Do you believe about Apollo moon landing in 1969 ?

[Peter]

May I sum it up?

fsardis: "It's too complicated for me to comprehend, so it cannot possibly be true!"

I bet he's a creationist too ...

 

[dkozloski]

Another very cleverly delivered jab from a heathen.

 

[Armitage]

LRO: Lunar Recon Orbiter

Selected quotes:

LRO is the first of the Robotic Lunar Exploration Program missions. After a planned launch by late fall 2008, LRO will take four days to make its way to the Moon and then orbit that chunk of "magnificent desolation" for nominally one year.

Take note. For you "Apollo landings were a hoax" believers LROC's sightseeing abilities should set the record straight.

LROC is to image U.S. and Soviet landing sites on the Moon. That includes NASA's Ranger and Surveyor lunar probes, as well as the touch down spots of Apollo expeditionary crews and the impact sites of spent Saturn rocket stages that hurled astronauts moonward. Also on the LROC see list are the Soviet Union's Lunakhod automated rovers, Robinson told SPACE.com.

"We will image the Apollo sites and you will see the descent stages sitting on the surface," Robinson said. LROC will clearly see the overall shape of that landing hardware, but won't be able to resolve such things as the insignia on the side of the descent stage, or see the stripes on astronaut-planted flags, he said.

Additionally, Robinson noted, given a setting Sun in the lunar sky, LROC should spot the long shadow of descent stages cast across the Moon's crater-pocked terrain.

Of course, this won't convince the conspiracy theorists, because NASA would obviously never incriminate themselves. So this mission will just be another conspiracy producing fake imagery of the old Apollo hardware. :roll:

 

[Velk]

Originally posted by: Armitage

Of course, this won't convince the conspiracy theorists, because NASA would obviously never incriminate themselves. So this mission will just be another conspiracy producing fake imagery of the old Apollo hardware. :roll:

Would you believe NASA is so dumb that they will make *THE SAME* mistakes with their fakes that they did the first time ?! Look ! The flag is still flying out straight ! Hah, how can they be so stupid after they knew we were on to them !

8)

Kind of pointless now of course, but I feel compelled to mention that NASA also televised the launches that *did* explode and kill everyone, with millions of people watching.

 

[Tsaico]

Originally posted by: fsardis
@armitage

[edited out]
...to my knowledge the star wars programme did include the moon, i could be wrong though. im not too sure. still the stations on the moon for scientific experiments and what not are a rather good excuse arent they? especially if you realise that USA is paying rent to russia to use their space station.

Russia has a space station?

Not to mention, stations/bases on the moon would be crazy expensive. Too keep the thing stocked with food, breathable air, and fuel would take billions on billions. Making nearly anything they could grab and learn cost-prohibitive. As for star wars, it was just a military platform that would orbit the earth, trying to shoot something down from the moon would be very difficult, as they have problems shooting things down when they are a few hundred meters away. Even if they had lasers and such, if it were based on the moon, what use would it be.

The only argument that I haven't seen debunked was the pressurized spacesuits. If the suits were presurized, why weren't they pushed out like a michelan man? I wasn't sure if there was multiple layers in there, so one layer was puffed out, and the out-most layer is the relaxed wrinkled look we all know? But that still doesn't make me think the moon landind was a hoax... It just makes me think I don't know how a spacesuit is constructed.

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: Tsaico

Originally posted by: fsardis
@armitage

[edited out]
...to my knowledge the star wars programme did include the moon, i could be wrong though. im not too sure. still the stations on the moon for scientific experiments and what not are a rather good excuse arent they? especially if you realise that USA is paying rent to russia to use their space station.

Russia has a space station?

Not to mention, stations/bases on the moon would be crazy expensive. Too keep the thing stocked with food, breathable air, and fuel would take billions on billions. Making nearly anything they could grab and learn cost-prohibitive. As for star wars, it was just a military platform that would orbit the earth, trying to shoot something down from the moon would be very difficult, as they have problems shooting things down when they are a few hundred meters away. Even if they had lasers and such, if it were based on the moon, what use would it be.

The only argument that I haven't seen debunked was the pressurized spacesuits. If the suits were presurized, why weren't they pushed out like a michelan man? I wasn't sure if there was multiple layers in there, so one layer was puffed out, and the out-most layer is the relaxed wrinkled look we all know? But that still doesn't make me think the moon landind was a hoax... It just makes me think I don't know how a spacesuit is constructed.

Very many layers, but one key is an airtight layer surrounded by a tightly woven fabric with a very high tensile strength (something like kevlar). Put two or five fabric layers outside of the airtight one(s) and it'll get krinkly.

 

[Clauzii]

 

[Clauzii]

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: fsardis
sorry for the double post but i felt i had to address the pizza troll guy on a seperate post. smopoim86 made another nice argument and another guy replied to him saying that america has no real interest and they do it for the hell of it. seriously mate, do you know many things that governments do for the hell of it? controlling the moon is probably the most important military advantage you can have against other countries. you call that "the hell of it"?

Because there are several internation treaties in effect... which Ban any military use of celestial bodies, including weapon testing or as military bases.
Text

Oh, so now the US government obbeys the rules of UN?? Since when?

 

[Clauzii]

Can anyone explain the pictures where the astronauts have the face cover shield up,
while walking on the moon? How is that possible without getting suntanned in like
5secs????

And the cameras whern´t white - according to a Hasselblad engineer back then, it was
just the basic model painted silver...Hmmm....

Btw. it´s sometimes possible to see stars on Earth - even when the Sun is up... But no
stars on the moon pics?? At all?? It´s funny, because that would have been possible with
the right exposior and proper lab´ing of the film.... Funny...

What kind of fabric/material was used in the Space Suits to shield off the humongous
amount of radiation from the Sun - particularly in the year of ´69 where solar flares
where at the peak in it´s 11 year period of flare bursts??

What about the stratosphaeric atomic bombs "to make a pathway through the van Allen
belts"? (This last one is really hillarious, but possibly true, hence the 1961 atomic bomb
testings - which btw. is a "lovely" contribution to the same van Allen belts adding a third
layer of radiation to the natural ones.....and disturbing the Earths atmosphaere in
general) .

 

[Born2bwire]

Originally posted by: Clauzii
Can anyone explain the pictures where the astronauts have the face cover shield up,
while walking on the moon? How is that possible without getting suntanned in like
5secs????

UV filters are easily made to be transparent. Just about any set of glasses or contact lenses these days will filter out UV light.

 

[kevinthenerd]

Find me a modern competitor quite like 1960s Russia and a space-minded president who actually understood the importance of technology. That's what it was all about: proving capitalism over communism.

 

[RossGr]

IF we had an admistration that had a clue about the sciences, we would not be wasting time and resources on manned space missions.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: RossGr
IF we had an admistration that had a clue about the sciences, we would not be wasting time and resources on manned space missions.

If we had an administration that had a clue about a lot of things, a lot less money and resources would be spent in many areas, and more money would be spent where it matters (science education.) Just last week, there was an article about schools cutting out their science programs so they could concentrate on English and math in order to meet NCLB requirements.

edit: I'm laughing a bit about "clue about the sciences" - our current president can't pronounce "nuclear."

 

[Clauzii]

Originally posted by: Born2bwire

Originally posted by: Clauzii
Can anyone explain the pictures where the astronauts have the face cover shield up,
while walking on the moon? How is that possible without getting suntanned in like
5secs????

UV filters are easily made to be transparent. Just about any set of glasses or contact lenses these days will filter out UV light.

Why the extra yellowish shield, then??

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: Clauzii

Originally posted by: Born2bwire

Originally posted by: Clauzii
Can anyone explain the pictures where the astronauts have the face cover shield up,
while walking on the moon? How is that possible without getting suntanned in like
5secs????

UV filters are easily made to be transparent. Just about any set of glasses or contact lenses these days will filter out UV light.

Why the extra yellowish shield, then??

Why do I wear sunglasses when I'm in my car and no sunlight is hitting my eyes directly?

The simplest answer is that I'm part of an elaborate government hoax and coverup.

 

[Clauzii]

Hmm - then why is it in the sunlight the shield is up 😕

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: Clauzii
Hmm - then why is it in the sunlight the shield is up 😕

Either I don't understand your question or you aren't thinking particularly hard before you post.

 

[Clauzii]

On some of the pictures from the moon, You see astronauts not using the shield, even though standing in the sunlight. Soo, if the shield is not used where it is supposed too, why at all have it?

- Thinking comes from seeing .. seeing is believing .. and belief is a whole other matter 🙂

 

[gsellis]

Originally posted by: Clauzii
On some of the pictures from the moon, You see astronauts not using the shield, even though standing in the sunlight. Soo, if the shield is not used where it is supposed too, why at all have it?

- Thinking comes from seeing .. seeing is believing .. and belief is a whole other matter 🙂

Why ask questions when you won't believe the answers?

In single source lighting with minimal scatter (not atmo, only radiosity from the surface), looking into shadow would be challenging. Shield up to increase the light.

You might want to do Photography 101 and all of your questions would be answered. In fact, go out at night and take pictures of the stars in 1/30sec frames. We will declare them fakes because the stars will not show up.

Edit for before coffee spellling challenges.

 

[Born2bwire]

Originally posted by: Clauzii
On some of the pictures from the moon, You see astronauts not using the shield, even though standing in the sunlight. Soo, if the shield is not used where it is supposed too, why at all have it?

- Thinking comes from seeing .. seeing is believing .. and belief is a whole other matter 🙂

How do you know they're looking into the sun?

 

[PaperclipGod]

Someone tell me why this retarded thread is in the "highly technical" forum, please?

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: PaperclipGod
Someone tell me why this retarded thread is in the "highly technical" forum, please?

Maybe the mods realized that by deleting it immediately, they'd be contributing to this guy's evidence of a conspiracy theory.

Then again, maybe the face shields were up so that they wouldn't reflect the cameras and stage crew 😛 🙂

 

[KRandor]

Hmm - well here we go again... 😉

I managed to speak to a friend of mine a while ago about NASA and stuff, (he's an ex-USAF test pilot, and has done some of the NASA program etc.), and someone else bought up the question about the moon landings, and why we hadn't gone back...

Apparently, the main reason we haven't gone back, is because we COULDN'T...

Why?

The answer is because NASA no longer had many/most of the rocketry experts it used to, so designing and building something similar to the Saturn V simply wasn't worth it. He made it sound like if anything rocketry science had regressed somewhat rather than advanced over much of that time, and has only (back in 94) just started to advance again...

Dunno if it's true - but it sounds interesting...

 

[Alastria]

The fact that people still believe that the moon landings were faked is a sad testimony to the education system, particularly to the teaching of science.

The same people who spout conspiracy theories are the same people 100 years ago who sold snake oil. With some authentic-sounding words and whiz-bang effects, you can make some people believe anything.

 

[Clauzii]

I don´t believe anything about the moonlandings - only observing some funny "mishaps" here and there 🙂