Did We Really Go To The Moon

didn't apollo place mirrors on the lunar surface that reflect laser beams that are used to measure the changing distance between the earth and the moon? Even the russians dit the test so why does evreybody who bothered at least reckognise that their is a prism outh there?http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/Mirrors.htm

to me that is at least some proof, that the people who where so smart to loose their original tapes made it there, then their is offcourse the large amount of lunar soil, that is quit unique because it settled in a vacuum under 1/7 gravity.
Then their are the parts of the surveyor 3 lander that they brought back

Oh yeah then their where the landers from apollo 12,14,15,16,17 that where deliberately crashed into moon, perhaps their is some visual record of that.

Further proof is going to be a little bit difficult for the moment
 
Look at this nice foot print in the dusty area
69HC687.GIF



The best part is that its adjacent to the crater that failed to exist
as11-40-5921-small.jpg



Getting the picture ?
missing-crater01.jpg
 
wouldn't it have been nice if the first boot had something nice on the sole. Like a NASA logo printed, or a nike sign. Instead we got yust horizontale lines, NASA could have done better
 
I think photographs taken from a verifiable off-moon source would silence the 'unbelievers.'.
 
The reason there was no crater under the LEM: (courtesy of badastronomy)
When someone driving a car pulls into a parking spot, do they do it at 100 kilometers per hour? Of course not. They slow down first, easing off the accelerator. The astronauts did the same thing. Sure, the rocket on the lander was capable of 10,000 pounds of thrust, but they had a throttle. They fired the rocket hard to deorbit and slow enough to land on the Moon, but they didn't need to thrust that hard as they approached the lunar surface; they throttled down to about 3000 pounds of thrust.

Now here comes a little bit of math: the engine nozzle was about 54 inches across (from the Encyclopaedia Astronautica), which means it had an area of 2300 square inches. That in turn means that the thrust generated a pressure of only about 1.5 pounds per square inch! That's not a lot of pressure. Moreover, in a vacuum, the exhaust from a rocket spreads out very rapidly. On Earth, the air in our atmosphere constrains the thrust of a rocket into a narrow column, which is why you get long flames and columns of smoke from the back of a rocket. In a vacuum, no air means the exhaust spreads out even more, lowering the pressure. That's why there's no blast crater! Three thousand pounds of thrust sounds like a lot, but it was so spread out it was actually rather gentle.

[Note added December 6, 2001: Originally in this section I said that the engines also cut off early, before the moment of touchdown, to prevent dust from getting blown around and disturbing the astronauts' view of the surface. This was an incorrect assertion; it was known that dust would blow around before the missions were launched, and steps were taken to make sure the astronauts knew their height above the surface. Anyway, the incorrect section has been removed.
Click to expand...
 
Man, this is an ancient thread. I was gonna say, "Dude, thread necromancy to the extreme!", but then I checked the time stamps and saw that this thread has been active on and off since it was made. So this thread is effectively on-going. Perhaps notable.

As for the content: Yes, any buffoon knows that we certainly did go to the Moon.
 
..and just one 'off-moon' photograph of the artifacts/ecofacts would provide conclusive proof and silence most of the doubters.
 
Some conspiracy theorists would rather claim that the landers were sent after the "faked" moon landings, or that the new photo was doctored. Anything rather than renounce their beliefs.
 
Singularity said:
Look at this nice foot print in the dusty area
69HC687.GIF



The best part is that its adjacent to the crater that failed to exist
as11-40-5921-small.jpg



Getting the picture ?
missing-crater01.jpg
Click to expand...

What really gets me about this argument (And others like them) is that it assumes stupidity on the part of NASA. Don't you think that if they were going to fake it, and that there should have been a blast crater, that they would have just faked one? Details like that would just not have been missed, after all they wouldn't have been just try to pull the wool over the eyes of the public, but the entire world's scientific community. Specifically the USSR, who's government would haved just loved to have been able to produce any evidence that U.S. did not actually land on the moon.

I think that a lot of these people who come up with these hoax arguments simply suffer from a "Look how clever I am." complex.
 
Janus58 said:
...

I think that a lot of these people who come up with these hoax arguments simply suffer from a "Look how clever I am." complex.
Click to expand...


Wow after giving the proof, Morons from USA are cribbing and moaning over their dumbness.

Instead of making personal attacks what else is there now left for u to do since u cant unprove the facts, u see.
 
Singularity said:
Wow after giving the proof, Morons from USA are cribbing and moaning over their dumbness.

Instead of making personal attacks what else is there now left for u to do since u cant unprove the facts, u see.
Click to expand...
Actually, I posted a rebuttal of your "no crater" hypothesis. What do you have to say about that?
 
Singularity said:
Wow after giving the proof, Morons from USA are cribbing and moaning over their dumbness.

Instead of making personal attacks what else is there now left for u to do since u cant unprove the facts, u see.
Click to expand...

You haven't produced anything to unprove. All you've done is display some photos that do not show a blast crater. What you haven't done is proved that there should have been one.
 
yust wondering but how dit they make that second picture of the first boot, was there a camera outisede or did aldrind had a camera on a stick to make that picture?
 
Janus58 said:
You haven't produced anything to unprove. All you've done is display some photos that do not show a blast crater. What you haven't done is proved that there should have been one.
Click to expand...


Its so simple, the dust is where Neal Armstrong first set his foot. He jumped from the lander to set this footprint, so its adjacent to the lander, which means if not a crater then there should have been atleast a dent of some sort with blown off dust marks below it. If there are no marks then all the dust should had been blown off with nothing left to make that footprint. But the footprint was too important for American pride, hence they goofed up here in creation of the hoax as things got complicated here.

I had quite a respect for Janus58 but seems like this is too much for her to handle. It seems she thinks this is seemingly impossible. How can few bunch of jerks take whole world for a ride. But live with it they did and u r helping them (without a pay) to keep it that way.
 
Remember when Neil Armstrong set his first foot.

Well its was not first foot at all, it were first feet, as he had jumped down as if he could not wait to set his foot through the thick space suit.

Now why cant we see the other foot print in the picture ?

69HC687.GIF


PS> Guess who was doing the video shooting of all this from outside the lander, hheehehehheehe.
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqC9BXSpuNM
Aldrin_near_Module_leg.jpg

Neil stood on a small platform at the bothem of the lander ladder and then made the step (the one on the platform didn't count), like you can see on the foto their are many steps who knows witch one is the first anyway.

Now look verry wel to the michelin man, notice the my former stupid remark over the schape of the shoe, notice their isn't a single difference in suit color that would have helped the audiance to distinguish the 2 astronauts (granted black white TV's but it would have helped during the dressing.
My conclusion NASA didn't bothers with the details of appearance in the least Not that strange for scientists but for movie directors?
Annyway theirs also the monney and such enof evidence that what happened did happened

altough I wonder who made the bloody movie from the outside??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top