Did we land on the moon?

[Meksilon]

Silly question isn't it? The obvious answer is HELL NO! As some of you may know the Conspiricy Theory recently aired in Australia (which aired last year in the US on April Fools day). They missed a few points and didn't explain things very well either.

 

Here is why it is impossible that we went to the moon. From the most outragious fact.... to the least outragious (but still indisputible) fact.

 

1. The Van Allen Radiation Belt

Only the Apollo spacecrafts on their way "to the moon" ever "passed through" these radiation belts. In fact the US Government created a 3rd belt 100 times more intense then the natural belts when they tried to blast a hole through it using a nuclear device. Each apollo space craft spent about 4 hours traveling through it (and all the other radiation in space - once you're out of the earth's magnetic feild). And even left the space craft and were practically naked to the radiation on the moon! No Apollo astronauts ever suffrered radiation sickness.

 

In 1998, the Space Shuttle flew to one of its highest altitudes ever, three hundred and fifty miles! This is miles away from the begining of the belt, and the Space Shuttle has far superior sheilding then Apollo did. The crew reported being abel to see the ratiation WITH THEIR EYES CLOSED! So if Apollo got there first... why didn't they report this?

 

2. Gravity

The moon has 1/6th earth's gravity. That means if you drop something it'll take six times as long to fall. Now just double the speed of the space walks or the lunar rover and you'll see that that not only are the people (astronauts) and the rover appear to be in our gravity... but so does the dust they're kicking up! At this speed the dust should still fall 3 times slower then on earth, yet it's falling at the rate of earth's gravity! The astronaunts also didn't step further between steps. And they never reached the full potential of 1/6th earth's gravity (jumping 2meters high!)

 

3. LEM takeoffs

No doubt you'll notice how dodgy they look. You might be wondering why there's no flame comming out of most as well... actually a flame would not be visible in a vacum. But Apollo 16 shows us.... a flame! Oh yes, and if this was really space we WOULD see the exaust fumes.

 

4. LEM landing

The LEM was never successfully tested on Earth. And yet it landed and took off from the moon 6 times? Then there's the actual landing which should have created a blast creater each time. NASA tells us that it just blows away the dust. Yet when Neil steps out he makes a nice clear footprint in the dust that was just blow away by the LEM's landing! And actually, there are hundreds of footprints around every LEM... this is impossible.

 

5. Cameras

Thoes of you who know anything about film know that it's quite fussy when it comes to heat. Too much heat and it melts. The moon's surface is a little too hot for film to survive. In fact it's imposibile.

 

6. Photographic Imposabilities

i. there are non-parallel shadows in many shots indicating the use of many lights with a sound stage.

ii. there is often a "spotlight" (or rather where the lights are all focusing). This is consistant with i.

iii. there are no stars... well except in some shots. you'll never see more then 2 or 3 stars in one photo though!

 

8. Locations

The same backgrounds will appear twice with diffrent forgrounds sometimes. I know of 2 examples, and then there's the apollo 16 mission where day one and day two's footage are on exactly the same hill dispite being "4km apart".

 

Any ONE of these is enough evidence to prove conclusivly that the moon landing was nothing but a hoax. NASA pulled a hoax before this, if you're interested look up the "Gemini 10 Space Walk".

 

Anyone who beleives man has set foot on the moon is an idiot.

Discuss.

 

=mek=

[HelenW]

I've not seen the programme about the faked moon landings but i have read about it.

 

Some other suspicious things are

1) No one has 'landed' on the moon since 1972. strange considering we seem to be developing new technologies for things all the while. 30 years is a hell of a long time!

 

2) A photo of a lunar module shows a footprint underneath it yet no one had walked on the moon before.

 

3) A boulder in one photo quite clearly has the letter "C" on it, as though it is an identification mark for a studio prop.

 

4) Trye tracks appear at bizarre angles, as though vehicles have been pushed, rather than steered.

 

5) the on-board computer of the apollo 11 had less memory than a modern washing machine (that one really makes me laugh!! )

 

Other theories I have read include one view that there really was a moon landing, but alien life forms were encountered there. This is why fake photos were made so as not to panic people. This is also seen as explanation as to why there have been no more landings there, and as to why none are planned.

[raVen_image]

I find it remarkably humorous when people who have no knowledge of science try to use it to prove their whacked theories.

 

I will take two of your points, because I don't have the time to tackle them all. See, I attend classes and I LISTEN to all the evidence before jumping to conclusions. (You might consider this approach)

1. The Van Allen Radiation Belt... Each apollo space craft spent about 4 hours traveling through it

No.

 

Kaysing's exact words in the program are ``Any human being traveling through the van Allen belt would have been rendered either extremely ill or actually killed by the radiation within a short time thereof.'' This is entirely disingenuous.

 

The van Allen belts are regions above the Earth's surface where the Earth's magnetic field has trapped particles of the solar wind. An unprotected man would indeed get a lethal dose of radiation, if he stayed there long enough. Actually, the spaceship traveled through the belts pretty quickly, getting past them in slightly less than an hour or so. There simply wasn't enough time to get a lethal dose, and, as a matter of fact, the metal hull of the spaceship did indeed block most of the radiation.

Source: http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/waw/mad/mad19.html

But Apollo 16 shows us.... a flame! Oh yes, and if this was really space we WOULD see the exaust fumes

There were no flames (I've seen the footage), unless FOX added them for effect.

 

There is actually a simple reason why you cannot see the flame from the lander when it took off. The fuels they used produced no visible flame! The lander used a mix of hydrazine and dinitrogen tetroxide (an oxidizer). These two chemicals ignite upon contact and produce a product that is transparent. That's why you cannot see the flame. We expect to see a flame because of the usual drama of liftoff from the Earth; the flame and smoke we see from the Shuttle, for example, is because the solid rocket boosters do actually produce them, while the lunar lander did not.

 

However, the exhaust (which you claim doesn't exist?) would create a kaleidoscope effect during lunar liftoff to the color cameras of that day. Perhaps you saw this as a flame.

Source: http://www.abc.net.au/science/moon/rocket.htm

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap960609.html

At this speed the dust should still fall 3 times slower then on earth, yet it's falling at the rate of earth's gravity!

I can't begin to tell you how little you know about gravity, so I'll take on the dust example.

 

If you watch the clip, you will see dust thrown up by the wheels of the rover. The dust goes up in a perfect parabolic arc and falls back down to the surface. If this were filmed on the Earth, which has air, the dust would have billowed up around the wheel and floated over the surface. This clearly does not happen in the video clips; the dust goes up and right back down. It's actually a beautiful demonstration of ballistic flight in a vacuum.

 

Had NASA faked this shot, they would have had to have a whole set (which would have been very large) with all the air removed. I'm not certain this is possible to recreate on earth.

 

I'm not saying that they DIDN'T fake the moon landing ... but if they did, they knew more about science than you do.

 

Here is your FIRST clue ... you are quoting FOX television. This station and it's news affiliates are the television equivalent of The National Enquirer. They are parodies (like pro-wrestling is a parody of Greco-Roman Wrestling). No one in the United States takes this channel seriously ... they aren't meant to.

[Mort-Hog]

Here here, Raven. I've seen this debate occuring countless times on science forums and it's never any less pathetic.

The reason no-one's gone back to the moon since is because there isn't really any reason to. This was only really done because it could be done, for the news coverage.

And, as Raven pointed out well, it would be extremely hard and expensive to 'fake' the whole moon landing (perhaps as much as actually doing it properly would), to little gain. Of course, it would be argued that the US would want to get a head-start in the space race so to fool the crazy Russians into giving up. But I don't think that's likely.

 

Anyhow, it's good to see that Raven has added some sense to this post. Hooray. :-)

[Joshi]

i agree with both y'all (raVen and mort). here are sokme more contradictions (from me)

 

5. Cameras

Thoes of you who know anything about film know that it's quite fussy when it comes to heat. Too much heat and it melts. The moon's surface is a little too hot for film to survive. In fact it's imposibile.

 

well, first, i aint gonna comment on the spelling of impossible. but i agree that film is fussy and would infact disintergrate under moon temperatures. and apart from the fact that the moon spend part of it's lunar month with a great big planet in it's path of the sun is nothing to do with it. space is extremely cold, the absence of the sun doesn't help much. and oh, lets not forget that amarica spent $1 million on a pen that would wright in space (russians took a pencil), i'm pretty sure they could make some protective material for the film. and also, they didn't even use film, thay sent the images back down to earth and they recoreded it there.

 

 

6. Photographic Imposabilities

i. there are non-parallel shadows in many shots indicating the use of many lights with a sound stage.

ii. there is often a "spotlight" (or rather where the lights are all focusing). This is consistant with i.

iii. there are no stars... well except in some shots. you'll never see more then 2 or 3 stars in one photo though!

 

i. yes, these are caused by lights from the lunar module and reflection from nearing planets. each spacesuit has lights on it and the camera thingy on legs (sorry, can't remember the name) which had to take the whole first step thing had lights on as well, at different angles because it wouldbe rather dark at the time.

 

ii. explained in i.

 

iii. almost explained in i. if you live in a big city, try looking up at night and count the starts. trust me, there are a lot more than that and you know that. the lights from all the places in i. create a very small polution in that area so the camera can't see the starts and so neither can we, but i can bet that the astronaugts could see loads.

 

8. Locations

The same backgrounds will appear twice with diffrent forgrounds sometimes. I know of 2 examples, and then there's the apollo 16 mission where day one and day two's footage are on exactly the same hill dispite being "4km apart".

 

i can't explain the apollo 16 thing. but think about the first thing you said there. you can drive about ten miles in a car and the clouds will still be the same, you can drive past the foreground much faster than you can the backround. even if they did move quite a bit, the stars ill still be the same for a number of days.

 

and helen.

5) the on-board computer of the apollo 11 had less memory than a modern washing machine (that one really makes me laugh!! )

 

okay, what exactly did the onboard computer do other than list things for them to do, it's not as if it controled the entire thing. most thing were done from earth.

 

i don't normall like to argue with people on a scale this big, but this is something i can really sink my teeth into so hopefully any bad feeling will stay in this thread and we can still act as usual everywhere else because this is all just a simple disscussion.

 

oh and also, mek.

Anyone who beleives man has set foot on the moon is an idiot.

Discuss.

well, that's a contradiction in terms really isnt it. the only way one could really discuss this is to argue which would mean that ni your terms, he/she is an idiot. so how are we meant to do that exactly?

[HelenW]

Originally posted by Neil Joshi

 

i don't normall like to argue with people on a scale this big, but this is something i can really sink my teeth into so hopefully any bad feeling will stay in this thread and we can still act as usual everywhere else because this is all just a simple disscussion.

 

 

It's not really arguing is it, thats why its called a discussion. It only becomes an argument when people start trading personal insults, and if people refrain from making personal comments i can't see why anyone would hold bad feelings. To say you disagree with a comment and state your views why, is just contributing to the discussion. It would be pointless if we all held the same views, there would be loads of posts saying yeah, i agree. I don't think any of us here will be able to say that the moon landings were faked or not. we can say well, when you look at this point it does look suspicious, or you can say, well no actually there's a logical explanation for that. When it comes to any conspiracy theory type argument no one ever really knows what happened, except for top members of certain governments. hence the use of the word theory!

[Meksilon]

No, I read about it years back now. I was simply producing indispuitable evidence.

Originally posted by HelenW

1) No one has 'landed' on the moon since 1972. strange considering we seem to be developing new technologies for things all the while. 30 years is a hell of a long time!

Well there is always the fact that SINCE we've gone to the moon, we've sent 25 unmaned space craft to Mars (unmaned space craft are a lot simpler then the complex manned craft as they only need to go one way and the conditions must be such the craft survives, not the craft AND the people). Only 7 ever made it to mars!

Originally posted by HelenW

5) the on-board computer of the apollo 11 had less memory than a modern washing machine (that one really makes me laugh!! )

In 1969 the computer chip hadn't yet been invented, and with only 36k of RAM (from memory) it surprises me how anyone can beleive we have the technology to do it NOW let alone in 1969.

 

And Neil, you're wrong. They used film we know this because each roll of film has more the 100 photos. The VIDEO footage was sent directly back to earth (which was terrible quality in Apollo 11 but NASA magically fixes it for the rest of the lunar missions).

 

Two light-sources would produce two shadows per item (double shadows). So we can easily rule that one out.

 

On to the Photos...

 

Here's a good background example:

And here's the Apollo 16 day 1, day 2 (day 2 is "2km south" according to NASSA). The argument that those take when saying we went to the moon is that it's just poor orginisation by NASA...

http://moonhoax1.tripod.com//sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/16rock1.gif

http://moonhoax1.tripod.com//sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/16rock2.gif

I found the other background I was talking about too...

Now please explain THIS which I just discovered, I'm dying to hear the explination!

Here's my explination: + Stupidity (an American, hehehehe)

 

As for the shadows, pehapps you can explain these - remembering that NASSA SAID NO ADDITIONAL (ARTIFICIAL) LIGHTING WAS USED!

 

Here are the Nasa Pages... http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/images/pao/AS15/10075741.htm http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/mirrors/images/images/pao/AS15/10075742.htm

 

Can you beleive a site claimed THIS photo has wrong lines because the one at the back shouldn't be flat but rather like the ones in the front? Well if this is the case if the shadows are like the ones in the front why don't the hills at the back reflect this!?!

 

There's always the question of how these photos were taken from chest cameras (remember that NASA didn't crop the pictures, otherwise we'd be abel to tell by the crosshairs).

 

Anyhow I'll leave you with this picture, CLEARLY showing a spotlight and shadows going in to it.

 

 

=mek=

 

PS: And yes this is an argument, but so far it's stayed clean.

[raVen_image]

Originally posted by HelenW

It's not really arguing is it, thats why its called a discussion.

Actually, "discussion" and "argument" are synonymous. When you construct a critical statement for a discussion, it's often called an "argument". But, by your own words, I see that you agree with this, already:

When it comes to any conspiracy theory type argument no one ever really knows what happened, except for top members of certain governments, hence the use of the word theory!

In this case, i'd say hypothesis is a better word. Theories require solid evidence, and this conspiracy seems to lack that key factor.

...when people start trading personal insults, and if people refrain from making personal comments i can't see why anyone would hold bad feelings.

Too late for that, isn't it?

Originally posted by Meksilon

Anyone who beleives man has set foot on the moon is an idiot.

This one sentence completely eradicates any credibility that Meksilon had. To him, there is no point in debating ... there is no room for discussion. he has already prejudged us. You are an "idiot" if you disagree with Meksilon's premise. Ridiculous!

 

He doesn't want sound debate ... he wants the last word.

[COJ]

All this explination is giving me a headach...I mean, who cares when they landed, as long as they did...

[Meksilon]

Originally posted by raVen_image

You are an "idiot" if you disagree with Meksilon's premise. Ridiculous!

No, that's the chat topic of the thread.

 

=mek=

[Natty]

Is it just me or does Mek really like being the controversial trouble maker? So even if we didn't land on the moon we've had some great movies, especially The Dish, my all time fave movie. Those pictures of man landing on the moon came from the Parkes telescope in Australia. It's in the middle of a sheep paddock too Clearly the best movie from the Working Dog crew. Much better than The Castle me thinks

[Deadmeat_X]

You know, how strange it may sound, I don't care. I've already heard bout these conspiracies, and tought about them, and then came to the conclusion that it doesn't really matter. I think I should give a good reason for that, but I have none. I just don't care.

 

And Natty, yes, I think Mek enjoys being the controversial center of attention. Otherwise, he would post stupid things like 'if you don't believe this, you're and idiot'. IMO that's asking for a 'angry' discussion like this.

[Natty]

I agree deady, I don't care one way or another if man landed on the moon or not, like I said some brilliant movies have been made from man landing on the moon. Just sit back and enjoy the story. Really there are more important things to worry about than whether people landed on the moon or not

[HelenW]

Originally posted by raVen_image

Actually, "discussion" and "argument" are synonymous. When you construct a critical statement for a discussion, it's often called an "argument". But, by your own words, I see that you agree with this, already:

 

In this case, i'd say hypothesis is a better word. Theories require solid evidence, and this conspiracy seems to lack that key factor.

 

 

I am quite aware of the meanings of discussion / argument / hypothesis. In the context that Neil Joshi used the word arguing I don't believe he was referring to an intellctual argument. He was concerned that people would be falling out over this. I was merely pointing out that his views were not necersarily contributing to 'that type' of argument, as he seemed concerned about this.

 

Also, for many members of this forum, English is a second language. There are many younger forum members who might find long words in a second language confusing. When I post I am not attempting to impress people with an extensive vocabularly, I just try to post in a way that everyone will understand regardless of vocabulary and language barriers. That way everyone is able to comment on what I say and contribute to the discussion if they choose to do so. (I hope no-one takes offense to that, I'm not saying younger people are unable to understand things, just that they have had less time to learn a second language).

[Redwing]

I'm so tired of this debate. It's sooooo old and stoopid ;_;

 

::walks out of topic::

[Drunken_Sailor]

Originally posted by Meksilon

Anyone who beleives man has set foot on the moon is an idiot.

Discuss.

 

=mek=

 

Well, I find science interesting. Your theory lacks of official evidences, so shut your trap and don't call people you don't even know for idiots!

[Natty]

Mek is an irritating trouble maker who likes to be controversial to try and appear more superior and intelligent to everyone else, when infact it makes him look like a sad pathetic loser

 

Discuss

[Meksilon]

Originally posted by Deadmeat_X

You know, how strange it may sound, I don't care. I've already heard bout these conspiracies, and tought about them, and then came to the conclusion that it doesn't really matter. I think I should give a good reason for that, but I have none. I just don't care.

 

And Natty, yes, I think Mek enjoys being the controversial center of attention. Otherwise, he would post stupid things like 'if you don't believe this, you're and idiot'. IMO that's asking for a 'angry' discussion like this.

I was just trying to start a new topic to move off the gay one, not to start trouble but rather to prevent it. This is good material for discusion.

 

=mek=

[Natty]

I wonder if Neil Armstrong saw God while he was on the moon?

[Joshi]

Originally posted by Natty

So even if we didn't land on the moon we've had some great movies, especially The Dish, my all time fave movie. Those pictures of man landing on the moon came from the Parkes telescope in Australia. It's in the middle of a sheep paddock too Clearly the best movie from the Working Dog crew. Much better than The Castle me thinks

 

i thought you said your all time favorite movies was the Wizard of Oz?

 

but anyway, you made me remember something that will help my argument (i can now see that this an argument, just an argument of social and productive sort).

i never actaully saw the movie, but i know the basic plot and know it to be fully and completely true. it's about the huge satallitte dish set up in australia which was going to recieve the video footage from the moon on it's landing with Neil Armstrongs first words and stuff. for some reason that i don't fully know, it went missing. (yes i know, but that's what happened, really) and we almost missed the whole thing. i loada stuff happend after that with a huge panic from NASA and then they found it in time and we saw it all without knowing what happened (this entire episode was revealed twenty years later and made into a recent movie) if the moonlanding was staged, why was there such a big fuss about thsi dish if know one nkew about the thing in the first place?

[Meksilon]

Originally posted by Natty

I wonder if Neil Armstrong saw God while he was on the moon?

I wonder why Neil Armstrong (who invented the greeting for Aliens as being "Gnorts Mr Alien") DOSEN'T TALK ABOUT HIS MOON EXPERIENCE?

 

=mek=

[raVen_image]

Originally posted by Meksilon

I wonder why Neil Armstrong ...DOSEN'T TALK ABOUT HIS MOON EXPERIENCE?

**sigh**

 

He does ... and has.

Their experiences from Apollo , as told by the astronauts: Aldrin, Collins, and Armstrong:

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/ap11ann/FirstLunarLanding/toc.html

http://www.ksc.nasa.gov/history/apollo/apollo-11/apollo-11.html

http://www.his.com/~pshapiro/iceonthemoon/iceonthemoon.html

 

If you read Armstrong's biography...

http://www.top-biography.com/9099-Neil%20Armstrong/ataglance.htm

...you'll see that he has always had an aversion to the spotlight. He doesn't talk much about his war experiences either. So, (unless you think the korean War was also faked) his notable lack of public appearance is NOT evidence for your weakening case.

 

As to Natty's god question, there was some rumor that Armstrong heard the whispers of Allah while on the moon's surface and converted to Islam. This is probably just a rumor.

 

**edited for misspellings**

[Redwing]

Interesting useless fact...my grandmother's second cousin was Neil Armstrong.

 

(No, that doesn't contribute to the topic. But so what? I'm bored. ^_^)

[Natty]

Originally posted by Neil Joshi

 

i thought you said your all time favorite movies was the Wizard of Oz?

 

but anyway, you made me remember something that will help my argument (i can now see that this an argument, just an argument of social and productive sort).

i never actaully saw the movie, but i know the basic plot and know it to be fully and completely true. it's about the huge satallitte dish set up in australia which was going to recieve the video footage from the moon on it's landing with Neil Armstrongs first words and stuff. for some reason that i don't fully know, it went missing. (yes i know, but that's what happened, really) and we almost missed the whole thing. i loada stuff happend after that with a huge panic from NASA and then they found it in time and we saw it all without knowing what happened (this entire episode was revealed twenty years later and made into a recent movie) if the moonlanding was staged, why was there such a big fuss about thsi dish if know one nkew about the thing in the first place?

 

The Wizard Of Oz is my fave movie

 

I seriously doubt that in 1969 America or Australia or whoever had the type of technology to not only stage the moon landing but to also stage it in such a way that the pictures came from an Australian telescope that is the largest in the Southern Hemishphere and beam these shots to people all over the world.

 

In short Mek has his arse hanging out of his dacks (that's one of my fave lines from the Dish

[Doodle Dude of Doom]

I don't understand. Why couldn't we not have alnded on the moon? I mean, you can't prove that the americans didn't land on the moon, can you?