a well-developed ceramics laboratory with high-temperature ovens-
That's another way NASA could prove they went to the moon, 'cause they brought back these rocks. Interestingly enough, at the University of British Columbia here, David Strangway, the President of U.B.C., was the guy in charge of inspecting the moon rocks.
OK, fine, why don't you call him up and ask him what he thinks about them.
So what happened, the moon rocks were not real?
No, they were manufactured on Earth to look like moon rocks, but since nobody has any moon rocks to compare them with, it's very simple to make up a moon rock and say, hey, this came from the moon.
Well, how would you know it is a moon rock? Like, how do you know it's not a moon rock - how do you know it's a fake?
I had a Seattle geologist who examined moon rocks and he said, "There's no question, Bill, that these rocks were made in a laboratory on Earth."
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------

http://www.erichufschmid.net/MoreInfoForScienceChallenge.html
(excerpt)
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------
9) Moon rocks are in Antarctica?
Barbara Cohen, a researcher from the University of New Mexico, was picking up rocks in Antarctica. She sent them to Houston, Texas for an analysis.
The scientists in Houston discovered that one of the Antarctic rocks closely matched the NASA moon rocks.
The scientists then concluded that one of the rocks from Antarctica was actually from the moon:
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6620370/
How did rocks from the moon get in Antarctica?
NASA and Ms. Cohen want us to believe that a big meteor crashed into the moon a while ago, and pieces of the moon were sent flying into space. A few of those pieces landed in Antarctica.
Take a look at how far away the moon is from the earth. If it were true that rocks were ejected from the moon with such velocity that they could escape the moon's gravity and fly out into space, what are the chances that any of them would survive the fall through the atmosphere and land on tiny Antarctica hundreds of thousands of kilometers away? Furthermore, the rock has to land in a location where humans can find it many years later.
A more sensible explanation is that the NASA moon rocks were rocks from Antarctica.
Therefore, when someone travels to Antarctica and sends rock samples to Houston, Texas for analysis, some of the rocks will closely match the Apollo moon rocks.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: lyner on 16/12/2007 00:36:13
If you don't believe the News and your Government, why should I believe You?
What actual evidence do you have that is more believable than theirs?
I suppose you'll say that TV satellites don't exist and that the Internet is a figment of our imagination too.
Do you really believe what you see on Utube?
Do you know anything about Physics,Astronomy, Cosmology, Geology?
We all got it wrong but your conspiracy theories are all correct?
Grow up.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Cosmored on 16/12/2007 12:10:04
Quote
If you don't believe the News and your Government, why should I believe You?
Lot's of data have been offered as proof that the moon missions were real. It has been said that several countries tracked the craft to and from the moon. It has been said that most geologists agree that the rocks really came from the moon. It has been said that all of the data learned from Apollo have been used by scientists since then, etc. I don't see any reason to believe any of this. It's possible to manufacture bogus data and publish it on a large scale. It's possible for the press and textbooks to lie about what other governments say about Apollo. It's possible that other governments aren't saying what they really believe about Apollo. There are lots of alternative scenarios so none of this data constitutes proof that the moon missions really happened. It's mere evidence that may be proven wrong later.

There are lots of cases of the official version of things being contested by reputable people in the alternative press.

Look at what this report on DU by RAND says.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/docs/b04151999_bt170-99.htm
There were probably a few PH.D's working on it.

This woman has a PH.D.
http://video.google.es/videoplay?docid=-5109486402266517406
She holds the opposite view.

Look at what this person says about "Genetically modified foods".
http://www.projectcensored.org/censored_2007/index.htm#11

Look at this.
http://www.rand.org/commentary/051204FT.html

This woman talks about how a lot of the science community has sold out.
GLOBAL NUCLEAR COVER UP part #1
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3626298989248030643
(around the 30 minute mark)

GLOBAL NUCLEAR COVER UP part #2
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7451332617120640846

The press and the school system is always drumming into us that we defend freedom and democracy in the world.
Look at the truth.
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/

Enter "Death squads" and "Torture" in this search engine.
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/htdig/search.html
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/

There are all kinds of examples of mass dishonesty by the media and the school system in the US. Why should Apollo be any different?

Quote
What actual evidence do you have that is more believable than theirs?
The stuff I posted above--analyze it and say why you think it doesn't debunk the idea that the moon missions were faked.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/12/2007 12:41:02
OK; explain Satelite TV. Come to think of it, explain the iridium flashes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iridium_flare
We can clearly put stuff in space now. Why assume that we couldn't do it before?
And, at the risk of sounding like a cracked record, who put the retroreflectors there?
Until there's a reasonable answer to that, this conspiracy theory clearly doesn't make sense and should be dropped.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: ukmicky on 16/12/2007 17:16:11
There's lots of evidence that they didn't go to the moon.  Look at this.



At the 2 minute 35 second mark of the video the flag is still. When the astronaut goes past it, it starts to move.

There's an analysis of it here at the 3 minute 5 second mark.
How about static ,vibration or dirt kicked up against the flag pole or flag.

I cant believe this topic is still going. Dont you think the russians and the satelite recieving stations placed at different locations around the world that were not being run by USA would have noticed that the transmitions were coming from somewhere a bit closer than the moon. Or maybe you believe that was a bit beyond our science.



(SHAKES HIS HEAD IN DIS-BELIEF AND GOES BACK TO WATCH THE FOOTBALL)
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: paul.fr on 16/12/2007 17:22:37
"There's lots of evidence that they didn't go to the moon. "

No, there are lots of ...ermmmm..people...that are foolish enough to believe what they read on the net, and those that like to sell books to those same people.

"(SHAKES HIS HEAD IN DIS-BELIEF AND GOES BACK TO WATCH THE FOOTBALL)"
we are seriously missing Drogba
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: lyner on 16/12/2007 20:50:30
Conspiracy in the Scientific Community? On a Worldwide scale?
You might be able to gag the military and make politicians do what the government says but gagging all the Scientists, technicians and engineers in Nasa and around the work?
Not possible; Scientists are too full of themselves and too keen on sharing their information. It would have got out within 24 hours of the deception and with irrefutable evidence.
My best argument for it being genuine is 'human nature'.

For every 'PhD' who believes it was a setup, there are hundreds of thousands who believe it was not..
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/12/2007 22:37:16
Paul, are you watching the football on satelite TV?


For every PhD who believes this there are probably a dozen who are prepared to write about it as if they believe it because "Actually it's all just what NASA said and not a conspiracy at all" doesn't sell many copies and PhDs need to earn money too.

If someone really believes that all the scientists are "in on it together" then I wonder what they do believe in. After all it makes at least as much sense to say that the churches are all a conspiracy; he already thinks the world's governments are part of a conspiracy.

If the weather service tells you it will be cold today do they believe them? After all they are run by the government and staffed by these untrustworthy scientists while they claim to use satelite imagery. Do they think it's all a fake?

Oh, I'm still waiting to hear about the retroreflectors.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: paul.fr on 16/12/2007 23:01:26
"Paul, are you watching the football on satelite TV?"

No, live streaming over the net.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Cosmored on 20/12/2007 22:32:56
Quote
We can clearly put stuff in space now. Why assume that we couldn't do it before?
One theory is the radiation in space.

http://www.geocities.com/apollotruth/
(excerpt)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is an old saying that "A liar needs a good memory". Nowhere is this more true than in the Apollo program. NASA tell lies to cover up previous lies, and other discrepancies uncovered by people investigating the Moon landings. Altering previous data, removing photographs, and retracting statements made, only re-enforces the evidence that NASA are on the run, and being forced into a corner to which they cannot escape. The actions of those under investigation makes the investigator more aware they are bluffing. The longer that person, or persons, who make the extravagant claims continue, the more lies they have to tell in order to counteract it, until it reaches the point where it becomes ridiculous. That point was passed in July 1999, when NASA officials were questioned about the Moon landings on television. They dodged the all important questions like a drifter dodges the heat.


Many Apollo astronauts have long since died, as to have many of the original NASA officials involved in the scam, consequently current officials, who know that Apollo was a fake, have not quite got it right when talking openly in public. Perhaps the biggest slip of the tongue was made by NASA Chief Dan Goldin when interviewed by UK TV journalist Sheena McDonald in 1994. He said that mankind cannot venture beyond Earth orbit, 250 miles into space, until they can find a way to overcome the dangers of cosmic radiation. He must have forgot that they supposedly sent 27 astronauts 250,000 miles outside Earth orbit 36 years earlier.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


two sets of radiation data
http://hey_223.tripod.com/bulldoglebeautaketooooo/id82.html
(excerpt)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To prove his thesis, Rene tries to get certain solar data from NATIONAL
OCEANIC & ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, (NOAA) using clever techniques
to
disguise his true intentions, [i.e. to get true data on solar flares.] NOAA,
unfortunately, proved to be as cagey as Rene in dodging the giving out of any
really good DETAILS on this matter, [you know, where the devil resides.]

Rene, seeing games being played, deduced that there must be two sets of data,
one which is sent to scientists on the preferred list, and one sent to the
likes of Rene as casual strangers. (p.125)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://ocii.com/~dpwozney/apollo5.htm
http://www.erichufschmid.net/MoreInfoForScienceChallenge.html
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=9659&hl=apollo

Here's something else I found.
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/moon.htm
(excerpt)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several motives have been suggested for the U.S. government to fake the moon landings - some of the recurrent elements are:
Distraction - The U.S. government benefited from a popular distraction to take attention away from the Vietnam war. Lunar activities did abruptly stop, with planned missions cancelled, around the same time that the US ceased its involvement in the Vietnam War.
Cold War Prestige - The U.S. government considered it vital that the U.S. win the space race with the USSR. Going to the Moon, if it was possible, would have been risky and expensive. It would have been much easier to fake the landing, thereby ensuring success.
Money - NASA raised approximately 30 billion dollars pretending to go to the moon. This could have been used to pay off a large number of people, providing significant motivation for complicity. In variations of this theory, the space industry is characterized as a political economy, much like the military industrial complex, creating fertile ground for its own survival.
Risk - The available technology at the time was such that there was a good chance that the landing might fail if genuinely attempted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote
And, at the risk of sounding like a cracked record, who put the retroreflectors there?
An unmanned vehicle could have soft-landed.  It could have had the reflectors attached to its sides.

Quote
Conspiracy in the Scientific Community? On a Worldwide scale?

If there are any scientists who don't believe it, the press would ignore them.

Here's something I found.
http://www.nardwuar.com/vs/bill_kaysing/index.html
(excerpt)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, how did the media fall for this?
Well, the media doesn't fall for anything. The media is controlled by the government. The Dutch papers on July 21 [1969] said that the moon landing was a hoax, was a fake, and I have been unable to find any of those Dutch papers, although it's well documented that they did publish information, with proof, that the U.S. was spoofing everybody.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It sounds impossible to keep a secret like that but evidently they did it somehow; the video evidence shows it was a hoax.
 
Quote
How about static ,vibration or dirt kicked up against the flag pole or flag.
If it had been static electricity, wouldn't the flag have been attracted to the astronaut as soon as he arrived to the closest point to the flag?
I had never heard the idea that he might have kicked some dirt against the pole; that does sound plausible but I've never seen dirt kicked that far in any of the footage where it shows dirt being kicked.  The astronaut is at least three or four feet from the pole when he goes by it and it would have had to be kicked to the side.  That's pretty far for a side kick.

What does everybody think of the astronauts' behavior at the press conference?

Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: paul.fr on 21/12/2007 05:30:26
#1 when talking about the "moon landing hoax", why is the term "theory" used to express what someone with an internet connection and too much free time dreams up?

#2 when did geocities home pages become fountains of knowledge?
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/12/2007 15:33:49
Anyone with a poor enough understanding of reality to take this idea seriously probably can't quite grasp things as complicated as the meaning of the word "theory" as used in science.

If you are trying to back up a crackpot theory, geocities is about as good a set of "evidence" as you will find.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Cosmored on 22/12/2007 20:08:29
Quote
How about static ,vibration or dirt kicked up against the flag pole or flag.

If it had been static electricity, wouldn't the flag have been attracted to the astronaut as soon as he arrived to the closest point to the flag?
I had never heard the idea that he might have kicked some dirt against the pole; that does sound plausible but I've never seen dirt kicked that far in any of the footage where it shows dirt being kicked.  The astronaut is at least three or four feet from the pole when he goes by it and it would have had to be kicked to the side.  That's pretty far for a side kick.
I just took another look at the video.  When the flag moves, the pole doesn't move so it can't have been soil kicked on it that cause the movement.


When are you going to comment on the astronauts' behavior at the press conference?
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/12/2007 14:12:26
OK, I will comment on it; the bloke looks nervous. I have seen better speakers but I don't think many of them would have been better pilots. Since NASA would have chosen people who could fly the thing rather than good actors that makes sense.
Of course if it were faked you would need to explain why NASA couldn't get a better actor.
If anything, that video clip is evidence in favour of a trip to the moon.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Cosmored on 28/12/2007 19:51:08
Quote
Of course if it were faked you would need to explain why NASA couldn't get a better actor.
They couldn't just hire any actor.  They had to chose from among the experienced pilots that were available.  It would  pretty hard to find someone who can both pilot large planes and lie with a straight face after a stunt like the faked moon landings.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: sooyeah on 29/12/2007 14:51:41
What does everybody think of the astronauts' behavior at the press conference?


Well I think it's obvious they went, look at them hoping around all smiles, that guy joyfully dancing on the table. I think we'd all act like that if we had been to the moon.

"Heres Jane eating a cup cake, and this is little tommy searching through the sock draw. Dont you just love the smell of freshly washed socks"
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Andrew K Fletcher on 31/12/2007 19:04:28
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.brainsluice.com%2Fassorted%2Fmisc%2Fimages%2Fml05.jpg&hash=b6dfca418d10755c2de5aece1a5ade07)
[diagram=308_0]
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: rosalind dna on 31/12/2007 22:29:11
I remember seeing this Moon Landing on the morning it happened at 4am. As a
teenager too. So fake it's not
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=RMINSD7MmT4
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Karen W. on 31/12/2007 23:03:49
I watched it with my grandma we were up all the day before and all night watching... It was awesome!
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Cosmored on 02/01/2008 20:50:11
Quote
I remember seeing this Moon Landing on the morning it happened at 4am. As a
teenager too. So fake it's not
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=RMINSD7MmT4

Look at the part of the video you posted where the astronaut is bouncing along.

At around the 21 minute mark of this video the above footage from Apollo 11 can be seen played at double speed.
http://video.google.es/videoplay?docid=4135126565081757736&q=apollo

It looks just like movement in earth gravity.  They just used fifty percent slow-motion to do Apollo 11.

Look at the movements in the first six seconds of this clip.

They are noticably different from the Apollo 11 footage.  They used a combination of support wires and a slow motion that was a little faster than fifty percent in the later missions.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: rosalind dna on 02/01/2008 20:58:10
Quote
I remember seeing this Moon Landing on the morning it happened at 4am. As a
teenager too. So fake it's not
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=RMINSD7MmT4

Look at the part of the video you posted where the astronaut is bouncing along.

At around the 21 minute mark of this video the above footage from Apollo 11 can be seen played at double speed.
http://video.google.es/videoplay?docid=4135126565081757736&q=apollo

It looks just like movement in earth gravity.  They just used fifty percent slow-motion to do Apollo 11.

Look at the movements in the first six seconds of this clip.

They are noticably different from the Apollo 11 footage.  They used a combination of support wires and a slow motion that was a little faster than fifty percent in the later missions.

I did watch that video and 6 others from YouTube before deciding on the least
blurriest one. Yes it's slow motion but the videos and TV technology was hardly
as defined as today's is now. but they were all part of the Cold War's space
race. It is documented as such.
Edit at 22.36   But the reason that the astronauts were bouncing along was because there is no
gravity or oxygen on the moon or the rest of space.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Andrew K Fletcher on 03/01/2008 11:07:29
Take away air / atmosphere resistance and reduce gravity and objects / astronauts should experience more velocity with very little force, which leaves the question how come everything is in slow motion?

Apply more resistance, say in a swimming pool and then you can expect the opposite and a slow motion reaction to a force.

So the dust at the feet of the astronauts would be propelled a great distance at a high velocity, yet it does nothing of the kind.

As I have stated before. A journey in micro-gravity of some 4.5 days in a very restricted space with no gravity would render their legs useless and requiring some serious rehabilitation in order to get them working. How come the astronauts got out of the casual and were able to act as if they had just got out of a chair? This could not happen according to NASA’s own research on the effects of gravity and human physiology.

And when they got back from the moon after Eight and a half days of microgravity? Yet little mention about their state of health was mentioned?

Astronauts orbiting the Earth are not even far enough away from the Earths gravitational pull but are merely counterbalancing it with the speed of their rotation around the Earth. Yet this has a serious detrimental impact on human physiology and is well documented.

Now time has moved on it has become clear that there are some serious questions about the credibility of the video evidence relating to the lunar landings.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: rosalind dna on 03/01/2008 16:46:13
Actually it has been mentioned since that the state of the astronauts or cosmonauts health was badly affected and their nerves also bone marrow had begun
to crumble.
When they get off the rockets, they have to taken away on wheelchairs.
Think quite how badly any astronuats would be affected if or when they ever go
to Mars. I guess that they'd die out there.

But you can't equate the weightless of a swimming pool to being in a rocket where
there is not gravity at all. But the oxygen on the rockets is artificial whereas
the oxygen in a swimming pool is natural.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/01/2008 18:02:58
Cosmored
"They couldn't just hire any actor.  They had to chose from among the experienced pilots that were available.  It would  pretty hard to find someone who can both pilot large planes and lie with a straight face after a stunt like the faked moon landings"
The idea that you would need an actor who can fly misses the point. If it's faked then it didn't fly. Why get a pilot when what you need is an actor?
Nasa could have got decent actors so why did they put up with those (frankly rather poor) speakers unless it was because they were the best pilots?

Does this "But the oxygen on the rockets is artificial whereas
the oxygen in a swimming pool is natural" actually mean anything?
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: rosalind dna on 03/01/2008 20:55:30
I have found these links to the 1968 Apollo 11 - moon landings' astronauts
biographies.
In the late '60s, the TV were much smaller and the screens also cameras to us
the viewers was jerkier, like a badly held DVD homemade film.
Another thing, how could the astronauts bring home "moon rock" if they'd not
been there as it's been scientifically tested.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/july/21/newsid_2635000/2635845.stm
http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/armstrong_neil_worldbook.html
http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/Bios/htmlbios/aldrin-b.html
http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/Bios/htmlbios/collins-m.html
http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/Bios/htmlbios/lovell-ja.html

Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: paul.fr on 04/01/2008 07:54:48
BC, i hope you have some bandages handy! I hear brick walls can play havoc with ones head.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/01/2008 17:34:53
You may be right paul, but I'm still waiting for a sensible answer from cosmored.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: paul.fr on 05/01/2008 00:04:06
You may be right paul, but I'm still waiting for a sensible answer from cosmored.

i once waited for a bus, and after quite a while 3 came along at once. so you never know.


They are noticably different from the Apollo 11 footage.  They used a combination of support wires and a slow motion that was a little faster than fifty percent in the later missions.

are we talking about the Apollo missions, or an episode of thunderbirds?
hay, does anyone have a picture of Lady penelope?
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Cosmored on 07/03/2008 14:09:18
The documentary "What Happened on the Moon" is back online. It's the best moon-hoax video I've ever seen.

Part 1
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3622009579385499503

Part 2
http://video.google.es/videoplay?docid=-3186616594425246748

It usually doesn't stay online for very long so watch it fast; I've seen it go on and offline twice before.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Cosmored on 27/04/2008 13:53:55
Here's the latest piece of evidence I've come across.

Start watching this clip at he 50 second mark.

http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=I_CMgqitv98

Collins' jacket moves the way things move in gravity even though they were supposed to be in zero-gravity.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Cosmored on 10/05/2008 22:46:32
Here's something I just came across.  Look at the way the corners of the jacket the woman astronaut is wearing behave in zero-gravity.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=TejsnPThmd4
(first 10 seconds and last 30 seconds)

It's pretty different from the way the corner of Collins' jacket behaves.

http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=I_CMgqitv98
(50 second mark)
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/05/2008 14:31:22
"Collins' jacket moves the way things move in gravity even though they were supposed to be in zero-gravity." It moves rather oddly compared to anything in normal gravity.


"The way the corners of the jacket the woman astronaut is wearing behave in zero-gravity."

"It's pretty different from the way the corner of Collins' jacket behaves."

Some people might realise that the jacket of the man who is running on a treadmill will move differently to the jacket of a woman who is standing still.

On the other hand some people will atribute that difference to the notion that the whole of the apollo programme was faked.

Personally, I only think one of those interpretations is rational.


Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Cosmored on 11/05/2008 14:56:09
Quote
Some people might realise that the jacket of the man who is running on a treadmill will move differently to the jacket of a woman who is standing still.
The corner of Collins' jacket swings back and forth like a pendulum even though the jogging would cause it to go up.  Notice how the corners of the woman astronaut's jacket stand straight out--they don't hang.  There's no identifiable force making the corner of Collins' jacket stay down except for gravity.
I know they had the technology to get into low earth orbit then but the footage shows they were in gravity.  Evdidently they faked some of the footage of their being halfway to the moon.

There's other evidence of faked zero-gravity footage.

Click on this link below and go down about a third of the way until you see this.

http://ocii.com/~dpwozney/apollo3.htm
(excerpt)
---------------------------------------------------------
APOLLO 9: Dave scott performs Extra Vehicular Activities LAVA # : LV-1998-00030.mov
The astronaut is unusually flexible compared to today's shuttle astronauts on EVAs; the Apollo suit does not appear to have bearings at the joints like the space shuttle extra vehicular suits. The experimental thermal samples flutter and follow non-linear curved paths, as if under the influence of or affected by atmospheric drag and turbulence.
---------------------------------------------------------

This clip may have been filmed on earth.  Maybe they were trying to save money.

There's lot's of other footage that proves it was a hoax such as this.


The hoax is pretty well proven; it's just interesting to see how they did all the details.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: paul.fr on 13/05/2008 14:56:34
Yawn
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: neilep on 13/05/2008 15:10:35
Yawn

Agreed !!


How do we know that all the evidence that supports the hoax theories are not hoaxes themselves ??

I believe that all the hoax material are also hoaxes !!...so there !
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: paul.fr on 13/05/2008 15:38:25
So the hoax is, itself a hoax! The clever barstewards!
Although, if you watch the following clip, you will be convinced that the spaceship is made of NASA plastic

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=GONeqPxh4d4
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: neilep on 13/05/2008 15:53:01
So the hoax is, itself a hoax! The clever barstewards!
Although, if you watch the following clip, you will be convinced that the spaceship is made of NASA plastic

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=GONeqPxh4d4


That's real !!...it is convincing but we all know that star trek is fact...it was the first ' reality tv ' program !

Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/05/2008 19:57:59
"The corner of Collins' jacket swings back and forth like a pendulum even though the jogging would cause it to go up. "
Oh goody! from conspiracy theory to anti gravity effect of jogging.
Jogging causes the whole body to move back and to. The bloke's jacket is attached to him so it follows his movements.
Where's the conspiracy? His jacket is conspiring with his torso?
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Andrew K Fletcher on 14/05/2008 08:20:28
Can anyone give an explanation why the cross hairs from the camera are located behind objects in NASA's photographs?

Personally, I cannot think of any possible explanation other than the photographs were edited to include the objects as an afterthought.

What about the obvious other light sources casting shadows and illuminating objects and astronauts when they should have been silhouetted  by the light from the sun?

Again IMO the only explanation other than they took the film crew to the moon with them is that the photographs were taken with multiple light sources. One of these light sources can be clearly seen in the visor of the astronaut. One could argue that this light was in fact the sun but this would make nonsense of the direction of the shadows.

The same landscape is used in several locations supposed to be miles apart, yet are a perfect match when superimposed over each other.

Either the script was wrong during the editing, or the location was identical

Why was there no blast crater and no blast dust settled on the feet of the landing craft?

 for there not to have been a crater or blast dust on a very dusty surface shown clearly as the astronauts moved around, they would either have to have cleared the dust off and filled in the crater, or there was no pressure from the craft to affect a cause.

Why is there no exhaust evidence on take off from the moons surface? Either the craft was operating a giant spring to launch itself, or it was producing some antigravity force that does not disrupt the dusty surface of the lunar landscape.

Is it possible that the United States Government could mislead the whole of the country and the majority of the world that were capable of receiving television and radio at the time, into believing something that simply was not true?

This one is perhaps the easiest to explain. The Allied Iraq invasion was perpetrated after the President of The United States went on the record and publicly announced that Sadam had weapons of mass destruction. He was backed up by Prime Minister Tony Blair, and supported by the majority of his senators and our Members of Parliament. We were also told that Sadam was amassing a huge army again, even though Sadam Denied all allegations and had even allowed UN inspectors to search for any alleged weapons. For the record. None where found!

Mass graves were mentioned. Could these have been from the first bush Senior onslaught, which I believe was justified given the unprovoked attack on Kuwait.

After we began watching what unfolded, the World looked on and saw that Sadam did not even have an air force, his armoured tanks were virtually non existent and his remaining army were disillusioned and terrified by the onslaught of two of the worlds greatest military powers unleashing their own High tech weapons of mass destruction on predominantly unarmed civilian men women and children on the Streets of Baghdad. While the media supported the whole unfolding campaign. So yes it is highly plausible that the United States Of America and Great Britain can and frequently do mislead the majority of people!
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/05/2008 19:49:11
Mr Bush didn't have to convince anyone about the WMD. He ordered the war because he wanted to (or rather the military did).
A lot of us here in the UK didnt't and don't accept that the war was (or is) just. Many of us knew that the search for WMD was still going on when the US (and the 51st state) unilatterally and unlawfully started a war. We were never asked about it because most of us would have said "no".
So there's no real evidence that messers Bush and Blair fooled anyone much. On the other hand it's very rare to vote out a head of state during a war.

Even if you say that, at the time, a majority of the population thought that Saddam had WMD, just a short while later they stopped believing this when, for example, it emerged that part of the evidence was some student's homework.
A goverment could fool the people- but not for long. Thruth will out. If the moon landings were fake someone would have blabbed by now. They have not. To me that's one of the more convincing bits of evidence.

(BTW, please look at earlier posts in this thread and at the sites cited for answers to the questions about shadows, cross hairs etc.)
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Andrew K Fletcher on 15/05/2008 09:39:05
Was he trying to say "One small step for man, One giant leap of faith for mankind?
Yep....what he said was 'One  small step for man, one giant leap for mankind'...when he should have said...'one small step for A man, one giant leap for mankind'......I mean tcch!! tcch!!......it's not as if he was under any pressure or anything !!!!!

Quote
You think they couldn’t fake a sky full off stars. If they wanted to fake a moon landing and thought that they needed stars in the sky that would have been one of the easiest part of the scam to pull off. However if you could see stars then it would be fake.

With all of the budding astronomers way back in the 1960's they would have had to have been pretty damned accurate painting stars on the photograph as this would have provided concrete evidence one way or another. Much better to leave the stars out! One insignificant error in star position would have thrown the whole programme into orbit.

It was argued that a reflector was in place on the moon so we had to have been there. Another argument was that Russians were listening in. Could a transmitter have been placed on the lunar surface in an unmanned landing to send transmissions back to Earth? I believe this is a possibility. Why would the Russians have built listening devices to hear transmissions from the Lunar Surface?
Quote
Do you really think all of those at mission control, plus the Astronauts, ground crew...and not to mention the wives could have kept silent all those years?

Hell yeah, if people you know around you have been talking and suddenly met an untimely end, one might think it is not wise to put ones own life in danger.

RE: Ohm’s analysis: Can we be sure the rocks were from the lunar surface. Meteors are found in many of the world’s deserts and have unknown origins.
Quote
Conspiracy in the Scientific Community? On a Worldwide scale?
You might be able to gag the military and make politicians do what the government says but gagging all the Scientists, technicians and engineers in Nasa and around the work?

One only has to look at the recent drug cartel frauds to see that a cover up in the scientific community is not even improbable, but highly plausible. Take Rosalind’s post on the double helix, and the scientist that advocated aspirin as a cure for cancer, How on earth did thalidomide get through the controls?  If you think scientists are without fault then it is you that is being foolish.

http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=UIw06kd--is&feature=related

A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
Vladimir Lenin
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: lyner on 15/05/2008 16:07:19
It's amazing that the probability of someone believing in this conspiracy seems to be inversely proportional to their knowledge of basic Science and Engineering.
Of all the possible conspiracy theories that there have ever been, this is the most loony. Even just the evidence of amateur and professional radio astronomers about where and when they managed to get radio signals from the mission tells you that the craft couldn't have been in low Earth orbit or on the ground. This was a highly public affair. Vast amounts of information were available and have always been. Unlike in many other coverups, there were legions of both disinterested and hostile observers, many of them being very well informed.
It's hard to know where to start in debunking the objectors.
Moderately high speed dust would go miles if it were disturbed. If you land a hard piece of ground you wouldn't expect a 'crater' and the shape of a crater in dust would be nothing like what you'd expect on Earth.
If you take many photographs with hard shadows you will see that they are by no means parallel because of the distortions introduced even with a standard lens - it's all to do with 'projections'. Shadows appear to spread out, curve and even point inwards because not all surfaces are horizontal, parallel or flat.
How would you expect to get the stars (Very dim) exposed on film without seriously over exposing the nearby objects (full sunlight with not a hint of cloud)? For pictures of the sky, they would have had to land near the terminator and walk to where it was dark or point directly into the sky, away from the Sun, to avoid serious flare.

All the other failed coverups which have been quoted have actually been rumbled (that's how we know of them) despite involving relatively few perpetrators / observers.

Is there any record of a 'whistle blower' being assassinated / committing suicide? That's one possible sign of a really serious coverup but I haven't heard of it. I get the feeling that NASA are pretty sure of their bona fides.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: paul.fr on 15/05/2008 16:23:30
if we never went to the moon then where did all the cheese come from? Does the speed of sound travel through cheese at the same rate it travels through the moon? i think we should be told.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: skeptic on 15/05/2008 18:15:19
if we never went to the moon then where did all the cheese come from? Does the speed of sound travel through cheese at the same rate it travels through the moon? i think we should be told.
The sound IS the cheese. I cut it and I'm sorry. I couldn't help myself.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Kryptid on 16/05/2008 10:01:49
Quote
There's lot's of other footage that proves it was a hoax such as this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1UEv2PIzl4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1UEv2PIzl4)

The hoax is pretty well proven; it's just interesting to see how they did all the details.

This is easily refuted on two counts. One: The fact that the flag waves is due to the momentum imparted to it from the astronauts handling it. Since there's no air on the Moon, there's no resistance to keep the flag from waving a bit after it has been messed with. Check this out: http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Moon_Hoax:Purported_Mistakes#The_.22Waving.22_Flag (http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Moon_Hoax:Purported_Mistakes#The_.22Waving.22_Flag)

Two: Assuming that NASA did hoax the video, there is no way that they would have forgotten to take the wind into account. They would have filmed it in a location where there was no wind, such as a well-sealed building. Any institution of people intelligent enough to build rocket ships and hoax a Moon landing would realize that a flag blowing in the wind would blow their cover. If the idea of wind slipped their mind, then how could they cover up such a hoax for so long without slipping up and letting it get out?

Quote
Of all the possible conspiracy theories that there have ever been, this is the most loony

I wouldn't say that. The most bizarre one I can think of is the one embraced by the Flat Earth Society, which proposes that the Earth really is flat but that a gigantic conspiracy perpetuated by an unseen one-world government is covering it up by making people believe that it is round. They seriously believe that, too. I've talked with them.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: lyner on 16/05/2008 21:44:24
Well, yes but there are only a few of those 'loonies' and I have a strange feeling that, like Morris Dancers, they are only doing it to annoy. They had you fooled, too!
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: skeptic on 17/05/2008 20:53:17
Quote

There's lot's of other footage that proves it was a hoax such as this.


The hoax is pretty well proven; it's just interesting to see how they did all the details.


 Saying that a youtube video proves something is a hoax has got to be the mother of all oxymorons!
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/05/2008 14:28:18
Anyone saying things like "One only has to look at the recent drug cartel frauds to see that a cover up in the scientific community is not even improbable, but highly plausible."

has missed the point.

Those frauds got found out.

Decades after the moon landings there has been no real evidence of their falshood. Nobody has come forward and said "OK it's a fair cop- we faked them"
It would have been perfectly possible to fake them (though I'm not sure how they persuaded the Russians to play along) but, by now the holes in the story would have shown up.
Notwithstanding the fact that some people don't understand photography, no holes have been found.

"A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
Vladimir Lenin"
Yeah, sure, look what happened to him.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: lyner on 18/05/2008 21:40:29
I agree. We could have expected at least one deathbed confession or some crazed outbreak from a minion who had been suppressed by 'the conspiracy' all his life and decided to risk assassination in order to put us all right.

btw, which is the lie? Was it that they did land or that they didn't land?
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: turnipsock on 18/05/2008 22:20:16
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=hTKedyQQkZQ (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=hTKedyQQkZQ)

Has somebody posted this already?
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: skeptic on 19/05/2008 20:10:42
Anyone saying things like "One only has to look at the recent drug cartel frauds to see that a cover up in the scientific community is not even improbable, but highly plausible."

has missed the point.

Those frauds got found out.

Decades after the moon landings there has been no real evidence of their falshood. Nobody has come forward and said "OK it's a fair cop- we faked them"
It would have been perfectly possible to fake them (though I'm not sure how they persuaded the Russians to play along) but, by now the holes in the story would have shown up.
Notwithstanding the fact that some people don't understand photography, no holes have been found.

"A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
Vladimir Lenin"
Yeah, sure, look what happened to him.

They lost me when they deemed it a hoax because it didn't resemble Star Trek or some other made-for-television space program. Hollywood already faked it and had the resources they needed to convince us it was real.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: skeptic on 20/05/2008 01:54:46
I have a friend that does not believe we landed on the moon.  He says this because there are no stars in the backgroud of the pictures that were taken while up there on the moon.  Does anyone know why that is?

Quite clearly it´s because they faked the video. and could´nt add in the stars as it would have been 1. too dificult and 2. Allowed people who understood astrology to prove it was fake.

The reason we dont see stars on the earth during the day is because we have an atmosphere.
The moon doesn´t have an atmosphere, some may contend it has a small one, either way the atmosphere doesnt glow a bright colour during the daytime and block out the stars; like the earths does!

O.K all put your helmets on and duck! Someone will no-doubt start throwing mud!

Gene Roddenberry had no problem putting stars in the sky. The only reason NASA photos look fake is that they don't resemble what the public assumed it would look like. Here's mud in your eye! [;D]
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Cosmored on 25/05/2008 15:53:42
Quote
This is easily refuted on two counts. One: The fact that the flag waves is due to the momentum imparted to it from the astronauts handling it. Since there's no air on the Moon, there's no resistance to keep the flag from waving a bit after it has been messed with. Check this out: http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Moon_Hoax:Purported_Mistakes#The_.22Waving.22_Flag

Two: Assuming that NASA did hoax the video, there is no way that they would have forgotten to take the wind into account. They would have filmed it in a location where there was no wind, such as a well-sealed building. Any institution of people intelligent enough to build rocket ships and hoax a Moon landing would realize that a flag blowing in the wind would blow their cover. If the idea of wind slipped their mind, then how could they cover up such a hoax for so long without slipping up and letting it get out?
You're explaining the flag being planted on Apollo 11 and the clip I posted was from Apollo 15.

(2 minute 35 second mark)

In this clip the flag had stopped moving when the astronaut walked by it.  Tell us what you think of this particular clip.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/05/2008 17:40:09
"Tell us what you think of this particular clip"
I think the comments posted below it talking about static, or ground transmitted vibration look eminently reasonable.
Why would NASA have been dumb enough to publish it if it were a threat to the conspiracy they sought to maintain?
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: lyner on 26/05/2008 11:39:21
It's strange that the majority of those who seem to be 'pro conspiracy theory' are also 'against established Science'.
Is this just 'attention-seeking' bahaviour, I wonder? The stronger the evidence, the more vociferous is the objection.
Imagine basing a serious scientific theory on clips from Utube and expecting it to be accepted or to be the basis of a successful technology.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/05/2008 13:49:50
"Imagine basing a serious scientific theory on clips from Utube and expecting it to be accepted "
 Is that why my research grants get turned down?
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: lyner on 26/05/2008 20:47:01
I hate to dampen your enthusiasm but. . . .
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: turnipsock on 26/05/2008 22:22:50
If you put a flag on a thin stick in a vacuum and twang it, it will oscilate a lot more than it would in an atmosphere. A twanged flag would appear to be similar to a fluttering flag in a wind.

This would be easy to demonstrate. We could send some more people to the moon and then set up a flag and twang it on camera. Or, you could set up a model flag in a vacuum along with a radio controled model of Dave Scott. Simply make the Dave Scott model brush against the flag and observe what happens.

Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: ukmicky on 27/05/2008 20:51:52
Cosmored

Ive got a theory that as the flag couldn't have moved for no reason it therefore must have moved due to something that couldn't be seen.  I therefore believe that the most reasonable explanation must be a micro meteoroid travelling at many thousands of miles an hour and so small that it couldn't be observed hitting the flag.As it past through the material it imparted some of its energy to the flag causing the flag to move . Thankfully the astronaut had just stepped forward allowing it to pass millimetres away from his leg a micro second later  [:0]  [:)]

I know the chances of one hitting the flag at the time that it was being filmed are very very very small but as millions of these things hit the moon every year as their is no real atmosphere to burn them up the event occurring is quite possible. All my evidence that the event occurred was provided by an independent source ,namely you .

If you do not believe in my theory can i ask you to prove otherwise by using only the evidence which i used which was originally supplied by you and initially used as your evidence.

Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: lyner on 29/05/2008 00:21:14
Does anyone know of the actual construction of the original flag and stick?
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: turnipsock on 29/05/2008 00:33:53
Does anyone know of the actual construction of the original flag and stick?


That was one of my thoughts as well. Since weight at take off has to be as low as possible, it would have to be very flimsey affair.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Cosmored on 31/05/2008 22:42:59
Quote
I think the comments posted below it talking about static, or ground transmitted vibration look eminently reasonable.
The astronaut walks by the flag at other points in the clip and the flag doesn't move. 

Quote
Why would NASA have been dumb enough to publish it if it were a threat to the conspiracy they sought to maintain?
They didn't notice it.

Quote
Ive got a theory that as the flag couldn't have moved for no reason it therefore must have moved due to something that couldn't be seen.  I therefore believe that the most reasonable explanation must be a micro meteoroid travelling at many thousands of miles an hour and so small that it couldn't be observed hitting the flag.As it past through the material it imparted some of its energy to the flag causing the flag to move . Thankfully the astronaut had just stepped forward allowing it to pass millimetres away from his leg a micro second later   

I know the chances of one hitting the flag at the time that it was being filmed are very very very small but as millions of these things hit the moon every year as their is no real atmosphere to burn them up the event occurring is quite possible. All my evidence that the event occurred was provided by an independent source ,namely you .

If you do not believe in my theory can i ask you to prove otherwise by using only the evidence which i used which was originally supplied by you and initially used as your evidence.

There's lots of other evidence of a hoax.

Look at the way the corners of the jacket the woman astronaut is wearing move.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=TejsnPThmd4
(first ten seconds and last 30 seconds)

It's pretty different from the way the corner of the jacket Collins is wearing moves.

http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=I_CMgqitv98

The woman astronaut is in real zero-G and Collins is probably in a plane that's diving to simulate zero-G that isn't diving quite fast enough as gravity is pulling down the corners of his jacket.

There's the issue of the size of the reflection of the sun in the astronauts' visors.
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=sgID31UpYfA
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=rhoWabHSm_g
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=1gD2P-Po_Gk
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=EaV7QB_ReTw

There's lots more.

What Happened on the Moon" (documentary)
Part 1
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3622009579385499503

Part 2
http://video.google.es/videoplay?docid=-3186616594425246748

Was it Only a Paper Moon? (documentary)
http://www.thule.org/brains/moon.rm

Man Didn't Land on the Moon (documentary)
http://video.google.es/videoplay?docid=4135126565081757736

A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon (documentary)
http://video.google.es/videoplay?docid=-7335269088210976286

After seeing all of the other evidence of a hoax, I'd say it was a breeze caused by the astronaut's passing that made the flag move.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: rosalind dna on 31/05/2008 22:53:39
it was not a hoax because for part of this Saturday evening I was
watching a Channel4 documentary programme about the Moon Landings!!

With interviews by the actual astronauts also the Russian cosmonauts and in the very first try out rocket for that, the whole crew died.
Previously the rockets went up in fireballs. All on video and wonky too.

http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/S/shadow_moon/

http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/S/shadow_moon/programme/programme.html
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/06/2008 21:03:46
Cosmored,
Do you realise you are repeating yourself?
the movements of the jackets of two people, one standing still, the other running on a treadmill, are not going to be the same.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: lyner on 01/06/2008 21:06:05
Why is this thread on "New Theories"?
It's one of the OLDEST discredited theories to be found in any of the fora.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: skeptic on 02/06/2008 20:37:08
   I think it's because the old one didn't fly, and everyone thinks they have the magic solution(that the rest of the world is somehow oblivious to) that will finally make it work. It's like a NEW prototype of the same OLD BS!
   
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: lyner on 03/06/2008 09:57:59
I saw Elvis in Sainsbury's the other day.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/06/2008 19:37:14
He works down the chipshop.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: SFMA on 06/06/2008 10:26:46
Quote
After seeing all of the other evidence of a hoax, I'd say it was a breeze caused by the astronaut's passing that made the flag move.

Strange. How can there be breeze when there is no air in the first place?
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: lyner on 06/06/2008 23:10:19
Can you be sure how a flag would behave in a vacuum, once given a nudge?
No damping due to air. Just a vertical length of steel wire and a piece of plastic on the end. Why would it not go on waving about for minutes after it was nudged?
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Cosmored on 11/07/2008 10:03:07
I haven't checked here in a while.

Quote
Why would it not go on waving about for minutes after it was nudged?
It was shown in slow-motion. 

http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=1021

Quote
the movements of the jackets of two people, one standing still, the other running on a treadmill, are not going to be the same.
This is a pretty simplistic statement.  Collins' jacket corner hangs and the corners of the woman astronaut's jacket float.

All that's necessary though is to look at the corner of Collins' jacket.  As Collins goes up, the corner of the jacket goes up too but it doesn't continue going up as it would in zero-G.  It comes back down the way it would in gravity.  There is no other identifiable force that would make it come back down.  The fabric of Collins' jacket is too loose for pressure to push the corner from the left or from above.

Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: lyner on 14/07/2008 22:53:21
Quote
It was shown in slow-motion. 
You have evidence of this? What period of oscillation would you predict for a piece of plastic on the end of a very thin, 1.5m, steel wire?
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/07/2008 21:00:39
"This is a pretty simplistic statement."
Good simple is often right.
"but it doesn't continue going up as it would in zero-G. "
Is that the voice of experience or are you making it up?
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: paul.fr on 15/07/2008 23:25:41
"Is that the voice of experience or are you making it up?"

Can we place bets on the possible answer to this question?
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: lyner on 19/07/2008 19:05:52
Quote
As Collins goes up, the corner of the jacket goes up too but it doesn't continue going up as it would in zero-G.  It comes back down the way it would in gravity.  There is no other identifiable force that would make it come back down.
Ever heard of wave motion? You can make a rope 'snake' up and down with 0g, 1g or 10g, with or without atmosphere. So it wouldn't be a surprise for the corners of fabric to be moving either way.

Why do you 'want', so desperately, for the Landings to have been faked?
Disregarding the quasi-Science arguments against them, is there any actual testimony from the people involved?

Could you really imagine some absolutely clinching verbal evidence not having emerged during all that elapsed time?

Can you answer the question as to how 'they' actually managed to fake it so well?

As I have said before - was there any possible way they could have arranged for the radio reception to have mimicked that of a genuine moonshot? What alternative orbit could they have had which would have given the impression of the transmissions coming from the Moon? Do you know any Newtonian Physics?
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: turnipsock on 19/07/2008 21:03:12

Quote
Why would it not go on waving about for minutes after it was nudged?
It was shown in slow-motion. 


How would expect a bit of cloth to move in a vacuum if it was nudged?
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: lyner on 19/07/2008 23:55:53
It would probably move in the same way as a chain would in air, i.e. a situation where viscosity of Air is not relevant. It would just exhibit wave motion - damped only by the friction between the fibres.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Cosmored on 29/07/2008 14:49:27
Quote

It was shown in slow-motion. 
You have evidence of this? What period of oscillation would you predict for a piece of plastic on the end of a very thin, 1.5m, steel wire?
I don't know how to calculate oscillation. My evidence is the difference in body movements between the earlier missions and the later missions.
 
http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=1021
 
Quote
Is that the voice of experience or are you making it up?
I'm just going on Newton's first law of motion.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_laws_of_motion
 
The force of Collins' upward movement makes the corner go up but it doesn't continue going up as it would in zero-gravity.  There's no identifiable force stopping it from going up except gravity.
 
Quote
Can you answer the question as to how 'they' actually managed to fake it so well?
That's the problem.  They didn't fake it well.  There's all kinds of evidence of its having been faked.
 
Quote
As I have said before - was there any possible way they could have arranged for the radio reception to have mimicked that of a genuine moonshot? What alternative orbit could they have had which would have given the impression of the transmissions coming from the Moon?

According to the official story they'd landed several robot craft on the moon before the manned landings.
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/expmoon/surveyor/surveyor.html
 
If they really had that technology, it's plausible that there was a robot craft on the moon sending signals that fooled the people at Mission Control.
 
Here's some more stuff I found if anyone wants to delve further.
http://es.youtube.com/results?search_query=moonfaker&search_type=&aq=f
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: lyner on 29/07/2008 15:37:17
Quote
The force of Collins' upward movement makes the corner go up but it doesn't continue going up as it would in zero-gravity.
If you make statements like that, I'm afraid you totally disqualify yourself from airing any further opinions. HOW would there, possibly, be zero gravity on the Moon's surface? The Moon would just fall apart if there were no gravity on its surface.
1. Learn some basic Science.
2. When you know enough, start having some opinions of your own; you may be taken seriously then. Furthermore, you will be in a position to spot genuine nonsense when it is presented to you.

 Given that there are alternative views, i.e. it was faked / it wasn't faked doesn't mean that each is equally valid. A charismatic website which claims it was faked could, just possibly, be wrong. If you don't know enough to judge competently then you could, just possibly be fooled by it - just the same as you claim 'we' have all been 'fooled'. The difference is that 'we' know some Science.

Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: lyner on 29/07/2008 15:42:00
Quote
Quote
Is that the voice of experience or are you making it up?
I'm just going on Newton's first law of motion.
 
1. What does Newton's First Law tell you?
2. How does it apply to the situation?
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: lyner on 29/07/2008 15:55:54
I have a general question about this subject.
Is it easier to fake some evidence for a UTube presentation or to fake the evidence for a Moonshot?
Who would 'believe' anything they see on Utube?
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: graham.d on 30/07/2008 13:40:49
I'm amazed to see this discussion go to 7 pages. Both amusing and slightly sad really.

I came across a website by a guy, claiming to be an electronics engineer, who firmly believed that the advances in the semiconductor industry must have been the result of alien technology. Having worked in the industry for 36 years I have had the benefit of seeing each new advance as being an incremental development based on knowledge at the time. Impressive growth with huge funding, but no magic. I have met some of the key players in the business and none of them had antennae on their heads. I thought of writing to the guy but I decided it would be a waste of time. There is no convincing those who "believe", whatever the evidence may suggest.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: lyner on 30/07/2008 23:41:21
We're like moths around a flame of bizarreness.
You can have similar conversations with loonies you sit next to on a bus. And they probably think the same thing too.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Cosmored on 31/07/2008 14:28:12
Quote
HOW would there, possibly, be zero gravity on the Moon's surface? The Moon would just fall apart if there were no gravity on its surface.
That footage of Collins jogging in place was supposedly taken when they were halfway to the moon.  The official story is that Collins never went to the surface.  He was supposedly orbiting the moon while Aldrin and Armstrong were exploring the surface.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: lyner on 31/07/2008 15:15:28
Oh. I didn't get the significance of the name. In any case, if no one claimed that he went onto the Moon's surface then how is his experience relevant to conditions on the Moon?
Presumably you are prepared to acknowledge that they actually managed to get into Earth orbit, at least - so Collin's situation would have been virtually the same wherever he was. His jacket, or whatever, would have moved in the same way.
What bit of Science are you trying to use, in this context, to disprove what bit of the Moonshot? Give me a coherent argument.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Cosmored on 01/08/2008 09:32:21
Quote
Oh. I didn't get the significance of the name. In any case, if no one claimed that he went onto the Moon's surface then how is his experience relevant to conditions on the Moon?
Presumably you are prepared to acknowledge that they actually managed to get into Earth orbit, at least - so Collin's situation would have been virtually the same wherever he was. His jacket, or whatever, would have moved in the same way.
What bit of Science are you trying to use, in this context, to disprove what bit of the Moonshot? Give me a coherent argument.
When that footage was taken, they were supposed to be halfway to the moon which would mean zero-gravity.  The jacket corner moving the way things move in gravity means they were faking those shots.  They might have been on a diving plane to simulate zero-gravity and the plane wasn't diving quite fast enough at that point.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: lyner on 01/08/2008 11:04:18
OK
Firstly you are saying that none of the faking was actually done in space. Didn't people see them taking off? Wasn't the vehicle tracked at all? What would have been the point of simulating space conditions if they were quite capable of getting the crew up there? The project certainly wasn't short of money.
Secondly, you have no idea about the construction of the jacket so you can't predict  how it should have behaved. Depending upon the construction - Rigid, springy, floppy - it could have moved in any way. I repeat my question - which bit of Science PROVES your point?
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: paul.fr on 01/08/2008 18:09:21
I don't know how to calculate oscillation. My evidence is the difference in body movements between the earlier missions and the later missions.

How can you base "evidence" on some moron with too much time on their hands, who has a webcam and a youtube account!
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Cosmored on 02/08/2008 17:16:08
Quote
Firstly you are saying that none of the faking was actually done in space.
I never said that.  Maybe some of it was faked in low earth orbit.  Who knows why?  That footage was obviously taken in gravity so that trumps your theory.  The truth about everything they did and how they did it will all come out later.

Quote
Secondly, you have no idea about the construction of the jacket so you can't predict  how it should have behaved. Depending upon the construction - Rigid, springy, floppy - it could have moved in any way. I repeat my question - which bit of Science PROVES your point?
All we have to do is watch it to see it's not stiff enough to carry the pressure from the top or the back to the corner.  It bends as it moves back and forth.  It's very loose fabric.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: lyner on 04/08/2008 08:25:34
Quote
The truth about everything they did and how they did it will all come out later.
They'd better get a move on. Most of the people involved are nearly dead!

Quote
it's not stiff enough to carry the pressure from the top or the back to the corner
what sort of Engineer speak is that? What 'pressure'? This is basically a transverse wave you're discussing - doesn't it involve tension and torque?
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: lyner on 04/08/2008 22:59:33
I looked at the movie of the woman astronaut. Is someone actually basing the whole conspiracy theory on the way her clothes, on a mission at least thirty years later, are behaving on a naff bit of movie footage?
Perhaps she had a hamster jumping about in her pocket?
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/08/2008 07:07:52
" That footage was obviously taken in gravity so that trumps your theory."
 No, it's not obvious at all.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: TheHerbaholic on 05/08/2008 08:06:43
This is something I won't take sides on. The evidence for us not landing on the moon are:
The pictures where the light from the sun is shining on rocks but the shadows are going in two different directions, suggesting lights facing the astronauts but at different distances apart from eachother.
The flag waving on the moon, apparently there is no wind.
There would have been a blast crater under the pod that landed on the moon.

I get the drift most of the scientists or 'science fans' should I say, agree with the fact we went to the moon but does anybody know about a planned return to the moon?
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: lyner on 05/08/2008 11:51:42
Quote
This is something I won't take sides on.
Oh go on go on go on. Do it.
You risk being far too reasonable about a daft thread like this one.
 As for shadows and flags - there are plenty of explanations for those objections. Any good lighting engineer (and you could be sure that they would have employed the best) would have frigged the lighting properly if necessary. As the objectors have no knowledge of the construction of the flag, they can't predict how it 'should have' behaved.

Have a look at this:
http://www.redorbit.com/news/space/1487237/scientists_plan_next_moonshot/index.html (http://www.redorbit.com/news/space/1487237/scientists_plan_next_moonshot/index.html)
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: graham.d on 05/08/2008 12:40:40
O no! I don't know why I'm bothering. There is a laser reflector on the moon (actually there are now five I believe) which was left by the Apollo 11 mission in 1969. Further ones were placed by Apollo 14 and 15 missions and another two by some unmanned Russian craft (only one of these is operating though). These passive devices can be detected on earth by anyone with the right equipment and the first one was used to get a lot of information about the moon's orbit in the first 25 years since it was placed there. Use is not restricted to NASA. Are the conspiracy theorist now saying that the conspiracy is an international one involving loads of Universities in the world as well as government organisations?
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: lyner on 05/08/2008 14:02:30
I wish they'd stick to the Roswell Incident and Kennedy for their conspiracy fun.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/08/2008 18:26:18
I think that before you write something like "This is something I won't take sides on. " you should look through all the posts in this thread. The "evidence" is simply missing or not actually true.

Shadows go in different directions if the ground's not flat.

Since we don't know what the flag was made of we don't know how it should react but, in low gravity and with no air resistance it wouldn't take much to set it swaying.

The blast crater may well be there but, unless you know in advance how thick the dust layer is you can't know what the crater would look like.

I'm pretty sure that somewhere in the 8 pages of stuff written about this crackpot theory (and I am taking sides here) these points have all been made. They are, of course, ignored by those who don't want to believe them.
The retroreflectors up there are a dead giveaway- there's no other possible explanation, someone must have put them there. The radio signals that came back must have come from the moon or the Russians would have had an absolute field day denouncing the US as liars.
Someone would have talked by now; given the timescale there would have been a few deathbed confessions.
The whole notion of the conspiracy is daft.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: paul.fr on 05/08/2008 18:28:49
I wish they'd stick to the Roswell Incident and Kennedy for their conspiracy fun.

Ah, but Diana is the new Kennedy...
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: lyner on 06/08/2008 22:48:37
I saw the whole thing on my TV whilst sitting on a grassy knoll.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Cosmored on 08/08/2008 16:57:17
Quote
it's not stiff enough to carry the pressure from the top or the back to the corner
what sort of Engineer speak is that? What 'pressure'? This is basically a transverse wave you're discussing - doesn't it involve tension and torque?
I think what I mean is clear enough.  If I push a box with an aluminum can, the box will recieve the pressure from my body.  If I push a box with an extended piece of cloth, the cloth will fold and the box will not recieve any pressure from my body.  The fabric of Collins' jacket is obviously loose.  The looseness can be seen as he jogs in place.  I can't identify any force making the corner of his jacket come back down after it starts moving up due to his upward movement while jogging in place except for gravity.  The fabric doesn't do it.

Quote
O no! I don't know why I'm bothering. There is a laser reflector on the moon (actually there are now five I believe) which was left by the Apollo 11 mission in 1969. Further ones were placed by Apollo 14 and 15 missions and another two by some unmanned Russian craft (only one of these is operating though). These passive devices can be detected on earth by anyone with the right equipment and the first one was used to get a lot of information about the moon's orbit in the first 25 years since it was placed there. Use is not restricted to NASA. Are the conspiracy theorist now saying that the conspiracy is an international one involving loads of Universities in the world as well as government organisations
Unmanned craft can put laser reflectors on the moon.  If the surveyor probes were real, they had the technology to do that.

Quote
The radio signals that came back must have come from the moon or the Russians would have had an absolute field day denouncing the US
There are several plausible scenarios to explain this.  The American press might be lying.  There might have actually been an unmanned craft on the moon which was actually transmitting which would also have fooled the people at mission control.

Quote
Someone would have talked by now; given the timescale there would have been a few deathbed confessions.
What makes you think the press would report anything like that?  The press is controlled.  We're just led to believe it's independent.

http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=othertheories&action=display&thread=1525

Someone post just one thing that he or she considers to be conclusive proof that they really went to the moon and we can talk about whether it's really proof.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: graham.d on 08/08/2008 20:54:48
It seems to me that there is nothing you would consider as conclusive proof. You are prepared to believe the discredited opinions of a bunch of conspiracy theorists and loonies, and to also believe that numerous scientists, government organisations, university staff and the press, from very many countries over the world, are all lying. Not to mention the teams of people who actually worked on the missions at the time.

You can always fabricate obscure explanations so that whatever evidence you are presented with is insufficient for you to be convinced. On this basis you could still claim the earth was flat!
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: lyner on 09/08/2008 10:03:01
Quote
What makes you think the press would report anything like that?  The press is controlled.  We're just led to believe it's independent.
So how come you haven't had the heavies on YOUR doorstep stopping you from writing your nonsense?
As there are 'presses' and regimes of all colours, how come not a single reputable , foreign, agency hasn't spilled the beans?
Since the events, there have been dozens of maverick states which could have let any genuine cat out of the bag and it would have really suited them to. Wouldn't Ben Laden have loved to publish something? Why do you think he hasn't? You might consider that it is because there is nothing to publish!
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: DoctorBeaver on 09/08/2008 11:33:38
Believing the landings were faked is beyond ridiculous, and anyone stupid enough to believe it is either paranoid or delusional.

The beaver has spoken. Now stop this absurdity!
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: paul.fr on 09/08/2008 23:08:00
Believing the landings were faked is beyond ridiculous, and anyone stupid enough to believe it is either paranoid or delusional.

The beaver has spoken. Now stop this absurdity!

Agreed, is there a moderator around who would wish to lock this topic?
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: DoctorBeaver on 10/08/2008 11:06:03
Believing the landings were faked is beyond ridiculous, and anyone stupid enough to believe it is either paranoid or delusional.

The beaver has spoken. Now stop this absurdity!

Agreed, is there a moderator around who would wish to lock this topic?

Like buses - you can never find 1 when you want 1. You wait, 20 will turn up at once.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Moron on 10/08/2008 16:57:54
Cosmored, are we related?
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: lyner on 11/08/2008 11:34:06
Quote
Agreed, is there a moderator around who would wish to lock this topic?
But it would only spring up again with another name. Just don't get involved if you find loony ideas offensive.
 [:-\]
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/08/2008 19:59:03
Wow!
Now nine pages of wasted space.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: lyner on 11/08/2008 20:52:36
Virtual space, though!
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: DoctorBeaver on 13/08/2008 11:10:05
Quote
Agreed, is there a moderator around who would wish to lock this topic?
But it would only spring up again with another name. Just don't get involved if you find loony ideas offensive.
 [:-\]

I don't find them offensive in the slightest. To be honest, I think they're rather amusing. But this one is just going round in circles.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: lyner on 13/08/2008 17:49:24
I think that the international governments are making you say that so we will stop picking holes in the conspiracy theories. Or is it the other way round?
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: paul.fr on 14/08/2008 00:34:00
Quote
Agreed, is there a moderator around who would wish to lock this topic?
But it would only spring up again with another name. Just don't get involved if you find loony ideas offensive.
 [:-\]
Being a member of TNS and finding loony ideas offensive are surely at odds with eachother. Also, its not the idea i find offensive, i just wonder why "stuff" like this is in new theories when there is nothing new and hardly a theory.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/08/2008 19:28:06
I keep sugesting we have and "Absolute rubbish" section.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: DoctorBeaver on 14/08/2008 19:30:33
I keep sugesting we have and "Absolute rubbish" section.

I'd have to move in there  [:(]
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: paul.fr on 14/08/2008 20:23:25
I keep sugesting we have and "Absolute rubbish" section.

I think "people" would suggest that that is what "new theories" already is. However i don't think it's made clear, and you are correct BC, we do need a "Absolute russish" section. The title or having your posts moved there may just be enough to discourage "them".
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: lyner on 15/08/2008 17:41:45
"Russish" reads like a Freudian Slip. Clearly they were involved in the conspiracy.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: paul.fr on 16/08/2008 14:25:40
"Russish" reads like a Freudian Slip. Clearly they were involved in the conspiracy.

Yes, there is a spell checker conspiracy!
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: lyner on 17/08/2008 00:33:07
I can spell "checker" perfectly well, thank you.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: paul.fr on 17/08/2008 13:51:20
I can spell "checker" perfectly well, thank you.

But I was trying to spell chequer!
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: lyner on 17/08/2008 21:41:47
Were you board?
Or did you want to get things square?
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: paul.fr on 18/08/2008 15:43:55
That really is at right angles to what I was thinking!
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Cosmored on 06/09/2008 21:02:33
Look on pages three and four of the comment section of this video.

Three different pro-Apollo people have given three different explanations for the swinging jacket corner.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Wrong! The jacket is tied at the back. When his body goes down, so does the back of the jacket. Which is attached to the front corner of the jacket. Simple."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Its obviously a result of destructive interference in the oscillating longitudinal waves created by Collins zero-g movement."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In zero-g, the corner will return to rest in the same position as related to its position in the rest of the jacket, regardless of orientation. This is not a diffucult concept. Ciao !
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The first two are from very well-known pro-Apollo people.

This is who HeadLikeARock is.
http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=1107&page=1#33457
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=9663&view=findpost&p=98465

This is who SpreadingtheMuse is.
http://es.youtube.com/user/SpreadingtheMuse
 
The third is an unknown.

The person who made the video (svector) has been ignoring requests that he comment on the issue for more than three months now.

I still maintain that gravity is making the corner of the jacket go back down.

This is real zero-G.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=TejsnPThmd4

SpreadingtheMuse has said some contradictory things.  What do you pro-Apollo people have to say about this?  Are all the explanation they give right?  Is only one of them right?  If so, which one is right?
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/09/2008 09:52:03
3 perfectly plausible explanations from people who may well know more about it than you do yet you still say "I still maintain that gravity is making the corner of the jacket go back down."

Since you seem quite prepared to consistently ignore the evidence, perhaps you should move the discussion to a theology website rather than this scientific one.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: neilep on 07/09/2008 13:09:52
....I've come to the conclusion that the Moon itself just does not exist. And that it's all a big conspiracy and is in fact a big balloon or even a back lit poster...or ....even more conspiratorial...there must be something in the water that the authorities have put there so that we all hallucinate the moon.

The premise ?...so that people can claim kudos for saying they have been there !!....yes..yes...this is all true.

It's the same with Everest.. I truly do not believe that anyone has actually climbed it...in fact..I don't believe it is even real..I think it's a cardboard cut out cleverly photographed to appear there......I'd even go to say that all mountains don't exist.

Nor, does the Grand Canyon ...you know what it really is ?...it's a the groove in a tread of a Nike sports shoe photographed very close and touched up in Photoshop ?

Rain does not exist either...it's a conspiracy !....people around the world are fooled by a global conspiracy to hose individuals to make it appear that it's raining !!......

It's the same with oceans !!...Big swimming pools, wave machines and clever use of mirrors !!


The list is endless !!
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Cosmored on 07/09/2008 14:56:01
Quote
3 perfectly plausible explanations from people who may well know more about it than you do yet you still say "I still maintain that gravity is making the corner of the jacket go back down."

Since you seem quite prepared to consistently ignore the evidence, perhaps you should move the discussion to a theology website rather than this scientific one.
You're missing (or choosing not to see) the point.  They contradicted each other because they weren't organized. Now they are saying that all three are correct as they are just different ways of describing the same thing which is ridiculous. 

If you read the comment section, you'll see that spreadingtheMuse has said that all three are correct. Do you agree with him?

In the comment section he said he was a physicist.
http://es.youtube.com/user/SpreadingtheMuse

Please don't avoid this question.  Do you agree with spreadingtheMuse?

Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/09/2008 16:05:48
All three explanations might be at least part of the reason. It's not clear to me that they mean the same thing but so what?
Unless you can prove that these (and all other non-conspiracy theories) are all wrong then you really haven't added anything.
3 people put forward 3 ideas that they think might be an explanation. One or more of them might be right.
You seem to think that, because the answeres are not identical it means they are all wrong. That's nonsense.

Meanwhile you post stuff like "They contradicted each other because they weren't organized."
Well, shouldn't you make up your mind?
Either they are so organised that they have kept pretty much everyone convinced for decades or they are not organised.
You can't have it both ways.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Cosmored on 09/09/2008 16:15:50
Quote
All three explanations might be at least part of the reason. It's not clear to me that they mean the same thing but so what?
Unless you can prove that these (and all other non-conspiracy theories) are all wrong then you really haven't added anything.
3 people put forward 3 ideas that they think might be an explanation. One or more of them might be right.
You seem to think that, because the answeres are not identical it means they are all wrong. That's nonsense.

Meanwhile you post stuff like "They contradicted each other because they weren't organized."
Well, shouldn't you make up your mind?
Either they are so organised that they have kept pretty much everyone convinced for decades or they are not organised.
You can't have it both ways.
I didn't want to come out and bluntly say it but if that's what I have to do, I will.  I think those people are government agents who know the moon missions were faked.

http://www.opposingdigits.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1222

One of them is a regular poster at the Clavius forum.

Jay Windley and some of those other regular posters at Clavius got caught in a big lie which is explained here.

http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=1094
http://www.geologyrocks.co.uk/forum/q_and_a/a_strange_scenario_re_sifted_sand

Jay Windley knows Apollo was a hoax and so do the rest of those pro-Apollo posters at the Clavius forum.

This is who Jay Windley is.
http://www.clavius.org/about.html

Two of those posters who gave explanations for the swinging jacket corner are well-known.  Now they are in a pickle because they can't say the others were wrong and they can't explain why they can all be right either.  Look at pages 3 and 4 of the comment section of the YouTube video to see the inconsistancy in spreadingtheMuse's positions; he has contradicted himself.  Also, the guy who made the video (svector) has been ignoring requests that he comment on the swinging jacket corner for three months now.  Svector is also a regular pro-Apollo poster at the Clavius forum.


I'm having a debate with the guy from Clavius right now over at Loose Change and he's really having a hard time because he won't say the other two are wrong.

http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/51606/18/

It's pretty clear that spreadingtheMuse and HeadLikeARock are NASA shills who know Apollo was faked.

The are guilty of either deceit, or defective thinking; they don't seem like stupid people so I think it's deceit.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/09/2008 19:17:18
Wouldn't it be easier to just get NASA to beat cosmored over the head with some moonrocks until he believes in them. It's clear that nothin g else is going to shake his conviction.
Presumably now I'm going to get labeled as a NASA "shill" as will anyone else who disagrees with cosmored's fanatical determination to believe he is being lied to.

I still wonder how they got the Russians in on this. Without their confirmation of the origin of the radio messages from the moon, there would be some sort of value to this "debate". With the Russians having agreed that the Yanks got there, there's no way it was faked.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Cosmored on 10/09/2008 15:09:44
Quote
I still wonder how they got the Russians in on this. Without their confirmation of the origin of the radio messages from the moon, there would be some sort of value to this "debate". With the Russians having agreed that the Yanks got there, there's no way it was faked.
Watch these videos.

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=moonfaker++cold+war&search_type=&aq=f

You should read Chomsky's analysis of the cold war.  It's in a book of his called "Deterring Democracy"

He talks about how both the US and the Soviets exagerated about the confrontation they were having in order to scare their respective populations into going along with their policies.  According to Chomsky they were cooperating much more than we knew.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/09/2008 19:17:16
Well, if the Russians were in on it and the Americans too, what about the Chinese?
No, come to think of it  it's easier to say "OK, you are right; everybody on the plannet has been lying to you all along."
The retroreflectors on the moon were put there by an act of God. The Russians only pretended to invade other countries- they were not really involved in a war. The moonrocks were made in a pottery kiln in a secondary shcool in Bognor Regis.
See, it all makes sense now.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: paul.fr on 11/09/2008 14:29:59
If it was a hoax, a hoax which the Americans and Russians were both in on, what was the point of the hoax?
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/09/2008 19:28:02
It started out as a joke at the expense of the 2 populations to lighten up the international diplomatic talks, but it got out of hand.
You know how it is when the victim of a joke really falls for it and you can't resist carrying on. Well, unfortunately once quite a lot of people had died, the politicians on both sides realised they couldn't get away with saying "April fool!" and hoping everyone would just laugh about it so they have to carry it on.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Cosmored on 13/09/2008 22:13:33
Quote
The retroreflectors on the moon were put there by an act of God.

Unmanned craft with reflectors attached to their sides could have soft-landed on the moon.  Reflectors are not proof that there were people on the moon.  If the Surveyor program was not a hoax, they had the technology to do that. 

Quote
Well, if the Russians were in on it and the Americans too, what about the Chinese?
No, come to think of it  it's easier to say "OK, you are right; everybody on the plannet has been lying to you all along."
If Chinese newspapers were saying Apollo was a hoax, the US press woundn't have reported it.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: paul.fr on 13/09/2008 23:11:28

If Chinese newspapers were saying Apollo was a hoax, the US press woundn't have reported it.

Why?

Again, if this was a hoax and the Russians were in on it, the Chinese knew about it, then what was the point?
why would Russia allow itself to look inferior to the US?
why do you so badly want this to be a hoax?
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/09/2008 10:34:09
The US papers might not have reported it, but you seem not to have noticed that roughly 95% of the world's population doesn't live in the US.


The rest of us would have heard about it- via Japan would be an obvious route for the information to have travelled.
Or are you now saying that not only the Russians and the Americans are in on this but the Chinese, Japanese, UK, Australian... and so on are all part of the conspiracy. It seems a lot of trouble to go to in order to mislead the people of Africa (they seem to be the only ones who haven't had a mention yet).
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Cosmored on 14/09/2008 16:20:26
Quote
why would Russia allow itself to look inferior to the US?
This is from my other post on page 9.
 
Quote
Watch these videos.

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=moonfaker++cold+war&search_type=&aq=f

You should read Chomsky's analysis of the cold war.  It's in a book of his called "Deterring Democracy"

He talks about how both the US and the Soviets exagerated about the confrontation they were having in order to scare their respective populations into going along with their policies.  According to Chomsky they were cooperating much more than we knew.

Quote
why do you so badly want this to be a hoax?
If it were to turn out not to be a hoax, I'd be happy about it. The evidence leads to a hoax.
 
I keep posting the same stuff over and over.  You people respond as if I hadn't posted anything. 
 
Look at the first post on this thread and post #23.
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/51606/1/
 
If you think the evidence doesn't prove they didn't go to the moon, say why.  Somebody post something he or she considers proof that they went and we can discuss whether it's really proof.
 
Quote
The US papers might not have reported it, but you seem not to have noticed that roughly 95% of the world's population doesn't live in the US.


The rest of us would have heard about it- via Japan would be an obvious route for the information to have travelled.
The same people who control the US press seems to control the press in a lot of countries.
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Ruling_Elites/BilderbergClub.html
 
In some places everybody thinks the missions were faked.

http://www.nardwuar.com/vs/bill_kaysing/index.html
(excerpt)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, how did the media fall for this?
Well, the media doesn't fall for anything. The media is controlled by the government. The Dutch papers on July 21  said that the moon landing was a hoax, was a fake, and I have been unable to find any of those Dutch papers, although it's well documented that they did publish information, with proof, that the U.S. was spoofing everybody.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Lot's of Americans go abroad and find out things that the press ignores or of which the press gives an upside-down view.  There are lots of Americans who know things about which the government lies or ignores.  If those things don't appear in the mainstream press, it's not a big problem for the government.  Word travels through the grapevine but it doesn't reach everybody.

Here's an example.  Americans learn in school that the US defends freedom and democracy in the world.  Look at the truth. 
http://mtwsfh.blogspot.com/

(Enter "Torture", or "Death squads" in this search engine)
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/htdig/search.html

Lots of Americans know the truth and they protest outside the capital building.  Lots of people still believe the official version though.

Why should it be any different for Apollo?
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: paul.fr on 14/09/2008 17:28:35
Quote
If it were to turn out not to be a hoax, I'd be happy about it. The evidence leads to a hoax.
 
I keep posting the same stuff over and over.  You people respond as if I hadn't posted anything.
 

What evidence? All you ever give are links to youtube and ask us to read a book.


Quote
Well, how did the media fall for this?
Well, the media doesn't fall for anything. The media is controlled by the government. The Dutch papers on July 21  said that the moon landing was a hoax, was a fake, and I have been unable to find any of those Dutch papers, although it's well documented that they did publish information, with proof, that the U.S. was spoofing everybody.

well documented by who? conspiracy theorists?
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/09/2008 18:39:41
From Cosmored
"I keep posting the same stuff over and over. "
Yep, we noticed.
"In some places everybody thinks the missions were faked."
Name one.

I note with mild amusement that you don't believe the official reports because they come from the government (and it's agencies whether closet or overt) but you believe a man who is perfectly openly trying to sell his book.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: paul.fr on 15/09/2008 01:18:42
Im getting confused now, can we start a list (oh god, not another list) of who was in on the conspiracy?

The Americans (NASA, Gov. Officials)

The Russians. They knew and went along with the hoax, even starting wars and arming persons fighting the Americans just to keep the pretence up.

The Chinese (possibly)

The Dutch knew and reported it in their press.

who am i leaving out?

Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: lyner on 16/09/2008 14:12:20
You missed out the conspiracy theorists of the day who found out about it all and yet, amazingly, kept quiet and suppressed their own evidence.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/09/2008 21:55:34
And the current ones who can't be bothered to ask someone in Holland to look up a back copy of a newspaper.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Andrew K Fletcher on 05/12/2008 14:05:18
It is very easy to prove or disprove what one sees on the television. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, though in short supply, especially in 1969. The clarity of the video footage and communication was pretty good too, considering the inadequate cameras used, supported by technology equivalent to a modern day pocket calculator and given the somewhat poor and unreliable coverage from mobile phones today. Some 40 years on with analogue television reception still often marred by weather interference. The photographs, video and reception were reminiscent of a full studio with lighting rather than signals picked up from the moon. Then there are the anomalies in the video footage? Together with the anomalies in the photographic footage that require scrupulous or rigorous inspection to base any conclusion about whether they did or did not land upon the moon. The arguments in the conspiracy video’s are pretty convincing and the arguments against them are pretty sketchy to say the least.

Personally I don’t believe we are capable of landing people on the moon today without radiation causing serious health problems, but there you go.

As for whether we should believe the US Government, let us remember these Words.

“Weapons of Mass Destruction” Or was that last word Distraction? Used to launch a war on a country that did not have an air force or even an effective army. Yet two of the world’s most successful aggressors were able to launch an assault on a relatively unarmed country killing and maiming innocent men women and children with their own weapons of mass destruction and at the same time convincing the rest of the world that their war is a just one.

So let us at least dismiss the arguments that deception on a huge scale is not possible. Judging by the deception from the banks and stock exchange, clearly wholesale deception and fraud is possible even today!
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: lyner on 05/12/2008 19:26:45
A really poor 'conspiracy:
Quote
“Weapons of Mass Destruction” Or was that last word Distraction? Used to launch a war on a country that did not have an air force or even an effective army. Yet two of the world’s most successful aggressors were able to launch an assault on a relatively unarmed country killing and maiming innocent men women and children with their own weapons of mass destruction and at the same time convincing the rest of the world that their war is a just one.

So let us at least dismiss the arguments that deception on a huge scale is not possible.
How may people did it fool and for how long? Even during the situation it was not believed by many people - even the UN observers.

If radiation would have prevented the moonshots then how have people survived in the space stations for so long?

The 'inadequate cameras' used in the space shot were very expensive, studio quality models which could produce Vogue-quality pictures when the lighting was suitable. There was no shortage of lighting - 120th at f8 would have been about right for a subject in full sunlight - as on Earth. Where is the surprise that there were some excellent shots?

AND, what anomalies? That is to say which ones have still not been explained to all but the  loony few?
 (Don't list them - just read the last few hundred posts for an answer)

Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Don_1 on 06/12/2008 00:51:41
Has it ever occured to anyone that this moonlanding conspiracy nonsense just might have been the result of a little Soviet hanky panky?

They were a tad put out by the fact that the Yanks beat them to it.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Bored chemist on 06/12/2008 02:06:39
"Personally I don’t believe we are capable of landing people on the moon today without radiation causing serious health problems, but there you go"
Yes, but you have a reputation for putting forward odd ideas that don't tally with reallity (like the idea that FMD is widespread, but unrecognised in the UK).
Also you say "is very easy to prove or disprove what one sees on the television. " which I find optimistic.
The courts would love to be able to distinguish a real image from a photoshopped one.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: lyner on 06/12/2008 10:21:47
Strength of belief in conspiracy theories seems to be inversely proportional to the level of real Science knowledge.
There is a similar relationship involving belief in most other loopy theories.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Andrew K Fletcher on 06/12/2008 10:41:58
Arrogance and ignorance also appear to correspond to the level of science knowledge. There is a similar relationship involving an un-questioning adherence to accepted literature.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Andrew K Fletcher on 06/12/2008 10:58:18
What exactly is odd about tallying foot and mouth disease outbreaks with prolonged wet weather lowering the body temperature and circulation in an animal exposed to the elements which leaves them susceptible to infection, when removing the same infected animals to warm dry laboratory conditions cures the disease? It does not flitter away, the animals defences deal with it. This is my point and the fact that veterinary surgeons are knee deep in a quagmire of animal excrement as animals are confined to conditions that would bring down the most healthy of humans to their knees as illustrated in every single outbreak in the UK and many other countries.

You state the disease was successfully eradicated and the UK is disease free, yet farm animals were exposed to the wildlife including the native and imported deer populations. These animals have never been vaccinated. We know they are susceptible to foot and mouth disease and blue tongue. So how did they get rid of the foot and mouth virus? Did they simply avoid the quagmires and kept themselves warm and dry? Just like the laboratory infected farm animals recovered from F&M?


"Personally I don’t believe we are capable of landing people on the moon today without radiation causing serious health problems, but there you go"
Yes, but you have a reputation for putting forward odd ideas that don't tally with reallity (like the idea that FMD is widespread, but unrecognised in the UK).
Also you say "is very easy to prove or disprove what one sees on the television. " which I find optimistic.
The courts would love to be able to distinguish a real image from a photoshopped one.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Andrew K Fletcher on 06/12/2008 11:04:17
The point that Governments are capable of fraud and deception is proven by those immortal words! You can paint whatever picture you want around it, it does not alter the fact that they did deceive and conspire!

A really poor 'conspiracy:
Quote
“Weapons of Mass Destruction” Or was that last word Distraction? Used to launch a war on a country that did not have an air force or even an effective army. Yet two of the world’s most successful aggressors were able to launch an assault on a relatively unarmed country killing and maiming innocent men women and children with their own weapons of mass destruction and at the same time convincing the rest of the world that their war is a just one.

So let us at least dismiss the arguments that deception on a huge scale is not possible.
How may people did it fool and for how long? Even during the situation it was not believed by many people - even the UN observers.

If radiation would have prevented the moonshots then how have people survived in the space stations for so long?

The 'inadequate cameras' used in the space shot were very expensive, studio quality models which could produce Vogue-quality pictures when the lighting was suitable. There was no shortage of lighting - 120th at f8 would have been about right for a subject in full sunlight - as on Earth. Where is the surprise that there were some excellent shots?

AND, what anomalies? That is to say which ones have still not been explained to all but the  loony few?
 (Don't list them - just read the last few hundred posts for an answer)


Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: BenV on 06/12/2008 12:45:19
The point that Governments are capable of fraud and deception is proven by those immortal words! You can paint whatever picture you want around it, it does not alter the fact that they did deceive and conspire!

A really poor 'conspiracy:
Quote
“Weapons of Mass Destruction” Or was that last word Distraction? Used to launch a war on a country that did not have an air force or even an effective army. Yet two of the world’s most successful aggressors were able to launch an assault on a relatively unarmed country killing and maiming innocent men women and children with their own weapons of mass destruction and at the same time convincing the rest of the world that their war is a just one.

So let us at least dismiss the arguments that deception on a huge scale is not possible.
How may people did it fool and for how long? Even during the situation it was not believed by many people - even the UN observers.

If radiation would have prevented the moonshots then how have people survived in the space stations for so long?

The 'inadequate cameras' used in the space shot were very expensive, studio quality models which could produce Vogue-quality pictures when the lighting was suitable. There was no shortage of lighting - 120th at f8 would have been about right for a subject in full sunlight - as on Earth. Where is the surprise that there were some excellent shots?

AND, what anomalies? That is to say which ones have still not been explained to all but the  loony few?
 (Don't list them - just read the last few hundred posts for an answer)



I think you may have missed Sophie's point - they failed to deceive, certainly not for very long.  I don't think they managed to convince the rest of the world that their war was just either - just look at France for an example.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: lyner on 06/12/2008 17:47:07
Arrogance and ignorance also appear to correspond to the level of science knowledge. There is a similar relationship involving an un-questioning adherence to accepted literature.
I try to make a point of verifying things (old or new) in as rigorous a way as possible. Using Maths and the occasional experiment - where possible- tends to verify most of the established stuff and to disprove a lot of the fringe stuff. I try not to rely just on personal feelings where Science is concerned. I also tend to believe most of what people with good track records have to say rather than romantic amateurs. It hasn't turned around and bitten me yet.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Bored chemist on 06/12/2008 22:30:04
What exactly is odd about tallying foot and mouth disease outbreaks with prolonged wet weather lowering the body temperature and circulation in an animal exposed to the elements which leaves them susceptible to infection, when removing the same infected animals to warm dry laboratory conditions cures the disease? It does not flitter away, the animals defences deal with it. This is my point and the fact that veterinary surgeons are knee deep in a quagmire of animal excrement as animals are confined to conditions that would bring down the most healthy of humans to their knees as illustrated in every single outbreak in the UK and many other countries.

You state the disease was successfully eradicated and the UK is disease free, yet farm animals were exposed to the wildlife including the native and imported deer populations. These animals have never been vaccinated. We know they are susceptible to foot and mouth disease and blue tongue. So how did they get rid of the foot and mouth virus? Did they simply avoid the quagmires and kept themselves warm and dry? Just like the laboratory infected farm animals recovered from F&M?


"Personally I don’t believe we are capable of landing people on the moon today without radiation causing serious health problems, but there you go"
Yes, but you have a reputation for putting forward odd ideas that don't tally with reallity (like the idea that FMD is widespread, but unrecognised in the UK).
Also you say "is very easy to prove or disprove what one sees on the television. " which I find optimistic.
The courts would love to be able to distinguish a real image from a photoshopped one.


What's odd about it is insisting that the disease is still present in this country even though there are no cases of it.
Incidentally, since we regularly send people into space these days it's plain that we can protect them from the radiation. As I said, your assertion doesn't tally with the facts.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Bikerman on 06/12/2008 22:55:22
Well, we need to be clear that the 'anti' lobby are saying that the Van-Allen belt is the problem and that low-earth orbits are therefore no problem.
They are wrong, of course, but let's get their argument correct.  [:)]
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Andrew K Fletcher on 07/12/2008 09:16:10
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1295117/in_flight_radiation_on_flight_to_majorca_recorded_on_gammarae_ra/

Apparently, The Van-Allen belt is a huge problem. Manned space flight at low orbit is also a huge problem with radiation passing through the crafts, space suits and bodies of the astronauts. Oddly enough flight at 37 thousand feet also presents some huge problems for regular passengers and crew on long haul and relatively short haul flights.

So I took a scintillating Gamma Ray detector onboard a flight to Mallorca to see if there was any fluctuation in gamma radiation. The results were interesting. Someone argued that the gamma could be a result of collisions with other particles. The equipment used was the Gamma Rae pager, a very reliable monitor for gamma.

Gamma is a small proportion of the radiation that passes through and collides with particles on our planet. So the question arises as to how much radiation is present in low level orbit?

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=14327.0  Link to post on inflight raditation

Andrew K Fletcher
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: lyner on 07/12/2008 12:22:56
Quote
Apparently, The Van-Allen belt is a huge problem. Manned space flight at low orbit is also a huge problem with radiation passing through the crafts, space suits and bodies of the astronauts.
So does that mean that the radiation situation is or is not comparable for Moon Shots or Low Earth Orbit? And how does months and months of space station exposure compare with a couple of weeks on a Moon trip?
What evidence can you quote about the expected Moon Shot radiation effects?
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: lyner on 07/12/2008 12:26:17
AKF; perhaps you could furnish me with an example of one of the 'Anomalies' to which you referred - as part of a pro-conspiracy argument.
If I explain it away validly, will you acknowledge it?
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/12/2008 13:59:48
It's well known that the atmosphere shields us from a lot of radiation. It figures that, without the atmosphere, we would be exposed to a lot more radiation. However people can survive reasoanble amounts of radiation so there's no problem with short haul space travel. A mission to Mars would be a problem but just nipping out to the moon for some rocks isn't a major health issue. I for one would love to take that risk (though if I could put it off for 20 years it would make sense)
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: lyner on 07/12/2008 16:16:40
Can you get low gravity Zimmer frames? I'll join you.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Andrew K Fletcher on 07/12/2008 17:22:39
OK here is an anomoly.

How come the films taken did not get contaminated with radiation fog?
CONCLUSIONS
Modern high-speed film emulsions are extremely sensitive to exposure to the high-energy form of radiation
experienced in low earth orbit. The payload structure does not provide sufficient shielding to block this high
LET radiation. These results indicate that high-speed photographic films are possibly not suitable for image
recording in space shuttle payloads without special shielding. Preference should be given to lower sensitivity
films where possible and testing should be used to verify the choice of material.
http://www.musc.edu/cando/symp99/acrobat/rad.pdf
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: lyner on 07/12/2008 18:23:06
I thought that the early hi res pictures of the Moon, taken by unmanned craft, were scanned photographs, taken and developed on board. That system worked pretty well. Vacuum tube imaging was pretty rubbish until a couple of decades ago.
It is only relatively recently that solid state image technology has been good enough for good quality pictures.

How radiation-hardened is the equipment used in other un-manned space missions, in any case?

BTW, AKF, are you really not old enough to have seen the event, first hand? Were you really so wise at the time as to spot all the 'flaws' in the production, or did the idea of the conspiracy only get to you later, when it appeared on 'fashionable' websites?
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/12/2008 20:08:07
"Modern high-speed film emulsions are extremely sensitive to exposure to the high-energy form of radiation experienced in low earth orbit. "
And didn't exist at the time.

They were taking pictures on the moon. There was no shortage of sunlight. Why in the name of all that's holy would they have taken high speed filem?
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: lyner on 07/12/2008 22:36:12
As I said. 125th at f8 would be fine for normal film. A bright sun with no cloud. In fact, they would be using fine grain (i.e. SLOW/ ISO 50 or 100) film, in all probability.



Any more 'anomalies'?
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Andrew K Fletcher on 08/12/2008 09:56:33
The point is that radiation affects all film, not just high speed film. Apparently this was how radiation was first discovered. There was no evidence of this happening on the early films and photographs, although there was mention of white flashes from some astronauts, yet none was mentioned by others. Worth remembering that the film used went through Van-allen's belt 2 times then in orbit around the moon, during decent and ascent from the surface with no atmosphere and during both landing and take off. Prevention of radiation contamination would have required thick lead film canisters, and a lead camera, both of which were never mentioned so presumably never used.

http://www.orau.org/ptp/Library/mddc1065.pdf The following document dates back to 1948 Titled Photographic Film as a Pocket Radiation Dosimeter, which led to the used of small samples of film used as badges for people working in the radiation industry. Proving that Modern High speed film is not required to record radiation contamination.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: lyner on 08/12/2008 17:57:15
AKF, why do you ignore my crucial point which relates to total dose of radiation?
Months and months in low Earth orbit compares with a few  hours of actual transit time through the belts (they only extend to a few Earth radii, at most and the craft is traveling relatively fast at that time).
You make assertions about the implied levels of radiation. Have you researched to find the actual levels and doses? It would be easy to integrate the dose over a typical Moon shot and to compare it with the space station experience. If you want to convince me (and yourself, I should hope),  then you should do the calculation. I have often pointed out to you that the actual numbers count in Science. Hand waving doesn't prove anything.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/12/2008 18:31:24
Anyone ever taken their holiday snaps through a security Xray machine? They usually survive. The worst you get is a bit of background fogging. This is much worse for some films than others. Since, as AKF says this was how such radioactivity was discovered, the scientists had plenty of experience of what films to use.

From time to time people have Xray images taken of themselves- in my case it's generally my teeth.
These involve enough radiation to fully expose the film, but they have little or no effect on the people. It seems that film is more sensitive than people. This is also consistent with the discovery of radioactivity being due to its effect on film rather than people.

Since films go through the radiation exposure of  space travel without undue effects it's fair to assume that  people can.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Andrew K Fletcher on 09/12/2008 13:34:00
This might help as it mentions some measurements. Both publications are worth a read.

http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apollo/s2ch3.htm

Quote
Problems Involving Radiations of Manmade Origin
Protection against manmade sources of radiation is a ground support function concerned mainly with the protection of the ground personnel, the general public, and the environment against detrimental effects of radiation. Much of this effort involved routine health-physics procedures governed by U.S. Atomic Energy Commission regulations (Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, 1971) and U.S. Department of Labor Standards (Title 29, Code of Federal Regulations, 1971). However, certain problems concerning spacecraft radioluminescent sources were peculiar to the Apollo Program. The chief problems were leakage of radioactive material from radioluminescent switch tips, and emission of excess soft X-ray radiation from radioluminescent panels. Both of these problems were solved.



http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast23feb_2.htm

Quote
They spent a few hours within the Van Allen belts and estimates of the total exposure during their entire flights were about 2 rems (the equivalent of about 100 chest x-rays or about 40% of the maximum permissible dose of radiation according to OSHA standards).



There appears to be enough radiation present to cause problems with the films used. Even radiation on the dials, which alone should have given condierable cause for concern. Add to this the man-made radiation from nuclear explosions, together with natural solar and cosmic radiation plus the flashing lights observed by some astronauts, which represent the radiation striking the film on board and we should be able to determine whether or not any fim canister had been to the moon and back or not by observing the footage for radiation contamination.

BC you imply that special raidioactive resisting film was used
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Andrew K Fletcher on 09/12/2008 13:34:43
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/cis98/cis98.jhtml
 
Until recently, x-ray inspection units used for airport security have been relatively safe for films. However, as airports step up their security measures, some have introduced a new type of inspection unit that has a greater potential to fog film. To date, these units are not widespread, but we expect them to become increasingly common.

This new equipment is intended for checked luggage, although it is possible that boarding-gate security checkpoints will use it in the future. Because your checked luggage may be subjected to these new units, we suggest that you hand-carry your film and request visual inspection.

Historically, fog caused by x-ray radiation has appeared as lines or patterns across the width of roll film. The patterns are usually widely spaced lines followed by many more closely spaced lines. This happens because the image of the plastic core at the center of the roll and the individual laps of the film are projected onto the other laps of film in the roll. Undulating or wavy patterns may also occur throughout the length of the roll; this happens when the film is x-rayed at an angle and the shadow from the end of the film spool and magazine alters the exposure. Shadow images from other objects may also be evident. For example, film x-rayed inside a camera may show images of camera mechanisms

The fog caused by the new airport inspection units is usually more pronounced. It typically appears as soft-edged bands 1/4 to 3/8 inch (1 to 1.5 cm) wide. Because the new equipment uses a higher and more focused x-ray beam, the banding will be very dark on negative films and very light on reversal films. Depending on the orientation of the film to the x-ray beam, the banding may be linear or wavy, and can run lengthwise or crosswise on the film. It can also undulate, depending on the combination of the angle of exposure and the multiple laps of film on the roll. However, the fog will usually lack the more subtle patterns produced by traditional types of x-ray equipment.

X-ray fog may appear as follows:

    * On Black-and-White Negative Films--Dark areas in patterns as described above.

    * On Color Negative Films--Dark areas with neutral or brown patterns.

    * Color Reversal Films--Minus-density area with patterns as described above.

CAUSES

X-ray fog can result from exposure to x-rays from medical equipment, airport inspection equipment, industrial x-ray sources, and other sources of x-rays, as well as from gamma rays from radioactive materials.

Airport x-ray inspection equipment is the most common source encountered by most photographers. Except for the new types of inspection units described earlier, most inspection units in use today are relatively safe for films with an ISO speed or Exposure Index (EI) of 400 or lower. However, multiple exposures without reorientation of the film, cumulative doses of more than five exposures, and malfunctioning inspection units can cause fog. Films with an ISO speed or EI higher than 400 require added precautions because they are much more sensitive to x-ray exposure. Even with "film-safe" x-ray units, you should limit exposure to one inspection. For films with a speed of 1000 or higher, request visual inspection if allowed by local regulations or law.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

Other factors can affect the severity of x-ray exposures on photographic films. Film that is--or will be--underexposed and film that you intend to push-process may be particularly vulnerable to x-ray exposure.

Underexposure. X-ray fog occurs in the lower exposure range of the film. Film that is underexposed has more of the image recorded in this range. Therefore, the effects of x-ray exposure may further reduce the quality of underexposed images.

Push Processing. Push processing involves overdevelopment of film to increase the effective speed and increase the density of underexposed images. Just as overdevelopment increases image density, it will also increase the density of any fog, including x-ray fog.

Limiting x-ray exposure is increasingly important for film that may be subject to underexposure or push processing.
PREVENTION

At airport inspection stations, be sure to look for posted advisories on potential effects on film. Requesting visual inspection of photographic materials is still the best preventive measure, when it's allowed. For easy inspection, carry the film in a clear plastic bag.

If you choose to place your film in luggage that you will check, ask if the luggage will be x-rayed. Be aware that security procedures in some locations may prohibit informing passengers whether or not their checked luggage will be x-rayed. Because of random x-ray examination of checked luggage and differences in procedures worldwide, we suggest that you not carry film in checked luggage. By hand-carrying your film, you will know if it is subjected to x-ray inspection.

If possible, you may want to have your exposed film processed locally before passing through airport security. X-ray exposure has no effect on processed film.
CORRECTION

You can compensate for any overall fog during printing of negatives, but if the fog is significant, prints will show a loss of shadow detail and reduction in contrast. Also, x-ray fog commonly appears in patterns; it is impossible to compensate for it in printing, because you can't separate the fog exposure from camera exposure.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Bikerman on 09/12/2008 17:29:38
But this is surely old refuted stuff.
The films on Apollo were carried in metal canisters much reducing any potential fogging. We also have more recent evidence - I presume you would not dispute that the Lunar Orbiter and Luna 3 missions actually took place? Both used on-board film/development (this was before the age of digital photography and the film images were developed on board before scanning and transmission).
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Andrew K Fletcher on 09/12/2008 17:34:54
In this document it states even lead lined canisters will not provide the film with protection from radiation.

NAS A/TP--2000-210193
The Effect of Radiation on
Selected Photographic Film

“a standard lead-lined film bag will not
prevent radiation damage,and there is no place in the Shuttle that offers any real protection from
radiation.”

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20010004099_2001000061.pdf
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Bikerman on 09/12/2008 17:40:25
So then you do think that the Lunar 3 and Lunar orbiter projects were a hoax? Interesting. That opens up a whole new conspiracy theory since one was US and the other was USSR. Global conspiracy to pretend they orbited the moon.

Keep taking the tablets.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: lyner on 09/12/2008 18:27:41
AKF
Your acres of quotation are all very interesting but you don't support it with any actual numbers, relating an Xray machine with the Van Allen belts.
As I keep telling you  - the actual numbers are the important issue. If you reqally want to convince us to take the idea more seriously you
need to tell us the total dose that might be expected. That involves some SUMS, dear boy. (Or find someone who has already done them and can show their workings).

In any case, if we forbad people to ever be exposed to radiation which can fog a film, we'd never be allowed to have an X ray picture, would we?
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/12/2008 18:44:41
Here's part of the conclusion from the page AKF cited.
"The 120-day samples were used to determine which films fell into the good, marginal, and unsatisfactory
categories. Of the three different types of photographic films tested, only the motion picture
films had results that were entirely unsatisfactory. IMAX motion picture films have been used in
the past with excellent results. However, the films were only manifested on Space Shuttle
missions that never exceeded 20 days or 200 nautical miles in altitude."
It seems that, apart from motion picture film, a few months in space doesn't cause insurmountable problems.

Since we also know that people are less susceptible to the effects of radiation than film is, we can conclude that the people who went to the moon wouldn't have been zapped.
Numbers would be good but even without them we know that people could survive the radiation dose unscathed.
As a reason to think we never went to the moon this is a complete red herring.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Bikerman on 09/12/2008 18:55:34
This really is old and boring stuff.
We went to the moon. Get over it.
The conspiracy theories, over the years, have got increasingly more desperate as they are debunked point by point.
The problem with this sort of guff is, rather like UFOs and other conspiracy theories, you can never completely debunk it to the satisfaction of the conspiracy theorist. What they have is rather analogous to a religious faith - a blind belief, regardless of evidence, that someone is doing them over.
Never-mind that we can point to a HUGE amount of evidence to the contrary. Never mind that we can point to extant 'kit' like the lunar-reflectors that are used, almost on a daily basis, to measure the earth-moon distance. Never mind that such kit cannot have been possibly 'placed' on the moon by remote...
Faith is impervious to reason, and this sort of conspiracy theory is much more allied to theology than science. Science starts from observation. Theology starts from a-priori assumptions.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Andrew K Fletcher on 10/12/2008 10:15:30
Bikerman. I have to agree with you here. It is indeed old boring stuff. And it does not matter one bit whether they did or did not land on the moon. My problem was with a landing happening in 1969, when technology was very basic to say the least, including photographic technology. The arguments against a successful landing are strong on viewing the conspiracy video’s. The arguments for and against are indeed pointless as either way we cannot undo history.

Your last comment about what is the point of an argument about lunar landings when more pressing immediate problems are worthy of attention is a valid one.

The thing about radiation is that it does leave a lasting imprint on film. In fact it leaves an imprint on everything including the meteor’s that hit the earth and indeed the rocks that are to be found on the lunar surface. So stating we have manufactured a film that avoids radioactive contamination and can still react to solar radiation to form a clear picture without fogging. And that placing a film inside a camera or a canister may reduce fogging, but will not prevent it may be in need of some thought. Careful analysis of the original photograph and video footage against footage taken onboard low altitude orbit might prove very interesting.

Here lies a reliable method of proving or disproving whether the film and film footage went to the moon and back!
I will leave this to the experts in photography.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: lyner on 10/12/2008 16:14:44
But there is no doubt, whatsoever, that film went to and from the Moon at that time because there are pictures of the far side, from manned and unmanned craft. If no film could survive then where did the pictures come from? Are you saying they were all TV pictures? How could they have been recorded (as the far side pictures would have had to be)? An AMPEX VT machine would have been required if it had been TV.
You still have not come up with any quantitative arguments about this and, I think I may have mentioned it before, THE NUMBERS COUNT.

btw, what was 'basic' about the film technology in the 1960s that would make it react any different to ionising radiation? That's just a 'filler' comment which proves nothing. Give us some numbers.

If you are prepared to leave it to "the experts in photography" then you just have to accept that you have no argument. You are the one who claims the conspiracy - you have to prove it.

We've buried this particular 'anomaly' give us another, less 'wishy washy' than that one.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Andrew K Fletcher on 10/12/2008 19:05:21
Long range photography will bare the scars of radiation. No doubt about that. The point I have tried to make is that the footage from the landing craft will / should bare the same radiation marks. If it does, they went to the moon. If it don't they did not go. simple enough.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Bikerman on 10/12/2008 22:36:53
Andrew,
what you are doing is starting from an assumption and using it to disprove a hypothesis. The assumption is that there should be some fogging or other artefacts on the film and the hypothesis is that we did not go to the moon.
That is getting it completely wrong. We know that we went to the moon - there is no reasonable doubt about it. I could spend hours discussing the various lines of evidence but there is no need since they exist in books, papers, websites and other testimony.
The question, therefore, is if there are no radiation effects on the film then why not?
One reason could be that the metal shielding used was sufficient to prevent such damage. Another could be that we overestimate the amount of damage that would be produced. Whatever the reason, we know that the film went to the moon - it is beyond doubt. To turn this around and say - if we can't explain why there is no fogging then we didn't go - well, I'm sorry but that is silly..
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: lyner on 10/12/2008 23:13:28
Long range photography will bare the scars of radiation. No doubt about that. The point I have tried to make is that the footage from the landing craft will / should bare the same radiation marks. If it does, they went to the moon. If it don't they did not go. simple enough.
Actually, you started off by claiming that humans couldn't survive the radiation. You later said that there should have been enough radiation to fog photographs and that was, somehow, a proof about the medical risk.
In fact, photographic film has worked more than adequately under all sorts of space conditions. So what are you saying now?
Do you really believe this rubbish or do you just hate to be wrong?

btw, what is "long range photography"? The camera doesn't care how far the light has traveled.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Andrew K Fletcher on 10/12/2008 23:18:28
The medical risks associated with radiation are well established. There are other risks associated with how the body rapidly deteriorates in space and that walking on arrival back on earth proves somewhat difficult. Worth remembering when watching the footage of the return to earth.

Long rage photography refers to the location of the camera and the target in the lenses. I.E. we know the camera is at X when the photograph was taken so we can use this to determine the level of radiation in the pictures. What did you think I meant?
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Bikerman on 10/12/2008 23:35:05
I take it that you are aware that astronauts DO and HAVE suffered the effects of radiation? The most recent study I can think of looked at the vastly increased incidence of cataracts in astronauts:
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/531868
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: lyner on 11/12/2008 11:00:34
So we have established and seem, all, to agree that there are some effects due to radiation. But we also seem to be agreeing that the effects are detectable rather than lethal. The detectable effects of alcohol on the liver of drinkers are no proof that people haven't been drinking the stuff for years.
There were also effects on the astronauts' skeletons - very detectable, too. Could that prove they didn't go?
If these guys had been told that they would lose their legs as a result of the trip, I bet most of them would still have wanted to go.

Quote
Long rage photography refers to the location of the camera and the target in the lenses. I.E. we know the camera is at X when the photograph was taken so we can use this to determine the level of radiation in the pictures. What did you think I meant?
Dunno. Your answer still seems to imply that both ends of the process count; i.e "location" and "target". I just think the original statement was somehow designed to give some weight to the argument - but it doesn't.

In any case, without quoting some actual quantities, you have no argument. You still have produced none.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Andrew K Fletcher on 11/12/2008 16:43:22
No I mentioned the proof of location being relevent to the level of radiation in that photographs taken from X must have relied on the camera being at X so therefore can give a reliable reading of radiation in the films used at X so this can be used to validate or invalidate original footage by camparison of both films. I don't have access to examine both lots of films, do you?
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: lyner on 11/12/2008 18:12:02
No. But I'm not trying to prove something!
I can say that I have seen some extremely clear pictures taken from any number of space probes, though. It is clearly not a huge problem.

We seem to have gone from radiation being too deadly to consider a Moon shot to it being strong enough to detect on sensitive film. So that seems to have knocked that particular evidence on the head.
Got any more?
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: mistyB on 07/01/2009 21:47:42
I have a friend that does not believe we landed on the moon.  He says this because there are no stars in the backgroud of the pictures that were taken while up there on the moon.  Does anyone know why that is?

I think mythbusters explained this pretty well
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Cosmored on 10/01/2009 20:36:18
I haven't looked here in a long time.

Here's all the stuff I've been able to find on space radiation.

http://www.geocities.com/apollotruth/
(excerpt)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is an old saying that "A liar needs a good memory". Nowhere is this more true than in the Apollo program. NASA tell lies to cover up previous lies, and other discrepancies uncovered by people investigating the Moon landings. Altering previous data, removing photographs, and retracting statements made, only re-enforces the evidence that NASA are on the run, and being forced into a corner to which they cannot escape. The actions of those under investigation makes the investigator more aware they are bluffing. The longer that person, or persons, who make the extravagant claims continue, the more lies they have to tell in order to counteract it, until it reaches the point where it becomes ridiculous. That point was passed in July 1999, when NASA officials were questioned about the Moon landings on television. They dodged the all important questions like a drifter dodges the heat.


Many Apollo astronauts have long since died, as to have many of the original NASA officials involved in the scam, consequently current officials, who know that Apollo was a fake, have not quite got it right when talking openly in public. Perhaps the biggest slip of the tongue was made by NASA Chief Dan Goldin when interviewed by UK TV journalist Sheena McDonald in 1994. He said that mankind cannot venture beyond Earth orbit, 250 miles into space, until they can find a way to overcome the dangers of cosmic radiation. He must have forgot that they supposedly sent 27 astronauts 250,000 miles outside Earth orbit 36 years earlier.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


two sets of radiation data
http://hey_223.tripod.com/bulldoglebeautaketooooo/id82.html
(excerpt)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To prove his thesis, Rene tries to get certain solar data from NATIONAL
OCEANIC & ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, (NOAA) using clever techniques
to
disguise his true intentions, [i.e. to get true data on solar flares.] NOAA,
unfortunately, proved to be as cagey as Rene in dodging the giving out of any
really good DETAILS on this matter, [you know, where the devil resides.]

Rene, seeing games being played, deduced that there must be two sets of data,
one which is sent to scientists on the preferred list, and one sent to the
likes of Rene as casual strangers. (p.125)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://ocii.com/~dpwozney/apollo5.htm
http://www.erichufschmid.net/MoreInfoForScienceChallenge.html
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=9659&hl=apollo

 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Van_Allen
 
These two links are about James Van Allen
---------------------------
http://www.buzzcreek.com/grade-a/MOON/articles1.htm
---------------------------


(this has 22 parts)
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Cosmored on 10/01/2009 20:52:19
Quote
I think mythbusters explained this pretty well

http://northerntruthseeker.blogspot.com/2008/10/project-apollo-art-of-deception.html
(excerpt)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recently, some people came up to me and said that I was full of BS, because to them, the Discovery Channel show "Mythbusters" blew the entire Apollo Hoax theory to pieces.

I have viewed the show, and my take on the "Mythbusters" is this: They are well paid by US government agencies to push through propaganda when necessary! It must be stated clearly that the Discovery Channel is well funded by US agencies, especially NASA! If you stop and think about it, the episodes about "busting the Apollo Hoax theory" were all conducted in NASA's own facilities! Also, it does not take a rocket scientist to realize that they had to "debunk" the Apollo Hoax, or have their show's funding from NASA cut off, and therefore be out of a job!

I therefore dismiss the Mythbusters for what they are... Propaganda experts, and shills for the government. They were even exposed for being used by the government when experts confronted them on their episode about RFID chips! If you dont believe me, go ahead and google "Mythbusters RFID episode exposed" for yourselves. You will see clearly how they had to tow the line, or else!

But, alas, the media again comes to the rescue of NASA and the government, and now people who watched those episodes have their eyes again closed to the idea and thought that the government faked Apollo. Must I remind people again how the idiot box has been proven again and again to be a great propaganda tool for brainwashing people, and not letting viewers see the truth about the world around themselves?

People cannot fathom the idea of one of the greatest endeavours in Human history being a massive fraud. Apollo believers will stoop to all types of distortions of science and common sense to defend the lie. You want proof? Go and look at some of the videos under the "Moonfaker" series for yourselves, and look at the comments by the Propagandist! It is so astonishing to see how duped and brainwashed some people are!

Logic, and science failed or were severely distorted when it came to Project Apollo, as revealed in some great sites such as "NASASCAM". Believers dismiss logic due to the massive PRIDE that was generated by the thought of being able to land a man on the moon, and return him safely to Earth. People forget about the dangers of space radiation, micrometeorites, and the extreme temperatures on the moon, just for a start due to power of such pride. The idea that they have been lied to all of these years generates so much fear that believers would rather defend the lie, than live in a world of uncertainty with the truth!

Understanding the hoax of Apollo was my initial springboard into the realm of truth seeking. Now after almost 30 years of knowing how the government used the project as a massive propaganda ploy, I am not afraid to help others to understand and see the truth for themselves
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

One of the MythBusters videos does correct a mistake made by the hoax-believers.  The one on parallel shadows pointed out correctly that the light source was further away than the hoax-believers thought.  Correcting that mistake doesn't prove the landing were real though.  There's lots of simple evidence such as the Apollo 15 flag waving.


There are a few famous mistakes made by hoax-believers.  None of them, when corrected, show the moon missions to be real though.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: bryan on 14/01/2009 18:53:27
I certainly did not, i'm not sure if you did.
But Neil Armstrong and his mates did.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: lyner on 14/01/2009 22:21:43
Cosmored
When you write such miles and miles of stuff, how can you expect anyone to read it, let alone follow up all your links - most / all of which I can guarantee, will be equally cranky.
A simple quote of some proper data would stand a chance of getting a serious dialog going. (Serious~? - well you know what I mean)
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: fr0sty on 17/01/2009 05:05:49
i have just 1 thing to say I'm not posting links from youtube or from nasa,
but when i look at the videos i see people playing around,why because there lives are not at grate danger,
one other thing i know magic the art of distraction show you some thing before hand to pre set your mind for what it sees next,
I'm referring to the luna rover,if they didn't show you the clip of the driver getting in to the rover from onbord camera it stops you thinking why hasn't he moved ?? he looks like a action man not action men,first drive on moon and not a wave not a look to camera nothing,there nothing to say it is a living man in the toy car and watch on 42 in TV and look at the landing module looks like from the clangers,if they went the video is fake and the pic
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: lyner on 17/01/2009 17:24:04
Quote
not a wave not a look to camera nothing
He was an astronaut with a job to do - not an actor or a show off.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Vern on 22/01/2009 16:58:24
Will someone who suspects hoax try to re-create the movement dynamics clearly visible in the astronauts movements. I think you will find it impossible.

Edit: I mean the little slow motion hop stride they had to do to get around.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: lyner on 22/01/2009 22:37:34
Verne
All the films and TV were clearly tampered with, digitally, at the time so they could have produced absolutely any special effects they wanted to.

I swear you can see the wires if you look closely, too.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: fr0sty on 22/01/2009 23:44:33
Verne
All the films and TV were clearly tampered with, digitally, at the time so they could have produced absolutely any special effects they wanted to.

I swear you can see the wires if you look closely, too.
iv seen them trip over wires,iv seen them with there reflective visor up with the so called sun direct in face and not go blind or get are eye ?? what ever nasa says if it wouldn't make you blind why do all space suites still have gold reflective vizor's for ?
i have never seen them show any sine that there lives could end any sec if they had a accident ?iv seen them play around as if it was all just pratice ????
i haven't seen a video with them showing total ore and wonder at what they are seeing,people get emotional at a good view on earth and can hear it in there voice ,is there 1 out there i haven't seen,
iv herd (think it was buzz not 100%)say he smelt the salt air as they entered earths atmosphere ?? did they have a window open ??
i see nasa other day admit that they still cannot grow a lettuce in close orbit never mind in sopace ?
WORK THIS OUT HOW MANY SPACE STATIONS ?ON 2ND ONE,MOON ONLY IS IT 4 DAYS AWAY,WHY NO MOON BASE ?? FULE NO ISUE DONT TAKE ANY TO GET THERE OR BACK JUST TO GET UP SOME SPEED THATS ALL (HOW OFTEN DOES A COMMET REFULE AND HOW MANY 1,000 IF YEARS HAVE THEY BEEN FLYING AROUND WITH OUT RE FULEING ??
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Vern on 23/01/2009 12:44:50
Verne
All the films and TV were clearly tampered with, digitally, at the time so they could have produced absolutely any special effects they wanted to.

I swear you can see the wires if you look closely, too.
I guess we'll have to go back to the moon and see if the footprints are there [:)]

The thing is that nobody guessed what the movment dynamics would be like; who knew you needed to hop around on the moon instead of a normal walk?
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Vern on 23/01/2009 12:50:03
Quote from: frOsty
i see nasa other day admit that they still cannot grow a lettuce in close orbit never mind in sopace ?
I think that low earth orbit is in space. Some things will grow; some things won't grow; I don't know what you can get from that.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: fr0sty on 23/01/2009 12:53:36
Verne
All the films and TV were clearly tampered with, digitally, at the time so they could have produced absolutely any special effects they wanted to.

I swear you can see the wires if you look closely, too.
I guess we'll have to go back to the moon and see if the footprints are there [:)]
lol and nasa better make a luna rover with a round wheel on the front with 2 boots on it :)
im just saying the pic and vid dint look real (i like taking pic with SLR and dig but i know it isn't often you get a good pic but to get more than 1 very good pic on the moon with all the issues,and i didn't relies silver paint would protect a camera from the extream cold iv put food in freezer in silver foil and still froze ???
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Vern on 23/01/2009 14:04:41
We've sent samples of the moon rocks to labs all around the globe to any country that was interested. Those rocks differ from earth rocks because of the constant cosmic bombardment that earth rocks don't get. We could not fake that[:)]
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: fr0sty on 23/01/2009 15:05:40
We've sent samples of the moon rocks to labs all around the globe to any country that was interested. Those rocks differ from earth rocks because of the constant cosmic bombardment that earth rocks don't get. We could not fake that[:)]
so the robottic rovers didnt or couldnt colect rocks ?
or place a reflector for a earth based laser ?
all i know i see nasa other day admit they cannot grow a lettace in close orbit and they dont know why :)
all i say is pay your taxes to fund going to mars all they need is a red filter lol :)
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Andrew K Fletcher on 23/01/2009 16:45:12
LOL heard of meteors?
We've sent samples of the moon rocks to labs all around the globe to any country that was interested. Those rocks differ from earth rocks because of the constant cosmic bombardment that earth rocks don't get. We could not fake that[:)]
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Vern on 23/01/2009 17:32:19
LOL heard of meteors?
We've sent samples of the moon rocks to labs all around the globe to any country that was interested. Those rocks differ from earth rocks because of the constant cosmic bombardment that earth rocks don't get. We could not fake that[:)]
Those rocks were followed by the press and guarded more closely than the gold at Fort Knox.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: lyner on 23/01/2009 21:27:46
Quote
FULE NO ISUE DONT TAKE ANY TO GET THERE OR BACK JUST TO GET UP SOME SPEED THATS ALL (HOW OFTEN DOES A COMMET REFULE AND HOW MANY 1,000 IF YEARS HAVE THEY BEEN FLYING AROUND WITH OUT RE FULEING ??

Do you know any Physics at all?
That is the most nonsensical statement I've read for some while. A comet doesn't need refueling because it never starts or stops anywhere - its total energy remains the same. Do some basic reading before you start holding forth about stuff you don't understand.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Chemistry4me on 23/01/2009 21:31:33
Hahaha [:D][:D], comets needing refulling![:D][:D] That's a good one! [:D][:D]
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: lyner on 23/01/2009 21:47:25
LOL heard of meteors?
We've sent samples of the moon rocks to labs all around the globe to any country that was interested. Those rocks differ from earth rocks because of the constant cosmic bombardment that earth rocks don't get. We could not fake that[:)]

Didya not know - meteors all show signs of extreme heating. Are you saying the moonrocks showed that too?
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Vern on 23/01/2009 21:53:13
LOL heard of meteors?
We've sent samples of the moon rocks to labs all around the globe to any country that was interested. Those rocks differ from earth rocks because of the constant cosmic bombardment that earth rocks don't get. We could not fake that[:)]

Didya not know - meteors all show signs of extreme heating. Are you saying the moonrocks showed that too?
Good point; why didn't I think of that?
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: fr0sty on 24/01/2009 05:12:58
Quote
FULE NO ISUE DONT TAKE ANY TO GET THERE OR BACK JUST TO GET UP SOME SPEED THATS ALL (HOW OFTEN DOES A COMMET REFULE AND HOW MANY 1,000 IF YEARS HAVE THEY BEEN FLYING AROUND WITH OUT RE FULEING ??

Do you know any Physics at all?
That is the most nonsensical statement I've read for some while. A comet doesn't need refueling because it never starts or stops anywhere - its total energy remains the same. Do some basic reading before you start holding forth about stuff you don't understand.
you are not reading what is said are you look at what i said once you get your speed it will not take any more fule to get to the moon than to get to mars OR ARE YOU SAYING IT IS ALL UP HILL ??? the comet was a reference in how far you can go once you have your speed up turn fule off till time to slow down or did nasa say they had to go full throttle all the way to moon and back ?? did they ?? if the subject upsets you why reply ?
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Andrew K Fletcher on 24/01/2009 09:21:04
Meteors must all show signs of heating. I agree with that. There must have been a pretty violent event to fragment so much space debris and this would have also added to the heat evidence on the rocks would you agree on that?

LOL heard of meteors?
We've sent samples of the moon rocks to labs all around the globe to any country that was interested. Those rocks differ from earth rocks because of the constant cosmic bombardment that earth rocks don't get. We could not fake that[:)]

Didya not know - meteors all show signs of extreme heating. Are you saying the moonrocks showed that too?
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Andrew K Fletcher on 24/01/2009 10:01:39
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/moon_rock_analysis_000522_MB_.html

Those aren't the only pieces of the moon on Earth.



"Compared with terrestrial samples, all lunar rocks are oddballs becausethey are so dry."


Three robotic Soviet Luna probes returned about three quarters of a pound (301 grams) from three other lunar sites in the 1970s. Geologists also have found 19 fragments of lunar meteorites that were blasted off the surface by impacts and landed in parts of Antarctica, Australia, Morocco and Libya.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Vern on 24/01/2009 16:28:37
Quote from: Andrew K Fletcher
Meteors must all show signs of heating. I agree with that. There must have been a pretty violent event to fragment so much space debris and this would have also added to the heat evidence on the rocks would you agree on that?
The point was that meteors look very different than moon rock because of the violent entry into earth's atmosphere. We have both. We can look at them.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: lyner on 25/01/2009 00:40:32
You'll have to do better than that to shake AKF's faith, Verne.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Andrew K Fletcher on 25/01/2009 10:33:53
My point is moon rocks have been bombarded by solar flares for many billions of years. This time ageing would also apply to meteors traveling through space, or indeed landing on Earth. The entry through the Earth's atmosphere would generate more heat, but can we be sure it will be any more heat than the explosion that cause the fragmentation in the first place? Point being we should not rely on the rocks as evidence for a journey to the moon. Most of the meteor debris scattered on the moons surface over such a long period of time would / should have found it's way into the samples "alledgedly" brought back down to Earth. We find them in deserts around the world, where environmental processes errode, bury or disguise them. So the moons surface should be littered with them. 
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: lyner on 25/01/2009 11:25:28
Quote
This time ageing would also apply to meteors traveling through space, or indeed landing on Earth.
And you know about all this in detail, do you? You could look at two rocks (and the slag from an iron works, no doubt) and know which was which? Face it- you believe it because you believe it and that's all there is to it.

It's a  wonder that you can bring yourself to use technology so readily when its been developed so successfully by the very 'experts' whose opinions you reject at random, when it suits you. They must have got telecomms, electronics and electrical power distribution all wrong so how can you trust them like you do?

Here's yet another example of where you have your own little private and selective world of Science and refuse to get involved with experts and numbers because 'you know best'.

I challenge you to take any one of your whacky theories and clothe it with some actual facts and figures. No stories, not hyperbole  (no "alleged"s etc.) - just some good, honest Science, backed up with 'workings' and values.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Andrew K Fletcher on 25/01/2009 12:35:27
Quite familiar with slag from ironworks, coming from the Blackcountry and spending many hours playing on the slag heaps. Also found pig iron there too. And as a child we learned all about tating and collecting non-ferrous metals to earn pocket money. We also used to go tip-picking and collect the swarf from the heavy Hessian bags by shacking them over a sheet of polythene. Our educations may not have been the same but the end result is we both have the ability to determine metals by sight and by using a magnet. Dad taught us well. He also taught us how to spot mushrooms and find pig nuts. Those were the days on the tip with a knife slashing open old settees and chairs and finding money down the backs of them. Might not have been the same school as yours Sophie but we did learn some very practical skills.

Inclined Bed Therapy (Proven Theory)
Fact:1 Heart rate decreases sleeping on an inclined bed by 10-12 beats per minute.
Fact: 2 Respiration rate decreases by 3-5 breaths per minute using same method.
Fact: 3 Pressures change inside vessels when a bed is titled. This alters the size of varicose veins and greatly reduces oedema in a few weeks avoiding flat bedrest. Photographs provided that reflect pilot study results accurately and the timescales followed as predicted based on previous results can be found in the varicose vein study thread.

And then there's that; "Water under normal atmospheric pressure will not travel up a single open ended tube suspended greater than 10 meters vertically problem. Something you still teach your students and something you now know to be false! How's that for honest science?

I am sure you can put together some formulas that can prove my experiments at Brixham do not work. Yet they clearly do work!
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: lyner on 25/01/2009 15:15:18
Para 1. A story which proves nothing about your ability at recognising Moon rock. No figures quoted and no comment about the probable difference in the effects of brief, intense heating on atmospheric entry compared with being brought home in an Apollo capsule.
Para 2. A limited study which would probably suggest more work could be done. Not enough data to risk investing my money in yet. Not enough figures quoted to be worth considering. ( edit:btw, not 'proven theory'; it's some possible evidence - that's all.)
Para 3. Another limited study but it does demonstrate that the simple model doesn't work when adhesion and cohesion are great enough and for a limited time. No figures quoted here except the height achieved and nothing (absolutely nothing) to support your explanation.

How do you 'know' that's what I teach my students? As a matter of fact, it hasn't come into the syllabus for years (which shows how crap the present system is - but that's another issue). Actually, I would make it my very first priority to mention your particular results because it would be of interest. The last thing I would suggest to them would be your totally unsupported explanation because it would be misleading them. (That's called scientific integrity.)
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Vern on 25/01/2009 16:35:17
You'll have to do better than that to shake AKF's faith, Verne.

Yes; I see; AFK has the faith. What I don't understand is why it is that folks don't want to believe that the good ole USA actually went to the moon. The moon is not the same any more. It has evidence of the visits still on it. Maybe we should have put giant reflectors on the moon so they would be visible from earth.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: lyner on 25/01/2009 18:44:17
That would have spoiled their fun.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Andrew K Fletcher on 25/01/2009 19:28:16
If we put an unmanned craft in orbit around Jupiter and it drops a reflector on the surface does that mean we must have sent people there to install it? Or could it mean a motorised reflector is able to align itself correctly? Keep the faith Bruva.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: lyner on 25/01/2009 19:34:58
Faith vs evidence.
Which one constitutes the scientific approach?
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Vern on 25/01/2009 19:37:48
Sometimes it seems that faith has the upper hand, but I prefer evidence [:)]
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: lyner on 25/01/2009 20:15:25
Sometimes it seems that faith has the upper hand, but I prefer evidence [:)]
Not when you scratch the surface, my friend.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Andrew K Fletcher on 26/01/2009 10:30:40
Faith = Trust I don't trust a Government that has A Lousy Reputation for telling Porkeys.

You may feel it appropriate to accuse me of blind faith. I couldn't give two hoots about whether they landed on the moon or not. Just pointing out how the evidence either way could be flawed.

My reference to Keep The Faith Bruva was alas Satirical. In fact I have grown to understand how scientists often hang on to faith in their often erroneous literature. Such blind belief is hardly scientific. But there ya go.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Vern on 26/01/2009 12:44:56
Quote from: Andrew K Fletcher
Faith = Trust I don't trust a Government that has A Lousy Reputation for telling Porkeys.
You pay too much attention to the opposition parties rhetoric.  Opposition is good to have; it keeps folks honest; but outsiders often only hear the opposition and think it represents reality when actually it is just politics.   
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: lyner on 26/01/2009 21:52:18
AKF
"Blind Faith"
You have demonstrated on so many occasions that you have not rejected the conventions of Science from an informed standpoint but because of a gut feeling against the establishment.
You quote 'famous names' in your objections - with no demonstration of any understanding of what they say. And yet, you complain and claim that 'the other faction' do just the same. But the difference is in the level of rigour involved. When I believe in a theory, it is because it stands upon a firm base of well founded data and, yes, this will offend you, MATHS. Your ideas all ad hoc, rigid and don't fit into the bigger picture.

You claim that governments lie but do you really think that the originators of conspiracy theories are totally truthful? Do you think it is not in the interests of an author to fabricate, bend and misrepresent data in the interest of money or self agrandisment You can't really be that naive, can you?
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Cosmored on 30/01/2009 16:39:37
Quote


We've sent samples of the moon rocks to labs all around the globe to any country that was interested. Those rocks differ from earth rocks because of the constant cosmic bombardment that earth rocks don't get. We could not fake that
There's some interesting stuff about the rocks here.
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=kSIlgQhUi9A
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: paul.fr on 01/02/2009 21:04:43
Cosmored,
Do you believe anything that "proves" the moon landing were faked? Are there any "evidences" you do not agree with?
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: lightarrow on 02/02/2009 18:25:26
Quote
We've sent samples of the moon rocks to labs all around the globe to any country that was interested. Those rocks differ from earth rocks because of the constant cosmic bombardment that earth rocks don't get. We could not fake that
There's some interesting stuff about the rocks here.
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=kSIlgQhUi9A

I've watched some of those videos.
In "MoonFaker: Exhibit D. PART 4" the expositor makes a mistake. He claims that scientists lied when they said that rocks from the Moon are not "oxidized" as are rocks from Earth or meteorites. He claims this because it makes us notice that metals or other elements are combined with oxygen in the Moon rocks analysis. His mistake is not to have understood (he probably is not a chemist) that "oxidized" in chemistry jargon does not necessarily mean "there is oxygen combined with the metals or other elements" but that sometimes it means "those metals or other elements which can have more than one oxidation state are in an upper state of oxidation", so they probably should better have said "full oxidized" instead of simply "oxidized".

Example: Calcium metal can only be in the oxidation state +2 so you will find the only oxide CaO; Iron, instead, can be found oxidized in the +2 (ferrous state) or in the +3 state (ferric state); when is in the +3, is fully oxidized; so the first oxide is FeO (ferrous oxide), the second is Fe2O3 (ferric oxide).

Now, at ~ time 1:33  of that video, you can clearly read in the paper that it was written "Ferrous Oxide" as one of the constituents of Moon rocks (not "Ferric Oxide") and so this does not constitute a prove that the rock is "oxidized" (as claimed by the expositor), that is a prove that scientists lied.

Also, claiming that there should not be oxigen combined with other elements in the Moon rocks would be extremely weird: you should find in that case free Sodium, Calcium, Magnesium metals, free Silicon! It wouldn't be "The Moon", it would be "An incredible treasure of useful elements"!

Anyway, I don't understand why geologists would claim that even meteorites should be "oxidized": if a rock has a non oxidized metal (Iron, Nichel) in it before entering the athmosphere, then it shouldn't necessarily oxidize completely that metal when it reach the soil, infact meteorites can actually contain the non-oxidized metal.  [???]
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Cosmored on 12/04/2009 16:42:25
On this thread below there's a debate going on between Jarrah White and Jay Windley.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0446557/board/thread/133905495?p=1

Jay Windley is the main Apollo defender.
http://www.clavius.org/about.html

He runs the Clavius site.

Jarrah White made this video series which pretty much proves the hoax.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=&search_query=moonfaker&aq=f

He's the main hoax defender.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: lyner on 12/04/2009 19:36:25
I think the conspiracy theorists need to explain actually how the conspiracy could have been constructed - and the numbers involved. It's all qualitative with them and doesn't actually involve quantities.
The notion that millions of people were involved in the conspiracy - and not one of them has 'cracked' since, is more unthinkable than any other.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Andrew K Fletcher on 18/07/2009 10:36:43
Houston, we have a problem: original moon walk footage erased
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: lyner on 18/07/2009 11:24:50
Quote
Jay Windley is the main Apollo defender.
Apollo doesn't need a "defender".
A 'non-conspiracy' needs no publicity - just the joint experiences of many thousands of technically competent participants and informed observers.
No one, so far, has explained how it would have been possible for the radio signals from the Lunar trip to have appeared to come from the Moon without the source of the signals actually having traveled there and been there during the mission.
"I'm sure they would have found a way" is no argument.
There has never been a conspiracy involving so many observers or so many participants which has lasted more than five minutes.

Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: MonikaS on 18/07/2009 16:03:31
Awwww Sc, you can't expect conspiration theorists to be influenced by mere facts! Simply because they can't figure out how something highly technical has been done, they assume it wasn't done but faked. Makes you wonder why the use computers and acccept medication from their doctors, that is... most likely the believe in the Big Pharma conspiracy as well.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: neilep on 18/07/2009 20:30:07
Have ewe checked this out..it's captivating stuff

http://wechoosethemoon.com/#
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: neilep on 18/07/2009 20:36:34
They were just talking about the potential issues with ' gas' as a result of all the food they have been eating !!
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: neilep on 18/07/2009 20:44:10
I've just been watching some fo the video footage !..I have come to the conclusion that it would have been cheaper to put them on the moon than go to all that trouble !!
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: LeeE on 18/07/2009 22:39:22
First pics of the landing sites, taken from the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, here:

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/apollosites.html (http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/apollosites.html)

There should be some better pics later as the LRO is still descending to its final orbit.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: lyner on 18/07/2009 23:30:51
Yeah but they're all faked.  LOL
I wonder what will be the excuse from the conspiracists this time.

Interesting that the shadows of the 'camps' are different from anything else in the pictures - square edges and longer than the object throwing the shadow. Roll on the closer images.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: MonikaS on 18/07/2009 23:35:22
<full conspiracy theory mode = true>All fake... <full conspiracy theory mode = false>

Quote
One in four of the British people don’t believe in the Apollo 11 Moon landing, according to a new survey for E&T. Conspiracy theorists say the pictures were faked in a studio. Here’s their ‘evidence’, and the rebuttals to them, provided by E&T.
From IET (http://kn.theiet.org/magazine/issues/0912/fake-right-0912.cfm).
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: neilep on 20/07/2009 00:46:53
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2009/07/-the-apollo-11-moonlanding-6-of-americans-still-believe-it-was-faked-video.html#more

Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: demografx on 20/07/2009 05:36:53

Great article, Neil. Thanks!
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: neilep on 20/07/2009 21:10:53
We land on the moon in a few minutes !!...ooooh !!!
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: neilep on 20/07/2009 21:18:21
The Eagle Has Landed !
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Don_1 on 21/07/2009 09:27:55
The Pigeon has crapped!

I still don't see why this conspiracy theory keeps being brought up. Apart from anything else, imagine the total and utter humiliation for NASA if they were found out! And the fact is, they didn't know if the Russians were right behind them, putting them in a position to expose their fraud to the world within days. Could NASA have been so naive as to pull a stunt which could have left them, and the whole of America, open to such worldwide humiliation?
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: lyner on 21/07/2009 11:58:00
But think about the piles of money that have been made from book and TV sales about the 'conspiracy'. It was, in fact, a conspiracy conspiracy and a very successful one.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Don_1 on 21/07/2009 12:19:31
Good point, I wonder if NASA started the conspiracy conspiracy to pay for the Apollo programme???
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: lyner on 21/07/2009 19:08:16
And I suppose I am promoting a conspiracy conspiracy conspiracy.
Where will it end?
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: demografx on 24/07/2009 04:02:41


                        (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.chrismadden.co.uk%2Fmoon%2Fmoon-landing-hoax.jpg&hash=93966a4b7418d41dc8611ff5edda364e)
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Andrew K Fletcher on 29/07/2009 17:18:13
The Pigeon has crapped!

I still don't see why this conspiracy theory keeps being brought up. Apart from anything else, imagine the total and utter humiliation for NASA if they were found out! And the fact is, they didn't know if the Russians were right behind them, putting them in a position to expose their fraud to the world within days. Could NASA have been so naive as to pull a stunt which could have left them, and the whole of America, open to such worldwide humiliation?

Weapons of mass destruction being just one example of American humiliation.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/07/2009 22:07:30
That's odd, I thought the British were involved too. Besides which, nobody ever believed the WMD story. It was just a fig leaf for GWB's desire to finish what his daddy had started.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: lyner on 13/08/2009 10:22:47
WMD just proves that the US CAN'T sustain a conspiracy.  How long was it undiscovered?
It just doesn't compare with the Moon Landing situation. which has been unshaken (in any serious way) for decades.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Andrew K Fletcher on 13/08/2009 19:45:37
WMD just proves that the US CAN'T sustain a conspiracy.  How long was it undiscovered?
It just doesn't compare with the Moon Landing situation. which has been unshaken (in any serious way) for decades.

I have to admit this argument of yours is logical and is a more convincing argument against a hoax than I have read anywhere
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: BenV on 13/08/2009 19:46:40
That's odd, I thought the British were involved too. Besides which, nobody ever believed the WMD story. It was just a fig leaf for GWB's desire to finish what his daddy had started.

I thought we knew there should have been wmds, because we had the receipts?
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Andrew K Fletcher on 13/08/2009 19:49:51
That's odd, I thought the British were involved too. Besides which, nobody ever believed the WMD story. It was just a fig leaf for GWB's desire to finish what his daddy had started.



I thought we knew there should have been wmds, because we had the receipts?
A lot more truth in that than we might want to admit.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: demografx on 13/08/2009 23:17:11

But (I argue) without receipts how could we possibly qualify for a tax deduction?????
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Andrew K Fletcher on 14/08/2009 18:49:39
Putting it Crudely, oil have to think about that.

Maybe that remark was a little too Can-Tanker-U.S.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/08/2009 13:58:19
That's odd, I find myself in complete agreement with Andrew here.
Anyway; we know they no longer had the wmd because the UN team looking hadn't found them. The war was rushed in to make sure that they didn't get a chance to complete the search and prove that the stuff had been destroyed years ago. Without the "excuse" of the weapons there was no "justification" for invading and getting all that oil.


Anyway, to get back to somewhere near the topic. The Apollo missions were long enough ago that, by now, we would have had a deathbed confession of the hoax witnessed by a priest. While I think religion is a waste of mankind's efforts I still accept that most priests would have made sure that any dying declaration was heard in the wider world.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: lyner on 15/08/2009 16:37:58
Extraordinary Rendition of all ex astraunauts is what we need. One of them is bound to crack and spill the beanz under polite questioning in Turkey or somewhere.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/08/2009 18:27:21
Extraordinary Rendition of all ex astraunauts is what we need. One of them is bound to crack and spill the beanz under polite questioning in Turkey or somewhere.
Probaly true. Hurt people enough and they will say anything you want, whether it's true or not.
So, since we know that torture doesn't work, why does anyone bother with it?
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: lyner on 15/08/2009 19:31:07
I'm beginning to find this thread fairly tortuous.
OK, I'll admit is. It was all a conspiracy - along with satellite tv and the Hubble Space Telescope.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: lyner on 15/08/2009 23:24:33
Hear hear.
But it won't lie down.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/08/2009 20:39:24
"So they “cherry pick” evidence from our moon trips to “prove” that they were supposedly faked.  Fact is, as with virtually every happening, evidence points to the trips as real, and evidence points to them as fake.  "
OK, Redress the ballance. Cherry pick the evidence that the moon landings are fake.
If you actually find something that hasn't been discussed and explained before then post it.
Otherwise please don't post anything more.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: lyner on 16/08/2009 23:54:19
You'll be lucky.
In any case, I know, FOR A FACT, that YOU are a part of the conspiracy so you would say that wouldn't you?
You just want to suppress the facts. Admit it. [:-\]
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: demografx on 03/09/2009 03:52:30

How do we know this accusation isn't a coverup/smokescreen for YOUR conspiratorial involvement?

The plot thickens!
.
.
.
.
or is it my head?...
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Cosmored on 22/10/2009 14:18:47
The hoax was proven a long time ago.  You people seem to be trying to bury the evidence that has been posted to reduce the number of people who see it.  Here is a collection of stuff I've made.  Some of it has already been posted in this thread but if it's going to get buried and ignored, what else can I do but repost it?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

At the 2 minute 35 second mark of the video the flag is still. When the astronaut goes past it, it starts to move.

There's an analysis of that here in this three part series.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There's a noticeable difference in the body movements in these two clips.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11v.1101330.rm

What I hypothesize is that a fifty percent slow-motion was used in Apollo 11 to simulate lunar gravity. Later, they improved their methods of simulating lunar gravity and started using a combination of slow-motion and support wires. The slow-motion in the later missions might not have been exactly half-speed. It might have been sixty five or seventy percent of natural speed. It looked better but it was inconsistent with Apollo 11 footage. The inconsistency is apparent.

At around the 21 minute mark of this video the above footage from Apollo 11 can be seen played at double speed.
http://video.google.es/videoplay?docid=4135126565081757736

It can also be seen in this video at around the 30 minute 40 second mark.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8455110982587487066#

(The above video "A funny thing happened on the way to the moon" keeps going on and off-line. If the above link is dead, click here)
http://video.google.es/videosearch?q=a+funny+thing+happened+on+the+way+to+the+moon&hl=es&emb=0&aq=1&oq=a+funny+thin#

It looks just like movement in earth gravity.
--------------------------------
When the footage from this clip is doubled, the movements look unnaturally fast.

Here it is doubled.

When the Apollo 11 footage is doubled, the movements look natural. This makes it very clear that they used a simple fifty percent slow-motion to simulate lunar gravity in Apollo 11 and a faster slow-motion (around 67 percent according to Jarrah White's calculations) combined with wire supports in the later missions.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you look at the acceleration of the object that falls from the astronaut's backpack and the acceleration of the hammer and feather that fall, it's apparent that the there's a difference in the way gravity affects the objects.

Evidently the slow-motion speed is different.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Watch how the corner of Collins' jacket moves in this clip.
(50 second mark)

It swings back and forth the way it would in gravity.
Look at the corners of the jacket the woman astronaut is wearing in this clip.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=TejsnPThmd4

This is real zero-gravity and they behave quite differently.
One possible explanation is that they were trying to fake zero-gravity in a diving plane and the plane wasn't diving fast enough at that point.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is no blast crater under the lander.
http://thoughtworld.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/picture1.jpg

That is discussed in this four part video series.
------------------------------------------------------

Look at the picture in reply #7 of this page at the Clavius forum.
http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=714&page=1#14424

The shadow of the rod is proportionally longer than the shadow of the bag. Evidently, that's how they got those pictures of very dark shadows--they drew them.

Here's more on the bogus shadow issue.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=11053&hl=apollo
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
The moon rocks are often presented as proof the missions were real.  There are plausible explanations that would explain them.

People say the Soviets would have snitched.  There are explanations for that too:
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=&search_query=moonfaker+cold+war&aq=f
 
http://www.nardwuar.com/vs/bill_kaysing/index.html
(excerpt)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, why did they keep faking the Apollo flights, I still don't understand. Did the Soviet Union know it was faked? Why did they keep shut up if they knew it was faked? 'Cause a lot of people would think they kept the moon race going to prove the U.S. was better than the Soviet Union. If the Soviet Union knew, why did they let the U.S. get away with this?
Well, I'll tell you - at the highest levels there is a coalition between governments. In other words, the Soviets said, if you won't tell on us - and they faked most of their space exploration flights - we won't tell on you. It's as simple as that. See, what Apollo is, is the beginning of the end of the ability of the government to hoodwink and bamboozle and manipulate the people. More and more people are becoming aware in the U.S. that the government is totally and completely public enemy number one.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/moon.htm
(excerpt)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Soviets, with their own competing moon program and an intense economic and political and military rivalry with the USA, could be expected to have cried foul if the USA tried to fake a Moon landing. Theorist Ralph Rene responds that shortly after the alleged Moon landings, the USA silently started shipping hundreds of thousands of tons of grain as humanitarian aid to the allegedly starving USSR. He views this as evidence of a cover-up, the grain being the price of silence. (The Soviet Union in fact had its own Moon program).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Have you read Noam Chomsky's analysis of the cold war?
 http://www3.niu.edu/~td0raf1/history468/apr2304.htm
(excerpt)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the domestic front, the Cold War helped the Soviet Union entrench its military-bureaucratic ruling class in power, and it gave the US a way to compel its population to subsidise high-tech industry. It isn't easy to sell all that to the domestic populations. The technique used was the old stand-by-fear of a great enemy.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It someone were to make a deathbed statement saying the moon missions were faked, the press would never report it as the press is controlled.
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Media/media_watch.html
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=&search_query=chomsky+media&aq=f
http://www.youtube.com//watch?v=bbnxsPgcsH0

Also, it would be downright dangerous for someone to come forward. Look what happened to these guys.
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfYBJFPuiwE

Here are some videos.
http://es.youtube.com/results?search_query=moonfaker&search_type=&aq=f
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=EQj-Mh__fRc
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=rhoWabHSm_g
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=1gD2P-Po_Gk
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=EaV7QB_ReTw
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=0ohDdNRq2Og
http://www.thule.org/brains/moon.rm
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What Happened on the Moon" (documentary)
http://video.google.es/videosearch?q=what+happened+on+the+moon&hl=es&emb=0&aq=f&aq=f#

This keeps going on and off-line.  If there's nothing in this link, do a Google Video search on it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here are some articles.
http://www.nardwuar.com/vs/bill_kaysing/
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/moon.htm
http://www.aulis.com/skeleton.html
http://erichufschmid.net/Interview-with-Bart-Sibrel.html
http://www.geocities.com/apollotruth/
http://www.aulis.com/investigation.htm
http://www.reddit.com/domain/northerntruthseeker.blogspot.com
http://northerntruthseeker.blogspot.com/2008/11/project-apollo-what-were-they-thinking_24.html
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Moon_Hoax
http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html

The astronauts look pretty nervous at the press conference.

Here's a link to the entire conference.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1535324572487804641

This keeps going on and offline so if this link is dead, try googling "Apollo 11 press conference".

Their behavior look pretty suspicious here too. It begins in the second half of the video.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2265515730495966561


The main reason they had to fake it was probably space radiation. Here are some articles and videos I've found on the subject.

http://www.geocities.com/apollotruth/
(excerpt)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is an old saying that "A liar needs a good memory". Nowhere is this more true than in the Apollo program. NASA tell lies to cover up previous lies, and other discrepancies uncovered by people investigating the Moon landings. Altering previous data, removing photographs, and retracting statements made, only re-enforces the evidence that NASA are on the run, and being forced into a corner to which they cannot escape. The actions of those under investigation makes the investigator more aware they are bluffing. The longer that person, or persons, who make the extravagant claims continue, the more lies they have to tell in order to counteract it, until it reaches the point where it becomes ridiculous. That point was passed in July 1999, when NASA officials were questioned about the Moon landings on television. They dodged the all important questions like a drifter dodges the heat.
Many Apollo astronauts have long since died, as to have many of the original NASA officials involved in the scam, consequently current officials, who know that Apollo was a fake, have not quite got it right when talking openly in public. Perhaps the biggest slip of the tongue was made by NASA Chief Dan Goldin when interviewed by UK TV journalist Sheena McDonald in 1994. He said that mankind cannot venture beyond Earth orbit, 250 miles into space, until they can find a way to overcome the dangers of cosmic radiation. He must have forgot that they supposedly sent 27 astronauts 250,000 miles outside Earth orbit 36 years earlier.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

two sets of radiation data
http://hey_223.tripod.com/bulldoglebeautaketooooo/id82.html
(excerpt)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To prove his thesis, Rene tries to get certain solar data from NATIONAL
OCEANIC & ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, (NOAA) using clever techniques
to
disguise his true intentions, [i.e. to get true data on solar flares.] NOAA,
unfortunately, proved to be as cagey as Rene in dodging the giving out of any
really good DETAILS on this matter, [you know, where the devil resides.]
Rene, seeing games being played, deduced that there must be two sets of data,
one which is sent to scientists on the preferred list, and one sent to the
likes of Rene as casual strangers. (p.125)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://ocii.com/~dpwozney/apollo5.htm
http://www.erichufschmid.net/MoreInfoForScienceChallenge.html
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=9659&hl=apollo

These two are important
---------------------------
http://www.buzzcreek.com/grade-a/MOON/articles1.htm
---------------------------

---------------------------
---------------------------
(23 parts)

The Chinese space walks were obviously faked in a water tank and NASA's official position is that the Chinese space walks were real.
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=NVbBFwdmldA
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=kG4Z_r38ZDE
http://en.epochtimes.com/n2/content/view/5809/
http://en.epochtimes.com/n2/content/view/8332/
 
The pro-Apollo posters at the forums of both the "Clavius" and "Bad Astronomy" websites tap danced around the evidence that the Chinese space walk was faked because they have to agree with the official US government version and they can't say it was faked without looking silly.  Here are the threads.  They're hilarious.
 
http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/79327-congratulations-china-but-live-tv-launch-broadcast.html
http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=othertheories&action=display&thread=2206
 
They pretty much destroyed the credibility of those two sites when they didn't seriously address the evidence.
http://www.opposingdigits.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1222
 
It's pretty clear that they're government damage-control sites.

Here's some good research if anyone wants to delve further.
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/single/?p=48603&t=51606
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/10/2009 18:46:15
The hoax was proven a long time ago.  You people seem to be trying to bury the evidence that has been posted to reduce the number of people who see it.  Here is a collection of stuff I've made.  Some of it has already been posted in this thread but if it's going to get buried and ignored, what else can I do but repost it?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, you could not bother to waste our time or yours.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: LeeE on 22/10/2009 23:54:30
This thread seems to be borked - I can't post to it as intended and just get a response saying:

"The following error or errors occurred while posting this message:"

Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: demografx on 24/10/2009 01:34:18
So the First Moon Tourism (1-800-FLY-MOON) tickets I bought for my family are bogus? Sheesh, $18 million down the drain........

That's the last time I respond to another late night infomercial! Harrumph!

                       (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.spacefuture.com%2Farchive%2Fimages%2Fspace_tourism_and_its_effects_on_space_commercialization.2.jpg&hash=cb1d5d3da097ea0d902ff9eb6639caba)
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: demografx on 24/10/2009 01:48:57

The hoax was proven a long time ago.  You people seem to be trying to bury the evidence that has been posted to reduce the number of people who see it.  Here is a collection of stuff I've made.  Some of it has already been posted in this thread but if it's going to get buried and ignored, what else can I do but repost it?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


Well, you could not bother to waste our time or yours.


BC, when I attended a "How To Email Scam" conference, I learned that ALL CAPS would be more effective. Also, he might consider posting the above MULTIPLE TIMES IN SEQUENCE to REALLY get the point across! And the more links added, the higher the credibility!
http://j-walk.com/other/conf/index.htm
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Vern on 24/10/2009 03:11:18
The thing I don't understand is why is it that some folks don't want the reality of the moon landing to be real. What would be the motivation for trying to create such a hoax?  There was none. It was not a hoax. The landings were real.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Cosmored on 24/10/2009 13:43:06
Quote
What would be the motivation for trying to create such a hoax?  There was none.
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/moon.htm
(excerpt)
-------------------------------------------------
Several motives have been suggested for the U.S. government to fake the moon landings - some of the recurrent elements are:
Distraction - The U.S. government benefited from a popular distraction to take attention away from the Vietnam war. Lunar activities did abruptly stop, with planned missions cancelled, around the same time that the US ceased its involvement in the Vietnam War.
Cold War Prestige - The U.S. government considered it vital that the U.S. win the space race with the USSR. Going to the Moon, if it was possible, would have been risky and expensive. It would have been much easier to fake the landing, thereby ensuring success.
Money - NASA raised approximately 30 billion dollars pretending to go to the moon. This could have been used to pay off a large number of people, providing significant motivation for complicity. In variations of this theory, the space industry is characterized as a political economy, much like the military industrial complex, creating fertile ground for its own survival.
Risk - The available technology at the time was such that there was a good chance that the landing might fail if genuinely attempted.
-------------------------------------------------

The video evidence shows the missions were faked.  Our not knowing exactly why they faked it doesn't make the evidence go away.  There are several plausible scenarios; we just don't know which one is true.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Don_1 on 24/10/2009 14:12:49
It still comes back to the fact that NASA would be totally and utterly discredited if, on a subsequent mission to the moon by some other nation, no evidence could be found of the original moon landings.

Until you can absolutely prove that these landings were faked, it must be taken that they were not.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Cosmored on 24/10/2009 14:58:51
Quote
It still comes back to the fact that NASA would be totally and utterly discredited if, on a subsequent mission to the moon by some other nation, no evidence could be found of the original moon landings.
The anomalies in the video and still pictures prove that Apollo was a hoax.  The reason they weren't too worried about another nation going to the moon might have been because they knew that it was impossible for there to be people on the moon without a few feet of lead shielding to protect them from space radiation.  In my last post there is some stuff about space radiation.  Be sure to check these out.
http://www.buzzcreek.com/grade-a/MOON/articles1.htm

The only people who can be sure about the true levels of space radiation are government people who have high security clearances and have access to the actual data gathered by space probes.  The rest of us only know what they want us to know.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/10/2009 18:23:09
You can't have it both ways.
If this "Cold War Prestige - The U.S. government considered it vital that the U.S. win the space race with the USSR." was a reason for faking the moon landings then tyou can't say that te Russians were in on the fakery. If they weren't then how come they didn't spot that the signals were not sent from the moon?
Also this
"The only people who can be sure about the true levels of space radiation are government people who have high security clearances and have access to the actual data gathered by space probes.  The rest of us only know what they want us to know"

Is simply wrong, I can measure the radiation exposure at the earth's surface at sea level and at the top of a mountain and extrapolate the dose in space.
It's not healthy, but it's not lethal
The talk of several feet of lead is just silly.
We know that we can survive the radiation provided that we are behind a sheild that's equivalent to the earth's atmosphere.
In terms of simple areal density that's the equivalent of about 2.5 inches of lead. Of course, lead has a much higher mean atomic number than air so it's a rather better screening agent.
Then there's the fact that, for a short mission like a moon shot, we can put up with a rather higher dose rate.
The shell of the space ship will offer enough protection without added lead sheets.

Face it, there's no real evidence that the moon landings were faked.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Cosmored on 24/10/2009 19:26:10
Quote
If this "Cold War Prestige - The U.S. government considered it vital that the U.S. win the space race with the USSR." was a reason for faking the moon landings then tyou can't say that te Russians were in on the fakery.  If they weren't then how come they didn't spot that the signals were not sent from the moon?
There are several plausible scenarios.

There might have been an unmanned lander on the moon sending the signals; if the Surveyor program was real, they had the technology.

The Soviets might have been colluding with the US government.  Here's the stuff I posted about the Soviets from the above post-
Quote
People say the Soviets would have snitched.  There are explanations for that too:
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=&search_query=moonfaker+cold+war&aq=f
 
http://www.nardwuar.com/vs/bill_kaysing/index.html
(excerpt)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, why did they keep faking the Apollo flights, I still don't understand. Did the Soviet Union know it was faked? Why did they keep shut up if they knew it was faked? 'Cause a lot of people would think they kept the moon race going to prove the U.S. was better than the Soviet Union. If the Soviet Union knew, why did they let the U.S. get away with this?
Well, I'll tell you - at the highest levels there is a coalition between governments. In other words, the Soviets said, if you won't tell on us - and they faked most of their space exploration flights - we won't tell on you. It's as simple as that. See, what Apollo is, is the beginning of the end of the ability of the government to hoodwink and bamboozle and manipulate the people. More and more people are becoming aware in the U.S. that the government is totally and completely public enemy number one.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/moon.htm
(excerpt)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Soviets, with their own competing moon program and an intense economic and political and military rivalry with the USA, could be expected to have cried foul if the USA tried to fake a Moon landing. Theorist Ralph Rene responds that shortly after the alleged Moon landings, the USA silently started shipping hundreds of thousands of tons of grain as humanitarian aid to the allegedly starving USSR. He views this as evidence of a cover-up, the grain being the price of silence. (The Soviet Union in fact had its own Moon program).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Have you read Noam Chomsky's analysis of the cold war?
 http://www3.niu.edu/~td0raf1/history468/apr2304.htm
(excerpt)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the domestic front, the Cold War helped the Soviet Union entrench its military-bureaucratic ruling class in power, and it gave the US a way to compel its population to subsidise high-tech industry. It isn't easy to sell all that to the domestic populations. The technique used was the old stand-by-fear of a great enemy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote
I can measure the radiation exposure at the earth's surface at sea level and at the top of a mountain and extrapolate the dose in space.
So you're saying you can measure space radiation as accurately as a probe that's actually in space.  Nobody's going to take that one seriously.

Listen to what this video says about Van Allen.

I posted this link above but I guess I'll have to post the whole article so everybody is sure to see it.
http://www.buzzcreek.com/grade-a/MOON/articles1.htm

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the early 1950's, a 35-year-old State University of Iowa physics professor and some of his students were cruising the cold waters ofnorthern Canada and the Atlantic Ocean, sending a series ofrocket-carrying balloons- which they dubbed "rockoons" - 12 to 15 miles into space.

They were trying to measure the nature of low-energy cosmic raysswirling around the earth. The experiments continued for five more years. Then, in 1958,Professor James Van Allen discovered his monster. Suddenly, his instrumentation warned of a giant beast of a thing, spewing enough deadly radiation counts to kill any human who ventured into its domain unprotected.

Van Allen and his students weren't sure of the size, shape and texture of the monster, they just knew they had encountered an incredible phenomenon.

Then, in l958, as part of the International Geophysical Year (a year in which men like James A. Van Allen were praised for exploring the realms of time and space) the young professor asked the U.S. military to send his experiments deeper into space, this time using a Geiger Counter to measure the intensity of the radiation. He further requested the most sophisticated rockets that would penetrate l00,000 miles into space.

That's when the monster grew all encompassing. It appeared to surround the entire earth and extend out some 65,000 miles, maybe even 100,000 miles.  The Geiger Counter confirmed that the region above the earth, and in the path of the rocket, was cooking with deadly radiation. That radiation was born from solar flares that would race through the universe and become trapped by the earth's magnetic field. A deadly mixture of protons and electrons.

 It was then that Van Allen realized the Aurora Borealis, the northern lights, was actually a visual manifestation of that tremendous energy from the sun. You could actually see the radiation swirling in a magnificent and deadly dance.  His eventual finding of two such lethal radiation belts, put his name in the history books as the man who discovered the Van Allen Radiation Belts.  There was an inner belt and an outer belt. The inner belt went from 40 degrees north and south of the Equator and was basically a doughnut surrounding the earth. Scientific experiments conducted by Van Allen and the military proved that belt was so deadly that no human could survive in its orbit. The outer belt was   equally as destructive, and separated from the inner belt by an area of lesser radiation.

 Van Allen's conclusion was delivered in a speech to the Academy of Science in 1959.  He warned future space travelers they would have to race through these two zones on their way to outer planets.

 "All manned space flight attempts must steer clear of these two belts of radiation until adequate means of safeguarding the astronauts has been developed" he said.   Moreover, Van Allen advised they would have to be shielded with some extra layers of protection beyond that of the spacecraft itself.  These findings were also published in Scientific American Magazine, March, 1959.

 Two years later, Van Allen updated his report in Space World Magazine, December, 1961. In brief, he reported that everything he had found in 1959 was still valid.  It was also in that year that President John F. Kennedy told an assembled group of students and dignitaries at Rice University in Houston, that it was America's destiny to put a man on the moon by the end of the decade. With that statement, the space race become a political game, worth 30 billion in taxpayer dollars to the winners.  National Aeronautic and Space Administration (NASA), which is part of the Department of Defense and the CIA, became the caretaker of Kennedy's dream.

 It was their job to build a spacecraft that would meet Van Allen's scientific requirements of safety through the radiation belts. Van Allen stated that the ship's skin, made of aluminum, would not be enough protection for the astronauts. Extra shielding of lead or  another substance that would absorb the radiation would be needed. That, of course, posed the problem of weight. More weight created a booster problem. In other words, they would need a bigger rocket to carry a ship that was properly lined against radiation penetration.  One of the most interesting of Van Allen's findings was that once protons and electrons hit the aluminum skin of the spacecraft, they would turn into x-rays. The kind the average dentist protects patients against with two inch lead vests. Those rays would naturally penetrate the astronaut's bodies and create anything from nausea and vomiting to eventual death, depending on the length of the exposure.

 All of this scientific data presented a big problem for NASA. How could they build a spacecraft that would meet radiation standards and yet get off the ground?

 The National Committee on Radiation Protection (NCRP) and the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) had established low "permissible doses" of  radiation at levels that were consistent with living on earth. However, where the critical dosage on earth might be 5 rems of radiation in a year, the astronauts would receive that amount within minutes passing through the lower zone of the radiation belt.

 In order to penetrate Van Allen's belt, in l965 NASA requested the two regulatory groups modify the existing standards for space flight. It was simply a matter of "risk over gain" and NASA convinced them to change the standards and allow them to take the risk.  Whether or not future astronauts would be advised of these dramatically lowered standards and substantial risk is unknown at this time.

 The next problem NASA faced was the shielding of the spacecraft. It was solved in a report NASA issued in Aerospace Medicine Magazine in 1965 and 1969. The report was written prior to the first Apollo mission to the moon.

 NASA announced that a simple aluminum skin on the command module was enough to protect astronauts from lethal doses of radiation. This conclusion was based on studies NASA had conducted.  Now NASA had ingeniously solved their two basic problems, protection and weight. They had eliminated the danger of radiation penetration, along with the problem of radiation shielding and spacecraft weight.  We telephoned North American Rockwell, the builder of the Command Module which carried the astronauts to the moon and back. They verified that the craft was not protected by any additional shielding.

 It was at this point in our research that we realized the Van Allen Report had been seriously compromised by NASA. Professor Van Allen had become an icon in the scientific community for warning of radiation dangers. One of his most important tenets was that even if you raced quickly through the 65,000 mile belt, which starts 400 miles above the earth's surface (thus allowing for inner space travel) you would still need considerable additional shielding. Were his findings now bogus?    We had to speak to Van Allen.

 Professor James A. Van Allen now 83, is Professor Emeritus in Geophysics at the University of Iowa. Our first question was why he did not speak up after NASA's claims and defend his original findings. Astonishingly, he told us that his seminal Scientific American article
in 1959 was merely "popular science."

 "Are you refuting your findings?" we asked.

 "Absolutely not," he answered, "I stand by them."  In the next breath, Van Allen again acquiesced to NASA's point of view. He became positively mercurial in his answers. Basically he defended NASA's position that any material, even aluminum without shielding, was adequate to protect the astronauts from the radiation he  once called deadly.  When we asked him the point of his original warning about rushing through the Belt, he said, "It must have been a sloppy statement."  So there we were, down the rabbit hole, chasing Van Allen through halls of mirrors. Was he taking the line of least resistance to government pressure? Was he trashing his own report in order not to be labeled a whistle blower? Could this renowned scientist actually be capable of a "sloppy statement" and blatant hyperbole published in a scientific journal?
 If you don't believe we went to the moon, then you will say that NASA created the perfect cover story. It allowed them  to continue receiving funding for a spacecraft they could not build, to enter a region of space they could not penetrate.  If you believe we went to the moon, then you have to disregard Van Allen's years of research and published findings. You would also have to believe that aluminum, and not lead, is adequate protection against radiation in the very heart of the Belt. . .exactly the spot where Apollo rocket ships entered from Cape Canaveral in Florida.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think Van Allen found out some things by sending rockets into space that you couldn't find out by measuring radiation levels at the top of a mountain.

Quote
We know that we can survive the radiation provided that we are behind a sheild that's equivalent to the earth's atmosphere.
According to the stuff I've found the Van Allen belts shield the earth from radiation.  Supposedly it's not just the atmosphere that protects us.

If we haven't seen the actual data collected by space probes, we have no idea what types and levels of radiation are out there.

Quote
Face it, there's no real evidence that the moon landings were faked.
There's a mountain of video evidence that the missions were faked.  The reason they had to fake it was probably space radiation.

In the seventh post from the top where all the info is I pointed out that, when the speed of the Apollo 11 footage is doubled, the movements look like natural movements on earth.  When the speed of some of the later missions is doubled, the speed of the movements is unnaturally fast.  According to Jarrah White, the later missions used a combination of wire supports and about a 67% slow-motion to simulate lunar gravity.  We can deduce that they used a crude 50% slow-motion to simulate lunar gravity in Apollo 11 and later improved the method but that made the footage of different missions inconsistent.

There's the fact that the corner of Collins' jacket and dogtags bounce around the way they would in gravity when they were supposed to be halfway to the moon in this clip.

(50 second mark)

I know there's micro-gravity at the point where they were supposed to be in that footage, but that gravity looks pretty strong.

This is only a small part of the evidence that they faked it.  I don't see how anyone could say there's no evidence that they faked it with a straight face.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Jolly on 24/10/2009 20:29:31
It still comes back to the fact that NASA would be totally and utterly discredited if, on a subsequent mission to the moon by some other nation, no evidence could be found of the original moon landings.

Until you can absolutely prove that these landings were faked, it must be taken that they were not.

That is hardly a good way of looking at it. If they were faked as you rightly say NASA and America would be totally discredited, so if they were faked, NASA would spend massive amounts of energy, to prove they were not. To seek a totality of proof, is hardly empirical, surely you look at all the facts and sit with the greatest weight of evidence.

It could be both, they did go to the moon but they Faked the moon landing video etc to hide information from Russia. That way everyone would be right. [;)]

I'm still- with jury out, on the subject
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Cosmored on 25/10/2009 13:17:03
Quote
It could be both, they did go to the moon but they Faked the moon landing video etc to hide information from Russia.

So, in your opinion, are the examples of fakery that I posted really fakery?
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/10/2009 13:29:22
"There's the fact that the corner of Collins' jacket and dogtags bounce around the way they would in gravity when they were supposed to be halfway to the moon in this clip.
"
At about 1 min 15 you can see that they are tied down so it's no wonder they act as they do- it's not gravity it's a tremendously complicated piece of technology- a bit of wire.

Also, "The kind the average dentist protects patients against with two inch lead vests. "
Yeah, like I remember being impressed by the crane that the dentist needed to move the vest about with.
If that's the calibre of your evidence...
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Cosmored on 25/10/2009 14:58:40
Quote
At about 1 min 15 you can see that they are tied down so it's no wonder they act as they do- it's not gravity it's a tremendously complicated piece of technology- a bit of wire.
I'm not talking about the astronauts.  I'm talking about the corner of Collins' jacket and his dogtags.

If you take a jacket on a hanger and bounce it up and down, the corners will behave exactly like the corner of Collins' jacket does.  Would that be possible in an environment like the one in this video below?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&hl=en-GB&v=TejsnPThmd4

I was able to exactly duplicate the movement of Collins' dogtags while running in place with some keys hanging around my neck.  I only had to impart a little extra horizontal motion to my upper body. 
Look how the dogtags in this video behave.
(1:49 time mark)

Do you think it's possible to duplicate near-zero gravity behavior in full earth gravity?
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: GoneToPlaid on 25/10/2009 15:48:35
So, in your opinion, are the examples of fakery that I posted really fakery?

Not in my opinion. Every one of the hoax claims in the links you provided has been debunked. Most notably, every single one of Jarrah White's claims has been easily and thoroughly debunked.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Cosmored on 25/10/2009 16:00:26
Quote
Not in my opinion. Every one of the hoax claims in the links you provided has been debunked.
If the speed of the Apollo 11 footage is doubled,  the movements look like natural movements in earth gravity.  If the speed of some of the later footage is doubled, the movements look unnaturally fast.  Shouldn't it all be consistent?
Quote
There's a noticeable difference in the body movements in these two clips.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11v.1101330.rm

What I hypothesize is that a fifty percent slow-motion was used in Apollo 11 to simulate lunar gravity. Later, they improved thier methods of simulating lunar gravity and started using a combination of slow-motion and support wires. The slow-motion in the later missions might not have been exactly half-speed. It might have been sixty five or seventy percent of natural speed. It looked better but it was inconsistent with Apollo 11 footage. The inconsistency is apparent.

At around the 21 minute mark of this video the above footage from Apollo 11 can be seen played at double speed.
http://video.google.es/videoplay?docid=4135126565081757736

It can also be seen in this video at around the 30 minute 55 second mark.
http://video.google.es/videoplay?docid=-7335269088210976286
It looks just like movement in earth gravity.
--------------------------------
When the footage from this clip is doubled, the movements look unnaturally fast.

Here it is doubled.

When the Apollo 11 footage is doubled, the movements look natural. This makes it very clear that they used a simple fifty percent slow-motion to simulate lunar gravity in Apollo 11 and a faster slow-motion (around 67 percent according to Jarrah White's calculations) combined with wire supports in the later missions.

How about the issue of the way Collins' jacket corner bounces around?  What about the way the dogtags bounce up and down?
(50 second mark)

I've never seen this satisfactorily explained.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Rob260259 on 25/10/2009 16:10:53
Cosmored, the moonlandings were real and reality. No doubt about that.
You say they were faked? Faked six times?! Think of the best special effects movies that you have ever seen. Now think of the inconsistensies or visual errors that even the casual uninformed audience can see in these films. Now think back to the sixties and the movies that were made then. Could NASA have produced such a fakery that it would not only stand up to the scrutiny of a 1969 audience, but also a whole generation of engineers and scientists familiar with the geologic studies of celestial bodies?

Cosmored, most people are smart enough to believe reputable engineers, geochemists, physicists, geologists, astronomers and astronauts from across the globe who, based on actual empirical evidence, state that the landings were a fact. Some people however believe some anonymous high-school dropouts who found everything they needed to conclude the moonlandings were a hoax from a few YouTube videos.

The Apollo missions were tracked by the Madrid Apollo Station, the Goldstone Tracking Station, the Jodrell Bank Observatory, the Chabot Observatory, the Corralitos Observatory, the Jewett Observatory, the Honeysuckle Creek station and the Bochum Sternwache. You say that all the hundreds of engineers and scientists at those stations were fools?
 
The point about conspiracy theories is, that’s all they are, theories. Anyone can start one and there are always some guys who will believe it. And if there is any aspect of the theory that does not fit, then ignore it. Considering there was a space race with the USSR going on at the time do you not you think the Soviets would found out about the hoax through their intelligence networks? And think of the amount of people who would have to be involved to set up this hoax and keep it secret, how would you be able to keep all those people quiet for all these years?

As GoneToPlaid wrote today, every one (EVERY ONE) of the hoax claims have been debunked so many times. Some very easily, some with the use of people specialized in photography, physics, engineering and so on.

Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Rob260259 on 25/10/2009 16:18:12

Cosmored,
all your questions (and I mean ALL your questions) are answered in this extensive website:

http://www.clavius.org/index.html

Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/10/2009 16:24:14
Cosmored,
it's not clear what you mean by "dogtags".
Do you mean this?
 [ Invalid Attachment ]
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Cosmored on 25/10/2009 17:42:04
Quote
Cosmored,
all your questions (and I mean ALL your questions) are answered in this extensive website:

http://www.clavius.org/index.html
The Clavius site is a governemt damage-control site and all it's regular pro-Apollo posters know that Apollo was a hoax.
 
Jay Windley got caught telling a big lie which is explained here.
http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=1094
 
Look at reply #386 here.
http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=1009&page=26#29354
 
Now look at the 3rd and 6th posts on this thread.
http://www.geologyrocks.co.uk/forum/q_and_a/a_strange_scenario_re_sifted_sand
 
Look at the way Jay Windley ducked this question asked of him.
http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=othertheories&action=display&thread=1584
 
This is who Jay Windley is.
http://www.clavius.org/about.html

 
I got banned for thirty days at Clavius for using non-Apollo info to further my argument that the government is capable of telling gigantic lies.
http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=971&page=1
(see reply #33)
 
They talked about it in reply #138 here.
http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=announce&action=display&thread=1401&page=10
 
I continued the topic in the "Conspiracy theory" section instead of the "Hoax theory" section in the hope that they would let me speak freely.
http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=othertheories&action=display&thread=1575
 
As you can see by reading the thread, the moderator closed it because his people couldn't discredit the topic without looking silly.

Just the fact that the Clavius site is there is circumstantial evidence that Apollo was a hoax.
 
Quote
it's not clear what you mean by "dogtags".
Look at the 1:00 minute time mark.

Quote
Cosmored, the moonlandings were real and reality. No doubt about that.
You say they were faked? Faked six times?! Think of the best special effects movies that you have ever seen. Now think of the inconsistensies or visual errors that even the casual uninformed audience can see in these films. Now think back to the sixties and the movies that were made then. Could NASA have produced such a fakery that it would not only stand up to the scrutiny of a 1969 audience, but also a whole generation of engineers and scientists familiar with the geologic studies of celestial bodies?

Cosmored, most people are smart enough to believe reputable engineers, geochemists, physicists, geologists, astronomers and astronauts from across the globe who, based on actual empirical evidence, state that the landings were a fact. Some people however believe some anonymous high-school dropouts who found everything they needed to conclude the moonlandings were a hoax from a few YouTube videos.

The Apollo missions were tracked by the Madrid Apollo Station, the Goldstone Tracking Station, the Jodrell Bank Observatory, the Chabot Observatory, the Corralitos Observatory, the Jewett Observatory, the Honeysuckle Creek station and the Bochum Sternwache. You say that all the hundreds of engineers and scientists at those stations were fools?
 
The point about conspiracy theories is, that’s all they are, theories. Anyone can start one and there are always some guys who will believe it. And if there is any aspect of the theory that does not fit, then ignore it. Considering there was a space race with the USSR going on at the time do you not you think the Soviets would found out about the hoax through their intelligence networks? And think of the amount of people who would have to be involved to set up this hoax and keep it secret, how would you be able to keep all those people quiet for all these years?

As GoneToPlaid wrote today, every one (EVERY ONE) of the hoax claims have been debunked so many times. Some very easily, some with the use of people specialized in photography, physics, engineering and so on.

Nothing you said here makes the anomalies in the video disappear. 
 
Read my first post on page 15.  There are possible scenarios about the Soviets in that post.
 
There are scenarios that would explain Apollo's being tracked.  The people who say they did the tracking might have been colluding with NASA.  An unmanned craft might have actually gone to the moon and orbited for the duration of the alleged missions and then came back.
 
Engineers, geochemists, physicists, geologists, and astronomers can be bought.
 
Here's some evidence that scientists can be paid to lie.

At around the 30 minute mark of this video a scientist alleges that science fraud is rampant in the US.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3626298989248030643#
 
 
Some scientists at the Rand corporation say that depleted uranium is safe.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/docs/b04151999_bt170-99.htm
 
There are other experts in these videos who have the opposite view.
http://video.google.es/videosearch?q=depleted+uranium#
 
 
The experts at the Rand corporation also say that GM foods are not dangerous.
http://www.rand.org/commentary/2004/05/12/FT.html#
 
There seem to be other experts who hold the opposite view.
http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/11-dangers-of-genetically-modified-food-confirmed/
 
 
We are lied to about history. This stuff below is pretty different from what we learn in school isn't it?
http://mtwsfh.blogspot.com/
http://video.google.es/videosearch?q=economic+hitman&hl=es&emb=0&aq=f#


Of course I don't know anybody who thinks we can trust the American media.
http://www.youtube.com//watch?v=bbnxsPgcsH0
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=&search_query=chomsky+media
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Media/media_watch.html

Americans are bombarded by lies about science, news, and history.  In an environment like this, simply believing what some expert says because he's an expert would be very naive.

Now can you explain the anomalies I pointed out in my last post, or not?
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Jolly on 25/10/2009 17:53:02
Cosmored, the moonlandings were real and reality. No doubt about that.
You say they were faked? Faked six times?! Think of the best special effects movies that you have ever seen. Now think of the inconsistensies or visual errors that even the casual uninformed audience can see in these films. Now think back to the sixties and the movies that were made then. Could NASA have produced such a fakery that it would not only stand up to the scrutiny of a 1969 audience, but also a whole generation of engineers and scientists familiar with the geologic studies of celestial bodies?

Cosmored, most people are smart enough to believe reputable engineers, geochemists, physicists, geologists, astronomers and astronauts from across the globe who, based on actual empirical evidence, state that the landings were a fact. Some people however believe some anonymous high-school dropouts who found everything they needed to conclude the moonlandings were a hoax from a few YouTube videos.

The Apollo missions were tracked by the Madrid Apollo Station, the Goldstone Tracking Station, the Jodrell Bank Observatory, the Chabot Observatory, the Corralitos Observatory, the Jewett Observatory, the Honeysuckle Creek station and the Bochum Sternwache. You say that all the hundreds of engineers and scientists at those stations were fools?
 
The point about conspiracy theories is, that’s all they are, theories. Anyone can start one and there are always some guys who will believe it. And if there is any aspect of the theory that does not fit, then ignore it. Considering there was a space race with the USSR going on at the time do you not you think the Soviets would found out about the hoax through their intelligence networks? And think of the amount of people who would have to be involved to set up this hoax and keep it secret, how would you be able to keep all those people quiet for all these years?

As GoneToPlaid wrote today, every one (EVERY ONE) of the hoax claims have been debunked so many times. Some very easily, some with the use of people specialized in photography, physics, engineering and so on.



I have heard that Stanly Kubric was employed to fake the Moon landing video. Not saying he was but I have heard it mentioned.

It was from NASA that he got the cameras to film 'Barry Lindon'.

Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Jolly on 25/10/2009 17:55:24
Quote
It could be both, they did go to the moon but they Faked the moon landing video etc to hide information from Russia.

So, in your opinion, are the examples of fakery that I posted really fakery?

Fakery is fakery, My point was about motivation.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Rob260259 on 25/10/2009 19:26:49
Cosmored, once again, ALL 'anomalies' are explained in the Clavius website. If you don't want to read it, fine. I am not going to copy/paste all that information. Why are there no scientists, engineers, astronomers and professional photographers protesting against this website?
Because it is all true. There is no moonhoax conspiracy.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/10/2009 19:35:45
Cosmored
the acceptable answers to my question are "yes" or "no".
"Watch the video" isn't an acceptable answer because I have clearly watched it before; that's how I was able to post a still from it.
If you cannot respond in a sensible way to a simple question it hardly helps your credibillity.
Saying "Now can you explain the anomalies I pointed out in my last post, or not?" is a bit daft when, having been asked to clarify what you mean by anomalies, you give a pointless response.

I note with interest that you cite a page that puts Dr Arpad Pusztai forward as an expert. His work  on GM foods was totally discredited.

BTW, I forgot to mention the rather important problem with the stuff you posted based on this
"Then, in l958, as part of the International Geophysical Year (a year in which men like James A. Van Allen were praised for exploring the realms of time and space) the young professor asked the U.S. military to send his experiments deeper into space, this time using a Geiger Counter to measure the intensity of the radiation. He further requested the most sophisticated rockets that would penetrate l00,000 miles into space.
"
You can't actually measure radiation doses with just a Geiger counter. It will tell you how many "particles" hit the tube but it doesn't tell you what thery are or how much energy they are carrying.

The Van Allen belts exist but there's no way that he could have known if they were deadly or not. It turned out that thery were not.
Sorry to kill another of your beloved myths.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Rob260259 on 02/11/2009 12:42:42
This video says a lot about the idiots and hoaxtards that believe in the moonlanding conspiracy nonsense:



Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: seemoe on 27/01/2010 14:23:10
The hoax was proven a long time ago.

Quote
What I hypothesize

Quote
..in the later missions might not have been exactly half-speed. It might have been ...

Quote
One possible explanation is that...

Quote
There are plausible explanations that would explain them.

Quote
The main reason they had to fake it was probably space radiation.


Speculation does not equal evidence, especially when your premise contradicts your findings.







Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Cosmored on 29/01/2010 13:51:14
Quote
Speculation does not equal evidence, especially when your premise contradicts your findings.
You haven't said anything that makes the evidence go away.  This has never been satisfactorily explained.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=moonfaker+the+flags+are+alive&search_type=&aq=f

The people at Clavius seemed to be having a hard time dealing with it.
http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=1138&page=1

They didn't even post a link to it in their discussion; I guess they didn't want the viewers to see it.

Give us your analysis of the movement of the flag when it isn't touched.

Maybe this will help.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Democritus on 31/01/2010 14:27:36
Hi Cosmored
Forgive me, I came late to this discussion. I understand that you are an advocate of the notion that the Apollo project of the 60s and 70s of the last century never really happened; that a conspiracy to simulate the project's ambitions, setbacks and successes was and is afoot.

Well as a schoolboy then I was excited and inspired by Apollo; followed it closely for a decade and more; watched Neil live on black & white low res TV in class with my school mates, teachers, an enlightened principal, support staff & many others crammed into the TV room as Neil for us all placed a human footprint on our Moon.

And now...and now you tell me that...it didn't really happen!! Well you can imagine my disappointment with this news. But you know, I cling to a hope that it did happen; that we together there in July 69 in that little local school were a small part of it. And even given that the Apollo project may have been politically and ideologically driven, in my view the Apollo effort was the greatest, most noble, most courageous, most inspirational achievement of humanity on our Earth in our twentieth century. Well, that's if it really happened...sigh.

So tell me Cosmored please, give it your single best shot, your single best piece of evidence, your single incontrovertible truth, your best single bedrock of fact; that which within one statement supported by evidence convinces me that I was misled about Apollo. That's not too much to ask is it? To support or destroy my life's inspiration?

The reason I ask for just one, your single best piece of evidence supporting the alleged conspiracy theory about Apollo is because I'm reminded of Albert Einstein, a German Jew. With regard to some theory or another proposed by Einstein, may have been Relativity (Special or General), may have been something else, Adolph Hitler of Nazi infamy assembled "one hundred scientists against Einstein".

Albert said "Why one hundred? If I'm wrong, one is enough."

So please Cosmored, just one is enough. Just one smoking gun. Your best single shot. If that is true for you, then all is true. If that fails, then all fails. Please, what is it?
Sincerely
Democritus     
 

 
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Cosmored on 31/01/2010 18:12:44
Democritus-

Have you seen the seventh post from the top on page 15?
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=232.msg280389#msg280389

I watched Apollo 11 when I was thirteen.  It was a bit of a letdown; I was expecting very clear footage of some real amazing stuff.  I believed Apollo was real until the arrival of the internet when I finally saw some hoax evidence. 

The government can't censor the evidence on the internet, but it can fill the internet with disinfo sites to make the real evidence harder to come across.  If you google "Apollo hoax", you'll get about fifteen pro-Apollo sites for every hoax-believer site.  The post on page fifteen is a partial summary of the evidence that the government is trying to bury to reduce the number of people who see it.  I put several pieces of evidence at the top of the post that are such clear examples of fakery that they close the whole case.  If you're a serious truth-seeker, start watching the "MoonFaker" series...
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=moonfaker&search_type=&aq=f

...and the documentary "What Happened on the Moon".
http://video.google.es/videosearch?q=what+happened+on+the+moon&hl=es&emb=0&aq=f#

 
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Bored chemist on 31/01/2010 19:13:13
Watch those then go here
http://www.clavius.org/index.html
and see them explained away.

BTW, re. "he government can't censor the evidence on the internet, "
Please tell China.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Democritus on 01/02/2010 01:43:15
Hi Cosmored
Of course we should all be truth seekers. That's why I asked you for your best single piece of evidence that Apollo was a simulation. It's an extraordinary claim accusing hundreds of thousands of people, agencies and governments of the most spectacular fraud in the history of civilisation. Speaking of truth, I'm sure you will agree that everyone everywhere deserves the truth in this very worrying matter.

So extraordinary claims usually require extraordinary evidence. But all I'm asking for is your best single piece of any evidence supporting the hoax theory. Just one. Just your best single shot. No, I do not want to scan dozens or hundreds of posts or other pages or sites. I don't have time, and you have done it for me already, so choose from all of it the best shot and describe it to me in your own words. If you are right, then one piece of evidence is enough, so you may as well make it your best.

I do have time to read your own single best example in your own words of evidence of NASA Apollo fraud. Please don't just post links to other pages or sites. I'd like your view. In your own words. Your single best piece (that's one only) of evidence that Apollo was a hoax. Please. Just one; your best shot. In your own words. One, if true, is enough.

Thanks Cosmored, I don't think I could make my request any clearer to you.

Best wishes
Democritus

     
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/02/2010 07:04:37
Cosmored seems well versed in ignoring things that are perfectly clear.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: RD on 01/02/2010 10:39:20
. [ Invalid Attachment ]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/photogalleries/apollo-11-moon-base-before-after-pictures/index.html)
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/02/2010 21:37:32
I await Cosmored's "unworldly" explanation of that picture.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Cosmored on 03/02/2010 14:26:50
Quote
I await Cosmored's "unworldly" explanation of that picture.
Are you saying that picture wasn't fakable?  Anything that's fakable can't be used as proof.

Quote
That's why I asked you for your best single piece of evidence that Apollo was a simulation.
I think the clearest piece of evidence that the missions were faked is this clip of the flag moving when nobody touches it.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=moonfaker+the+flags+are+alive&search_type=&aq=f

This is such clear evidence of fakery that the best sophist in the world couldn't convince a twelve-year-old that the footage wasn't taken in a studio.

The flag moves at the exact moment when it's consistent witht the atmosphere explanation.
In the third link above, it can be seen that the the flag moves away from the astronaut before it moves toward him.  This rules out static electricity as it would either only be repelled, or only be attracted.  He was too far away to have touched it.  In the begining of the clip when the astronaut is next to the flag the astronaut's helmet is about one fifth the size it was when he trotted by and made the flag move.  I cut some newspapers to be about the size of the helmets and put one of them about as far away from me as the flag was from the camera.  In order for the other piece to appear five times as big as the further one, it had to be about six feet closer to me.  Also, when he was next to the flag, there was no attraction or repelling due to static electricity either.  If he'd kicked dirt against the flag, it would have been visible.  If it had been ground vibration, the pole and the staff would have moved.

Anyone can hang some light material from a ceiling light and trot by it and duplicate the flag movement.  The flag in the video moves a little more slowly for a longer time because the footage was shown at about sixty seven percent slow-motion (according to Jarrah White's studies).

Quote
It's an extraordinary claim accusing hundreds of thousands of people, agencies and governments of the most spectacular fraud in the history of civilisation.
It's possible that most of those people were fooled too.  If the program was compartmentalized, most people might not have been in a position to know if the whole thing would work.  If there was a robot lander on the moon relayiong radio signals, mission control could have been fooled too.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Cosmored on 03/02/2010 14:35:40
Quote
Watch those then go here
http://www.clavius.org/index.html
and see them explained away.
You're ignoring what I said about Clavius in the second post from the top of this page and what I said in the ninth post from the top.  That was a rebuttal to the last post on page fifteen.  In a debate, you're suppose to give a rebuttal and then a counter-rebuttal.  You're not supposed to just reiterate.

Please give your analysis of what I posted about Jay Windley and the Clavius site or you know what people might suspect.
http://www.opposingdigits.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1222
(excerpt)
----------------------------------------------------
9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues with denial they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.
----------------------------------------------------
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Madidus_Scientia on 04/02/2010 09:41:43
Quote
The flag moves at the exact moment when it's consistent witht the atmosphere explanation.

You really think so? The astronaut seems far enough away that it would take a second for any wind currents he made to reach the flag, and the flag starts moving exactly as he bounces. Seems to me like it moved from the vibrations.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: BenV on 04/02/2010 11:15:58
Quote
The flag moves at the exact moment when it's consistent witht the atmosphere explanation.

You really think so? The astronaut seems far enough away that it would take a second for any wind currents he made to reach the flag, and the flag starts moving exactly as he bounces. Seems to me like it moved from the vibrations.
And doesn't move when he initially walks away from it, which would have created the same kinds of currents.  Also, I'm not at all convinced that it moves before he gets to it.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Cosmored on 04/02/2010 15:26:26
Quote
You really think so? The astronaut seems far enough away that it would take a second for any wind currents he made to reach the flag, and the flag starts moving exactly as he bounces. Seems to me like it moved from the vibrations.
The pole and the rod don't move at all.  If it had been vibrations, there would have been some visible movement of the pole and support rod.

Quote
And doesn't move when he initially walks away from it, which would have created the same kinds of currents.
When he initially walks away from it, he doesn't walk by it in the same way.  He's behind it.  Please post a time mark showing the exact point to which you're referring.

Quote
Also, I'm not at all convinced that it moves before he gets to it.
It doesn't move before he gets to it.  It moves as he trots by it.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: neilep on 04/02/2010 16:07:05
I don't even think the moon is real. I think it's a big balloon hoax to make us think we have a natural satellite.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/02/2010 17:32:50
Quote
I await Cosmored's "unworldly" explanation of that picture.
Are you saying that picture wasn't fakable?  Anything that's fakable can't be used as proof.




Since any web page is just a bunch of ones and zeros it can be faked. It will never be possible to convince you that we went to the moon. Nor will it be possible for you to convince us otherwise.
Stop trying
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Geezer on 04/02/2010 22:48:01
I don't even think the moon is real. I think it's a big balloon hoax to make us think we have a natural satellite.

You are quite correct Comrade Sheepy. NASA accidentally destroyed it with an unmanned spacecraft, so they had to replace it with a large cardboard replica stuck to a balloon. If you look at it carefully with that telescope of yours you can actually see that the images only have two dimensions. How much more proof do we need?

That's why they had to fake the whole moon landing thing. I'm surprised more people are not aware of this. I suppose it's because the US is beaming thought control waves from their satellites.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Madidus_Scientia on 05/02/2010 04:34:50
Not to me, I always wear my alfoil cap.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Geezer on 05/02/2010 07:11:46
I shield my brain with a lead lined sporran.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: neilep on 05/02/2010 12:46:56
I don't even think the moon is real. I think it's a big balloon hoax to make us think we have a natural satellite.

You are quite correct Comrade Sheepy. NASA accidentally destroyed it with an unmanned spacecraft, so they had to replace it with a large cardboard replica stuck to a balloon. If you look at it carefully with that telescope of yours you can actually see that the images only have two dimensions. How much more proof do we need?

That's why they had to fake the whole moon landing thing. I'm surprised more people are not aware of this. I suppose it's because the US is beaming thought control waves from their satellites.

Thanks for corroborating what I have always suspected Sir Geezer....
.

all ewe need is a firefighters ladder and with a long stick ewe can prod it ewe know !
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: neilep on 05/02/2010 12:47:33
I shield my brain with a lead lined sporran.

I shield mine with porridge and tin foil.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: FoosM on 14/02/2010 22:52:13
Hi Cosmored
Forgive me, I came late to this discussion. I understand that you are an advocate of the notion that the Apollo project of the 60s and 70s of the last century never really happened; that a conspiracy to simulate the project's ambitions, setbacks and successes was and is afoot.

Well as a schoolboy then I was excited and inspired by Apollo; followed it closely for a decade and more; watched Neil live on black & white low res TV in class with my school mates, teachers, an enlightened principal, support staff & many others crammed into the TV room as Neil for us all placed a human footprint on our Moon.

And now...and now you tell me that...it didn't really happen!! Well you can imagine my disappointment with this news. But you know, I cling to a hope that it did happen; that we together there in July 69 in that little local school were a small part of it. And even given that the Apollo project may have been politically and ideologically driven, in my view the Apollo effort was the greatest, most noble, most courageous, most inspirational achievement of humanity on our Earth in our twentieth century. Well, that's if it really happened...sigh.

So tell me Cosmored please, give it your single best shot, your single best piece of evidence, your single incontrovertible truth, your best single bedrock of fact; that which within one statement supported by evidence convinces me that I was misled about Apollo. That's not too much to ask is it? To support or destroy my life's inspiration?

The reason I ask for just one, your single best piece of evidence supporting the alleged conspiracy theory about Apollo is because I'm reminded of Albert Einstein, a German Jew. With regard to some theory or another proposed by Einstein, may have been Relativity (Special or General), may have been something else, Adolph Hitler of Nazi infamy assembled "one hundred scientists against Einstein".

Albert said "Why one hundred? If I'm wrong, one is enough."

So please Cosmored, just one is enough. Just one smoking gun. Your best single shot. If that is true for you, then all is true. If that fails, then all fails. Please, what is it?
Sincerely
Democritus     
 

 


The smoking gun can be anything for anyone.
It all depends if it happens to conflict with what you are informed about.

For example for photographers it could be photography for radiologists, radiation, etc.

For me, the first smoking gun is the photography and film. 
Impossible photography.  Clearly edited photography.
These anyone can now do themselves with a photo editing program.

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aztekium.pl%2F_baza%2Fusers_galeries%2Falbatros%2F7%2Fd%2FGPN-2000-001317.jpg&hash=92dc7671f8c3aa2c8038423d2ce5bee2)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aztekium.pl%2F_baza%2Fusers_galeries%2Falbatros%2F7%2Fd%2FGPN-2000-001137.jpg&hash=832382185f8c373534ae518cf77663fb)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aztekium.pl%2F_baza%2Fusers_galeries%2Falbatros%2F7%2Fd%2FGPN-2000-001210.jpg&hash=51ddd6620663ba27816c7d78120fe406)

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Faulis.com%2Fjackimages%2F12samecameraview.jpg&hash=32810a97e2eadc4a79a4549100069c75)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Faulis.com%2Fjackimages%2F14newreticulestudy.jpg&hash=a64d165c678334a9a4f218971a263385)


As for photography, one can find many many anomalies.
Anomalies that debunkers dont dare to touch.
Sure, they try to explain away the weird shadow lines, the exposure issues,
the "c" rock, but they dont go deeper than that.

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Faulis.com%2Fjackstudies_9.html&hash=a61a912959acc039d978c070a201fadd)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Faulis.com%2Fjackimages%2F12notincamerareticules.jpg&hash=26202c96a460e6031a23efb6b46ef692)



But that might not be enough.  Maybe you are hanging on by another string.
Question you should ask, what is it that makes you so sure they went?
What is the evidence for it, and then we can see if that can be contradicted.

Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Geezer on 14/02/2010 23:56:55
Wouldn't it be a lot more interesting to analyse why you would want to prove it didn't actually happen?
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: seemoe on 15/02/2010 01:14:23
Anomalies that debunkers dont dare to touch.
Sure, they try to explain away the weird shadow lines, the exposure issues,
the "c" rock, but they dont go deeper than that.

No?

Here's your "anomalies" explained (in great detail): http://www3.telus.net/summa/moonshot/index.htm
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: FoosM on 15/02/2010 02:16:24
Anomalies that debunkers dont dare to touch.
Sure, they try to explain away the weird shadow lines, the exposure issues,
the "c" rock, but they dont go deeper than that.

No?

Here's your "anomalies" explained (in great detail): http://www3.telus.net/summa/moonshot/index.htm


Ummm.... No.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/02/2010 06:59:13
FoosM. Please note that the pictures are older than photoshop.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Cosmored on 15/02/2010 13:27:42
There's some stuff they can't explain satisfactorily such as the way the flag moves without being touched in this clip.

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=the+flags+are+alive+moonfaker&search_type=&aq=f

Here's the partial summary of evidence I posted on page 15.
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=232.msg280389#msg280389

Quote
But that might not be enough.  Maybe you are hanging on by another string.
Question you should ask, what is it that makes you so sure they went?
What is the evidence for it, and then we can see if that can be contradicted.
Good point.

I've never seen anything I'd call proof that they went but I've seen lots of what I'd call proof that at least some of the footage was faked in a studio.  If they really went, why would they have faked any of the footage.

Somebody post something he or she considers to be proof that they went and we can discuss whether it's really proof.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Geezer on 15/02/2010 17:59:59
Ah ha! I get it now. It's like the guy in the Monty Python sketch who wants an argument. He really doesn't care what it's about as long as he has an argument.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/02/2010 19:01:17
The man in the sketch paid for his argument.

Anyway, Cosmored. As I pointed out, there is nothing that anyone could possibly post here that would convince you. Trying to do so would be a waste of time.

Also, FoosM needs to learn the difference between a tripod and a biped.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Geezer on 15/02/2010 19:21:06
The man in the sketch paid for his argument.

No he didn't.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: FoosM on 15/02/2010 21:17:41
FoosM. Please note that the pictures are older than photoshop.

Please note that image editing has been around for quite a long time and using the term photo shopping simply means the photos were edited.  Like one would say get a kleenex in place of saying get a tissue.  

Point is, you fail to comment on the actual image editing.
Because you cant.  So you try to redirect the argument on semantics.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: FoosM on 15/02/2010 22:23:04
The man in the sketch paid for his argument.

Anyway, Cosmored. As I pointed out, there is nothing that anyone could possibly post here that would convince you. Trying to do so would be a waste of time.

Also, FoosM needs to learn the difference between a tripod and a biped.

Fail.  Trying to attack the messenger.
Pitiful.
Do your best to prove the allegations wrong.
Show how those images are not manipulated.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Geezer on 16/02/2010 05:17:20
You want an argument. Sorry. We'll only give you an argument if you put down a $1,000,000 deposit.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: FoosM on 16/02/2010 14:02:23
Hmmm.... curiously nobody is trying to debunk the photos.


Ok here is another one.
What the hell is a "barbecue roll" ?
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/02/2010 19:52:07
OK a few points
You say that faking stuff is easy because you can do it with photoshop. True enough but, at the time it wasn't easy because not only was there no photoshop, there was no digital photography or editing.
It's not like saying kleenex instead of tissue; it's like saying kleenex instead of carved stone tablets.
Also it's not a semantic point. The question to consider is this
"which is easier- going to the moon or faking it?"
The more difficult it would have been to fake, the more likely it is to be real.
In the bad old days faking it would have been much more difficult and this makes the moon landings more likely.

The assertion that the shot could only have been made using a tripod is not supported by any evidence.
In all sensible likelihood the picture was taken using a biped.
If that's false then prove it so.

As for asking me to "Show how those images are not manipulated."
I can't.
It's perfectly possible that you faked them.

That was the basis of my comment to Cosmored.
There really is no point to discussing this because any image can be faked.
I already pointed out that true proof of this issue is, at least over a web page, impossible.
Then, in spite of this you say "Do your best to prove the allegations wrong." which leaves me wondering how you failed to understand the point.

Anyway, that's not the way it works.
You are the one making the extraordinary claim so it falls to you to provide the extraordinary evidence.
So far it's you who gets the "fail" grade.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: FoosM on 17/02/2010 11:17:29
OK a few points
You say that faking stuff is easy because you can do it with photoshop.
------
No I didnt say that.
I said image editing has been around for quite some time.
Please read carefully next time.


True enough but, at the time it wasn't easy because not only was there no photoshop, there was no digital photography or editing.
------
There was no editing...
Are you serious?
You think cut & paste was only invented in the digital age?
You think movies like 2001, Star Wars, Mary Poppins could only be done in the digital age?
Because those are all examples MOVING IMAGES that have been composited.


It's not like saying kleenex instead of tissue; it's like saying kleenex instead of carved stone tablets.
-----
No

Also it's not a semantic point. The question to consider is this
"which is easier- going to the moon or faking it?"
-----
Faking it.


The more difficult it would have been to fake, the more likely it is to be real.
In the bad old days faking it would have been much more difficult and this makes the moon landings more likely.
-------
Faking it was easy.  Especially due to Public expectation.
The Public wanted to believe. Like kids wanting to believe in Santa Clause.
NASA had a bigger production team headed by scientists and budget to make it seem real.
Just like how they easily fake news nowadays. 
Because you are programmed to think news=real and movies=fake, its easy to apply special effects used news and have people believe it.

The assertion that the shot could only have been made using a tripod is not supported by any evidence.
In all sensible likelihood the picture was taken using a biped.
If that's false then prove it so.
------
Its the photos themselves.
Wow... again... the PHOTOS are the evidence!!!
You cant have two photos shot with a manual camera and a significant amount of time passing line up so perfectly!  Its impossible!  Dont you get it?
Look at the photos and use your common sense.
Use life experience!  Its that easy!


As for asking me to "Show how those images are not manipulated."
I can't.
It's perfectly possible that you faked them.
-----
There is a reason there are numbers behind the photos.
Its so you can go to those many NASA sites and download the photos
and check them yourselves.  You see, if you dont do that, and are only
giving lip service, you are not interested in the truth.  You are interested
to keep the lie going out of the need to believe in the fantasy of
space travel.  That hope that one day we will be traveling the stars like Kirk and crew in Star Trek.
Well the alarm is ringing and its time to wake up.



That was the basis of my comment to Cosmored.
There really is no point to discussing this because any image can be faked.
----
Yes, the question is did NASA fake it?
And what are you doing to give evidence to the contrary?


I already pointed out that true proof of this issue is, at least over a web page, impossible.
Then, in spite of this you say "Do your best to prove the allegations wrong." which leaves me wondering how you failed to understand the point.
=----
I understand these are statements of cowardice.


Anyway, that's not the way it works.
You are the one making the extraordinary claim so it falls to you to provide the extraordinary evidence.
So far it's you who gets the "fail" grade.
-----
Sorry dude, you just an ostrich.
Willing to get robbed and pillaged by NAZI's and their bankers.
Time is running out, you people need to start looking behind the curtain.

Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Cosmored on 17/02/2010 18:22:08
The official NASA position on the Chinese space walk is that it was real.

http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=NVbBFwdmldA
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=kG4Z_r38ZDE
http://en.epochtimes.com/n2/content/view/5809/
http://en.epochtimes.com/n2/content/view/8332/

What do you pro-Apollo people have to say about this?
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/02/2010 19:38:14
This is funny; the guy doesn't want an argument; he wants a bad one.
"No I didnt say that.
I said image editing has been around for quite some time.
Please read carefully next time. "
What you actually said was
"These anyone can now do themselves with a photo editing program."
I think I paraphrased you reasonably; I said "Please note that the pictures are older than photoshop." (other photo editing programs are available). I was pointing out that the ease with which I can now edit pictures makes people think it was always easy. Way back when they landed on the moon the technology to manipulate pictures that way simply wasn't around.

"There was no editing...
Are you serious?
You think cut & paste was only invented in the digital age?
You think movies like 2001, Star Wars, Mary Poppins could only be done in the digital age?
Because those are all examples MOVING IMAGES that have been composited."

Strawman alert! [::)]
I never said there was no editing.
 I know all about the original "cut and paste". I also know that it's easier with digital image processing. What I said was not that it was impossible- just more difficult.

"Sorry dude, you just an ostrich.
Willing to get robbed and pillaged by NAZI's and their bankers.
Time is running out, you people need to start looking behind the curtain."

ROFL
 [;D]
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/02/2010 19:52:57
The official NASA position on the Chinese space walk is that it was real.

http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=NVbBFwdmldA
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=kG4Z_r38ZDE
http://en.epochtimes.com/n2/content/view/5809/
http://en.epochtimes.com/n2/content/view/8332/

What do you pro-Apollo people have to say about this?
Well, here's a quote from one of those websites with my emphasis.
"Dr. Qu Zheng, Senior Physics Engineer of the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, analyzed the inconsistencies in the live video-feed. The questionable points include that earth’s atmosphere was not visible. A cloud suddenly changed in an obvious fashion, there was no background noise as in past conversations between the astronauts in the spacecraft and regime leader Hu Jintao on earth. The video showed the craft flying over the ocean while it was supposed to be over land according orbit calculations."
It doesn't look like they fooled NASA.
Incidentally, since, even with today's vastly better technology and a totalitarian society, the Chinese can't come up with a fake that isn't spotted damn near instantly, can anyone explain how NASA did so much better nigh half a century ago?
This is probably the best evidence for the fact that the Apollo stuff was real. It's proof that it's bloody hard to fake space.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Geezer on 17/02/2010 21:58:08
Willing to get robbed and pillaged by NAZI's and their bankers.


Well Foos, if you are right about that you might not want to be quite so vocal about it. These ruthless people must have spent a fortune creating this conspiracy, so I'm sure they won't be too pleased with anyone who tries to expose them. Obviously they are very well connected too. You never know who you might be talking to.

BTW - keep an eye open for any black helicopters loitering in your area. 
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/02/2010 22:28:24
Damn you Geezer!
I was hoping to pick up the bounty for shopping FoosM to the "authorities".
I will just have to make do with the cash for grassing up Cosmored but the "powers that be" were doing a special on doubles.
Bugger!
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: FoosM on 18/02/2010 00:08:41
Bored chemist :
Quote
Strawman alert! roll eyes
I never said there was no editing.
 I know all about the original "cut and paste". I also know that it's easier with digital image processing. What I said was not that it was impossible- just more difficult.

After he said

Quote
True enough but, at the time it wasn't easy because not only was there no photoshop, there was no digital photography or editing.
-----

Bored chemist... stay away from anything that requires a healthy working brain.
And if you want to claim you meant digital editing, go right on ahead and do so, but you still fail for
even bringing the topic up.  Go to those NASA websites download those pictures and tell me those are true blue
non edited photos.  You cant can you.  That's why your stalling.

"There's a sucker born every minute" is a phrase that really helps explain why its hard for many of you believers of the manned moon landing to even begin to look at the inconsistencies. 

You think image editing & special efx was so difficult back in the 60's when there is plenty of proof for it.
Yet you have no problem believing man could safely land men on the moon and have them return with no loss of life.  Yet we cant do it NOW!

The sodium  vapor  process  (ocassionally referred to as yellowscreen) was an old technique for combining actors and background footage, developed exclusively by The Walt Disney Company as an alternative to the more common bluescreen process.

An actor is filmed performing in front of a yellow screen and lit with powerful sodium vapor lights. A camera with a special prism is used to create a matte
simultaneously with the color footage, so that the footage can later be combined with another shot without the two images showing through each other.  The technique was used in the films Mary Poppins...

Ahh yes, the pre-Apollo film Mary Poppins where "Everything from the two-strip sodium process and piano wire to bungee cords was used to create the magical sequences."


Again I ask... what did NASA mean by Barbecue Roll?

I know you dont want to touch it because its a hot potato, lol.



Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: FoosM on 18/02/2010 00:25:01
Well Foos, if you are right about that you might not want to be quite so vocal about it. These ruthless people must have spent a fortune creating this conspiracy, so I'm sure they won't be too pleased with anyone who tries to expose them. Obviously they are very well connected too. You never know who you might be talking to.

BTW - keep an eye open for any black helicopters loitering in your area. 
[/quote]

Laugh it up fuzzball, but dont be surprised when your internet is taken away and your skies are full of drones. You'll be crying crocodile tears while your waiting hours in the bread lines.


Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: FoosM on 18/02/2010 00:31:32
The official NASA position on the Chinese space walk is that it was real.

http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=NVbBFwdmldA
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=kG4Z_r38ZDE
http://en.epochtimes.com/n2/content/view/5809/
http://en.epochtimes.com/n2/content/view/8332/

What do you pro-Apollo people have to say about this?
Well, here's a quote from one of those websites with my emphasis.
"Dr. Qu Zheng, Senior Physics Engineer of the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, analyzed the inconsistencies in the live video-feed. The questionable points include that earth’s atmosphere was not visible. A cloud suddenly changed in an obvious fashion, there was no background noise as in past conversations between the astronauts in the spacecraft and regime leader Hu Jintao on earth. The video showed the craft flying over the ocean while it was supposed to be over land according orbit calculations."
It doesn't look like they fooled NASA.
Incidentally, since, even with today's vastly better technology and a totalitarian society, the Chinese can't come up with a fake that isn't spotted damn near instantly, can anyone explain how NASA did so much better nigh half a century ago?
This is probably the best evidence for the fact that the Apollo stuff was real. It's proof that it's bloody hard to fake space.

Oh lordy, you better do better than that you conspiracy nut.  Dont tell me you think China would lie about their space walk?  Why? And based on what facts?  Are you calling all those engineers and scientists who worked on their space program liars? How come we havent heard from any whistle-blowers?  And if they lied, why didnt the US call them out on it?

LOL



Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Geezer on 18/02/2010 02:44:24
Laugh it up fuzzball, but dont be surprised when your internet is taken away and your skies are full of drones. You'll be crying crocodile tears while your waiting hours in the bread lines.


Thanks for your concern, but don't worry about me. The profit margin on drones is huge. Some might even call it obscene.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Geezer on 18/02/2010 04:19:19
Damn you Geezer!
I was hoping to pick up the bounty for shopping FoosM to the "authorities".
I will just have to make do with the cash for grassing up Cosmored but the "powers that be" were doing a special on doubles.
Bugger!


Hard cheese BC. They are already on "the list".
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: FoosM on 18/02/2010 11:34:51
Laugh it up fuzzball, but dont be surprised when your internet is taken away and your skies are full of drones. You'll be crying crocodile tears while your waiting hours in the bread lines.


Thanks for your concern, but don't worry about me. The profit margin on drones is huge. Some might even call it obscene.

Who is worried? All I said is dont be surprised.

Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: FoosM on 18/02/2010 21:18:05
I have always considered it a matter of scientific "unknowingness" that leads one to believe that we didn't go to the moon
-----
Well your wrong.


They are the modern "Flat Earthers". 
-----
No they are still around and have their own agenda


The history of scientific progress and achievement for at least several hundreds of years is quite voluminous, and it clearly speaks for itself. 
-----
It also speaks of numerous cases of being miss-used
to propagate political agendas and stealing hard earned income from citizens via bloated taxes.


Unfortunately, it seems that the doubters who believe such things are the ones who cannot fathom the history of science even if it were laid out in front of them. 
---
Rolls eyes.


I think the attraction of arguing against having gone to the moon involves the fact that it is untouchable and thus personally unverifiable for all of us except a handful of elites. 
-----
You got that right.  Its unverifiable



The moon is also "above" every one of us, so it takes on a spiritual kind of presence in addition to the seeming impossibility to struggle against so much gravity for so long to get there. 
-----
I doubt it, we all see gravity defying devices being used and are using them everyday.  You know, airplanes, missiles, etc.


Also mixed in with this too, I think, is a grassroots anti-establishment tinge ... a redneck versus ivy league kind of animosity. 
-----
I bet you dont even know where the term redneck comes from, and what it stood for.



Also, only governments (US and SU) have gone to the moon.  For me, it is silly to think that, despite the Cold War animosity between the US and the SU, both saw fit to not expose what would be the lies and deceptions of the other in regards to the race to the moon.
-----
Then your just plain silly.
Considering how the world & US has accepted the Chinese spacewalk.


Also too, I don't recall anyone not believing that men in the the Trieste bathyscaphe descended 7 miles into the deep, dark ocean to where the pressures (15,500 psi) would crush a man with a force of almost 50,000,000 pounds. 
----
7 miles is a far cry from 240.000 miles

Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/02/2010 21:58:45
"And if you want to claim you meant digital editing", "
Of course that's what I meant.
"go right on ahead and do so, but you still fail for even bringing the topic up. "



You brought it up.
You said "These anyone can now do themselves with a photo editing program." in your very first post on the matter.
Do you remember that or were you too busy worrying about my job needing a healthy brain.

As for "Go to those NASA websites download those pictures and tell me those are true blue
non edited photos.  You cant can you.  That's why your stalling. "
Why don't you listen?
Don't you understand that I have said before that nothing on the web is "real" it can all be faked.
Going directly to NASA'a site doesn't help.
Nor would going to the film.
My dad has a picture of a red and green zebra made without any digital image technology ( and since it dates from about 1980 not many places could have done the processing digitally at the time).
It doesn't mean the animal existed.

How many times do I have to say that citing an image on a web page proves precisely nothing?

I don't need to post a web address to show that no government has ever maintained any project for any length of time without screwing it up. That's common knowledge.
You, on the other hand, maintain that a set of successive US governments in collusion with the Russians and probably the Chinese, have maintained one of the most difficult subterfuges imaginable.

Do you think your position is viable?

On the other hand, the Chinese faked spacewalk really is important.
It proves that even now, decades later a sophisticated, technologically advanced, totalitarian society deploying  enormous resources still can't fake a few minutes of video well enough to convince the experts for long.
How the **** do you think NASA managed to get away with it for so long using 60's technology?


BTW, Geezer, Your right- I should have checked "the list" first.
 I work with one of those drones (the bastards won't let me fly it though) and you're right, the price is horrible.

Incidentally can anyone see how this outburst
"I bet you dont even know where the term redneck comes from, and what it stood for." can possibly have anything to do with the debate?

I'm quite happy to admit that I had to check what it originally meant.
So?

"Also too, I don't recall anyone not believing that men in the the Trieste bathyscaphe descended 7 miles into the deep, dark ocean to where the pressures (15,500 psi) would crush a man with a force of almost 50,000,000 pounds.
----
7 miles is a far cry from 240.000 miles"

14.7 PSI is a far cry from 15,5000 PSI.
Again, my question is so what?

Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Geezer on 18/02/2010 22:29:23
The funniest aspect of all of this is not so much that people might believe the moolanding photos were faked, it's the fact that they believe that the US government could keep a lid on the deception for fifty years! The US government is about as secure a brown paper bag.

If it had been faked, can you imagine how much one of the many conspirators could make by selling the story to the media?
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: FoosM on 19/02/2010 00:49:41
"And if you want to claim you meant digital editing", "
Of course that's what I meant.
"go right on ahead and do so, but you still fail for even bringing the topic up. "
----
I left you a way out.


You brought it up.
You said "These anyone can now do themselves with a photo editing program." in your very first post on the matter.
Do you remember that or were you too busy worrying about my job needing a healthy brain.
----
Anyone can do what with a photo editing program?
Anyone can do what with a photo editing program?
Anyone can do what with a photo editing program?
They can see themselves if the photos were manipulated!
You get it?  You get why your answer was so brainless?


As for "Go to those NASA websites download those pictures and tell me those are true blue
non edited photos.  You cant can you.  That's why your stalling. "
Why don't you listen?
Don't you understand that I have said before that nothing on the web is "real" it can all be faked.
Going directly to NASA'a site doesn't help.
Nor would going to the film.
My dad has a picture of a red and green zebra made without any digital image technology ( and since it dates from about 1980 not many places could have done the processing digitally at the time).
It doesn't mean the animal existed.
-----
Ahhhh.... Thank you.  You have now admitted NASA's photos cannot be verified as being real.
Since NASA could have edited their own photos.  
Finally we are making some headway 'whew'
Well if you dont trust NASA's websites, then you can also order a copy of the negs and see where that gets you.
Well never mind, your too scared to look anyway.


How many times do I have to say that citing an image on a web page proves precisely nothing?

I don't need to post a web address to show that no government has ever maintained any project for any length of time without screwing it up. That's common knowledge.
You, on the other hand, maintain that a set of successive US governments in collusion with the Russians and probably the Chinese, have maintained one of the most difficult subterfuges imaginable.
-----
Ummm no because many people dont believe that man landed on the moon.
So, they failed at keeping it a secret.  Duh.
You and a few others are the ones hanging on to the fantasy, many of us have moved on.


Do you think your position is viable?

On the other hand, the Chinese faked spacewalk really is important.
It proves that even now, decades later a sophisticated, technologically advanced, totalitarian society deploying  enormous resources still can't fake a few minutes of video well enough to convince the experts for long.
How the **** do you think NASA managed to get away with it for so long using 60's technology?
----
Again, they didnt.
And, you forget the general public in the 60's, 70's, up to arguably the 90's didnt have the kind of access to
TV, INTERNET, BOOKS like we do today.


BTW, Geezer, Your right- I should have checked "the list" first.
 I work with one of those drones (the bastards won't let me fly it though) and you're right, the price is horrible.

Incidentally can anyone see how this outburst
"I bet you dont even know where the term redneck comes from, and what it stood for." can possibly have anything to do with the debate?

I'm quite happy to admit that I had to check what it originally meant.
So?
-----
So you are happy, what did you learn?


"Also too, I don't recall anyone not believing that men in the the Trieste bathyscaphe descended 7 miles into the deep, dark ocean to where the pressures (15,500 psi) would crush a man with a force of almost 50,000,000 pounds.
----
7 miles is a far cry from 240.000 miles"

14.7 PSI is a far cry from 15,5000 PSI.
Again, my question is so what?
-----
I dont know, dont ask me, ask they dude that brought it up. Lol.


Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Geezer on 19/02/2010 06:39:28
Foos, Perhaps you missed my last post. If you did, I'd be really interested in hearing your theory on how the US managed to control all those who paticipated in the deception for such a long time. I think this information would be really useful to the NSA. Perhaps you could even work out a deal with them.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: FoosM on 19/02/2010 09:54:16
Foos, Perhaps you missed my last post. If you did, I'd be really interested in hearing your theory on how the US managed to control all those who paticipated in the deception for such a long time. I think this information would be really useful to the NSA. Perhaps you could even work out a deal with them.

Perhaps you missed my earlier post on the matter.
Secondly, how many people you think were in on it?

And also, you got this stupid reasoning that because some programs have been revealed
you think everything in the government gets revealed.

You also assume that everything that gets revealed is due to leaks.
Its not. 
Some of it is whistle blowing, some of it is research- meaning the information was there but nobody put the pieces together, some intentional- meaning the statue of limitations has ended.  Thats why you alot of secret documents are now available to the public.  Including some NASA documents.
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: FoosM on 19/02/2010 10:00:48
I wonder how it feels to think that we didn't go to the moon. 
------
I wonder how it feels to continue to believe in something that clearly is based on fraud.



 I suppose, it doesn't matter one way or the other in my life.  Whether I believe one way or the other doesn't change my income, doesn't change my love life, doesn't change my belief in an afterlife, doesn't change my looks, doesn't change my taxes, etc.  This is just one of those astronomy things, like the Big Bang or the Nebular Hypothesis, where we can simply sit around and give our own opinions.
Of course it affects your Taxes, you are paying for the program-ming.
Of course it affects your life, NASA was behind the whole global warming scam.
That meant radical changes in your lifestyle, including more taxes!
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: Madidus_Scientia on 19/02/2010 10:08:27
lol
Title: Did we land on the moon?
Post by: BenV on 19/02/2010 10:23:46
This has become nonsense and flaming.  No side will shift on the discussion, so what's the point?

I'm locking the thread.  Polite personal messages with good reasons to keep the discussion going may convince me to unlock it.