Did The Moon Landing Occur - Yes or No?

[orcot]

I'm not going to quote but that are yust stabs to each other.

In my defense to the moon hoax people I like to say that the apollo program was yust plain silly to the point that considering the mission even I could have done a far better job. Also the fact that if anything chould be learned from it is that you would first need a purpose to travel to the moon and only then consider traveling to it. Hence nobody traveled to the moon in 35 years and the world was a better place.

 

[Singularity]

1) Foot print near the lander are impossible due to lack of crater.

2) Crater has to be there below the lander if foot prints exists.

3) The speed of Astronauts jumps (ascent and descent) are not consistent with 1/6 gravitational acceleration. They were jumping too quickly.
And the inertia of the the suit and backpack would prohibit such quick movements in low gravity.

4) The lunar lander was impossible as it had no jet nozels to maintain vertical balance, they had only side way nozels. A grave mistake by the hoaxers.

Anyway vertical landing is still not possible.

5) Alien foot prints are visible in many photos (search the web, time mongers).

6) The photos are impossible , the frame accuracy is too good without a view finder. The height of the photos is inconsistent with regards to the camera mounted on chests.

7) They used too many lunar mockups, the original moon model photos are overwhelmingly pointing at fakery.

 

[Janus58]

Dont worry about it, u wont understand it, since it requires Common Sense to understand these things.

The kind of "Common Sense" that said that the Earth was flat.
The kind of "Common Sense" that said the Sun Went around the Earth.
The kind of "Common Sense" that said manned flight was impossible.
The kind of "Common Sense" that said that rockets wouldn't work in a vacuum because there was nothing for them to push against.

Appeals to "Common Sense" are, at best, a sign of lazy thinking, and most often are mis-guided due to lack of proper understanding of the subject at hand.

 

[GeoffP]

Dont worry about it, u wont understand it, since it requires Common Sense to understand these things.

Your question is a measure of your lack of common sense.

This is awesome! I love the ad hominem and especially the whacky style. This is great. I wish I'd got in on the argument prior to this.

Anyways i dont except anyone to match my common sense, since it bloated up due to genetic mutations.

Well, this may not be far wrong, at least.

Now, I'm not a physicist, or rocket jockey, but here's what concerns me about Singularity's little thesis, and that of Happehs everywhere:

1) Foot print near the lander are impossible due to lack of crater.

2) Crater has to be there below the lander if foot prints exists.

Could you clarify these comments? Why need crater?

3) The speed of Astronauts jumps (ascent and descent) are not consistent with 1/6 gravitational acceleration. They were jumping too quickly.
And the inertia of the the suit and backpack would prohibit such quick movements in low gravity.

...how heavy were the suits and backpacks? You do realize that at 1/6g a 200 lb setup is only 33 lbs?

4) The lunar lander was impossible as it had no jet nozels to maintain vertical balance, they had only side way nozels. A grave mistake by the hoaxers.

Anyway vertical landing is still not possible.

Why not? How do you know vertical nozzles didn't exist? Why were they necessary? Couldn't the same engine that was used for thrust out of moon atmosphere be used to slow descent?

5) Alien foot prints are visible in many photos (search the web, time mongers).

All right: make up your mind, please. Are they really alien footprints? Your thesis is that they didn't get to the moon, so why would there be alien footprints in the photos? Did the aliens visit them at the staged photo site? Were they supplying the Americans with advice about the surface of the moon? ("Dude, your rocks are all wrong.") Did one of them accidentally wander over some untouched dirt during coffee break? It's so hard to find good interstellar help these days, even for us Illuminati. We really have to post on some decent job boards when we fake that Sun landing in 2050.

6) The photos are impossible , the frame accuracy is too good without a view finder.

Because, prior to 1970, no photos were good.

The height of the photos is inconsistent with regards to the camera mounted on chests.

Because there were no handhelds brought, and the surface of the moon has no rocks to stand on.

7) They used too many lunar mockups, the original moon model photos are overwhelmingly pointing at fakery.

I'm not sure what this means, but I suspect it's something to do with an idea that you think there were too many backgrounds. I would like to know how you justify this conception.

 

[Singularity]

This is awesome! I love the ad hominem and especially the whacky style. This is great. I wish I'd got in on the argument prior to this.

Well, this may not be far wrong, at least.

I was laughing for one hour reading your comments.

Could you clarify these comments? Why need crater?

The dusty area create craters when blasted with powerful jet engines. The foot prints are the proof of the dust.

...how heavy were the suits and backpacks? You do realize that at 1/6g a 200 lb setup is only 33 lbs?

Whatever. They were heavy and hence had lot of inertia and low gravity gives u a lesser grip on foot. And the Gravitational acceleration i guess must be 1/6 th so jumping on Moon will be visually quite stunning.

Why not? How do you know vertical nozzles didn't exist? Why were they necessary? Couldn't the same engine that was used for thrust out of moon atmosphere be used to slow descent?

U tell me , i know i have done lot of web searching on this topic in past.

The answer lies in the same reason why a top cant stand straight without spinning.

All right: make up your mind, please. Are they really alien footprints? Your thesis is that they didn't get to the moon, so why would there be alien footprints in the photos? Did the aliens visit them at the staged photo site? Were they supplying the Americans with advice about the surface of the moon? ("Dude, your rocks are all wrong.") Did one of them accidentally wander over some untouched dirt during coffee break? It's so hard to find good interstellar help these days, even for us Illuminati. We really have to post on some decent job boards when we fake that Sun landing in 2050.

Please, by alien i didnt mean extra terrestrial. What i meant was this.

http://www.conspiracy-theories-hoax.com/images/c.jpg

Because, prior to 1970, no photos were good.

Because there were no handhelds brought, and the surface of the moon has no rocks to stand on.

Hmm, very funny, as if that was their motive to photo everything. Now, can u tell me why were they always climbing rocks each time to get an photo ?

I'm not sure what this means, but I suspect it's something to do with an idea that you think there were too many backgrounds. I would like to know how you justify this conception.

Do some research, before that do some soul searching. http://www.geocities.com/apolloreality/

 

[Singularity]

Vertical landing requires lots of jets at corners of the base to balance (Look your feet are not cones). And lot of computing to calculate how much thrust to generate so that it doesnt topple over.

The above rocket though 27 years later moon missions, finally toppled over and the program came to an end.

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/dcx.htm

1996 July 31 - 19:15 GMT - Launch Site: White Sands. Launch Vehicle: DC-X. Model: DC-XA. FAILURE: Landing strut 2 failed to extend; vehicle tipped over and LOX tank exploded; vehicle destroyed.

 

[Oli]

Vertical landing requires lots of jets at corners of the base to balance

Quite simply - not true. Take a look various VTOL aircraft, for example...

And lot of computing to calculate how much thrust to generate so that it doesnt topple over.

And again, not true, for one thing more (or less) thrust wouldn't cause toppling, that would be caused by unaccounted-for asymmetric thrust or mass distribution.
And finally, the LEM did not land vertically, in came in on a spiral descent...

 

[GeoffP]

I was laughing for one hour reading your comments.

Then, you probably didn't understand them. Did the men in white coats have to give you the needles when you didn't stop laughing?

The dusty area create craters when blasted with powerful jet engines. The foot prints are the proof of the dust.

Did the lander in fact use "powerful jet engines" right prior to landing? In 1/6g, there's not that much downward acceleration and I seem to recall seeing their lander come down the last 30 ft at least without any blasting below it. This isn't frigging Star Rangers (or whatever) you know.

Whatever. They were heavy and hence had lot of inertia and low gravity gives u a lesser grip on foot. And the Gravitational acceleration i guess must be 1/6 th so jumping on Moon will be visually quite stunning.

Speaking of stunning..."lesser grip on foot"?

...Happeh?

U tell me , i know i have done lot of web searching on this topic in past.

The answer lies in the same reason why a top cant stand straight without spinning.

You have perhaps forgotten the horizontal nozzles?

Please, by alien i didnt mean extra terrestrial. What i meant was this.

Well, let me see. I'm no NASA techician and, being an Illuminati Lizardoid, I was secretly hatched from an egg sat on by Karl Rove and the head of the Mossad, but on first glance that looks a bit to me like ONE OF THE ASTRONAUT'S OWN BOOTPRINTS ON A FRIGGING ANGLE. But I could be wrong, of course.

http://www.conspiracy-theories-hoax.com/images/c.jpg

Hmm, very funny, as if that was their motive to photo everything.

Yes; it is always best if one goes all the way to the moon and photographs nothing. That way, when one returns from the moon and is asked to justify the time and money spent getting there, one can just tell them: "The moon? Meh. It was ok. Buzz played golf!"

Now, can u tell me why were they always climbing rocks each time to get an photo ?

I submit that it was done to attain the abstract and suspicious goal of "a better view".

Do some research, before that do some soul searching.

I looked for soul, and it wasn't there. Am I a Lizardoid?

 

[GeoffP]

I note:

FAILURE: Landing strut 2 failed to extend; vehicle tipped over and LOX tank exploded; vehicle destroyed.

Oli, good points.

 

[Singularity]

Guys ,
How many jets can u see in this pic ?

 

[GeoffP]

Well it's Russian-designed. That's why so many are necessary.

Any response on the other points?

 

[Oli]

In point of fact there's one JET - Yak-38 Forger. There are four exhausts from the three jet engines, two (one engine behind the other) just below the "07" bort number and two (one each side; from the single engine) on the fuselage just behind the wing. Not"at each corner".
Presumably you googled and picked the first thing available. Okay, try looking for Yak -36 Freehand that had TWO (and only two) exhaust nozzles from the engine, that had few problems with getting on or off the ground. If you really look you'll find that very few VTOL aircraft have the exhausts "at the corners", many had them in-line down the fuselage, or in pods on the wing... Or even try finding a photo of say BAC/ EE Lightning, McDD F-15 Eagle, Sukhoi Su-27 (and variants) climbing vertically - sustained in that flight regime by engine thrust only - and strangely enough, none of them topple.
All that is required is that the line of action of total thrust acts through the centre of gravity.
But please don't let that stop your ridiculously uninformed assertions.

 

[EmptyForceOfChi]

its ok chi, I don't trust the government either. But you don't have to to know we went to the moon. The people I trust are the ones directly involved, the ones whose life mission and own personal motivation was to get man to the moon. They would never lie nor be lied to. They were the ones who made it happen. They knew more than any government arm could possibly be able to cover up.

You can silence or pay off a few people, but you can't silence or pay off the thousands working to get man to the moon.

good point, but howcomes we cant see anything man left on the surface from telescopes?

peace,

 

[GeoffP]

Because the telescopes aren't powerful enough to resolve the image? Because the moon's reflectiveness prevents visualization? Those would be my bets.

 

[EmptyForceOfChi]

ok if thats true then fair enough,

peace.

 

[D H]

Because the telescopes aren't powerful enough to resolve the image? Because the moon's reflectiveness prevents visualization? Those would be my bets.

Your first guess is correct. Even Hubble does not have the power to see the Lunar landing sites.

From the Hubble FAQ, http://hubblesite.org/reference_desk/faq/all.php.cat=topten

Can Hubble see the Apollo landing sites on the Moon?
No, Hubble cannot take photos of the Apollo landing sites.
An object on the Moon 4 meters (4.37 yards) across, viewed from HST, would be about 0.002 arcsec in size. The highest resolution instrument currently on HST is the Advanced Camera for Surveys at 0.03 arcsec. So anything we left on the Moon cannot be resolved in any HST image. It would just appear as a dot. ​

 

[GeoffP]

That's interesting. Wonder if they'll make a telescope powerful enough to resolve it. Of course, that would really be a kind of lunar navel-gazing.

 

[Janus58]

1) Foot print near the lander are impossible due to lack of crater.

2) Crater has to be there below the lander if foot prints exists.

You have not presented any evidence to support this stance. How much thrust was the LEM producing at touchdown? How much dust would it have moved? How much dust was there to begin with, What pattern would this movement take under the conditions of a vacuum? You haven't considered any of these. Relying on "common sense" doesn't cut it. Too often common sense is just completely wrong.
If NASA wanted to fake it, they could just as easily faked a crater if one were required to maintain the hoax.
These footprints are "proof" of nothing.

3) The speed of Astronauts jumps (ascent and descent) are not consistent with 1/6 gravitational acceleration. They were jumping too quickly.
And the inertia of the the suit and backpack would prohibit such quick movements in low gravity.

According to what? Your "common sense" interpretation of how it "should" look?

4) The lunar lander was impossible as it had no jet nozels to maintain vertical balance, they had only side way nozels. A grave mistake by the hoaxers.

Anyway vertical landing is still not possible.

The descent engine was mounted on gymbals so that the direction it pointed could be changed. Constant adjustments kept the LEm balanced the same way that you can balance a upended stick on the palm of your hand. On top of that, the ascent stage had attitude rockets that could be used to help maintain stability.

5) Alien foot prints are visible in many photos (search the web, time mongers).

6) The photos are impossible , the frame accuracy is too good without a view finder. The height of the photos is inconsistent with regards to the camera mounted on chests.

7) They used too many lunar mockups, the original moon model photos are overwhelmingly pointing at fakery.

All of the rest fall in the catagory of assumed gross imcompetence on the part of the alleged Hoaxers.
As far as the photos go, you use the word "impossible" way too freely. How many Photos were actually taken? How many out-of-frame shots were just discarded? The astronauts also likely had quite a bit of practice with the cameras before the mission. It is also just silly to think that "faked" pictures wouldn't have been taken the same way as the real pictures were taken.

If NASA were have to faked it, you can be sure that they would have been thorough about it; everything would have been checked, double-checked and triple-checked. The types of mistakes that you point to as give-aways to a Hoax would have never made it through the screening process if that were what they actually were.

 

[Pete]

That's interesting. Wonder if they'll make a telescope powerful enough to resolve it. Of course, that would really be a kind of lunar navel-gazing.

It would need to be in Lunar orbit, like the Clementine orbiter, which apparently spotted the Apollo 15 landing site.

 

[James R]

Singularity:

You're not actually serious about the moon landings being faked, are you? Would you really believe that thousands of people could keep that kind of secret for 30 years?

Anyway...

1) Foot print near the lander are impossible due to lack of crater.

2) Crater has to be there below the lander if foot prints exists.

The thrust from the lander's engines was nowhere near sufficient to create a crater. Foot prints in dust are not unusual.

3) The speed of Astronauts jumps (ascent and descent) are not consistent with 1/6 gravitational acceleration. They were jumping too quickly.

Low gravity doesn't affect the speed you can take off at when you jump. It only affects the rate of fall once you're in the air. Astronauts' muscles don't get weaker in low gravity, and that is what determines jump "speed".

And the inertia of the the suit and backpack would prohibit such quick movements in low gravity.

As I said, the gravity is irrelevant. Inertia is another matter, but you're simply wrong about that, as is evidenced by the film and TV footage.

4) The lunar lander was impossible as it had no jet nozels to maintain vertical balance, they had only side way nozels. A grave mistake by the hoaxers.

The lunar lander was festooned with nozzles pointing in all directions. Take a look at a diagram or photo of it.

5) Alien foot prints are visible in many photos (search the web, time mongers).

Aliens wearing spacesuit boots, with human-shaped feet? Funny that.

6) The photos are impossible , the frame accuracy is too good without a view finder.

Many photos were cropped by NASA prior to publication.

7) They used too many lunar mockups, the original moon model photos are overwhelmingly pointing at fakery.

You'll need to be more specific.

Want to add your comments to [enc]Moon landing conspiracy[/enc]?