Nasa Faked Moon Landing

[Present]

http://www.brainsluice.com/miscellanea/misc/moonlanding.html

thats all the proof you could ever want.

Nasa is pathetic

[skidochufada]

Are you so blind.... Nasa isnt pathetic. Isnt that the site that said one of the presidents was an alien....

INTERNET CAN SAY ANY LIES ANYONE WANTS TO PUT ON IT!

Plus aol said that there was something wrong with that site and spyware...

[skidochufada]

think, man think!!!

[Present]

did you even go to the site?

its a joke...

[Communist Hamster]

Ah, I love showing that site to woo-woos.

[fess]

Those pictures are obviously faked. Everyone knows that moon-rats don't have ears because there is no sound on the moon.

[URI]

NASA was too clever to allow their deceit to be uncovered....

instead they covered it with Moon dust..... but in truth the Moon dust blew into their faces, showing up their lies.

Yes I saw the video, and the stills.... all BS
luv the video of landing... a real botched simulation.... no dust, no ejecta.... no credibility

and they the astros immediately walked out into a clear sky day..... took pics and played..... no dust hangovering them !!!!!

LOL

But what a hoax NASA, you fooled us all, and have been ever since.......

[Ophiolite]

and they the astros immediately walked out into a clear sky day..... took pics and played..... no dust hangovering them !!!!!

Since when does three hours equate to immediately?

[leopold99]

i am hungry.
i think everyone is looking at you present.
i think a sacrifice is in order.

[Combine]

Present you a gay noob

[shekhar]

i think this is not as faked as u thinking.....there are so many scientists in NASA and they are really GREAT.....if you till dont think that the landing was fake, then you have to come with me......i will show you......we go on the MOON...and then tell me...whats that...........ok? ..............AstroShekhar

[Azzy42]

This must be the millionth thread dedicated to this subject.
And everytime the crack pot gets shot down.
At least these threads keep me entertained in the early hours of the morn.

[Present]

is it really so hard to see such obvious sarcasm?

its disturbing to think that anyone could think that I or anyone actually beleived this. i just wanted to post a fun link but your all to busy shooting me down for something i dont even beleive in.

[Hercules Rockefeller]

Don’t worry about it. ;)

I think this is a case of some people 'shooting from the hip', and assuming you were being serious, without even looking at the website you posted. If they had they would have realized instantly that it is a joke. There have been so many times when loony crackpots have posted real “I think the Moon landings were faked” threads that people tend to fly off the handle when the suggestion rears its head. In fact, one such mentally ill conspiracy theorist has posted in this thread (‘URI’).

Thanks for the laugh. :p <P>

[URI]

>> one such mentally ill


Thanks for the compliment, HR .... wouldn't want to be called sane (normal) in this insane world.

Ps for the record the USA, nor the Russians, nor anyone has set foot on the Moon.
This is obvious to any intelligent, open eyed person.
They can't do it now, and they couldn't do it then.... the orbital mechanics is still beyond them ( and back whenever, they didn't even know that the orbital mechanics would have caused them havoc ).
why ? because their equations were not advanced enough to do anything other than suck it and see.... and that ain't good enough to try a soft 'human friendly' landing on the Moon....

[Fafnir665]

and they the astros immediately walked out into a clear sky day..... took pics and played..... no dust hangovering them !!!!!

Do you understand why dust hangs in the air? Atmosphere. You need an atmosphere for that to happen. No asmosphere = no suspended particles = all particles fall to the ground.

[URI]

>> Do you understand why dust hangs in the air? Atmosphere.

yes on Earth....

but study colloidal solutions.... the solution is an artifact, the charged particles keep the colloid suspended.

So too for the Moon, the minute atmosphere would not allow static electric discharge, the low gravity would be easily negated by very highly charged particles, due to UV, solar wind etc...

Once the surface was disturbed the dust would remain in colloidal suspension for days most probably...

It would be nothing like the farce shown on TV.

The major problem with dust would have been encountered when the astronauts get back into an escape vehicle.... chocking dust everywhere .... it would have been fatal to the people and fatal to the electronics....

all in all, it seems it was just a PR exercise.

[Azzy42]

Present don't get me wrong I wasn't shooting you down. Very funny site btw.
However I was reacting to URI statements which are always without conclusive proof.
His suspended dust theory - what a joke! Even America wouldn't spend that much money on just PR. Where do they keep the NASA research money. In a box behind the stove? All purchases leave a paper trail. Someone would have noticed by now if it wasn't being spent. Be logical URI why would they waste so much money.

[URI]

>> Be logical URI why would they waste so much money.

well what a coup to go to the Moon,... the Russian beat them into space, and America was terrified... the beat up about the cold war and all......

Money, well i am sure the yanks went into space, LOL.... but to the Moon, no.

[CANGAS]

Maybe a hoax. Maybe not.

What about the moon rocks, brought back and cracked open and studied?

[URI]

>> What about the moon rocks, brought back and cracked open and studied?

The Russians have brought back moon rocks supposedly, and they have not put a man on the moon......

I am wondering, from the analysis of these 'moon rocks', if they really came from the Moon, their composition is 'as if from Earth'.

I really don't care if they went or not, but today is today, and the evidence is accumulating.

[KennyJC]

Talk about faking going into space, has anyone seen the british reality show that convinced a bunch of students that they were going to be space tourists? The funny thing is they currently think they are orbiting the Earth, yet they are all standing and walking around, apparently not aware that there is zero G in space. They are in a simulator that has a projection screen of the Earth.

[Communist Hamster]

Yes, well they probably have very little or no scientific knowledge. Laos I think the shows people persuaded them that the "ship" had an "artificial gravity generator".

[phlogistician]

I am wondering, from the analysis of these 'moon rocks', if they really came from the Moon, their composition is 'as if from Earth'.
.

As the Moon was possibly torn away from a primordial Earth, is that such a surprise?


http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/planetearth/moonwhack_main_000901.html

[URI]

>> Moon was possibly torn away from a primordial Earth ...

yes I agree, it was ejected from the Earth

So what is the proof that THEY went to the Moon, landed etc ??

none is there ?

[snake river rufus]

Ah, I love showing that site to woo-woos.
me too :D

[snake river rufus]

>> What about the moon rocks, brought back and cracked open and studied?

The Russians have brought back moon rocks supposedly, and they have not put a man on the moon......

I am wondering, from the analysis of these 'moon rocks', if they really came from the Moon, their composition is 'as if from Earth'.

I really don't care if they went or not, but today is today, and the evidence is accumulating.
No.The soviets did not bring back any samples.

[snake river rufus]

>> Moon was possibly torn away from a primordial Earth ...

yes I agree, it was ejected from the Earth

So what is the proof that THEY went to the Moon, landed etc ??

none is there ?
The best recorded event in human history and you claim there is no evidence :rolleyes:

[URI]

>> As the Moon was possibly torn away from a primordial Earth, is that such a surprise?>>

Found this...

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1531577.htm
>> The Moon's surface cooled and solidified to make its current grey and white face more than 4.5 billion years ago, say researchers who have applied new dating techniques to rocks brought back by Apollo astronauts.

This age puts the Moon's first solid rocks at about the same age Earth's first crust, bolstering the popular idea that both bodies formed crusts at about the same time .... >>

same age, same composition.... well that is reasonable since
IMO, The Moon was ejected from the Earth..... as per the usual formations of moons
...planets ejected from suns...etc

>> The best recorded event in human history >>>

yes just like "2001, A Space Odyssey", great movie, shame the directors had little knowledge of the real thing.

[snake river rufus]

Actually they came fairly close to what Neil and buzz found when they landed. Oh, and planets were not ejected from suns, they form from the same disk.

[Ophiolite]

No.The soviets did not bring back any samples.
Incorrect. Luna 20, launched February 14th 1972 and Luna 24 launched August 9th 1976, returned samples.

Uri, if you were to study a minimal amount of geology you would be aware that the composition of the moon rocks is surprisingly different from those of Earth. The devil, as always, is in the detail. Similar, yes. Pretty much the same, no, unless to someone unskilled in geochemistry.

[URI]

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1531577.htm

>> The Moon's surface cooled and solidified to make its current grey and white face more than 4.5 billion years ago, say researchers who have applied new dating techniques to rocks brought back by Apollo astronauts.

This age puts the Moon's first solid rocks at about the same age Earth's first crust, bolstering the popular idea that both bodies formed crusts at about the same time and in the wake of a mega collision of a Mars-sized body with early Earth.

"For the first time we have determined the age of the Moon, which has not been done before," says German lunar researcher Dr Thorsten Kleine of the University of Munster's Institute for Mineralogy.>>

and the soup thickens. ?

[Ophiolite]

It looks more like a consomme to me.

[leopold99]

you stay away from me you you sex fiend :D

[leopold99]

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1531577.htm

>> The Moon's surface cooled and solidified to make its current grey and white face more than 4.5 billion years ago, say researchers who have applied new dating techniques to rocks brought back by Apollo astronauts.


the moon's albedo is on the order of coal dust.
aren't you the same uri that is going around in another thread saying that pi is a hoax?

[snake river rufus]

Incorrect. Luna 20, launched February 14th 1972 and Luna 24 launched August 9th 1976, returned samples.

Uri, if you were to study a minimal amount of geology you would be aware that the composition of the moon rocks is surprisingly different from those of Earth. The devil, as always, is in the detail. Similar, yes. Pretty much the same, no, unless to someone unskilled in geochemistry.
You are right. I was only considering the probes prior to Apollo 11.

[Communist Hamster]

It looks more like a consomme to me.

I like it.

[Words of Wisdom]

THE MOON LANDINGS WERE NOT FAKED. if anyone believes otherwise, simply state your evidence and i shall disprove it. that is all.

i like typeing in large letters

[snake river rufus]

THE MOON LANDINGS WERE NOT FAKED. if anyone believes otherwise, simply state your evidence and i shall disprove it. that is all.

i like typeing in large letters
Well said, and welcome :cool:

[snake river rufus]

>> Moon was possibly torn away from a primordial Earth ...

yes I agree, it was ejected from the Earth

So what is the proof that THEY went to the Moon, landed etc ??

none is there ?
You might do a walk through this site
http://www.clavius.org/
or this one
http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm

[leopold99]

the moon landings were faked, i have proof.

[James R]

Oh, good.

[leopold99]

shhh, i'm baiting the hook.

[Communist Hamster]

You might catch a duendy soon. Or even a URI, those are whoppers, I hear.

[phlogistician]

Incorrect. Luna 20, launched February 14th 1972 and Luna 24 launched August 9th 1976, returned samples.

.

Beat me to it. Just like the USSR beat the USA to everything wrt space, until the USA landed on the Moon, and called it victory. The USA needed the Moon, as the Soviets were first to do just about everything else.

[leopold99]

Beat me to it. Just like the USSR beat the USA to everything wrt space, until the USA landed on the Moon, and called it victory. The USA needed the Moon, as the Soviets were first to do just about everything else.
hmm lets see the soviets were the first to orbit a satellite,dog,woman,space walk,nore powerfull boosters
and if i am not mistaken designed and flew the first 3 man cockpit.
edit
and of course returned the first pictures of the far side of the moon.

[fess]

It's all fake, there was no Soviet Union. Just a ploy to funnel more money into the hands of the military-industrial complex.

[leopold99]

the moon landings were faked, i've been there

[Communist Hamster]

It's all fake, there was no Soviet Union. Just a ploy to funnel more money into the hands of the military-industrial complex.

Thats a joke right?

[phlogistician]

hmm lets see the soviets were the first to orbit a satellite,dog,woman,space walk,nore powerfull boosters
and if i am not mistaken designed and flew the first 3 man cockpit.
edit
and of course returned the first pictures of the far side of the moon.

Not to mention the first object to leave earth orbit, first object to land on the moon, and the first lunar rover. Oh, and Mir, the first true space station. (Skylab was incapable of recycling water and air, it needed filling for each mission.)

[leopold99]

Not to mention the first object to leave earth orbit,
um can you explain what you mean?

[leopold99]

Thats a joke right?
this thread is about faked moon landings, do you need to ask?

[Communist Hamster]

It sounded more off key than normal for this thread.

[leopold99]

i've got the rack
edit
maybe he thought the space race was a hoax.

[phlogistician]

um can you explain what you mean?

I mean, that the USSR, were the first people, to launch something, from the Earth, and for it to completely escape the Earth's gravitational field.

[leopold99]

the moon landings were faked, i got an eye witness

[phlogistician]

the moon landings were faked, i got an eye witness

Let me guess, a reporter from the 'National Enquirer' was stood, right at the exact spot on the Moon, when it didn't happen?

[leopold99]

that's right and didn't even offer to park the car

[snake river rufus]

I mean, that the USSR, were the first people, to launch something, from the Earth, and for it to completely escape the Earth's gravitational field.
Actually it did not leave earth's gravitational field, it just broke atmosphere

[phlogistician]

Actually it did not leave earth's gravitational field, it just broke atmosphere

OK, to be truly picky, you _never_ escape a gravitational field, because you integrate to inifinity, although like many functions, it tends towards a limit.

Anywho, that said, it left the earth and kept going away from it, and with the balance of forces acting on it, would never have slowed and fallen back to earth, due to the earth's gravity. So that, is the working definition of 'escaping earth's gravity'.

Falling into another gravity well (ie the Moon) is a different kettle of fish.

[URI]

>> you _never_ escape a gravitational field...

Indeed you do.... for Earth its a couple of million km...
then you are

>> Falling into another gravity ....

shell.... the Sun's field

"gravity" of a body, IMO could integrate to infinity only if it was the only body in the Universe.......... other than that, its like a turbulent stream... each differentially spinning the next field..

>> Falling into another gravity well (ie the Moon)

This is the crux... THEY would not (and do not now) know "just how they were falling" into the Moon's gravitational field...... THEY do not have the equations to predict their orbits around the Moon. The dust problem is just insurmountable with limited resources... as per 30 odd years ago.

[snake river rufus]

Woo, I don't know where to start. A gravitational field does extend to infinity, in theory. The felt effects of a gravitational field does have limits. Yes NASA most certainly does know where the gravitational field of the moon begins to effect a craft. To continue to claim otherwise is silly. I have seen the video of the astronauts walking on the moon and the dust their feet kick up acts exactly as it should. There is no dust problem, insurmountable or otherwise.

[Ophiolite]

It turns out the moon landing was real. It's the moon itself that is a hoax.

[URI]

>> NASA most certainly does know where the gravitational field of the moon begins to effect a craft >>

The established calculated value of the Moon's L1 is approximately correct... about 1-2% too close to the Moon.

But that is not the problem, its the established L2 that is way off the mark.

The Moon's field is greatly distorted away from the spherical because of the Earth's field... any "normal" orbit of the Moon is highly eccentric.... making it rather difficult to predict the value of the vectors controlling the orbital path of a "probe", even if they had their math correct. A 'soft landing' under these conditions is very complex, and especially because the Moon has almost no atmosphere.

I doubt they could make a human friendly landing on the Moon, without the correct formulation for a L2 determination.

But I will leave this topic there.... that is my opinion, drawn from analysis.

as an aside, preparation of "a shuttle" for launch takes quite a time
preparation of a moon vehicle would take much longer..... and yet many trips (yea) were taken in a remarkably short period of time..... as if a Moon base was being set up, good trick....... on everybody

[Ophiolite]

But I will leave this topic there.... that is my opinion, drawn from analysis.
Show us the analysis.

[Avatar]

Won't work. Just like when we asked him to show his "calculations" in this or another thread.

Sometime in my spare time I'll create an internet quiz which determines if the participant is fit for Sciforums :D
According to my subjective criteria, but it will have to do.
One of the questions will be - Do you know/believe the first and/or other Moon landings were fake.

[leopold99]

the moon landings were faked, i live there.

[leopold99]

It turns out the moon landing was real. It's the moon itself that is a hoax.
actually that's god's booger

[URI]

>> Show us the analysis.

as I have said many times... the environment of science forums under moderation are not suitable to show extended Newtonian logic.

I could show you the appropriate equations, however they can not be judged without the "controversial" (to some, but not to Newtonian mechanics) foundational logic.

so there is a stalemate, until I actually publish a book.
It is over 100 pages of math and concepts... that BTW are all self checking.... (geometry is incestuous), .... the math is consistent with electrodynamic theory and Newtonian mechanics.... [ NO !, Newtonian gravitation is incorrect, it is a static theory rather than a dynamic theory ]

So rather than be accused of trolling, I will give your request a miss.

However if you do REALLY want more information see
http://omegafour.com
there is a small part of the very basics.... and you can ask questions of Zarkov.

[leopold99]

>> Show us the analysis.

as I have said many times... the environment of science forums under moderation are not suitable to show extended Newtonian logic.


this forum has a pm function that allows private messages. maybe you can give the proof that way.

[leopold99]

Won't work. Just like when we asked him to show his "calculations" in this or another thread.

Sometime in my spare time I'll create an internet quiz which determines if the participant is fit for Sciforums :D
According to my subjective criteria, but it will have to do.
One of the questions will be - Do you know/believe the first and/or other Moon landings were fake.
they were faked man i'm telling you.i live there, i know.

[snake river rufus]

I'm sure this book will be a best seller,,among the wackados :D

[leopold99]

I'm sure this book will be a best seller,,among the wackados :D
judgeing by the cast it should be a real blast
hey man
i'm a poet and don't know it
heh, heh

[snake river rufus]

judgeing by the cast it should be a real blast
hey man
i'm a poet and don't know it
heh, heh
kewl :D

[URI]

>> this book will be a best seller

Nah, who would read it ?
but it will show the way....
maybe your kids will have to study it one day
then it will rock !

[Facial]

What a hilarious thread.

[Communist Hamster]

So URIs basically like all "I know... but I'm not telling you! Neh-neh-nee-neh-neh"

[Avatar]

When actually he's probably a 14 y. old kid sitting in his mother's basement and imaging what a great scientist is he.

[leopold99]

i'm elvis reincarnated

[fess]

Everything is fake!
Actually, this entire forum is being posted by just one guy, with many logon Id's, having multiple conversations with himself

[leopold99]

psst. the moon landings were faked. i know because i'm elvis.

[Communist Hamster]

I knew it!
So The King, how is life treating you?

[URI]

Just a note re: space craft preparation

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4555298.stm

>> Giove-A has been designed and built by SSTL in under three years, a remarkably short timeframe for what is essentially an experimental spacecraft.

"Three years ago I did a sketch of what I thought we could do," recalled John Paffett, projects director with SSTL.

"To go from that sketch to what we have now is amazing. It is a very good demonstration of the company's capability - short timeframe, rapid programmes," he told the BBC News website.

Giove's orbit will be novel, too - at least for Europe; it has never put a satellite 23,000km above the Earth.

It is a particularly high radiation environment and the spacecraft will carry two instruments to assess conditions. >>>>

just to alert you that putting an experimental moon-walk capsule into space.... and being able to retrieve the contents way back then...

is a mammoth feat.... even now, when a lot more is known, and experience in space matters is high.

There is just no way the USA walked on the Moon.... just no way.

[Avatar]

There is just no way URI can be such a moron.... just no way.
But then again... why not? :D

[leopold99]

the following is a typical reason you can not believe everything that you read.

“
Originally Posted by nirakar
[url]
December 19, 2005
Feds Question Student, Frighten UM-Darmouth Faculty
"Why are You Reading that Little Red Book?"

By GARY LEUPP

Just when you think it can't get crazier, it gets crazier. Aaron Nicodemus, a journalist with the southern Massachusetts newspaper The Standard-Times, reports that in October of this year a senior at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth was visited by federal agents and questioned about a book he had ordered through inter-library loan. Apparently U Mass librarians are cooperating with the USA-Patriot Act. You know, the one that's all about Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism. The book was for a research paper he was doing for a course on fascism and totalitarianism taught by Professor Robert Pontbriand, a specialist in European intellectual and cultural history. The agents visited the student after he ordered a book that is, they informed him, on a "watch list."


”


This story I posted turned out to be false. The student lied. The FBI never visited him.

next

[Ophiolite]

A student lied! :eek: It can't be true. :confused: You must be lying or delusional. :mad:

[RickyH]

An average days temperature on the moon ranges from 260F to 280F So how was an astronaut able to keep the film from being destroyed at these temps.

[RickyH]

An average days temperature on the moon ranges from 260F to 280F So how was an astronaut able to keep the film from being destroyed at these temps.

I take this all back.... i did my own research on it found out they had special holdres keeping it from direct sun light sorry.... disregard this

[snake river rufus]

Also note that there is almost no atmosphere on the moon- nothing to conduct the 260F temp. to the cameras. Also that the 260F temp is the high of the moon's day, which is 28 earth days long. NASA planned the landings to occur during the lunar morning.

[RickyH]

actually no the 260 is the average temp.

[URI]

>> there is almost no atmosphere on the moon- nothing to conduct the 260F temp.

LOL

matter conducts only too well and radiation would be from all angles.......

But the spin doctors have covered these obvious aspects.....

I think it has been admitted that the cameras/film were useless and fake earth footage was used....... ???

[snake river rufus]

actually no the 260 is the average temp.
Surface temp. not air temp.

[Avatar]

Surface temp. not air temp.
air temp?! :D

[snake river rufus]

>> there is almost no atmosphere on the moon- nothing to conduct the 260F temp.

LOL

matter conducts only too well and radiation would be from all angles.......

But the spin doctors have covered these obvious aspects.....

I think it has been admitted that the cameras/film were useless and fake earth footage was used....... ???
Get this clear in your head- there is no matter if there is no atmosphere :rolleyes:
The bulk of the radiation is not harmful in the doses encountered.
And no, the radiation would not be from "all angles" :rolleyes:
Emitted from the sun, it travels in pretty much a straight line. the idea that space is awash with harmful radiation is hogwash.

[URI]

>> it travels in pretty much a straight line

Ever heard of diffraction, reflection and the wave nature of light ?

[Avatar]

Just let the moron believe what he wants. :rolleyes:
I doubt that the world will change just because uri would think slightly different.

[snake river rufus]

Yes I have. How are you implying that has any effect here?

[snake river rufus]

Just let the moron believe what he wants. :rolleyes:
I doubt that the world will change just because uri would think slightly different.
Well, I don't believe that I'll change his mind but perhaps others will realize that the kaysings,siebrels etc. are just frauds.

[URI]

mean surface hot rock temp 133 C,
dust in the 'thin air'... get real

Obviously you live in air-con.

[snake river rufus]

Just what would kick up the dust? Wind?
Are you claiming that this dust is affecting radiation? :rolleyes:

[URI]

>> Just what would kick up the dust?

read the thread.... even walking there from Earth !!!

LOL

[leopold99]

mean surface hot rock temp 133 C,
dust in the 'thin air'... get real

Obviously you live in air-con.
answer the following uri:
who returned the first photographs of the far side of the moon?
what country was americas enemy untill 1991?
why hasn't russia produced ANY evidence that the moon landings were faked?

edit
you can harp on the "scientific" aspect all you want.
but a little logic will dispell any notion of the landings being faked.

[RickyH]

OK well.... The moon DOES have an atmosphere there for it can keep a CONSTANT temperature


As you may have learned, the moon doesn't have any air around it. The air that surrounds our earth acts as a nice blanket to keep us warm and comfy! But the moon, since it doesn't have this blanket, gets much colder than the earth — and much hotter than the earth. On the side of the moon that the sun is shining on, the temperature reaches 260°Fahrenheit! That is hotter than boiling. On the dark side of the moon, it gets very cold, -280° Fahrenheit. :m:

[Light]

OK well.... The moon DOES have an atmosphere there for it can keep a CONSTANT temperature


As you may have learned, the moon doesn't have any air around it. The air that surrounds our earth acts as a nice blanket to keep us warm and comfy! But the moon, since it doesn't have this blanket, gets much colder than the earth — and much hotter than the earth. On the side of the moon that the sun is shining on, the temperature reaches 260°Fahrenheit! That is hotter than boiling. On the dark side of the moon, it gets very cold, -280° Fahrenheit. :m:
That wasn't too bright. Your first two sentences contradict each other. :bugeye:

[Communist Hamster]

I think he was quoting.

[snake river rufus]

OK well.... The moon DOES have an atmosphere there for it can keep a CONSTANT temperature


As you may have learned, the moon doesn't have any air around it. The air that surrounds our earth acts as a nice blanket to keep us warm and comfy! But the moon, since it doesn't have this blanket, gets much colder than the earth — and much hotter than the earth. On the side of the moon that the sun is shining on, the temperature reaches 260°Fahrenheit! That is hotter than boiling. On the dark side of the moon, it gets very cold, -280° Fahrenheit. :m:
Again that is the surface temp. not the temp a foot or even 1 inch above the surface. Heat needs some way to convect or transfer and since there is practally no atmosphere,,,,

[RickyH]

That is the temperature of the atmosphere....not the ground im getting the feeling you guys don't have half a clue other then half an idea and a 4th of an education of the moon

[RickyH]

That wasn't too bright. Your first two sentences contradict each other. :bugeye:


The fact it doesn't have air but it has an atmosphere is not a contradiction i possibly should have pasted more from that site.. or better yet explain to you what air is

[leopold99]

That is the temperature of the atmosphere....not the ground im getting the feeling you guys don't have half a clue other then half an idea and a 4th of an education of the moon
yeah, like you have been there.

[leopold99]

explain to you what air is
please do.

[Communist Hamster]

Air: The mixture of gases present in the Earth's atmosphere

www.wikipedia.org

[leopold99]

i am a skeptic, i don't believe you.
have you forgotten? i am elvis i know everything.

[RickyH]

please do.


I'll do you one better i will give you the deffinition to atmosphere and air and while im at it a skeptic as well

All deffinitions from www.dictionary.com

1. The gaseous mass or envelope surrounding a celestial body, especially the one surrounding the earth, and retained by the celestial body's gravitational field.
2. The air or climate in a specific place.
3. Abbr. atm Physics. A unit of pressure equal to the air pressure at sea level. It equals the amount of pressure that will support a column of mercury 760 millimeters high at 0 degrees Celsius under standard gravity, or 14.7 pounds per square inch (1.01325 × 105 pascals). See table at measurement.
4. A dominant intellectual or emotional environment or attitude: an atmosphere of distrust among the electorate.
5. The dominant tone or mood of a work of art.
6. An aesthetic quality or effect, especially a distinctive and pleasing one, associated with a particular place: a restaurant with an Old World atmosphere.

#Air

1. A colorless, odorless, tasteless, gaseous mixture, mainly nitrogen (approximately 78 percent) and oxygen (approximately 21 percent) with lesser amounts of argon, carbon dioxide, hydrogen, neon, helium, and other gases.
2. This mixture with varying amounts of moisture and particulate matter, enveloping the earth; the atmosphere.

#

1. The sky; the firmament.
2. A giant void; nothingness: The money vanished into thin air.

# An atmospheric movement; a breeze or wind.
# Aircraft: send troops to Europe by air.
#

1. Public utterance; vent: gave air to their grievances.
2. The electronic broadcast media: “often ridiculed... extremist groups on air” (Christian Science Monitor).

# A peculiar or characteristic impression; an aura.
# Personal bearing, appearance, or manner; mien.
# airs An affected, often haughty pose; affectation. See Synonyms at affectation.
# Music.

1. A melody or tune, especially in the soprano or tenor range.
2. A solo with or without accompaniment.


skep·tic also scep·tic Audio pronunciation of "skeptic" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (skptk)
n.

1. One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions.

now being a skeptic im almost postive your gonna disagree with the deffinitions... or doubt the fact i exist.... or for that matter disagree with simple logic...because after all being a skeptic for the most part is more or less a problem... i think a good word for it would be a buffoon

[snake river rufus]

Let us see what Jay has to say
http://www.clavius.org/envheat.html
And Bob has this to say
http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm
There can't be any pictures taken on the Moon because the film would melt in the 250° temperatures.

Any normal film would indeed melt if exposed to a temperature of 250o F, however the film used was not ordinary film, and it was never exposed to this kind of temperature. Apollo astronauts used a special transparency film designed specifically, under a NASA contract, for hostile environments like the Moon. According to Kodak, the film would at worst begin to soften at 200o F, and would not melt until it reached at least 500o F. The cameras were also protected inside a special case designed to keep them cool. The situation on the airless Moon is much different than in your oven, for instance. Without convection or conduction, the only method of heat transfer is radiation. Radiative heat can be effectively directed away from an object by wrapping it in a material with a reflective surface, usually simply a white material. The camera casings, as well as most of the astronauts' clothing, were indeed white.

I still don't think that you are getting it :rolleyes:

[leopold99]

answer the following uri:
who returned the first photographs of the far side of the moon?
what country was americas enemy untill 1991?
why hasn't russia produced ANY evidence that the moon landings were faked?

edit
you can harp on the "scientific" aspect all you want.
but a little logic will dispell any notion of the landings being faked.
okay you twits answer these questions

[leopold99]

rick
my hearts aflutter i am so impressed.

[snake river rufus]

That is the temperature of the atmosphere....not the ground im getting the feeling you guys don't have half a clue other then half an idea and a 4th of an education of the moon
no air = no atmosphere. It's that simple.

[snake river rufus]

The fact it doesn't have air but it has an atmosphere is not a contradiction i possibly should have pasted more from that site.. or better yet explain to you what air is
Uh,,, Yes, in fact it is a contradiction

[Fafnir665]

I think we just have to go out and say it. Anyone who STILL thinks the moon landings were faked, is a newb.

[changa]

I think of air as different from atmosphere...

Jupiter has an atmosphere (layer of gases) , but no air (mixture of nitrogen/oxygen/CO2 compatible with earth life). I'm not sure whether that fits any formal definitions, but it matches common understanding, surely.

At any rate, the point is moot, because the moon not only has no air, it also had no significant atmosphere. It does not keep a constant temperature, it varies continuously depending on the position of the sun! Earth's suface temperature is not constant either, mornings being cooler and what-not, but admittedly it is much more constant than it would be without our atmosphere.

And URI's idea was that charged particles could remain suspended above the suface due to electromagnetic interaction rather than atmosphere. So saying there's no atmosphere does not refute his theory. Pointing out that the math behind his theory is bunk, now that should do it.

And I believe the moon landing was real, because Cleopatra has vouched for the moon landing tapes, and her word is good enough for me.

[leopold99]

It does not keep a constant temperature, it varies continuously depending on the position of the sun!
i hate to be a party pooper again but changa
the temp depends on the position of the moon in it's orbit around the earth
not the position of the sun

[RickyH]

no air = no atmosphere. It's that simple.

NO..... look just because the moon doesn't have doesn't mean it doesn't have gases the moon has gases there for it does have an atmosphere.....

here this will help you understand the basic concept

http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q652.html

Does the Moon have an atmosphere?

Yes it does.

The lunar escape velocity is 2.4 kilometers per second. For an atmosphere at a constant temperature, the heavier atoms move more sluggishly than the lighter ones. The rule of thumb is that if you multiply the average velocity of a particular atomic specie and get a number equal to the escape velocity or higher, that specie of atom in the atmosphere will evaporate away. On the Moon, the average temperature of the atmosphere there would be about 240 Kelvins or so, and the typical speed of heavy oxygen atoms would be about 0.5 kilometers per second. Since 6 x 0.5 = 3.0 kilometers per second, and this is higher than the lunar escape velocity of 2.4 kilometers/sec, any atoms lighter than oxygen would have escaped the lunar atmosphere. But, in principle, this leaves heavier atoms such as sulfur with a thermal velocity of about 0.3 kilometers per second and the heavy gas xenon with 0.1 kilometer/sec still under the 'rule of six' rule. This means that a very thin gas of sulfur, argon, zenon and similar heavy gases could still survive.

In 1933, astronomers Flynn and Mendillo reported in the issue of the journal Science ( vol. 261 page 184) that they had detected sodium emission from around the Moon by occulting the Moon with a special mask and the searching for the optical emission line of sodium. They were unable to search closer than 1000 kilometers from the lunar surface due to the quality of their optical filters. This search was repeated in 1994 by A. Potter, T. Morsan and L. Gillian with modern technology, and they detected the sodium cloud 'exosphere' all the way to the lunar surface. It was reported in the 1994 issue of the Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, vol. 26, No. 13 page 1104 and 1106. Overall, the atmosphere is a million times less dense than the Earth's.

[leopold99]

an atmosphere of magnificent desolation

[RickyH]

well what do you expect?

[snake river rufus]

It has such an incredably thin atmosphere as to not matter in matters of heat transfer

[RickyH]

well there would be heat transfer but a slow and weak one

[Light]

well there would be heat transfer but a slow and weak one

"Slow and weak" wouldn't even come close! The word "negligible" is what comes to mind.

[leopold99]

if you want to get technical the entire universe has an atmosphere

[RickyH]

if you want to get technical the entire universe has an atmosphere


that is completly untrue what do you think a space vacuum is? The whole entire universe doesn't have molecules there for the entire universe doesn't have an atmosphere

[URI]

Oh dear

think radiation.... why do you think the Moon is hot in the Sun... or the earth for that matter....

[RickyH]

who was that message directed too?

[Ophiolite]

that is completly untrue what do you think a space vacuum is? The whole entire universe doesn't have molecules there for the entire universe doesn't have an atmosphereThe vaccum of space is not empty - and I am not even talking about virtual particles here. The so called vacuum of space is filled with stray hydrogen atoms, dust particles, occasional organic moelcules. Not very many it is true, but enough for Leopold to call it an atmosphere if you are going to call what the moon has an atmosphere.

[leopold99]

my point exactly ophiolite.

[RickyH]

The vaccum of space is not empty - and I am not even talking about virtual particles here. The so called vacuum of space is filled with stray hydrogen atoms, dust particles, occasional organic moelcules. Not very many it is true, but enough for Leopold to call it an atmosphere if you are going to call what the moon has an atmosphere.


I must say this , did not say space vacuums are empty i said they had no molecules probably should have said somthing more like an EXTREMELY small amount of matter (outside of our solar system)..... and no it is not enough to be called an atmosphere like the moon has.... But let me say this a space vacuum in its simplist terms does not have an atmosphere or pressure now hoever in our solar system the space vacuums do have an atmosphere (because of the sun)

[Communist Hamster]

Then neither does the moon have an atmosphere, under those definitions. I smell a double standard.

[RickyH]

Well, im growing tired of this, Do you know why the space vacuum has it's affect?

Appearently not, from what i have learned about them there affect is caused because they have no atmosphere...

Like lets say you stepped out into space in your regular clothe lets say thats a t-shirt and blue jeans. The affect that thevacuum would have on you is you would start to expand until you explode then your extrails would expand and be token to the depths of space..... this happens because there is no atmosphere

i guess if space vacuum had atmosphere this wouldn't happen. But it does happen

[Communist Hamster]

The exact same thing [explosive decompression] would happen on the moon. And, from what I've read, you don't actually explode, merely gush blood from every orifice, including sweat pores.

http://www.sff.net/people/Geoffrey.Landis/vacuum.html

[Zephyr]

I think you're looking at it wrong...

The effect of the earth's atmosphere is to stop you from exploding, because the outside pressure matches your internal pressures. Space lacks this property. But the vacuum doesn't make you explode - internal pressure, now that makes you explode :D

[leopold99]

people that fail to use logic and commen sense makes me explode.

[Anomalous]

http://www.iolky.com/spaceprogram/earthrise_as17-151-23188.jpg
http://www.iolky.com/spaceprogram/earthrise_as17-151-23188.jpg

Why is it that we can see EarthRise on moon , when fact is that from moon earth should always be seen fixed in the sky ?

[snake river rufus]

The moon is tidally locked to the earth, true, but that doesn't mean the earth should always be "fixed' in the moon's sky

[eburacum45]

I already answered that question on this thread.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=948988

Please don't double post, Anomalous.

[Communist Hamster]

Actually its more like quintuple posting.

[leopold99]

actually it's " i ain't got any thing to do "

[Anomalous]

actually it's " i ain't got any thing to do " SO what are U up to ?

[RickyH]

I think you're looking at it wrong...



I'm just now comming bck to this because I had forgotten about this. I was probably stoned or something during half of this.

But I was using this is laymens terms. You guys are simply terring everythign i say apart. You are saying I use a double standard when you used a double standard.


Lets say a perfect space vacuum is what i am trying to get at.

Black body radiation is still in here no doubt.



But, really Zephyr did you feel it was neccessary to state this?

I have nothing against you man. But that's just trying to correct every single point I am trying to get at. I have to say you are correct but, the effect of the internal pressure is directly dependent off of the vacuum so is it safe to say that the vacuum has a direct effect on you exploding? Which means it wasn't wrong of me to state this. But however it was in what you will say "incorrect context".

[QUOTE]The vaccum of space is not empty - and I am not even talking about virtual particles here. The so called vacuum of space is filled with stray hydrogen atoms, dust particles, occasional organic moelcules. Not very many it is true, but enough for Leopold to call it an atmosphere if you are going to call what the moon has an atmosphere.


Well what about a perfect vacuum which is what I'm trying to get at,

[Ophiolite]

What several posters have been trying to get at is that, in one sense, there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum (because of virtual particles); in another sense there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum (because of the odd molecule and atom 'floating' around); so, all in all, there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum.
Perhaps you could offer your definition of a perfect vacuum so we could proceed from there. [While you are at it could you remind us of how this relates to the purported faking of the moon landing (sic).]

[draqon]

The moon is tidally locked to the earth, true, but that doesn't mean the earth should always be "fixed' in the moon's sky

Since when did the moon had a sky?...must be them folks from NASA exhausting gases from probe enough to create an atmosphere on moon...impressive...moon's got some gravity then

[Ophiolite]

A sky is different from an atmosphere, dragon. The sky is the bit you see when you look from the surface of a planet, moon, or planetoid, that is not ground.

On snake river rufus's original point why would it not mean the Earth is always fixed in the sky, rufus?

[leopold99]

On snake river rufus's original point why would it not mean the Earth is always fixed in the sky, rufus?
correct me if i am wrong people
the earth would not remain fixed in the moons sky
it would move in a figure eight pattern

[RickyH]

What several posters have been trying to get at is that, in one sense, there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum (because of virtual particles); in another sense there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum (because of the odd molecule and atom 'floating' around); so, all in all, there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum.
Perhaps you could offer your definition of a perfect vacuum so we could proceed from there. [While you are at it could you remind us of how this relates to the purported faking of the moon landing (sic).]

Well once again they have not found a perfect vacuum. Besides space is a very vast thing. How can you state that there is not a perfect vacuum? It's not possible to prove correct or incorrect at this given time. So while you try to prove me wrong with something that can't be proven right. I will simply say I am reffering to perfect vacuums.


I don't really know. Why don't you read through this and find out for yourself? It was a long time ago. but something to do with heat transfer for the film on the moon. Which I had already drawn back my statement long before any of this started. Simply because i discovered that they had been using a film canister to protect the film from the temperature. Regardless if it was being transfered or not.

[Ophiolite]

Still waiting your definition of a perfect vacuum.
While you are at a definition of this 'they' you keep referring to might be helpful.

[leopold99]

ricky
the moon landings are a reality, they happened

if you apply a little thought to the matter i think you will agree

[RickyH]

Perfect vacuum - coimpletely void of matter or radiation.

Or from wikipedia.com

A vacuum is a volume of space that is empty of matter and radiation, including air, so that gaseous pressure is much less than standard atmospheric pressure. The root of the word vacuum is the Latin word vacuus (pl. vacua) which means "empty," but space can never be perfectly empty. A perfect vacuum with a gaseous pressure of absolute zero is a philosophical concept with no physical reality; see sections below on Vacuum in Space and The Quantum Mechanical Vacuum.

[RickyH]

ricky
the moon landings are a reality, they happened

if you apply a little thought to the matter i think you will agree


Beleive me Leopold99 I beleive they happened. I was only confused at the beggining of this how the film was able to survive at the temperatures of the moon. But I looked into it further and was even pointed out in here that it was held in a container.

Besides the only reason any of this was brought out was because of people like Ophiolite who think everything must be 100% stated. Then must argue it until they relize that there whole arguement was pointless then ridicule you for saying it.

[snake river rufus]

correct me if i am wrong people
the earth would not remain fixed in the moons sky
it would move in a figure eight pattern
Text deleted /srr

[Ophiolite]

Besides the only reason any of this was brought out was because of people like Ophiolite who think everything must be 100% stated. Then must argue it until they relize that there whole arguement was pointless then ridicule you for saying it.
Ricky you are posting on a science forum. That, and the content of your posts, suggests you have an interest in science.
Now, science is a marvellous, awe inspiring field of human endeavour. The understanding that has emerged from science; the technology that has been impemented based upon science; the achievements that have been attained through science, have transformed the world we live in and the way we live in it.
These successes have been based, above all else, on the application of certain principles: the scientific method. Proper application of this method is appropriate whether one is a thirteen year old high school student, or director of research at CERN. One would expect it to be more rigorously and consistently applied in the latter case than the former, but it should be applied. And deviations from it should be pinpointed and corrected.
That is why people like Ophiolite will continue to nipick and castigate when we see examples of sloppy thinking or writing. You say I have ridiculed you - I rather think not, but if I have I apologise. I have certainly ridiculed the way you have gone about putting your argument forward. I trust you now understand more clearly the purpose of that ridicule.
You now have a few choices. You can ignore totally what I am saying, putting it down to the ramblings of a senile old fart; you can attempt to engage in a battle of words, in order to establish your prowess, or status, or macho credentials, or however you think of them; or, you could say, "actually the rude bastard actually has a point. Perhaps, I should try to be a little more definitive in what I write."

The choice is entirely yours, but rest assured if you continue without change then people like Ophiolite will continue to hound, not you, but the character of your posts.

Have a nice day. ;)

[RickyH]

Ricky you are posting on a science forum. That, and the content of your posts, suggests you have an interest in science.
Now, science is a marvellous, awe inspiring field of human endeavour. The understanding that has emerged from science; the technology that has been impemented based upon science; the achievements that have been attained through science, have transformed the world we live in and the way we live in it.
These successes have been based, above all else, on the application of certain principles: the scientific method. Proper application of this method is appropriate whether one is a thirteen year old high school student, or director of research at CERN. One would expect it to be more rigorously and consistently applied in the latter case than the former, but it should be applied. And deviations from it should be pinpointed and corrected.
That is why people like Ophiolite will continue to nipick and castigate when we see examples of sloppy thinking or writing. You say I have ridiculed you - I rather think not, but if I have I apologise. I have certainly ridiculed the way you have gone about putting your argument forward. I trust you now understand more clearly the purpose of that ridicule.
You now have a few choices. You can ignore totally what I am saying, putting it down to the ramblings of a senile old fart; you can attempt to engage in a battle of words, in order to establish your prowess, or status, or macho credentials, or however you think of them; or, you could say, "actually the rude bastard actually has a point. Perhaps, I should try to be a little more definitive in what I write."

The choice is entirely yours, but rest assured if you continue without change then people like Ophiolite will continue to hound, not you, but the character of your posts.

Have a nice day. ;)

Do you honestly think I don't know what science is?

Do you think I need to hear any of this from you?

Well according to you I must lack all knowledge. After all I'm only 17 and in my states top college with a major of physics. But hey I have no clue what science is. It's no big deal though. Thank you for your very strong and wise words of knowledge of what science is.

Do I really have to go about a scientific method when speaking about a perfect vacuum? I was simply trying to get a simple point across. But I suppose it no longer matters. I give up. I have grown tired of this. I don't even think I will be making posts here anymore. It's sad that you cannot make an error and it be acceptable. After all were human. I mean that alone should make us flawless. :bugeye:

[Ophiolite]

Do you honestly think I don't know what science is?
You gave that impression.
Do you think I need to hear any of this from you?
You need to hear it from someone. It might as well be a remote, anonymous figure to whom you can take a dislike, while quietly being influenced by what they have said.
Well according to you I must lack all knowledge.:You aren't reading a ****ing thing I am writing, are you. Where have I stated you lacked all knowledge? I made a minor critique of your the way you presented your arguments, and you chose to turn it into a drama lesson.
After all I'm only 17 and in my states top college with a major of physics. But hey I have no clue what science is. Again, you apparently don't, or you would not be arguing the toss over a self evident point: structured argument is crucial. Precision is vital. If you cannot understand these oints and apply them, you are not going to graduate from your state's top college with a major in physics. You may wind up with a liberal arts degree.
Do I really have to go about a scientific method when speaking about a perfect vacuum? I was simply trying to get a simple point across. :Yes, you do, if you wish to be considered a scientist. And you weren't getting it across as effectively as you might. You seem to want to be mediocre. Strange choice.
I give up. I have grown tired of this. I don't even think I will be making posts here anymore. So you are going to be driven off because a self professed grumpy old scoundrel gives you a hard time over the proper application of scientific principle. If you run away so readily you are going to get eaten alive in the real world.
It's sad that you cannot make an error and it be acceptable. First acknowledgement from you that you were perhaps in error. Thank you. Now that wasn't so difficult was it?

I trust you will stick around. Really, if you get driven away by a little heat, it does not auger wells for your future. But I do urge you to follow a structured pattern. If you get into that habit it will make your course work easier by an order of magnitude.

[RickyH]

You gave that impression.

No, I didn't. You got that impression.

You need to hear it from someone. It might as well be a remote, anonymous figure to whom you can take a dislike, while quietly being influenced by what they have said.
Influenced by what? I don't need your words of encouragement.


You aren't reading a ****ing thing I am writing, are you. Where have I stated you lacked all knowledge? I made a minor critique of your the way you presented your arguments, and you chose to turn it into a drama lesson.

My perception from this is that you doubted i had any knowledge of what science is. Perhaps you should reread it yourself maybe you will notice it to.

Again, you apparently don't, or you would not be arguing the toss over a self evident point: structured argument is crucial. Precision is vital. If you cannot understand these oints and apply them, you are not going to graduate from your state's top college with a major in physics. You may wind up with a liberal arts degree.

Writing in a forums is different from being in a classroom. I felt no need to write every single detail. I assumed people could comprehend what I was saying. But obviously not.

Yes, you do, if you wish to be considered a scientist. And you weren't getting it across as effectively as you might. You seem to want to be mediocre. Strange choice.

It's not a choice. It's me being simple. I sometimes am lazy, while other times I am not.

So you are going to be driven off because a self professed grumpy old scoundrel gives you a hard time over the proper application of scientific principle. If you run away so readily you are going to get eaten alive in the real world.

Are you actually basing my personality off of a forum? I wonder how you could make such assumptions. Well regardles if the world eats me alive then you are right. But I doubt it. I have problems with dealing with people like you. So I simply walk away from what could turn into an issue.


First acknowledgement from you that you were perhaps in error. Thank you. Now that wasn't so difficult was it?


I don't see how anything is difficult. Is it difficult for you to let things go? Do you have problems dropping things? I'm going to make a personal analysis of you. I think you may have some issues with making a single error. I think you want to be flawless. Then you want to correct other peoples flaws to make yourself seem more flawless. But I can't really say for sure can I?


I trust you will stick around. Really, if you get driven away by a little heat, it does not auger wells for your future. But I do urge you to follow a structured pattern. If you get into that habit it will make your course work easier by an order of magnitude.

I have very little problems in my coursework. I have an almost perfect GPA. I don't see how what your saying ven applies to me. I think your projecting your problems onto me. But I will say honestly I will no longer be responding to your posts. This has turned into a flame war. I see no point in making it worse. I have no real problem with you. I just prefer not to deal with problems you seem to always bring up.

[draqon]

Ricky...is ur college/university abbreviated as UM ?

[Ophiolite]

Interesting Ricky. I have worked my butt off to be helpful to you, albeit in a brusque, direct fashion, and this you interpret as a flame war. Good luck with your life. I'm sure my impressions of you are wholly inaccurate.
A final question: if I am so off the mark, my impressions so inaccurate, how come you keep coming back for more. Ah, but you aren't going to are you? For the third, or the fourth time, you are going to stop responding to me. I'll save you the bother. I can see now I am wasting my time with you. Don't respond. Place me immediately on ignore. Wallow in your laziness.

As a final, parting present.

You say I have very little problems in my course work..
That would be other than your difficulties with English, I imagine. ;)

Ciao baby. :)

[Froogle King]

EVERYONE GO TO THIS WEBSITE! LOOKS LIKE YOU IGNORANT CONSPIRACY THEORISTS HAVE HAD YOU FUN! I DOUBT YOU WILL HAVE THE COURAGE TO CHECK IT OUT THOUGH! YOU PATHETIC PEOPLE... MANY PEOPLE DIED TO ACCOMPLISH THE REAL MOONLANDING AND YOU ALL TAKE IT FOR GRANTED. IT IS VERY IRRATATING.

http://www.badastronomy.com

[snake river rufus]

g-sus please turn off your caps :eek:
another good site
http://www.clavius.org/
opps, forgot bob's site
http://www.braeunig.us/space/index_top.htm

[Laika]

Ophiolite,
On snake river rufus's original point why would it not mean the Earth is always fixed in the sky, rufus?
I'm not sure, but it could be because of libration.

Anomalous,
Why is it that we can see EarthRise on moon , when fact is that from moon earth should always be seen fixed in the sky ?
I think the picture you posted probably shows orbital Earthrise, caused by the motion of the lander, not the motion of the Moon.

[leopold99]

Ophiolite,

I'm not sure, but it could be because of libration.


that and the inclination of the moons orbit

[RickyH]

Ricky...is ur college/university abbreviated as UM ?


Texas A&M. It has a very good physics program.

[RickyH]

Interesting Ricky. I have worked my butt off to be helpful to you, albeit in a brusque, direct fashion, and this you interpret as a flame war. Good luck with your life. I'm sure my impressions of you are wholly inaccurate.
A final question: if I am so off the mark, my impressions so inaccurate, how come you keep coming back for more. Ah, but you aren't going to are you? For the third, or the fourth time, you are going to stop responding to me. I'll save you the bother. I can see now I am wasting my time with you. Don't respond. Place me immediately on ignore. Wallow in your laziness.

As a final, parting present.

You say I have very little problems in my course work..
That would be other than your difficulties with English, I imagine. ;)

Ciao baby. :)


I would honestly like to know how you could judge someone off the internet? Are you a psychologist? I bet you arn't. If not then you're not using a very scientific way of make comments or assumptions about people. I've made some assumptions about you. But nothing completely off basis. What proof do you have of any of this? It's just your opinion. But yet you discuss with such pride.

Even if your impression is correct what would it have to do with me comming back, when I've so nicely asked you to stop responding?

Perhaps you have spelled coursework wrong. I think it's funny how you make a point on my english and spell the word wrong. But then again if you did spell the word wrong it could have been due to a typo. But it doesn't seem to be like that in this case.

[leopold99]

Texas A&M. It has a very good physics program.
isn't that the one that has the burning man festival?

[RickyH]

I believe that is in Nevada.

[leopold99]

i didn't know
i remember seeing something about it on tv

[RickyH]

i didn't know
i remember seeing something about it on tv


Well it's okay. For some reason Texas A&M is mentioned alot with the burning man festival.

[draqon]

Well it's okay. For some reason Texas A&M is mentioned alot with the burning man festival.
Dont take this to heart...but here in U of M (michigan)...we use the Texas A&M Bonfire accident to learn what not to do in engineering...

[Ophiolite]

I would honestly like to know how you could judge someone off the internet? Are you a psychologist?
1. Fifty seven years of life experience
2. Multiple short courses on human psychology
3. Extensive reading in the fields of psychology and primate behaviour
4. Deliberate, thoughtful observation of human behaviour in work, social and educational settings for over thirty years
If not then you're not using a very scientific way of make comments or assumptions about people. Based upon the above, coupled with extensive training and experience in application of the scientific method, both at University and at work, I believe I can apply a reasonably scientific approach to the problem.
Part of the analysis goes like this: if I am correct about this guy, my observations might kick start him into a more positive approach to life. Net gain for humanity. If I am wrong about him, he will ignore me as the grumpy old scoundrel I have so conveniently identified myself as. Zero effect on humanity. Conclusion: if I have the time and the inclination, then pursue the course of action. The worst case is neutral.
Perhaps you have spelled coursework wrong. I think it's funny how you make a point on my english and spell the word wrong. But then again if you did spell the word wrong it could have been due to a typo. But it doesn't seem to be like that in this case.In my vocabulary and language (English, not American English) course work is two words. I do not consider coursework to be incorrect, merely a variant. So, no, I have not used an incorrect spelling. However, I would note that I was commenting on your English, not on your english. [At the very least you will have to concede that I am helping you develop your debating skills. Is that not worth a small thank you? ;)

[leopold99]

i am still trying to visualize how the earth would move in the moons sky
would it actualy be a figure eight, or some other pattern?

[draqon]

i am still trying to visualize how the earth would move in the moons sky
would it actualy be a figure eight, or some other pattern?

moon doesnt have a sky dammit...And here is a link to animation how that would look on moon. Try to visualize it....http://jove.geol.niu.edu/faculty/stoddard/JAVA/moonphase.html

[Ophiolite]

moon doesnt have a sky dammitFor the second time.

A sky is different from an atmosphere, dragon. The sky is the bit you see when you look from the surface of a planet, moon, or planetoid, that is not ground.

[leopold99]

Try to visualize it....http://jove.geol.niu.edu/faculty/stoddard/JAVA/moonphase.html
yes but what pattern would the earth trace in the moons sky?
i understand that the earth would move north and south due to the moons inclination
i also understand that the earth would move east and west due to the moons liberations

what i don't understand is, given those two motions, what pattern the earth would trace in the moons sky.

[Ophiolite]

I'm not answering, Leopold because I don't know. A figure eight sounds reasonable, but there may be other subtle orbital, rotational and inclination variations that complicate that.

[RickyH]

1. Fifty seven years of life experience
2. Multiple short courses on human psychology
3. Extensive reading in the fields of psychology and primate behaviour
4. Deliberate, thoughtful observation of human behaviour in work, social and educational settings for over thirty years

All of that and you can't make an accurate notion of me?

With all of that wouldn't you have learned that you cannot make an infallible deduction of me, over the internet? Perhaps you should do some more coursework.


Based upon the above, coupled with extensive training and experience in application of the scientific method, both at University and at work, I believe I can apply a reasonably scientific approach to the problem.
Part of the analysis goes like this: if I am correct about this guy, my observations might kick start him into a more positive approach to life. Net gain for humanity. If I am wrong about him, he will ignore me as the grumpy old scoundrel I have so conveniently identified myself as. Zero effect on humanity. Conclusion: if I have the time and the inclination, then pursue the course of action. The worst case is neutral.

I beleive you're dillusional to an extent, while being very opinionated. I think you're a very intelligent person. I'm actually certain of this. But you are getting misconstrued about me.


In my vocabulary and language (English, not American English) course work is two words. I do not consider coursework to be incorrect, merely a variant. So, no, I have not used an incorrect spelling. However, I would note that I was commenting on your English, not on your english. [At the very least you will have to concede that I am helping you develop your debating skills. Is that not worth a small thank you? ;)

Well in that case then no problem. But I've never heard of any form of enlgish that doesn't consider is a compound. But that is beside the point. My debate skills are decent. I must admit you're correct on one thing about me. I could be a much better debater if I used the sicentific method more diurnal. But this is from my belief that a person can easily understand me in laymen terms.

[Ophiolite]

Ricky, you are amusing. One thing that astounds me is that you are able to maintain that high GPA when you can't write English. That has been my beef with you from the outset. That has been my criticism. That is what you persistently refuse to accept - that your writing is so sloppy that you verge on the unintelligible. Clear writing is the signature of intellect. You are marking your passage with a cross.

I'm done debating this with you. Your youthful self belief is a wonderful thing. Enjoy.

[RickyH]

Ricky, you are amusing. One thing that astounds me is that you are able to maintain that high GPA when you can't write English. That has been my beef with you from the outset. That has been my criticism. That is what you persistently refuse to accept - that your writing is so sloppy that you verge on the unintelligible. Clear writing is the signature of intellect. You are marking your passage with a cross.

I'm done debating this with you. Your youthful self belief is a wonderful thing. Enjoy.


My mistakes were typos. Obvious ones at that. Can you find one that wasn't a typo?

I found one that was a pretty big mistake. "Well in that case then no problem. But I've never heard of any form of enlgish that doesn't consider is a compound." This should have read. "Well in that case then no problem. But I've never heard of any form of english that doesn't consider it as a compound.


With all of this. English is not even my first langauge. Hebrew is my first and most used langauge. I've truelly only known English for about six years.

[leopold99]

With all of this. English is not even my first langauge. Hebrew is my first and most used langauge. I've truelly only known English for about six years.
ricky
have any idea what pattern the earth would trace from the moons perspective?

[draqon]

Yo Leopold found these two sites...http://www.inconstantmoon.com/qna_move.htm
The other site has a live animation view of how Earth looks now from the moon's sky.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/cgi-bin/uncgi/Earth/action?opt=-m

[leopold99]

http://www.inconstantmoon.com/qna_move.htm

this is from the site:

You'll be pleased to know that you are correct! An observer on the Moon will see the Earth move slightly in the sky, but it will always stay within a few degrees of the same spot.

and i leopold agrees with this
but the following is from the same site and i do not agree with it
because of the moons inclination


From the Earth we always see the same face of the Moon, and the centre-to-centre line would intersect the Moon's surface somewhere in the area of the Sinus Medii (selenographic latitude 0 and longitude 0)... always! Someone stood in this area would see the Earth directly overhead, the only variations being small periodic ones due to libration.

you must remember that the moons orbit is inclined from the ecliptic

[RickyH]

Does anyone know the equation of the moons orbit, with the angle it would be traveling at? If I can get these I can solve it for you.

[Ophiolite]

With all of this. English is not even my first langauge. Hebrew is my first and most used langauge. I've truelly only known English for about six years.Then I apologise. For a second language your English (not english) is excellent. If you were foolish enough to read through all of my posts on this forum you would find two of the things I attack are
a) bad English'
b) attacks on the English of those for whom it is a second language
Your own English is of such a standard I took you to be a native speaker who was being sloppy. Another thing I routinely attack is sloppy thinking - I still think you are prone to this, but the bulk of it may be attributable to your use of a relatively unfamiliar language.

[Muslim]

Does anyone really give a shit?

[Ophiolite]

Yes.

[leopold99]

muslim
maybe you can answer my question

[Muslim]

muslim
maybe you can answer my question

Yes what was it.

[leopold99]

Yes what was it.
what pattern would the earth trace in the moons sky
in other words
if you sat on the moon and stared at planet earth would it move? if so what pattern would that be. would it rise and set?

[Muslim]

what pattern would the earth trace in the moons sky
in other words
if you sat on the moon and stared at planet earth would it move? if so what pattern would that be. would it rise and set?


The moon orbits the earth, and the earth orbits around the sun and it also rotates on its axis. So I don't think it would move or it wouldn't appear to be moving, I think you might notice the rotating of the earth thats about it. This is purely based on speculation I ain't been on the moon. Yeah I mean its not going to rise and set.

[leopold99]

well see muslim thats the point
i have never been to the moon either
but knowing about the moons motion leads me to beleive that the earth would move in the moons sky
the question i have is what pattern would it move in?

[RickyH]

leopold. I need you to get me the moons orbitting pattern. If you can find me a webiste with how many times it rotates around the earth and some angles i could easily find this out for you.

[Muslim]

well see muslim thats the point
i have never been to the moon either
but knowing about the moons motion leads me to beleive that the earth would move in the moons sky
the question i have is what pattern would it move in?

Why do you want to know that? I mean you have to be on the moon to know what pattern the earth moves from when looked at from the moon.

[Muslim]

leopold. I need you to get me the moons orbitting pattern. If you can find me a webiste with how many times it rotates around the earth and some angles i could easily find this out for you.


Yeah you're a fucking genius. We could all work it out if we know that.

[leopold99]

http://jove.geol.niu.edu/faculty/stoddard/JAVA/moonphase.html
ricky
see if the above website helps

[RickyH]

Here it is simple. Lets say you were on the moon. Wherever you are standing it would appear to not be rotating. But indeed you are rotating. See it rotates around earth every 24 hours. So earth would appear to be spinning while the moon would appear to be still. So in other words it would "appear" to be fixed.


Reason to beleive this. Ummm take two balls put a mark or somethign on it and rotate it around another ball but make sure the mark is always facing the other ball. So you see the mark would always look like it's in one position looking at earth. Get it?

[Muslim]

Here it is simple. Lets say you were on the moon. Wherever you are standing it would appear to not be rotating. But indeed you are rotating. See it rotates around earth every 24 hours. So earth would appear to be spinning while the moon would appear to be still. So in other words it would "appear" to be fixed.


Reason to beleive this. Ummm take two balls put a mark or somethign on it and rotate it around another ball but make sure the mark is always facing the other ball. So you see the mark would always look like it's in one position looking at earth. Get it?


And that was what I kind of said. And I would agree with you.

[RickyH]

I hope that answers it for everyone else though.

[leopold99]

well it doesn't
you are forgetting librations of the moon
and the moons orbit is inclined to the ecliptic

the librations would produce an east/west motion of the earth
the inclination would produce a north/south motion

am i correct?

[RickyH]

The moon is locked so that it presents the same face to the earth all the time during the lunar month. But if you were to take the wo balls it would show you just "about" what it would look like. It would not be perfect.Also, because the orbit of the moon is tilted about 5 degrees with respect to the Earth's equator, from the moon there will be locations where the earth will slowly rise and set during the lunar month as seen from the surface.

[Ophiolite]

Leo, I still cannot improve on your original estimate that it would be a figure eight, and my own amendment, with distortions. I trust you are as amused as me by Ricky feeding you back your own explanation as if it were his, after you have pointed out how he had oversimplified his original answer. :)

[leopold99]

The moon is locked so that it presents the same face to the earth all the time during the lunar month.
this is not true ricky
if the moon was "locked" then we on earth would only be able to see 50% of the surface.

but due to libration and inclination we are able to see approx. 59% of the surface

[Ophiolite]

Leo - I have never been able to upload pictures onto this site, which is a shame, because this one is a beauty. It shows the path of the Earth as viewed by an observer on the moon.

http://www.amsat.org/amsat/articles/g3ruh/110.html

This is exactly what you are looking for. A very intricate shape. Some comments from the site on what is influencing the final shape.

The average up/down latitude excursion is 5.13°, corresponding to the Moon's orbital inclination with respect to the ecliptic. A variety of other influences from the Sun add up to +/- 0.9° more to this.

The left/right longitude excursions are caused mainly by the Moon's orbital eccentricity. The major term is 2e radians, or 6.29°, where e = 0.055 is the orbit eccentricity. Interaction with the Sun contributes a little more, bringing the longitude peak movement to some 8°.

The combined latitude and longitude movement is a maximum of 9.5°, as can be seen at the "corners" of the plot.

Incidentally, this was the first hit of 114 for the Google search ""earth viewed from the moon".

[leopold99]

nice graphic ophiolite

i am confused though
at the top it says "start 1994 june 21"
at the bottom it says "stop 1997 june 21"

does this graphic represent three years of observation?

[Ophiolite]

Yes. I believe it does. If you could count the major excursions, without going cross eyed, you would find one for each month.

[RickyH]

this is not true ricky
if the moon was "locked" then we on earth would only be able to see 50% of the surface.

but due to libration and inclination we are able to see approx. 59% of the surface



I possibly used the wreong context of locked. I meant that the moon is locked on it's orbit. With the inclinations and such it has a few different changes everyonce in a while, but nothing to much as to change the view completely. Just add the 9% to how much you see of Earth.

[TruthSeeker]

We need a "Fake Moon Landing" forum.... :D

[RickyH]

I bet you there is one.

[RickyH]

<iframe src=http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=420 height=700 width=700> </iframe>

But look how good they are compared to this site. I would much rather do it here then any other. That place is a joke compared to this place. :D

[leopold99]

We need a "Fake Moon Landing" forum.... :D
why? whenever someone gets a wild hair up their butt we'll just drag this thread out.

[c7ityi_]

Yeah, maybe they faked it, otherwise no one would have a reason to say they did.

[Ophiolite]

You, c7ityi, were arrested in the spring of 2004 for having sex with a goat in a suburb of Miami. Because of a failure to read you, or the goat, your rights, the case was never brought to trial.

Maybe the above is true, otherwise no one would have a reason to say it.

[c7ityi_]

Yeah, maybe they didn't fake it. But why would someone want to create a rumor like that? Why?

[Ophiolite]

But why would someone want to create a rumor like that? Why?1) They believe it to be the truth as a consequence of mental illness.
2) They want to be famous.
3) They are conducting an experiment to see how gullible the public is.
4) They have a beef with the government and this is one way of getting back at them.
5) They hope to make money out of lecturing on the rumour and writing books.

That should be enough to get you started.

[RickyH]

Yeah, maybe they didn't fake it. But why would someone want to create a rumor like that? Why?


The same reason Happeh sticks around.

[Ophiolite]

For once we are in agreement. A most perceptive comment.

[RickyH]

For once we are in agreement. A most perceptive comment.


Thank you. Mazel Tov to you with your Happeh problems.

[leopold99]

happeh was banned last night
he was online this morning as a sock puppet
proof that he is a cheat and a swindler

[RickyH]

happeh was banned last night
he was online this morning as a sock puppet
proof that he is a cheat and a swindler


Thank the lord. Now we will be in peace for a breif period of time.

[leopold99]

the lord didn't have anything to do with it
it was his own stupidity and ignorance combined with that over inflated ego and vanity of his that did it

[TruthSeeker]

Why is it always the lord's fault?

[RickyH]

the lord didn't have anything to do with it
it was his own stupidity and ignorance combined with that over inflated ego and vanity of his that did it


Figure of speech....

[Froogle King]

YOU PEOPLE JUST LIKE TO ARGUE FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUING. YOU CONSPIRACY THEORISTS ARE TOO STUBBORN TO ACCEPT ANY REAL EVIDENCE SO YOU ACT LIKE IT DOESN'T EXIST. TRY GOING TO THIS WEBSITE AND ASKING ANYMORE QUESTIONS.

http://www.badastronomy.com

[Froogle King]

ALSO CHECK OUT THE ONES THAT SNAKE RIVER RUFUS POSTED.

http://www.clavius.org

http://www.braeunig.us/space/index_top.htm

[snake river rufus]

HBs never let facts get in the way. Or reality either for that point.

[draqon]

the title of this thread should be, "NASA faked moon banging"

[Facial]

Huh? I thought this thread was dead (and rightfully so).

[Anomalous]

Huh? I thought this thread was dead (and rightfully so).

Yes its dead cos thers nothin new ?

[Anomalous]

No it lives again,

Is this Image a Fake or Confiscated one ?

http://thebiggestsecretpict.online.fr/nwo/astron_2diff_shadows.jpg

----------------------

Here Another row,

We all know the Famous first man on moon Foot Print, right.

Now heres the Catch, If there is so much so fine dust on moon to cause that famous Armstrong's foot print , then

we should have seen a Big Cloud of Dust around when the Eagle Landed. :D

[Light]

No it lives again,

Is this Image a Fake or Confiscated one ?

http://thebiggestsecretpict.online.fr/nwo/astron_2diff_shadows.jpg

----------------------

Here Another row,

We all know the Famous first man on moon Foot Print, right.

Now heres the Catch, If there is so much so fine dust on moon to cause that famous Armstrong's foot print , then

we should have seen a Big Cloud of Dust around when the Eagle Landed. :D
Well, that one gets you exactly nothing.

There was a cloud of dust during the landing. And they didn't hop right out, like getting out of a car. In the meanwhile, since there's no atmosphere to help keep it suspended, it all settled back down again.

[Anomalous]

Well, that one gets you exactly nothing.

There was a cloud of dust during the landing.

Really ?

So the dust was blown off right;

funny that absence of dust could still make the first foot print.

And they didn't hop right out, like getting out of a car. In the meanwhile, since there's no atmosphere to help keep it suspended, it all settled back down again.

Ya sure with no wind resistance it went straigh up and down again, sounds like a
"controlled dust plume" :D

http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/history/apollo/apollo-11/images/69HC687.GIF

Any signs of blown dust near by ?



BTW its amazing that their Hops were not 6 times that of on earth.
<IMG src=http://www.purplemoon.com/Stickers/pirate-smiley.jpg></IMG>

[Anomalous]

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/tim.hoddy/eric/images/circledlunar.jpg

Look at the overlapping crosshair.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/tim.hoddy/eric/images/crosshair.jpg

[Light]

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/tim.hoddy/eric/images/circledlunar.jpg

Look at the overlapping crosshair.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/tim.hoddy/eric/images/crosshair.jpg
Ho-hum. (Yawn )

[Hipparchia]

BTW its amazing that their Hops were not 6 times that of on earth.
Wow, I don't want to appear impolite or anything, but you are kidding, right? I don't know how heavy their spacesuits were or those big back packs with their oxygen, which I think also had all sorts of stuff for keeping them cool. With that load do you really think they are going to try for the high jump record. I mean, come on.
That also doesn't consider that they are not going to risk falling and damaging their suit by being too exuberant.

[Anomalous]

Wow, I don't want to appear impolite or anything, but you are kidding, right? I don't know how heavy their spacesuits were or those big back packs with their oxygen, which I think also had all sorts of stuff for keeping them cool. With that load do you really think they are going to try for the high jump record. I mean, come on.
That also doesn't consider that they are not going to risk falling and damaging their suit by being too exuberant.

So how much did they weigh ?

And what about the hops of the rover ?

And what about my other points Mr. Genius.

[Communist Hamster]

The rover was going faster than the astronauts were travelling.

[Hipparchia]

So how much did they weigh ?
Enough to encourage caution in an alien and hostile environment. It is not just the weight, but the cumbersome character of the suit, and the imbalancing effect of that weight hanging off your back.
And what about the hops of the rover ?
Huh?
And what about my other points Mr. Genius.That's Ms. Genius to you.

[Light]

So how much did they weigh ?

And what about the hops of the rover ?

And what about my other points Mr. Genius.
All of your allegations could be disproven if anyone wanter to bother to take the time. (Ho-hum again - yawn .)

What you fail to understand, Mr. Not-Genius , is that when a single one is discredited so are you. End of story.

[river-wind]

the above images of "overlapping" crosshairs and 'misaligned' shadows have been dealt with hundreds of times over, and are all easily explained by taking a basic photography class at any local community college.

Exposure Range.

Angle of perspective/ angle of ground.

[leopold99]

anomalous's brain

in my opinion that explains 100% of the discrepancy

[Pete]

Is this Image a Fake or Confiscated one ?

http://thebiggestsecretpict.online.fr/nwo/astron_2diff_shadows.jpg
Interesting image. What do you think it means?

I'll give you a hint: They're not standing on flat ground.

Do some homework. If you look around, you'll find that your arguments are old and tired; that they've been carefully considered and firmly dismissed many times over.

I've copied a list of resources for you from Robert Braeunig's The Moon Hoax Debate (http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm) page. These resources include pro, neutral, and anti conspiracy sources. This is a direct cut'n'paste from Braeunig's site, with a couple of small sections snipped.
<hr>
Further Reading.

If you are interested in further information regarding this topic, I recommend the following Web pages. All do a very fine job of debunking the alleged hoax evidence, often delving into the various topics with great detail. Many of these sites have been valuable sources in the writing of this Web page.

Moon Base Clavius (http://www.clavius.org/) -- The best and most complete anti-hoax site on the Internet!

Bad Astronomy - Fox TV and the Apollo Moon Hoax (http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html)

Are Apollo Moon Photos Fake? (http://www.iangoddard.net/moon01.htm)

Where Apollo Pictures Faked? (http://www3.telus.net/summa/moonshot/index.htm)

Apollo Hoax Charges Falter Under Light of Critical Analysis (http://insideksc.com/moonshot/debunking.htm)

A Conspiracy of Conspiracy Theories: America's Lost Moon (http://www.thursdaysclassroom.com/15mar01/mcdade.html)

Non-Faked Moon Landings! (http://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~jscotti/NOT_faked/)

Comments on the FOX Moonlanding Hoax special (http://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~jscotti/NOT_faked/FOX.html)

Space and Sanity, Apollo: The Truth! (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/neil.haggath/Apollo_Contents.html)

Did we land on the moon? (http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Did%20we%20land%20on%20the%20Moon.htm)

Conspiracy Theory: Did We Go to the Moon? (http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/ConspiracyTheoryDidWeGototheMoon.htm)

FOX Goes to the Moon, but NASA Never Did - The No-Moonies Cult Strikes (http://homepages.wmich.edu/~korista/moonhoax2.html)

Answers to Questions about the FOX TV Moon Hoax Program (http://aesp.nasa.okstate.edu/georgia/Hoaxmail/hoax.html)

Apollo 15 Landing Site Spotted in Images (http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/missions/apollo15_touchdown_photos_010427.html)

The Apollo Moon Landings - Were they all a hoax? (http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/)

The Great Moon Hoax (http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast23feb_2.htm?list45245)

NASA Facts - Did U.S. Astronauts Really Land On The Moon? (pdf/lunar_landing.pdf) (PDF)

The Space Page (http://www.nasastooge.fsnet.co.uk/)

Was the Apollo Moon Landing a Hoax? (http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mmoonhoax.html)

The Moon Hoax Is A Hoax! (http://www.thursdaysclassroom.com/15mar01/Article1.html)

Proof Positive - Five Reasons to Believe We've Been to the Moon (http://www.thursdaysclassroom.com/15mar01/proofpositive.html)

Telescopic Tracking of the Apollo Lunar Missions (http://www.astr.ua.edu/keel/space/apollo.html)

The Van Allen Belts and Travel to the Moon (http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/waw/mad/mad19.html)

Mondlandungsflüge? (http://www.mondlandung.pcdl.de) (In German, Moon-landing flights?)

http://www.braeunig.us/space/pics/webtitle.gif (http://www.skeptik.net/conspir/moonhoax.htm) (In Russian, Did Americans fly to the Moon?)

For Apollo images and other archived data, please visit the following:

Apollo Lunar Surface Journal (http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/frame.html)

Project Apollo Image Gallery (http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo_gallery.html)

You can also read my supplemental debunking pages here:

A Debunking of Jack White's Apollo Photo Analysis (hoax-jw.htm)

Response to letter from James VanZanten (reply1.htm)

--snip--

The following Web pages are by persons who actually believe in the Moon hoax theory. As you view these pages I would like you to take note of something: not one of them, that I have noticed, provide links to any hoax-debunking Websites. Why do you suppose that is? Could it be they are trying to manipulate you into believing their version of history rather then allowing you to study all the facts and draw your own unbiased conclusions?

Aulis Online - Apollo Investigation (http://www.aulis.com/)

A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Moon (http://www.moonmovie.com/)

Was The Apollo Moon Landing Fake? (http://www.apfn.org/apfn/moon.htm)

Ground Zero: Faked Moon Landings? (http://batesmotel.8m.com/)

Faked Moon Landings? (http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/2666/MoonHoax2.html)

Moon Fakers? (http://www.geocities.com/lord_visionary/moon_fakers.htm)

Where the Moon Landing Shots Faked? (http://www.mohammedi.freeserve.co.uk/moonshots.html)

The 'Faked' Apollo Landings!!! (http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html)

Apollo Reality (http://www.geocities.com/apolloreality/)

The Lunar Conspiracy? Did Man Really go to the Moon? (http://www.empusa.demon.co.uk/lunar/lunar1.htm)

NASA: Numerous Anomalies and Scams Allowed (http://www.geocities.com/nasascam/)

But Seriously, It Sure Looks Like NASA Faked the Lunar Landings - Is That Possible? (http://www.neosoft.com/~cshramek/nasafake.htm)

Rethinking NASA's Version of History (http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/4071/moon.html)

Oh what a wicked web we weave!!! - "The Apollo Program" (http://people.mail2me.com.au/~vk4vkd/Mooned.htm)

ONE SMALL STEP ..... Moon Anomalies and The Great NASA Cover-Up (http://www.webaxs.net/~noelz/lostlink/nasa.htm)

MoonShadows: Did We Really Go To The Moon In The Late 1960's &amp; Early 70's? (http://www.futuresunltd.com/sudarshan/MoonShadows/MoonShadows.htm)

We never went to the moon? (http://www.webaxs.net/~noelz/lostlink/nvr_moon.txt)

Investigator Challenging NASA (http://www.recrea.f9.co.uk/papermoon.htm)

The following is an interview with Bill Kaysing, who is one of the hoax advocates featured in the FOX television program and author of We Never Went To The Moon. Mr. Kaysing's opinions are unconventional to say the least. Read his comments and judge for yourself if they hold merit.

Interview with Bill Kaysing by Nardwuar (http://nardwuar.com/vs/bill_kaysing/index.html)

Bill Kaysing, considered by many the father of the Moon hoax theory, portrays himself as some sort of expert, but is he? The following Web page outlines his qualifications.

Clavius / Bibliography, Bill Kaysing (http://www.clavius.org/kaysing.html)

The following Web pages provide a little information about the major proponents of the Moon hoax theory. In addition to Bill Kaysing, there are articles about photographer David Percy, co-author of Dark Moon: Apollo and the Whistle Blowers, Ralph Rene, author of NASA Mooned America, and journalist Bart Sibrel, a newcomer to the Moon hoax game.
Bill Kaysing (http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/Kaysing.htm)
David Percy (http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/Percy.htm)
Ralph Rene (http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/Rene.htm)
Bart Sibrel (http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/Sibrel.htm)

--snip--

Discussion Forums.
If you wish to engage in a discussion about the Moon landing hoax, I recommend the following forums. Very knowledgeable and helpful persons in the fields of Apollo history, astronomy, physics, and engineering are frequent visitors to both. I am a regular contributor under the user name Bob B.
Bad Astronomy Bulletin Board (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/)
Apollo Hoax Forum (http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi)

[Pete]

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_moon_landing_hoax_accusations) also has a thorough page on the subject. While the language of the article suggests that it was primarily written by an author who does not believe in the conspiracy idea, I think that they have made a good attempt at conforming to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Npov) policy.

Register and edit if you think otherwise, but be sure to understand Wikipedia's policies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines) first.

[Light]

Excellent work, Pete!!!! Maybe all the woo-woos will go out and get themselves lost in all that information. There's more than enough there to keep them busy for weeks!

P.S. some very good, solid stuff there, too! Thanks!

[Hercules Rockefeller]

What I find amusing about Anomalous (in a sad and pathetic kind of way) is that, whilst stridently proclaiming that the Moon landings were faked and that the 9/11 terrorist attacks were a government conspiracy and that *insert any wacko conspiracy theory here*, (s)he started a new thread and announced how intelligent (s)he is and that there are many morons on Scifourms!

Since I joined SciForms two years back, I feel I have become 10 times more intelligent than I used to be…..I used to be very unhappy being surrounded by morons whereever I went, but SciForums taught me how to deal with morons, yes there are many morons here too...

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=53055

Oh my, the irony is just too much! :eek:

[Light]

What I find amusing about Anomalous (in a sad and pathetic kind of way) is that, whilst stridently proclaiming that the Moon landings were faked and that the 9/11 terrorist attacks were a government conspiracy and that *insert any wacko conspiracy theory here*, (s)he started a new thread and announced how intelligent (s)he is and that there are many morons on Scifourms!


Oh my, the irony is just too much! :eek:
Agreed! :D

A major rule of thumb: anyone who makes an effort to tell you how intelligent they are really aren't . (Ha-ha-ha!)

[Facial]

Oh I see why this thread is still alive (anomalous)

[RickyH]

To Anomalous. About the photo, with different shadows.

This is very wrong, with the following quote from this website.
http://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~jscotti/NOT_faked/

The Sun is the primary light source, however, it lights up not only the lunar surface, but the LM, the astronauts spacesuit, and anything else on the lunar surface so that light scattered off of those objects will fill the dark shadows with light. Try going into a small darkened room and shine a flashlight on the wall. The side of you opposite the flashlight which only sees the lighted wall will be lit by the scattered light off the wall from the flashlight spot. The Earth also adds some fill light to the shadows, but the Sun dominates the lighting on the Moon.

Another thing to consider is that the astronauts spacesuit is almost pure white, like a sheet of paper, while the lunar surface is charcoal black. The photographic exposures make the sunlit lunar surface look much lighter in color than it is and also allows the images to show detail in the shadows,
particularly of bright white space suits that are not very strongly lit by the scattered light off of the lunar surface, the LM, and anything else on the moon.


So what does it mean? It means that shadows will appear to have two different sources of light. Understand it?


So how much did they weigh ?

And what about the hops of the rover ?

They were trained to jump on the moon, without going too high up, or too far out.