PDA

View Full Version : Did Man actually land on the moon?


Pages : [1] 2

pilot_wood
18th Dec 2008, 16:42
There are so many conspiracy theories about the lunar landing.

points such as;
* no stars in the mood images
* no dust form propulsion units
* flag issues
* lighting issues
* Foot prints too deep
* Camera tricks.....

etc etc, Does anyone have any detail or thoughts about anything on the subject?
:=

Rainboe
18th Dec 2008, 16:45
Only that you must be a total idiot and conspiracy theorist. It's a mental illness you know, believing all this conspiracy crap. Give it a rest and have an early night.

seekayess
18th Dec 2008, 16:54
You may have a point there, actually!



But then, I guess, so do all those guys who tell me that there was no holocaust and the 9/11, in any case, was a CIA botched up action!



Who to believe, in this big bad world!!



:}

Matari
18th Dec 2008, 16:57
I heard it was done with conveyor belts, launched by an airship filled with cats...

Lost man standing
18th Dec 2008, 16:58
Did Man actually land on the moon?Yes.

Simple answer, too short for this forum.

Solid Rust Twotter
18th Dec 2008, 16:59
Pah! Amateurs....

If you want real window licking, carpet chewing tinfoil hat wearers check out the chemtrails sites.:E

seekayess
18th Dec 2008, 16:59
There were some mirrors involved, too . . . . .



And an appropriate smokescreen . . . .

Launchpad McQuack
18th Dec 2008, 17:00
I was part of an informal group that met Dr. Buzz Aldrin once...another attendee put it to him as the man who was there, was it faked and if not how could it be proven? Dr. Aldrin didn't flinch...he went on to explain that he could offer many explanations to back up the landing...

But the simplest and most convincing explanation in his own personal opinion was that the Russians had tracked them all the way to the moon and back - thus had it been staged as the conspircy theorists surmise, the Russians would have blown NASA's cover and told the world it was fake.

If I remember correctly, he also offered sensible and plausible explanations for the usual excuses used by sceptics "no wind/flag rigid/alternating shadows/doctored photos" etc...

LP

brickhistory
18th Dec 2008, 17:00
Nope, nobody named Man has set foot on the moon.






Some of the names include Armstrong, Aldrin, Conrad, etc, etc, but no Man's.

Mac the Knife
18th Dec 2008, 17:21
As I remember, Buzz Aldrin punched the moron on the nose..

"Please do not ask for credit as a smack in the chops may offend..."

:ok:

mr fish
18th Dec 2008, 17:42
oh for god sake, its pretty simple really- there are no stars visible in the photos for the simple reason that they were taken in DAYLIGHT.
get yourself a fully manual camera and try to take a star shot with the sun up.
sunlight is the same on earth AND the moon but we have an atmosphere to scatter it.
of course one could always ask BUZZ or NEIL but i understand NEIL has took to punching folk who put the question to him lately!!!

Brian Dixon
18th Dec 2008, 18:09
Hope this settles any argument:
YouTube - Proof of moon landing hoax! (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=mouUUWpEec0&feature=related)

:}

ArthurR
18th Dec 2008, 18:45
Brian Dixon, you now owe me for cleaning all the beer i have just spluttered all over my screen.:ok::ok::ok:

But every ex-Thumraity knows they never landed on the moon, it was Thumrait in Oman, and then they spent the rest of the time in the welly bar.:E:E

OFSO
18th Dec 2008, 18:50
I worked as a staff member for ESA from 1968 - 1993. There were a number of joint ESA/NASA projects during that time which brought us into close contact on different levels of engineering and management.

I heard an awful lot of interesting things but never, never did I hear that the moon landings were faked - and believe me, with enough technicians and engineers in close contact, I would have.

Add to that the photographic, scientific, engineering and fiscal evidence, top it off with a smattering of Soviet monitoring and it's quite clear: the moon landings were not faked.

RaF

StaceyF
18th Dec 2008, 19:00
No, we've never set foot there.

And, no, I'm not a conspiracy theorist just a realist; the technology to do so isn't available in 2008, let alone 39 years ago.

Kennedy sort of nailed the USA's trousers to the mast when he made his promise in 1961 so their hands were tied.......

brickhistory
18th Dec 2008, 19:02
But if you state that then you must be 'in on it' and therefore untrustworthy.

Only if you are a true believer in the uncompromising belief that governments can pull off elaborate scams and keep them so for decades are you not part of the conspiracy.

Otherwise, you are 'one of them.'

tony draper
18th Dec 2008, 19:06
Hmmm,faking it once? possible, but I doubt it,to many people in the loop,probably cheaper to do it than fake it, but faking it six times? total feckwittery,daftest conspiracy theory out there, and there are many daft conspiracies theory out there,
:)

brickhistory
18th Dec 2008, 19:18
but faking it six times?


Surely you've been married, Mr. Draper?

Parapunter
18th Dec 2008, 19:18
I read me Moondust this year. A real right stuff of a read. The best rebuttal of the didn't go nutters comes from Jim Lovell - Why would we go to all the trouble, the expense, the effort, the training, the construction, the heartache, to fake it?

http://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/169054-sticky-subjects-links-officially-banned-jetblast-merged.html

henry crun
18th Dec 2008, 19:34
brick: :D:D:D

None of the above
18th Dec 2008, 19:40
Never mind all this nonsense; it's just coming up to the fortieth anniversary of the Apollo 8 mission and it seems as if it will pass unnoticed.

I was no'but a lad at the time and was transfixed by the historic flight.
Some poor confused child was under the impression that the flight was commanded by 'Colonel Martin Bormann'.**

Apollo 8 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_8)

N o t a

** For those disinclined to look at the link, P1 was Colonel Frank Borman.

fireflybob
18th Dec 2008, 19:52
I think this probably gives a fairly definitive answer!

Buzz Aldrin punches guy in the face (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=mQKxAqpjroo)

Good for him I say!

Jetex Jim
18th Dec 2008, 21:46
Yes it was faked, but the really convincing bit was cancelling the last three planned (faked) landings because they were going to be too expensive.

Now that was clever.

ehwatezedoing
18th Dec 2008, 21:46
Some reading for you pilot wood:

Redzero's Moonhoax - How Apollo moon landings really happened (http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/)
This web site examines the theories that suggest the NASA Apollo moon landings were faked. It hopes to prove, without any doubt, that these theories are wrong and a combination of a poor understanding of basic science and a desire to make a fast buck.


:hmm:

And this
Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy: Bad TV (http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html)

And....this
http://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/355128-did-man-actually-land-moon-2.html#post4599636

:E

bugg smasher
18th Dec 2008, 22:28
The real question here is, does the moon actually exist, or is it a Spielberg hologram projected into the night skies for the sole profiteering purposes of disseminating Hollywood fantasies...

PS Had the singular honor of meeting Buzz Aldrin once, I consider that event as one of the most memorable in my aviation career.

Wod
18th Dec 2008, 22:35
Don't know about Man on the moon, but I seem to recall that both Wile E Coyote and Sylvester cat have been there a few times.
(Must be true - it was on telly):E

Pappa Smurf
18th Dec 2008, 22:37
Only thing got me thinking ,is how did the camera get out some distance away from the craft.Damned if i can see an arm extending out.
Unless the 1st man on the moon was really the 2nd,as someone else got out first to put the camera in place.

mr fish
18th Dec 2008, 22:46
on a more serious note it seems to me the best reason for a RETURN to the moon is to finally shut down these f:mad:kwit flat earthers.
while i fully understand the tendency to take the piss when replying to these sorts of threads, i also think we have a duty (ohh, get me!!) to challenge the bad science with a few choice "facts"
its a few small step to the "six million jews, and they walked to their deaths?, i don't believe you brigade"!!!

Flying Lawyer
18th Dec 2008, 22:47
The man in the video posted by fireflybob has made a career out of claiming NASA faked the landing/stalking the astronauts.

He eventually provoked a response from Buzz Aldrin - although probably not one he expected. (Aldrin is a very committed Christian.)

He took the video footage to the police but the LA County DA declined to file charges. Odd that.

"Good for him I say!"
I couldn't possibly comment. ;)

FL

rotornut
18th Dec 2008, 23:03
YouTube - The man in the moon is a Newfie (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD1XhvT9gRc)

BlueDiamond
18th Dec 2008, 23:09
And, no, I'm not a conspiracy theorist just a realist; the technology to do so isn't available in 2008, let alone 39 years ago.Then who left the lunar lase r ranging retroreflector arrays there that many countries use in experiments/calculations? Must have been the fecking fairies who left all the stuff there as a prezzie for us, stacey.

Note that I said many countries (including Australia, France Germany ...). Now you know as well as I do that there are people all over the world who will never find a good word to say about Americans. What a gift that would be for every one of them, to find out that man had never landed on the moon. Problem is, those people would then be left in the embarrassing position of trying to explain all the stuff that was left there that we've been using for the last forty years. "We", as in "Worldwide" not "We" as in "NASA only.

So, stacey ... money where your mouth is, please ... how did the retroreflectors get set up on the moon?

Keef
18th Dec 2008, 23:11
Where else would all the green cheese have come from but those cheese mines on the moon! :rolleyes:

It worries me that apparently intelligent people can get so fixated on conspiracy theories that they ignore the evidence, fingers in ears, shouting la-la-la. As for holocaust denial ... words fail me :mad:

shedhead
18th Dec 2008, 23:16
As for holocaust denial ... words fail me
They don't fail me, they just can't be said in a polite conversation!

BlooMoo
18th Dec 2008, 23:25
Yes it was faked, but the really convincing bit was cancelling the last three planned (faked) landings because they were going to be too expensive.

I agree Jetex, that was/is very clever. What seems to this day extra clever though is that (decades ago) realizing the potential for future scepticism, to have planted a number a 'sleepers' throughout society to promote that point in an innocuous but ironic fashion in various media outlets (however they were imagined to be from back in the 60s) such that future generations would be inclined to dismiss the evidence as just fantastic conspiracy speculation.

bugg smasher
18th Dec 2008, 23:35
He took the video footage to the police but the LA County DA declined to file charges. Odd that. Buzz is considered by most Americans as a living national treasure, and rightly so, he represents much of what most of us here can only hope to aspire to. As one of the more senior and respected of posters on this board, Flying Lawyer, I thank you for your comments. In the American way of things, there exists the seedier side of lawyerly pursuits, not anything new to you, I am certain.

On these hallowed grounds, however, even they dare not tread, perhaps there is hope after all.

henry crun
18th Dec 2008, 23:37
Conspiracy nutters turn away NOW, do NOT read the following post.







On this day in 1972 Apollo 17 arrived back on earth, and ended that sequence of manned moon exploration.

Wod
18th Dec 2008, 23:38
while i fully understand the tendency to take the piss when replying to these sorts of threads, i also think we have a duty (ohh, get me!!) to challenge the bad science with a few choice "facts"



I think they should also be challenged on a reality check basis.

QF and BA couldn't keep preliminary discussions secret; there are self-serving or malicious leaks out of most governments; the US (as has already been said) has enough enemies or rivals to expose any significant lie; and yet the conspiracists believe this stuff can be successfully covered up for decades.

There is no conspiracy people!! Lee Oswald acted alone and man walked on the moon: it is the conspiracy that is unbelievable because it defies not only the evidence, but also common sense.

StbdD
18th Dec 2008, 23:48
What an original thread topic. Amazing it has never come up here before.

Oh, wait.....

http://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/91035-did-man-ever-land-moon.html

http://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/71365-nasa-commissions-book-prove-moon-landings-real.html

http://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/66504-conspiracy-theorists-beware.html

http://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/65100-conspiracy-theories.html

http://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/12181-lunar-lander.html

http://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/12172-moon-landings-hoax-jeremy-clarkson.html

http://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/261579-ultimate-flying-question.html

http://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/225711-did-they-land-moon.html

con-pilot
18th Dec 2008, 23:52
No, we've never set foot there.


Prove it. Find one person, just one person that was in on the hoax. Now, you have a lot of candidates to pick from, somewhere in the area of 10,000 people were involved in the Apollo missions.

Out of those 10,000 people find one that can prove it was a hoax.


(Shoot, a President can't even keep a BJ in the Oval Office a secret and you think that 10,000+ government employees can keep a secret of this magnitude? :D:D:D)

mcgoo
19th Dec 2008, 00:07
I think the odds are better than that Con, a recent show on Discovery had the Apollo personnel at nearly 400,000 at it's peak.

con-pilot
19th Dec 2008, 00:20
I think the odds are better than that Con, a recent show on Discovery had the Apollo personnel at nearly 400,000 at it's peak.

Oh, well that explains it then, it is much easier for 400,000 people to keep the secret that the moon landings were a hoax than 10,000 people. :p

V2-OMG!
19th Dec 2008, 05:44
Every discussion forum has a "conspiracy of the week."

If it was a hoax, why did they feel a need to repeat it X6?

The lunar landing was the signature event of the 20th century, yet every anniversary rolls around with nary a glance skyward.

Gordy
19th Dec 2008, 05:59
This thread is so comical, I just could not resist:

http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j35/helokat/funnies/01010001020001040120070927b4ae29513.jpg

Blacksheep
19th Dec 2008, 08:05
The lunar landing was the signature event of the 20th centuryWW2 might arguably have that distinction, but there's been a few other significant events such as the discovery of antibiotics.

This being an aviation forum however, my vote goes to Orville and Wilbur's first tentative wobbles into the sky at Kill Devil Hills.

indiscipline_girl
19th Dec 2008, 09:35
Absolute conclusive proof. How else could we have obtained this footage?

YouTube - The Clangers - Music (http://hk.youtube.com/watch?v=i3rWghGSm4Y&feature=related)

sitigeltfel
19th Dec 2008, 13:01
Pah........everbody knows Rammstein got there first

YouTube - Rammstein-Amerika (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=4w9EksAo5hY)

Cheerio
19th Dec 2008, 13:14
I have a theory about this.

It was the truly great moment of the age.

Until something comes along surpass it, those who were not of its time sort of block it from their minds. Look kids, dad did something better than you! Ahahahahaha! He wasn't just a comical graduation photo on grannys mantlepiece. He was part of something you weren't!

My kids peers have had serious debates in class about this rubbish, and I would say that wrapped up in their naive little worlds the idea that this might have happened is too much for their small minded egos to handle.

Get over it kids, and do something better. Then you will accept it as fact.

ford cortina
19th Dec 2008, 13:23
Utter utter tripe, I met Eugene Cernan a few years ago at the cape, last man on the moon, so far. Better than Ace Rimmer, really.:ok:

ArthurR
19th Dec 2008, 13:31
Pappa Smurf

"Only thing got me thinking ,is how did the camera get out some distance away from the craft.Damned if i can see an arm extending out.
Unless the 1st man on the moon was really the 2nd,as someone else got out first to put the camera in place."


Everybody knows that the camera was left there by Hitler when he flew by Lancaster....It was in the "Daily Liar" in the 80's a few days before the London bus was found on an iceberg, so there it must be true

indiscipline_girl
19th Dec 2008, 13:44
To put the matter beyond doubt, I have seen Thunderbirds (are go!)

And they were named after mercury seven astronauts Scott Carpenter, Virgil Grissom, Alan Shepard, Gordon Cooper and John Glenn.

Focks 2
19th Dec 2008, 13:55
And, no, I'm not a conspiracy theorist just a realist; the technology to do so isn't available in 2008, let alone 39 years ago.

What 'technology' would that be then? Please please respond.

dazdaz
19th Dec 2008, 14:42
""Only thing got me thinking ,is how did the camera get out some distance away from the craft"

I recall reading this question on the web. Apparently the camera that filmed Armstrong climbing down the ladder was fixed to the landing leg of the craft.

That's what they tell us.So must be true.

Flying Lawyer
19th Dec 2008, 16:13
bugg smasher

I agree the DA made the only sensible decision.

Was it in the public interest to prosecute Aldrin? http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v140/Rotorheads/smiley_ROFLMAO.gif
What were the chances of him being convicted of an assault given the circumstances? http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v140/Rotorheads/smiley_ROFLMAO.gif

PS Had the singular honor of meeting Buzz Aldrin once, I consider that event as one of the most memorable in my aviation career.
I share your (and most of America's) view of Buzz Aldrin. I met him at a party some years ago, although 'met' is about it - there was no opportunity for a proper conversation because of the pressure (literally) of other people also wanting to shake his hand.

I had a better opportunity with Neil Armstrong when he came to London for a Guild of Air Pilots dinner a couple of years ago.
See this thread which describes British aviators' reaction to meeting him and, in some cases, to just being in the same room as him : Neil Armstrong (http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/249880-last-night-i-met-neil-armstrong-now-incl-pictures.html)
The first photo in post #20 is one I treasure.

Another interesting thread here, although about a different aspect of the space programme - One small step (http://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/246263-one-small-step.html)
It was a good discussion.

FL

StaceyF
19th Dec 2008, 17:42
So, stacey ... money where your mouth is, please ... how did the retroreflectors get set up on the moon?

Some of the several, unmanned robotic craft that landed there in the 1960's. Jeez, that was a real half-volley.

Prove it.

Behave, everyone knows you can't prove a negative.

What 'technology' would that be then?

Well, obviously the technology that wasn't available 39 years ago? If we can't replicate something we allegedly did 39 years ago (and that's been admitted by the US Government btw) then that alone should tell you all you need to know.

El Grifo
19th Dec 2008, 18:24
I recall reading this question on the web. Apparently the camera that filmed Armstrong climbing down the ladder was fixed to the landing leg of the craft


Whilst not part of the "fake moon landings" lobby, I often wonder about the zoom, tilt, tracking and eventual recovery of the lander take-off footage :ooh:

tony draper
19th Dec 2008, 18:36
Pan tilt and zoom was worked from mission control in Huston,only difficulty would be compensating for the time lag betwixt input and actuation.
:)

El Grifo
19th Dec 2008, 18:41
The "difficulty" would indeed be difficult drapesy.


How could they circumvent that problem.

tony draper
19th Dec 2008, 18:52
It would not be difficult to dummy a few seconds delay on Earth and train someone, a good CCTV controller can follow a sparrow flying through a city center, they knew the exact second the ascent module would lift off,from what I recall of the clip it zooms out from close up to wide angle at lift off and follows it up,that would not involve any large control inputs, incidentely on the first two moon shots the camera's were fixed wide angle tube jobs fixed to the side of the LEM,state of the art at the time but not very good in the lunar light conditions,they had to be unshipped from a folded position on the LEM that was the first job for the first bloke out,think it was Al Shepard who balls it up he inadvertently pointed it at the Sun so there was no CCTV pictures from Apollo 12,the later Cameras were much better fixed to the moon buggy and controlled from Earth.
:)

El Grifo
19th Dec 2008, 18:55
Fair do's !!


Must check it out again to see exactly how it unfolds.

M.Mouse
19th Dec 2008, 19:22
Some people believe the moon landings were fake.

Are these the same people who believe that WWF wrestling is real?



For those who have not watched it the film (available on DVD) called 'In the Shadow of the Moon' is riveting. As well as the main film the 'extras' section contains about 60 minutes of equally fascinating unused footage and also about 15 minutes about the making of the soundtrack.

stevef
19th Dec 2008, 19:25
Quote: Well, obviously the technology that wasn't available 39 years ago? If we can't replicate something we allegedly did 39 years ago (and that's been admitted by the US Government btw) then that alone should tell you all you need to know.

Ahem... I suppose NASA's Mars Phoenix Lander footage is rigged as well, then? If you can't send men to a satellite a quarter of a million miles away, there's not much chance of putting something down on a planet 36 million miles distant...

Say again s l o w l y
19th Dec 2008, 19:26
http://cr4.globalspec.com/PostImages/200709/TinFoil_DB52B2F1-0E7F-A983-F0F9D799A20B06C8.jpg

Krystal n chips
19th Dec 2008, 19:50
Actually, the conspiracy theorists are correct.....man has never landed on the Moon...it wuz the lunar lander wot landed on the Moon....man just got orff when it did so.......so that's sorted that then..... once and for all ! :E

tony draper
19th Dec 2008, 19:50
Of course the technology existed then,it's not rocket science yer know.:rolleyes:

Parapunter
19th Dec 2008, 20:45
You're looking good SAS. Nice pussy by the way.

Focks 2
19th Dec 2008, 22:59
Well, obviously the technology that wasn't available 39 years ago?

But what technology are you referring to? What super advanced gizmodetry do you believe is required to land on the moon?

If we can't replicate something we allegedly did 39 years ago (and that's been admitted by the US Government btw) then that alone should tell you all you need to know.

But I see technology that is far far beyond what is required for a moon landing every single day! Just because a peice of equipment isn't sitting in stores ready to go doesn't mean it can't exist. I doubt you'd find a wooden wheel for a horse drawn cart for sale anywhere in the country or anyone who could make one. We would have to design and manufacture one from scratch would we not?

I wonder why the Russians didn't jump up and down shouting "fake" when they were desperate for the US to fail. :hmm:

wiggy
20th Dec 2008, 00:02
Oh Lord I go away on a course and this kicks off.....as someone who was awake at 3'ish in the morning UK time on July 21st 1969 I'll add.....

Part of the problem is various documentaries have cobbled together footage from all the landings in order to make the 11 story more "sexy", and as a result have already blurred the historical record.

FWIW:

There are two souces of Armstrong's "one small step" ...Either seen from the POV of the TV , camera, which was transmitting direct to Earth. (This was the camera which was mounted adjacent to the ladder), or there's the poor quality time lapse footage from a camera mounted behind the LM pilots window........ that's it...that's all there is.......

Any external footage of the LM Ascent stage lifting off is of Apollos 15-17 (Where the Lunar Rover carried a camera) .There is absolutely no external footage of the Apollo 11 LM ( Eagle) lift-off from the Lunar surface .. there is however internal footage from Apollo 11, the LM pilots window.

Anyone old enough to have flown American aviation hardware from the 50- 60s has probably flown Apollo derivative hardware....

The fact that later generations haven't got the **** or the money to go to the Moon didn't mean it didn't happen in 1969.....

BlueDiamond
20th Dec 2008, 00:38
Some of the several, unmanned robotic craft that landed there in the 1960's.There weren't any, Stacey. the only unmanned craft that went to the moon were those of the Surveyor series and there were seven of these between 1966 and 1968. The second one crashed, contact was lost with the fourth and the remaining five carried only a television camera. Surveyors 3 and 7 carried a soil sampler scoop (on motor-driven extendable arms) and 5, 6 and 7 carried an alpha scattering instrument for chemical analysis of the lunar material.. There was nothing on any of those craft capable of assembling a retroreflector array.

The first robotic or automated piece of equipment to be set down on the moon was the Lunokhod 1 on November 1970 ... which as I'm sure you will be able to work out for yourself was sixteen months after Armstrong and co. landed there.

Two's in
20th Dec 2008, 00:40
it seems to me the best reason for a RETURN to the moon is to finally shut down these fkwit flat earthers.

Sadly not the case Mr fish, if it wasn't the moon landings it would be the next piece of nonsense that these severely unhinged individuals cling to. It is not fair to mock, it is a very serious illness that can only be treated with medication; logic and truth only fuel the flames of delusion.

AMF
20th Dec 2008, 03:12
StaceyF Quote:

If we can't replicate something we allegedly did 39 years ago (and that's been admitted by the US Government btw) then that alone should tell you all you need to know.

There's also no steel manufacturer in the U.S. today that can replicate/produce the barrels for the 16-inch guns found on WW2-era North Carolina and Iowa class battleships.

Therefore, the footage you see of naval shore bombardments softening up enemy positions with those alleged guns must have been faked, most likely for propoganda purposes....just like the moon landings.

:rolleyes:

Fruity Tones
20th Dec 2008, 03:54
Incidentally, while everyone is familiar with "that's one small step for man", what were the final words (up until now) spoken on the moon?

Fruity was once told, possibly inaccurately, that they were Eugene Cernan's equally immortal "okay, let's get this mother out of here."

V2-OMG!
20th Dec 2008, 05:16
This being an aviation forum however, my vote goes to Orville and Wilbur's first tentative wobbles into the sky at Kill Devil Hills.

blacksheep, it is ironic that you would think of that as one of the signature events of the 20th century. Charlie Duke, one of Apollo's astronauts, who was featured in a great documentary called "In the Shadow of the Moon," reiterated the enormity of the moon landing -something that was accomplished within a lifetime: "My father was born shortly after the Wright Brothers. He could barely believe that I went to the Moon."

The determination of what one would consider the "signature event of the 20th century" is subjective, of course. WW2, the discovery of flight, antibiotics - they are all significant.

I consider man's conquest of the moon as part of a bigger picture. It was a moment in time when the entire world looked up, literally and figuratively. And when that glorious Earth rise shot was beamed back to us - seeing that blue green orb suspended in the nothingness of space
awakened us to the fragility of our ecology - and ultimately humanity.

Perhaps Jim Lovell said it best: "We learned a lot about the Moon, but what we really learned was about the Earth. The fact that just from the distance of the Moon, you can put your thumb up, and you can hide the Earth behind your thumb. Everything that you have ever known, your loved ones, your business, the problems of the Earth itself, all behind your thumb. And how insignificant we really all are. But then how fortunate we are to have this body, and to be able to enjoy living here amongst the beauty of the Earth itself."

Flap 5
20th Dec 2008, 08:45
They also always insist that Neil's second line was: "One giant leap for mankind". When ever I hear it to me it sounds like: "One vast leap for mankind". Maybe it's the accent. Or maybe some PR guy decided that giant sounded better than vast and substituted it. It is a bit muffled after all.

fireflybob
20th Dec 2008, 09:01
And wasnt it meant to be "One small step for A man....etc" but it came out as "One small step for man...etc" - if it have been faked surely they would have done "Take 2"?

Flying Lawyer
20th Dec 2008, 09:26
fireflybob

Good point. :)


BTW, 37 years later, scientists using improved sound analysis technology showed that Armstrong did (as he meant to, and thought he had) say: 'One small step for a man .........' which makes more sense.

First words on the moon (http://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/246263-one-small-step.html)


If it happened today, I suppose the second part of the statement would have to be '......... one giant leap for personkind.'


FL

Flying Lawyer
20th Dec 2008, 12:13
Basil and then there was the vexicological dimension

Oh no. :eek:;)
There was indeed, but don't start the conspiracy theorists off on that one.

Even if the scientific explanation is posted, they'll say it's all part of the big conspiracy. :ugh:

fireflybob
20th Dec 2008, 13:35
Yes, Basil, I am beginning to flag too! Not been doing any quizzes lately have you?

mr fish
20th Dec 2008, 13:59
the "one small step" speech was not the first set of words spoken on the moon.
the first words spoken were "engine off-master arm off".
to quote VIZ magazine, do i win £5???

tony draper
20th Dec 2008, 15:00
By a spooky coincidence ,tonight 9pm MORE4,In The Shadow Of The Moon.
:uhoh:

Gainesy
20th Dec 2008, 15:11
Nah, first words were: "Contact Light, Main engine shut off".:ok:

G-CPTN
20th Dec 2008, 16:01
Aluminium is one of the materials that requires huge quantities of energy to produce from the raw state.

SilsoeSid
20th Dec 2008, 16:29
The question shouldn't be 'Did Man actually land on the moon?', but which Apollo mission was the first to actually get there?

To be 'the first' was NASAs and the US Nations primary goal, come hell, high water or skulldugery, to beat those pesky ruskies.

Could they keep it secret with so many people working for the different agencies?
It worked with The Manhattan Project !

:suspect:
SS

StaceyF
20th Dec 2008, 16:29
There's also no steel manufacturer in the U.S. today that can replicate/produce the barrels for the 16-inch guns found on WW2-era North Carolina and Iowa class battleships.

Therefore, the footage you see of naval shore bombardments softening up enemy positions with those alleged guns must have been faked, most likely for propoganda purposes....just like the moon landings.

:rolleyes:

One day, maybe, several generations from now, your post will be funny and those reading it will be able to laugh about it.

But today is not that day.

I imagine that you must be very proud of yourself?

Did you by any chance have some sort of sugar-based cereal for breakfast? With full-fat milk?

Now get back under your bridge or I'll fetch the hose. And neither of us wants that, now, do we?

Windy Militant
20th Dec 2008, 16:57
Um does that mean Concorde was all done by by CGI as well?
As for the technology not existing what's that bloody great thing stood outside the Kennedy Space Centre? Oofle Dust!
Any thing built by man can be rebuilt, look at all the Spitfires now flying.
All that's needed is time, money and inclination, look at the guys who built an LNER A1 Pacific recently.
Perhaps that's what we need to do, start an appeal, send in the price of a pint and build a new Saturn 5!
Still what do you expect from a generation who think Star Trek is real and the Moon landings are fake. We're doomed, I tell you, doomed! :ugh:

BombayDuck
20th Dec 2008, 17:32
Now Andy did you hear about this one?

throw a dyce
20th Dec 2008, 18:00
Some nice photos here.The Project Apollo Archive (http://www.apolloarchive.com) Click on Apollo gallery.Looks like they went alright.:)

Parapunter
20th Dec 2008, 19:32
Good one BD. In fact, very good one.:D

ArthurR
20th Dec 2008, 20:00
Just found this, answers all the questions, no doubt about it,

YouTube - Spike Milligan - First Irish Rocket To The Moon (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nfz9O_mSY1U&NR=1)

tony draper
20th Dec 2008, 21:18
Hmmm, watching that Shadow of the Moon,just realised it is 40 years ago next week since man first went to the Moon,and what do we make a fuss and broohaha about now? some empty headed plastic chav arse winning X factor or a couple of tossers from the meeja winning come bloody dancing,what a shallow vapid silly empty headed easily satisfied unchallenged society we have become.
:(

G-CPTN
20th Dec 2008, 21:27
It's also 20 years since 'Lockerbie' Pan Am Flight 103 . . .

lexxity
20th Dec 2008, 21:47
The Lockerbie anniversary is tomorrow.

Parapunter
20th Dec 2008, 22:05
By the time of the third Apollo launch, people were complaining that the networks were cancelling repeats of Rowan & Martin's laugh in. Until...


Technology may have marched on Mr. D, human nature is no different.

OFSO
21st Dec 2008, 09:54
Hey SAS, neat metal toupé ! Did you make it yourself or buy it on amazon ? Dos it ward off flying shoes ?

RaF

BlueDiamond
21st Dec 2008, 12:03
... a generation who think Star Trek is real...
Err ... are you suggesting that it is not? :uhoh:

AMF
21st Dec 2008, 12:49
StaceyF Quote:
One day, maybe, several generations from now, your post will be funny and those reading it will be able to laugh about it.

But today is not that day.

I imagine that you must be very proud of yourself?

Did you by any chance have some sort of sugar-based cereal for breakfast? With full-fat milk?

Now get back under your bridge or I'll fetch the hose. And neither of us wants that, now, do we?

Wasn't meant to be funny, sonny boy. Was meant to point out that your premise that "we can't build it today so therefore it must have never happened then" is not only flawed (because if they elected to spend the money on that mission they could in fact do it...again), but enters into the realm of the Asinine when this common fact of manufacturing (not being able to re-produce special purpose technology...even if it's obsolete.. at the drop of a hat) is used as "proof".

Get your hose, turn it on yourself, and try to come up with something....anything...that would support your contention. Otherwise, you're quite simply, like the conspiracy websites you peruse, boring.

BlueDiamond
21st Dec 2008, 14:45
I think it went straight over his fluffy little head, AMF.

Windy Militant
21st Dec 2008, 21:42
... a generation who think Star Trek is real...

Err ... are you suggesting that it is not?

I hate to break this to you Bluey but they faked it in a studio! If you look real close you can see that Kirk has false ears. :};)

BombayDuck
22nd Dec 2008, 01:13
No, that was Spock. You can tell who Kirk was by identifying the audio playback device that runs..... slow....

aviate1138
22nd Dec 2008, 07:35
Who planted the Laser reflectors on the moon that are used to this day to check the moon's distance with an accuracy equivalent to measuring the distance between LA and NY to 1/100th of an inch!

Google Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment

Apollo astronauts placed the reflectors up there and when the next generation lunar cameras start working they will send back images of the items left behind, or no doubt the conspiracy theorists will say the images have been "Photoshopped".

Occam's Razor rules.

Windy Militant
22nd Dec 2008, 07:57
Who planted the Laser reflectors on the moon that are used to this day to check the moon's distance with an accuracy equivalent to measuring the distance between LA and NY to 1/100th of an inch!


That'd be Scottie he's the engineer! :}

Even if you loaded this bunch of loonies onto a B-ARK and took them to the moon they'd still not believe you. :ugh:

aviate1138
22nd Dec 2008, 08:04
WM said....

"Even if you loaded this bunch of loonies onto a B-ARK and took them to the moon they'd still not believe you. "



Same bunch that think CO2 is a poison and wind farms will save the planet? :rolleyes:

PS Is Al Gore actually Nostradamus reincarnated?

Frank Furillo
22nd Dec 2008, 08:20
(With apologies to Not the nine o clock news)

I'm prepared to believe that Nixon wasn't a crook
and that love stories are readable
I believe that Lucille Ball is still under 40
I believe that pig and DC10's can fly

But I cannot believe that StacyF is real!!!!

Its easy, prove we DID NOT go to the moon, none of this pseudo rubbish, real hard proof.
When you get some come back to me, I don't have to prove we went, I know we did. I have seen the Saturn V Close up several times. And I was not born when Mr Armstrong and Mr Aldrin walked on the surface of alien world.

Ace Rimmer
22nd Dec 2008, 12:12
Ford Cortina: "Gene Cernan - better than Ace Rimmer"

You whaaaat? - actually yeah he probably is... Never forget when he came to have a chat to my 5th grade class back at McWhirter Elementary in Jan 73 (his daughter Tracy was in the same class)he held that roomful of 10 year olds utterly spell bound. He answered every question in detail (though within the bounds of the average 10 year old) questions which ranged from the basic domestic - "how do you go to the toilet?" to spritual "did you see God?" brought bits of his EVA kit with him...it still had Moon dust on it...

But back to the question did man land on the moon...

Yes twelve actually...Armstrong, Aldrin, Conrad, Bean, Shephard, Mitchell, Scott, Irwin, Young (plus an orbital mission),Duke, Cernan (plus an orbital mission) & Scimitt

... and let's not forget the ones who went 99.9% of the way
Borman, Anders, Lovell (twice), Collins, Gordon, Haise, Swigert, Roosa, Worden, Mattingley & Evans.

Windy Militant
22nd Dec 2008, 16:12
aviate1138 to be absolutly pedantic both CO² and O² are toxic in high concentrations. What we need are some really big flight manuals and a few miles of gaffer tape to bodge up some scrubbers. :}

The Windmills are there to circulate the CO². ;)

Any way there's nowt left on the moon it's all been had by the totters Salvage One Mission (http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/9782/salmoon.html)

throw a dyce
22nd Dec 2008, 20:18
Ace Rimmer,
You forgot Thomas P Stafford on Apollo 10. 24 guys flew to the moon in total.

con-pilot
22nd Dec 2008, 20:58
Ace Rimmer,
You forgot Thomas P Stafford on Apollo 10.

I was going to point that out, he is my wife's cousin. Well actually, my deceased father-in-law's cousin.

wiggy
22nd Dec 2008, 21:57
BlueDiamond..to be pedantic for a a moment when you mentioned Surveyor earlier as being the only instrumented probes you neglected to mention the Russian Luna series ( aka Lunik in it's early days by the Western press)..don't forget the Russians were the first to "hard land" an instrumented probe on the surface and for waht it's worth were the first to fly something round the back of the Moon and return it to Earth, with one of their Zond series, not long before Apollo 8 ( can't be ****rsed to look up the numbers at this time of night)....

The American's only really caught up with Surveyor and Lunar Orbiter ... Apollo 8 was the first time they demonstrably got their noses ahead, so to speak.

tony draper
22nd Dec 2008, 22:14
As recall,Jodrell Bank hijacked and published the pictures from the first Russian probe that crashed into the Moon,Ivan was not amused.
For me the chap that epitomized "The Right Stuff" was John Young, a lot of the Luna Astronauts packed it in as soon as they had had their shot,John Young went on to test fly the first shuttle.
:ok:

Ace Rimmer
23rd Dec 2008, 07:42
Doh how could I forget the space Okie - not one for the spectaculars he (who had quite a lot of pull with Slayton) wanted the real 'test flight missions' like 10 and the ASTP...

Drapes: couldn't agree more....amazing career two Geminis, two Apollos and a brace of shuttle flights.

BlueWolf
23rd Dec 2008, 08:34
Was meant to point out that your premise that "we can't build it today so therefore it must have never happened then" is not only flawed (because if they elected to spend the money on that mission they could in fact do it...again), but enters into the realm of the Asinine when this common fact of manufacturing (not being able to re-produce special purpose technology...even if it's obsolete.. at the drop of a hat) is used as "proof".

Well said. I would contend that we would likewise struggle to build the Pyramids again with available technology, and without some serious head-scratching. Maybe they don't exist either.

aviate1138
23rd Dec 2008, 08:54
The Yanks got to the Moon because of their admirable "Can Do!" spirit.

As opposed to the present "Can't Do" that sadly infects the TV/X-Factor/Celebrity shambles that is the majority of the British population these days. "What can I get for doing nothing" Labour culture will be replaced by Cameron Green windmill waving. :rolleyes:

Happy Christmas Ppruners!

fireflybob
23rd Dec 2008, 10:23
aviate1138, you are so right. We need leaders who have vision for the future and I don't see anyone in the forefront of UK politics that seems to have that.

J.F. Kennedy was the man with the vision who said that by the end of the decade (1970) USA would have a man on the moon, shame he never lived to see it but I see Kennedy as the person who set the ball rolling.

oncemorealoft
23rd Dec 2008, 10:31
Pinned up on my wall beside me now:

"We choose to go to the moon.
We choose to go to the moon in this decade
and do the other things,
not because they are easy,
but because they are hard,
because that goal will serve to organize and measure
the best of our energies and skills,
because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept,
one we are unwilling to postpone,
and one which we intend to win..."

President J F Kennedy, September 12, 1962

I particularly like : "because that goal will serve to organize and measure
the best of our energies and skills, "

Cpt_Pugwash
23rd Dec 2008, 11:46
OMA,

I've always wondered, what did he mean by " ... and do the other things" ?

Ace Rimmer
23rd Dec 2008, 13:42
Damn right Oncemore one of his best speeches actually the whole thing is worth a read


Rice University 12 Sept 1962

"I appreciate your president having made me an honorary visiting professor, and I will assure you that my first lecture will be very brief.

I am delighted to be here and I'm particularly delighted to be here on this occasion.

We meet at a college noted for knowledge, in a city noted for progress, in a State noted for strength, and we stand in need of all three, for we meet in an hour of change and challenge, in a decade of hope and fear, in an age of both knowledge and ignorance. The greater our knowledge increases, the greater our ignorance unfolds.

Despite the striking fact that most of the scientists that the world has ever known are alive and working today, despite the fact that this Nation¹s own scientific manpower is doubling every 12 years in a rate of growth more than three times that of our population as a whole, despite that, the vast stretches of the unknown and the unanswered and the unfinished still far outstrip our collective comprehension.

No man can fully grasp how far and how fast we have come, but condense, if you will, the 50,000 years of man¹s recorded history in a time span of but a half a century. Stated in these terms, we know very little about the first 40 years, except at the end of them advanced man had learned to use the skins of animals to cover them. Then about 10 years ago, under this standard, man emerged from his caves to construct other kinds of shelter. Only five years ago man learned to write and use a cart with wheels. Christianity began less than two years ago. The printing press came this year, and then less than two months ago, during this whole 50-year span of human history, the steam engine provided a new source of power.

Newton explored the meaning of gravity. Last month electric lights and telephones and automobiles and airplanes became available. Only last week did we develop penicillin and television and nuclear power, and now if America¹s new spacecraft succeeds in reaching Venus, we will have literally reached the stars before midnight tonight.

This is a breathtaking pace, and such a pace cannot help but create new ills as it dispels old, new ignorance, new problems, new dangers. Surely the opening vistas of space promise high costs and hardships, as well as high reward.

So it is not surprising that some would have us stay where we are a little longer to rest, to wait. But this city of Houston, this State of Texas, this country of the United States was not built by those who waited and rested and wished to look behind them. This country was conquered by those who moved forward--and so will space.

William Bradford, speaking in 1630 of the founding of the Plymouth Bay Colony, said that all great and honorable actions are accompanied with great difficulties, and both must be enterprised and overcome with answerable courage.

If this capsule history of our progress teaches us anything, it is that man, in his quest for knowledge and progress, is determined and cannot be deterred. The exploration of space will go ahead, whether we join in it or not, and it is one of the great adventures of all time, and no nation which expects to be the leader of other nations can expect to stay behind in the race for space.

Those who came before us made certain that this country rode the first waves of the industrial revolutions, the first waves of modern invention, and the first wave of nuclear power, and this generation does not intend to founder in the backwash of the coming age of space. We mean to be a part of it--we mean to lead it. For the eyes of the world now look into space, to the moon and to the planets beyond, and we have vowed that we shall not see it governed by a hostile flag of conquest, but by a banner of freedom and peace. We have vowed that we shall not see space filled with weapons of mass destruction, but with instruments of knowledge and understanding.

Yet the vows of this Nation can only be fulfilled if we in this Nation are first, and, therefore, we intend to be first. In short, our leadership in science and in industry, our hopes for peace and security, our obligations to ourselves as well as others, all require us to make this effort, to solve these mysteries, to solve them for the good of all men, and to become the world's leading space-faring nation.

We set sail on this new sea because there is new knowledge to be gained, and new rights to be won, and they must be won and used for the progress of all people. For space science, like nuclear science and all technology, has no conscience of its own. Whether it will become a force for good or ill depends on man, and only if the United States occupies a position of pre-eminence can we help decide whether this new ocean will be a sea of peace or a new terrifying theater of war. I do not say the we should or will go unprotected against the hostile misuse of space any more than we go unprotected against the hostile use of land or sea, but I do say that space can be explored and mastered without feeding the fires of war, without repeating the mistakes that man has made in extending his writ around this globe of ours.

There is no strife, no prejudice, no national conflict in outer space as yet. Its hazards are hostile to us all. Its conquest deserves the best of all mankind, and its opportunity for peaceful cooperation many never come again. But why, some say, the moon? Why choose this as our goal? And they may well ask why climb the highest mountain? Why, 35 years ago, fly the Atlantic? Why does Rice play Texas?

We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.

It is for these reasons that I regard the decision last year to shift our efforts in space from low to high gear as among the most important decisions that will be made during my incumbency in the office of the Presidency.

In the last 24 hours we have seen facilities now being created for the greatest and most complex exploration in man's history. We have felt the ground shake and the air shattered by the testing of a Saturn C-1 booster rocket, many times as powerful as the Atlas which launched John Glenn, generating power equivalent to 10,000 automobiles with their accelerators on the floor. We have seen the site where five F-1 rocket engines, each one as powerful as all eight engines of the Saturn combined, will be clustered together to make the advanced Saturn missile, assembled in a new building to be built at Cape Canaveral as tall as a 48 story structure, as wide as a city block, and as long as two lengths of this field.

Within these last 19 months at least 45 satellites have circled the earth. Some 40 of them were "made in the United States of America" and they were far more sophisticated and supplied far more knowledge to the people of the world than those of the Soviet Union.

The Mariner spacecraft now on its way to Venus is the most intricate instrument in the history of space science. The accuracy of that shot is comparable to firing a missile from Cape Canaveral and dropping it in this stadium between the the 40-yard lines.

Transit satellites are helping our ships at sea to steer a safer course. Tiros satellites have given us unprecedented warnings of hurricanes and storms, and will do the same for forest fires and icebergs.

We have had our failures, but so have others, even if they do not admit them. And they may be less public.

To be sure, we are behind, and will be behind for some time in manned flight. But we do not intend to stay behind, and in this decade, we shall make up and move ahead.

The growth of our science and education will be enriched by new knowledge of our universe and environment, by new techniques of learning and mapping and observation, by new tools and computers for industry, medicine, the home as well as the school. Technical institutions, such as Rice, will reap the harvest of these gains.

And finally, the space effort itself, while still in its infancy, has already created a great number of new companies, and tens of thousands of new jobs. Space and related industries are generating new demands in investment and skilled personnel, and this city and this State, and this region, will share greatly in this growth. What was once the furthest outpost on the old frontier of the West will be the furthest outpost on the new frontier of science and space. Houston, your City of Houston, with its Manned Spacecraft Center, will become the heart of a large scientific and engineering community. During the next 5 years the National Aeronautics and Space Administration expects to double the number of scientists and engineers in this area, to increase its outlays for salaries and expenses to $60 million a year; to invest some $200 million in plant and laboratory facilities; and to direct or contract for new space efforts over $1 billion from this Center in this City.

To be sure, all this costs us all a good deal of money. This year¹s space budget is three times what it was in January 1961, and it is greater than the space budget of the previous eight years combined. That budget now stands at $5,400 million a year--a staggering sum, though somewhat less than we pay for cigarettes and cigars every year. Space expenditures will soon rise some more, from 40 cents per person per week to more than 50 cents a week for every man, woman and child in the United Stated, for we have given this program a high national priority--even though I realize that this is in some measure an act of faith and vision, for we do not now know what benefits await us. But if I were to say, my fellow citizens, that we shall send to the moon, 240,000 miles away from the control station in Houston, a giant rocket more than 300 feet tall, the length of this football field, made of new metal alloys, some of which have not yet been invented, capable of standing heat and stresses several times more than have ever been experienced, fitted together with a precision better than the finest watch, carrying all the equipment needed for propulsion, guidance, control, communications, food and survival, on an untried mission, to an unknown celestial body, and then return it safely to earth, re-entering the atmosphere at speeds of over 25,000 miles per hour, causing heat about half that of the temperature of the sun--almost as hot as it is here today--and do all this, and do it right, and do it first before this decade is out--then we must be bold.

I'm the one who is doing all the work, so we just want you to stay cool for a minute. [laughter]

However, I think we're going to do it, and I think that we must pay what needs to be paid. I don't think we ought to waste any money, but I think we ought to do the job. And this will be done in the decade of the sixties. It may be done while some of you are still here at school at this college and university. It will be done during the term of office of some of the people who sit here on this platform. But it will be done. And it will be done before the end of this decade.

I am delighted that this university is playing a part in putting a man on the moon as part of a great national effort of the United States of America.

Many years ago the great British explorer George Mallory, who was to die on Mount Everest, was asked why did he want to climb it. He said, "Because it is there."

Well, space is there, and we're going to climb it, and the moon and the planets are there, and new hopes for knowledge and peace are there. And, therefore, as we set sail we ask God's blessing on the most hazardous and dangerous and greatest adventure on which man has ever embarked".

Mostly Harmless
23rd Dec 2008, 18:33
StaceyF
And, no, I'm not a conspiracy theorist just a realist; the technology to do so isn't available in 2008, let alone 39 years ago.


You are partially correct. We did land on the moon, and we don't have the ability to go back 39 years later.

What does that say about the last 39 years of our lives? To me, it says that we are getting dumber not smarter. That we are so obsessed with safety that we are stifling all advancement. Finally, that the public is more concerned about getting the latest iPhone then advancing the whole of the world.

At the end of the day, it’s all about money. Most people don’t have the foresight to realize how much of today’s technology came from the R & D done for those space flights, and don’t see the value that could be realized today through the continuation of those projects because the payoff is often 20 years in the future, and not the next fiscal quarter so that the CEO can get his “performance” bonus and stock option top up. So the funding to these programs get cut, the expertise dies out and the technology dies. It’s all about greed, and greed is short sighted.

Mostly Harmless
23rd Dec 2008, 19:34
Windy Militant

Even if you loaded this bunch of loonies onto a B-ARK and took them to the moon they'd still not believe you.


Don’t forget about the giant space goats.

SilsoeSid
23rd Dec 2008, 23:28
I don't understand how there are pictures of the Mars Rover 'Opportunity' (5' high, 7' wide and 5' long), on Mars, complete with tracks, yet it appears to be so impossible to do the same thing for any of the 6 landing sites on The Moon.

Surely the large descent stages (30' landing gear span / 10' high) left there and the large areas of footprints around them, various equipment including the Lunar Rovers(10' long, wheelbase 7.5') their tracks, should be clear to see. :suspect:

Unless of course it would show that Apollo 11 didn't actually put Man there (no footprints), even if the rest may have done so. ;)

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0610/opportunity_mro.jpg (http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0610/opportunity_mro_big.jpg)
Click for high res.

shedhead
24th Dec 2008, 00:52
oh for gods sake if we couldn't put a man on the moon then how the hell did we get something on Mars? bit of logic please or at least some joined up thinking! is this the same technology that we don't have anymore? or is it some other stuff we got from area 51.we are back to castle moonbat again!

throw a dyce
24th Dec 2008, 08:05
If you look on the Apollo archive there are plenty of footprint photos from Apollo11.:)

Ace Rimmer
24th Dec 2008, 08:44
Here's the thing about Apollo...It was expensive (even after the govt cut out Apollos 18,19 & 20 and most of the AAP to pay for the unpleasantness in SE Asia).
It space was (and still is) dangerous...before the programme got to the flying part NASA expected to lose at least one, maybe two crews in flight - (as it was every mission had a "whoops oh sh1t moment") and don't forget Grissom, White & Chafee...

But the key yo to the whole deal was the was the political will... think about the wording in Kennedy's Rice speech basically said we do it and it helps to prove our system of government is better than their system...

(and on balance confining the willy waving to shooting off rockets was better for mankind at least I think so)

So why not send a man to Mars - or back to the moon?

Somebody will right after there is the politcal or fiscal imperative and once the decision is made it won't take long...from Freedom 7 to Apollo 11 was about eight years remember

tony draper
24th Dec 2008, 08:54
Trouble is wi Germany having gone all fluffist these last sixty years one simply cannot find good rocket scientists now.:E

Ace Rimmer
24th Dec 2008, 08:59
I aim at ze stars....it's chust zat sometimes I hit Lundun

tony draper
24th Dec 2008, 11:33
Slightly off topic this page has some fantastic hi rez fly overs and photographs of the Martian Land scape ,worth the download,
HiRISE | Scroll Clips and Wallpaper (http://hirise.lpl.arizona.edu/media/)
:ok:
To think when I first took a interest in Astronomy as a wee lad some books still held that Venus was covered in Jurassic like Jungle peopled by giant dinosaur like critters.
Unmanned Space flight has certainly lived up to and surpassed it's promise.
:)

fireflybob
24th Dec 2008, 20:04
An Apollo 8 Christmas (http://www.facebook.com/ext/share.php?sid=105834405183&h=M6bqg&u=SRXWx)

I recall watching this live 40 years ago today - those guys were very brave I think.

Roger Sofarover
27th Feb 2009, 18:19
For all you technical boffs out there you may (like me) find this an interesting read.

Apollo Technical Data Library (http://www.cs.indiana.edu/sudoc/image_30000061709352/30000061709352/pdf/techdata.htm)

There are lots of pages and many documents. I have read all of the docs concerning the specification of the Lunar Module. These are original documents from the late 60s from Grumman. It does just make you think 'How'? For example the habital area of the lunar module was only 36 inches by 53 inches , now just how did they get there suits on in that space (the docs also have the dimensions of the life support packs. Measure out that space, it sure aint big.

Anyway, lots of interesting stuff about structure and oxygen etc and very interesting documents at the bottom on the mission reports. Happy reading:ok:

phnuff
27th Feb 2009, 18:28
Are you kidding me? Man has never set foot on the moon. The trips actually landed on a giant floating lobster called Gerald who orbits in a geostationary orbit above Brazil. If you look closely at the end of the Apollo 13 landing you can clearly see a claw waving in the air just behind the LEM!!

SpannerInTheWerks
27th Feb 2009, 19:14
shedhead

... of course that's assuming we have brought something back from Mars ... and that's not a conspiracy too?! (a Mars bar at least! lol)

I once tried (but failed) to read a book as thick as the Bible explaining why man had not landed on the Moon. There seemed to be all kinds of scientific 'evidence' and expert 'whistle blowing' to confirm this fact.

It is likely that some of the photographs were 'staged' as back-up in case the chest-mounted Hasselblad cameras didn't get quite the pin-sharp, perfectly exposed, perfectly framed shots expected whilst the astronaut was bouncing about on the surface of the Moon with extremely thick gloves on.

I remember the question of multiple shadows was also an aspect that was of interest - how, why ....?

I always wondered as a boy, if Neil Armstrong was the first man on the Moon, who took the picture of him descending down the ladder - as a adult I appreciate this was obviously a camera mounted on the exterior of the landing module and that the man from Kodak who 'blew the whistle' about the photography was obviously mistaken.

So many people have been mistaken in the recent history of the US of A - the assassination of JFK not being carried out my Lee Harvey Oswald ... et al.

Personally I think Gordon Tracy was the first to land on the Moon in Thunderbird 3 - after all he was nearly incinerated by getting too close to the Sun. If he could fly that far then a Moon landing would be a mere trifle!

LOL

SITW :}

Lon More
27th Feb 2009, 19:18
Find out who is causing all the chemtrails. It's the same organisation

iws
28th Feb 2009, 17:57
AS a part time lecturer on Astronomy, I get tired of the same old hype by scientifically illiterate Moon-Hoax believers.

They either don't understand basic Science and Engineering or they refuse to listen.

I am one of the privileged few to own (quasi-legally!) some tiny samples of moon dust and when viewed under a microscope it has several unique unfakeable qualities. The Apollo Lunar samples were distributed to labs all round the world. (yes, Russian and Chinese labs were included). Every one of theses labs concluded that the samples came from the Moon (and not as meteorites either...). The Russians would have been delighted if they had found fakes!

This, the radio tracking, the corner cubes etc, etc. make any easily explainable trivia such as "there are no stars in the pictiures" pale into insigificance.

There, rant over!

Ken Wells
28th Feb 2009, 19:47
Did man actually moon on the land!:zzz:

con-pilot
28th Feb 2009, 19:58
Did man actually moon on the land!

Well actually no, it was the Lunar Lander that landed on the moon, however, there were a couple of men in it that climbed out and step on the moon. :p

Ken Wells
28th Feb 2009, 21:03
Eh! you did not read the last post correctly!!!!!

Matari
28th Feb 2009, 21:38
Ken Wells:

Eh! you did not read the last post correctly!!!!! Don't worry Ken...con's a bit dyslexic. Comes with years of flying big radial engine planes and living in Oklahoma. http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/wink2.gif

Come to think of it, a "moonable" space suit might not be a bad idea. Bit of strong clear vinyl over the nether regions and you're ready for your first encounter with the aliens.

con-pilot
28th Feb 2009, 22:14
Eh! you did not read the last post correctly!!!!!

Oh blast and damnation. :(

Don't worry Ken...con's a bit dyslexic.

A bit? You're too kind. :p

galaxy flyer
28th Feb 2009, 22:21
'Tis true, we did, but long ago. I watched it with my first girlfriend, remember like yesterday. :ok:

GF

con-pilot
28th Feb 2009, 23:17
I was sitting in a hotel bar in Lock Haven PA. waiting for the weather to lift enough to ferry a Piper Pawnee crop-duster from the Piper Factory when we landed on the moon the first time. Very exciting, everybody was yelling and jumping up and down.

Don't think I had a girl friend back then, didn't have time for one.

hellsbrink
28th Feb 2009, 23:34
If we can get a man on the moon, why can't we get one on Anne Heche?

galaxy flyer
28th Feb 2009, 23:56
If we can get a man on the moon, why can't we get one on Anne Heche?

I thought we did?? :confused:

C-P

The funny, and extremely dangerous thing, is that I have recently gotten back in touch!! :E and we ain't talking cold, here
GF

Tyres O'Flaherty
1st Mar 2009, 00:09
I have looked at posts 1 & 2 on this thread just to confirm my usual views of the idiocy of this question

It happened.

Deal with it internet idiots, hopefully you'll not breed your useless DNA into the genepool.

Stop wasting our time if you also understand the concept of courtesy.

Please.

Just go & amuse yourselves with ''Big Brother'', or whatever you whittle away your feckless lives.

(edit) apols for the aggro tone. Tired of usual witless conspiracy theory sh1t.

night

Ken Wells
6th Mar 2009, 16:11
Certainly would be a Marathon!


"Snicker Snicker"

corsair
6th Mar 2009, 16:22
The debate will be ended once and for all if one of the competing teams in this competition succeeds.

Google Lunar X PRIZE (http://www.googlelunarxprize.org/)The Google Lunar X PRIZE is a
$30 million competition for the
first privately funded team to
send a robot to the moon, travel
500 meters and transmit video,
images and data back to the Earth.

A bonus of $5 million will be awarded if any of the contestants sent back images of Apollo hardware. One contestant hopes to launch in May 2010.

Of course the diehards will never believe and claim any photos take during this adventure will be fake too. But I for one am looking forward to it. It would be brilliant to see photos of the Apollo 11 landing site after all these years.

Captain Stable
6th Mar 2009, 16:51
The trouble is, corsair, that the conspiracists would simply claim that the photos were mocked-up or photoshopped at that the competition winners were in on the conspiracy, so that just goes to prove that man never did land on the moon. You can't win with conspiracists.

StaceyF
6th Mar 2009, 17:25
The trouble is, corsair, that the conspiracists would simply claim that the photos were mocked-up or photoshopped at that the competition winners were in on the conspiracy, so that just goes to prove that man never did land on the moon. You can't win with conspiracists.

Au contraire (that's "on the contrary" for those of you who had a comprehensive school education).

Labelling anyone who dares to doubt Government spin and lies is poor form.

I'd welcome any project that could send back independent footage of, say, a human footprint on the moon.

It won't happen because the moon landings never happened.

There's a very good "official unreleased, classified" video on YouTube somewhere showing how the view of tiny Earth from the Apollo orbiter was created using a piece of cardboard with a small circle cut into it.........the astronauts were in low Earth orbit and one of them clumsily removed the card while the cameras were rolling to reveal a huge Earth.

Windy Militant
6th Mar 2009, 17:30
How much bonus do you get for a picture of Hitlers B29!
Well it must be true it was all over the front page of the National Enquirer. :};)

PS how much for the Route Master!

con-pilot
6th Mar 2009, 18:14
It won't happen because the moon landings never happened.


So, you say that my wife's cousin lied and all the pictures he took from Apollo 10 are fake?

Roger Sofarover
6th Mar 2009, 19:15
Con

With all due respect whether the moon landings took place or not, is not something that can be ratified because a member of crew was your wife's cousin.

So, you say that my wife's cousin lied and all the pictures he took from Apollo 11 are fake?

That is such a ridiculous statement, how can the integrity of anyone be assumed because they are the cousin of someone, in this case your wife (the integrity issue is down to Armstrong, Aldrin or Collins), and there are many many people out there that say that the photographs are indeed fake, for a number of reasons (the ones on the lunar surface that is).

For those of you that would like a more scientific approach to making up your mind on this then spend some time reading this lot (pilots and techies will love it). It is the specification and technical documents for the Apollo equipment. Scroll down to the lunar module and you will get all the technical data from 1968 original documents released under the freedom of information act.

Apollo Technical Data Library (http://www.cs.indiana.edu/sudoc/image_30000061709352/30000061709352/pdf/techdata.htm)

Some interesting snippets to make you ponder. The Lunar Module had a habital space of 160 cu ft, and the area avialable for standing, including the rest area was 36 inches deep by 53 inches wide!! Now go measure that out on your garage floor and get two adults to stand inside that space, then imagine how you spend three days in there and don and doff the large suits and backpacks (the dimensions of the packs are in the tech spec and are over 10 inches deep), there would be little if no room to do this and once both have accomplished it, no room at all to turn around etc. Both would have to be dressed and on the platform as the module had to be de/re pressurised (only enough oxygen for 4 pressurizations. There are even greater questions raised about the 'flyability' of the module. If either of the astronauts moved on the descent the center of gravity would shift significantly resulting in the craft becoming almost impossible to control. The module was also made of tin foil, check out the thickness of the materials on the tech spec.

The mission reports make interesting reading.

dazdaz
6th Mar 2009, 19:32
I've always found it hard to get my 'head around' concerning the technology/research and testing, that only 24 years had passed since the end WWII

One could, at a conservative estimate reduce the the research (in years) for the moon landing, taking into account the rebuilding of the financial infrastructure of the US post WWII. Lets say 10 years (post WWII) before thoughts of a moon shot became a realistic (idea) so the whole moon project (man on moon) would be reduced to 14 years when the US got 'back on it's feet' after WWII

Further, The astronauts suits have never been displayed, they were incinerated when the crew were in de-contamination. Maybe Apollo 14 was the first to land on the moon 1971

wiggy
6th Mar 2009, 19:58
Is that ( incineration of the suits) true? Why would NASA want to do that?

AFAIK at least one of the suits (Aldrin's) is in the possession of the Air and Space Museum...

con-pilot
6th Mar 2009, 19:59
Well first off Roger I cannot really tell if you believe we landed on the moon or not, so just for the sake of argument let's say that you believe that the whole Lunar Landing Missions was a hoax and never happened. In spite of the fact that tens of thousands of people all over the world, of many different nationalities, in numerous different countries including the Soviet Union, had to be part of the hoax and have remained silent to this day.

For God's sake, this county can't even keep secret the fact that a President and an Intern had a sexual encounter in the Oval office and there were only two people there. And yet you and the other deniers believe that we faked the moon landings? If that wasn't so pathetic it would be hilarious.

Now, let me ask you a question. The 'Lunar Module ', have you actually seen one? I have. Have you flown the Lunar Module simulator? I have. Courtesy of guess who. (Yes, I crashed the first time and ran out of fuel and had to abort the second time.)

The mission reports make interesting reading.

Yes they do. They reflect that we sent men to the moon, they landed and returned to earth. What is your point?

Also, I made a typo on my previous post, it was Apollo 10, not Apollo 11, my mistake. I'll go back and correct the fat finger error.

iws
6th Mar 2009, 20:09
OK then Roger, why don't you answer my direct point about the Lunar Samples being verified by labs worldwide, or will you use the usual Hoax Believer's strategy of either ignoring it or raising another trivial point?

Jimmy Macintosh
6th Mar 2009, 20:09
Small aside, I'll leave the conspiracy gibberish alone...

Con that is incredibly cool that you have seen some personal photos from someone who has been there. Very jealous of that, let alone having a go in some of their toys.

con-pilot
6th Mar 2009, 20:19
Con that is incredibly cool that you have seen some personal photos from someone who has been there. Very jealous of that, let alone having a go in some of their toys.

He is an incredible guy. Some of his pictures are in the Oklahoma Air Museum. He has a section of the museum dedicated to him. I was extremely lucky to have had the privilege to fly the simulator. It had been down for maintenance and had to be test 'flown'. He let me fly it with him beside me trying his best to tell me how to do that properly. Him laughing at me didn't help. :(

I will admit it was a bit of a little tight fit for me, I'm 6'5" and he, as most of the Astronauts then are about a foot shorter.

By the way, I had not met my wife when all this took place. In fact I didn't meet her until years later. It was after we had dated for while before I found out that he was her father's cousin, so I guess actually she is his second cousin. He calls her his cousin in any case.

frostbite
6th Mar 2009, 21:52
A further question for the doubters.

Many people around the world monitored their transmissions. If they had not been in space the propagation would not have been sufficient for them all to receive the transmissions.

Perhaps they set up thousands of repeater stations?

SilsoeSid
6th Mar 2009, 22:39
Quite right Frostbite, however if all they did was orbit the Earth, or even just had an orbit vehicle act as a rebro, then your argument doesn't work.

Once again the question of secrecy crops up, and as said earlier, It worked with The Manhattan Project !

We have photos of the mars Rover on Mars, but not one of any of the Lunar landing sites' leftovers. (see page 6) Still no explanation why that is from all the believers here!

[email protected] reflectors!! I thought they were put up remotely by the US after the USSR did it! Besides, the beam must be horrendously wide by the time it has travelled more than half a million miles and the dissipation caused by the atmosphere make the individual readings inaccurate. Because of this, many readings are taken in a 'session' and then averaged to give this 'accurate' distance!

Apparently the reflectors are used to rebut any doubts of moon landings. Very weak argument as the Russians are known to have done it remotely before the US claimed to land man there.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/Speed_of_light_from_Earth_to_Moon.gif
The relative sizes and separation of the Earth–Moon system are shown to scale above.
The beam of light is depicted travelling between the Earth and the Moon in the same time it actually takes light to scale the real distance between them: 1.255 seconds at its mean orbital distance. The light beam helps provide the sense of scale of the Earth-Moon system relative to the Sun, which is 8.28 light-minutes away (photosphere to Earth surface).

con-pilot
6th Mar 2009, 22:56
Very weak argument as the Russians are known to have done it remotely before the US claimed to land man there.


Okay, let me ask you this then. If dummies living in trailer homes have figured out that the Moon landings were fake, how come the Russians never figured it out?

What, was the Soviet entire Military and science community asleep during all the Moon landings? Or where they in the conspiracy as well?

Which would mean that close to a million people were involved in the hoax, and still to this day have not said a thing.

You Moon landing deniers are good for a good laugh. But that's about all.

wiggy
6th Mar 2009, 23:16
"We have photos of the mars Rover on Mars, but not one of any of the Lunar landing sites' leftovers. (see page 6) Still no explanation why that is from all the believers here!"

Ah ,ahh, Oh no you don't :=...you and your fellow non-believers have spent years "claiming" NASA's pictures of the Moon landings were faked....you can't expect to retain any credibility if you now start selectively using NASA photographs of the rovers and landers on the Martian surface as evidence to back up your case - they're faked, right?

As for an explanation for the lack of pictures of the Lunar landing sites: Here's one: since the Moon landings no spacecraft have been back to the Moon with the opportunity and/or the optical resolution to image the Landing sites.- why would they? The equatorial regions of the Moon were well mapped by 1969 and anyway Mars beckoned..and at the end of the day we know the conspiracy theorists wouldn't believe the images.......

As for the point about radio signals...you do understand enough about basic orbital mechanics to understand that any radio amateur worth his/her salt would be able to discriminate between a signal coming from the direction of the Moon and a signal form or "rebro" from Earth orbit....

airfoilmod
7th Mar 2009, 00:17
All the intricate wizardry necessary to have faked the lunar explorations.

Alan Shepard's golf swing is atrocious, yet he hit a five iron a quarter mile, the ball was what, FLUBBER?
In the interest of time, I'll just say that to have faked it would be several orders of magnitude more difficult than to have just DONE it.

Go to the A & S Museum, steal some of that "tin foil" you claim the lander was constructed of, and make a HAT, then you can have a real hat to deflect the gummint's dumb beams.

AF

con-pilot
7th Mar 2009, 00:58
AF, I was at the Apollo 10 launch, I have also been at low orbital rocket launches as well. I cannot describe the noise and the vibration you experience being on site when those Apollo Missions were launched. The closest I can describe it, is that it is close to an earthquake, but louder, a lot louder.

You cannot fake the difference. Our misguided foo, er, friends don't have clue about the truth. No, the deniers just like to see their stupidity in print.

Oops, didn't mean to say stupidity, I take it back. :p

airfoilmod
7th Mar 2009, 01:11
I live near Aerojet and have seen rockets test fired with nozzle annulus the size of a basketball. The noise scared me, and I was a half mile away. I have looked into the Saturn 5's nozzle and gotten goose bumps.

There just isn't any facet of the Lunar missions I can't put together in my head, There isn't one weak link. Nothing mysterious. Awesome, breathtaking, but downright do-able, nothing that cannot be noodled out by a reasonably experienced and intelligent person.

You lucky man. Well, I met Chuck Yeager and had a one sided conversation with him once.

AF

con-pilot
7th Mar 2009, 01:25
You lucky man. Well, I met Chuck Yeager and had a one sided conversation with him once.


I have never met General Yeager, I wish I could. And yes, it would probably be one sided as well.


Oh, got drunk with Alan Shepard one night. It was at a charity golf thingy. Man, can he tell stories.

(Yes it was a Black Tie thing, had to change at the club, we hid behind some fake Palm trees and Mrs. C-P drove home. Oh, my team did not win the tournament, wasn't even close. :()

galaxy flyer
7th Mar 2009, 02:55
C-P

So the Mrs. C-P doesn't see Spartacus, but has seen a drunken airman with a drunken spaceman!

GF

con-pilot
7th Mar 2009, 03:01
So the Mrs. C-P doesn't see Spartacus, but has seen a drunken airman with a drunken spaceman!


Well, after some serious consideration and hours and hours of deep thought,

YUP!

:ok:



(But I am her hero. :ok:)




(Poor delusional woman.)









THE HELL I AM!

(Mrs. C-P. ;))

Roger Sofarover
7th Mar 2009, 03:56
Con

Well first off Roger I cannot really tell if you believe we landed on the moon or not,

Well, I stay pretty nap on that one Con. I neither believe or disbelieve, I am sat right on the fence, and can argue the points either for or against, I can debunk the debunkers or debunk the bunkers;)

Yes they do. They reflect that we sent men to the moon, they landed and returned to earth. What is your point?

My point has been made above Con, I am neither persuaded one way or the other. The reports are a fascinating insight to the operational aspects of the moon walks and make good reading. Then amongst all the tech data I gave links to there are specifications of equipment that raise doubt as to their functionality (on the lunar surface that is). My point that I was making in response to your post was that your input was uncharacteristically childish, 'are you calling my wife's cousin a liar'? It belongs with 'my dads bigger than yours and could beat him in a fight etc'. I am delighted that you have met someone and are 'family' with someone that was involved at the sharp end of the Apollo programme, as an aviator I would love to meet someone like that. But your statement was no basis for an objective view as to whether something did or did not take place.

I do not believe that 1 million people would have been involved in a secret. If the denial theory proved right it would be a handful or two or three.

Yes, I have seen a lunar module and it is very tight, even for those of us a foot shorter than you, and thats wearing normal clothes and not 'doing anything' inside. The sim must have been a good experience, but I think Armstrong could have used it more (I believe he never sucessfully flew the tethered version of the module on earth prior to his departure for the moon)

So I am not a denier, I neither do nor don't and it depends on the debate which way I swing.

iws

OK then Roger, why don't you answer my direct point about the Lunar Samples being verified by labs worldwide, or will you use the usual Hoax Believer's strategy of either ignoring it or raising another trivial point?

Sorry did you ask me a direct point about Lunar Samples? When did you ask me, I wasn't aware of it so I am not using 'the ususal hoax believers strategy of ignoring or raising another trivial point', on three counts. 1, I did not ignore it, I knew nothing about your point. 2, I am not a hoax believer (see above), 3, I did not raise any trivial points (please let me know what trivial points I have raised).

galaxy flyer
7th Mar 2009, 04:01
Gawd, it is just silly that there are people who still deny the lunar landings. Anyone have a clue as to how F****king big the conspiracy would have to be to pull this off? It was the largest engineering project in the US at the time, tens of thousands would have to be part of the conspiracy. Just NOT possible!

And I saw it on TV in July '69, too

GF

Jofm5
7th Mar 2009, 04:10
I read about it in the paper so it MUST be true :}

Roger Sofarover
7th Mar 2009, 04:38
GF

I have made my stance clear above. Let us all try to be objective on points that are raised rather than be emotional.

It was the largest engineering project in the US at the time, tens of thousands would have to be part of the conspiracy.Yes it was, but no they would not!

I also saw this on TV in 69, and so it is naturally an emotional issue, responsible for me wanting to be a pilot (well astronaut actually) from that day. Try to shed the emotional response and actually answer objectively as if the outcome either way has no value for you. As said in my post above you will find on many issues you can debunk the debunkers but you will also debunk the 'bunkers'. Just be objective that's all, the truth is out there somewhere Scully, if they went or not. But you cannot rely on the 'they told me so' routine. But then again maybe you are right, after all our governments have never been known for trying to deceive us have they?

Food for thought! The Manhatten Project employed over 130 000 people at 30 different research and engineering facilities throughout the US and guess what, only a handful of people knew what the end result was going to be or what they were actually involved in building. Secrets can be kept from the masses.

Jofm5
7th Mar 2009, 05:14
If the russians and chinese thought for a second the moon landing was not true then the biggest coup they could achive would be to actually do it and blow raspberiess at nasa.

Both those nations as well as others have been able to close inspect the moon as well as other more remote entities - if there was any doubt it would not take so long for it to be all proclaimed as false.

Roger Sofarover
7th Mar 2009, 05:26
Jofm5

If the russians and chinese thought for a second the moon landing was not true then the biggest coup they could achive would be to actually do it and blow raspberiess at nasa.

Whilst that is a point of view, it is not objective is it, and you allow the debunkers to shoot it down by talking about the value of international political blackmail to the long term aims of the respective governments.

As for inspecting the moon, we are told that the highest power telescopes that have been sent up by the USA and very recently the Japanese, can inspect the moons surface to a resolution of 10m. As all the objects left behind on the moon by man are much less than 10m in size we will be unable to view them until such times that someone sends up optical equipment to map the moon with a resolution of say 3m or 2m, and as the USA are about the only ones with the money and technical backup to do that, it may be a long time coming.

Stay objective.

vapilot2004
7th Mar 2009, 07:19
I thought the Japanese were planning an orbiting mission to the moon of a spacecraft that will map the surface to a very revealing dimension, finally quieting the noise the conspiracy theorist crowd makes about lunar landings.

henry crun
7th Mar 2009, 07:35
Roger: I am trying to be objective so a question for you.

You said “I do not believe that 1 million people would have been involved in a secret. If the denial theory proved right it would be a handful or two or three.”

By my count 12 astronauts claimed to have landed on the moon.
Presuming you do not include those, do you have any thoughts who the others in your handful would have been ?

ZEEBEE
7th Mar 2009, 07:48
As being one who was in the Control Room at the Deep Space Station in Woomera at the time of the landings, I can most assuredly tell you that it/they DID happen.

Not only that, but subsequently, the booster from the command module was deliberately crashed into the surface to measure the seismic impact on the seisomographs that were deployed on the mission.
Telemetry returning from those impacts and the actual crash timing would have been VERY VERY difficult to simulate in that time.

All of the pre-mission lead-up (several years of work) and following events would have been impossible to perform without many slipups that just didn't happen.

I'm all for a good conspiracy theory, but they have got to be a lot more believable to be taken seriously.

This one could only be taken seriously because of the wide spread ignorance of scientific thinking by the general public. Thanks heaps...religion:=

Roger Sofarover
7th Mar 2009, 09:10
Vapilot

You are correct. The Japanese mission is currently underway and they are mapping the moons surface to a resolution of 10m, at least that is what we are told, therefore imagery of the apollo missions is not visable.

Henry
remember do not label me as a non-believer. I have yet to be persuaded either way.

Presuming you do not include those, do you have any thoughts who the others in your handful would have been ?

Nope, not a clue. But as with the Manhatten Project if a secret were to be kept, the numbers would have had to have been small.


ZEEBEE

See above. What I do know is this. In the 1970's the british Royal Air Force were tasked with a study (from whom the task came from I do not know). The study was to determine if our allies had actually set foot on the moon. I know the man that conducted the study (that is an aside as the information can be verified elsewhere, and you could request it under the freedom of information act), from his 1st hand account and that of other sources, the conclusion of the indepth study, using all their resouces and contacts available at the time was that they could only arrive at a 50% probability that our allies set foot on the moon.

Now the good news is that, that would indicate that many facts are likely/verifiable. The bad news is that it also indicates many facts as being unlikely/unverifiable. As with the result of that study I find myself in a similar dichotomy, I neither believe or disbelieve, so don't label me as the latter.

This one could only be taken seriously because of the wide spread ignorance of scientific thinking by the general public.

Agreed, in the 1960's and 70's. However we now have a world of information (and disinformation) at our finger tips. In terms of current scientific thinking read the documents from the Apollo programme which I linked to a page or so ago and see if the lunar module stands up to current scientific plausability. I am saying nothing. Make your own mind up.

corsair
7th Mar 2009, 11:09
Sophistry my friend, pure sophistry.

a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning.

I occasionally wonder about conspiracy theorists. It it deliberate mischief making or are they genuinely convinced as to the veracity of their 'argument'. What prevents from from seeing how absurd their viewpoint is?

The 'it's a fake' mentality has crept into everything nowdays. You cannot look at any youtube video without someone crying 'fake'. On the other hand a simple video of routine situation is labelled as part of a conspiracy. Witness the number of 'black helicopter' videos on youtube. Most or all are clearly of military or civilian helicopters on routine jobs. Yet nothing convinces the conspiracy nuts otherwise.

So you get people like Roger Sofarover telling people like ZEEBEE who had first hand experience of the reality that they're wrong or worse even implying they're part of the conspiracy. It's laughable. But annoying as well. No wonder Buzz Aldrin decked a conspiracy nut out of sheer frustration.

But as I said in my earlier post, several missions to send robot lunar rovers are being planned, all private enterprise and independant. Like I said, I find that an exciting development and would love to see pictures of a lunar landing site again. I don't care about the naysayers, let them make up stories in their own mind if they wish. Reality is far more interesting.

OFSO
7th Mar 2009, 12:31
Roger Sofarover says: What I do know is this. In the 1970's the british Royal Air Force were tasked with a study (from whom the task came from I do not know). The study was to determine if our allies had actually set foot on the moon. I know the man that conducted the study (that is an aside as the information can be verified elsewhere, and you could request it under the freedom of information act), from his 1st hand account and that of other sources, the conclusion of the indepth study, using all their resouces and contacts available at the time was that they could only arrive at a 50% probability that our allies set foot on the moon.

Utter piffle, claptrap and balderdash. There was no such official study known to me at the time or subsequently, or to any of my now-retired colleagues, and I was involved and would have seen the paperwork.... More likely one bored officer chatting to another over the Earl Grey and digestives, one morning.

Roger Sofarover
7th Mar 2009, 14:36
OFSO
you know I could have laid a bet on someone replying as you have just done. As soon as I typed it I thought 'you know Roger someone is bound to come out of the woodwork and claim, it did not take place because they were there in MOD for the whole decade'. Well you did not disappoint. But sorry to disappoint you, it is not piffle, claptrap or balderdash. I take it you have been busy on the phone calling all your retired collegues all day in case they new something that was not mentioned or heard by you. Most people in MOD have no idea what goes on in the next office let alone in the building over a decade. it did take place and the chap involved was briefed by the AFB. So if you were sat on the AFB for 10 years fine, or if you were in a position to see every piece of paper for 10 years fine, however, I know it took place.

You worked as an engineer at RSA from 68 to 93, why would you have seen the papers from a confidential study conducted by the RAF:ugh::ugh:

ford cortina
7th Mar 2009, 15:18
So Roger, can we have some written proof????

SilsoeSid
7th Mar 2009, 15:18
I'm still amazed that the recovery ship was positioned just 4 miles from where Apollo 13 splashed down, considering not only all the problems but also re-entry burns and trajectory adjustments done on a wristwatch.

Of course any speculaton that the Command module was dropped out of the back of a high altitude aircraft, above the cloud cover, would be considered conspiracy madness also...wouldn't it !!!

But like galaxy flyer, we saw it on TV and it's a film, so it must be true!

Perhaps it was the clever attention seeker to say, "Look we can now actually get man on the Moon, so please watch Apollo 14...the real first Moon landing!"

:suspect:

Roger Sofarover
7th Mar 2009, 15:26
corsair

So you get people like Roger Sofarover telling people like ZEEBEE who had first hand experience of the reality that they're wrong or worse even implying they're part of the conspiracy. It's laughable.So just remind me corsair. Where in my post do I say or imply that ZEEBEE is wrong? You make it up as you go along I have said nor implied any such thing. Just in case you missed it 'I am not a conspiracy theorist' ok, I have said it enough times. You leap in and take a stance in an arguement without even knowing what you are dealing with.

telling people like ZEEBEE who had first hand experience of the realityFirst hand experience of what reality? Walking on the moon? Because that is what is being discussed. This is an anonymous forum, do you know the guy? Do you know that he worked there? Do you know what he did down there? It's no wonder the general public suck everything up hook line and sinker without question. Now whatever type of aviation you are involved in, go and look at those NASA technical documents and tell me how to overcome the constantly shifting CofG in the Lunar Module and draw that 36 x 53 inch box and tell me how two guys stay in that for three days and get in and out of full life support systems including donning ridgid helmet assemblies with no look down facility in there aswell. As I said, I remain nap, sat on the fence, so go find a real conspiracy theorist to play with. I am just looking for answers to certain questions, if you cannot answer then there is no need to slag me off.

ford cortina

request it under the freedom of information act.

iws
7th Mar 2009, 15:39
To Roger and Silo,

Typical, neither of you actually commented on the technical question about moon samples, and Roger went off at a tangent.

And if either of you had actually read the scientific literature, you would know that the Japanese Selene orbiter HAD in fact produced pictures which showed evidence of the Lunar landings.

airfoilmod
7th Mar 2009, 15:45
Standby. This will be good......................

If anyone else joins Rog and Sil....well I'm dumpin' some real dough into tin foil futures.

just sayin'

AF

Roger Sofarover
7th Mar 2009, 15:55
iws

As I said in an earlier post. What question about lunar samples, where is it, you never asked me, I haven't seen it and am not wading through the thread for it. I have not been talking about lunar samples and know nothing about lunar samples. What is your question and what is your point? And what tangent did I go off on, I came on here to discuss what I want to, which is nothing to do with lunar samples.

Where is the japanese photo of lunar debris? Show it and provide the link. They are operating at a 10m resolution therefore they cannot provide a photo of the lunar remains, I really wish they could.

Captain Stable
7th Mar 2009, 16:00
Roger, I think you'll find everything you need here (http://www.jaxa.jp/countdown/f13/index_j.html). :ok: :E

Roger Sofarover
7th Mar 2009, 16:11
C S
:ok: Thanks, been there, its not there:ok:

iws
7th Mar 2009, 16:15
Roger,

The point about the Lunar samples in connection with your posts is that they provide incontrivertible proof that men landed on the moon.

Also, my time is too valuable to spoon feed those who cannot be bothered to research the information for themselves.

You have been given enough keywords to find out to your own satisfaction the proof of the moon landings.

Your response is typical of those who would rather obfuscate than answer direct scientific facts.

airfoilmod
7th Mar 2009, 16:18
e.g. "No Lunar Landing", there is that burden of Proof thingy.

You're off to a late start, and way behind.

Strictly speaking you could reject the role of Plaintiff, and merely state the landing folks haven't proven their case. Unfortunately, they rested their case long ago. If you want to really know what happened, it's up to you, not anyone else. But then you wouldn't be in the middle of the "game", can't have that.

AF

con-pilot
7th Mar 2009, 16:31
Thanks, been there, its not there

Then you didn't bother looking. Check pages 3, 4 and 5 of the Moon pictures to start. If that is not enough proof for you, there is no sense to continue this nonsense.

Men landed on the moon and returned to Earth.

Roger Sofarover
7th Mar 2009, 16:31
iws

I am asking you what question? You said

Typical, neither of you actually commented on the technical question about moon samples, and Roger went off at a tangent.

What technical question did you ask? For a part time lecturer in Astronomy you seem unable to read. Now is this the post you are talking about that you placed?

AS a part time lecturer on Astronomy, I get tired of the same old hype by scientifically illiterate Moon-Hoax believers.

They either don't understand basic Science and Engineering or they refuse to listen.

I am one of the privileged few to own (quasi-legally!) some tiny samples of moon dust and when viewed under a microscope it has several unique unfakeable qualities. The Apollo Lunar samples were distributed to labs all round the world. (yes, Russian and Chinese labs were included). Every one of theses labs concluded that the samples came from the Moon (and not as meteorites either...). The Russians would have been delighted if they had found fakes!

This, the radio tracking, the corner cubes etc, etc. make any easily explainable trivia such as "there are no stars in the pictiures" pale into insigificance.

There, rant over!
http://static.pprune.org/images/statusicon/user_online.gif http://static.pprune.org/images/buttons/report.gif (http://www.pprune.org/report.php?p=4754845) http://static.pprune.org/images/buttons/reply_small.gif (http://www.pprune.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=4754845&noquote=1)

You have not asked a question, so what answer do you expect from anyone. As an astronomer what are you basic understandings of Science and Engineering and what makes you think others do not possess them? Please point out in the posts I have made any failings I have had in understanding the 'basic principles of Science and Engineering'. Thanks.

I am one of the privileged few to own (quasi-legally!) some tiny samples of moon dust and when viewed under a microscope it has several unique unfakeable qualities.

What unfakeable qualities? We have never had any of it before hand to make fakes of or to realise it is unfakeable.

Roger Sofarover
7th Mar 2009, 16:43
Con
which pages 3, 4 and 5? Do you have a link please.

con-pilot
7th Mar 2009, 16:48
which pages 3, 4 and 5? Do you have a link please.

Okay, that's it, I'm out of here. I'm not going to waste my time anymore.

My quote in my post was from you. In case you forgot.

Have fun.

Roger Sofarover
7th Mar 2009, 17:02
Con

Geez what did I say.

I am genuinely asking, which page 3,4 and 5. Do you have the link to the relevant area in what is a very busy site? Are you talking about the photographs of the terrain where the Apollo 15 plume was?

corsair
7th Mar 2009, 17:03
Roger once again in your reply you provided yet another superb example of sophistry. You also appear to be an expert in the straw man method of argument.

Look, the reality is that is plenty of evidence that men landed on the moon. You seem obsessed with this issue, but of all things that is most easily addressed. tell me how to overcome the constantly shifting CofG in the Lunar Module and draw that 36 x 53 inch box and tell me how two guys stay in that for three days and get in and out of full life support systems including donning ridgid helmet assemblies with no look down facility in there aswell.Faked or not, they were able to do all of that. It takes training and practice that's all. There is plenty of documentary and film evidence of how they did it. You can probably google it if you wish. I cannot be bothered to do it for you.

You really need to do better than that.

iws
7th Mar 2009, 17:06
Alright a straight question:

Given the fact that several countries have independently stated that the moon samples are genuine, how, in your opinion, did the samples get here?

iws
7th Mar 2009, 17:26
and to give an example - if the link is allowed in the posting:

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc97/pdf/1680.PDF

This took me about two minutes to find using Google.

iws
7th Mar 2009, 17:28
oops, Mea Culpa - the paper describes Russian samples!


(sorry).

chuks
7th Mar 2009, 17:34
Not paying attention are we, Roger?

The point about the lunar samples is that they exhibit unique physical properties never seen in terrestrial samples, properties that would be difficult verging on impossible to fake.

Even if it is a cruel hoax upon a credulous world it is probably worth visiting the National Air and Space Museum in downtown Washington, D.C. to view the exhibit about the lunar landings. You can see a space suit soiled with Moon dust, for instance and that is pretty neat! If it's a fake then it is a very, very well done fake. In fact, faking the Moon landings would be even more impressive than landing on the Moon so that I think I will have a fresh shave with Ockham's razor and settle for us merely having landed on the Moon as the lesser of the two feats.

Roger, your position on this is positively infantile, maintaining that you are keeping an open mind either way on this.

You have a vast number of people taking the seemingly very reasonable position that the lunar landings happened just as they were claimed to have.

Then you have a lonely lunatic fringe who ignore all sorts of perfectly plausible arguments "for" to put up very feeble ones "against" yet you think you are showing reason to position yourself between these two groups as though both arguments have equal merit. You are standing there just this side of being "out of bounds" pretending that this is the place for a reasonable person to be.

Well, please yourself; when you get bored out there at the edge of the dark woods come on in, have your cookies and milk and settle down at the kitchen table to work out a fresh secret message for us on your Captain Marvel Decoder Ring before toddling off to bed.

iws
7th Mar 2009, 17:49
This involves France and Russia analysing Apollo samples - happy now?



Photo-polarization studies of lunar samples - Negative branch

Dollfus, A. (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/author_form?author=Dollfus,+A&fullauthor=Dollfus,%20A.&charset=UTF-8&db_key=AST); Bowell, E. (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/author_form?author=Bowell,+E&fullauthor=Bowell,%20E.&charset=UTF-8&db_key=AST)
In: Lunar soil from the Sea of Fertility. (A75-34401 16-91) Moscow, Izdatel'stvo Nauka, 1974, p. 517-523. In Russian. (Translation).
The polarization measurements at the Meudon Observatory (France) included measurements of the polarization of light reflected from planetary surfaces, as well as comparative measurements performed with terrestrial (mineral) samples, meteorites, and Apollo samples. Polarization curves (degree of polarization versus phase angle) are plotted and compared as a means of determining the optical characteristics of planetary surfaces. Keywords: LUNAR SOIL, OPTICAL POLARIZATION, PLANETARY SURFACES, POLARIZATION CHARACTERISTICS, BRECCIA, LUNAR ROCKS, METEORITIC MICROSTRUCTURES, PHOTOGEOLOGY, POLARIMETRY

SilsoeSid
7th Mar 2009, 23:07
The replies that Roger has been given merely increase my suspicions and my support of what he says. It also shows how much and how strongly the alleged conspiracy is defended by some.

In a typical reply we are told, "Check pages 3, 4 and 5 of the Moon pictures to start. If that is not enough proof for you, there is no sense to continue this nonsense."

Of course it is in Japanese and for most of us it is hard to find.
Most of us would and Roger did, ask for a link or even for a pic to be posted, surely it is a reasonable request...but what is the reply??
"Okay, that's it, I'm out of here. I'm not going to waste my time anymore."

I suggest that Roger called someones bluff and they didn't like it.

Some of the defenders of the 'truth' make the most ridiculous comments... Such as when visiting the National Air and Space Museum;
You can see a space suit soiled with Moon dust, for instance and that is pretty neat! If it's a fake then it is a very, very well done fake.

How on Earth could you possibly know it is real Moon dust?


Ever hear that the bigger the lie the more it will be believed!

SilsoeSid
7th Mar 2009, 23:21
It must be true, one of the Moon walkers, in a recent interview when asked whether the landings were faked said...

"If they were faked, how can you explain this picture? I took myself!"

http://www.iicbelgrado.esteri.it/IIC_Toronto/webform/..%5C..%5CIICManager%5CUpload%5CIMG%5C%5CToronto%5CMB-SEA-1.jpg
:E

Ok, if we accept that the landings were indeed real, what did they 'really' find up there?

con-pilot
7th Mar 2009, 23:29
Of course it is in Japanese

Due to the consumption of two Scotches and the fact the last poster quoted me I shall respond, one last time to this idiocy.

HEY DUMMY, I'LL TYPE REAL SLOW SO YOU WILL UNDERSTAND.

At the top of the link in question there is a box, that says.

"ENGLISH".

Now go put your tin foil hat, lined with peanut butter back on.

I'm out of here, time to go out for dinner.




(No tinfoil hats or peanut butter was hurt or injured in this post.)

Dushan
7th Mar 2009, 23:37
(No tinfoil hats or peanut butter was hurt or injured in this post.)

But I think a wearer of said paraphernalia was, and rightfully so.

Con, you have been named a co-conspirator:ok:

SilsoeSid
8th Mar 2009, 00:18
Thanks for pointing that out conny, if only you could have pointed it out earlier, it would have been more helpful.

Ok then, on looking where told to, we find;

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g11/silsoesid/Apollo15LS.jpg
http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g11/silsoesid/Apollo17LS.jpg

If I can just remind you of what conny told us;

Check pages 3, 4 and 5 of the Moon pictures to start. If that is not enough proof for you, there is no sense to continue this nonsense.

Wow, well I suppose thats that then!
:rolleyes:


Good thing about these tin foil hats is that I always have somewhere to keep my sandwiches fresh ! :ok:

chuks
8th Mar 2009, 11:13
Last time I looked there was just Roger up there. Now Sid has joined him for a 100% increase in just 24 hours. Tomorrorow at this time 4, the day after 8... When it gets up to 64 or so please send us a picture of that. It will be better than these boring old Moon piccies with nothing much to be seen.

I love it, the keen forensic talent here on display! Able to sniff out a fraud of cosmic proportions but unable to spot the little "Click here for Engrish" button on the screen. Too bad you just blew a whole lot of money on a "Learn Japanese in your Sleep" course when all you had to do was click on that one little button but sometimes life is like that, unfair.

"How do I know that is Moon dust on the space suit?" one of our resident sceptics asks. Good question well put!

I don't, of course! There must have been a label there reading "Space suit soiled with Moon dust," which I simply chose to believe, along with all the other stuff ranged along there, everything to do with the Apollo program and the Moon landings. That could have been cocoa powder, given that I was not allowed to take a dab and taste it.

Now, please don't just diss me for being a monster of egotism but given that I spotted the "Engrish" button right away I guess that makes me waaay smarter than 50% of the Moon landing sceptics here and most probably smarter than 100% of them. That is just an informed guess, of course and nothing to be particularly proud of.

So, given that MY I.Q. is higher than room temperature, plus that I do have a nodding acquaintance with various bits of high-tech machinery, well, I looked at all the stuff on display there in Washington and found it very convincing. Okay, we are dealing with the U.S. Government so that one would not really expect a keen glance to betray the fact that the helmet on the space suit was made of papier maché, for instance but if you really must fake detail stuff such as space toothbrushes and space toilet paper...

Is it reasonable to believe this Apollo program was all just a monstrous fraud, including the deaths of three astronauts? No, sorry, that is unreasonable.

Another bit of unreason is to straddle that fence while keeping one's dignity intact, as if normal folk are unable to use basic logic to decide whether a fairly obvious scenario is deserving of belief over one that has a distinct pong of lunacy.

No, the smart thing is to never make up your mind about anything, I suppose. Normal life must be a bit difficult that way. You go out driving and come to a traffic light showing green. Well, perhaps that is a FAKE traffic light! What, you just say to yourself, "Ho-hum, green light means go..." when you are taking your LIFE in your hands?

Assuming you make it past the fake traffic lights then you park and go shopping. Say you want a can of baked beans. Well, how do you know that it is beans in that can? Yeah, there is a label reading "beans" but what if some maniac just stuck that label on a can of botulinum toxin? You better take a can-opener along and double-check things and never mind what the Store Manager has to say about that; he's probably one of THEM!

Hang in there boys and don't let that fence chafe. Oh, and stay off the canned goods!

Roger Sofarover
8th Mar 2009, 11:33
Chucks
Good to see the Sunday afternoon redwine frenzy is well underway, enjoy:ok: I can see you are on a roll and know you have got through the first bottle when you start talking about the 'moonbats'. Keep going your next posts will get funnier.

As an aside, sorry to disappoint but I did know the site in question was in English, but as there are hundreds of possible navigation options I was politely asking for a link reference to save time, thats all, as I could not find a page 3,4 or 5 under 'moon pictures'. It was a simple request, met by a very grumpy Con.

chuks
8th Mar 2009, 12:49
I don't drink; this is me sober. When I used to get stuck into the electric soup you would not believe the nonsense I could come up with.

"Moonbats," well, yes, indeed but I think we were there speaking of 9/11 truthers. In my mind I lump you all together, those who think the Moon landings, 9/11 and the Holocaust were all faked and I do not think I am being unfair. Oh, and FDR knew about Pearl Harbor in advance but let it happen anyway. Have I missed something here? (Rhetorical question: there are The Illuminati, there is the Tri-Lateral Commission, there are The Elders of Zion and their Protocols and there is that Supermarket Manager who "keeps looking at me funny" just because I needed to make sure that can really held beans and not botulism. They are all in this together, I tell you!)

I have been waiting more-or-less patiently for one of you forensic types to grumble about how the Japanese Moon piccies with their 10-metre resolution do not show the relics of our Moon landings, all smaller than 10 metres, thus proving there is nothing there to be seen.

Are we having a quiet sulk after that mean old Con-pilot faked you out with his "Crick here for Engrish" button hidden in plain sight?

frostbite
8th Mar 2009, 13:07
Weren't all the Moonbats eaten by the Drop-bears?

yakker
8th Mar 2009, 13:43
I'm sorry I just do not understand why people want to believe man did not set foot on the moon. Is it they think it was impossible, because they do not have the intelligence to even start to figure out the science and engineering involved?
The lengths they go to, to prove it did not happen is amazing. The theories reach the point where it becomes easier to go to the moon than fake it.
Even the guys at Jodrell Bank were in on the scam, as they tracked the first moon shot to the surface, and I believe, knew the Eagle had landed before NASA.
Ofcourse McDonald Observatory are in on the cover up as well, their laser is not bouncing off the reflectors left by Apollo 11, 14 and 15.

They are not all locked up yet.:ugh:

Roger Sofarover
8th Mar 2009, 13:58
Chucks
I already cricked there several months ago, and when I cricked there again couldn't find pages thlee four and flive, you go try.

Sallyann1234
8th Mar 2009, 14:03
This has doubtless been covered already somewhere but:
The US and the USSR were in a neck-and-neck race into space and then to the moon. After initial Russian leads, Kennedy declared a deadline for the US to get a man safely to the moon and back. Would the US take the risk of faking a landing and publishing the coordinates, knowing that sooner or later the Russians would be there and could establish publicly that the US had failed? We now know the Russians lost interest after the US success, but the US weren't to know that beforehand - the Russkies could have observed the alleged landing site from moon orbit just days or weeks later and shown the pictures. What would that have done to US credibility and prestige during the cold war?
Even without such an immediate embarassment, men would eventually arrive there and expose the trick. It was just a matter of time.

RSFTO
8th Mar 2009, 14:15
there is never been a living creature out of the van hallen belt (really is a sphere) which sourrounds the earth. It is a microwave sphere that sourrond the planet and to go through alive you need a craft with very thik plumb wall around. When the russian found it out that was not possible to get airborne such an heavy craft to travel out of the planet they lost interest in trying it.

this belt is quite far away from the planet and in fact all space shuttle missions and the international station are inside this spherical surface.

this is what I think it is true, I do not believe that they have ever made it to the moon.

mr fish
8th Mar 2009, 14:18
212 posts and no mention of the "grassy knoll".
the conspiricy nuts have REALLY dropped the ball with this one!!!

WhatsaLizad?
8th Mar 2009, 14:30
Here's my problem,

Let's see a 6 page debating whether or not Mohammed was a fraud or even existed.

Yet PPrune will permit this and other threads like it, especially those dealing with the USA and it's goverment, to go round and round forever.

Another 32 people were murdered as a result of a suicide bomber. Wake me up when the mass marches against killing are scheduled.

Captain Speedbird
8th Mar 2009, 14:33
The Van Hallen belt sounds like something you might find for sale on ebay. A bit like the Gazza strip. :confused:

chuks
8th Mar 2009, 14:35
Holds up the Van Halen pants, I believe. Is that the one you are writing about?

Oh, sorry, you must mean the Van Allen belt!

Yes, well, go out of LEO (Low Earth Orbit) and you leave the area of the Van Allen belt, when cosmic radiation is something you have to worry about. In fact, I think NASA used some sort of cosmic weather forecasts to avoid ending up with microwaved astronauts. If I remember right they checked the level of solar activity to see what sort of cosmic radiation would be encountered on these trips to the Moon. It does take a while for the troublesome radiation to make it all the way from the Sun to the Earth and the Moon.

Yes, some people do maintain that it would be impossible to leave LEO without ending up fried by radiation unless you wore lead BVDs. In fact this is a worry about a trip to Mars. To the Moon and back, I guess they figured they could do that and it seems to me that they guessed right on that.

Dushan
8th Mar 2009, 14:41
Is it anything like this?


http://wellnessbelts.com/files/images/frontpage-belt-picture.jpg

ChristiaanJ
8th Mar 2009, 17:04
What amuses me is that nobody has brought up the question why the Russians didn't fake their manned lunar landing.

After all, there was a race on, no?

And they had even more of a motive to fake it, since their N-1 rockets (their near-equivalent of the Saturn-V) kept blowing up....

I still remember the original set of articles in "Aviation Week" many years ago, when the Russion manned lunar programme finally became public knowledge.

CJ

chuks
8th Mar 2009, 17:49
Around 1961 the Soviets made the first images of the back side of the Moon. There was a very detailed debunking of this feat in some American magazine, Popular Science or Popular Photography, I think, pointing out all the details that showed the pictures were faked.

Unfortunately, while they must have been heavily retouched the images had not been faked so that all those craters the Sovs got to name still carry the same names. That time they got there first.

I was just looking up this Van Allen belt using Wikipedia. The answer I found was that the Apollo missions were of such a short duration that the increased exposure to radiation was not unduly dangerous. A mission to Mars, on the other hand, looks as it it could be a real health problem, particularly for women.

Tyres O'Flaherty
8th Mar 2009, 17:55
Occams

Bloody

Razor

Juud
8th Mar 2009, 18:11
There's full-blown paranoia, there's threaddrift and then there's this:

Here's my problem,

Let's see a 6 page debating whether or not Mohammed was a fraud or even existed.

Yet PPrune will permit this and other threads like it, especially those dealing with the USA and it's goverment, to go round and round forever.
...


:confused:

chuks
8th Mar 2009, 18:15
ADD : Attention Deficit Disorder. There is a lot of that going around, I think...

I was a bit bummed out to read that about women not being candidates for trips to Mars. I was about to volunteer the mother-in-law.

corsair
8th Mar 2009, 18:24
I know man landed on the moon. As a small boy, I for one sat up most of the night to watch it on TV live...ish. I'll never forget that blurry black and white image on our blurry black and white TV. The last thing I did before going to bed was to look at the moon in wonder and say to myself. 'There are men up there now.' I look forward to saying that again one day.

Short of Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin calling a press conference and admitting they were on a set in Arizona. Nothing will convince me there was anything fake about it. I've read Armstrong's biography. It frankly is not a rip roaring read. But one thing tha comes out of it is the sheer integrity of the man. He is a serious Engineer and test pilot. The book actually details many of his exam results. He is positively anal about his work. If you can judge anyone by their biography. He would never have gone along with any fakery. Nor indeed would most of the astronaut corps.

In any case, if you're going to fake it why fake six missions or was it seven. Just fake one, it would have saved a lot of money.

I just wonder why the conspiracists can't just enjoy it for what it was. The crowning achievement of aviation in the 20th century.

Addendum: One good thing about this thread is that it has rekindled my enthusiasm and interest in the Apollo mission. Already started perusing various web sites looking at the 'fake' photos.

Roger Sofarover
8th Mar 2009, 18:31
I know man landed on the moon. As a small boy, I for one sat up most of the night to watch it on TV live...ish. I'll never forget that blurry black and white image on our blurry black and white TV. The last thing I did before going to bed was to look at the moon in wonder and say to myself. 'There are men up there now.' I look forward to saying that again one day.

Well there you have it. All the scientific proof that's needed. I back down from my case, all questions have been answered. That is the weight of the world off my shoulders, thanks Corsair:ok:

corsair
8th Mar 2009, 18:44
You know, Roger I kind of knew you or someone else would come back with some sarky comment about the quoted paragraph. So I'm not sure why I'm so irritated by it now. The temptation to launch the ad hominen missile which is at my fingertips right now is almost unbearable. But no, I won't. You know quite well what I mean but you resorted to the internet staple of selecting a line or two out of context and attacking it.

By all means ignore the rest of my post, better still go back to the fence you profess to sit on.

Meanwhile I'm going back to enjoying the NASA gallery of Apollo imagery which I was browsing before being so rudely interrupted. For fakes they are truly fabulous images.

603DX
8th Mar 2009, 19:00
Roger:

In your post 194 you asked: "Are you talking about the photographs of the terrain where the Apollo 15 plume was?"

This suggests to me that:


you knew perfectly well which photos (otherwise where did you get that from, if not from the "Kaguna image gallery" in question?)
you accept there is a "halo" made by the lunar module exhaust plume (about 250 metres across - well above the 10m resolution)
you are a bit of a "wind-up merchant"If my surmise is correct, well done, you appear to have stirred up some very entertaining reactions. For myself, I am quite certain that the USA landed men on the moon.

Roger Sofarover
8th Mar 2009, 19:01
The Apollo images are fabulous Corsair, I remember getting the posters for sending in a load of labels from Heinz beans (they were beans Chucks). Even more fabulous when you consider they were taken from a chest mounted camera, which the astronauts were unable to look down in to the view finder and had a fixed focus. Even the Haslebad engineer asked to design the camera to the required specification could not explain how fabulous those photos were.

Bye the way, don't be upset, I think you have fired enough missiles over my way the last 36 hours, you should expect some back. Enjoy the slide show.

603
I have visited the site many times, however the pic that I referred to is not on any 'page 3,4 and 5' of that site, so I was genuinely asking Con as I thought I had clearly missed something. The photos of the plume, if you look were photos taken from the Apollo 15 command module, the one without the plume from the lunar module on descent. The japanese satelite imagery is 3 dimensional of the area of the plume, I cannot find one that shows the plume, it just points out the area. The photo in question nowhere near fills the 'what more proof do you need category' as it doesn't show anything. Wind up merchant...maybe, conspiracist...no, want to believe...yes!

yakker
8th Mar 2009, 19:04
In any case, if you're going to fake it why fake six missions or was it seven. Just fake one, it would have saved a lot of money.

Not to mention faking a near disaster in Apollo 13.

I'm with you Corsair, rekindled my interest. Now I will need to go in the loft and dig out all those newspapers I kept after the first Moon landing. Afterall it is nearly 40 years ago this July, and I would like to re-read them.

603DX
8th Mar 2009, 19:53
Roger:

I suggest you visit the site again. Click on MORE>> at the bottom RHS of the first set of 8 thumbnails, you then get the same 8 thumbs again, but with page numbers 1-10 arrayed at bottom RHS instead.

Browse through these, and you get thumbs of Apollo 11,15 and 17 landing sites. Find "Apollo 15 Landing Site 3/4" images, click on these for large, clear images of the JAXA/SELENE image dated 24/2/2008 and the two smaller NASA images alongside. The "halo" from the lunar module plume can be seen to match with the same red-circled region on the smaller image taken by the command module. All this being described in the explanatory text in the three paragraphs below the images.

I have just done this, and actually found the Apollo 15 Site 3/4 bumph to be on page 2, (not 3, 4 or 5.)

Roger Sofarover
8th Mar 2009, 20:00
603
A genuine thanks:ok: On my way there now. Nice to meet somebody civilised.

iws
8th Mar 2009, 20:17
Interesting that Roger has not answered my question about the Lunar Samples or even commented on my subsequent postings.

It is typical of such Hoax believers that they skitter on to something else, whenever they are caught out.

If it talks like a troll, smells like a troll then.............

I am also out of here because I find it frustrating that all the hard work I put into my career is so quickly stamped on by idiots who don't even have the common courtesy to do research for themselves.

Roger Sofarover
8th Mar 2009, 20:23
603

I found 4 photos of the Apollo 15 site, I think the one in question showing the plume is not really good enough as evidence. In the words of the site itself.

The enlarged image where the area of the potential "halo" exists. (left image: 1 square kilometer in size. The red circle encloses the potential "halo").The reflectivity of the "halo" area became brighter than the original one by the Apollo 15 lunar module engine exhaust plume and the probable "halo" area was confirmed. My Italics.

However, the photo at this link is really good (the page after the plume photo)
kaguya image gallery | Apollo 15 Landing Site(4/4) (http://wms.selene.jaxa.jp/selene_viewer/en/observation_mission/tc/tc_008.html)

A 3-D construction of the terrain from the landing site that appears incredibly accurate. Thanks a lot:ok:

ChristiaanJ
8th Mar 2009, 20:27
ZEEBEE,
You mentioned Woomera.
I thought the "Big Dish" was at Parkes, or is that more or less the same site?

To me the simple fact that they had to get some of the first images from Parkes, before the moon was over the horizon in the US, is enough proof...

But then I've never been one of the doubters.... been "in on" it too long.

Have you heard if they ever did find the original SSTV tapes?

CJ

SilsoeSid
8th Mar 2009, 20:31
It's laughable, you assume that I didn't see the 'English' button on the jp site when the point being made was that it was clearly too difficult (or embarrassing, because there is nothing to see) for any believer to post a direct link and then later we get the famous saying " you quote me out of context.

Mmmm, out of context as in that's not what I meant to say but you caught me out! :p

I suppose when we are told "You'll find it on Pages 3,4 & 5", meant Page 2. :D
Taken well out of context :ugh:

Instead of telling us where, can people not post links, or even better pics, it's not difficult.

THIS is the believers PROOF kindly pointed out directly to us.
kaguya image gallery | Apollo 15 Landing Site(3/4) (http://wms.selene.jaxa.jp/selene_viewer/en/observation_mission/tc/tc_007.html)

Apollo 15 Landing Site, Before and After.


http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g11/silsoesid/Appollo15before.jpg http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g11/silsoesid/Appollo15after.jpg


Pretty conclusive Eh !? :rolleyes:

Roger Sofarover
8th Mar 2009, 20:41
iws
You seem a little full of your own self importance. Firstly I am 7 hours ahead of you at the moment and last night I had better things to do (sleep) while you carried on running around the hamster wheel. The last person I have thought about today is you and your question, which you eventually asked.

The academics reports which I have read on the geological make-up of the lunar samples are both interesting and impressive, and appear well conducted. They fully support the theory of a manned landing on the moon, however many other technical aspects do not. Is your name on that list of academics (now I dont think it will be as you got something as simple as the Russian Lunar Samples wrong!), so if you are not on the list of academics then why come out with this statement.

am also out of here because I find it frustrating that all the hard work I put into my career is so quickly stamped on by idiots who don't even have the common courtesy to do research for themselves.

Like you couldn't research the Russian lunar samples? what was it ...mea culpa? So what papers have you written concerning the geology of lunar samples and where were they published (from your 'quasi-legal' dust samples). What hard work have you put in to your career that we have stamped on? Certain aspects of the lunar landing are being questioned, not stamped on, so what work did you do that involved the lunar landings?

You said you were a part time lecturer in Astronomy. I assume from your hard work you are so upset about that you are an astrogeologist. Now be a polite educated chap and don't call me an idiot, and then I won't assume that you are the chap that tidys up the lecture hall after the Professor has finished.

ChristiaanJ
8th Mar 2009, 20:46
The match between the Selene 3D reconstititution and the Apollo 15 pic (which couldn't have been taken any other way except from the site) is conclusive enough for me.

Oh, you're saying Apollo 15 happened, but Apollo 11 didn't? Never satisfied, them conspirators.

CJ

Roger Sofarover
8th Mar 2009, 20:51
Oh, you're saying Apollo 15 happened, but Apollo 11 didn't? Never satisfied, them conspirators.

Nobody has said that! Perhaps if people just dealt with facts instead of making assumptions we could have an intelligent debate.

ChristiaanJ
8th Mar 2009, 21:02
Roger,
It's been implied several times.

Since this is JetBlast, and a joke subject anyway, how on earth (or moon) do you expect an intelligent debate?

Even if I agree, that the notion of conspiracy theories and people that will adhere to them, is worth discussing seriously.

CJ

chuks
8th Mar 2009, 21:30
With the facts. What you do, well, what you should do, is assemble the facts and then deal with them as most people do.

Given that most of us never are able to directly experience the "facts" we get them second- or third-hand but that doesn't nullify them as facts. You "see" a rocket launch as a fact. Well, there are usually lots of folks right there watching the event first-hand so that we are willing to accept it as a fact. Not to do so is unreasonable. We "saw" teams of highly-trained astronauts launch into space, land on the Moon and even return bearing unique samples, stuff never found on Earth. Who should not be convinced by all of that?

Roger, here, is just being a typical troll, ably assisted by Trainee Troll Sid. You serve him up a fact, he wrinkles his nose and says, "Nope, not good enough for me! It smells funny! Bring me another one." Finally, the impulse to slap him arises, when he can whine about that. Then he retreats under his bridge to await the next unwary traveller.

henry crun
8th Mar 2009, 21:49
Roger, Apologies in advance if you have made this point clear already and I have missed it.
I do not know at what point your uncertainty starts.

Presumably you do believe that 6 Saturn rockets launched 18 astronauts in earth orbit. It is what happened after that I would like you to make clear.

1.Are you sure or unsure that each Apollo went to the moon and entered lunar orbit ?
2. Are you sure or unsure that each of the 6 Lems containing 2 men detached from the command module while in lunar orbit ?
3. Are you sure or unsure that each of the 6 Lems containing 2 men descended to the lunar surface and landed ?

SilsoeSid
8th Mar 2009, 22:00
Trainee Troll indeed !! :{

You "see" a rocket launch as a fact. Well, there are usually lots of folks right there watching the event first-hand so that we are willing to accept it as a fact. Not to do so is unreasonable. We "saw" teams of highly-trained astronauts launch into space, land on the Moon and even return bearing unique samples, stuff never found on Earth. Who should not be convinced by all of that?

A rocket launch yes, is a fact, they happen quite regularly, but they don't always go to the Moon and they are not always manned!
Some of them are classified launches/payloads...what are they up to?

Yes a fully loaded Saturn 5 would be noisier than one not fully loaded as mentioned earlier, but who is to say that the fully loaded one didn't just go into orbit or simply fly to the moon and back remotely?

You did not see teams of highly trained astronauts launched into space en-route to the moon, you were told they were on board!

You did not necessarily see these highly trained astronauts land on the Moon, you were told they did!

'Stuff never found on Earth', who told you that?


This is Jet Blast, we will forever differ in our ideas, opinions and versions of events. However, what you must remember is that not all conspiracies are theories. You accept the theory of Relativity and the Theory of Evolution, I bet Nixon supporters here would have defended the Watergate Conspiracy as being just a Conspiracy Theory, until 2 humble reporters rumbled it.

So all that you believers are doing is the Governments work for them!

SilsoeSid
8th Mar 2009, 22:18
Who was it that said if the Russians thought it was a hoax, surely they would make a meal of it?

Well, for many years we had Armies on immediate stand-by awaiting the Soviet hoards to come rumbling West-bound to take over our freedom.

With all our intelligence services available, we still didn't know that many of their vehicles were unserviceable and hundreds of tanks had only one camp gate to get out of, which would have meant deployment would take weeks.

If information as basic as that was kept secret from NATO Forces and their intelligence services, then how simple would it be to hide what was going on in the highly secretive world of the space race. Not only from the Soviets, but also from the American people in the middle of the Vietnam War?

Lets have a link shall we with the problems with Cambodia and Apollo 13 both funnily enough the same time in 1970.
I bet some out there will not believe there was any diversion of attention going on there!

Dushan
8th Mar 2009, 23:14
Lets have a link shall we with the problems with Cambodia and Apollo 13 both funnily enough the same time in 1970.
I bet some out there will not believe there was any diversion of attention going on there!

Did somebody mention the grassy knoll, a few posts ago? I think it is coming soon...

SilsoeSid
9th Mar 2009, 00:06
Told you. (Thanks Dush)

Right then, here it is; You cannot prove that apollo 11 put 2 Men on the Moon.

End of.
:ok:
L8R

corsair
9th Mar 2009, 01:32
Hey, Roger and Siloe it's been fun. But you know, no one takes you seriously. You shoud know that. But of course you do. Your are an internet staple, the troll or the misguided. Not sure which.

Chuks has you kind of sussed. I should add that chuks and I have issues. We don't like each other much. He sent me rude PMs and I reciprocated. It's a bitch fight. He insulted my country and I didn't insult his. He's often right on the nose (the bastard) But it's only internet stuff. But he's right about you guys.

I enjoy the game as much as the next man. I honestly cannot underdstand why you would think it's fake or to play the game, why you, Roger would claim to sit on the fence.

Explain, succintily.

Bally Heck
9th Mar 2009, 02:04
First of all, apologies if this has been posted before. But I think it would have killed the thread dead if it has! (I came into the thread late)

I came across this site several years ago, and it convinced me for sure that the moon landings were fake.

Examine the photos and read the text, then tell me that you honestly believe that man walked on the moon.

Fake Moon Landings The moon landings are fake! (http://stuffucanuse.com/fake_moon_landings/moon_landings.htm)

I suspect you won't!

Brian Abraham
9th Mar 2009, 02:52
Bally, you've made me a believer, SilsoeSid and his Boss had it right all along. I think you should all apologise. :eek:

Roger Sofarover
9th Mar 2009, 04:40
Henry

Yep, I am absolutely certain the Saturns launched.

1.Are you sure or unsure that each Apollo went to the moon and entered lunar orbit Pretty Sure
2. Are you sure or unsure that each of the 6 Lems containing 2 men detached from the command module while in lunar orbit ? Unsure
3. Are you sure or unsure that each of the 6 Lems containing 2 men descended to the lunar surface and landed ? Unsure

chuks
9th Mar 2009, 08:23
A big, wet kiss blown in the general direction of Corsair there, just to make up for having subtly hinted that "his" country (mine too in terms of ancestry) is a festering bog inhabited by failed candidates for hillbillydom who obviously missed the cattle boat Great-grandfather caught. As if! Celtic tigers rule OK!

No, you get to a certain point where you just have to close ranks, stop and declare some people unreasonable. On the one side there is a great mass of eyewitness testimony and physical evidence of what happened there when the Apollo program succeeded in landing on the Moon. On the other side there are highly tenuous arguments against all of that.

Here we have a couple of people who think it is clever to deny all the evidence and either go with the tenuous arguments or else pose as undecided seekers after ultimate truth, when these actions really are just unreasonable.

Then there is "offensive" too, something these folks simply overlook. (What is it with some of these people; their social skills are limited to typing mindless crap onto a screen so that they never manage to have a wide-ranging conversation with a real, live human being face-to-face? That might be the problem.) Where "offensive" comes in, since I guess they need this explained, the U.S.A. took some highly elite pilots, trained them to the very highest standards, sent them off into an environment that is one of the most hostile to life that one can imagine and brought them safe home again.

This was an amazing achievement that most people, not just Americans, genuinely admire as "...one giant leap for mankind." Yet you get these tiny-minded trolls who choose to deny all that and posit an enormous fake instead, making of our heroes fraudsters. No wonder one of them got a fist in his stupid face as payback for that when he was so brain-dead as to confront a real astronaut with his tedious and offensive nonsense.

If the sort of fellow who wants openly to doubt the fact of the Moon landings ever got access to a ramp, a real pilot would probably not even allow him to carry his flight bag. You might get peanut butter on it, you see.

Roger Sofarover
9th Mar 2009, 08:24
Chucks

I think by definition you are the one being offensive.


OK

Here is the dichotomy. Firstly there is much evidence to support moon landings, similarly there is much evidence that is no where near robust enough to support the theory. Many rely on the testimony of the astronaut's as they are men of integrity and honesty. Below is a clip of Ed Mitchell, Apollo 14 astronaut 6th man to set foot on the moon. He is a guest on the Larry King show and the discussion is about Roswell. Was it aliens or was it a weather balloon. Dr Mitchell arrives at part 4 of the show. He says he knows it was aliens, however, listen to the reasons he gives as to why he is so sure. Now if you did not know that this guy was an Apollo astronaut who had walked on the moon (as L King says 'a distinguished American'), you would call him a complete cuckoo. I assume that because he is a gentleman of integrity and honesty all moon landing believers will accept his account of Roswell without question and we can assume that you all believe him. He is not very convincing I have to warn you, and Larry King does him a favour and gets rid of him before the 'other chap' in the bow tie (who is very good) can lay into him and take him apart on the TV show. Watch part 3 also to see the 'bow tied' one in action dispelling the whole notion of little green men. Now the little green men brigade, surely they are the moonbats!


<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ACwBKKmySb0&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ACwBKKmySb0&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

chuks
9th Mar 2009, 08:46
Why should we accept this man's views about Roswell just because he's an astronaut?

What, you think because Chuck Yeager does adverts for something or other I am going to rush out and buy it using the logic of: Chuck Yeager is a great pilot and he says this stuff (that has nothing to do with flying) is great therefore it must be great and I need more great stuff so I am going to buy it, whatever it is that Chuck Yeager takes money to advertise? Umm, not really... Most of us are not terminally naive, Roger.

You are piling the cards up pretty high there, Roger. If all I had to go on was the testimony of this one astronaut that he landed on the Moon, as if he quietly went away for two weeks and came back to say, "Guess what? I just went to the Moon and back. Oh, and by the way, let me tell you about the aliens at Roswell..." then, fair enough, I too might doubt the Moon landings ever occurred. This man was just one of many, though and if he has some beliefs (that have nothing to do with the Moon landings) that are a bit strange, well, what of that?

Lindbergh was a bit of a Nazi admirer. Does that mean, perhaps, that he really didn't fly to Paris? Some people saw him take off from New York; other people saw him land at Paris but NO ONE saw him do both! Ah-hah! Using Roger logic we can obviously posit that because Lindbergh was rather unsound in some of his beliefs then the New York-Paris flight was faked. it's obvious, innit?

I have an excuse for being here, hiding out from doing yardwork for Spartacus in the German drizzle, being, as it were and so to speak, temporarily on gardening leave at the moment, just another victim of the ups and downs of this game we choose to call "aviation" plus I am coasting, just going along with what the majority choose to believe about what happened during the Apollo program. Soon enough I shall be back at work, off to Spain to become that object of wonder, a JAR-certified Flight Instructor, hoping to warp the minds of a new generation of junior birdmen. In the meantime there is this, shovelling piles of Roger and Sid's virtual dreck.

What about you, Roger? Tell us more about what drives you to post this stuff. Is it genuine concern to enlighten deluded humanity or something else, something darker?

Edited to spare someone's feelings there!

Roger Sofarover
9th Mar 2009, 08:58
As I said Chucks, you do not resort to debate, you just resort to being offensive as your only defence. Perhaps there is an area for your advancement. Good day.