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

I do totally hate you becuase you are an obvious shill, but you do make some compelling arguments.

After all this time, I have still not come to any conclusion regarding the Apollo Program.

if you look at the aircraft they supposedly used to go to the moon you would laugh at the idea

same as the idea that burning airplane fuel can bring down 110 story buildings

illusions are presented but it doesn't mean we're all dumbasses buying into them

No it was a Chinese girl. She walks all over my back including my moon every Thursday night! Feels great!

Please explain.

Yes, the LRRR (American and Soviet) are corner-cube arrays. Fabrication methods were a bit different, and there are several different sizes involved, but that's what they are.

So where are you going with this? Do you disbelieve in mirrors? Are you questioning wikipedia's explanation (which I haven't viewed, but I imagine it is current and relatively complete).

Or are you thinking that no-one has heard of the Lunkhod programme, the Soviet rovers, and as long as you don't actually try to construct a complete argument (and reveal all the leaps you are making) their existence is somehow a valid counter?

Please explain. Take a few seconds out of your no-doubt busy schedule and explain what it is you are thinking.

THIS

No!

No.

It is more correct to say the VAARB are a temporary and fluctuating holding area for a range of charged particles that are passing through our neighborhood. The net effect of the VAARB are to be MORE dangerous (within a narrow range of energies) than that space would otherwise be.

The Earth's magnetic field itself (the VARRB are an artifact of the field lines) do guide some charged particles around us. They don't do anything to the higher-energy stuff, which mostly breaks up in our atmosphere.

And magnetic fields do nothing for uncharged particles. Which includes x-rays, gamma, neutrons, and high ultraviolet.

So much wrong in one short sentence.

I'm just going to say two words -- two words that would, if you followed them, lead to a more nuanced understanding.

"Northern Lights."

Wow. You would think that a telecom might have thought of that. I mean, they run million-dollar satellites that SIT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ELECTRON BELT.

Some really smart person working in the international telecommunications industry might even put together the data from thousands of flights and university studies and actual spacecraft experience and make, I dunno, some kind of CHART or something.

Wouldn't that be incredibly useful?

You, sir, are a genius. You've helped a billion-dollar industry immeasurably with your insight.

A corner-cube reflector doesn't need to a placed on the Moon's surface, and adjusted, by a human being.

A typical Russian lander could simply fling it out of a hatch, and it would be fine, as a laser-reflector.

But, you knew that, because you are a NASA shill.

Seriously, mang, I want to see radiation readings from spacecraft that go from here, to the Moon, and back.

Spacecraft made out of 1/4 inch aloominum, and some mylar, or plastic, bullshit.

You got a problem with that?

it looks like wrapping paper they used on the aircraft for apollo landing. couldn't they have done a better job.

That is true, as far as it goes.

Or more-or-less true. Out of the Lunkhod-deployed LRRR (that is, the only retroreflectors for which we have documented details for robotic deployment) only one could be picked up initially. Another was finally spotted decades later.

But the science at Apache Point observatory goes well beyond "Did we get a reflection?"

They are able to tell the difference in quality WHEN THE ARRAY IS HEATED DURING THE LUNAR DAY. (It flexes, thermally, and that throws off the optical focus slightly).

It is far easier for them to tell the difference in sizes between the different arrays, as well as how well they are focused. The Moon does move, you know, and over the course of those motions the reflectors change aspect slightly. That is, the effective cross-section changes. This makes it clear where the optical axis lies. And it is quite obvious that the optical axis on the Soviet-deployed arrays is not well aligned.

This doesn't mean that a man squinting through a sight was necessary to align the Apollo arrays. But it does show that even a robot as complex as that which the Soviets fielded (about 2/3 of which failed to work right or at all, depending on how you sort the data), is insufficient.

The size and alignment of the existing devices which we can detect optically requires either people, or a robot of sophistication of which there is no evidence for.

First, it was a Spacecraft. Second, you are seeing the outer insulative covering which looks very similar to the covering on many satellites. Here is what it looked like underneath that.
[link to www.hq.nasa.gov]
[link to www.hq.nasa.gov]
[link to www.hq.nasa.gov]

This is another one of those telling bits.

The hoaxies act only on expectations and outward appearance. To them, the thermal cladding needs to be described as "crude" or similar. Because they only have simple measurements for whether something is appropriate, adequate, and well-executed. So they reach for "how neat is it" and think that is meaningful.

An engineering student will look at the thermal materials and ask "What is going on here? What is the application and constraints?"

And you realize quickly that the material would have to be extremely light, and therefor fragile. And that immediately constrains the fastening methods available.

And if you keep thinking about it, you might even realize that the crinkling isn't an error; it is a FEATURE. First off, to increase surface area (or, more complexly, it creates a wider view angle, removing what might otherwise be local difficulties in radiating heat). It also is crinkled because that reduces the mechanical contact; it makes conduction of heat less efficient.

When you realize what you are looking at is an engineering solution for an alien environment, your eyes are much, much different from eyes that look only for what they might find casually familiar (probably through media exposure, since their actual contact with working spacecraft is minimal).

I find it funny that the same people who don't believe we have the technology to achieve the moon landing believe that we have "MKUltra" technology that lets us control people's brains with radio waves.

Another blow from the thermal cladding is that there are places on the LM where the material is dark. Is designed not to shed heat, but to absorb it.

Because a black-body at 1 AU from the sun has an equilibrium temperature well, well, well below that which would melt lead. Low enough, in fact, that there is a risk of fuel freezing in the lines. So the spacecraft is carefully CAPTURING solar heat in order that those parts be the temperature they need to be.

Your search for proof is in the wrong direction. The rule in science, history, and law is that "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." A government bureaucracy, NASA, has made the extraordinary claim that it has taken particular men to the moon (six times!) and brought them back safely. This is perhaps the most extravagant claim ever made in the annals of science or history, and therefore requires the highest caliber of evidence ever assembled.

But NASA actually makes little attempt to prove its claim, instead relying on a nationwide chorus of sycophants to speak on its behalf (which is useless, of course, since sycophants have no way to know what really happened). I can only find one lame article published by NASA in evidence of its claim:

[link to science.nasa.gov]

The article falls back on the circular argument that some of the "moon rocks" are unusual, so they must be from the moon! The circularity comes from the fact that the "moon rocks" are in many ways different from what the best researchers expected based on other evidence and standard models--but instead of questioning the rocks' provenance, the researchers bowed to political and financial pressure and simply changed their models to fit the rocks!

Last Edited by Skeptic the First on 04/27/2013 07:53 PM

Neil Armstrong expressed his doubts on the final page of his biography--the page that was meant to summarize his life.

[link to books.google.com]
---
As for walking on the moon, sometimes I wonder if that really happened. I can honestly say--and it's a great surprise to me--that I have never had a dream about being on the moon. It's a great disappointment to me.
---

When Neil Armstrong died, his widow hinted at his secret:

[link to www.foxnews.com]
---
The family also suggested for those wishing to pay tribute, that they "honor his example of service, accomplishment and modesty, and the next time you walk outside on a clear night and see the moon smiling down at you, think of Neil Armstrong and give him a wink."
---

When the head of NASA "resigned" (was fired) in late 1968, he warned that the United States was far behind the Soviets in the race to the moon:

[link to www.flightglobal.com]
---
Mr. James E. Webb announced on September 16 that he would retire on October 7 from the post of NASA Administrator, which he has held since February 1961. His resignation was accepted on the same day by President Johnson. Mr. Webb's deputy, Dr. Thomas Paine, is to be named Acting Administrator.

The announcement of Mr. Webb's resignation came four days before the first scheduled manned Apollo launch, and at a time when there is concern in NASA that the Apollo programme is slipping behind schedule and might not put American astronauts on the Moon until after 1970. He has denied that he is leaving because of a lack of support for NASA, but says he felt that the agency had been made "a sort of whipping boy" by the US Congress. He also said that he was leaving the Apollo programme with a concession that the Soviet Union was ahead in the space race and that the United States "is going to remain second for some time."

In a despatch from Washington on September 17, UPI correspondent George Weeks commented that NASA "faced an uncertain future . . . in the wake of the surprise resignation of director James E. Webb, who quit with a warning that the United States is losing the space race." Weeks added that "the No. 1 spaceman was himself a loser—of the battle of the budget with Congress. He was a victim of the Vietnam war, the US civil disorders and other earthly problems responsible for lowering the priority of the space programme."
---

Yet magically, America allegedly put men on the moon only nine months later.

Last Edited by Skeptic the First on 04/27/2013 08:10 PM

YES they did

if man had been on the moon, couldnt we see the junk they left up there? like the buggys, they rode around on

Another thing that's seldom pointed out is the background in the moon landings. Notice the astronauts are never in any area where you can see the distant horizon and get the feeling of real distance or depth as you get when seeing photos or videos on earth.


And there's no way of explaining what happens after the 2:00 point in this video

where no man has been before

whoa shit over 200 replies, gunna read em all once I get a minute thanks group.. shoulda done a poll

"Never?"

Hardly.

You haven't seen enough of the available images.


You are right in one way, however. On Earth, we have what is called aerial perspective. It is the effect of distant objects becoming lighter and bluer in appearance. This is entirely due to atmosphere -- something that doesn't exist on the Moon.

(In addition, MOST landscapes -- though not all -- on Earth have objects of known scale by which distance can be judged; trees, houses, etc. On the Moon, it is all geology. It is all fractal. One crater looks much like another, up until that other reaches a size large enough to reveal curvature in the surface!)

Zoom in on the astronaut's visor in this photo:

[link to www.hq.nasa.gov]

I see the cameraman dressed in dark colors, with one foot either on or behind a rock. I also see a "snowman," perhaps an empty spacesuit.

Notice that the astronaut's shadow is in front of him, which means that the light source is behind him. If the cameraman were an astronaut in a white spacesuit, he would look glowingly white; whereas this cameraman looks very dark.

Here's a similar photo, but without the "snowman."

[link to www.hq.nasa.gov]

Last Edited by Skeptic the First on 04/28/2013 12:48 AM

Here's a really hilarious photo. Notice how the lunar module's shadow comes within inches of the "horizon."

[link to history.nasa.gov]

So?