Did We Really Go To The Moon

There is actually a planned British rover mission to the moon, but whether there is any point on venturing anywhere near the apollo landing sites is entirely dependant on their science value I would say.
 
I know of a possible lunar lander named SELENE-B

Can't say that I've heard over a britisch lunar rover
 
yeah I love that mission crash pins in the moon how simple can you get for a lander. Unless the rocket explodes I susspect a big succes.
 
Maybe we just orbited the moon and never landed. Orbiting and landing are two different matters. If we just orbited then no one but just a few individuals would even know about it.
 
>> i question that all the time, but there is no real evidence we didnt go.

Oh yes there is... enought to catagorically state that no human friendly landing on the Moon has occurred.

It is far far easier to land on Mars than it is to even find a stable orbit around the Moon.

The Moon landings were a political stunt, just as Star Wars was, all show and bluster.
 
oldie said:
Maybe we just orbited the moon and never landed. Orbiting and landing are two different matters. If we just orbited then no one but just a few individuals would even know about it.
Click to expand...
If we can orbit the moon, then what exactly is stopping us from landing there? We had the landers, the rovers and the necessary EVA suits.
 
Chagur said:
Why even try to convince the Yahoo's with logic?

I'd be willing to bet that some of them even believe that the Earth is flat and at the center of the universe!

In this day and age, when a few hundred thousand dollars will buy you a telescope with sufficient resolving power to see the landing sites in detail, how could the Moon landings be considered to be part of an enormous hoax? I don't know.

As I said, why even try? Let them prattle on and just enjoy their posts.
Click to expand...

truth sayer said:
we did not got to the moon the first time get a telescope and look at the moon try to find the lander or any other equipment up there you wont because we never went the FIRST time , you will find the equipment from the other landings . we did go to the moon we are the only ones that have however we never went the first time.. also japan is sending a crew next year to the moon they will also will testify what is up there..
Click to expand...

This is an interesting point that needs to be developed further:

Surely the onus is on believers of the moon landing to provide evidence (photograph taken through telescope) of the undisturbed human artifacts and ecofacts left by the moon landing in question.

I challenge any 'believer' to produce photographic evidence on this thread or provide a reasonable excuse why this cannot be achieved.

You have the coordinates...
 
zenbabelfish said:
This is an interesting point that needs to be developed further:

Surely the onus is on believers of the moon landing to provide evidence (photograph taken through telescope) of the undisturbed human artifacts and ecofacts left by the moon landing in question.

I challenge any 'believer' to produce photographic evidence on this thread or provide a reasonable excuse why this cannot be achieved.

You have the coordinates...
Click to expand...

Surely the onus is on believers of the moon hoax to provide convincing evidence of the hoax. When one makes a claim of any sort, the onus is upon the claimant to substantiate the claim. Every claim by the hoax believers has been debunked.

The Moon rocks brought back to Earth, the images from the Apollo visits, the astronauts who provide first-person testimony of our visits, and much, much more are proof that we did indeed send people to the Moon.

Nonetheless, here is some information regarding imaging the landing sites.

From http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/11jul_lroc.htm:
Conspiracy theorists have long insisted that NASA never went to the Moon. It was all a hoax, they say, a way to win the Space Race by trickery. The fact that Apollo landing sites have not been photographed in detail since the early 1970s encourages their claims.

And why haven't we photographed them? There are six landing sites scattered across the Moon. They always face Earth, always in plain view. Surely the Hubble Space Telescope could photograph the rovers and other things astronauts left behind. Right?

Wrong. Not even Hubble can do it. The Moon is 384,400 km away. At that distance, the smallest things Hubble can distinguish are about 60 meters wide. The biggest piece of left-behind Apollo equipment is only 9 meters across and thus smaller than a single pixel in a Hubble image.

Better pictures are coming. In 2008 NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter will carry a powerful modern camera into low orbit over the Moon's surface. Its primary mission is not to photograph old Apollo landing sites, but it will photograph them, many times, providing the first recognizable images of Apollo relics since 1972.​
 
I challenge any 'believer' to produce photographic evidence on this thread or provide a reasonable excuse why this cannot be achieved.

You have the coordinates...
 
zenbabelfish said:
I challenge any 'believer' to produce photographic evidence on this thread or provide a reasonable excuse why this cannot be achieved.

You have the coordinates...
Click to expand...

If this wasn't so sad, it would be funny.

1)DH has already provided the reason why such evidence is unachievable at present.
2) Even if such evidence were achievable and produced, you would simply declare it as faked.
 
The Hubble is a telescope designed for viewing objects from in space...this is why the resolution is not suited to observation of the moon.

The man-made ecofacts on the moon are larger than 60 metres.

This is not a reasonable excuse. Therefore:

I challenge any 'believer' to produce photographic evidence on this thread or provide a reasonable excuse why this cannot be achieved.

You have the coordinates...
 
Janus58 said:
2) Even if such evidence were achievable and produced, you would simply declare it as faked.
Click to expand...

Also you should note that I DO believe man went to the Moon - as a scientist I am trying to prove the null hypothesis.

Your basis for the assertion (2) above is false...
 
These radar images are down to 100 metres resolution:

http://www.nasm.si.edu/ceps/research/moon/radar_south_images.cfm

I'm happy to wait until 2008 (as I already believe man went to the moon) but I am making reasonable enquiry as to why it cannot be achieved immediately.

I think even if artifacts and ecofacts are found on the moon, some conspiracy-watchers will claim they are recent additions.

My challenge still stands...
 
Info from Wikipedia (Lunar Rover): "On Apollo 15 the LRV was driven a total of 27.8 km in 3 hours 2 minutes of driving time. The longest single traverse was 12.5 km and the maximum range from the LM was 5.0 km. On Apollo 16 the vehicle traversed 26.7 km in 3 hours 26 minutes of driving. The longest traverse was 11.6 km and the LRV reached a distance of 4.5 km from the LM. On Apollo 17 the rover went 35.9 km in 4 hours 26 minutes total drive time. The longest traverse was 20.1 km and the greatest range from the LM was 7.6 km."

The tracks left by these vehicles are quite large ecofacts...
 
zenbabelfish said:
Info from Wikipedia (Lunar Rover): "On Apollo 15 the LRV was driven a total of 27.8 km in 3 hours 2 minutes of driving time. The longest single traverse was 12.5 km and the maximum range from the LM was 5.0 km. On Apollo 16 the vehicle traversed 26.7 km in 3 hours 26 minutes of driving. The longest traverse was 11.6 km and the LRV reached a distance of 4.5 km from the LM. On Apollo 17 the rover went 35.9 km in 4 hours 26 minutes total drive time. The longest traverse was 20.1 km and the greatest range from the LM was 7.6 km."

The tracks left by these vehicles are quite large ecofacts...
Click to expand...

The tracks left by these vehicles consist of parallel lines maybe about 1/3 of a meter wide and maybe 2 meters apart. No matter how long they are, they would still not be noticeable at a 60 meter resolution. Put together, the two tracks of the rover crossing the entire width of a 60 meter resolution would consist of just about 1% of the pixel. This would be their contribution to the shading of the pixel. Considering the fact that the there will be other irregularities in the surface over the 60 meter square area, the contribution of the tracks to the shading would be insignificant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top