We Never Went To Moon And You Know It

Discussion in 'The Cesspool' started by webprodesign, Jan 6, 2005.

  1. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Is it true that Uranus stinks?
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    That was one of the more difficult effects to simulate initially. The first attempts were rejected for that very reason. You are actually quite close with your idea of an airtight studio, but it wasn't a vacuum. The studio was filled with atmosphere at a pressure of 130 psi, almost ten times normal atmospheric. In air of that density the dust simply stayed in the air longer.
    Panic. And because of that episode he has become a virtual hermit since.
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    I'm glad you used allegedly . The radiation levels within the van Allen belts are high, but not dangerously so, for the length of time the astronauts would be within them. This was not one of the reasons the landings were faked.
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Why didn't the soviet union expose the lie that the US went to the moon?
  8. Nasor Valued Senior Member

    The entire point of doing experiments in space is that there's no gravity. Going to the moon to do experiments would largely defeat the purpose - you'd just be going from one gravity well to another. This falls pretty solidly under the 'duh' category.
  9. river-wind Valued Senior Member

    But that's just it, the dust in the film doesn't "stay in the air longer", it rises and falls as if there is no air resistance at all. No dust clouds, no billowing or swirling. A nearly perfect parabolic curve up and then down, like trillions of little cannonballs, uneffected by wind resistance.
    The curve is higher than one would expect at 1G given the desity of the material in question, which is why I say there must have been some gravity-reduction equipent going were is faked.

    also, the video shows no atmospheric distortion. For instance, any basic art class will teach you that the farther away a landscape object is, the hazier it is - more blue in color prints.
    This is due to water in the atmosphere deflecting light passing through it. In the video of the first landing, at least, it is very difficult to guage the distance of many objects until you watch the astronauts bouncing their way over to it.

    In one particular 45 second shot I have seen, the two astronauts are collecting rock samples in front of a large boulder about ~30 f away.
    However, this estimate was based on my human instinct to judge distance based on atmospheric distortion - as the two men begin to walk away from the camera, I found myself surprised to see them going and going - finally to about 150-200 yards away, where it became crear that this "large boulder" was actually the size of a two-story building.

    Increasing the psi would not reduce the amount of light fragmentation which that particular video perfectly demonstrates.
    Last edited: Jan 10, 2005
  10. Communist Hamster Cricetulus griseus leninus Valued Senior Member


    webprodesign, please go and waste your time on another forum, if you are just going to blather on about the 'Moon landing Hoax' even after everyone else here has just disproved your argument with cold, hard, scientific FACT

  11. Raven- you really do think like a bird..

  12. PΛRΛDIGM® (¨*·.¸ PΛRΛDIGM ¸.·*¨) Registered Senior Member

    Well look at all the angry posts,

    The birds feathers are all fluffed up,
    The gerbil is gnawing at his cage, by the way FYI:

    Gnawing seems to be very important to gerbils. Some new pet owners are wondering, when they find the new plastic wheel after one day lying on the cage floor cut into little pieces ...

    By the way, e.g. when gnawing hay, they find some food too.

    - Gnawing seems to be very important to gerbils. Some new pet owners are wondering, when they find the new plastic wheel after one day lying on the cage floor cut into little pieces ...
  13. Xerxes asdfghjkl Valued Senior Member

    haha! burn.

    Sorry Raven, I like you. But sometimes your logic makes no sense

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  14. one_raven God is a Chinese Whisper Valued Senior Member

    You don't think he deserved it?
    Or are you referring to something else?
  15. slotty Colostomy-its not my bag Registered Senior Member

    With the roll that the apollo spacecraft was put into during the trip there and back, it was found that the bulk of the capsule would protect the astronauts from excessive radiation.
    As to the thread starter, do you really think that upwards of 400,000 people who were involved in project apollo could be fooled? If it was a fake, do you not think that out of all these workers, not one. Not one, has come foward to say it was a fake?. I can't be arsed to go through all of the conspiracy theory bollox as to why it was all a fake. Come back with some evidence, which anybody here who has a brain will tell you, you will be a long time looking for it.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  16. The Charmer Registered Member

    Blimey! Did you find this out on your trip into town, away from your hamlet?
    Be careful venturing away from your cave, because, as you know, travel 30 leagues in any direction and you'll fall off the edge of the world...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  17. Silas asimovbot Registered Senior Member

    "Meticulously planned and skilfully executed" - compare and contrast with the total inability to hide the complacency, poor engineering and outright negligence which led to the Challenger disaster. NASA has never been at any point capable of pulling off a hoax of that nature, and it's doubly impossible to do with 1969 technology.
  18. [KS] Registered Member

    Errrm I think the word about Moon landing being a hoax might and might not be true. Here are some things that confirm the theory about Hoax:

    1) The sand. On the movie the sand stands still lifted from the ground. I know there is not AIR on the moon but there IS gravity. Wouldn't that make the sand fell down. Slowly but still would fall.
    2) The flag is not standing still. Why? Is there some wind?
    3) The shuttle that landed on the moon was cone shaped. With all the crew in it it could NOT have nearly enough fuel to land and fly off the moon! Consider that it also needs fuel to land since gravity is very low on the Moon, so it can't just fall down.
    4) Why not send astronauts up there again?
    5) Why isn't the flag which they left up there visible even with the best telescopes? Aliens ate it?

    Here are some possible answers:

    1) There is a theory I read, but I can't say YES or NO to it... Maybe the sand pieces are to small and since the gravity is very weak, they are avoiding (sort of) the effect of the moon gravity?
    2) Dunno...
    3) Maybe they used some ultra effective fuel that they do not use even today? Not likely

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    4) What would they do up there? Be serious, moon is very simple planet. There is nothing to explore up there since we can see most of it from the earth, and it has no nearly good conditions for life. What's the purpose of sending ppl up there again?
    5) Maybe it's on the invisible side of the moon?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  19. slotty Colostomy-its not my bag Registered Senior Member

    Have you ever read or seen anything at all ever about space, spacecraft, NASA.? You appear amazingly silly, Cone shaped lander deary me

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Sand, lol. Please, read some books about space and spacecraft. Try NASA.com for starters
  20. slotty Colostomy-its not my bag Registered Senior Member

    OK your a young person, but plaese do read up before you post here at sciforums. Some of the posters here will rip you to shit. Apart from that , welcome

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  21. Athelwulf Rest in peace Kurt... Registered Senior Member

    One would hafta be exposed to constant Van Allen Belt radiation for about a few months for it to affect ya.

    The flag is on an aluminum frame. Aluminum is flexable. Therefore, it bends and wobbles. Well, while Armstrong (or whoever it was that put the flag up) was assembling and putting up the flag, it wobbled back and forth. Therefore, the flag waved. It continued to wave since there wasn't any atmosphere to offer any resistance to the waving.

    Maybe we don't need to go back right now. Or maybe we're concentrating on other projects right now. Like completing the International Space Station, or looking at pictures from Hubble, or exploring Titan with Huygens.

    We don't have any telescopes powerful enough to find something the size of a flag on something the size of the moon from this far away.
  22. [KS] Registered Member

    Sorry if I annoyed you. I know I am young and all that stuff. But I am into this space happening before I could read. First books I read were some Sci-Fi books. Maybe I don't know how to use some scientific expressions but I believe that all of you could understand what I was talking about. I know it was not "sand" and it was not literally "cone shaped" but that was easiest to write. Sorry I annoyed you, again. Thanks for your welcome.
  23. Silas asimovbot Registered Senior Member

    That is exactly what we do see - I've never seen moondust floating unsupported, neither have I ever seen clouds of dust in the way they would appear on earth - only dust particles following perfect parabolic paths that is only possible in a perfect or near-perfect vacuum (even on the Moon the vacuum is not actually perfect, there is a very slight adherence of gases, but not enough to create dust clouds)
    The only films extant which show the flag moving have an astronaut actually moving the flag, or having just let go of it. There is no movie of the flag moving of its own accord without human intervention.
    The capsule which performed the final re-entry burn and splashdown is not the ship which landed on and took off from the moon.

    In order to get two men onto the moon's surface and back, you need the following: a lunar module (called the LEM) consisting of a habitation unit, an ascent engine and a descent engine. A rocket ship (called a command and service module or CSM) capable of carrying the mass of the whole lunar module and an Earth re-entry capsule. To get all of this into Earth orbit requires the services of the most powerful rocket ever built: the Saturn V. The Saturn V gets the moon-travelling portion into earth orbit and is discarded. The CSM/LEM combination makes the journey to the moon. It has far less force of Earth's gravity to overcome in the opening part of the journey, and is then helped along by the Moon's gravity as it approaches, so it doesn't need to be more than a fraction the size of the Saturn. Once in lunar orbit, the LEM (with its descent and ascent engines) detach from the CSM and descend to the moon. The descent engine is part of the unit which includes the landing legs, and the whole of it forms a platform from which the LEM with its ascent engine blasts off. It returns to lunar orbit and attaches to the CSM long enough to discharge the men and the stuff they are carrying back to Earth (moon rocks and the like) and is then discarded. The CSM then returns to Earth, whereupon shortly before reentry the capsule containing the men detaches and makes its solo journey through re-entry and splashdown.

    The fact that the Moon has a surface gravity as much as 1/6 that of Earth and that such an enormous rocket is required on takeoff, disguises the fact that for a large number of reasons it does not require anything like as much as 1/6 the size of the rocket or the amount of fuel. Two factors are the fact that gravity falls off with with the square of the distance, so with less gravity to start with you are dealing with even less gravity when achieving lunar orbit. A further restriction on Earth orbit is the necessity to get clear of even the faintest wisp of the atmosphere in order to avoid friction. This is not necessary on the moon, where you can achieve orbit from a height that even from a reasonable distance would make the ship look like it was skimming the surface. So the small rockets and fuel loads that you can't even see from the outside of the lunar module are in fact more than adequate to do the job (the solid, land-on-able body with the highest surface gravity in the entire solar system is our Earth - gravity's a much greater factor than anywhere else).

    It's very expensive and the financial returns are minimal. We went in the first place to win an important Cold War battle. Unfortunately the moon is rather devoid of resources that we can't more easily obtain here on the Earth's surface. As to the moon's viability as a launching off point for the rest of the Universe, governments and commerce do not appear to have grasped the huge resource that is avialable elsewhere in the Solar System sufficiently to make the now ginormous financial committment involved. Furthermore, the loss of even one human life in such an endeavour would these days be considered far too expensive, politically.
    The very strongest telescopes are not capable of resolving objects at a distance of the moon less than about 100m wide (they don't need to, after all - they're used for looking at suns and galaxies millions or trillions of miles across, trillions upon trillions of miles away). In any case, the flag is about the smallest thing we left up there - there are 6 descent modules and other evidence which are still far far too small to make out with telescopes.

    The actual moon hoax arguments derive from supposed photographic anomalies which are not in fact anomalies. Moon hoax books and websites will claim that shadows which should appear parallel are not, indicating secondary light sources. This is not the case. Parallel shadows only appear from directly above on flat surfaces - from the point of view of the ground, all shadows should radiate from the point on the horizon directly beneath the sun (which they do), and the surface of the moon is very far from flat. Conversely, multiple light sources would produce multple shadows, cross-faded with each other and in distinctly different directions. No such shadows are visible in the "anomalous" photographs shown by the so-called "Hoax Believers". They will point to photographs in which the scale markers supposedly etched in the negative seem to be covered by objects in the picture. For one thing this is caused by light bleed during the printing process, and for another thing - if you were going to fake the landing, you'd still use all the same equipment which would include the etched negative film, so what would happen to the pictures on the moon would be the same as what would happen on earth - no proof of an actual hoax can be shown by these photographs. They also talk about the "fact" that in the absence of an atmosphere, shadows would be ink-well black. This was a pre-moon visit assumption made by many science fiction writers, but in fact the surface of the moon reflects a lot of light back, allowing objects within shadows to be seen quite clearly despite expectations. They will talk about the Van Allen radiation belts as if the amount of radiation was the equivalent of sitting inside a microwave oven or in an atomic blast. In fact minimising the effect of the Van Allen belts on the astronauts was none other than Dr. James Van Allen himself, who plotted a course for the moonships that passed throught the narrowest parts of the belts.

Share This Page