How come there No stars in the film footage? I'll tell you why..because they Nasa couldn't paint all the stars in..people would notice! So they.. just said we can see any stars..

Chemical licker, may I suggest you read this thread in its entirety? That question has been answered multipled times.

Excellent just point out to me the picture.. with space filled to the brime with brilliant bright stars!

Astronomy Picture of the Day



link

The stars are there! They're just too faint to be seen.

This is usually the first thing HBs talk about when discussing the Hoax. That amazes me, as it's the silliest assertion they make. However, it appeals to our common sense: when the sky is black here on Earth, we see stars. Therefore we should see them from the Moon as well.

I'll say this here now, and return to it many times: the Moon is not the Earth. Conditions there are weird, and our common sense is likely to fail us.

The Moon's surface is airless. On Earth, our thick atmosphere scatters sunlight, spreading it out over the whole sky. That's why the sky is bright during the day. Without sunlight, the air is dark at night, allowing us to see stars.

On the Moon, the lack of air means that the sky is dark. Even when the Sun is high off the horizon during full day, the sky near it will be black. If you were standing on the Moon, you would indeed see stars, even during the day.

So why aren't they in the Apollo pictures? Pretend for a moment you are an astronaut on the surface of the Moon. You want to take a picture of your fellow space traveler. The Sun is low off the horizon, since all the lunar landings were done at local morning. How do you set your camera? The lunar landscape is brightly lit by the Sun, of course, and your friend is wearing a white spacesuit also brilliantly lit by the Sun. To take a picture of a bright object with a bright background, you need to set the exposure time to be fast, and close down the aperture setting too; that's like the pupil in your eye constricting to let less light in when you walk outside on a sunny day.

So the picture you take is set for bright objects. Stars are faint objects! In the fast exposure, they simply do not have time to register on the film. It has nothing to do with the sky being black or the lack of air, it's just a matter of exposure time. If you were to go outside here on Earth on the darkest night imaginable and take a picture with the exact same camera settings the astronauts used, you won't see any stars!

It's that simple. Remember, this the usually the first and strongest argument the HBs use, and it was that easy to show wrong. Their arguments get worse from here.

Source : Plait:Bad Astronomy

Did you read the description for the picture? That picture is a composite: Composite Image Credit: T.A. Rector, I.P. Dell'Antonio, NOAO, AURA, NSF. This means that it is essentially two or more photos made into one single photo.



This is in the link that you provided.

I think I understand now.. thanks.. I feel so stupid...

It is not stupid to not know something. It is the refusal or inability to learn that distinguishes the truly stupid.

Brilliant Trinitrotoluene. Great post I love how you explained it so simply...right on Jody

PS: Hi MID

It is not stupid, it's just a lack of understand of the subject matter That's why these threads are here, for learning! Any other questions feel free to ask

Me too!
...he's a pretty smart guy (somewhat "explosive" , but a smart guy nonehteless!!!).

P.S.: Hi Jody!






You know what's stupid, "chemical-licker"?
LICKING CHEMICALS!



Just kidding. As you can see from the above replies...it's not stupidity to ask about something. That's intelligence!

What the folks are telling you about cameras is true. If you set the f-stop (basically the setting that allows light to come through the aperture of the camera) and the shutter speed (how much of an exposure time you're allowing) correctly, you're going to image what your subject is clearly. If that image is brightly lit, the camera isn't going to image things that are relatively speaking, very dim.

Thus, in imaging brightly lit lunar surface features (and, they were very brightly lit, by daylight that's much brighter and more "raw" that we can see on Earth, no matter how clear the skies are), then you cannot image stars.

I always liked to use the illustration of the human eye. Cameras are basically crude, relatively unsophisticated models of human eyes. Cameras have to be set up to capture images well. The human eye is an auto focus, auto exposure imaging device that does all this by itself. Otherwise, they basically do the same things.

You can use your own eyes to illustrate this principal:

Choose a starry, moonless night.
Suppose you're inside, with a light on, reading a book. Suddenly, put the book down and walk outside and look up.

I'd be willing to bet you'll feel blind for a moment or three. You won't be able to see a thing in the sky. This is because your eye is "set", so-to-speak, to image brightly lit objects and its "f-stop" (the iris of your eye) can't let in the dim starlight.

Being automatic, you'll notice that the eye adapts to the dark and soon, you'll be picking up stars in the sky.


Now, keep looking at the stars, and then, after a time, go back in, pick up your book, and notice that your eyes are saying, "Whoa, man, hold on a second!" This is because their "f-stops" are wide open. In humans, we see extreme brightness in such a condition and have to wait to adapt to the bright light again, in a camera, which is dumb (in that it can't do a thing without human intervention), you'll only image a glaring white light, unless you set it to image brightly lit objects.

The bottom line to this is that stars weren't visible because the camera's eye ball was set to image brightly lit objects:


See?





That's Dr. Aldrin there, on this very day 38 years ago (at about 11:35pm EDT), photographed setting up the Solar Wind Experiment.
Note the Sun off to the left, which is causing the grand illumination to the left side of the LM, and to the front of Buzz. In order to image this, the f-stops and shutter speeds were fairly tight and fairly high, respectively. Thus the sky appears completely black, with no stars in it.

As TNT said, if you've got any questions....feel free to ask, because questions aren't stupid!

Turb...
You're welcome.


In these new points you mention, you're talking about the Apollo 12 TV camera, and that same scene, I am assuming?

Yuo. I'm looking into methods of estimating the range of camera movement in the scene, among other things. It's going to take some time for me to put a few things together.

I can't wait to read!! Jody

Hi MID!

And I'm sure you will read Darlin'!

Hi!


M~



Turb:

The movements took place in QUAD 4 of the AS-12 LM (the right front section of the LM). The back-and-forth of the camera in the sequence in question took place spanning the distance between the +Y APS oxydizer tank enclosure and right front RCS plume deflector to the attachment points of the supports for that assembly, located just to the right of the porch. The distance covered was approximately 6 feet, and the camera was approximately 5 feet from the structures at the time this mess took place. Field of view of the camera was ~ 35 degrees, and at ~5 feet, you could see about 3'3" of LM structure at that distance. The camera panning was done at an approximate rate of 3 FPS, +Y to +Z, and then +Z to +Y.

This information may be of help in orienting the scene.


I'd like to post the following narrative of what the camera was actually doing during the ~15 seconds of movement in this sequence, when Al Bean removed the camera from its support on the MESA and destroyed a part of its imaging capability:


The camera rolls right an immediately moves up.
It catches the bright reflection off of one of the panels of the APS oxidizer tank enclosure, clearly shown here in AS12-46-6726, below the +Y/-Z RCS pod.




The camera then pans right, imaging the base of the R front RCS plume deflector and its support struts, forward to where the supports attach just to the left of the porch on the +Z strut, and then back again, a little lower, imaging the ascent/descent stage interface, where the gold foil insulation on the descent stage is on the lower half of the rapidly moving video image. The image them moves across the lower aspect of the plume deflector previously mentioned, and the camera then rolls right as it is being pointed at an angle of ~45 degrees to the -Z direction of the LM.


It then catches the partially deployed S-Band antenna....moves to the right, images the surface, is briefly lifted and moved left (pointed up a little), and again very briefly images the antenna mast, moves right again, imaging further surface features, and is suddenly elevated a little, and the lens goes right into this:


AS12-46-6739





Al was standing right below the center of the frame here...where the largest fiducial is positioned, and pointed the camera directly into that big white light for a moment, frying some of the potassium chloride and aluminum and aluminum oxide in the secondary electron imaging tube of the TV camera, renedering the camera unable to image anything at all....

If there is no atmosphere in space, no wind on the moon, etc.... why does the flag move in the video ?

the vibrations of placing it in the ground

Why are the same backgrounds used for various pictures that NASA say are from areas that are supposed to be miles away from each other ?

less gravity on the moon you can travel faster than on earth

Why are the shadows in some of the pictures going in different directions when NASA claims that there was no exterior source of light, except the sun ?

light spreads apart it is natural

Why was the surface of the moon described as being like powder/dust... yet a rocket landed on the moon and the pictures show ZERO dirt/dust on the landers footpads?

because thelanded on it with a clamp the rocket is not burning while it is landing so when it his the little dust their would not hit the pads

Why are there no stars visible in the pictures, the sky is supposed to be super clear if you are on the moon.

because the contrast would have to be so shap because of the earths light and the sun

Why havent we gone back to the moon since the 70's ?

every time we try we get into a war for some reason

Whatever happened with colonizing the moon ?

their is always politcal problems with funding and the main question really is why are we going?

If the lunar lander has a huge rocket that thrusts down as you land on the moon... why is there no blast crater under the lander on the pictures shown by NASA ?
Its impossible for the Lander to land without making a crater, specially if how they say that the moon's surface is like powder/dust.

the rocket was already turned off when it hit and the dust is heavy

How is it that we can hear the astronouts talking while they are approaching the moon... live rockets are burning at the same time, there should be no way to make out the astronauts words, yet he is heard clearly.

the rocket thrust is out side in space so their is no sound in the pressured section

When the rocket lifts up from the moon... why is there no exhaust coming out of the rocket ?
And no dust cloud either, specially with how the moon is supposed to be covered by powder fine dust ?

they used a kind of shape explosive and it take mutch less force to remove yourself from the moons gravity


that help?

BRILLIANT MID! Jody

I don't mean to be rude dest titor, but at least three quarters of those answers are wrong. I'd explain why but I have to dash, so hopefully one of the other guys will step in.

That's one way of saying it.
However, more clear would be to say that when the flag moves in the videos, someone's moving it (they're manipulating the flagpole)!





dest titor,
While I appreciate your zeal, the idea of less gravity on the Moon (and some alleged relation to velocity) has no relation to the idea that some folks say the exact same backgrounds are seen in various photos on the Moon.

The fact is that similar backgrounds are seen in various photos on the Moon for a couple of reasons. The first is that they are the same backgrounds, shot at similar angles to the backgrounds. The second would be that depth perception in an essential vacuum, with no scalar reference, is somewhat non existent. A mountain located 3 miles away doesn't look very much different from a mountain located 4 miles away. The detail is pretty much the same. The camera may have a slightly different field of view, showing what appears to be identical backgrounds in many shots. However, they are different, if you look closely enough.




That really doesn't explain much (especially since light tends to move in parallel rays, unless spread apart by a prism). The fact is that many terrestrial photos, which are two dimensional representations of three dimensional things, show what are apparently divergent shadow directions. This is completely natural. In many cases, what one is looking at in Apollo photos are actually assembled panoramae, which are carefully joined individual shots taken at various angles to the Sun and assembled to look like one single wide-angle photo. In these pictures, the shadow angles had better look very different from one end of the photo to another, or else something is wrong with reality as we know it!





Your efforts are not helping here....

What you've said here makes absolutely no sense.

The reason for no dust on the footpads is that dust moves out in radial sheets in a vacuum, and uder the impulse of a rocket engine exhaust. It doesn't swirl around and make local clouds that can settle down on local objects. The dust blown away by the LM's exhaust flew out for a very long distance after engine shutdown before falling back to the surface. There was no "airborne" dust hanging around, because there's no air. Thus , there was no dust on the LM footpads.





Again...what?
Try this...because the camera was set to image brightly lit objects...not the relatively dim stars that may have been visible in the "sky". It couldn't image the stars, any more than the human eye can, when focused on extremely bright-lit objects (like the surface of the Moon).





Simplistic...but at least partially accurate, in a sense. Viet Nam helped cancel Apollo (in part). But really, it's a combination of short sighted leadership, national priorities, and the will of the people, who are frequently and rapidly jaded at the extraordinar, which prevented us from continuing manned space exploration.


...Many thanks to President Bush for turning the tide on that paradigm!





Colonizing is a long term follow up to exploring. We haven't adequately explored yet. That is still to follow.
Further, "why we are going" is not the question whatsoever. That is, and always has been well understood.






Is it possible that you've read any of this thread, or any of the prior gigantic Moon hoax thread prior to posting this stuff?

I'm encapsulating this stuff now, for your benefit.


The LM DPS engine made no crater because it COULDN'T. The thrust was in no way powerful enough to cause any blasting of the exceedingly hard lunar substrate. It's pressure was sufficient to blow the few inches of dust from the surface, and that's all.




In some cases, it was shut down a few feet from the surface. On Apollo 11 it ran all the way down to the surface. In any case, the pressure from the exhaust gas was not sufficent at low thrust to make a crater. One needs a powerful impact force to do that...and, there was none present.




There is no sound made in vacuum. It has nothing to do with thrust.
However, there is often sound transmitted though the presurized section of the spacecraft. However, that sound was in no way discernable through a helmet and a communications system that was triggererd by voice inputs, which were very loud relative to any low grade hum that might have been present from engine operation.






Incorrect.

There IS exhaust coming out of the rocket engine bell. You cannot see it because of the vacuum, and the particluar type of fuels used (hypergolic, or self-igniting fuels, which make little of a plume even in an atmosphere).

I have no idea what "a kind of shape explosive" is, but I will say that the amount of force required to lift a craft off of the Moon is indeed less than it would be on Earth, but that has nothing to do with exhaust plumes...

The lack of dust clouds is explained by two things:

1) It is not possible to have dust clouds in a vacuum (dust clouds require some atmosphereic constituent to suspend fine dust particles).
2) The LM did not lift off of the surface of the Moon, but rather lifted off of the top of its descent stage, which was elevated off of the surface by aapproximately 10 feet. It's exhaust did not contact the lunar surface directly.



I am taking it that you're a "believer" in Apollo.
However, your replies tend to confuse the issue, because they utilize nebulous terminology which doesn't actually explain anything, and there are far too many already addressed points listed to make any impression at all.


Your zeal is appreciated, but really, you should deal with one thing at a time, and think things through first.

If you have any questions about any of the things I've told you herein, please feel free to ask about them!

Naaah, that ain't brilliant!
It's just stuff.


But thanks, Jody!

yep...kinda like that, Gav!
Couldn't pass that up....

Hey MID

I'd like to respond to some of the points you've raised here.

First of all, I won't go over the argument about whether or not the LM could (or should) have produced a blast crater within the substrate. For now, let's assume you are correct - that no such blast crater would (and therefore did not) result from the landings, and that only the few inches of lunar surface dust below the LM descent engine would (and therefore did) blow up and away.

But even at that, I do not see any evidence - in either the photos or videos - that any of the surface dust has been blown away from below any of the LM's.

You contend that the dust "flew out for a very long distance" before it fell back to the surface. What is the "very long distance", in terms of feet or meters? Was it blown a different distance for each of the missions?


1. If the "dust moves out in radial sheets" away from the LM, then why is this not even remotely evident in any of the photos or videos? Removing a few inches of dust from a large perimeter below and around the LM would certainly be noticeable in many of the close-up, hi-res images. But, I haven't seen anything of the sort.

2. If there is no dust on the LM footpads because it was blown far away before settling back to the surface, then why would there be so much dust mere inches away from the footpads that the astronauts were able to make deep footprints in it?

3. How could the astronauts leave such noticeable footprints everywhere, and the rover could leave such noticeable tire tracks everyywhere, but the much stronger force of the LM descent engine leave no evidence of disturbing any dust?



MID, I'd like to give you (or anyone else) an opportunity to show solid evidence of the "dust" craters you claim were created by the landers. Or, at very least, any evidence that you feel indicates that dust was blown away by the landers.


Cheers

*the sound of barrels being scraped*

Certainly looks like it's doing that in the landing films. Once the dust lands again it looks pretty much like any other bit of moodust. However, the Clementine probe, with multispectral imaging capability, did detect a change in the dust's reflectance properties in a picture of the Apollo 15 site.

Basically because the pads were shielded by their rims, so that any dust flew straight over them.

What makes you think the descent engine would produce a greater pressure on the surface than feet or wheels?

OK, let's just say I'm right about that aspect!
(I like that)...




Well, there is evidence in a couple of forms. We'll get into that in a minute.



Dunno!
That's really not possible for me to say. I would need to know the specifics about the energy imparted to the surface dust (exhaust gas velocity), the velocity imparted initially to the dust, and the specific angle that the dust sprayed out in that radial pattern around the LM on its ballistic trajectory in order to get a rough calculation on the distance in a 1/6g field.

I should imagine that 100 FPS + may be a reasonable estimate of the outward velocity of the dust. According to the crews it shot out in a sheet like radial pattern for quite some distance out toward the horizon, and Neil Armstrong indicated in the AS-11 technical debrief that it was moving at a "great speed"

I would think that it disappeared from sight a couple hundred meters from the LM, probably still falling in it's arc. I don't think the actual distance is relevant. It was a ways off.



Because, the end of the dust "sheet" flew out from the LM upon engine cutdown, exactly like the rest of the dust did. The last of the dust flew away from the LM at somewhat of an upward angle to the surface (again, I don't know, save to say it was between 1 and 90 degrees!). Nothing fell close to the LM because it was moving at a fairly high rate of speed away from the LM. I have often equated the visual to what you would see if squirting a garden hose out into an arc away from you, and then suddenly cutting off the valve. The end of the water stream vanishes along the same arc, and no water falls on you, or near you. It follows the impulse of the thrust it was given.

It should be understood that the engine blast was enough to effect the dust layer some distance up off the surface, but only enough to scatter part of the dust. Underneath the engine bell, especially as they got close, was the area where most of the dust would be blown from. At touchdown, or at cutoff some distance above the surface, generally, the engine was throttled down to 25% or less of its rated thrust, and the LM was generally translating slightly forward, or perhaps translated a bit to one side and forward. The main area effected by this dust was right below the bell. As you moved out from the bell, less of the surface dust was effected, and generally, out in front of the LM (where the +Z strut (the ladder strut) was), the ground had very little effect at all. The effect was primarily observed under the LM where the engine bell was, and somewhat aft of the direction of movement.

Additionally, different sites had different depths of soft soil on the surface. Thus, some landings, like Apollo 11's, removed virtually everything immediately under the LM, and others cut through a bit less of the depth (later missions tended to touch down by shutting their engines down betweeen 6 and 8 feet up and plopping down onto the surface to effect a crush in the honeycomb shocks of the landing gear, reducing the distance from the bottom step of the ladder to the foot pad).





Same reasons. The dust outside of the immediate area underneath the LM, especially in the +Z direction, was essentially undisturbed. The footpads, you must note, were approximately 15 feet from the engine bell. There was little effect in that area, if any.




As Swanny asked....Who said the force was much greater? The LM DPS engine had an estimated pressure of about 1.5 psi at the low thrust it was producing in the terminal landing phase. Not really all so much.

Further, you should understand that the force of a diffuse gas will not produce the same impression as a solid mass concentrated in a very small area.
A foot, for instance, in an Apollo lunar overshoe, was pressing into the ground with a pressure of about the same value, and an LRV, which sat on the surface with about the same pressure. However, there is a difference between a difuse gas blowing on something and a solid object pressing into it.


A little demonstration I've often advised is this. Using corn starch (which has similar self-adherent qualities to lunar dust), fill a pan or something with a little layer of the stuff. Blow on it with a light but concentrated stream toward the center of the layer.

You'll notice that where the air is concentrated, your blow more dust away than to the perimieter of the layer. You'll get some of the outer material to move, but far less than where the "exhaust" is focused (You're also gonna make a mess, so be prepapred to clean up!).

After you do this, note that there's no really definitive impression made in the corn starch from your breath, but you can certainly see where you've disturbed it. You could tell that it was sheared by air. Now, just touch your finger lightly to the corn starch, and you'll notice that it leaves a definite and clear imprint in the stuff. Just a light touch coimpacts the corn starch and leaves a fingerprint in it.

This is exactly why a foot, or an LRV wheel, or a landing probe, or any other solid object, leaves a clear print in the dust, while the engine blast itself leaves a characteristic shearing pattern in it.





Turb, I have specifically said that there werre no craters created by the LM DPS thrust. The dust was blown away radially to one degree or another, and left no craters...merely what is called a "scouring" pattern beneath and around the base of the LM, to one degree or another.


Now, evidence of this first comes from pilot reports, like this one, made by Neil Armstrong at Tranquility Base, approximately 1 and 1/2 minutes after he became the first human being to set foot (or boot) upon the Moon:

"Okay. The descent engine did not leave a crater of any size. It has about a one foot clearance on the ground. We're essentially on a very level place here. I can see some evidence of rays eminating from the descent engine, but a very insignificant amount."


Of course, one may not "buy" this...but it was in the plan to observe the LM in detail and the surroundings, and in fact, photos were taken on AS-11, AS-12 and AS-14, specifically designed to document the effects of the DPS on the lunar surface.


For instance:

AS11-40-5921




This is under Eagle's engine bell. You can clearly see the radial scouring pattern eminating from the engine bell. In fact, it's cutting into the substrate and evidence of the hard substrate fully exposed is evident here. But there is no crater.


AS12-47-6908





Under the butt of Apollo 12's LM, "Intrepid".
Clearly, you can see the scour of the LM DPS in a radial pattern beneath the bell. This engine was cut down higher over the surface, and as is clearly visible, much of the surface matter is still present, but obviously affected by the exhaust.



AS14-66-9262





Clearly, the Apollo LM, "Antares" left obvious scour on the surface. In fact, in this shot, you can clearly see the direction of motion at landing (the -Z strut shows some forward motion, as does the scouring pattern.


That is about as solid as evidence gets of exactly what I've maintained that the LM DPS exhaust did to the surface.

You can also consult the following photos, which all clearly show scour, scatter, and various cobbling patterns caused by the DPS exhaust gas:

AS11-40-5858, AS11-40-5892, AS12-47-6904 through 6911, and AS14-66-9261 through 9268...all of which were taken to document DPS engine effects on the lunar surface.



Now Turb, you can see human appendages, shades, curtains, chairs, and TV monitors, and evidence of stagehands in a mere few seconds of obscure, blurred, out of focus Apollo 12 color TV camera movement.


Please don't tell me that in these clear Hassleblad photos, which clearly indicate the obvious, that you do not see the patterns caused by the DPS engine on the lunar surface. The proof of what I've told you is right here, clear as day.

I trust this will be sufficient!

M~

i belive they landed

I'd say your belief is headed in the right direction!
They did indeed....

Lets just cut to the chase. People don't doubt the moon landing because any scientific evidence. This is firstly shown by the (hopefully unintentional) misunderstanding of scientific principles. And where do conspiracy theorists get their misunderstandings from? People who know better and are trying to sell a book, not to further anyones knowledge. People distrust the moon landing because they want to believe in some sort of American or global conspiracy. That is it, now this applies to most (not all) people who believe such rubbish. What is so scary about us going to the moon? Why fake such a thing? How do you keep so many people quiet? If there really is some secret conspiracy and the government doesn't want you to know about, then why are there people telling you about such conspiracies? Wouldn't the government have taken them (the people selling the books about the conspiracy) away to the ministry of love for their punishment and termination? Or wait, maybe that is apart of the conspiracy, oooohhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!! Wait a minute, maybe I'm apart of the conspiracy, I'm here to convince people on this forum that there is no conspiracy so that my government employers can continue on with their evil plans without anyone being the wiser. I think you get my point by now.

It is not a sexy answer to say, yup, we landed on the moon. It should be though, think of all the knowledge and effort that went into such an endeavor. And just think what could happen next, who knows? Maybe one day we will have manned space flights to mars, or even further. But I am sure when that happens, we will have some "nuts" coming out of the woodwork to sell a book, by saying that it is all just a conspiracy concocted by our government.

D

I think what you say here is rather common knowledge. Further, it's all been delineated in some depth on this board many times before.





Yes, I think the point is made.




I think you may be right, if we cease the effort after we initially accomplish it, and allow an entire generation to grow up at the relative level of stasis that the post Apollo generation grew up in. If we stay the course, and Constellation proceeds, executes, and continues, we'll not see any such silly mythologies.



The bottom line is this:


What you say, while fundamentally correct is somewhat pointless, since it's already been said, and when you say, "Let's cut to the chase," it seems that you'd love to end all the speculation and such and shut it all down.

Unfortunately, that's not really why we're here on this thread. You can't shut down believers with a few words. All you can hope to do is provide lucid explanation and information, with an eye toward teaching someone something about that which understandably, they do not understand.

It's about education.


p.s. I don't think any of us who provide information and explanation consider those explanations sexy, even when we do say something like "Yes, we landed on the Moon."

Indeed, I'm rather certain people see my writings and go..."Oh God, not that bag of wind again!"

People who doubt we landed on the moon are ***SNIP***. Their is footage of us on the moon jumping around with little gravity. Why would the Government spend all their time and money on an over elaborate hoax just to fool the public? The government has anti-gravity technology and are planning for missions to other worlds. Why can't you believe that we reached the moon?

Is that right? Anti gravity eh? I suppose you've got some evidence for this?

We are now degenerating into people coming here and just making statements, which have already been made, in support of the Apollo program. The problem with this recent couple of posts involves a couple things:
1) It is well known why people don't believe in it. It's been clearly discussed ad-nauseam.
2) Apollo does not have to be believed in. It is possible to know it happened, and how it happened, and these threads are geared toward that educational experience.
2) These posts contain inaccuracies and on occassion, silliness. Case in point is ...


"The government has anti-gravity technology..."

Now, I can say that in a sense, this is true.
Further, I can also admit that the government does indeed have anti-gravity technology. So, might I add, does the private sector (I've used it myself for a long time). This anti-gravity technology is utilized every single day, tens of thousands of times.


This is true...if what you're talking about is the technology that grew out of the discovery of black powder by the Chinese in the 9th century c.e., and which was developed several hundred years later into a functional rocket, or the technology that began centuries ago and evolved into that which we use today in several forms to lift balloons, lift and propel airships, and power airplanes through the sky.

Anti-gravity technology is actually exceedingly common, and is visible in airplanes, hot air balloons, and things like the goodyear blimp, ultra-lights, sailplanes, lunar modules, and space shuttles.

However, I sense, for some odd but nagging reason, that when you say that the government has anti-gravity technology, you're talking about some secret, hidden device, substance, or technology that can utterly cancel gravity in a certain area and allow one to go at will up and out, unencumbered by having to deal with natural forces (Sort of like Mr. Cavor's "Cavorite" in H.G. Wells', First Men In The Moon). If that is the case, then you're way off base, and slightly on the fringe of reasonability.

Such ideas, and such posts, do little to contribute to knowledge and understanding, and that is what this thread is about.


Another possibility comes to mind. The way the statement was worded,





Could it be that you think that men jumping around on the Moon represents some sort of government-owned anti-gravity technology, which not only allowed us to go there, but was also responsible for what we saw when the astronauts were "jumping around"?


Just a thought...


But the bottom line is, I am detecting some fringe, "way out there" ideas here. I may be wrong. Perhaps it's just that what you meant wasn't expressed very clearly (save whatever bad language had to be removed from your post...which was obviously clear enough to have a moderator remove it).

These posts are distracting, and take away from the discussions at hand.

Anti Gravity hehe. We haven't even observed the Graviton yet!!!!

Yes...that too....

Although that will go a loooong way to supporting quantum field theory...whatever...


We've had anti-gravity technology for a loooong time, Gav. The Saturn V was the biggest example of it in the history of mankind!




Now that is anti-gravity at its best...so far!

GOOD LORD!!!! THERE ARE 56 PAGES IN THIS THREAD, MID, AND YOU'RE STILL TRYING TO CONVINCE PEOPLE WE WENT TO THE MOON????

Yeah, the internet is full of people who believe weird stuff, and most of them will never change their minds because their beliefs are not evidence based. I find it fascinating what people will believe in the face of conflicting evidence in the world about them (Apollo "shadow" arguments are an excellent example).

However, I normally only argue with them when they trespass on my professional engineering turf.

What about those little houses that they pull around the country and say is like an anti-gravity house? Or, you could go to one of those little kiddie blow-up jumping houses or something; don't they have those at McDonalds?

What is your professional engineering turf? Mine is electronics, specifically control systems, and whatever is included in the current or proposed job.

Hell, Rabid...there were 250+ pages in the last thread (the big one!!!!), and still, we didn't exactly reach everytone!

Oh, an electrical engineer!
I think Swanny is an aerospace guy (correct me if I'm wrong Swanny!!!)


I remember way back when , in school, thinking electrical engineers were another breed altogether!!!


Being an aeronautical kind of guy, I used to listen to them talking and I could never understand a thing they were saying!!! So, I gave up and thought they were all from some other dimension!




Seriously though...if it weren't for the electrical guys, we'd have never landed on the Moon. Those geniuses were, and are, essential to anything that's done in space! They're all really smart guys....

Trampolines, pogo-sticks, MacDonalds kiddie blow up jumping houses...whatever, gregg, if you can go up, you're defying gravity, no? It's all anti-gravity technology!!!!


been around for a loooong time....

Nasty stuff electricity. Twenty years of working with some really nasty chemicals and I've only ever appeared in an accident report twice, once when some faulty glassware shattered and once as a result of an electric shock from faulty equipment. At least with most of the chemicals I handled you could either see them or smell them before they killed you.

why don't i think that's not any better waspie lol the last thing i want to say to myself before i get caught in a chemical explosion is *sniff sniff* i hope someone passed gas and that's not eth... *boom*

Aerospace, most of my career in research and design with a major airframe company. As I'm in the UK, I suppose the company in question is pretty easy to guess.

Well, heck. I sort of missed that mission anyway due to having zero extra time to sit and watch movies. I did get to see Capricorn I though (I suspect that may have been a major contributor to the ct fake moon shot), which I thought wasn't too bad, mainly 'cause I liked the actors.
But I still think there was some technology on board 13, and other space shots, that we didn't get to see. Not that it would have been a good idea to make it public, in view of the political times (cold war), but I'm sure it was there. A year+ after launch I got in an R&D firm and worked on the first of the LAMPS ASW versions, and after that IED (no longer extant) designed and built a bunch of strange stuff for aerospace. Fascinating job. The technology blew me away, even having come from the ASW part of the Navy, and communications within the Navy. That IED stuff was amazing. You can imagine a poor little engineering student, studying "cutting edge" computers in a private school being pummelled by all this top secret new stuff that's way beyond what the average joe can get. I think I was in shock for two years or so.

As to electrical engineers, our version in the field was something like this: "Yesterday, I couldn't even spell enginner, and today I are one." Har. And there are many who can't spell or construct a proper sentence. But generally, I guess we're decent enough folk.

Swan, airframes was what I really wanted to do in the Navy. Those snots promised me airframes when I enlisted (to avoid the draft; better to be at an air base of some sort than slogging through the jungle), but in boot camp after all the stupid tests during which I fell asleep they sent me to avionics... Well, they got it half right, I guess. I thought aerospace was just the cat's meow when I was doing that stuff, it's fascinating in every respect. Your company wouldn't be Mikoyan, would it? Heh! It's got to be fascinating these days.

Oh, all right, I'll leave you guys to the rest of the 112 pages. Good luck.

By the way, check out Laithewaite's gyroscopes, if you want antigravity.

I can't help but throw this one into the ring:

Q: How can you tell an extrovert engineer?

A: They look at YOUR shoes when talking.

That is good!! I love it!!! Encore!! Encore!!

You might have something there!

Hmmm...I'm not so sure about that one (?). When I talk to men (even the shy ones) they generally aren't looking at my shoes!

Well...

I suppose it's a somewhat glittering generalization. All extroverted engineeers don't look at your shoes when talking to you. Some of them glance a little higher (usually the aerospace guys...they're used to looking up a little higher)!!!!