Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 2,396 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 134,372
Pageviews Today: 187,585Threads Today: 38Posts Today: 768
01:04 AM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

Do you really think man walked on the moon/???

 
Karlos

User ID: 38816990
United Kingdom
04/27/2013 08:22 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Do you really think man walked on the moon/???
Did they not leave the American flag? someone just zoom in on where they left it, how hard could that be for proof? hfhf
 Quoting: sacred energy


Can't. Not even the Hubble can get an image of the flag.
 Quoting: #Geomagnetic_Storm#


It always makes you wonder when you see the satelite images of google earth. You can see cars, people you name it.

Yet the satelites that photograph the moon apparantly can't even zoom in like the google satelites do on earth.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1527598


Good grief...
The satellite images in GE, are very low-res, only good for the images from high up, you can often see clouds in these pics - and no real detail on the ground.
The high-res images in Google Earth are done from a PLANE not a satellite.

A plane is only a coupla hundred feet up - the Moon is quarter of a million miles away.
To resolve something a metre across, at that distance, would require an optical telescope hundreds of metres in diameter.
Telescope resolution is limited by the diameter of the main mirror, or lens.

Even Hubble can't - because at only a few hundred miles altitude, max - it is still pretty much a quarter of a million miles from the Moon - and Hubble's main mirror is only 2.4 metres across (8 feet)

To get the resolution to see objects on the Moon's surface, you need pics taken from low Lunar orbit.
Such as these by the LRO
[link to www.nasa.gov]

And how about independent verification of an Apollo site - such as this by the Japanese (JAXA) SELENE orbiter
[link to www.jaxa.jp]
Scribbler

User ID: 38957782
United States
04/27/2013 08:23 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Do you really think man walked on the moon/???
I grew up all my life around pilots, after every mission they high on life and adrenaline was pumping through there veins.
They felt untouchable and it could be seen in there faces and body language.
The astronauts in there interviews looks withdrawn and disgusted, not what I expected from the greatest pilots of last century!
I can't prove one way or another, but I have my doubts. bump for truth, something this country seems to lack!
Something is better than nothing, pay attention, it's still free. Lead by example.
Karlos

User ID: 38816990
United Kingdom
04/27/2013 08:26 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Do you really think man walked on the moon/???
staged so we can win the arms race.
 Quoting: TheTruthNeverLies

The Russians had their own program.
Did you realise that a Russian probe (Luna 15) actually touched down on the Moon while Neil and Buzz were there?
Rest assured, they would have tracked Apollo 11 all the way there and all the way back - they would have been monitoring it VERY carefully.
If there were even the tiniest HINT of fakery, the Russians would have screamed blue-murder.

Their silent acceptance at the time, speaks volumes.
KEEBOFSYLPH

User ID: 37356892
United States
04/27/2013 08:49 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Do you really think man walked on the moon/???
Has anyone seen Lights in the Sky by Thedestroyer101?

[link to www.youtube.com]

I still don't think its true because if they went so far as to stage the landing for a recording then whats to say the didn't record an entire Hollywood feature film...

The series is good though lol

starwars
Sungaze_At_Dawn

User ID: 35202296
Canada
04/27/2013 08:53 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Do you really think man walked on the moon/???
Yeah they did, but that was teh kiddies stuff they showed compared the real tech and that they were there longer.

They also did abductions to the moon. And had groups of kids there.
Dr. AstroModerator
Forum Moderator

User ID: 1524705
United States
04/27/2013 08:58 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Do you really think man walked on the moon/???
OP, one of the best researchers I have come across on the subject is Dave McGowan. He wrote a series called "wagging the moon doggie". It's very long and detailed, and provokes you to go further. Really good IMHO.

[link to davesweb.cnchost.com]
 Quoting: BadHairDay


It's not very good, in fact it's filled with lies.
[link to www.godlikeproductions.com]
I wish I could stay and discuss it with you further, but I have plans to go visit the space center today. Might even stop by the Saturn v center ironically enough.

Last Edited by Dr. Astro on 04/27/2013 08:59 AM
astrobanner2
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 38958471
United States
04/27/2013 09:02 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Do you really think man walked on the moon/???
peace
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 13195464
Finland
04/27/2013 09:04 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Do you really think man walked on the moon/???
If the whole thing was staged, i bet they would within 30years of fakery have some way to put 1 lander and few mirrors to the surface. The oddities in moon footage and pictures are yet to be explained. Maybe they just played it safe and made them at studio while still going to the moon.
-jf
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 23491614
United States
04/27/2013 09:12 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Do you really think man walked on the moon/???
Don't forget Gus, the best astronaut they had, who was vocal about how shoddy the space program was and found himself killed in Apollo 1. Dead men tell no tales.

While transmission on Earth was faulty he famously said "if we can't communicate through two buildings, how are we supposed to communicate from the moon?"
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 23491614
United States
04/27/2013 09:13 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Do you really think man walked on the moon/???
OP, one of the best researchers I have come across on the subject is Dave McGowan. He wrote a series called "wagging the moon doggie". It's very long and detailed, and provokes you to go further. Really good IMHO.

[link to davesweb.cnchost.com]
 Quoting: BadHairDay


It's not very good, in fact it's filled with lies.
[link to www.godlikeproductions.com]
I wish I could stay and discuss it with you further, but I have plans to go visit the space center today. Might even stop by the Saturn v center ironically enough.
 Quoting: Dr. Astro


If the program and subsequent propaganda was a lie, you show your bias and willingness to sustain the lie no matter what.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 13195464
Finland
04/27/2013 09:18 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Do you really think man walked on the moon/???

What´s your theory about the giant moonball nasa built?
-jf
nzreva

User ID: 19624091
United States
04/27/2013 09:23 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Do you really think man walked on the moon/???
I have my doubts, anyone agree that no man ever walked on the moon?
 Quoting: TheWorldsEnemy


I don't believe it.
and many people on this thread do not believe it.
Thread: My Husband Directed The Fake Moon Landing Says Stanley Kubrick's Widow.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 38960339
United States
04/27/2013 09:27 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Do you really think man walked on the moon/???
we did not....van allen belts
ElsieKow

User ID: 29271839
United States
04/27/2013 09:30 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Do you really think man walked on the moon/???
nope
Elsie
PresidentCamacho
The Future Is A No Brainer

User ID: 25454873
United States
04/27/2013 09:31 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Do you really think man walked on the moon/???
It's a fugazi
The years passed, mankind became stupider at a frightening rate. Some had high hopes the genetic engineering would correct this trend in evolution, but sadly the greatest minds and resources where focused on conquering hair loss and prolonging erections. ~ Narrator (Idiocracy)
Brilliant1

User ID: 38958347
Lebanon
04/27/2013 09:38 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Do you really think man walked on the moon/???
I don't see a good reason why the moon landing would have been faked. What would make it so difficult? after all the rockets and orbits around the moon what would make it so much harder to land?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1025215
United States
04/27/2013 09:39 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Do you really think man walked on the moon/???
do you really think man didnt walk on the moon.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 38508603
United States
04/27/2013 09:59 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Do you really think man walked on the moon/???
Amazing ignorance. They put laser reflectors on the moon to precisely measure its distance from earth over time. I've BEEN to the lab where they do this. I watched them shoot the beam, and measure the returning reflection. Most of you have no scientific background whatsoever and are talking out of your rear ends. Why not debate neuroscience while you're at it?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 38508603
United States
04/27/2013 10:02 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Do you really think man walked on the moon/???
Did they not leave the American flag? someone just zoom in on where they left it, how hard could that be for proof? hfhf
 Quoting: sacred energy


Can't. Not even the Hubble can get an image of the flag.
 Quoting: #Geomagnetic_Storm#


It always makes you wonder when you see the satelite images of google earth. You can see cars, people you name it.

Yet the satelites that photograph the moon apparantly can't even zoom in like the google satelites do on earth.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1527598


Good grief...
The satellite images in GE, are very low-res, only good for the images from high up, you can often see clouds in these pics - and no real detail on the ground.
The high-res images in Google Earth are done from a PLANE not a satellite.

A plane is only a coupla hundred feet up - the Moon is quarter of a million miles away.
To resolve something a metre across, at that distance, would require an optical telescope hundreds of metres in diameter.
Telescope resolution is limited by the diameter of the main mirror, or lens.

Even Hubble can't - because at only a few hundred miles altitude, max - it is still pretty much a quarter of a million miles from the Moon - and Hubble's main mirror is only 2.4 metres across (8 feet)

To get the resolution to see objects on the Moon's surface, you need pics taken from low Lunar orbit.
Such as these by the LRO
[link to www.nasa.gov]

And how about independent verification of an Apollo site - such as this by the Japanese (JAXA) SELENE orbiter
[link to www.jaxa.jp]
 Quoting: Karlos


It's like trying to teach Calculus to a poodle, I swear. Basic scientific concepts are replaced by conjecture and outright stupidity around here.
Underdog
User ID: 5403109
United States
04/27/2013 10:03 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Do you really think man walked on the moon/???
If it ever happened, it didn't happen when they said it happened. It breaks my heart to think of all the lies the government has told us.
Frank Frankson

User ID: 15965235
United States
04/27/2013 10:07 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Do you really think man walked on the moon/???
We went to the moon.

However, the moon is not what we have been told it is.

The moon landing footage is fake.

The International Space Station footage is fake.

Space is not what we have been told it is.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1527598
Netherlands
04/27/2013 10:17 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Do you really think man walked on the moon/???
It took only 6 years after anouncement...
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1527598


From where? The Industrial Revolution? The Mesolithic? Rocketry goes back WELL before the Kennedy speech. The leap was from simple orbital flights to sufficient staging to land on the Moon and return. Still significant, but not like they had to invent spacecraft during the first year!

...to go to the moon with computer technology that had a fraction of what is in your iphone today.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1527598


And? The computational power jammed into an iPhone is driven by market forces. It is sold to the consumer as being important, inventive, and necessary. But for a vast majority of business tasks (or even daily tasks), it doesn't do much but get you a few percent improved efficiency -- wrapped up in a really fancy looking package.

Are you saying you can't build a steel mill, perform surgery, detect new subatomic particles, design an aircraft, win at Indianapolis without this year's computer? All of this is done more better with, but was done readily enough without. And it doesn't need a computer of some arbitrary quality. It isn't like someone comes along and says, "You can't do this computation; your video card isn't fast enough."

This is not saying computing wasn't necessary. It is saying you can't draw some arbitrary line. I mean; why not draw the line five years further, and say you couldn't do anything that we take for granted TODAY because we don't yet own the computers they will be making in 2025!

If we want to go back now, it will take at least 30 years.
The main reason is radiation.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1527598


Yes. It is a significant problem. Because nobody is interested in a reply. They are interested in long-duration missions, Mars missions, and the like, and solar radiation becomes more significant on that time frame.

Suppose we did make it through the van Allen belts, how where the astronauts protected from radiation in outer space and from the moon surface?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1527598


You don't know, yet you claim to know the missions weren't possible? I don't know what kind of tires they use at Indianapolis, so should I go around claiming F1's are impossible?

Incidentally, the lunar surface isn't significant. Yes, there is both naturally occurring nucleotides, and some short-lived isotopes from interaction with high-energy cosmic rays. But this background is well below what you'd see from the exposed rocks around a typical village in the Urals.

The primary danger is the Sun, and the danger there is the active Sun, aka solar flares. The typical spectrum from the quiet Sun has too little at significant energies to be that interesting. But a flare that hit you without proper warning and protection could ruin your day.

How did the suit handle the temperature difference on the moon? There was no coolling system in those spacesuits.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1527598


That is incorrect. You may want to read up.

But you are also committing a prior error of assumption. The suit is not the equivalent of a man in shirtsleeves toting around an umbrella or whatever to protect himself from conditions. It is a thermos bottle.

Your typical cheap (but glass, mind you, not those fake plastic ones) thermos bottle can keep coffee hot through a twelve-hour shift. I've used them plenty of times for just that. Are you saying that NASA can't build something at LEAST as good as the thermos bottle workers used to pack in their lunch?

Point being, the temperature of the local rocks wasn't as important as the temperature of the man inside the suit -- and the electronics, as well. Plus the not inconsiderable issue that their breathing gas was compressed.

So the suit wasn't dealing with dramatic changes. It was dealing with a constant influx of heat that it had to get rid of. Heat in the ballpark of 100 watts, in fact. Which makes the math pretty simple, by the by.

The pictures are fake for sure so is the video.

There are strings visable on the astronauts, they make impossible moves.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1527598


Lines seen on video (never photograph) are inconsistent. They don't show up in the same places, at the same kinds of times, and they don't show up in the RIGHT places. They don't pass through the center of gravity, they aren't placed where they would need to be to suspend.

Nor is there any movement of the handful the hoax believers like to talk about that is consistent with a pickup. There is always rotation in more than one plane. You just have to look properly to see it.

Nor are the moves "impossible." Just unexpected -- especially for people who haven't studied the suits and know nothing about their internal construction (no; it isn't just a bag filled with air, and it doesn't behave like a costume. It reacts significantly to movement, and in complex ways...there are both expansion joints and springs involved).



There are videos and pictures of the same backdrops taken on different places on the moon.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1527598


No. I can't tell which you are referring to, but I can name the two most likely specifics (or, rather, one specific and one generalized group) and they can both be demonstrated at length to be incorrect.

But you'd have to make the effort to be specific before anyone would chase down which of these old claims you were referring to (the third-party mislabeled video segment, that is, or Jack White's infamous inability to do a simple overlay correctly).

There is arteficial lighting in the pictures and video's.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1527598


Not seen, not standard to any motion picture or television standard of lighting practice, not plausible by any practice in ANY lighting field I know of, not evident by ANY of the usual signs. In short; entirely the function of people with poor perceptual skills, strong pre-opinions, and a lack of any applicable experience that leads them to think they know how movies are lit (and prevents them from any knowledge of how light behaves in the real world).

The manufacturer of the spacesuits admitted you can't use the suits to clean up chernobil or fukushima.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1527598


D'uh. Different application.

First off, you'd sweat yourself to death. The coolant system wasn't designed to work in atmosphere.

In other news, those new sharkskin suits that were all the rage a couple Olympics back are totally useless for ice diving. And no America's Cup yacht yet has proven to be any good at off-road driving.
 Quoting: nomuse (not logged in) 2380183


You are an idiot.

[link to science.nasa.gov]

NASA's Vision for Space Exploration calls for a return to the Moon as preparation for even longer journeys to Mars and beyond. But there's a potential showstopper: radiation.
Space beyond low-Earth orbit is awash with intense radiation from the Sun and from deep galactic sources such as supernovas. Astronauts en route to the Moon and Mars are going to be exposed to this radiation, increasing their risk of getting cancer and other maladies. Finding a good shield is important.

But wait didn't we have the kick-ass spacesuits back in the 60s and 70s?

Again your an idiot.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 38961688
Italy
04/27/2013 10:17 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Do you really think man walked on the moon/???
My question is: if without "known how" starting from 0 in the 60 with primitive technology American men really was on the moon in 201x, with incredible advanced technology in every field compared 60th and with all necessary know how that would make the missions far cheaper than in 60th, why they don't go again on the moon?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 38508603
United States
04/27/2013 10:26 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Do you really think man walked on the moon/???
It took only 6 years after anouncement...
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1527598


From where? The Industrial Revolution? The Mesolithic? Rocketry goes back WELL before the Kennedy speech. The leap was from simple orbital flights to sufficient staging to land on the Moon and return. Still significant, but not like they had to invent spacecraft during the first year!

...to go to the moon with computer technology that had a fraction of what is in your iphone today.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1527598


And? The computational power jammed into an iPhone is driven by market forces. It is sold to the consumer as being important, inventive, and necessary. But for a vast majority of business tasks (or even daily tasks), it doesn't do much but get you a few percent improved efficiency -- wrapped up in a really fancy looking package.

Are you saying you can't build a steel mill, perform surgery, detect new subatomic particles, design an aircraft, win at Indianapolis without this year's computer? All of this is done more better with, but was done readily enough without. And it doesn't need a computer of some arbitrary quality. It isn't like someone comes along and says, "You can't do this computation; your video card isn't fast enough."

This is not saying computing wasn't necessary. It is saying you can't draw some arbitrary line. I mean; why not draw the line five years further, and say you couldn't do anything that we take for granted TODAY because we don't yet own the computers they will be making in 2025!

If we want to go back now, it will take at least 30 years.
The main reason is radiation.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1527598


Yes. It is a significant problem. Because nobody is interested in a reply. They are interested in long-duration missions, Mars missions, and the like, and solar radiation becomes more significant on that time frame.

Suppose we did make it through the van Allen belts, how where the astronauts protected from radiation in outer space and from the moon surface?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1527598


You don't know, yet you claim to know the missions weren't possible? I don't know what kind of tires they use at Indianapolis, so should I go around claiming F1's are impossible?

Incidentally, the lunar surface isn't significant. Yes, there is both naturally occurring nucleotides, and some short-lived isotopes from interaction with high-energy cosmic rays. But this background is well below what you'd see from the exposed rocks around a typical village in the Urals.

The primary danger is the Sun, and the danger there is the active Sun, aka solar flares. The typical spectrum from the quiet Sun has too little at significant energies to be that interesting. But a flare that hit you without proper warning and protection could ruin your day.

How did the suit handle the temperature difference on the moon? There was no coolling system in those spacesuits.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1527598


That is incorrect. You may want to read up.

But you are also committing a prior error of assumption. The suit is not the equivalent of a man in shirtsleeves toting around an umbrella or whatever to protect himself from conditions. It is a thermos bottle.

Your typical cheap (but glass, mind you, not those fake plastic ones) thermos bottle can keep coffee hot through a twelve-hour shift. I've used them plenty of times for just that. Are you saying that NASA can't build something at LEAST as good as the thermos bottle workers used to pack in their lunch?

Point being, the temperature of the local rocks wasn't as important as the temperature of the man inside the suit -- and the electronics, as well. Plus the not inconsiderable issue that their breathing gas was compressed.

So the suit wasn't dealing with dramatic changes. It was dealing with a constant influx of heat that it had to get rid of. Heat in the ballpark of 100 watts, in fact. Which makes the math pretty simple, by the by.

The pictures are fake for sure so is the video.

There are strings visable on the astronauts, they make impossible moves.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1527598


Lines seen on video (never photograph) are inconsistent. They don't show up in the same places, at the same kinds of times, and they don't show up in the RIGHT places. They don't pass through the center of gravity, they aren't placed where they would need to be to suspend.

Nor is there any movement of the handful the hoax believers like to talk about that is consistent with a pickup. There is always rotation in more than one plane. You just have to look properly to see it.

Nor are the moves "impossible." Just unexpected -- especially for people who haven't studied the suits and know nothing about their internal construction (no; it isn't just a bag filled with air, and it doesn't behave like a costume. It reacts significantly to movement, and in complex ways...there are both expansion joints and springs involved).



There are videos and pictures of the same backdrops taken on different places on the moon.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1527598


No. I can't tell which you are referring to, but I can name the two most likely specifics (or, rather, one specific and one generalized group) and they can both be demonstrated at length to be incorrect.

But you'd have to make the effort to be specific before anyone would chase down which of these old claims you were referring to (the third-party mislabeled video segment, that is, or Jack White's infamous inability to do a simple overlay correctly).

There is arteficial lighting in the pictures and video's.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1527598


Not seen, not standard to any motion picture or television standard of lighting practice, not plausible by any practice in ANY lighting field I know of, not evident by ANY of the usual signs. In short; entirely the function of people with poor perceptual skills, strong pre-opinions, and a lack of any applicable experience that leads them to think they know how movies are lit (and prevents them from any knowledge of how light behaves in the real world).

The manufacturer of the spacesuits admitted you can't use the suits to clean up chernobil or fukushima.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1527598


D'uh. Different application.

First off, you'd sweat yourself to death. The coolant system wasn't designed to work in atmosphere.

In other news, those new sharkskin suits that were all the rage a couple Olympics back are totally useless for ice diving. And no America's Cup yacht yet has proven to be any good at off-road driving.
 Quoting: nomuse (not logged in) 2380183


You are an idiot.

[link to science.nasa.gov]

NASA's Vision for Space Exploration calls for a return to the Moon as preparation for even longer journeys to Mars and beyond. But there's a potential showstopper: radiation.
Space beyond low-Earth orbit is awash with intense radiation from the Sun and from deep galactic sources such as supernovas. Astronauts en route to the Moon and Mars are going to be exposed to this radiation, increasing their risk of getting cancer and other maladies. Finding a good shield is important.

But wait didn't we have the kick-ass spacesuits back in the 60s and 70s?

Again your an idiot.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1527598


Gee, I wonder if there's a difference in exposure between a week long moon mission and a months long Mars mission iamwith

BTW your last line should read "Again, you're an idiot." Master basic grammar and then take some science classes, k?
soniii

User ID: 38962114
France
04/27/2013 10:42 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Do you really think man walked on the moon/???
Do u really think that 1% of u got the truth of the story ?
damn , humans are so arrogant when they are ignorant...

u guys are just lied to, and till u dont have the knowledge to speak, better shut the fuck up ...

simple student ^^ i personnally wonder about the face of the moon we 'supposed' to never see ?

Last Edited by soniii on 04/27/2013 10:42 AM
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 38957254
United Kingdom
04/27/2013 10:46 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Do you really think man walked on the moon/???
OP, one of the best researchers I have come across on the subject is Dave McGowan. He wrote a series called "wagging the moon doggie". It's very long and detailed, and provokes you to go further. Really good IMHO.

[link to davesweb.cnchost.com]
 Quoting: BadHairDay


great read!
 Quoting: Face Palmer


Funny as fuck, too!
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 38957254
United Kingdom
04/27/2013 10:51 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Do you really think man walked on the moon/???
staged so we can win the arms race.
 Quoting: TheTruthNeverLies

The Russians had their own program.
Did you realise that a Russian probe (Luna 15) actually touched down on the Moon while Neil and Buzz were there?
Rest assured, they would have tracked Apollo 11 all the way there and all the way back - they would have been monitoring it VERY carefully.
If there were even the tiniest HINT of fakery, the Russians would have screamed blue-murder.

Their silent acceptance at the time, speaks volumes.
 Quoting: Karlos


No, mate. Your "Us vs. Them" credulity speaks volumes.

Like everything else, international politics is strictly Kabuki Theatre, to bedazzle mongs like you.
oO
User ID: 38959240
Aruba
04/27/2013 10:53 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Do you really think man walked on the moon/???
The mother of all hoaxes...

Peace
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1527598
Netherlands
04/27/2013 11:36 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Do you really think man walked on the moon/???
It took only 6 years after anouncement...
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1527598


From where? The Industrial Revolution? The Mesolithic? Rocketry goes back WELL before the Kennedy speech. The leap was from simple orbital flights to sufficient staging to land on the Moon and return. Still significant, but not like they had to invent spacecraft during the first year!

...to go to the moon with computer technology that had a fraction of what is in your iphone today.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1527598


And? The computational power jammed into an iPhone is driven by market forces. It is sold to the consumer as being important, inventive, and necessary. But for a vast majority of business tasks (or even daily tasks), it doesn't do much but get you a few percent improved efficiency -- wrapped up in a really fancy looking package.

Are you saying you can't build a steel mill, perform surgery, detect new subatomic particles, design an aircraft, win at Indianapolis without this year's computer? All of this is done more better with, but was done readily enough without. And it doesn't need a computer of some arbitrary quality. It isn't like someone comes along and says, "You can't do this computation; your video card isn't fast enough."

This is not saying computing wasn't necessary. It is saying you can't draw some arbitrary line. I mean; why not draw the line five years further, and say you couldn't do anything that we take for granted TODAY because we don't yet own the computers they will be making in 2025!

If we want to go back now, it will take at least 30 years.
The main reason is radiation.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1527598


Yes. It is a significant problem. Because nobody is interested in a reply. They are interested in long-duration missions, Mars missions, and the like, and solar radiation becomes more significant on that time frame.

Suppose we did make it through the van Allen belts, how where the astronauts protected from radiation in outer space and from the moon surface?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1527598


You don't know, yet you claim to know the missions weren't possible? I don't know what kind of tires they use at Indianapolis, so should I go around claiming F1's are impossible?

Incidentally, the lunar surface isn't significant. Yes, there is both naturally occurring nucleotides, and some short-lived isotopes from interaction with high-energy cosmic rays. But this background is well below what you'd see from the exposed rocks around a typical village in the Urals.

The primary danger is the Sun, and the danger there is the active Sun, aka solar flares. The typical spectrum from the quiet Sun has too little at significant energies to be that interesting. But a flare that hit you without proper warning and protection could ruin your day.

How did the suit handle the temperature difference on the moon? There was no coolling system in those spacesuits.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1527598


That is incorrect. You may want to read up.

But you are also committing a prior error of assumption. The suit is not the equivalent of a man in shirtsleeves toting around an umbrella or whatever to protect himself from conditions. It is a thermos bottle.

Your typical cheap (but glass, mind you, not those fake plastic ones) thermos bottle can keep coffee hot through a twelve-hour shift. I've used them plenty of times for just that. Are you saying that NASA can't build something at LEAST as good as the thermos bottle workers used to pack in their lunch?

Point being, the temperature of the local rocks wasn't as important as the temperature of the man inside the suit -- and the electronics, as well. Plus the not inconsiderable issue that their breathing gas was compressed.

So the suit wasn't dealing with dramatic changes. It was dealing with a constant influx of heat that it had to get rid of. Heat in the ballpark of 100 watts, in fact. Which makes the math pretty simple, by the by.

The pictures are fake for sure so is the video.

There are strings visable on the astronauts, they make impossible moves.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1527598


Lines seen on video (never photograph) are inconsistent. They don't show up in the same places, at the same kinds of times, and they don't show up in the RIGHT places. They don't pass through the center of gravity, they aren't placed where they would need to be to suspend.

Nor is there any movement of the handful the hoax believers like to talk about that is consistent with a pickup. There is always rotation in more than one plane. You just have to look properly to see it.

Nor are the moves "impossible." Just unexpected -- especially for people who haven't studied the suits and know nothing about their internal construction (no; it isn't just a bag filled with air, and it doesn't behave like a costume. It reacts significantly to movement, and in complex ways...there are both expansion joints and springs involved).



There are videos and pictures of the same backdrops taken on different places on the moon.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1527598


No. I can't tell which you are referring to, but I can name the two most likely specifics (or, rather, one specific and one generalized group) and they can both be demonstrated at length to be incorrect.

But you'd have to make the effort to be specific before anyone would chase down which of these old claims you were referring to (the third-party mislabeled video segment, that is, or Jack White's infamous inability to do a simple overlay correctly).

There is arteficial lighting in the pictures and video's.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1527598


Not seen, not standard to any motion picture or television standard of lighting practice, not plausible by any practice in ANY lighting field I know of, not evident by ANY of the usual signs. In short; entirely the function of people with poor perceptual skills, strong pre-opinions, and a lack of any applicable experience that leads them to think they know how movies are lit (and prevents them from any knowledge of how light behaves in the real world).

The manufacturer of the spacesuits admitted you can't use the suits to clean up chernobil or fukushima.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1527598


D'uh. Different application.

First off, you'd sweat yourself to death. The coolant system wasn't designed to work in atmosphere.

In other news, those new sharkskin suits that were all the rage a couple Olympics back are totally useless for ice diving. And no America's Cup yacht yet has proven to be any good at off-road driving.
 Quoting: nomuse (not logged in) 2380183


You are an idiot.

[link to science.nasa.gov]

NASA's Vision for Space Exploration calls for a return to the Moon as preparation for even longer journeys to Mars and beyond. But there's a potential showstopper: radiation.
Space beyond low-Earth orbit is awash with intense radiation from the Sun and from deep galactic sources such as supernovas. Astronauts en route to the Moon and Mars are going to be exposed to this radiation, increasing their risk of getting cancer and other maladies. Finding a good shield is important.

But wait didn't we have the kick-ass spacesuits back in the 60s and 70s?

Again your an idiot.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1527598


Gee, I wonder if there's a difference in exposure between a week long moon mission and a months long Mars mission iamwith

BTW your last line should read "Again, you're an idiot." Master basic grammar and then take some science classes, k?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 38508603


There is but they are both as deadly.

At least I speak a foreign language you twat.
Alwaysaware

User ID: 38960024
United States
04/27/2013 11:41 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Do you really think man walked on the moon/???
Up until recently, I thought anyone who said we never went to the moon was crazy. But I finally decided to look into some of the claims that were said to be evidence we were not really on the moon and now my way of thinking is completely different.

I realized that my scorning of those who claimed it was a hoax was a prescribed reaction.

Where do we even start as good indications we never really went to the moon? The Soviets beat us into space and were equal to the US in space technology. Why did they never go to the moon or hardly even try? They knew it could not be done.

Look how the lunar lander failed in tests run here on earth but somehow managed to have a perfect landing every time on the moon? Seriously?

This is one that really sticks out. There is no sign at all of any propulsion coming from the craft pushing it upward. This looks like something from an old amateur super 8 movie or something.



And being that the delay for the speed of radio transmissions is at least a couple seconds, how was the camera on the moon so accurately able to follow the thing as it took off?

News








We're dropping truth bombs like it's the end of days!