Did we land on the moon?

[Meksilon]

Originally posted by raVen_image

**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**

It seems to me that NASA should have been more interested in letting the first person to walk the moon be someone who was prepared to talk in public about their experince - someone like "Buzz" Aldrin. Then again, since Neil couldn't even say his line right "it's one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind" I'm amazed they even let him tag along to the moon.

 

I'm still waiting for solid proof that we went to the moon. I mean NASA didn't bother to point Hubble at the moon and take pictures of the remnants from the six sucessful Apollo missions. In fact when Japan sends their probe to map the surface of the moon next year and the can produce photos of where we've been on the moon then I'll shut up. If they can't then that'll be further indisputible proof that we never landed on the moon.

 

=mek=

[raVen_image]

This is not evidence for or against the moon landing ... it is an assessment of the debater's credibilty to present this argument.

Originally posted by Meksilon

...when Japan sends their probe ... and the can produce photos of where we've been on the moon then I'll shut up.

I doubt that you'll shut up. It is more likely that you'll say NASA paid the Japanese to fake the photos ... or that the entire Japanese probe launch was faked. Your attitude tells me that you will not shut up about this.

(please note: it is not necessary to quote the entire post when you are only discussing one sentence within it)

 

If you are looking for indisputable proof ... it will never come to you. We all see what we want to see, don't we? For you, there can be nothing offered to sway your opinion (as evidenced in the last sentence of your first post).

 

Question ... do you think atoms exist? There have been magnetic images taken of those, but there is no indistputable proof that these "photographs" haven't been faked. We laymen don't really know whether or not atoms exist, either. For that matter, what proof do you have that any of us exist? We could all be constructs of your imagination ... and life is, but a dream.

 

If you are going to start questioning things based on a lack of tangible proof ... why not start a little closer to home? There is a lot that is uncertain about this puppet-show that we are so quick to call "reality". Did you chose this topic because someone else thought it all out for you? Have you even considered that it is YOU that may have been faked? Either way, it is this little passage that comes into my mind:

 

It is the fools's prerogative to tell the emperor that he has no clothes. Afterwards it makes no difference ... the emperor will still be the emperor, and the fool will still be the fool.

[Meksilon]

Originally posted by raVen_image

I doubt that you'll shut up. It is more likely that you'll say NASA paid the Japanese to fake the photos ... or that the entire Japanese probe launch was faked. Your attitude tells me that you will not shut up about this.

(please note: it is not necessary to quote the entire post when you are only discussing one sentence within it)

NASA sent their own probe to map the surface of the moon back in 96 I think it was, and they didn't produce any photos of their used-equipment. Which makes me wonder why Japan needs to map the surface of the moon; it is true we know very little about the moon, but will mapping it really help us out that much? Maybe it's because NASA don't share their mapping of the moon. Oh well.

Originally posted by raVen_image

Question ... do you think atoms exist? There have been magnetic images taken of those, but there is no indistputable proof that these "photographs" haven't been faked. We laymen don't really know whether or not atoms exist, either. For that matter, what proof do you have that any of us exist? We could all be constructs of your imagination ... and life is, but a dream.

The concept of the atom has changed time and time again. There are still flaws in the current model of the atom. As to the idea that everything is made up of particles then yes I beleive that. But as to wheather or not it's the atom model we've all been made a custom to then I think it's nonsence - all theory and made up. Well not complete nonsence, but there are inconsistancys such as where do gluons come from and how and why do they become active, if neutrons are made up of protons and electrons how come protons and electrons don't have gravity... and if electrons orbit can vary in the distance from the neuclii then how come this dosen't effect the atom size?

Originally posted by raVen_image

If you are going to start questioning things based on a lack of tangible proof ... why not start a little closer to home? There is a lot that is uncertain about this puppet-show that we are so quick to call "reality". Did you chose this topic because someone else thought it all out for you? Have you even considered that it is YOU that may have been faked? Either way, it is this little passage that comes into my mind:

 

It is the fools's prerogative to tell the emperor that he has no clothes. Afterwards it makes no difference ... the emperor will still be the emperor, and the fool will still be the fool.

I wonder why NASA dosen't have any solid proof they went to the moon? I mean IF they went to the moon. It seems compleatly ludicris.

 

=mek=

[Guybrush122]

Ah, this old jazz. My personal opinion is that NASA faked the landing. BUT, they did a good job of it, because ALMOST every piece of scientific evidence that proves the moon landing a hoax can be explained and deprove the landing as a hoax.

 

But there are a few clues of a set. Like Mek mentioned...the background. The background is the same no matter what. But when a picture of the module from one direction has the same background as a different picture from another direction entirely...something has to be wrong, here.

 

Also...how about footprints. If you look carefully at the moon before the landing (no one has stepped off yet) you see a footprint. Hmmmm. Not only that...but wouldnt the dust on the moon be blown away by the module landing....somehow theres hundreds of footprints right next to the craft.

[raVen_image]

Originally posted by Meksilon

I wonder why NASA dosen't have any solid proof they went to the moon? I mean IF they went to the moon. It seems compleatly ludicris.

You don't have any solid proof that I exist either. You don't have any solid proof that any of us exist. Yet you spend time believing in us.

 

Everything that you see written could have been made by a random speech generator. The rules of English make it very easy to generate random text based on key words. There are plenty of programs available that will do this for you.

http://www.democracymeansyou.com/satire/spin-generator.htm

http://bushspeaks.com/speaks.asp?did=84&taf=2

 

Here is one for these forums... an insult generator:

http://www.humboldt.edu/~gsh3/Insult.exe

(Just click the link and choose open from location or save it to your hard drive) The Shakespearean insults are funny too.

 

My point, "Thou fawning, bunched-backed measle", is that you have no proof that any of us truly exist as human beings. You could be all alone in these message boards, talking to a computer that randomly generates messages for your amusement.

 

You have to take it on faith that we exist, don't you? And if you can have faith in this concept (which is less tangible than the evidence for the moon landing) ... where do you draw the line? It's all a matter of faith. We see what we want to see.

 

Speaking of having faith in something without solid proof, I was surprised to see you post on a Sunday. How does posting messages in a fourm keep the Sabbath day holy for your god?

[Natty]

That means Alice Bot doesn't really exsist, I'm so heartbroken. That means my doggies don't exsist and neither does my family.

 

What happened to the moon rocks they brought back from the moon? The dirt samples?

 

Mek go and watch The Dish for crying out loud, go and enjoy a fantastic Australian movie. There's plenty of fantastic historical footage as well. Oh and everyone else go watch it as well, you can pick up on some fantastic Australian slang

 

Mitch- You treat us like a pack of galah's!

Al- *blank look*

Glen- that's a type of parrot...

Mitch- just because I don't have my head burried in a manual that doesn't mean I'm a drongo

Glen- that's a hopeless horse...

¤¤¤¤

Mitch- that's bullsh*t! You just bullsh*tted NASA!

¤¤¤¤

Mitch- I just didn't want you to see me as some country kid with me arse falling out of me dacks

Al- your ummm...

Glen- your pants

Al- Listen Mitch I never thought of you as some kid with his pants falling out of your ummm...

Glen- dacks

Al- Dacks

 

 

Also playing cricket on the Dish looks like so much fun

 

 

 

Mek isn't very Australian, he should be proud of the fact that those images came from Australian satelites

[Gatorboy]

wait, so of there wasnt really a landing on he moon yet,

does that mean that that Nsync guy who's flying to the moon is just a new test dummy for NASA and will die?

 

 

whooooooooohoooooo!!!!

[Natty]

Ya reckon we could leave him there

[Meksilon]

Originally posted by Guybrush122

Ah, this old jazz. My personal opinion is that NASA faked the landing. BUT, they did a good job of it, because ALMOST every piece of scientific evidence that proves the moon landing a hoax can be explained and deprove the landing as a hoax.

 

But there are a few clues of a set. Like Mek mentioned...the background. The background is the same no matter what. But when a picture of the module from one direction has the same background as a different picture from another direction entirely...something has to be wrong, here.

 

Also...how about footprints. If you look carefully at the moon before the landing (no one has stepped off yet) you see a footprint. Hmmmm. Not only that...but wouldnt the dust on the moon be blown away by the module landing....somehow theres hundreds of footprints right next to the craft.

Well at least SOMEONE here has some sence

 

And to Raven Image thou wenching, beetle-headed scantling flea-bitten assortment of filthy slime-mould... you pitiful ball of soppy pimple squeezings, you deeply disturbed crock of cheesy moose entrails, you self-exalting box of radioactive whale waste, bewildered apology for fly-covered Wookie hair....

 

If you did not exisit and this was all random speach then you could not argue, or question your existance. Therefore we render your argument invalid.

 

=mek=

[Joshi]

Originally posted by Guybrush122

...but wouldnt the dust on the moon be blown away by the module landing....

 

again, we have to stress the fact of there being no air on the moon, hence, no wind to be able to blow the dust away as that would involve moving air. if you threw a ball on the moon, it would travel a lot farther and a lot faster because of not air resistance (and low gravity, but that's besides the point). also, i think we all have valid points here which is why i'm at a standstill and therfore can't take sides here. after talking to my brother in law recently who didn't take classes in this kind of thing, but has been intersted since he was a child and actually buys and reads books on this kind of thing. also, he has also worked for the military since he was twelve and came to know a thing or two about how the american and russian political and govermental minds work (like for a start, the cold war aint over, and has never been, but i'm sure you all knew that). basically, the goverments idea to hide things has been going on for many years. but with no solid proof, we cannot state whether or not we landed on the moon, wherther or not anything happened in roswell, whether or not Area %! has anything to do with anything and whether or not teh president opf the united states has any power whatsoever (which he doesn't, but i can't prove that, not for sure) so what do we do?

 

well, believe it or not, the most intelligent person taking pert in thsi conversation is Natty, for not really taking part. after this became complicated and confusing, i decided to let it go, because it was turning into "Whats the meaning of life?" kind of debates, there is never going to be a complete answer to this, everyones going to have there different opinions. so in my words,

 

Cognitum Ergo

[Natty]

Where the hell are footprints?

 

The moon isn't like the earth you know

[Deadmeat_X]

Mek, don't insult ppl (at least not with insults I don't get)

 

And to both Raven and Mek: Give it a rest man! It started as a topic about some conspiracy, then became a topic a bout if we exist or not (we do exist actually. Maybe just in our head, but that an existens as well. Just see the matrix)., and next thing you know we're talking about wich Greek wise-guy was right (Plato was wrong, that hedonist guy was right), and that will lead to another religion topic (God doesn't exist, that kinda crap).

[Meksilon]

Originally posted by Neil Joshi

again, we have to stress the fact of there being no air on the moon, hence, no wind to be able to blow the dust away as that would involve moving air.

Two things:

1. The Lem's flame gives out air dosen't it?

2. We even SEE the dust being blown away.

Originally posted by Deadmeat_X

Mek, don't insult ppl (at least not with insults I don't get)

Insult generator.

Originally posted by Natty

Where the hell are footprints?

 

The moon isn't like the earth you know

HAHAHA yes it is, it's very similar actually, except that there isn't any air (that we know of). Since it's probably the moon collided with Earth and then began its orbit it's possible that it has a bit of air covering parts of it.

 

And to your other question about rock samples - beleive it or not most of the rock and dust samples from the moon were collected from unmanned probes, Apollo collected a hanful by comparason. It would also be easy to get some rock from the Earth and pass it off as being from the moon.

 

=mek=

[Joshi]

Originally posted by Meksilon

It seems to me that NASA should have been more interested in letting the first person to walk the moon be someone who was prepared to talk in public about their experince - someone like "Buzz" Aldrin. Then again, since Neil couldn't even say his line right "it's one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind" I'm amazed they even let him tag along to the moon.

=mek=

 

i told myself that i would quit this disscussion now, but it seems i can't, i saw this and had to put mek right.

um, i really don't think that they would send just anyone into space. they trained men for months and years to see who would be best to go to the moon, not the guy who would be the best public speaker. if i became famous one day as someone asked me for an interview (and that will never happen because i don't intend to become famous) i know i would be crap in that interveiw and not say very much at all, but that would not mean that i am not famous now would it. Neil armstrong isn't a very good public speaker (which is why he messed up his lines on the moon, and i know that to be true at least) but he made it to the moon and survived up there whilst being able to do what he needed to do up there, and that's what he training rendered him for.

[Drunken_Sailor]

Originally posted by Meksilon

And to your other question about rock samples - beleive it or not most of the rock and dust samples from the moon were collected from unmanned probes, Apollo collected a hanful by comparason. It would also be easy to get some rock from the Earth and pass it off as being from the moon.

 

=mek=

 

 

A few points of my own:

 

Apollo wasn't a space barge designed to haul back tons of lunar material. Still, the missions collected nearly 400 kilograms of the stuff. That is hardly a handful.

 

And no, you can't just "get some rock from the Earth and pass it off as being from the moon." Even if you found a rock that was ejected from the moon to Earth (ala the Martian SNC meteorites) it would still have been altered from "pure" moon rocks by erosion. Real moon rocks have never been affected since there is no air and the world is geologically dead. You can't fake that.

[Drunken_Sailor]

Originally posted by Meksilon

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.

 

 

=mek=

 

You don't know what you are talking about.

 

It isn't necessarily true that the film would melt as minor safegards could prevent that amount of damage although heat could compromise the emulsion. Now. Had You introduced the irreversible, unavoidable damage done due too Radiation. Your argument pertaining to the film would be more valid. I've said and I'll say again. The so called Hoaxers has valid, reasonable reason's to believe a Moon landing was staged. All the more reason for NASA to PROVE to the World, they did exactly what they said they did. What do I Believe?? We landed on the Moon!! What is my belief based on?? NASA has more than once. Performed the Impossible. Surprising even theirselves. The Minds they have at NASA would make the Most Intelligent here at this Forum (and there's many.) look like the Dummy You Think Anyone Who Believes Is!! And Sir. The Dumbest at NASA would put Your Mind At About The Level Of The Caveman.

[Joshi]

i don't mean to sound pompous, but i think this would be a good time to point out that many of those great thinkers were asian. i'm not accussing or attempting and racial abuse, i am just proud of the fact. and now to make this post a non spam, i'm going to continue with the disscussion at hand.

 

after looking closely at the pictures provided by mek (and after laughing my pants off at the picturse provided by natty, well, not realy, but that was pretty funny) i can now explain almost all of them.

 

1. The first two pictures with the same backround. this is because depsite what you may think, they are not the same. as an art student, i am taught to look at these kind of things in fdetail including lighting and shadows and see these to be very similar, almost exactly the same to teh average person if it were not for some of the shadows being completely different even if the moon and the sun 9or lights as you believe there to be) were in different places, this would still not be possible so these must have been different places that look the same. i one in a million chance you may say, but that is still a chance, and as it happens, 1 in million chances actually occure three times out of ten.

 

2. With the second set of pictures, yes, this is the same backround, but some of the backround ahs changed due to it being a slightly differnt angle. the camera has moved slightly to the left making the backround change slightly and no studion on the earth is big enough to create a huge set, that for off so if there was a different angle, the backround would change and they would make two different backround that look almost exactly the same just for something tiny like that that wouldn't even be noticed as people generally aren't that sad (sorry, now it's turning ugly, i retract that statement, but am leaving it in to keep my point, i think you know what i mean (basically no offece to any of you but there are some people like that out there))

 

3. the third set of pictures. i will admit that the one on the left was staged for reasons that i do not know and cannot guess (why the left, because it is a good quality picute) but all they did was take the backround and the lunar lander from the right pic (the original, taken from the moon) and added some guy on a badly done set (although not too badly) in front of a blue screen and this was all done probably recently, maybe to touch up teh picture for it's30th anniversary or something.

 

4.&5. the fourth pic (not your diagram) would actually be a trick of the eye, if you look closely, those rocks appearing to give a horizontal shadow could actually be giving a diagonal one as the rest but it looks horizontal because of the shape and position of the rock. and 5 was a spotlight, from the robotic camera, the artificial lighting used because it was very dark on the moon, the other shadows highlighted by this.

 

i'll continue with this later considering i have to eat sometime, but that should lay some groundwork.

[Meksilon]

Originally posted by Neil Joshi

1. The first two pictures with the same backround. this is because depsite what you may think, they are not the same. as an art student, i am taught to look at these kind of things in fdetail including lighting and shadows and see these to be very similar, almost exactly the same to teh average person if it were not for some of the shadows being completely different even if the moon and the sun 9or lights as you believe there to be) were in different places, this would still not be possible so these must have been different places that look the same. i one in a million chance you may say, but that is still a chance, and as it happens, 1 in million chances actually occure three times out of ten.

It's DEFINATLY the same background. Some people claimed that one was just taken a lot closer then the other, and since we can't tell how far away the background is it looks the same. If this was actually the case then one of the forgrounds would have to appear in the other picture, which it dosen't.

Originally posted by Neil Joshi

3. the third set of pictures. i will admit that the one on the left was staged for reasons that i do not know and cannot guess (why the left, because it is a good quality picute) but all they did was take the backround and the lunar lander from the right pic (the original, taken from the moon) and added some guy on a badly done set (although not too badly) in front of a blue screen and this was all done probably recently, maybe to touch up teh picture for it's30th anniversary or something.

What, and yet you still think we wnet to the moon? You'll notice that the forground has changed slightly, but shadow still falls in the same way off the astronaunt. In my oppinion this would not be easy to simulate, it would have been easier so super impose the photo over the original so to keep the original background. The reasons the two shadows aren't compleatly identical is 1. a diffrent pose and 2. slightly diffrent forground (as in has been walked over more in the one on the right).

Originally posted by Neil Joshi

4.&5. the fourth pic (not your diagram) would actually be a trick of the eye, if you look closely, those rocks appearing to give a horizontal shadow could actually be giving a diagonal one as the rest but it looks horizontal because of the shape and position of the rock. and 5 was a spotlight, from the robotic camera, the artificial lighting used because it was very dark on the moon, the other shadows highlighted by this.

5 was a spotlight? No! And what about the last one? That's a spotlight too! Oh I see. So why did NASA tell us they didn't use any atrificial lighting then?

[Natty At School]

Mek just lives in lala land, who knows what drugs he's on. I'd hate to be a homophobic racist who believes the most stupid of conspiracy theories

[Meksilon]

Originally posted by Natty At School

Mek just lives in lala land, who knows what drugs he's on. I'd hate to be a homophobic racist who believes the most stupid of conspiracy theories

I AM NOT HOMOPHOBIC. I DO NOT FEAR GAYS. AND I AM DEFINATLY NOT RACIEST. YOU ARE INSANE NATTY BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW THE DIFFRENCE BETWEEN RIGHT AND WRONG. AT LEAST I CAN DISTINGUISH THE DIFFRENCE.

 

I FEEL VERY SORRY FOR YOU NATTY, I REALLY DO. AND IT'S NOT BECAUSE OF HOW FU­CKING UGLY YOU ARE ON THE OUTSIDE, THAT WE CAN COPE WITH. IT'S HOW STUPID AND HOW UGLY YOU ARE ON THE INSIDE. IT IS REALLY SAD THAT ALL YOU CAN DO IS INSULT ME RATHER THEN THINK OF CONSTUTIVE ARGUMENTS.

 

I THINK IT'S THE SADEST THING I EVER HEARD. AND SINCE YOU WERE SO SAD AS TO POST THE SAME POST TWICE I'LL POST THIS TWICE SO PEOPLE READING EITHER OF YOUR ORIGINAL CRAP CAN READ MY RESPONCE.

 

=MEK=

[Grannen]

Originally posted by Meksilon

I AM NOT HOMOPHOBIC. I DO NOT FEAR GAYS. AND I AM DEFINATLY NOT RACIEST. YOU ARE INSANE NATTY BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW THE DIFFRENCE BETWEEN RIGHT AND WRONG. AT LEAST I CAN DISTINGUISH THE DIFFRENCE.

 

I FEEL VERY SORRY FOR YOU NATTY, I REALLY DO. AND IT'S NOT BECAUSE OF HOW FU­CKING UGLY YOU ARE ON THE OUTSIDE, THAT WE CAN COPE WITH. IT'S HOW STUPID AND HOW UGLY YOU ARE ON THE INSIDE. IT IS REALLY SAD THAT ALL YOU CAN DO IS INSULT ME RATHER THEN THINK OF CONSTUTIVE ARGUMENTS.

 

I THINK IT'S THE SADEST THING I EVER HEARD. AND SINCE YOU WERE SO SAD AS TO POST THE SAME POST TWICE I'LL POST THIS TWICE SO PEOPLE READING EITHER OF YOUR ORIGINAL CRAP CAN READ MY RESPONCE.

 

=MEK=

 

Meksilon, you are now deep down in your arguments when you start to use peoples looks in your postings.

Natty is a nice, warm hearted funny girl who we all loves. You on the other hand seems to use your religion as a drug and you have lost all sense of reality. Like all dopes your life only consists of how to get the next shot of bible talk and you are paying thousands of dollars for your drug. Your brain has probably been damaged and you seems to be out of reach for help.

 

Regarding the shadows, or lack of, on the moon:

The explanation is that due to no absorbing atmosphere the sun light is extremly intense and is reflected from all stones and rocks. This more or less works as a reflector and there are no or very weak shadows.

 

Regarding the flag:

The first visitors had a horizontal rod for the flag pole that was too short! That’s why it seems as there is a wind blowing. NASA liked the look and the next visitors also planted flags with a short rod.

[Drunken_Sailor]

Originally posted by Meksilon

I'm still waiting for solid proof that we went to the moon. I mean NASA didn't bother to point Hubble at the moon and take pictures of the remnants from the six sucessful Apollo missions. In fact when Japan sends their probe to map the surface of the moon next year and the can produce photos of where we've been on the moon then I'll shut up. If they can't then that'll be further indisputible proof that we never landed on the moon.

 

Nasa CAN'T point Hubble at the moon and take pictures of the landing sites. The moon is just too bright and would damage Hubble's delecate instruments.

 

Did you write that all yourself, do all that "research" yourself? Well, you insult my intelligence. Almost all your your information fails against reason. I don't know what fantasy world you have dreamed up, but some of it really cracks me up. Take for example:

 

Originally posted by Meksilon

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

 

LOL How are you (more importantly WHY??!!) gonna blast a hole through a belt of EXTREMELY rarified solar wind?! That is just one example of the ludicris claims you made. By the way, you say:

 

Originally posted by Meksilon

I mean, NASA didn't bother to point Hubble at the moon and take pictures of the remnants from the sucessful Apollo missions.

 

That's because no optical telescope in the world has the resolving power to image the landers. The hubbles resolving power is 0.1 arc seconds. Doing the trig:

 

1 arc second equals 1/3600 of a degree. So to get Hubbles resolving power in degrees do 0.1/3600

Your answer is 2.77777778x10^-5 Now we are going to get the resolving power of Hubble in meters at the moons distance. To do that, we are going to think of it as a giant equalateral triangle, with the Hubbles eye at one vertex, where there is an angle of 2.78x10^-5 degrees, and the oppisite side as the resolving power of hubble at the moons distance that we are finding. The two sides adjacent to the angle of 2.78x10^-5 are the equal ones.

Ok now that you get the picture, draw a line down the center of the equalateral triangle that bisects the angle into two equal parts. This would also hit the exact center of the oppisite side, due to the nature of equalateral triangles. You have just made a right triangle.

Since you bisected the angle of 2.77777778x10^-5 perfectly, you have a right triangle of one angle being 1.3888889x10^-5 and another being 90-1.3888889x10^-5 Now take the

cos 1.3888889x10^-5=384403000(distance to moon in meters)/x (x=the length of hypotenuse) You might notice that the cos 1.3888889x10^-5 equals 1. Well its not exactly 1, but close enough (its like 0.9999999999999, my calculater says it is 1, and it goes out to like 10 decimal places) So I just proved the obvious, that the hypotenuse for all practical purposes equals the length of the adjacent leg. Now for the important stuff:

sin 1.38888889x10^-5=x/384403000 (x equals the resolving power of Hubble) Now multiply both sides by 384403000 to solve for x. What do you get? That the resolving power of Hubble is 93.2 meters at the moons distance. While I don't know the exact size of the landers, I know for sure that they were not 93.2 meters or larger!!!

 

I would also like to correct an error I made:

 

I forgot the last step on the math problem. Since we only found the leg of the right triangle oppisite the angle of 1.388889x10^-5 degrees, we only found ONE HALF of the Hubbles resolving power at the moons distance. You have to multiply the final answer by 2. Thus the Hubbles resolving power at the moons distance is 186.4 meters.

 

Originally posted by Meksilon

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

 

As I said earlier, you insult my intelligence. You call me an idiot. Not only are you dumb and gulible, but you are offensive. I do believe that the people here at escapemi.com forums have a new idiot to pick on. You!

 

 

Originally posted by Meksilon

The concept of the atom has changed time and time again. There are still flaws in the current model of the atom. As to the idea that everything is made up of particles then yes I beleive that. But as to wheather or not it's the atom model we've all been made a custom to then I think it's nonsence - all theory and made up. Well not complete nonsence, but there are inconsistancys such as where do gluons come from and how and why do they become active, if neutrons are made up of protons and electrons how come protons and electrons don't have gravity... and if electrons orbit can vary in the distance from the neuclii then how come this dosen't effect the atom size?

=mek=

 

Take a good look at some photos from an electron microscope. See what you think then.

 

 

Originally posted by Meksilon

What, and yet you still think we wnet to the moon?

 

All of the guys that went to the moon did observe "bright flashes" in their eyes when they were on the moon. At first no one was sure what they were, it wasn't realised until they got back to Earth that they were Cosmic Rays. There were even evidence of "holes" in the helmets of the astronauts (when observed under a microscope) which could have only been caused by incredibly high speed Cosmic Rays.

 

Now, this was a new discovery after the Moon landings, now how could they have made this discovery if the landings never happened???

 

I just wish I was alive back then to have witnessed it...

[Deadmeat_X]

Originally posted by Meksilon

I AM NOT HOMOPHOBIC. I DO NOT FEAR GAYS. AND I AM DEFINATLY NOT RACIEST.

 

Mek (and eveyone else), I think 'homophobic' means fear of humans instead of fear of gays. Since almost all these fear names are iether from Greek or Latin, this would be the most logical. Or am I just stupid and ugly on the inside and stuff?

[Drunken_Sailor]

Just going to point to some links:

 

 

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/apollohoax.html

 

http://astronomylinks.com/satellites_and_missions/moon/landing_conspiracy/

 

http://users.commkey.net/Braeunig/space/hoax.htm

 

http://www.business.uab.edu/cache/motives.htm

 

http://www.business.uab.edu/cache/debunking.htm

 

http://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~jscotti/NOT_faked/

 

http://www.nasastooge.fsnet.co.uk/

 

http://cass.jsc.nasa.gov/pub/expmoon/apollo_landings.html

 

http://www.nasm.edu/apollo/apollotop10.htm

 

 

http://www.clavius.org/

 

http://www.apollo-hoax.co.uk/strangeshadows.html

 

http://www.the-indigestible.com/specials/moon.htm

 

http://www.valleyskeptic.com/moon_hoax.html

 

Many more can be found, but this should suffice for the time being.

[Meksilon]

Originally posted by Deadmeat_X

Mek (and eveyone else), I think 'homophobic' means fear of humans instead of fear of gays. Since almost all these fear names are iether from Greek or Latin, this would be the most logical. Or am I just stupid and ugly on the inside and stuff?

Yes that is logical, except that the gays decided that homophobic means scared of homosexuals or diluted versions even meaning "someone who dosen't accept homosexuality" ie someone who beleives that it's wrong.

 

=mek=