Did we land on the moon?

[Joshi]

actually, the greek or latin translation of homo (sorry to veer off topic here, be back soon) is actually "same" like homosapiens (humans) are the "same" species (i know there's a more clear explanation for than one, just cant think of it now) and homosexuals are people who have (technically) sexual feeling towards the same gender (so they basically got it wrong, slightly) so a homophobic is technically a fear things that are the same.

 

now back to the topic in hand.

 

there were actually quite a handfull of things that we didn't know about teh universe and other things until we went to the moon and found these things out, as said by Drunken_Sailor, and so we had to have gone to the moon as most of these things would have been impossible to discover without going to the moon first, and many of these things were studied and used to make space travel better and safer for the astronauts (instead of the very high possibilities of the shuttle actually exploding unexpectadly after exiting or entering the earths atmosphere). so try and explain that if you will

[Drunken_Sailor]

Originally posted by Meksilon

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.

 

Grannen is right.

 

Remember, you are looking at a three-dimensional scene, projected on a two-dimensional photograph. That causes distortions. When the Sun is low and shadows are long, objects at different distance do indeed appear to cast non-parallel shadows, even here on Earth....If seen from above, all the shadows in the Apollo images would indeed look parallel. You can experience this for yourself; go outside on a clear day when the Sun is low in the sky and compare the direction of the shadows of near and far objects. You'll see that they appear to diverge.

 

 

 

 

Originally posted by Meksilon

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).

 

 

This is definitelly the same foreground. One picture obviously being taken couple of steps further back.

 

That shadows are the same, just a bit more seen of them in the second picture.

 

You can also see that the foortprints are identical, the same two being just visible at the bottom edge of picture one which are clearly visible in picture two.

[Meksilon]

Originally posted by Drunken_Sailor

Grannen is right.

 

Remember, you are looking at a three-dimensional scene, projected on a two-dimensional photograph. That causes distortions. When the Sun is low and shadows are long, objects at different distance do indeed appear to cast non-parallel shadows, even here on Earth....If seen from above, all the shadows in the Apollo images would indeed look parallel. You can experience this for yourself; go outside on a clear day when the Sun is low in the sky and compare the direction of the shadows of near and far objects. You'll see that they appear to diverge.

Yes, but unlike Grannen's 1,000,000 to one estimate the chances of it hapening are even more remote and imopsible.

 

Look at the top of the mountain to the right, you see two distinct "dimples" in both photos. the one to the right is smaller and slightly rotated anti-clokwise then the one on the right. This implies that the photo was taken further back then the left photo, that it should show the lem and that the ground the astronaunt was standing on was slanted slightly in one picture. I can make a 10-point check superimposing the photos that show the mountains to be identical. The mountain is like a fingerprint, the chances of 2 identical ones happening on the moon accidently is almost impossible.

 

We know both pictures are the same ration because of the crosshairs. Moving on...

Originally posted by Drunken_Sailor

This is definitelly the same foreground. One picture obviously being taken couple of steps further back.

 

That shadows are the same, just a bit more seen of them in the second picture.

 

You can also see that the foortprints are identical, the same two being just visible at the bottom edge of picture one which are clearly visible in picture two.

Remember, both those photos came off thefilm rolls from Apollo.

 

=mek=

[duder]

Whats your theory on why they staged the landing?

 

The Space Race & the Cold War?

 

Funding?

[Meksilon]

Originally posted by duder

Whats your theory on why they staged the landing?

 

The Space Race & the Cold War?

 

Funding?

Technology, the fact that NASA has lied before and the fact that all missions too the the moon came back with 100% success in terms of the astronaunt's health. The fact that we haven't gone back to the moon since Apollo, and that we haven't even sent manned spaceships (apart from apollo) through Van Allen (and it was discovered they are actually much bigger then NASA said they were). Photographic Spotlights, Photographic repetitions (hills/backgrounds), footprints around the LEMs. But it all comes back to technology. We didn't have the technology to do it.

 

=mek=

[duder]

Thats not quite what I'm driving at. I was after a plausible theory on what they had to gain by constructing this 'fictional' event?

[Drunken_Sailor]

It would probably have cost more to "fake it" than to actually do it.

 

You would need the vacuum chamber f.e. to get the dust which the rover´s wheels are throwing up to fall ballistically like they do in vacuum, when there is no air to carry them for a distance like here on Earth, i.e. no dustclouds on the Moon.

 

If you have a video showing the rover moving, you can see this your selve, i.e. that they really quide obviously are moving in vacuum.

 

To succeed in making a vacuum chamber of sufficient size really would IMO have been an impressive feat, and really quite expensive to boot.

[Drunken_Sailor]

Originally posted by Meksilon

Look at the top of the mountain to the right, you see two distinct "dimples" in both photos. the one to the right is smaller and slightly rotated anti-clokwise then the one on the right.

=mek=

 

You are seeing equipment that are on top of the lander module (LM), i.e. couple of the antennas, see:

 

http://www.friends-partners.org/mwade/craft/apollolm.htm

[up close]

 

http://web.bryant.edu/~history/h453proj/spring_02/hoaxes/backdrop.jpg

[some distance away - your image]

 

http://web.bryant.edu/~history/h453proj/spring_02/hoaxes/backdrop1.jpg

[your other image]

http://www.nasm.si.edu/galleries/attm/atmimages/lm.diag.2.f.jpg

[Diagram]

 

In this case, what to you seems part of the mountain, is actually part of the LM.

 

Originally posted by Meksilon

the fact that NASA has lied before

 

Hmm, surelly you have lied your selfe at some point in your life. Does that mean you may be lying now?

 

People and institutions lie sometimes. But that does not mean they are cronic liers, as I´m sure you are not .

 

Originally posted by Meksilon

the fact that all missions to the the moon came back with 100% success in terms of the astronaunt's health

 

So what´s so troubling about that. They didn´t stay very long, so their exposure time wasn´t enormous.

 

About radiation two things matter, i.e. the intensity of it and the exposure time. You can survive a potentially lethal radiation if you are exposed to it for only a short period. A super intense radiation, like during a nuclear explotion, may kill you instantly.

 

Originally posted by Meksilon

fact that we haven't gone back to the moon since Apollo

 

You can thank Nixon budget reductions for that. Subsequent budget reductions have sealed the case.

 

Originally posted by Meksilon

we haven't even sent manned spaceships (apart from apollo) through Van Allen

 

http://www.lbl.gov/Education/CSEE/cup/Su00/Bailey/radeffectswebpage1.html

 

As you can see the radiation belt do vary in thickness. Therefore you can pass through them where theyr are relativelly thin.

 

http://srag-nt.jsc.nasa.gov/FAQ/SpaceRadiation.htm

 

The radiation belts are created in interaction between the solar vind and the Earth´s magnetic field.

 

The magnetic sphere protects the Earth and orbiting spacecrafts against most of the ravages of the solar vind and interstellar radiation [thus radiation inside the mangetic sphere actually is relativelly benign]. However through interaction with this external radiation [pcharged particles from the sun, cosmic rays] the magnetic sphere it self is charged up to an extend. It contains fairly low level radiation, when compared to the outside space environment, which even so is lethal given enough exposure time.

 

http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/wenpart1.html

 

However as it´s not a powerful high level radiation, simple shielding suffices. A thin peace of metal will contain most of it [Note how much poverful comsic rays can be, fortunatelly space is not so thick with them that a human will be exposed to great many of them during a fairly brief space trip].

 

http://srhp.jsc.nasa.gov/Newsletter/Volume1-2/Index.html

 

The so called radiation belts are actually then fairly benign. What space officialdom is really vorried about is raditaion beyond the relative protection of the Earth´s magnetic sphere.

 

It will be challenging to protect future astronauts in deep space from the ravages of sun storms and long term exposure to cosmic rays.

[Acrylic]

You know....I wonder if we did land on the moon.....I mean, how could anyone fly in such a dinky little aircraft through space.....thats almost impossible....

[Joshi]

Originally posted by Meksilon

Technology, the fact that NASA has lied before and the fact that all missions too the the moon came back with 100% success in terms of the astronaunt's health. The fact that we haven't gone back to the moon since Apollo, and that we haven't even sent manned spaceships (apart from apollo) through Van Allen (and it was discovered they are actually much bigger then NASA said they were). Photographic Spotlights, Photographic repetitions (hills/backgrounds), footprints around the LEMs. But it all comes back to technology. We didn't have the technology to do it.

 

=mek=

 

okay, i still don't believe that it was faked, but if it were faked, technology would have been an important factor in their reasons, but not the chief factor, the focal factor would have infact been the cold war and the U.S's ongoing technological war with russia of which the main factors there are defense, offence and the space race.

 

Originally posted by Meksilon

We didn't have the technology to do it.

 

you really think that. you belive that NASA and the U.S. goverment covered up something as big the moon landing but are still going to tell us truthfully how powerfull and technologically advanced they are. the U.S. goverment are crazy, not stupid. an example, if we (england) were to sell a hi-tech stealth nuclear weapon to russia (for whatever reason, in all fairness, i don't think we'd ever do that) and russia turned on us and used it against us, we would be fine because we would have our little "secrets", i.e, some kind of radar that would be able to detect it even though we told them that no radar wouldn't be able to and then stop them somehow. each goverment has it's own secrets, the U.S would tell everyone that they are 'so far' with their technology when really they are further, that way, people like russia wouldn't know how far they have to go to be better than the U.S and the U.S wouldn't know about russia either. that's how it all works (my brother in law is a martial arts teacher to littel kids, he was told to teach them what they need to nkow, but don't tell them your secrets, that way if they turn on him, they wouldn't nkow how to beat him, logical really)

 

so don't think that the U.S didn't have that technology back then, if anything, they were probably further than we think.

 

think about it, DVD's didn't become big until a few years ago, but they were around for longer than that, the only reason that they weren't marketed until recently was because they wanted to do it when they had something else in the works. it's the same here, they won't tells us about their advances until they have something else that people won't know about in a long time.

 

Originally posted by AcrylicGuitar

You know....I wonder if we did land on the moon.....I mean, how could anyone fly in such a dinky little aircraft through space.....thats almost impossible....

is that even worth an argument. First of all, they don’t fly, they just float faster and as long as there is something to propel it along in space with no air controlling it would be quite easy. In fact, I can’t see how ”impossible” it would be.

[Acrylic]

u huh....well, im just 13.........we didnt study that stuff yet

[Joshi]

actually quite a lot of peoploe have made that mistake so don't feel bad.

[Al-back from the BigWhoop]

i had something to say in this topic, but im trying to say as less as possible cause my lips are hurt, so im gonna say it later (this morning when i was shaving, one of my cats jumped on the sink to drink water, and bumped on my elbow, making me cut myself and feel horible annoying pain)

[Meksilon]

Originally posted by Neil Joshi

 

okay, i still don't believe that it was faked, but if it were faked, technology would have been an important factor in their reasons, but not the chief factor, the focal factor would have infact been the cold war and the U.S's ongoing technological war with russia of which the main factors there are defense, offence and the space race.

 

 

 

you really think that. you belive that NASA and the U.S. goverment covered up something as big the moon landing but are still going to tell us truthfully how powerfull and technologically advanced they are. the U.S. goverment are crazy, not stupid. an example, if we (england) were to sell a hi-tech stealth nuclear weapon to russia (for whatever reason, in all fairness, i don't think we'd ever do that) and russia turned on us and used it against us, we would be fine because we would have our little "secrets", i.e, some kind of radar that would be able to detect it even though we told them that no radar wouldn't be able to and then stop them somehow. each goverment has it's own secrets, the U.S would tell everyone that they are 'so far' with their technology when really they are further, that way, people like russia wouldn't know how far they have to go to be better than the U.S and the U.S wouldn't know about russia either. that's how it all works (my brother in law is a martial arts teacher to littel kids, he was told to teach them what they need to nkow, but don't tell them your secrets, that way if they turn on him, they wouldn't nkow how to beat him, logical really)

 

so don't think that the U.S didn't have that technology back then, if anything, they were probably further than we think.

 

think about it, DVD's didn't become big until a few years ago, but they were around for longer than that, the only reason that they weren't marketed until recently was because they wanted to do it when they had something else in the works. it's the same here, they won't tells us about their advances until they have something else that people won't know about in a long time.

 

 

is that even worth an argument. First of all, they don’t fly, they just float faster and as long as there is something to propel it along in space with no air controlling it would be quite easy. In fact, I can’t see how ”impossible” it would be.

And yes Neil, those motives are fairly obvious.

[Drunken_Sailor]

Originally posted by AcrylicGuitar

You know....I wonder if we did land on the moon.....I mean, how could anyone fly in such a dinky little aircraft through space.....thats almost impossible....

 

Correction: SPACECRAFT! I don't believe there's any AIR up there!

 

Have you ever rented the movie "Apollo 13"?

 

You have to realize that the astronauts that flew those spacecraft were picked directly from the ranks of America's Air Force/Navy pilots. THEY COULD FLY, no doubt about it.

 

Then add in the fact that the Apollo crews rehearsed every aspect of their missions in the training capsules until they could do it in their sleep. Then don't forget all the scientists in mission control with their slide rules hammering out all the navigation stuff for the Apollo computers (which is why, by the way, the computers only required a piddly amount of memory; the computer didn't do the calculations, WE did!). It is entirely possible.

[Meksilon]

Originally posted by Drunken_Sailor

Have you ever rented the movie "Apollo 13"?

Isn't it interesting when the crew loose power they start worrying about freezing to death? They should be more concerned with how hot it's going to get! If it's such an accurate movie, how come something as important as the heat of space is ignored and turned into the chill of space?

 

Try watching Fortress 2 and see what happens when they put our "hero" in a chamber with a dome glass roof which allows the heat and intensity of the sun's rays to take their toll.

 

=mek=

[Drunken_Sailor]

To fly through space you don´t need to be aerodynamical, as there is no air, and you don´t need wings as you can´t use them anyway without air and you don´t need them as you are floating weightless in space.

 

What you need is a lifesupport system with sufficient supply of air and air schrubbers to clean out the carbon monoxide. You also need a supply of fuel which suffices and engines powerful enough to do the job. In addition you require to be able to navigate, and actually for that you don´t absolutelly need to have computers. It´s possible to use fixed coordinates and stars for to navigate and world war 2 era periscope for to take those observations. Calculations could be done on a pad with old fashioned slide rule and tables. OK, a tad slow but doable.

 

During your voiage you can simply push a button to activate rockets and release it to deactivate. For to land you would peer through a scope with markers in it and try to judge your speed and nearness to the ground. All this is doable, but very inefficient.

 

When using computers, laser sights and such you can be so much more efficient, i.e. burns can be more precise, thus saving fuel, your judgement of your speed will be more accurate, also saving fuel and making navigation more accurate, and with your laser you can judge your distance from the ground much more accuratelly. Your computer could do the navigation basigly for you. Modern tech makes it much easier and safer.

 

When they were going to the moon, as the Moon is only a light second away, the astronauts could take measurements and make observations with their on board equipment and then could tell that to the ground control. Ground control and it´s hundred´s of technicians then told them when and how long to do a burn and excactly where they were based on the astronaut´s observations [so this was a teamwork, with most of the team on ground]. So the navigation was actually done here on ground by the ground control using old fashioned but usable computers that filled whole rooms. The Astronauts them selves didn´t need to have powerful computers with them.

 

They did it then on manual but with ground control supervision.

 

And the fastest black and white film they had in 1969 was ASA 400.

 

Much faster films were available, but generally too expensive to the market for general use.

[Joshi]

Originally posted by Meksilon

And yes Neil, those motives are fairly obvious.

 

did you really have to quote the entire thing when you could have keyed in at the point/s that you thought was/were relevent. what exactly are you refering to, the bit about the cold war or the bit about govermental secrets? that's really annoying, you know that? i'm guessing it the cold war thing which basically gives a motive for staging the moon landing, (and probably helping your argument) but i still don't believ it was faked, and that's all there is to it.(no, i don't mean that that proves we landed on the moon, it proves that you cannot change my ideas whatever new evidence you give me some of which btw, can be classed as circumstancial)

[Joshi]

Originally posted by Meksilon

Isn't it interesting when the crew loose power they start worrying about freezing to death? They should be more concerned with how hot it's going to get! If it's such an accurate movie, how come something as important as the heat of space is ignored and turned into the chill of space?

 

Try watching Fortress 2 and see what happens when they put our "hero" in a chamber with a dome glass roof which allows the heat and intensity of the sun's rays to take their toll.

 

=mek=

 

depending on where you are, space can be quite cold. remember, heat has to radiat through space to get to earth (i tried to forget all this stuff after my exams, didn't seem to work), not conduction or convection (which would be stupid, there is not up in space(btw, light a match in the spacecraft with air whilst in space with no gravity, which way would the flame go?)) and therefore, if there is dsomething in the way i.e., a planet, i.e. planet earth, then it would be very cold and they may have frozen to death. remember, they actually worked with skilled qualified scientists whilst writing and making this movie who knew a little more about space than say, oh i don't know, you, becasue in all fairness, you are not a skilled scientist and no matter what you think you do not know everything in the world. (sorry, repressed anger there)

[Drunken_Sailor]

Originally posted by Meksilon

They should be more concerned with how hot it's going to get!

 

 

Funny. I always thought it was very cold up there.

[Deadmeat_X]

Well no, cause there is no protection from the sun like clouds or an atmosphere), and the heat the body loses can't go anywhere cause there's no air, and so it gets hot in the suit.

[Drunken_Sailor]

I think you missed the point. It was a joke.

 

Btw, that´s why the suits had both heating and cooling.

 

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.

 

As for the solid evidence, what of the reflectors left on the surface to allow astronomers to determinee the distance to the moon? Non-government astronomers have bounced lasers off of those reflectors, and detected photons of the correct wavelength and frequency on their way back. The moon's surface isn't reflective enough for that that type of experiment without the reflectors.

 

This week's issue of US News & World Report, page 78, lower right-hand column: "And what about the reflectors left behind so researchers can precisely measure the moon's distance by shooting laser beams at them and timing the return of a few photons? 'I've fired photons, and I've gotten photons back,' says astrophysicist Tom Murphy of the University of Washington.

 

Seriously, man (or woman, as the ecase may be), the "evidence" cited by the conspiracy theorists is far too easily explained away. For instance: as for the absence of stars in the photographs, ever take a snapshot of the night sky? I have, with 1,000 speed film, even, and still gotten absolutely zero stars. The eexposure times were too short, and the ambient sunlight would have washed them out, anyway. As for the Van Allen Belts, the level of radiation you would recieve, when traveling through them at the 25,000 mph required to break the immediate pull of the Earth's gravity, is about the same as a couple of cheest X-rays, certainly not enough to cause radiation sickness.

 

If you want more, you can go to:

 

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

 

The "evidence" you have cited is systematically dismantled on the above site.

[Breton]

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

 

Natty you really deserves to get banned. You really really do. Flaming people such, and with no reason at all, is a LF crime. So I am telling every mod or administrator that looks at my post, please ban those who should be banned.

 

Natty never ever do such a stupid action again, flaming is a hundred times worser than spamming.

[Joshi]

okay, i'm guessing that you just got here (efmi) and so have no idea who natty is and to that i say, don't comment on something you don't know about. also, this whole thing blew over ages ago so don't try bringing it back.

[Breton]

I am new here indeed, I'm mostly at swamp, but that does not change the fact that flaming=bad and that there are too few admins here.