Did we really land on the moon....?
Registered User
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 7,337
Likes: 3
From: Los Angeles, Miami
Originally Posted by JohnE,Mar 7 2005, 11:07 PM
I think what really helps drive this conspiracy theory is that since the lunar landing back in 1969, we have not really done anything too cool in space.
I don't know about you but these are amazing to me.
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,126
Likes: 0
From: Pittsburgh..south side..
Originally Posted by pulp350z,Mar 7 2005, 10:36 PM
If you post it, you said it. Did you really expect anything different?
He was posting because he was bored and wanted to start conversation. not because he neccessarily believes it. That must have gone over your head.
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 2,830
Likes: 0
From: Johnson City
I think what really helps drive this conspiracy theory is that since the lunar landing back in 1969, we have not really done anything too cool in space.
Pretty damn cool if you ask me... You think the early astronaughts were cowboys.... you should see the footage of space ship one loosing its guidance computer and the pilot using the horizon to point him into space
Thread Starter
Former Moderator
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 18,852
Likes: 1
From: New York
Again....I wont post my opinion....but.....
Most missions involving men to deep space failed.
All the probes and such that went to the moon and mars....that is true, but those were NOT manned.
In 1969, Russia had MUCH more technology, as well as a MUCH bigger space program than the US. If they couldnt do it, what makes you think US did it?
Its very well known that US was afraid when Russia launched sputnick, and needed to show that they have "some power"
Next, all the rebuttals, etc on the websites are extremely "around the bush" and sound like complete bullshit. The "we didnt land on the moon" arguements are MUCh stronger than the " we did land on it"
I am just curious if the people calling me a retard are upset because it is something they believed their whole lives, and just dont want to believe otherwise.
Most missions involving men to deep space failed.
All the probes and such that went to the moon and mars....that is true, but those were NOT manned.
In 1969, Russia had MUCH more technology, as well as a MUCH bigger space program than the US. If they couldnt do it, what makes you think US did it?
Its very well known that US was afraid when Russia launched sputnick, and needed to show that they have "some power"
Next, all the rebuttals, etc on the websites are extremely "around the bush" and sound like complete bullshit. The "we didnt land on the moon" arguements are MUCh stronger than the " we did land on it"
I am just curious if the people calling me a retard are upset because it is something they believed their whole lives, and just dont want to believe otherwise.
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,938
Likes: 0
From: limerick
Q1. Why are there no stars in the sky in the photographs taken from the lunar surface?
A. Because the stars are too dim compared to the brightness of the lunar surface and objects on it. In order for the stars to appear everything on the surface would be very over exposed, but they didn't want pictures of stars, they wanted pictures of the surface. See main page.
Q2. Why does the flag wave in the breeze if it's supposed to be in a vacuum?
A. Its not waving. Its held out by a rod running along the top of the flag. It only waves when the astronauts are moving the pole about. See main page.
Q3 Why can't the landers be seen by the Hubble Space telescope?
A. Because they are too small to resolve, even for Hubble. See main page.
Q4 Why doesn't the Lunar Module show a jet flame when it takes off from the surface?
A. Because the fuel used does not produce a flame in a vacuum.
Q5. The astronauts couldn't have controlled the lander during descent because the centre of gravity would change every time they moved.
A. The descent is kept level by the onboard computer adjusting the angle of the engine nozzle.
Q6. They could not have survived travelling through the Van Allen Belt without suffering from radiation sickness, or death, without a 6 feet thick solid lead shield.
A. They did survive. Sources that claim the radiation would have been lethal use creative and incorrect figures. See my page Van Allen belts
Q7. NASA killed the astronauts that were going to reveal the hoax.
A. Malicious and evil nonsense. Show the proof and see them get life sentences.
Q8. The landers should have kicked up a lot of dust when landing, but there is no sign of any dust on the landers in the photographs.
A. The landers were throttling back when landing and using little thrust. Also they didn't come straight down but at an angle travelling over the surface. Touch down kicked up only a little dust that in a vacuum quickly fell back to the surface.
Q9. The astronauts would not have been able to make footprints on the lunar surface as the dust would be too dry.
A. The surface is dry, because the dust is in a moisture free vacuum. Therefore the particles are not worn smooth due to weather erosion, but are gritty and angular, thus tending to lock together under pressure. There is also a more technical but longer explanation.
Q10. The cross hairs on the photographs have been pasted on afterwards and go behind some objects. (Pasted on afterwards after and go behind......??? No, never mind)
A. The crosses are sometimes rendered invisible when shown against a bright background, this effect is known as bleed over. If you check you will not see this effect against a normal or dark background. See main page.
Q11. The landers should have sunk deep into the lunar dust, but they didn't.
A. Why should they? The dust is only shallow.
Q12. The video shows Neil Armstrong climbing down the ladder and stepping onto the surface. If he was supposed to be the first man on the Moon, who took the video?
A. A video was deployed by Armstrong by pulling on a lanyard as he descended the ladder. It was on an extending arm that swung out from the lander for this purpose. Too big an occasion to miss.
Q13. Heat cannot escape in a vacuum, the astronauts would have fried to death in the sun.
A. The only heat the astronauts could receive in a vacuum is by radiation, apart from a little conduction through their boots. Their suits were very reflective and internally cooled. They were not white just to look good. See main page.
Q14. Heat cannot travel through a vacuum, they would have frozen to death going into a shadow.
A. Again, because they are in a vacuum, the only way they could loose heat is by radiation. Their suits were insulated.
Q15. The Moon rocks are just faked up Earth rocks.
A. Not possible. Rocks that have aged in a moisture free vacuum, exposed to cosmic rays and meteorite impacts, cannot be faked from earth rocks, far too different. They have been examined by labs throughout the world and all agree they are moon rocks .See main page.
Q16. Some of the photographs show shadows from more than one light source, proving it was all shot in a film studio in the Nevada desert using multiple studio lights.
A. Sunlight on the atmosphere free moon is very bright, and is reflected off every object on the surface. Even the surface itself reflects a great deal of light into areas that would otherwise be in shadow. So yes, there is more than one light source. See main page.
Q17. They didn't have the computer technology in those days to get to the Moon and back.
A. Most of the computing was carried out on huge main frames by NASA and the required data was uploaded to the small onboard computer. The amount of processing power required by the onboard computer for navigation was very small.
Q18. If there were only two astronauts on the surface at any one time, who took the photographs, because none of the astronauts are seen holding a camera?
A. The cameras were strapped to their chests, they couldn't easily hold them in their gloved hands and carry the various instruments around. Furthermore, they could not hold them up to their eye anyway to look through the viewfinder because of their helmets.
Q19. One of the moon rocks in the photo has the letter 'C' written on it, clearly showing it to be a film set prop.
A. The letter 'C' is not on the original print. It only appears on duplicates and is nothing more than a piece of fluff or hair that got into the equipment.
Q20. Are you telling the truth?
A. Are you looking for it?
A. Because the stars are too dim compared to the brightness of the lunar surface and objects on it. In order for the stars to appear everything on the surface would be very over exposed, but they didn't want pictures of stars, they wanted pictures of the surface. See main page.
Q2. Why does the flag wave in the breeze if it's supposed to be in a vacuum?
A. Its not waving. Its held out by a rod running along the top of the flag. It only waves when the astronauts are moving the pole about. See main page.
Q3 Why can't the landers be seen by the Hubble Space telescope?
A. Because they are too small to resolve, even for Hubble. See main page.
Q4 Why doesn't the Lunar Module show a jet flame when it takes off from the surface?
A. Because the fuel used does not produce a flame in a vacuum.
Q5. The astronauts couldn't have controlled the lander during descent because the centre of gravity would change every time they moved.
A. The descent is kept level by the onboard computer adjusting the angle of the engine nozzle.
Q6. They could not have survived travelling through the Van Allen Belt without suffering from radiation sickness, or death, without a 6 feet thick solid lead shield.
A. They did survive. Sources that claim the radiation would have been lethal use creative and incorrect figures. See my page Van Allen belts
Q7. NASA killed the astronauts that were going to reveal the hoax.
A. Malicious and evil nonsense. Show the proof and see them get life sentences.
Q8. The landers should have kicked up a lot of dust when landing, but there is no sign of any dust on the landers in the photographs.
A. The landers were throttling back when landing and using little thrust. Also they didn't come straight down but at an angle travelling over the surface. Touch down kicked up only a little dust that in a vacuum quickly fell back to the surface.
Q9. The astronauts would not have been able to make footprints on the lunar surface as the dust would be too dry.
A. The surface is dry, because the dust is in a moisture free vacuum. Therefore the particles are not worn smooth due to weather erosion, but are gritty and angular, thus tending to lock together under pressure. There is also a more technical but longer explanation.
Q10. The cross hairs on the photographs have been pasted on afterwards and go behind some objects. (Pasted on afterwards after and go behind......??? No, never mind)
A. The crosses are sometimes rendered invisible when shown against a bright background, this effect is known as bleed over. If you check you will not see this effect against a normal or dark background. See main page.
Q11. The landers should have sunk deep into the lunar dust, but they didn't.
A. Why should they? The dust is only shallow.
Q12. The video shows Neil Armstrong climbing down the ladder and stepping onto the surface. If he was supposed to be the first man on the Moon, who took the video?
A. A video was deployed by Armstrong by pulling on a lanyard as he descended the ladder. It was on an extending arm that swung out from the lander for this purpose. Too big an occasion to miss.
Q13. Heat cannot escape in a vacuum, the astronauts would have fried to death in the sun.
A. The only heat the astronauts could receive in a vacuum is by radiation, apart from a little conduction through their boots. Their suits were very reflective and internally cooled. They were not white just to look good. See main page.
Q14. Heat cannot travel through a vacuum, they would have frozen to death going into a shadow.
A. Again, because they are in a vacuum, the only way they could loose heat is by radiation. Their suits were insulated.
Q15. The Moon rocks are just faked up Earth rocks.
A. Not possible. Rocks that have aged in a moisture free vacuum, exposed to cosmic rays and meteorite impacts, cannot be faked from earth rocks, far too different. They have been examined by labs throughout the world and all agree they are moon rocks .See main page.
Q16. Some of the photographs show shadows from more than one light source, proving it was all shot in a film studio in the Nevada desert using multiple studio lights.
A. Sunlight on the atmosphere free moon is very bright, and is reflected off every object on the surface. Even the surface itself reflects a great deal of light into areas that would otherwise be in shadow. So yes, there is more than one light source. See main page.
Q17. They didn't have the computer technology in those days to get to the Moon and back.
A. Most of the computing was carried out on huge main frames by NASA and the required data was uploaded to the small onboard computer. The amount of processing power required by the onboard computer for navigation was very small.
Q18. If there were only two astronauts on the surface at any one time, who took the photographs, because none of the astronauts are seen holding a camera?
A. The cameras were strapped to their chests, they couldn't easily hold them in their gloved hands and carry the various instruments around. Furthermore, they could not hold them up to their eye anyway to look through the viewfinder because of their helmets.
Q19. One of the moon rocks in the photo has the letter 'C' written on it, clearly showing it to be a film set prop.
A. The letter 'C' is not on the original print. It only appears on duplicates and is nothing more than a piece of fluff or hair that got into the equipment.
Q20. Are you telling the truth?
A. Are you looking for it?
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 2,830
Likes: 0
From: Johnson City
So now you are saying we didn't land on the moon?? Do you honestly believe that 10's of thousands of government workers are keeping a secret about our landings on the moon?
There is a great book out by Carl Sagan called "The Demon-Haunted World: Science As a Candle in the Dark" that really jerks the leash on this type of thinking i.e. conspiracy theories etc..
These sites you list remind me of all of the sites devoted to "alien landings" in nevada. You are willing to accept "evidence" that is out in cyberspace rather than journals and articles that have been reviewed by scientific bodies and organizations (who actually police themselves for accurate and truthful documents) I guess i should be reading the tabloids more often.
I
There is a great book out by Carl Sagan called "The Demon-Haunted World: Science As a Candle in the Dark" that really jerks the leash on this type of thinking i.e. conspiracy theories etc..
These sites you list remind me of all of the sites devoted to "alien landings" in nevada. You are willing to accept "evidence" that is out in cyberspace rather than journals and articles that have been reviewed by scientific bodies and organizations (who actually police themselves for accurate and truthful documents) I guess i should be reading the tabloids more often.
I
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,557
Likes: 0
From: Huntsville
Originally Posted by NFRs2000NYC,Mar 8 2005, 11:17 AM
I am just curious if the people calling me a retard are upset because it is something they believed their whole lives, and just dont want to believe otherwise.
Having worked for NASA, believe me, it's far easier to actually go to the moon than to fake it and cover it up. It's simply not possible, not to mention insulting to say that parts of my family and many friends are lying about their roles in the lunar landings.
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 2,830
Likes: 0
From: Johnson City
VoIPA,
Where in Huntsville do you work? My father worked for Arnold Development Center near tulluhoma (where i was born) for a number of years. As part of his graduate work he helped to design some of the control systems on the wind tunnels there. He works in EE and controls now and occasionaly gives a talk or lecture down that way.
Where in Huntsville do you work? My father worked for Arnold Development Center near tulluhoma (where i was born) for a number of years. As part of his graduate work he helped to design some of the control systems on the wind tunnels there. He works in EE and controls now and occasionaly gives a talk or lecture down that way.