Moon Landings?
- Thread starter Star_One
- Start date
"The van Allen belts are regions above the Earth's surface where the Earth's magnetic field has trapped particles of the solar wind. An unprotected man would indeed get a lethal dose of radiation, if he stayed there long enough. Actually, the spaceship traveled through the belts pretty quickly, getting past them in an hour or so. There simply wasn't enough time to get a lethal dose, and, as a matter of fact, the metal hull of the spaceship did indeed block most of the radiation."
Philip Plait, works at the Sonoma State University in California. He used to work at the Goddard Space Flight Center at NASA. Ph.D. in Astronomy.
Philip Plait, works at the Sonoma State University in California. He used to work at the Goddard Space Flight Center at NASA. Ph.D. in Astronomy.
I'm with fluid on this one. Not sure whether NASA did go to the moon or not, but I personally feel that the footage released was quite possibly fake. Perhaps they made it to the moon but the comm links failed and they didn't want to look stupid so they released fake footage, or perhaps the real footage revealed things they deemed top secret (UFOs, alien structures, etc) or perhaps they didn't go at all and just wanted a psychological advantage during the cold war. There are just too many inconsistencies in the footage for questions not to be raised. Guess we'll find out soon enough tho...
Little things, not enough to make a solid case, but enough for questions to be asked. Such as...
- no impact crater around the moon lander
- no dust on the lander footings
- footage which was supposedly taken on different days in different places having identical landmarks
- when moon walk footage is sped up in appears as if it is someone walking in full gravity
Cmon, we've all seen that tv special "was the moon landing faked?"
But, I wasn't there, hell I wasn't even alive, so I've got no concrete way of knowing one way or the other. But I am open to the possibility that it was faked and can see possible motives for them faking it. I wish they'd just produce conclusive evidence one way or the other, so we can all put this tired old debate to rest.
- no impact crater around the moon lander
- no dust on the lander footings
- footage which was supposedly taken on different days in different places having identical landmarks
- when moon walk footage is sped up in appears as if it is someone walking in full gravity
Cmon, we've all seen that tv special "was the moon landing faked?"
But, I wasn't there, hell I wasn't even alive, so I've got no concrete way of knowing one way or the other. But I am open to the possibility that it was faked and can see possible motives for them faking it. I wish they'd just produce conclusive evidence one way or the other, so we can all put this tired old debate to rest.
Oh dear, look, for a thorough debunking of that crappy Tv prog, go to the 'bad astronomy' web page;
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html
and read.
Take a while to lookat the rest of the site while you're there, it's very good.
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html
and read.
Take a while to lookat the rest of the site while you're there, it's very good.
Before you post the link, read the 'Bad Astronomy' web page. You might feel foolish else.
Which bit of the site? Er, dunno, the bit about the Fox tv show and all it's silly accusations, for a start. I wonder if somebody linked to that already?
Then link the stuff about the training pics. One issue at a time, please.
Then link the stuff about the training pics. One issue at a time, please.
Phil Plait is the astronomer who made the BadAstronomy website that goes and denounces myths about space...
- no impact crater around the moon lander
Bad: In the pictures taken of the lunar lander by the astronauts, the TV show continues, there is no blast crater. A rocket capable of landing on the Moon should have burned out a huge crater on the surface, yet there is nothing there.
Good: 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.]
- no dust on the lander footings
No air on the moon. Only dust touched would be from the exhaust of the lander. Dust does not travel in a vaccuum and moon gravity like it does in air and earth's gravity.
- footage which was supposedly taken on different days in different places having identical landmarks
On the Earth, distant objects are obscured a bit by haze in the air, and we use that to mentally gauge distances. However, with no air, an object can be very far away on the Moon and still be crisp and sharp to the eye. You can't tell if a boulder is a meter across and 100 meters away, or 100 meters across and 10 kilometers away!
That's what's going on here. The lander is close to the astronaut in the first picture, perhaps a 20 or 30 meters away. The mountain is kilometers away. For the second picture, the astronaut merely moved a few hundred meters to the side. The lander was then out of the picture, but the mountain hardly moved at all! If you look at the scene carefully, you'll see that all the rocks and craters in the foreground changes between the two pictures, just as you'd expect if the astronaut had moved to the side a ways between the two shots. It's not fraud, it's parallax!
- when moon walk footage is sped up in appears as if it is someone walking in full gravity
If you watch the clip, you will see dust thrown up by the wheels of the rover. The dust goes up in a perfect parabolic arc and falls back down to the surface. Again, the Moon isn't the Earth! If this were filmed on the Earth, which has air, the dust would have billowed up around the wheel and floated over the surface. This clearly does not happen in the video clips; the dust goes up and right back down. It's actually a beautiful demonstration of ballistic flight in a vacuum. Had NASA faked this shot, they would have had to have a whole set (which would have been very large) with all the air removed. We don't have this technology today!
I hope that helped...
The biggest problem with the propagation of these bullshit ideas of not landing on the moon are largely based on the assumption that the moon has the same properties of the earth. The astronauts were not on earth. They were on the moon, and we can see that in the physics of motion in the videos and the physics of light and whatnot in the pictures.
It is all on badastronomy.com
- no impact crater around the moon lander
Bad: In the pictures taken of the lunar lander by the astronauts, the TV show continues, there is no blast crater. A rocket capable of landing on the Moon should have burned out a huge crater on the surface, yet there is nothing there.
Good: 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.]
- no dust on the lander footings
No air on the moon. Only dust touched would be from the exhaust of the lander. Dust does not travel in a vaccuum and moon gravity like it does in air and earth's gravity.
- footage which was supposedly taken on different days in different places having identical landmarks
On the Earth, distant objects are obscured a bit by haze in the air, and we use that to mentally gauge distances. However, with no air, an object can be very far away on the Moon and still be crisp and sharp to the eye. You can't tell if a boulder is a meter across and 100 meters away, or 100 meters across and 10 kilometers away!
That's what's going on here. The lander is close to the astronaut in the first picture, perhaps a 20 or 30 meters away. The mountain is kilometers away. For the second picture, the astronaut merely moved a few hundred meters to the side. The lander was then out of the picture, but the mountain hardly moved at all! If you look at the scene carefully, you'll see that all the rocks and craters in the foreground changes between the two pictures, just as you'd expect if the astronaut had moved to the side a ways between the two shots. It's not fraud, it's parallax!
- when moon walk footage is sped up in appears as if it is someone walking in full gravity
If you watch the clip, you will see dust thrown up by the wheels of the rover. The dust goes up in a perfect parabolic arc and falls back down to the surface. Again, the Moon isn't the Earth! If this were filmed on the Earth, which has air, the dust would have billowed up around the wheel and floated over the surface. This clearly does not happen in the video clips; the dust goes up and right back down. It's actually a beautiful demonstration of ballistic flight in a vacuum. Had NASA faked this shot, they would have had to have a whole set (which would have been very large) with all the air removed. We don't have this technology today!
I hope that helped...
The biggest problem with the propagation of these bullshit ideas of not landing on the moon are largely based on the assumption that the moon has the same properties of the earth. The astronauts were not on earth. They were on the moon, and we can see that in the physics of motion in the videos and the physics of light and whatnot in the pictures.
It is all on badastronomy.com
Well there you go. Everything thing is on that website. Unfortunetly you can't believe everything that's on tv or that you hear about. For instance there have been arguments that the Holocaust was fake and the 9/11 incident was a scam thought up by the U.S goverment as an excuse to go to war with Afghanistan
Read clavius.org in its entirety if you have any questions about the moon landings or would like to know the refutations to hoax believer gibberish.
The hoax theories have absolutely no grounding in reality, they're simply formulated for ignoramuses by ignoramuses.
The hoax theories have absolutely no grounding in reality, they're simply formulated for ignoramuses by ignoramuses.