40 Years on. Man on the moon. Truth or a Hoax ??

[Peuty]

Originally Posted by Rodp

Those photos put a chill down my spine.

Incredible photos.

[csv8]

The current Lunar Orbiter has photo's of the descent modules on the moons surface, awaiting our return. My mistake, NASA photo shopped them !!
I believe it did happen and mans biggest mistake was not going on too Mars after 1972.40 wasted years..

[csv8]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-1VtFKiBzo

[LeadFoot81]

Originally Posted by gtfpv

i dont know if we went there or not . i want to believe we did .
a couple of things give me doubt though . the talks from neil armstrong for instance dont seem very exciting . and if you listen you can hear a double meaning to everything he says about it .
the pictures have me doubting too . , there is like a talcom dust oin those pics about 100mm deep . yet nothing on the moon lander especially the feet. and it looks like there are 2 people in the reflection of the visor . one in a space suit , the other a shadow . !!!

Reflected in the visor: the guy in the suit took the picture, and the shadow is of the guy whos picture is being taken (?!)

[ltd]

The americans got to the moon before the russians for one simple reason; The greatest American of all time.......... Who was actually a German - Werner Von Braun.

At the end of WW2 Werner and his team surrendered to the US troops and eventually went to White Sands in New Mexico where they began testing and firing rockets like the V2 Werner had invented earlier. Deliberately, Werner sent a rocket so high that it actually did make it to outerspace to demonstrate his teams abilityto be the first in space, but his superiors in the US military prevented him from sticking anything in it.
The race was really on though to get a satellite into space between Werner and one of his former WW2 counterparts who had defected to Russia, and Werner had the experience to beat them and their Sputnik but was defeated by the US government wanting an American rocket (Not a German rocket) to be the first. After several failures, they scrapped the american rocket and let Werners team have a go. In record time Werner had a rocket and satellite launched into space. The Russians basically had spent so much money on their program that a moon landing was becoming nigh on impossible, but in the USA Werner forged ahead and the rest is history.
I have been to Hutchinson in Kentucky where there is so much info on this guy as well as an original V1 and V2 rocket, and recommend that anyone interested should look up info on the pioneer of space travel.

[Road_Warrior]

Originally Posted by yanknbank

NASA recently paid the fine imposed upon it ($400) by the local council in WA for littering.

Actually, you might find that the fine wasn't paid by NASA, a local radio station over there ran a campaign on the eve of the anniversary once it became known that NASA had snubbed the town and never paid the fine. The fine money was donated by local residents in San Fransisco I believe.

EDIT:

Debris was found between Esperance and Rawlinna, 31–34°S, 122–126°E. The Shire of Esperance fined the United States $400 for littering, a fine which remained unpaid for 30 years.[3][4] The fine was paid in April 2009, when radio show host Scott Barley of Highway Radio raised the funds from his morning show listeners, and paid the fine on behalf of NASA.[5]

[v8boss]

I too believe that we went there. What I have always wondered (and could probably find if I knew where to look!) is why can't we see the remains of the lunar modules with telescopes from earth? Surely if we can see planets light years away, we could pick out something man made on the surface of the moon??? Feel free to show me a pic if something like that exists.

[csv8]

Can we see Apollo hardware on the Moon?

This question comes up frequently. It's clearly impossible for an optical telescope on the Earth to resolve any of the Apollo hardware on the Moon, since the best systems, using adaptive optics in the near-infrared, can resolve details of maybe 0.02 arcsec. A lunar lander of width 5 meters, at a distance of 382,000 km, subtends an angle of 0.003 arcsec. The Hubble Space Telescope isn't appreciably closer the Moon, and its best resolution is about 0.03 arcsec in the near-UV. Not good enough.



An infrared image taken by one of the the European Very Large Telescopes in Chile, which has 8.2-meter mirror, shows some of the finest detail observed from the Earth. At the ESO Press Release page , you can see images with an angular resolution of about 0.07 arcsec; they show details as small as 130 meters across. Still a lot larger than the lunar lander....

Is it possible that a lunar lander might cast a shadow long enough to be detected from the Earth? Well, possibly -- but I doubt it very much. We do have pictures of the shadows cast by lunar landers, taken by several spacecraft which were all in orbit around the Moon -- the Apollo command and service module (CSM), the Clementine probe, the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO). as it orbited the Moon. You can see for yourself that the shadows are very inconspicuous. In order for a ground-based telescope to see the shadows, it would have to be able to take pictures showing details as small as those visible in these pictures taken from lunar orbit. I don't know of any such Earth-based pictures.

[Charliewool]

Watched a great program at 7.30 Sunday night on the History Ch. (From Earth to the Moon) I think it's an ongoing series?
Anyhow... It truly makes you appreciate what an incredible accomplishment this was in 1969, and just what a massive gamble the entire space program was!
They were talking about the power of their computers back then.... An entire floor of NASA housed the computer, which had about the same capacity as an average laptop today!
The Apollo 11 on board computer was compared to somewhere between a modern digital watch and a mobile phone in capacity!

[prydey]

Originally Posted by LeadFoot81

Reflected in the visor: the guy in the suit took the picture, and the shadow is of the guy whos picture is being taken (?!)

yep, the shadow in the foreground and the shadow in the visor is the same shadow.

[Teflon Turbo]

not dodging the question. i don't have a response for it, it's hard for me to believe a habitual liar (usa).

maybe those laser reflectors where just launched and placed there without human help.

i do believe in life elsewhere in the universe though.

[Peuty]

As someone pointed out before, can you imagine all the Ruskies that would be up in arms if it was a lie?

As far as I am concerned, there is absolutely no reason why you should think it is a lie.

[ltd]

I've been to all the Smithsonians and the aerospace museums and frankly, there's far too much hardware and evidence to prove that they went there as opposed to not going there at all. I recommend the air and space museum at Dulles, they even have a Concord in their and they also have what is believed to be the other big conspiracy of all time; wreckage from the planes that went into the twin towers in NYC.

[Gammaboy]

You should watch an accurate doco called Dark Side of the Moon. It's all about how Kubrick helped fake the moon landing.

[fordAU]

Originally Posted by tufLTD

I find it strange that 40 years on, they can't put a man back on the moon. The technology in 1969 was totally prehistoric compared to today, so why can't they do it now.

Not sure what you mean by this ?

There have been 6 successful manned moon landings.

Manned Moon landings :

Apollo 11 Eagle 20 July 1969
Apollo 12 Intrepid 19 November 1969
Apollo 14 Antares 5 February 1971
Apollo 15 Falcon 30 July 1971
Apollo 16 Orion 21 April 1972
Apollo 17 Challenger 11 December 1972

[LTDHO]

IMO it didn't happen.

It was the 'Space race' and USA would do anything to win. Which they did.

Has anyone found what was wrong with the famous pic?

[gtfpv]

Originally Posted by LTDHO

IMO it didn't happen.

It was the 'Space race' and USA would do anything to win. Which they did.

Has anyone found what was wrong with the famous pic?

no . tell us ?

[Peuty]

Originally Posted by LTDHO

It was the 'Space race' and USA would do anything to win. Which they did.

I think you will find that the Russians would have been more desperate to win. Which they didn't.

[LTDHO]

Originally Posted by gtfpv

no . tell us ?

No idea, that's why I asked.

Originally Posted by Peuty

I think you will find that the Russians would have been more desperate to win. Which they didn't.

May they were desperate to win, but they didn't!

[Peuty]

You miss my point.

[Wally]

Originally Posted by XR6 Martin

From here http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html#flag

Bad: When the astronauts are assembling the American flag, the flag waves. Kaysing says this must have been from an errant breeze on the set. A flag wouldn't wave in a vacuum.

Good: Of course a flag can wave in a vacuum. In the shot of the astronaut and the flag, the astronaut is rotating the pole on which the flag is mounted, trying to get it to stay up. The flag is mounted on one side on the pole, and along the top by another pole that sticks out to the side. In a vacuum or not, when you whip around the vertical pole, the flag will ``wave'', since it is attached at the top. The top will move first, then the cloth will follow along in a wave that moves down. This isn't air that is moving the flag, it's the cloth itself.

....

It's a bit easier than that. Anything in a vacuum doesn't have air resistance to impede movement. Just the temperature change is going to make any object alter shape and twist.

Someone threw up radiation as a killer within minutes. Well that is probably true if you are on the moon in the sunlight, thus why they landed on the darker side.

If everything could be explained by Newtonian physics etc, they wouldn't need to be carrying out experiments aboard the space shuttle... or maybe that and all those satellites are a myth too.

[Teflon Turbo]

people under estimate russians, they had the fastes jets and nukes before america and lead the world in espionage and every facet of military arms. they never complained about it after america acquired the technology or military might.

in the first balkans war, russia supplied serbs with crucial technology to, and
you wont read about this in media or in hollywood, america's number on propaganda tool, but over 20 stealth bombers were shot down by serbs and over 150 fighter jets too.

i wouldn't knock those russians, further more they never dropped any bombs on japan either.

on top of that if it wasnt for russia you could well be driving a volkswagon instead of a ford.

i just don't see the need to bring russia into this when they were the first to have satellite's in orbit.

[xtremerus]

Originally Posted by Wally

Someone threw up radiation as a killer within minutes. Well that is probably true if you are on the moon in the sunlight, thus why they landed on the darker side.

There is no dark side of the moon. Just half that we can't see from earth.
In a 'quarter moon', 3/4s of the other side is in sunlight.
They landed with a low sun though, hence the long shadows. I think this is what you mean.

[flappist]

Top ten reasons why the moon landing has not been repeated:

10) The court case over trademarking McMoon, MS Moon & MacMoon is still running

9) NASA can't afford the frequent flyer points.

8) No one on the moon voted for Obama.

7) They are worried about moon climate change from the excess CO2 in the lunar lander.

6) NASA cannot find an astronaut under 30 years old who can exist in a place where there is no SMS or facebook.

5) Steven Speilberg is too busy to make the live broadcasts.

4) Most men are very confused by things that have a monthly cycle.

3) There is no oil on the moon.

2) NASA are refusing to allow flights until the astronauts spend a year in Sydney so they are used to being in cold unwelcoming place with no atmospere whatsoever and possible sightings of strange alien looking creatures.

1) NASA are still trying to get direct injection LPG to work on the Saturn V so it will have the running costs of a camry.

[Rodp]

Originally Posted by charliewool

Watched a great program at 7.30 Sunday night on the History Ch. (From Earth to the Moon) I think it's an ongoing series?
Anyhow... It truly makes you appreciate what an incredible accomplishment this was in 1969, and just what a massive gamble the entire space program was!
They were talking about the power of their computers back then.... An entire floor of NASA housed the computer, which had about the same capacity as an average laptop today!
The Apollo 11 on board computer was compared to somewhere between a modern digital watch and a mobile phone in capacity!

Can't find my DVD's but if it's the one where Hanks narrates, I think it's a 6 parter. Absolutely fascinating to watch. Highly recommended.

[Peuty]

Originally Posted by Teflon Turbo

people under estimate russians, they had the fastes jets and nukes before america and lead the world in espionage and every facet of military arms. they never complained about it after america acquired the technology or military might.

in the first balkans war, russia supplied serbs with crucial technology to, and
you wont read about this in media or in hollywood, america's number on propaganda tool, but over 20 stealth bombers were shot down by serbs and over 150 fighter jets too.

i wouldn't knock those russians, further more they never dropped any bombs on japan either.

on top of that if it wasnt for russia you could well be driving a volkswagon instead of a ford.

i just don't see the need to bring russia into this when they were the first to have satellite's in orbit.

The first Balkans war? What stealth bombers and fighter jets were around then?

And who's knocking the Russians? Not I.

[AUIIForte]

Originally Posted by Wally

It's a bit easier than that. Anything in a vacuum doesn't have air resistance to impede movement. Just the temperature change is going to make any object alter shape and twist.

Someone threw up radiation as a killer within minutes. Well that is probably true if you are on the moon in the sunlight, thus why they landed on the darker side.

If everything could be explained by Newtonian physics etc, they wouldn't need to be carrying out experiments aboard the space shuttle... or maybe that and all those satellites are a myth too.

One thing to add here. Space has been proven to not be a vacuum... People keep referring to that area as being completely particle/matter free. And that the 'space' just around the moon is a vacuum. Well, its not.

[platinumXR]

Originally Posted by Gammaboy

You should watch an accurate doco called Dark Side of the Moon. It's all about how Kubrick helped fake the moon landing.

That was a joke...

[ten[A]cio[U]s]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQ...eature=related


Ill just leave this here.

I would like to believe it, but there is a fair bit of proof/evidence that suggests it didnt happen.

Personally, I am happy to believe it!

[platinumXR]

Originally Posted by flappist

Top ten reasons why the moon landing has not been repeated:

10) The court case over trademarking McMoon, MS Moon & MacMoon is still running

9) NASA can't afford the frequent flyer points.

8) No one on the moon voted for Obama.

7) They are worried about moon climate change from the excess CO2 in the lunar lander.

6) NASA cannot find an astronaut under 30 years old who can exist in a place where there is no SMS or facebook.

5) Steven Speilberg is too busy to make the live broadcasts.

4) Most men are very confused by things that have a monthly cycle.

3) There is no oil on the moon.

2) NASA are refusing to allow flights until the astronauts spend a year in Sydney so they are used to being in cold unwelcoming place with no atmospere whatsoever and possible sightings of strange alien looking creatures.

1) NASA are still trying to get direct injection LPG to work on the Saturn V so it will have the running costs of a camry.

: : :