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

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.

staged so we can win the arms race.

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]

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.

I have my doubts, anyone agree that no man ever walked on the moon?

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]

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!



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!



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.



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.



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.



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).





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).



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).



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.

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.

great read!

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.

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

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