Proof: Moon Landing Fake

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by URI, Nov 11, 2005.

  1. URI IMU Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    729
    >> >> Scientists and engineers figuring out how to return astronauts to the moon, set up habitats, and mine lunar soil to produce anything from building materials to rocket fuels have been scratching their heads over what to do about moondust. It's everywhere! The powdery grit gets into everything, jamming seals and abrading spacesuit fabric. It also readily picks up electrostatic charge, so it floats or levitates off the lunar surface and sticks to faceplates and camera lenses. It might even be toxic. >>
    http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/09nov_lawnmower.htm


    The electrostatically charged moon dust once disturbed would not settle for a very long time

    So a soft landing craft would kick up large amounts of dust

    However the fake photos showed no dust..... contrary to reality.....

    The same goes for supposed moon walking...

    a very dusty place for anyone, and yet photos were crystal clear.

    I think it has been admitted that the "photos" were faked, becaue the camera technology was no out there enough.



    The second reason against a man landing is the L1 and L2 points of the Moon show that any orbit around the Moon is highly elliptical..... making a controlled landing way beyond the technology of the day...



    cover blown !
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Facial Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,217
    This assumes that Moon "dust" is strongly charged in the first place.
    The fact that they weren't in any of the lunar highlands / cratered regoliths is consistent with the footage. Apollo 11 landed in the Mare Tranquilitatis, the Sea of Tranquility, which is maria. Can't expect a lot of dust there.

    But let's assume that was false anyways. Can you still give me convincing evidence that it is easy to charge basaltic silicate minerals under strong sunlight until it resembles the behavior of salt powder under a charged balloon?

    This is again misleading. The Lagrange points are indeed elliptical, but that wasn't the intended orbit. Are any flybys or visits geostationary? I don't think so, unless you want GPS on the moon.

    Fact: You can orbit any planet however you want to, as long as you have sufficient power and don't get in the atmosphere's way. Parabolic and hyperbolic trajectories are also possible.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,505
    There is no air on the moon to support dust when it is kicked up, so it doesn't hang in the air like it does on Earth. Instead, gravity pulls it back to the ground. Gravity on the moon is 1/6 as strong as on Earth, so the dust falls a little slower, but it still settles reasonably rapidly.

    Many amateur radio astronomers tracked the Apollo craft on its way to and from the moon. How did NASA fake those signals?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Light Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,258
    Ho-hum. Yawn...

    And admitted by whom that the photos were faked?

    Double yawn... ZZZZZZzzzzzzz...
     
  8. URI IMU Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    729
    >> You can orbit any planet however you want to, as long as you have sufficient power and don't get in the atmosphere's way. >>

    LOL, power ! very short on that.

    The surface of the Moon would be charged by high levels of UV light

    Once a "craft landed" the dust would be stirred up, and yes weak gravity and no atmosphere would see uncharged particles settle somewhat quickly
    but charged particles (from exhaust gases, heat, friction, UV etc) would be repelled somewhat and settle very slowly in the near vacuum of the Moon........
     
  9. Facial Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,217
    I didn't get too technical on that. If you wanted me to say thrust, velocity, momentum or specific impulse, then you are being rather defensive of whatever amount of knowledge you may have.

    Not to mention that the term power is even "short" in the sense you would like to think. Or are we talking about asteroids and flying wrenches?
     
  10. Light Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,258
    I'm going to make a sceond pass at this because the article in your link is actually pretty interesting.

    But as far as your "fake landing" business, please! That whole conspiracy business was settled long ago. Only the fringe idiots and some very silly people believe it was faked. Let's just drop the stupidity and move along to the next topic.
     
  11. URI IMU Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    729
    >> Only the fringe idiots

    anything useful to say.

    I am very serious on this.......... where there is smoke there is fire, I intend to turn up the heat on the fire.

    Dust
    see pic
    http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/as11-40-5902.jpg

    fake pictures (yes) .... no dust, not even in the landing gear.....

    none on ??? astronaut model..... The space is devoid of dust.... considering a recent "landing" this is strange ?
    You can even see the horizon !.....

    I do not need to go any further.... the whole is a fraud.
     
  12. Blindman Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,425
    You kook..

    How would you know there is no dust, did you do a spectral analysis of the parts, did you have a reference spectrum. The amount of dust would have been very small and directed away from the ship by the pressure of the exhaust gas.

    The horizon in the bit between the dark sky and the gray moon. You are even blinder then me.

    It is also interesting that astronauts reported a faint glow on the horizon at sunset and sunrise. At first scientist did not know what it was, only after the last landing did they work out that it is the suspended electro static dust particles scattering the sunlight.

    Is this not proof for the kook that the moon landing happened. If it was so carefully scripted the astronauts would not have reported something the scientist of the day knew nothing of.

    Moderators, this thread has a much better home.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please send it home.
     
  13. Light Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,258
    P.T. Barnum once said there was one born every minute. So please tell us that you do not intend to reproduce (when you get old enough).

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    What you're pushing is pure junk - and yes, just fringe idiots and the like. There's absolutely nothing useful to say about foolishness and stupid people.

    Next subject, please?
     
  14. Communist Hamster Cricetulus griseus leninus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,022
  15. oldie Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    49
    Orbiting the Moon and landing on the Moon are two completely different matters. We could have just orbited and not landed at all.
     
  16. Facial Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,217
    When the flame turns blue, the smoke disappears.

    Hamster, that link is quite something. Now even I am starting to doubt the moon landings.
     
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2005
  17. eburacum45 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,297
    This is nonsense. The L1 and L2 points of the Earth/Moon system are sixty thousand kilometers from the Moon; any orbit between the Moon's surface and (say) fifty-five thousand kilometers in radius should be stable. In fact the Apollo missions orbited about a hundred kilometers above the moon, in a circular orbit, so were well within the stable zone.
     
  18. URI IMU Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    729
    >> orbited about a hundred kilometers above the moon, in a circular orbit >>

    so energy was used to slow down and land ( 2 men) against gravity and take off and gain escape velocity from the Moon.... more that was ever available... and then output energy to return and land on Earth.

    But you are right, the L1 and L2 points of the Moon are from my calculations and do not agree with published values..... however my logic is correct.
    (I know this because the parameters integrate with all other celestial parameters)

    Without this knowledge a user friendly landing upon the Moon would have been a tragedy.

    >> We could have just orbited and not landed at all >>

    most likely.... and dumb landings... indeed
     
  19. D H Some other guy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,257
    The stability zone is much smaller than 55,000 km -- more like 5,000. Nonetheless, the Apollo missions were indeed well within the stability zone.

    The whole idea that the moon landings were faked is ludicrous. The only way two people can keep a secret is if one of them is dead. I can't even begin to imagine the number of dead people that would be needed to keep the fake moon landings secret.
     
  20. KennyJC Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,936
    I'd like to know how this is proof since the video that showed the famous moon buggy driving round clearly showed how dust should behave in a vacuum. Unless they managed to somehow vacuum a whole studio, it showed how dust should behave in a vacuum since it is not kicked around by an atmosphere and simply gets pulled back down to the surface by the moons gravity.

    If the moon landings were really fake, then the tires kicking up the dust on Earths atmosphere would have all the dust hanging around the air and getting blown around.
     
  21. Light Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,258
     
  22. Avatar smoking revolver Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,083
    this is some 99th fake moon landing thread in sciforums
    every time a new crackpot comes on board there appears such a thread
    maybe we could ban these, or use as an early moron warning system
     
  23. KennyJC Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,936
    I don't know, sometimes you just get people who are attracted to conspiracy theories, and people who join religions

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    They like fantasy.
     

Share This Page