Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Moon Hoax with a twist


  • Please log in to reply
73 replies to this topic

#16    BertL

BertL

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 434 posts
  • Joined:07 Nov 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:the Netherlands

Posted 08 May 2009 - 07:28 AM

Sounds creepily familiar, Czero. grin2.gif

Hello there.

#17    rick roll fan

rick roll fan

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 189 posts
  • Joined:27 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:hell :D

Posted 08 May 2009 - 02:03 PM

if there WAS a moon hoax, somebody would have cracked by now. and, wouldn't it be even MORE difficult to pull off a hoax of such proportions than to just land on the moon?

if you are wondering why my avatar is sheik from legend of zelda, it's because i played ocarina of time, yep thats right i'm an old nerd.



new info on bigfoot and aliens as often as possible on my site

#18    shaka5

shaka5

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,017 posts
  • Joined:29 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:brooklyn

  • I always call people fools for wanting to learn the hard way....When I'm really the fool for tryna teach 'em

Posted 08 May 2009 - 05:11 PM

rick roll fan on May 8 2009, 10:03 AM, said:

if there WAS a moon hoax, somebody would have cracked by now. and, wouldn't it be even MORE difficult to pull off a hoax of such proportions than to just land on the moon?


I don't think it'll be more difficult to pull off a hoax than to land on the moon, i hear people say that a lot...I saw a video a while back showing how badly they couldn't control the crafts that were actually land on the moon, i'll try to look up the video for it, but this was a long time ago.

I'm not saying that we CAN'T make it to the moon and land there, but i don't really believe it, but thats just me.....and the thing i see everyone says about the radiation belt we have to pass through to get there, i don't think its as harmless as they make it seem, cause if something landed here, they would warn the hell out of us to stay away cause of radiation...i think they just tell everyone that its not harmful so they can say that we can pass through it with ease so the landing was real  laugh.gif

I have less compassion than the average human.

#19    Enigma wrapped in a puzzle

Enigma wrapped in a puzzle

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 709 posts
  • Joined:26 Nov 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Everywhere and nowhere

Posted 08 May 2009 - 06:04 PM

first time I am seeing this thread so I will reply.

Yes they have had 60 years to figure out how to do correctly and appearantly thats not enough time.  They are planning to delay it further or scrap the whole project and focus on Mars.

Now answer my questions.

1. No other country has landed on the moon since we did? Why? We went so thats good enough for them?

2. Why did the russians not end of going when we were neck and neck? They just figured "oh the americans did it so lets just flush the millions we have spent down the toilet"?

3. The technology back then was freaking caveman! Switch boards with blinking lights on it. We have 100 times better technology now and we are still planning a moon trip for 12 years in advance.

4. We had 100% success on 11 different missions (supposadly) and yet we still have flights like the discovery blow up mid air 30 years later? The odds are extremly low that we did what we say we did. No other country in the WORLD can do ONCE what we did ELEVEN times!  Does that not make you question it?  Japans technology is far superior than ours and they still have not been.  China had a space walk recently and that was huge for them!  

5. Why can we not see any pictures from a high powered telescope of the flag waiving or the rover that suppose to still be up there?



Formerly known as Damon2000

#20    Czero 101

Czero 101

    Earthshattering Kaboom

  • Member
  • 5,363 posts
  • Joined:24 Dec 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver, BC

  • We are all made of thermonuclear waste material

Posted 08 May 2009 - 06:30 PM

shaka5 on May 8 2009, 10:11 AM, said:

I don't think it'll be more difficult to pull off a hoax than to land on the moon, i hear people say that a lot...

People say that a lot because its true.

Consider this:

In order to fake the Moon landings convincingly enough to fool the world's scientific, engineering and aeronautical communities for 40+ years, the level of detail would have to be astoundingly high. In essence, everything made would have to be authentic, fully functional and fully capable of carrying out their intended missions. Any inconsistencies would be immediately noticed by those qualified scientists and engineers who have studied the subject. Why go to the expense and trouble of creating spacecraft, procedures and technologies that MUST work as designed, JUST to fake what those things are fully capable of doing in reality?

Consider this as well:

Including all NASA employees, contractors, subcontractors, designers and engineers, there were over 400,000 people involved in putting men on the Moon. How do you keep all those people silent for over 40 years without even ONE person coming forward with irrefutable evidence (note I said evidence, not opinion) that the landings were faked? There are many theories put forward by the hoax believers (massive payoffs, death threats, etc.), but none of them have been shown to be "easier" than actually GOING to the Moon.

Next, consider this:

How do you keep the Soviet Union quiet? They had the ability to track the Apollo spacecraft and confirm that those spacecraft were where NASA reported them to be. This is during the height of the Cold War and the Space Race and the Soviets - renown for their practice of boasting about their successes and showing up the West for their failures - would NOT keep quiet if they had proof that the landings were being faked. Those who suggest that the Soviet Union was "bought off" are naive and are just showing their ignorance of the climate of the times.

There are many other specific examples (not the least of which is the over 800 pounds of samples returned from the Moon ) that provide substantiating evidence and proof of the fact of the Moon landings, but these should suffice as a good starting point to show that it was in fact easier to go to the Moon rather than faking it.

Quote

I saw a video a while back showing how badly they couldn't control the crafts that were actually land on the moon, i'll try to look up the video for it, but this was a long time ago.

It would be interesting to see that video. It wouldn't prove anything beyond the fact that the person who produced it (I'm assuming it was a YouTube video) has little to no clue of what they're talking about, but it would still be interesting none the less.

Quote

I'm not saying that we CAN'T make it to the moon and land there, but i don't really believe it, but thats just me.....

You are of course entitled to believe what you want, but the difference here is that the fact of the Moon landings is not based on "belief". It is based on ingenious engineering, cutting edge (for the time) technology and the courage of a select few who put their lives on the line in the name of exploration, discovery and knowledge. The proof of the Moon landings is out there for all to see. It does not require belief, but rather knowledge, understanding and a willingness to learn.

Quote

and the thing i see everyone says about the radiation belt we have to pass through to get there, i don't think its as harmless as they make it seem, cause if something landed here, they would warn the hell out of us to stay away cause of radiation...i think they just tell everyone that its not harmful so they can say that we can pass through it with ease so the landing was real  laugh.gif

Please show us where anyone has said that passing through the Van Allen belts was a "harmless" endeavour. It was very risky, potentially lethal, but the spacecraft and the trajectory that it flew through the weakest areas of the Belts were designed and implemented to mitigate as much of that risk as possible. No one has ever claim, as far as I know, that the astronauts were "perfectly completely safe", and the radiation doses they received are evidence of the fact that it was dangerous. But the astronauts knew the risks, knew that the spacecraft designers had done as much as they could do to provide them with sufficient protection to make those risks manageable and acceptable given the importance of the missions they were undertaking.




Cz

"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe..." - Carl Sagan
"I'm tired of ignorance held up as inspiration, where vicious anti-intellectualism is considered a positive trait, and where uninformed opinion is displayed as fact." - Phil Plait
"For it is the natural tendency of the ignorant to believe what is not true. In order to overcome that tendency it is not sufficient to exhibit the true; it is also necessary to expose and denounce the false." - H. L. Mencken

#21    BertL

BertL

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 434 posts
  • Joined:07 Nov 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:the Netherlands

Posted 08 May 2009 - 06:37 PM

Enigma wrapped in a puzzle on May 8 2009, 08:04 PM, said:

1. No other country has landed on the moon since we did? Why? We went so thats good enough for them?

Lack of funding and public interest. The Space Race was pretty much between the US and the USSR, and the US beat the Russians to the Moon. It's not easy and cheap to go there.

Quote

2. Why did the russians not end of going when we were neck and neck? They just figured "oh the americans did it so lets just flush the millions we have spent down the toilet"?

Interesting point. Apparently so. original.gif But here's another one for you... Why didn't the Russians cry wolf about the whole thing being fake? They just figured

Quote

3. The technology back then was freaking caveman! Switch boards with blinking lights on it. We have 100 times better technology now and we are still planning a moon trip for 12 years in advance.

Yes, computers were quite primitive in those days. Rockets, however, have changed little in the last 50 years. And in the end it's the rockets that you need to go there. Also, remember that there is a huge difference between the Apollo moon landings and the current plans. The Apollo moon landings were two people going there for a short while (like, a couple of days). The current plans are for a much larger crew staying on the Moon for a much longer time (in a semi-permanent base). That's a whole different (and more difficult) goal.

Quote

4. We had 100% success on 11 different missions (supposadly) and yet we still have flights like the discovery blow up mid air 30 years later? The odds are extremly low that we did what we say we did. No other country in the WORLD can do ONCE what we did ELEVEN times!  Does that not make you question it?  Japans technology is far superior than ours and they still have not been.  China had a space walk recently and that was huge for them!

Hmm, first of all we only tried landing on the Moon seven times. One of them went wrong, the others had some small mishaps. It's not a question of technology, it's a question of motivation. There's no Space Race going on like there was in the 50s and 60s. There was huge motivation and huge pressure on both the US and the Soviets to get there. On top of that, the space programmes got a lot more funding back then than they do now.

Quote

5. Why can we not see any pictures from a high powered telescope of the flag waiving or the rover that suppose to still be up there?

Because there is no Earth-based telescope with a high enough resolution to view such small objects. That's simple math. This, however, is on the Moon.

Sorry for the really short response, I'm a bit short on time.

Hello there.

#22    Czero 101

Czero 101

    Earthshattering Kaboom

  • Member
  • 5,363 posts
  • Joined:24 Dec 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver, BC

  • We are all made of thermonuclear waste material

Posted 08 May 2009 - 06:50 PM

Enigma wrapped in a puzzle on May 8 2009, 11:04 AM, said:

1. No other country has landed on the moon since we did? Why? We went so thats good enough for them?

It an expensive endeavour. No other country had the resources available to commit to such a project.

Quote

2. Why did the russians not end of going when we were neck and neck? They just figured "oh the americans did it so lets just flush the millions we have spent down the toilet"?

By the time project Gemini was half way through its missions, they US and the Soviets were no longer "neck and neck". The US had taken the lead in the Space Race and never once looked back, despite the tragic failure of Apollo 1. For all their early successes, the Soviets could not perfect their heavy lift launch system. Look up the N-1 rocket, that only ever flew four times between 1969 and 1972 and for a maximum of about 107 seconds (final test launch in 1972) before catastrophic failure. The Soviets were still trying to perfect it through 1974 when the project was finally scrapped.

Quote

3. The technology back then was freaking caveman! Switch boards with blinking lights on it. We have 100 times better technology now and we are still planning a moon trip for 12 years in advance.

And yet with that "caveman" technology, aircraft like the U2, the SR-71 Black Bird and the Concorde were developed. The U2 is still flying and the Black Bird and Concorde were only recently retired. Yet even with out "100 times better technology" we are still today unable to take a commercial supersonic flight anywhere.

Conspiracy theorists seem unwilling to concede the point that technology must start somewhere, that someone has to be the first to design something that we take for granted to day. And because of all that we take for granted today, most are unwilling to believe that things were able to be accomplished without our modern technology.

Quote

4. We had 100% success on 11 different missions (supposadly) and yet we still have flights like the discovery blow up mid air 30 years later? The odds are extremly low that we did what we say we did. No other country in the WORLD can do ONCE what we did ELEVEN times!  Does that not make you question it?  Japans technology is far superior than ours and they still have not been.  China had a space walk recently and that was huge for them!

Are you forgetting Apollo 13? You must be... Plus, of the 11 manned Apollo missions, nine went to the Moon and only six of those landed. None of the Apollo missions were without problems. Some were small, some were large enough to at least consider aborting the mission. One only has to read the Mission reports - which are freely available - to see that none of the missions were "perfect". And going by your "logic", does the fact that airliners still crash mean that commercial aviation is a hoax?

Quote

5. Why can we not see any pictures from a high powered telescope of the flag waiving or the rover that suppose to still be up there?

For a telescope to have sufficient resolving power to enable it to see something as small as the flag from roughly 250,000 miles, it would require a mirror somewhere around 200 meters in diameter. If you are aware of a way to make such an item and have it constrain to the exacting specifications and tolerances required to function, please, let the world's scientific community know.




Cz

"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe..." - Carl Sagan
"I'm tired of ignorance held up as inspiration, where vicious anti-intellectualism is considered a positive trait, and where uninformed opinion is displayed as fact." - Phil Plait
"For it is the natural tendency of the ignorant to believe what is not true. In order to overcome that tendency it is not sufficient to exhibit the true; it is also necessary to expose and denounce the false." - H. L. Mencken

#23    mrbusdriver

mrbusdriver

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,634 posts
  • Joined:19 Dec 2007

Posted 08 May 2009 - 06:56 PM

shaka5 on May 8 2009, 11:11 AM, said:

I don't think it'll be more difficult to pull off a hoax than to land on the moon, i hear people say that a lot...I saw a video a while back showing how badly they couldn't control the crafts that were actually land on the moon, i'll try to look up the video for it, but this was a long time ago.

I'm not saying that we CAN'T make it to the moon and land there, but i don't really believe it, but thats just me.....and the thing i see everyone says about the radiation belt we have to pass through to get there, i don't think its as harmless as they make it seem, cause if something landed here, they would warn the hell out of us to stay away cause of radiation...i think they just tell everyone that its not harmful so they can say that we can pass through it with ease so the landing was real  laugh.gif


The video I suspect you saw was NOT the LM (Lunar Module), it was an Earth based trainer used to simulate, as nearly as possible, the landing characteristics of the LM. It was a training vehicle, with a jet engine, not a LM.

As for radiation, there are different types, and the radiation in the Van Allen belts is not terribly difficult to shield against. That, and the trajectory which took them through the thinner parts, very rapidly.


#24    mrbusdriver

mrbusdriver

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,634 posts
  • Joined:19 Dec 2007

Posted 08 May 2009 - 07:10 PM

Enigma wrapped in a puzzle on May 8 2009, 12:04 PM, said:

3. The technology back then was freaking caveman! Switch boards with blinking lights on it. We have 100 times better technology now and we are still planning a moon trip for 12 years in advance.


You're showing your age here...It was the same technology that developed the Concorde, the 747, the C-5A...and the Apollo Saturn. Do NOT make me come over there for calling me a caveman!! original.gif
Though I do think that folks back then were probably better at using their minds and "limited technology" to do amazing things...without PCs and workstations and the like. Heck...you kids can't survive without cellphones and GPS. ...darn, ya see what you did, got me started on an "old fart" rant!!!!  laugh.gif


#25    Obviousman

Obviousman

    Spaced out and plane crazy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,745 posts
  • Joined:27 Dec 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Coast, NSW, Australia

  • "Truth needs no defence. Nobody - NOBODY - can ever take the footsteps I made on the surface of the Moon away from me."
    Gene Cernan, Apollo 17

Posted 08 May 2009 - 11:02 PM

Enigma wrapped in a puzzle on May 9 2009, 04:04 AM, said:

first time I am seeing this thread so I will reply.

Thank you, enigma - I appreciate it.

Enigma wrapped in a puzzle on May 9 2009, 04:04 AM, said:

Yes they have had 60 years to figure out how to do correctly and appearantly thats not enough time.  They are planning to delay it further or scrap the whole project and focus on Mars.

Sorry, but I'm a little unclear as to the answers you are providing. I refered in my opening posts with the questions about radiation but you haven't mentioned that.

Is it your contention that it was not the VABs that were the problem, but the whole technology? That we could not develop the hardware, the spacecraft, the computers, etc, that we are still trying to do that, and that we may scrap plans for a return to the moon in favour of Mars, presumably to allow more time more the technology problem to be solved?

Enigma wrapped in a puzzle on May 9 2009, 04:04 AM, said:

Now answer my questions.

Certainly.

Enigma wrapped in a puzzle on May 9 2009, 04:04 AM, said:

1. No other country has landed on the moon since we did? Why? We went so thats good enough for them?

As others have pointed out, the whole programme was massively expensive. At the time, the only two countries that could have footed the bill without bankrupting the country would have been the US and the USSR. Also, with the successful landings a great deal of knowledge was gained. Lunar geology was better understood, and samples returned went a long way to resolving the arguement about the origin of the moon. The first wave of manned lunar exploration was driven by politics with a dash of science. The next wave will be commercial; there are a number of proposals to mine the moon for certain elements (He3, for example). If the profit will justify the investment, then a corporation will make the effort.

Enigma wrapped in a puzzle on May 9 2009, 04:04 AM, said:

2. Why did the russians not end of going when we were neck and neck? They just figured "oh the americans did it so lets just flush the millions we have spent down the toilet"?

Short answer: money. The N-1 programme was sucking up large amounts of money and just as in the US, sections of the Soviet scientific community were asking loudly why such expenditures were being made when the no successes had been shown. Even just after the last US astronauts had walked on the moon, the USSR was still trying to do it. With the failure of the fourth N-1 to launch, the programme was cancelled and more emphasis placed on the successful manned stations (Salyut / Mir) and the Buran / Energia project - the Soviet version of the Shuttle. Note that like the the lunar programme, the Soviet shuttle was built but never conducted a manned flight (there were unmanned flights).

QUOTE (Enigma wrapped in a puzzle @ May 9 2009, 04:04 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
3. The technology back then was freaking caveman! Switch boards with blinking lights on it. We have 100 times better technology now and we are still planning a moon trip for 12 years in advance.

There are a number of reasons for this. Although technology as a whole has advanced, expertise in certain areas has remained static... or regressed. Why? Because they are not being used. Do we have better rocket engines? Yes! Do we have better electronics? Yes! Do we have a better lunar rover? No - and why? Because there was a call for one. Governments weren't buying them, so industry wasn't going all out to improve them. At most there were a pittance of funds going towards some future studies... studies that only now are starting to be used. Also, these are new rockets, new spacecraft. Where is the Orion spacecraft shop? Where do I buy one? They have to have their design decided, they have to be tested, and they have to be built. They are not available now.  Let's have a look at something compariable: the F-22 Raptor.

1981 - Advanced Tactical Fighter programme established.
1986 - Request for Proposals (RFP) sent out to industry. YF-22 and YF-23 chosen for a fly-off.
1990 - First flight of YF-22.
2003 - First production F-22 delivered to USAF for operational test & evaluation (OT&E).
2005 - Introduced into USAF service

Now, that's 24 years from the establishment of the programme (the 'need') until entering squadron service! Thirteen years from from first flight to first production aircraft delivered!

QUOTE (Enigma wrapped in a puzzle @ May 9 2009, 04:04 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
4. We had 100% success on 11 different missions (supposadly) and yet we still have flights like the discovery blow up mid air 30 years later? The odds are extremly low that we did what we say we did. No other country in the WORLD can do ONCE what we did ELEVEN times!  Does that not make you question it?  Japans technology is far superior than ours and they still have not been.  China had a space walk recently and that was huge for them!

No, I'm afraid you just don't understand the technology or the flights. Firstly, we had 11 successful flights but only after the Apollo 1 pad fire. The hard lessons learnt from that tragedy went a long way to improving the spacecraft. Then there is Apollo 13, one of the 'successes'; that was nearly another tragedy. Then on almost all the flights, there were items which could have seriously affected the missions but were averted. The lightning strike on Apollo 12. The spurious ABORT signal in the Apollo 14 LM. Lots of examples. Also, of those 11 flights, two were Earth orbital only... something that the USSR had also been doing.

What about the space shuttle? For the first 24 flights we had a 100% success rate.

How do you say Japan's technology is superior? In what way? TVs? CPUs? Stealth technology? Aerospace design? "Technology" is a very wide-ranging term and no one country has the monopoly on it.

QUOTE (Enigma wrapped in a puzzle @ May 9 2009, 04:04 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
5. Why can we not see any pictures from a high powered telescope of the flag waiving or the rover that suppose to still be up there?

Resolution. The Japanese SELENE did take images which showed the exhaust plume from the Apollo 15 ascent stage launch. When cameras are sent there that have sufficient resolution, you'll see the evidence... but even then most of the hoax crowd will claim the photos have been faked, so there is little point in it. You'll only see the hardware, BTW - the nylon of the flags has disintegrated under solar radiation.

Anyway - these aspects should be in the main moon hoax thread. I want people to answer the questions I posed at the beginning, which are about radiation and future flights.

Edited by Obviousman, 08 May 2009 - 11:03 PM.


#26    MID

MID

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,490 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Male

  • ...The greatest error is not to have tried and failed, but that in trying, we did not give it our best effort.

Posted 09 May 2009 - 01:08 AM

Czero 101 on May 8 2009, 02:12 AM, said:

I don't know what more "they" might say but I can clearly imagine Turbs looking at a single, blurry frame of video from the First Orion / Altair Moon landing and claiming in all seriousness:

"Look.. between the "lander's" legs you can see the beard and shirt collar of a stagehand as he refills the superfluid helium tanks they had on the Moon set..."


ph34r.gif


rofl.gif



Cz



Well, yea...that's something I hadn't thought of....and believe it or not, Cz...that's a completely plausible response from Turb.

crying.gif


#27    MID

MID

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,490 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Male

  • ...The greatest error is not to have tried and failed, but that in trying, we did not give it our best effort.

Posted 09 May 2009 - 01:37 AM

Enigma wrapped in a puzzle on May 8 2009, 02:04 PM, said:

first time I am seeing this thread so I will reply.

Yes they have had 60 years to figure out how to do correctly and appearantly thats not enough time.  They are planning to delay it further or scrap the whole project and focus on Mars.

Now answer my questions.

1. No other country has landed on the moon since we did? Why? We went so thats good enough for them?

2. Why did the russians not end of going when we were neck and neck? They just figured "oh the americans did it so lets just flush the millions we have spent down the toilet"?

3. The technology back then was freaking caveman! Switch boards with blinking lights on it. We have 100 times better technology now and we are still planning a moon trip for 12 years in advance.

4. We had 100% success on 11 different missions (supposadly) and yet we still have flights like the discovery blow up mid air 30 years later? The odds are extremly low that we did what we say we did. No other country in the WORLD can do ONCE what we did ELEVEN times!  Does that not make you question it?  Japans technology is far superior than ours and they still have not been.  China had a space walk recently and that was huge for them!  

5. Why can we not see any pictures from a high powered telescope of the flag waiving or the rover that suppose to still be up there?



Enigma...

With Cz, and Bert, and Obviousman, and Mr. B around, I suspect you've gotten the answers you were seeking.
I think I can retire now!

Just a couple comments...

Quote

Yes they have had 60 years to figure out how to do correctly and appearantly thats not enough time. They are planning to delay it further or scrap the whole project and focus on Mars.


No Enigma...there is no plan to scrap the lunar landing program.  Anyone who is pushing Mars prior to establishing a foothold on the Moon is spewing nonsense...

Quote

3. The technology back then was freaking caveman! Switch boards with blinking lights on it.


The technology back then was state-of-the-art.  No one had it but NASA.  I am venturing a guess that you weren't around back in the later 50s and 60s.   If you were, you'd realize that we invented the technology required to do the job.

..p.s  Those were displays of numbers, not flashing lights on a switchboard.  I realize that looking at video of those DSKY displays is somewhat confusing, but those numbers all meant something specific.  They were the precursor to today's digital displays.

Quote

2. Why did the russians not end of going when we were neck and neck?


They weren't neck-and-neck with us since 1965.  They trailed behind.  They couldn't build a booster required for the mission that worked, and we'd beaten them to the Moon in 1968.  In fact, they had no lunar capability when we launched Apollo 11 in July of 1969.

Quote

4. We had 100% success on 11 different missions (supposadly) and yet we still have flights like the discovery blow up mid air 30 years later?


That flight was Challenger.
It's a little complicated to explain, but we know exactly why that happened, and it had nothing to do with the success of Apollo...quite the opposite actually.

QUOTE
No other country in the WORLD can do ONCE what we did ELEVEN times! Does that not make you question it?


No, it does not.  Again, you weren't around in the period, were you?


QUOTE
Japans technology is far superior than ours and they still have not been. China had a space walk recently and that was huge for them!


You will have to show me that Japan's space technology is superior to ours.  They're damn good, and a superb partner, of course...but please, do tell.

China's space walk was huge for them...what's the point?


QUOTE
5. Why can we not see any pictures from a high powered telescope of the flag waiving or the rover that suppose to still be up there?


In think you've had sufficient answers to that.
However---

There never were any flags waving on the Moon, Enigma (no wind means no waving.  Furthermore, those nylon flags have long since disintegrated due to thermal effect and  exposure over the course of roughly 40 years.  They're piles of obscure dust on the lunar surface today.




#28    Obviousman

Obviousman

    Spaced out and plane crazy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,745 posts
  • Joined:27 Dec 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Coast, NSW, Australia

  • "Truth needs no defence. Nobody - NOBODY - can ever take the footsteps I made on the surface of the Moon away from me."
    Gene Cernan, Apollo 17

Posted 09 May 2009 - 09:45 AM

BTW, I should remind Turbo that this is the thread where they should make their position regarding radiation and Apollo known.


#29    TK0001

TK0001

    THIMK!!!

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,806 posts
  • Joined:15 Feb 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Michigan, USA

Posted 09 May 2009 - 01:27 PM

MID on May 8 2009, 09:37 PM, said:

There never were any flags waving on the Moon, Enigma (no wind means no waving.  Furthermore, those nylon flags have long since disintegrated due to thermal effect and  exposure over the course of roughly 40 years.  They're piles of obscure dust on the lunar surface today.


Never thought of that. That's pretty sad.


#30    Obviousman

Obviousman

    Spaced out and plane crazy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,745 posts
  • Joined:27 Dec 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Coast, NSW, Australia

  • "Truth needs no defence. Nobody - NOBODY - can ever take the footsteps I made on the surface of the Moon away from me."
    Gene Cernan, Apollo 17

Posted 09 May 2009 - 01:48 PM

Why do people like Turbo et al refuse to make their positions known on this thread? Perhaps it may be that they do not want to be held to a position, to allow them to change positions as required when evidence arises that makes their opinion untenable.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users