| Lunar landing. |
Fri, 21 March 2008 01:48  |
|
History would have us believe that on 20th July 1969 Neil Armstrong set foot on the moon. I was 8 yrs old then and saw it live on TV, even as a kid I wasn't convinced.
To this day I still take that view
Its easy to ridicule controversial thoughts (lets face it 800 yrs ago you would never have doubted the world was flat) so lets not get in to a slanging match, lets try to be objective.
Has man ever set foot on the moon ?
|
|
|
|
| Re: Lunar landing. |
Fri, 21 March 2008 04:02  |
|
|
Yes!
|
|
|
|
| Re: Lunar landing. |
Fri, 21 March 2008 06:52 |
|
Yes of course they did. If they hadn't the Soviet Bloc would have know about it, and they would have had a field day blowing the fake open.
Was the trip to the moon a giant popularity stunt to gain the USA prestige on the world diplomatic stage, of course it was.
Was the Moon Landing Faked of course not they had too much to lose.
But if you'd like to list the evidence that it was faked please do so and we can discuss it.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Lunar landing. |
Fri, 21 March 2008 09:58 |
|
I think they did. But what I don't understand is .... why? A multi-billion dollar project ... money that could have wiped out world poverty at a stroke .... just so a few guys can walk on the surface of an uninhabitable piece of spacedust ...and bring back ..........er ... a few buckets of rocks and .... some spacedust !   
|
|
|
|
| Re: Lunar landing. |
Fri, 21 March 2008 11:13 |
|
|
Easy answer to that, prestige, and JFK's speech
|
|
|
|
| Re: Lunar landing. |
Fri, 21 March 2008 12:48 |
|
I saw a documentary on the subject a few years ago & there appeared to be some compelling reasons for it being faked:
1. they couldn't have done it with the technology of the time
2. politically, they had to be seen to do it, so prepared fake footage
3. circumstantial evidence that puts the veracity of the footage in doubt - camera angles, shadows, wind blowing flags, lack of remote camera technology etc
4. Lots of strange deaths of people involved afterwards
Now I'm no expert on space & the problem with this type of documentary is that they tend to be a bit one sided (like Zeitgeist), so I try to keep an open mind.
However, I think it is distinctly possible that they faked events on 20th July 1969, but have subsequently made it there.
I also think we will never know the truth - it's very hard to prove conclusively they did, and if they didn't, they'd never admit to it & would trash the reputation of any whistle-blower.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Lunar landing. |
Fri, 21 March 2008 13:01 |
|
Presumably the place to start would be to assess wether there was sufficient motive to either put a man on the moon or otherwise stage it.
As Burytyke has just said there was considerable prestige at stake here. Kennedy stated in May '61 that the USA would land a man on the moon and return him safely to earth by the end of the decade. It doesnt take an expert to realise that as the end of the decade nears the need to substantiate this becomes more important.
There's little doubt Yuri Gagarin (a Russian) was the first man in space about a year before Kennedy's speech, so essentially at the time the USA were indeed 2nd place in a 2 horse race.
Its a well known fact in the world of politics (and that's what we are talking here) people in power will do anything to 'save face'.
Do we have a motive ? Its mid 1969 and we still havent got our man on the moon, the end of the decade nears.
I'd argue, yes we do.
Ok, so lets look at the mechanics of it all, the nuts and bolts ....
a) the lunar lander reportedly weighed 17 tons, it needed considerable upward thrust to control its descent, Why in every photo you see of it on the surface is there no crater ? why isn't there any obvious disturbance of the surrounding area ? Why does Armstrong's footprint make more of an impression on the landscape than a 17 ton projectile firing an upward thrust ?
b)Who took the photo's of Armstrong's 'one small step' ? Wasn't he the first man there ? How did the camera get there ?
c)The moon has no atmosphere (or at least a very rarified one) you'd expect a lot of stars to be visible in the background, there isn't any ?
d)The flag they post appears to be 'fluttering', what's causing that on a world with hardly any atmosphere ?
e)There's numerous still images taken yet in every one where the astronaut has the sun behing him he's still apparently lit from the front. Where or what is the other light source ?
f)Assuming we did land a human on the moon in 1969 and have done so about 4 times since in close succession, why havent we been in the last 35 yrs or so ? Advancements in technology surely would make something like this childs play ? Its now 39yrs after Armstrong's landing, wouldnt you expect by now we'd be building something there ? or at the very least visiting on a regular basis ? You land men on the moon a few times in quick succession get all the glory then dont go again for 35 yrs with all the advancements science has made ?
All seems a bit of a hoax to me 
|
|
|
|
| Re: Lunar landing. |
Fri, 21 March 2008 13:15 |
|
| Tetley wrote on Fri, 21 March 2008 13:01 |
Its now 39yrs after Armstrong's landing, wouldnt you expect by now we'd be building something there ? or at the very least visiting on a regular basis ?
|
how do you know they are not? 
all we hear about space exploration is what they choose to tell us.
on a lighter note, if there were a base on the moon, I'd hope the ladies would all have immaculate purple bobs like they did in Jerry Anderson's UFO. 
|
|
|
|
| Re: Lunar landing. |
Fri, 21 March 2008 13:49 |
|
Yep, thats a fair point Melmoth. How do we know they arent still visiting 'undercover'?
The simple answer is we don't
Maybe I'm an old cynic here, but I think if you were still visiting the moon (and spending losts of cash doing it) you'd want to broadcast it for a political 'upperhand'.
Technology has advanced 1000 times since Armstrong's alledged landing, if it was to be done today you wouldnt see an old black and white distorted image on your TV, you'd see something in glorious technicolour, you'd hear astronauts speak clearly, arguably you could even chat to them in a stockings chatroom.
So, 39 yrs later wouldnt you want to show off ? wouldn't you send videos across the world of your man on the moon ?
Maybe, just maybe, the technological race has caught them up and they can no longer play any more.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Lunar landing. |
Fri, 21 March 2008 14:22 |
|
Possible Answers
Moon Gravity is 1/6 G there for thurst required only 1/6 to work aginst it. Also you don't have the engine on full when you contact the ground anymore than a plane lands full speed at an airport
They had probes and remote cameras on the moon already or possibly they snook out first put down the cameras then ran the one small step routine for the public.
It was Morning of the Lunar Day when they landed making it very bright 90% of the equipment is white so the camera equipment would have low apeture size and fast shutter speed which means the stars would not show up because the light is from them is so feint.
Fluttering flags are easy to explain, they put the flag up but the gizmo that holds the flag out didn't work quite right so the flag didn't strech out fully, which means the lack of atmosphere doesn't damp down the movement of the flag been put up.
So you don't use lights when taking pictues with a camera then? combinded with surface reflection this would illuminate the Astronauts in many fun and intresting ways
As to why no one been back simple, the USA won the race end of story since then no one has had the political will. JFK wanted men on the moon and what JFK wanted he got even after death, maybe even because of it.
More indepth discussion of this fascinating subject can be found at http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html
|
|
|
|
| Re: Lunar landing. |
Fri, 21 March 2008 14:41 |
|
| SlideOn wrote on Fri, 21 March 2008 14:22 |
Possible Answers.
They had probes and remote cameras on the moon already or possibly they snook out first put down the cameras then ran the one small step routine for the public.
|
I cant believe you've just said that
|
|
|
|
| Re: Lunar landing. |
Fri, 21 March 2008 16:40 |
|
Why not? You belive we didn't send men to the moon 
|
|
|
|
| Re: Lunar landing. |
Fri, 21 March 2008 17:24 |
|
There is a danger here of lapsing into the kind of reductionist thinking that says 'If you believe/don't believe this, then you believe/don't believe that'.
In reality, everyone is much more complex than this and our belief in something which may be demonstrably wrong does not necessarily make our other beliefs similarly wrong.
My religious beliefs, for instance, are shared by millions and classed as nonsensical by millions more. I would think, if we examined our beliefs, we would find many of them unprovable - the very difference between belief and knowledge - as Alice so succinctly put it:
"Alice laughed: "There's no use trying," she said; "one can't believe impossible things."
"I dare say you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."
We can, and we do - a great deal of the time.
lacewing.
[Updated on: Fri, 21 March 2008 17:29]
|
|
|
| |
| Re: Lunar landing. |
Fri, 21 March 2008 22:59 |
|
*** money that could have wiped out world poverty at a stroke ***
I don't think so. At most, all of the Moon landings cost less than 100 dollars per US citizen (and less than 250 dollars per US taxpayer).
[Updated on: Fri, 21 March 2008 22:59]
|
|
|
|
| Re: Lunar landing. |
Sat, 22 March 2008 01:08 |
|
Okay, I'll be your Huckleberry, and take a stab at it ...
| Tetley wrote on Fri, 21 March 2008 06:01 |
Ok, so lets look at the mechanics of it all, the nuts and bolts ....
a) the lunar lander reportedly weighed 17 tons, it needed considerable upward thrust to control its descent, Why in every photo you see of it on the surface is there no crater ? why isn't there any obvious disturbance of the surrounding area ? Why does Armstrong's footprint make more of an impression on the landscape than a 17 ton projectile firing an upward thrust ?
|
Just as in space, and due to there being no atmosphere, I think the thruster's were very small; the 'considerable upward thrust' was only needed upon lift-off from the Moon, when the top-half of the LL blasted off. 
| Tetley wrote on Fri, 21 March 2008 06:01 |
b)Who took the photo's of Armstrong's 'one small step' ? Wasn't he the first man there ? How did the camera get there ?
|
Either Armstrong took the picture, or it was taken by Buzz Aldrin ?
| Tetley wrote on Fri, 21 March 2008 06:01 |
c)The moon has no atmosphere (or at least a very rarified one) you'd expect a lot of stars to be visible in the background, there isn't any ?
|
They probably just didn't show-up in the camera pic's because the camera's were focused (widely) on the near foreground?
| Tetley wrote on Fri, 21 March 2008 06:01 |
d)The flag they post appears to be 'fluttering', what's causing that on a world with hardly any atmosphere ?
|
It wasn't 'fluttering', it was just wrinkled & wavily from being rolled-up?
| Tetley wrote on Fri, 21 March 2008 06:01 |
e)There's numerous still images taken yet in every one where the astronaut has the sun behing him he's still apparently lit from the front. Where or what is the other light source ?
|
A camera flash? Or, camera lights? Or, a light reflection?
| Tetley wrote on Fri, 21 March 2008 06:01 |
f)Assuming we did land a human on the moon in 1969 and have done so about 4 times since in close succession, why havent we been in the last 35 yrs or so ? Advancements in technology surely would make something like this childs play ? Its now 39yrs after Armstrong's landing, wouldnt you expect by now we'd be building something there ? or at the very least visiting on a regular basis ? You land men on the moon a few times in quick succession get all the glory then dont go again for 35 yrs with all the advancements science has made ?
|
They have 'Nutbars' on all the time, on this 'Talk Radio Show' in the USA: [ http://www.coasttocoastam.com/ ], who claim that we have had bases on the Moon, since the 70's, and that our 'Secret Astronaut Program' built them, all thru the 80's, and they're still building/adding to them ... and that our 'Secret Astronauts' go there all the time! 
|
|
|
|
| Re: Lunar landing. |
Sat, 22 March 2008 02:17 |
|
There is sufficient evidence presented that says man has been to the moon.
There is some evidence thats casts doubt on some of that evidence.
This though does not prove man has not been to the moon, it only creates doubt on the evidence that says he has been to the moon.
For those who believe man has not been to the moon show us the evidence he hasnt, not the evidence doubting the evidence he has.
Its a bit like a murder.
Blood from the victim found on suspect.
Finger prints found near the victim.
DNA found in the room the victim was found dead.
But the suspect was seen some where else at the time, so proves he didnt do it.
How does it prove it???
[Updated on: Sat, 22 March 2008 02:18]
|
|
|
|
| Re: Lunar landing. |
Sat, 22 March 2008 03:44 |
|
| jo wrote on Fri, 21 March 2008 22:59 |
*** money that could have wiped out world poverty at a stroke ***
I don't think so. At most, all of the Moon landings cost less than 100 dollars per US citizen (and less than 250 dollars per US taxpayer).
|
You're right Jo ....an over-exaggeration by me on this re. wiping out world poverty ...but, when you think that the programme leading up to the first moon landing cost 21 billion dollars ( at 1969 prices ) that must equate to around 400 billion dollars in today's terms. The next mission ( 2018 ) is estimated by some to be costing in the region of 100 billion dollars ( at today's prices ).
500 BILLION dollars could make a serious dent in a lot of the ' ills ' of this world, besides poverty ( cancer and Aids research for instance ) don't you think .. rather than costly, meaningless jaunts out to a dead piece of rock in space?
|
|
|
|
| Re: Lunar landing. |
Sat, 22 March 2008 04:15 |
|
Why land on the moon.?.... "Single Warrior Combat"....why fight a war when you can show we've got you beat. In the old days, the armies would just put their best men, one on one against each other. Militarily, conquering space told the Russians, we would annihilate you if you attacked us. IT WORKED! 
|
|
|
|
| Re: Lunar landing. |
Sat, 22 March 2008 04:19 |
|
money well spent! If you want to know where it is wasted, look at the war in IRAQ!
Nothing to "win" ( you can't force democracy on people who don't or won't accept it). Nothing to gain, dead bodies on both sides and how man billion A WEEK??
|
|
|
|
| Re: Lunar landing. |
Sat, 22 March 2008 13:43 |
|
Hi!
Both adults in this household are advocates for space exploration, and members of "The planetary society" (http://www.planetary.org/home/). So I am somewhat "tainted" in that I/we strongly believe in space exploration.
I wasnt going to write at all, but saw some of the old chestnuts coming out again, a lot of which have been conclusively disproven, time after time. For example, the "who took Armstong's pics when he came off the ladder" question...
There were 4 Maimya half plate, and 8 Hasselblad 35mm cameras mounted in total, 3 cameras to each leg, (including the one with the ladder on), on the lander. one of each were remotely moveable. - All had their film removed, to be brought back to Earth. Only 1 Maimya and One hassleblad camera were returned hoawever, due to weight restrictions, and were used to take some pics in the launch module after seperation, and of the docking to the orbiter above the moon. These joined the 3 35mm and 2 half plate cameras in the capsule. one of each are on display at the Smithsonian in Washington DC, together with the capsule. Movie cameras were not mounted outside of the lander, as it was felt they would fail, but movie film was shot through the landers downward facing windows. Incidently, tests on the cameras before they were allowed to be displayed demonstrated a high cosmic raditation count, but not hazardous to people, so they were allowed to be displayed.
As regards the overall question "did we really land on the moon at all", consider the following facts...
The Hubble Space Telescope (HST), has taken some pictures of several of the landing zones on the moon, as have some Earth based telescopes, (including some outside of direct USA influence/control), and the Landers launcher bases, flags and even in a couple of cases the experiment packages are visible.
This includes "Tranquility base" and the base of the Eagle lander.
The experiment packages (some of them), were in communication with several Earth based organisations BY LASER (direct line of site, not radio), including universities in 11 different countries, including countries not directly under NASA or USA influence. The time lag (even though it was short for lightspeed), was measured as one of the experiments performed, the distance to the moon (and back) is well known, and the speed of light is too, (186,000 miles per second), so no possibility of interception by "space based mirrors" or "aliens" or similar can exist. The times of course matched perfectly...
As regards expense, yep, this is also a chestnut which comes out time after time...
Several different organisations (not including NASA or the US government itself, who also have these programs), have had a crack at justifying the expense in real "ROI" terms, rather than terms like "prestige", "exploration" "preperation for expansion/colonisation", etc. - Generally it is accepted that (although hard to prove conslusively), Space exploration (including Apollo and the moon shots), has repaid its investment several times over. The advances related to Space technology and exploration include; better computers and software, including production and coding techniques used today, Advanced drug testing and production techniques, GPS systems, (like the TomTom), GSM mobile phone systems, (we DO like to use mobile phones dont we?), Weather monitoring and warning systems, Advanced solar cells, (alternative power anyone?), Electricity generation techniques based on movement, (which are becoming widespread in use in Hybrid car power systems), Fuel cell technologies, (like in Hybrid cars and vehicles like submarines and even planes using Hydrogen fuel cells), non stick coatings, ("Teflon" benefited from this, but all advanced or "red spot" coatings are space technology based), efficient double glazing and sealing systems, efficient heat and cold insulators, (actually we ALL use this technology in our ovens, fridges, freezers and microwaves today), better glues and bondings, better and more efficient/lighter metals including alloys and composites, (Titanium based alloys, and carbon fibre for example used today in building, and vehicle construction), etc, etc, etc.... Some of this technology could not have been tested or proven on Earth, some of course, (like GPS or GSM), must remain in Space in order for it to function and benefit us...
Last point; Before John Glenn any rocket fired with a payload, including ICBMs had a 1 in 3 chance of failure, that was why so many were made, to take into account "redundancy". After Apollo, that number had decreased to 1 in 100. This alone made launching of space based satellites commercially viable...
Love,
Nikki.
xxx
|
|
|
| |
| Re: Lunar landing. |
Mon, 24 March 2008 16:16 |
|
Hi,
Or try;
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/missions/apollo15_touch down_photos_010427.html
BTW, Hubble itself can only image down to a 60m resolution on the moon, but has shown impacts and blast off images of the landing fields, the most heavily monitored was Apollo 17.
NROC is currently planned to orbit and display high reolution images of ALL Apollo landing areas, with resolution down to less than 1 meter, later this year...
Love,
Nikki.
xxx
|
|
|
|
| Re: Lunar landing. |
Tue, 25 March 2008 09:46 |
|
Sorry folks,
I have to come clean on this one...I am writing this from the secret moon base where most of the stocking wearing ladies have disappeard to.
Unfortunately, the cameras have all broken too, so theres no chance of a photo of the secret moon base or of any of the stocking wearing ladies.
And i regret to say that our supply of FF's is seriously depleated, can someone send some more on the next flight ?
Yours hopefuly,
Don
x
|
|
|
|
| Re: Lunar landing. |
Tue, 25 March 2008 10:15 |
|
Personally, I don't understand how the Americans could get there in the late 60s but now say that it's not possible. But if someone pointed a gun (or something else!) and told me to answer Yes or No as to whether they went, I would say Yes, though with a lot of questions.
Now as to something for which there is a lot more evidence of it being a put-up job, what about 9/11?! I'm not one of those who believes it was a fake, but I am convinced that the Americans knew it was going to happen, either because they helped cause it (to give a reason for the 'War on Terror') or because they did nothing to stop it.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Lunar landing. |
Tue, 25 March 2008 10:37 |
|
| robman |
money well spent! If you want to know where it is wasted, look at the war in IRAQ!
|
That depends on your perspective. The banks are (allegedly) doing very nicely out of the continued violence in Iraq.
| robman |
Nothing to "win" ( you can't force democracy on people who don't or won't accept it).
|
Can you blame them for not wanting it? All they need to do is look at the pantomime that is the House of Commons, or the farce that is the US primaries to realise that 'democracy', as manifested in our times, is a joke.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Lunar landing. |
Tue, 25 March 2008 10:38 |
|
| joanna99 wrote on Tue, 25 March 2008 10:15 |
P
Now as to something for which there is a lot more evidence of it being a put-up job, what about 9/11?! I'm not one of those who believes it was a fake, but I am convinced that the Americans knew it was going to happen, either because they helped cause it (to give a reason for the 'War on Terror') or because they did nothing to stop it.
|
Have you seen the film Zeitgeist? It's worth a look if you have suspicions about 9/11.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Lunar landing. |
Sat, 29 March 2008 00:05 |
|
| Quote |
Who took the photo's of Armstrong's 'one small step' ? Wasn't he the first man there ? How did the camera get there ?
|
I see this has been more or less answered above. Good stuff, it was bothering me for a while. The rest, I'm fine with.
It happened, let's get on with it.
Then again I suppose some people (conspiracy theorists) maybe like being the centre of some attention - maybe arguing for the sake of it. I dunno. <shrugs>
There is however, one point I'd like to raise... although I love space exploration and technology, the investment in the space programme takes many years to return its investments. Perhaps a decade even.
This money spent on curing diseases and raising literacy skills in the deprived world would yield much faster results.
Just a thought.
|
|
|
| | |
| Re: Lunar landing. |
Sun, 30 March 2008 00:59 |
|
| Dirk wrote on Sat, 29 March 2008 00:21 |
| TheRealStrappon wrote on Sat, 29 March 2008 00:05 |
There is however, one point I'd like to raise... although I love space exploration and technology, the investment in the space programme takes many years to return its investments. Perhaps a decade even.
This money spent on curing diseases and raising literacy skills in the deprived world would yield much faster results.
Just a thought.
|
' Deprived World ' ? It would be money well ( better ) spent right there in the US, on the people who are paying for it ... never mind anywhere else ........
|
Fair enough. Hadnae thought of that.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Lunar landing. |
Sun, 30 March 2008 08:30 |
|
|
There are good reasons to spend money on the worlds problems and we can discuss the merits of what is more important as much as we wont. However there is one simple reason why space exploration is important. Sooner or later (and probably sooner) this planet will become unihabitable and when that happens we will all die unless we can live somewhere else. That will be the end of the human race forever.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Lunar landing. |
Sun, 30 March 2008 11:45 |
|
| SlideOn wrote on Sun, 30 March 2008 08:30 |
There are good reasons to spend money on the worlds problems and we can discuss the merits of what is more important as much as we wont. However there is one simple reason why space exploration is important. Sooner or later (and probably sooner) this planet will become unihabitable and when that happens we will all die unless we can live somewhere else. That will be the end of the human race forever.
|
Then the human race will die .... as it's not within the power of the inhabitants of this planet to relocate in another solar system ... no matter how much money is spent ...
Mind you .. a few million years to go yet
Why waste fortunes on the impossible, when the money could really do some postive good elsewhere ...right now ... on earth ?
|
|
|
|
| Re: Lunar landing. |
Sun, 30 March 2008 12:54 |
|
| Dirk wrote on Sun, 30 March 2008 11:45 |
Why waste fortunes on the impossible, when the money could really do some postive good elsewhere ...right now ... on earth ?
|
wake up and smell the coffee Dirk - why waste money on worthwhile causes when there are barren rocks to conquer and evil foreigners to intimidate and kill? where's your sense of patriotism man?
|
|
|
|
| Re: Lunar landing. |
Sun, 30 March 2008 13:21 |
|
Dirk Why do you assume that we cannot go elsewhere, the human race has achived wonders in the last two hundred years from walking speed to supersonic what will we achive in the next two hundred.
And yes i'm well aware that the theortical speed limit of the universe is the speed of light, but there is a thing called an Einstien/Rosen Bridge (think thats how its spelt) to be taken into account.
And if you think we have millions of years before we need to evacute this planet then I'd check up on Extinction Events, Pollution, Random Acts of Mass Violence, Superbug Pandemics and the various other that could mess up the planet.
We live on a fragile world and only a fool puts all his eggs in one basket.
This however seems to have strayed somewhat off the original point of this thred. Heigh Ho nevermind
|
|
|
|
| Re: Lunar landing. |
Sun, 30 March 2008 18:52 |
|
*** a few million years to go yet ***
The world is already massively over-populated, and using resources hundreds of times faster than they are being replaced.
See this: http://images.google.com/images?q=graph+of+world+population
The growth shown in the last 50 to 100 years, or so, is frightning... and will come to a very abrubt end within the next couple of centuries.
|
|
|
| | |
Current time: Mon Jul 7 00:38:31 BST 2008
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.02318 seconds |
