| | | Page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144 | APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!??
| SpaceCadet
User ID: 16644
10/16/2007 4:27 PM
 | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
The astronuts all act very guilty and sullen when asked about the mission.
Oh really? Have you ever seen an interview with Buzz Aldrin? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 98001
Yes, old Buzz in the last few years has done a hell of alot of different interviews, and he is always jovial and so very happy to ramble on about the Moon Landing.........And strangely enough, also about 'ALL' of the Moon Landings being tail-gated by UFO's. A change of tack for NASA, try and create a mystery of UFO's around the alleged Moon Landings, very clever of them to have this convenient distraction. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 313235
10/16/2007 4:31 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Except that the delay in conversations would have been twice as long.
You really don't think much, do you? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 98001
Nope. What was lost by the double trip to the moon and back was gained by the capsule being close to Earth.
In other words, if it took 100 seconds (hypothetical number for the sake of example) for Amstrong to respond, you wouldn't know if
1) this 100 was 99 seconds from the capsule to the moon to Earth and 1 second from Earth to the capsule or
2) 50 seconds from the moon to Earth and 50 seconds from the Earth to the moon. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 313235
10/16/2007 4:36 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
And as the real speed of radio to the moon was 2.7 seconds, it was barely unnoticeable. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 98001
10/16/2007 4:37 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
The astronuts all act very guilty and sullen when asked about the mission.
Oh really? Have you ever seen an interview with Buzz Aldrin?
Yes, old Buzz in the last few years has done a hell of alot of different interviews, and he is always golly and so very happy to ramble on about the Moon Landing.........And strangely enough, also about 'ALL' of the Moon Landings being tail-gated by UFO's. A change of tack for NASA, try and create a mystery of UFO's around the alleged Moon Landings, very clever of them to have this convenient distraction. Quoting: SpaceCadet
Have you ever REALLY listened to his explanation of the "UFO"? Apparently not. It was the S4B third stage of the Saturn V that followed them to the moon. This was spotted in almost every following Apollo flight since their trajectory mirrors that of the Apollo spacecraft. In the later missions, the S4B's were purposefully sent into a collision course with the moon to create known levels of impacts that could be measured with the seismographs already on the surface. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 98001
10/16/2007 4:40 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Except that the delay in conversations would have been twice as long.
You really don't think much, do you?
Nope. What was lost by the double trip to the moon and back was gained by the capsule being close to Earth.
In other words, if it took 100 seconds (hypothetical number for the sake of example) for Amstrong to respond, you wouldn't know if
1) this 100 was 99 seconds from the capsule to the moon to Earth and 1 second from Earth to the capsule or
2) 50 seconds from the moon to Earth and 50 seconds from the Earth to the moon. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 313235
But, you're forgetting, the transmissions were monitored and tracked by Jodrell Bank Radio Observatory in England as well as numerous amateur projects. They were indeed coming from the moon. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 313235
10/16/2007 4:41 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Except that the delay in conversations would have been twice as long.
You really don't think much, do you?
Nope. What was lost by the double trip to the moon and back was gained by the capsule being close to Earth.
In other words, if it took 100 seconds (hypothetical number for the sake of example) for Amstrong to respond, you wouldn't know if
1) this 100 was 99 seconds from the capsule to the moon to Earth and 1 second from Earth to the capsule or
2) 50 seconds from the moon to Earth and 50 seconds from the Earth to the moon.
But, you're forgetting, the transmissions were monitored and tracked by Jodrell Bank Radio Observatory in England as well as numerous amateur projects. They were indeed coming from the moon. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 98001
But that's what I said. NASA launched a small satellite to transmit the signal from the moon. |
| nomuse (NLI)
User ID: 313250
10/16/2007 4:42 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
The entire mission smells like BS.
They say you cant see any stars on the moon. Then they say, well when u are in the shade of the lunar module, well,, you can see some stars. Maybe. But maybe not.
So sometimes you can see stars, but usually you can see no stars.
The astronuts all act very guilty and sullen when asked about the mission. Yet interview a Concorde pilot about his time flying it, and he is happy to tell you all about super sonic flight. Question an astronut, and they practically flip out about it.
Then we are told the Hubble the super telescope, cannot see things on the moon. Sure , it can see other galaxies and stuff, they just didnt build it with the idea of looking at the moon. (Angular reticulation, ya know)
Then they say the space suits are pressurized..although they show no signs of pressurization. Point this out, and they say, well, the pressurized part is UNDER the surface of the suit.
Show them video of an astronaut being picked up by wires on the moon, and well, thats the "spring loaded knee joint" in the suit.
Or the wires are just antennas. But the antennas are like 6 feet over their head.
Ask why we havent been back to the moon, and, well, its just because we dont to. No money, you see. We could, though.
Ever get the feeling that its a lot like being at the Mad Hatter's Tea Party? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 313022
Why do you think I quote from "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland" and "Through the Looking Glass" so often?
I think it was only a few pages back I quoted from the tea party scene, in fact.
The difference being, the books recognize the stupidity of opening your mouth before opening a book. All the way through both books, characters chastise Alice for speaking logical fallacies or using clichés. Humpty Dumpty is put forward as a pontificating pseudo-intellectual who makes up his own meanings for words he doesn't know.
It's great to ask questions about the Apollo Program. Or anything else. But don't be upset at other people if those answers were easily obtainable, by you, all along.
I believe a motivated ten-year-old could find out in ten minutes more about the design of the excursion suits than you have ever known. Give them a 2.5" telescope and one evening, and they will understand better than you when stars are visible to the human eye, the movements necessary to track the Moon, and the basics of theoretical resolution.
We live in a quickly-changing world, where, like the Red Queen, we have to keep running just to stay in one place. And, like the White Knight, we need to be prepared for everything. The talent to use a library or search engine, however, is more useful than is a mousetrap. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 98001
10/16/2007 4:43 PM | | Anonymous Coward
User ID: 98001
10/16/2007 4:45 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Except that the delay in conversations would have been twice as long.
You really don't think much, do you?
Nope. What was lost by the double trip to the moon and back was gained by the capsule being close to Earth.
In other words, if it took 100 seconds (hypothetical number for the sake of example) for Amstrong to respond, you wouldn't know if
1) this 100 was 99 seconds from the capsule to the moon to Earth and 1 second from Earth to the capsule or
2) 50 seconds from the moon to Earth and 50 seconds from the Earth to the moon.
But, you're forgetting, the transmissions were monitored and tracked by Jodrell Bank Radio Observatory in England as well as numerous amateur projects. They were indeed coming from the moon.
But that's what I said. NASA launched a small satellite to transmit the signal from the moon. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 313235
Again, you're forgetting that live conversations, such as that from President Nixon to the astronauts on the moon would have had twice the normal delay which would have given it away. Then, of course, your forgetting about the hundreds of punds of samples returned from the surface. The Russions had a lunar return mission, but were only able to get back a few kilograms. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 313022
10/16/2007 4:46 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Another thing: what about the repetitive background in most pictures? no one has debunked that, either in apollohoax or in badastronomy.
The background is simply ludicrous. We are expected to believe that one cannot see beyond 50 or 100 feet on the moon. The horizon just disappears.
Its like if they walked 100 feet away, they would just disappear into toal darkness.
Like the sun doesnt illuminate beyond their little landing area.
We should be able to see for miles.
Apparently you have never read how everything you are bringing up has been debunked MANY times over.
Try:
[ link to www.dimaggio.org]
Then get back with us. For now you're just wasting everyone's time.
Not possible. The backgroung/horizon in the moon scam videos is obviously fake. Its like a Twilight Zone episode. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 313235
10/16/2007 4:50 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Except that the delay in conversations would have been twice as long.
You really don't think much, do you?
Nope. What was lost by the double trip to the moon and back was gained by the capsule being close to Earth.
In other words, if it took 100 seconds (hypothetical number for the sake of example) for Amstrong to respond, you wouldn't know if
1) this 100 was 99 seconds from the capsule to the moon to Earth and 1 second from Earth to the capsule or
2) 50 seconds from the moon to Earth and 50 seconds from the Earth to the moon.
But, you're forgetting, the transmissions were monitored and tracked by Jodrell Bank Radio Observatory in England as well as numerous amateur projects. They were indeed coming from the moon.
But that's what I said. NASA launched a small satellite to transmit the signal from the moon.
Again, you're forgetting that live conversations, such as that from President Nixon to the astronauts on the moon would have had twice the normal delay which would have given it away. Then, of course, your forgetting about the hundreds of punds of samples returned from the surface. The Russions had a lunar return mission, but were only able to get back a few kilograms. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 98001
No, they wouldn't take twice! that's what I am telling you.
When the president talked to an astronaught, the astronaught replied almost instantly...but his voice would not be heard for 2.7 seconds.
The earth stations monitoring the radio signals did not know when the astronaught heard the signal.
After 1.4 seconds after the president spoke, a signal started from the moon (from the transmission satellite, in reality) to Earth. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 313022
10/16/2007 4:58 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
"It's great to ask questions about the Apollo Program. Or anything else. But don't be upset at other people if those answers were easily obtainable, by you, all along."
In other words, just dont question it too much.
The upset people seem to be the believers in the moon landings.
The answers do not add up.
Why we are not going to the moon NOW.
Or Mars, NOW.
Or Venus.
The fact of the matter is, we cannot leave Earth orbit, for whatever reason. Humans cant , anyway.
If we could, we would. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 132975
10/16/2007 4:59 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
There are several, absolutely compelling reasons for the nation that had the wealth and the technology, to establish permanent bases on the Moon.
1) Military - The Moon was, and still is, the ultimate "high ground". It would be comparatively cheap and simple to build mass launchers from available Moon material (plenty of surface metals such as titanium (very anomalous in itself)). Such mass launchers could be used to hurl very large rocks into Earth's gravity well with great accuracy, and almost no possibility of the Earthside target being able to do anything about it. Any retaliation from Earth could be seen and tracked with ease, then destroyed at the Moon-dweller's leisure.
2) Exploration - The Moon provides the ideal staging area for further exploration into the Solar System, and beyond. Again, the abundance of resources, particularly surface titanium, could be harnessed for the production of vehicles designed for the journey to Mars, as a start. All that would be needed initially would be the transport of the necessary equipment and resources out of Earth's gravity well, and to the Moon. Nuclear power plants would provide the energy for metal-smelting and refining, and for the extraction of oxygen and hydrogen from the Moon's regolith, to be used for power sources within Lunar bases, fuel stock for vehicles, water, and breathable air. Food could be produced hydroponically, underground and away from dangerous surface radiation hazards.
Remember, once you are out of Earth's gravity well, you are half-way to anywhere, if you have a self-supporting Moon colony.
Strange, then, that the US didn't seize their chance to establish permanent bases there. After all, we are told they went there with human explorers, six times out of seven attempts.
I was expecting to see the establishment of bases there on a continuing basis. Probably with reasonably affordable Moon tourism, by now.
What went wrong? |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 308933
10/16/2007 5:17 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
But, you're forgetting, the transmissions were monitored and tracked by Jodrell Bank Radio Observatory in England as well as numerous amateur projects. They were indeed coming from the moon. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 98001
I have already pointed out that the link between Jodrell Bank and Apollo 11 is merely a legend. Sources differ as to whether it happened at all, and even the pro-listening scenario says that Jodrell Bank's main scope was pointed toward Luna 15; only a smaller, presumably less capable scope could have been listening to Apollo 11. Since Jodrell Bank's primary role was to act as a spy listening post for Russian space activity, any attention to Apollo 11 would have been peripheral at best.
[link to en.wikipedia.org]
---
The telescope did not track Apollo 11, as it was tracking Luna 15 in July 1969. However, a 50 ft telescope at Jodrell Bank was used at the same time to track Apollo 11.
---
You also ignore the fact that from a single listening device, one cannot possibly tell the distance to a broadcasting object. Distance can only be computed through triangulation, and even the latter can be fooled by judicious use of spurious signals. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 308933
10/16/2007 5:29 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
They have discussed tracking them, you just aren't interested in finding that out for yourself. Quoting: Barls Knarkley 28648
Baloney. I've looked. Show us a link. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 308933
10/16/2007 5:44 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Find me any supporting evidence that the geological community has abandoned the Apollo samples. Quoting: Barls Knarkley 28648
The article made that pretty clear. When scientists dismiss 800 pounds of alleged moon rock as "unrepresentative," and instead go goo-ga over one small chunk found in Antarctica, they're telling you something.
No scientist is going to risk the political fallout of saying in so many words, "The Apollo moon rocks are of dubious origin." A better measure would be the number of requests for moon rock samples for research purposes. Have these requests continued at a reasonable level, or have they dropped off more recently? Will NASA tell us? I cannot find this information on their web site. |
| nomuse (NLI)
User ID: 313280
10/16/2007 5:54 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
You don't know what "representative" means. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 308933
10/16/2007 5:59 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
You expect us to believe this when Clinton couldn't even keep a blow job a secret? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 98001
You must not be an American. America only has 2 political parties, Democrat and Republican. The mainstream media has been carefully trained to pay attention to only those two parties and their views. If leaders of both parties agree to keep a secret, it will not escape easily.
9/11 is a prime example. It has taken quite a few years to expose the 9/11 hoax, and the mainstream media still fights us every step of the way.
The only Washington secrets that are very difficult to keep are those that at least one party wants to reveal. Clinton's perjury was just such a secret--the Republicans wanted to reveal it. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 308933
10/16/2007 6:12 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
In the end, the moonhoax believers are just annoying, but the Holocaust and 911 hoaxbelievers are dangerous and the most despicable of them all. Quoting: HAZZARD 308422
I agree that the most dangerous are who believe in that absurd 911 hoax: That a cave-dwelling Afghan nomad and his little band of followers with boxcutters were able to defeat the entire United States Air Force. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 308933
10/16/2007 6:15 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
If an argument is based on nothing more than assumptions and blatantly lacks any factual corroboration, its just a bunch of anecdotal observations from people saying its true because they "say so", then its just not credible. Quoting: HAZZARD 308422
I agree. And in our legal system, "factual corroboration" requires sworn testimony under cross-examination from those who claim to have collected and preserved the "facts."
As you say, NASA's mere say-so is just not credible. |
| HAZZARD
User ID: 308422
10/16/2007 6:18 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Another thing: what about the repetitive background in most pictures? no one has debunked that, either in apollohoax or in badastronomy. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 313022
As always you hoaxbeliever are confused..As much as I like to help you that are interested in the Apollo missions, the burden of proof is the responsibility of the accuser, not the accused.
But sure Ill try and answer this question for you.
The above example, which was presented in the FOX TV program, is just one of many hoax claims about "identical backgrounds" and "artificial backdrops".
If someone is going to claim the backgrounds are identical, they had better be IDENTICAL.
In this case, as in all such claims, the backgrounds are clearly not identical.
If you examine the photos with scrutiny, differences can be easily identified. For example, look closely at the hill on the right of each photo and you will notice that the angles of view are significantly different.
[link to www.braeunig.us]
It is obvious the photos were taken from different camera positions, thus we see different foreground terrain. In the right photo it appears the LM is off-camera to the left.
Another factor to consider is, due to the lack of an atmosphere, distant objects on the Moon appear clearer than they do on Earth, thus the background mountains may be more distant than they appear to be.
As such, a change in camera position may, at first observation, have a nearly unperceivable affect on the appearance of the background.
However, close examination will reveal otherwise. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 308933
10/16/2007 6:20 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Being falsely accused of faking would make me angry, probably you too, so why shouldn't Aldrin get angry once in a while? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 3222
If you do that while testifying in court you will be in jail for a long time.
Anyone who makes an extraordinary claim had better be prepared to give sworn testimony, with cross-examination by skeptical attorneys who will (gasp!) accuse him of hiding something. This is our society's system of determining truth. |
| nomuse (NLI)
User ID: 313280
10/16/2007 6:20 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
The legal system does not determine facts. It determines _legal_ facts. The books are filled with cases where what is objectively true was ruled by a court to be, for the purposes of the law, untrue.
I have a sneaking suspicion that the person trumpeting the primacy of a legal finding over a scientific enquiry does so because the former is shaped by debate and argument (which appear to require no special knowledge or training) but the latter requires skill and knowledge in the sciences. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 132975
10/16/2007 6:22 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
There are several, absolutely compelling reasons for the nation that had the wealth and the technology, to establish permanent bases on the Moon.
1) Military - The Moon was, and still is, the ultimate "high ground". It would be comparatively cheap and simple to build mass launchers from available Moon material (plenty of surface metals such as titanium (very anomalous in itself)). Such mass launchers could be used to hurl very large rocks into Earth's gravity well with great accuracy, and almost no possibility of the Earthside target being able to do anything about it. Any retaliation from Earth could be seen and tracked with ease, then destroyed at the Moon-dweller's leisure.
2) Exploration - The Moon provides the ideal staging area for further exploration into the Solar System, and beyond. Again, the abundance of resources, particularly surface titanium, could be harnessed for the production of vehicles designed for the journey to Mars, as a start. All that would be needed initially would be the transport of the necessary equipment and resources out of Earth's gravity well, and to the Moon. Nuclear power plants would provide the energy for metal-smelting and refining, and for the extraction of oxygen and hydrogen from the Moon's regolith, to be used for power sources within Lunar bases, fuel stock for vehicles, water, and breathable air. Food could be produced hydroponically, underground and away from dangerous surface radiation hazards.
Remember, once you are out of Earth's gravity well, you are half-way to anywhere, if you have a self-supporting Moon colony.
Strange, then, that the US didn't seize their chance to establish permanent bases there. After all, we are told they went there with human explorers, six times out of seven attempts.
I was expecting to see the establishment of bases there on a continuing basis. Probably with reasonably affordable Moon tourism, by now.
What went wrong? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 132975
HAZZARD, Barls, et al.
Why WOULDN'T the USA do this? According to you guys, it was a piece of cake for the USA to land men and equipment on the Moon in 1969-72. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 88145
10/16/2007 6:23 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
There are several, absolutely compelling reasons for the nation that had the wealth and the technology, to establish permanent bases on the Moon.
1) Military - The Moon was, and still is, the ultimate "high ground". It would be comparatively cheap and simple to build mass launchers from available Moon material (plenty of surface metals such as titanium (very anomalous in itself)). Such mass launchers could be used to hurl very large rocks into Earth's gravity well with great accuracy, and almost no possibility of the Earthside target being able to do anything about it. Any retaliation from Earth could be seen and tracked with ease, then destroyed at the Moon-dweller's leisure.
2) Exploration - The Moon provides the ideal staging area for further exploration into the Solar System, and beyond. Again, the abundance of resources, particularly surface titanium, could be harnessed for the production of vehicles designed for the journey to Mars, as a start. All that would be needed initially would be the transport of the necessary equipment and resources out of Earth's gravity well, and to the Moon. Nuclear power plants would provide the energy for metal-smelting and refining, and for the extraction of oxygen and hydrogen from the Moon's regolith, to be used for power sources within Lunar bases, fuel stock for vehicles, water, and breathable air. Food could be produced hydroponically, underground and away from dangerous surface radiation hazards.
Remember, once you are out of Earth's gravity well, you are half-way to anywhere, if you have a self-supporting Moon colony.
Strange, then, that the US didn't seize their chance to establish permanent bases there. After all, we are told they went there with human explorers, six times out of seven attempts.
I was expecting to see the establishment of bases there on a continuing basis. Probably with reasonably affordable Moon tourism, by now.
What went wrong? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 132975
Two things...Congress and the Vietnam War.
Learn your history. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 308933
10/16/2007 6:27 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
The legal system does not determine facts. Quoting: nomuse (NLI) 313280
It's the best we have, because it has a coherent system for forcing people to tell the truth. Our system of issuing and enforcing subpoenas, and then threatening jail time for perjury, is about the best way I can see of getting the truth out of reluctant people.
If you have a better way, you are free to suggest it to your Congressman for a Constitutional amendment. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 88145
10/16/2007 6:28 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
But, you're forgetting, the transmissions were monitored and tracked by Jodrell Bank Radio Observatory in England as well as numerous amateur projects. They were indeed coming from the moon.
I have already pointed out that the link between Jodrell Bank and Apollo 11 is merely a legend. Sources differ as to whether it happened at all, and even the pro-listening scenario says that Jodrell Bank's main scope was pointed toward Luna 15; only a smaller, presumably less capable scope could have been listening to Apollo 11. Since Jodrell Bank's primary role was to act as a spy listening post for Russian space activity, any attention to Apollo 11 would have been peripheral at best.
[ link to en.wikipedia.org]
---
The telescope did not track Apollo 11, as it was tracking Luna 15 in July 1969. However, a 50 ft telescope at Jodrell Bank was used at the same time to track Apollo 11.
---
You also ignore the fact that from a single listening device, one cannot possibly tell the distance to a broadcasting object. Distance can only be computed through triangulation, and even the latter can be fooled by judicious use of spurious signals.
If an object is in low earth orbit, it HAS to move with a certain lateral speed. Tracking an object to the moon involves tracking an object moving with little lateral speed, thus proving that it is NOT in earth orbit. And the longitudinal speed can easily be determined by Doppler shift.
"You also ignore the fact that from a single listening device, one cannot possibly tell the distance to a broadcasting object."
Once again, you whow your ignorance of the subject about which you make such high and mighty proclamations. |
| nomuse (NLI)
User ID: 313280
10/16/2007 6:30 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
And, just to let some people know where my dog is in this race...
Believe or don't believe about Apollo. I don't care. If your world is so shaped by belief we have little to share.
But if you are going to pretend to put the nature of the Apollo Project, mission, hardware, history, to a scientific enquiry, then you need to follow the rules of that game.
I don't care if you claim angels dust the Moon every night with golden whisk-brooms. But if you claim the lunar soil is radioactive enough to cook your lunch on, I'll call you on it.
And maybe it is. Maybe there is evidence for that. If so, you can show it. You can do the work; do the research, do the math. And I'll accept whatever you find. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 308933
10/16/2007 6:31 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
I have a sneaking suspicion that the person trumpeting the primacy of a legal finding over a scientific enquiry does so because the former is shaped by debate and argument (which appear to require no special knowledge or training) but the latter requires skill and knowledge in the sciences. Quoting: nomuse (NLI) 313280
I am sure that you prefer endless pseudo-scientific doubletalk. Indeed, let's be blunt: You prefer lies.
I myself demand the truth, and the best way we have to force people to tell the truth is to put them under oath and cross-examination, and threaten them with jail time if they commit perjury. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 132975
10/16/2007 6:31 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
There are several, absolutely compelling reasons for the nation that had the wealth and the technology, to establish permanent bases on the Moon.
1) Military - The Moon was, and still is, the ultimate "high ground". It would be comparatively cheap and simple to build mass launchers from available Moon material (plenty of surface metals such as titanium (very anomalous in itself)). Such mass launchers could be used to hurl very large rocks into Earth's gravity well with great accuracy, and almost no possibility of the Earthside target being able to do anything about it. Any retaliation from Earth could be seen and tracked with ease, then destroyed at the Moon-dweller's leisure.
2) Exploration - The Moon provides the ideal staging area for further exploration into the Solar System, and beyond. Again, the abundance of resources, particularly surface titanium, could be harnessed for the production of vehicles designed for the journey to Mars, as a start. All that would be needed initially would be the transport of the necessary equipment and resources out of Earth's gravity well, and to the Moon. Nuclear power plants would provide the energy for metal-smelting and refining, and for the extraction of oxygen and hydrogen from the Moon's regolith, to be used for power sources within Lunar bases, fuel stock for vehicles, water, and breathable air. Food could be produced hydroponically, underground and away from dangerous surface radiation hazards.
Remember, once you are out of Earth's gravity well, you are half-way to anywhere, if you have a self-supporting Moon colony.
Strange, then, that the US didn't seize their chance to establish permanent bases there. After all, we are told they went there with human explorers, six times out of seven attempts.
I was expecting to see the establishment of bases there on a continuing basis. Probably with reasonably affordable Moon tourism, by now.
What went wrong?
Two things...Congress and the Vietnam War.
Learn your history. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 88145
Bullshit. The Vietnam War was a cheap police action, compared to the foreign adventures the USA is indulging in today. Black budget Ops expenditure, even then, probably outweighed the cost of the Vietnam "War" by an order of magnitude.
And my point was that establishing permanent bases on the Moon has at LEAST, two very compelling reasons for it to be done, which FAR outweigh any petty bullshit that Congress can come up with.
I believe that the Black Ops part of the Secret Government has had established bases on the Moon, and probably Mars, for decades. |
| | Page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144 | |
|
