Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 15
Waspie_Dwarf

[Merged] Did we land on the moon?

2,594 posts in this topic

This is much like the belief in the 'USSR whistleblower' story - it assumes the USSR would certainly know if Apollo was faked (unproven), and it assumes the USSR would tell the world it was a fake (also unfounded), since nothing could be better than to shame those capitalist American pigs (except the massive ransom they could extort to stay silent!). It's speculation upon more speculation.

That is a very weak argument considering the Soviet Union was our major enemy and yet, the Soviet Union confirmed the United States landed men on the moon and not only the Soviet Union, but other nations around the world as well. so you don't have an argument to begin with, and never did. :no:

Personally speaking, you are just wasting your time trying to rewrite history from the comfort of your keyboard because you cannot change the reality that men have walked on the moon. Looking at things this way: Evidence proving the reality of the Apollo moon missions have been presented while on the other hand, you have yet to present a single shred of evidence that supports your claims.

The Moon Landing through Soviet Eyes: A Q&A with Sergei Khrushchev, son of former premier Nikita Khrushchev

A son of the Cold War tells what it was like from the losing side of the Space Race--and how the U.S.S.R.'s space program fizzled after Sputnik and Gagarin

Where were you when Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin landed on the moon?

I remember the moon landing very well. I was 34. I was on vacation with my friends, most of whom worked at the Chelomei design bureau. There was also an officer from the KGB. We were in Ukraine, in Chernobyl. It was exactly the place where they later built the [infamous] nuclear power station. The KGB officer had just returned from Africa, and he had brought a small telescope. So we looked through the telescope, but we didn’t see any moon landing! So it was still questionable to us! [laughs]

How widely was the news of the moon landing disseminated in the Soviet Union in advance of the event?

Of course, you cannot have people land on the moon and just say nothing. It was published in all the newspapers. But if you remember [back then] when Americans spoke of the first man in space, they were always talking of "the first American in space" [not Yuri Gagarin]. The same feeling was prevalent in Russia. There were small articles when Apollo 11 was launched. Actually, there was a small article on the first page of Pravda and then three columns on page five. I looked it up again.

http://www.scientifi...moon-khrushchev

______________________________________________________________

DESPERATE TO WIN

American journalists

..... Click the link for more information. in Moscow at the time, myself included, had no idea how desperate the Soviet Union was to salvage some prestige from its faltering space program. (In fact, it was only after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 that we learned that the Soviets had tried to send a cosmonaut to the moon, but the rockets repeatedly failed in preliminary tests.)

On July 18, Tass reported that both Luna 15 and Apollo 11 were orbiting the moon. And while there was still no official announcement about the purpose of Luna 15's flight, Izvestia, the official government newspaper; gave a big hint when it said: "It is evident that in scientific terms the landing of a man on the moon provides less than unmanned automatic stations can provide."

http://www.thefreeli......-a0116138771

So, it is like this, Turbonium, your claim of hoaxed Apollo moon missions has been disproven with facts, evidence, and the laws of physics.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“When the Apollo missions began,...

Thank you for confirming the reality of the Apollo moon missions. Now, read this:

Indian satellite confirmed US moon landing: scientist

India's first lunar mission has captured images of the landing site of the Apollo 15 craft, debunking theories that the US mission was a hoax, the country's state-run space agency said Wednesday.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news171102159.html#jCp

_____________________________________________________

6. Footprints in the Moon dust are unexpectedly well preserved, despite the lack of moisture.

  • The Moon dust has not been weathered like Earth sand and has sharp edges. This allows the Moon dust particles to stick together and hold their shape in the vacuum. The astronauts likened it to "talcum powder or wet sand".
  • This theory (moon dust theory of the the moon hoax conspiracist) was debunked on the MythBusters episode "NASA Moon Landing".

During the Apollo 15 mission, David Scott did an experiment by dropping a hammer and a falcon feather at the same time. Both fell at the same rate and hit the ground at the same time. This proved that he was in a vacuum

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You obviously don't know why it's speculation, because it's certainly not based on the above. Don't worry, I'll point it out for you further along...

Yes, well we all know that speculation is your forte... and the only thing that you have since you have NO FACTS to support your case.

Oh, and don't worry... I'll point it out for you further along....

'Dropped entirely' was meant as 'dropped for the entire event'. I guess I was too tired to even notice. But of course, you take a massive leap of logic to make your own conclusions.

I'm sorry that I'm not psychic and can only base my replies on what you actually post, not what you are allegedly thinking.

Hey! Guess where we are here? Of course - this is where it all becomes speculation!!

Yes, I know... because again, all you are doing here is speculating. You AGAIN have NO FACTS to support you.

This is much like the belief in the 'USSR whistleblower' story - it assumes the USSR would certainly know if Apollo was faked (unproven), and it assumes the USSR would tell the world it was a fake (also unfounded), since nothing could be better than to shame those capitalist American pigs (except the massive ransom they could extort to stay silent!). It's speculation upon more speculation.

See what you did there?

You SPECULATED that the USSR would "hold the USA for ransom" and provided NO FACTS TO SUPPORT YOUR POINT.

You have no proof that that is what happened.

You have only speculation based on your warped world view.

As for Parkes, perhaps you haven't read this part....

" Keith Aldworth – who was a part of the team at Tidbinbilla – writes,

“When the Apollo missions began, Tidbinbilla’s 64 metre antenna had not been built and as we all know, Parkes Radio Telescope was seconded to NASA for periods of about six weeks around the Apollo missions. At the Parkes site, the equipment necessary for these missions was installed and remained there throughout"

http://www.honeysuck...rkes/index.html

So now you know - it was NASA's equipment used at Parkes during Apollo, which was (of course) installed by NASA

Funny how you quote doesn't actually say that NASA supplied the equipment, just that it was "installed and remained there throughout"...

In fact, earlier on that page you picked that quote from, it says this:

Parkes used NASA payments to enhance the capabilities of the facility

Which to any rational person (in other words, pretty much anyone but you) would indicate that NASA paid Parkes for the use of their facility, then Parkes bought the necessary equipment to upgrade their facility.

Even funnier how you omit the VERY NEXT SENTENCE in your quote above:

A team of people from Tid was detailed to man the Parkes site

And then there's this a little further on:

During the lead up to missions, the group travelled up to Parkes to prepare and install equipment.

So here we have, once again from your own source, evidence that shows that while NASA supplied the money for the use of the Parkes site, the Australian government bought and installed the equipment necessary to upgrade the facility, then ran the site themselves.

Geez, Turbs... its SO unlike you to cherry-pick parts of a quote to make it sound like it supports your position...

Oh waitasec... no, that's EXACTLY LIKE YOU TO DO THAT since you have demonstrated NO INTELLECTUAL HONESTY whatsoever.

You have any other excuses?

The only excuse I can present is that I must have been thinking that it would be possible to have an honest conversation with you about this topic without you resorting to your standard bag of dishonest HB tricks.

For that obviously flawed and mistaken assumption, I do apologize.

I suppose I could ask you what your excuse is for your fabrications, cherry picking, goal post shifting and intellectual dishonesty, but really, no excuses are necessary, since I'd really only be asking you to lie to us some more.

Well, it is a moot point. It was NASA equipment, as we know.

No, its not a moot point since it was INSTALLED AND MANNED by Australian technicians, as proven by the link you have provided.

You know... it might be a better plan for you to actually stop providing evidence, Turbs.

It seems that everything you present actually works to prove you completely wrong. Not the best strategy someone should take when trying to convince others.

I have. But thank you for confirming you have no evidence in the document to support your claim

And here you go again with your hypocritical intellectual dishonesty.

YOU ARE MAKING THE CLAIM.

YOU MUST PROVE IT.

ITS YOUR BURDEN OF PROOF, just as it has been all along

Me showing you that your evidence actually works against you is not making a claim, its showing you that your claim is invalid.

However, since you now claim to have read the document, please show us with actual quotes from the document including page numbers, how you think it would be possible to simulate an entire mission without the controllers knowing it was a simulation.

And also, please answer Obviousman's question:

I'm still waiting for Turbs to quote which section of the document they stated supports their views.

Cz

Edited by Czero 101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Average Earth sand grain dimension = about 0.079 in. (About 2-13 grains across make an inch).

Average lunar dust grain dimension = about 0.0006 in. (About 1670 grains across make an inch).

This means that a grain of earth sand is on averge 132 times the size of a lunar dust grain.

You claim the average lunar dust grain dimension = 0.006 in., or 15.24 micrometers.

It's about 4x larger on average, according to this source ...

"Lunar dust particles are minuscule, with an average size of 70 micrometers.."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090417161508.htm

You also claim average sand grain size is 0.079 in., or 2006.6 micrometers.

Again you're wrong, according to this source..

http://www.geo.mtu.edu/~raman/Ashfall/Syllabus/Entries/2009/6/21_GSD_files/GRADISTAT.pdf

See the chart (pg.1239 of doc). Sand grains - very fine (63 micrometers) fine (125 mm) medium (250 mm) coarse (500 mm) very coarse (1000 mm).

So very coarse sand is twice as small as your average grain!! Just where did you get such a figure, anyway? It's out of whack..

And the amazing phenomenon we can't duplicate on earth?

You mean the ultra detailed lunar footprints, the lack of dust clouds, or are you speaking of this "halo" effect you don't understand? I suspect all of the afformentioned, but particularly the last one.

I'm obviously referring to this (supposed) 'halo' phenomenon. I've pointed it out many times while you spout on about how I'm not learning anything! Quite ironic, methinks.

And I really do understand this phenomenon. I understand it hasn't a shred of proof. And therefore, I have come to understand this phenomenon is nothing but a convoluted, contrived mess of your own invention..

You want me to send you to the source, NASA?

:w00t:

Yea...you won't call them, or even use their site as the port of knowledge it is. You'll call the NASA reports Government influenced nonsense. W e've already done it! We know what you think, even if you have no idea what you're talking about!

You claim this 'halo' phenomenon exists, so I ask you for proof. All I get back is your inane excuse.

It's your claim. It's your burden to prove it. Stop making excuses.

Micro-fine particles are significant because they allow thinner lsyers of material to be dispersed out, and to lay in dirsrupted layers, appearing , again (and why, I don't really know) depending on lighting conditions and angle, as they do in many images we've shown from the surface, and from on orbit altitudes.This basic physical principal. It should be required to explain this to you again...unless, you're simply screwing around playing a game with us turb.

It's only a basic physical principle if there is proof for it. To just say it is, doesn't cut it.

If micro-fine particles are known to cause such a phenomenon, you need to show the evidence for it!!

Because you've failed to meet your burden of proof, I've searched and searched for information on this phenomenon. But I can't find it anywhere. It appears to be a false claim.

Self adherent particles make a difference in respect to the fact that they allow those crisp footprints to be created, and, they risist low energy disruptive blasts (like a LM DPS from hundreds of feet up ). This results in a thinner dust sheet being dispursed as the craft descends.

This stuff has all been carefully outlined for you before.

Does this lack of understanding you have about lunar dust have something to do with your burden of proving your contention?

It's a self-adherent particle, so let's make it a factor of the 'phenomenon', too! Just say it is.

Lunar samples are not readily available for In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU) studies, necessary for preparations for a return to the Moon with landers, robots, and astronauts. Lunar soil simulants have been produced as substitutes for the real thing

Read More: http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41096%28366%2914

Lunar samples are not readily available for In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU) studies, necessary for preparations for a return to the Moon with landers, robots, and astronauts. Lunar soil simulants have been produced as substitutes for the real thing;

Read More: http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41096%28366%2914

Lunar samples are not readily available for In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU) studies, necessary for preparations for a return to the Moon with landers, robots, and astronauts. Lunar soil simulants have been produced as substitutes for the real thing;

Read More: http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41096%28366%2914

Lunar samples are not readily available for In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU) studies, necessary for preparations for a return to the Moon with landers, robots, and astronauts. Lunar soil simulants have been produced as substitutes for the real thing;

Read More: http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41096%28366%2914

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because you've failed to meet your burden of proof, I'v...

Correction: You have failed to provide the burden of proof.

New lunar missions

Apollo 11 landing site photographed by LRO

Post-Apollo lunar exploration missions have located and imaged artifacts of the Apollo program remaining on the Moon's surface.

Images taken by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) mission beginning in July 2009 show the six Apollo Lunar Module descent stages, Apollo Lunar Surface Experiment Package (ALSEP) science experiments, astronaut footpaths, and lunar rover tire tracks. These images are the most effective proof to date to rebut the "landing hoax" theories

http://en.wikipedia....o_Moon_landings

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And also, please answer Obviousman's question....

Yeah, my guess is that Turbo has been playing fast and loose with the facts and now wants to avoid that being highlighted. They have a record of posting things which, when examined, fail to support what they say.

Edited by Obviousman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lunar samples are not readily available for In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU) studies, necessary for preparations for a return to the Moon with landers, robots, and astronauts. Lunar soil simulants have been produced as substitutes for the real thing;

Read More: http://ascelibrary.o...61/41096(366)14

Lunar samples are not readily available for In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU) studies, necessary for preparations for a return to the Moon with landers, robots, and astronauts. Lunar soil simulants have been produced as substitutes for the real thing;

Read More: http://ascelibrary.o...61/41096(366)14

Lunar samples are not readily available for In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU) studies, necessary for preparations for a return to the Moon with landers, robots, and astronauts. Lunar soil simulants have been produced as substitutes for the real thing;

Read More: http://ascelibrary.o...61/41096(366)14

Apparently, you didn't read everything from your links where they say:

Important Considerations for Lunar Soil Simulants

...it may be necessary to use the soils from the Apollo lunar sample collection.

Read More: http://ascelibrary.o...61/41096(366)14

Discovered After 40 Years: Moon Dust Hazard Influenced By Sun's Elevation

ScienceDaily (Apr. 21, 2009) — In the 1960s and 1970s, the Apollo Moon Program struggled with a minuscule, yet formidable enemy: sticky lunar dust. Four decades later, a new study reveals that forces compelling lunar dust to cling to surfaces — ruining scientific experiments and endangering astronauts' health —change during the lunar day with the elevation of the sun.

O'Brien started researching lunar dust in 1966 because he feared for an instrument he developed that was to be left behind on the Moon by the Apollo 14 mission. He worried that the device, which measured the flux of charged particles, would end up covered in dust and ruined. Lunar dust is "a bloody nuisance," he says

In his new study, O'Brien analyzed the behavior of dust on horizontal and vertical solar cells in one of the Apollo dust-detecting experiments. On the first morning of the experiment, the lunar module – 130 meters (426 feet) away from the dust detector – took off from the Moon's surface. The blast of exhaust gases completely cleansed a dusty horizontal solar cell, because it was illuminated only by weak early-morning light and thus the adhesive force of dust was faint. But only half the dust covering the vertical cell was removed by the blast, because its surface faced east – into more intense sunlight– and thus the sticky forces were stronger.

http://www.scienceda...90417161508.htm

Your own links have trashed your claim that the Apollo moon missions were hoaxed. :lol:

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You SPECULATED that the USSR would "hold the USA for ransom" and provided NO FACTS TO SUPPORT YOUR POINT.

You have no proof that that is what happened.

.

So you finally get the point! Yes, indeed, I am speculating. There is no proof of it. Just the same way you are speculating about what happened, and you have no proof of it!!

You now see the light, well done.

Funny how you quote doesn't actually say that NASA supplied the equipment, just that it was "installed and remained there throughout"...

Which to any rational person (in other words, pretty much anyone but you) would indicate that NASA paid Parkes for the use of their facility, then Parkes bought the necessary equipment to upgrade their facility.

So here we have, once again from your own source, evidence that shows that while NASA supplied the money for the use of the Parkes site, the Australian government bought and installed the equipment necessary to upgrade the facility, then ran the site themselves.

Let's review this point...

"Parkes Radio Telescope was seconded to NASA for periods of about six weeks around the Apollo missions"

Hmm...what do you think that means? You think NASA is controlling Parkes during Apollo, or is under control of Aussies who worked there? It's pretty clear who is running the show, and who is following their orders and instructions.

Apollo was a NASA project. It was not a joint NASA-Australian project. It was not a joint NASA-Grumman/Honeywell/et al project. It was a NASA project, period. And like most large-scale projects, this included external contributors. Like Grumman, Honeywell, etc. and like the Australians, Africans, etc. employed by NASA for their Apollo project.

You have this bizarro notion that NASA just let the Australians control the show, or something like that.

However, since you now claim to have read the document, please show us with actual quotes from the document including page numbers, how you think it would be possible to simulate an entire mission without the controllers knowing it was a simulation.

You brought up the document, right?

Sure you did.

Do you remember any possible reason you would have brought up the document?

If you can answer that, you'll realize who has the original claim about the document, and who has the burden of proving it, too!!

Hint: It's not me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you finally get the point! Yes, indeed, I am speculating. There is no proof of it. Just the same way you are speculating about what happened, and you have no proof of it!!

I guess you missed where it said:

On July 18, Tass reported that both Luna 15 and Apollo 11 were orbiting the moon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, my guess is that Turbo has been playing fast and loose with the facts and now wants to avoid that being highlighted. They have a record of posting things which, when examined, fail to support what they say.

Turbonium has been posting links that have actually confirmed the reality of the Apollo moon missions.

Here's another example from the link he posted.

O'Brien used data from the matchbox-sized Dust Detector Experiments deployed on the Moon's surface in 1969 during the Apollo 11 and Apollo 12 missions.

http://www.scienceda...90417161508.htm

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You claim the average lunar dust grain dimension = 0.006 in., or 15.24 micrometers.

It's about 4x larger on average, according to this source ...

"Lunar dust particles are minuscule, with an average size of 70 micrometers.."

Ever seen lunar dust turb? I have.

Ever actually read any of the many varying reports on this really neat material? I have.

Ever do any research on it?

Obviously no. I neither know why I ask or why you post...

What I said was .006 inches.

15.84 micrometers is 0.0006 inches, which is 10 times smaller.

My size wasn't 15.84 micrometers. It was more like 156 micrometers. 0.006 in., turb.

I know you don't understand the many reports, and that in each one you'll find different sizes of grain measurements.

Woops.

ou also claim average sand grain size is 0.079 in., or 2006.6 micrometers.

Again you're wrong, according to this source..

http://www.geo.mtu.e...s/GRADISTAT.pdf

See the chart (pg.1239 of doc). Sand grains - very fine (63 micrometers) fine (125 mm) medium (250 mm) coarse (500 mm) very coarse (1000 mm).

So very coarse sand is twice as small as your average grain!! Just where did you get such a figure, anyway? It's out of whack..

Imeasured about 20 grains I have. :w00t: , and unfortunately turb, you say they average between .002 in. and 40 inches across! That's a very course bunch of boulders.

You're wasting my time (or, I am!). You do realize that, don't you??

Enough, lunar soil (like powder, if you ever get the chance to see some, which isn't likely) is alot smaller than average sand.

You're wrong, again, and again...

What's your point?

Were you attempting to prove your contention?

Stop wasting time and get on with it.

:no:

I'm obviously referring to this (supposed) 'halo' phenomenon. I've pointed it out many times while you spout on about how I'm not learning anything! Quite ironic, methinks.

And I really do understand this phenomenon. I understand it hasn't a shred of proof. And therefore, I have come to understand this phenomenon is nothing but a convoluted, contrived mess of your own invention..

You rfeally understand nothing at all. It's clearly visible in photos, and it is perfectly logical a phenomenon, if you understand anything about the creation of it, the lunar soil, the lighting conditions of the Moon, and things like that. but you don, and you won't.

I didn't invent it.

I don't actually care about it.

You seem to think it has some significance, when in reality the only significant issue here is your proving your contention.

If micro-fine particles are known to cause such a phenomenon, you need to show the evidence for it!!

Gee turb, nice dodge. It's not like anyone doesn't clearly see the tactic here.

My burden of proof? My evidence?

:w00t:

I don't care about haloing, turb. Didn't when I first saw it, ecades ago (long before you were even around) You do!

You try and explain why it's so significant...

I cared about landing on the Moon, doing the science, and getting back home again.

I'm sure turb that if I anticipated the cultural malaise that would, decades later, produce the idiocy we see on this thread, I'd have made some definite suggestions regarding photographing the landing sites from orbit, and other things to make sure some nit wit didn't think we faked it all...

Of course, I'd have been committed for psychological analysis and have been terminated.

Sorry Buddy! I was just covering my own butt but not trying to prohibit cool stuff.

Wouldn't have mattered anyway.

You'd still be here, claiming it was all a fake, and producing nothing to sustantiate the lunacy you put forth. I guess it was just destiny...

Because you've failed to meet your burden of proof, I've searched and searched for information on this phenomenon. But I can't find it anywhere. It appears to be a false claim.

Too much talk about this old, already explained (to you) nonsense.

Your proof of your contention was???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you finally get the point! Yes, indeed, I am speculating. There is no proof of it. Just the same way you are speculating about what happened, and you have no proof of it!!

You now see the light, well done.

Wow... this is a first. Turbs actually admits he has no proof for his idle speculation... I'm rather stunned at that.

Let's review this point...

"Parkes Radio Telescope was seconded to NASA for periods of about six weeks around the Apollo missions"

Hmm...what do you think that means? You think NASA is controlling Parkes during Apollo, or is under control of Aussies who worked there? It's pretty clear who is running the show, and who is following their orders and instructions.

Apollo was a NASA project. It was not a joint NASA-Australian project. It was not a joint NASA-Grumman/Honeywell/et al project. It was a NASA project, period. And like most large-scale projects, this included external contributors. Like Grumman, Honeywell, etc. and like the Australians, Africans, etc. employed by NASA for their Apollo project.

You have this bizarro notion that NASA just let the Australians control the show, or something like that.

I have shown you facts from the link that you provided.

I have shown you where it says in the Honeysuckle link you provided that NASA gave money to Parkes.

I have shown you where it says in the Honeysuckle link you provided that Parkes - not NASA - used that money to upgrade its facility.

I have shown you where it says in the Honeysuckle link you provided that a team of Aussies from Tidbinbilla - not NASA employees - were assigned to man the Parkes site.

I have shown you where it says in the Honeysuckle link you provided that that same team of Aussies from Tidbinbilla - not NASA employees - was sent to Parkes to prepare and install the upgraded equipment.

You have nothing but your now admitted-by-you unsupported speculation.

So... please show us where it says that NASA installed, manned and controlled the Parkes site in that one sentence you have cherry-picked from that entire page of evidence against you.

You brought up the document, right?

Sure you did.

No Turbs... You brought it into the discussion here:

Or are you going to say that it is only good as a source when you choose it to be and at no time other...?

Time to stop with the crack and start keeping up with your own story.

Do you remember any possible reason you would have brought up the document?

If you can answer that, you'll realize who has the original claim about the document, and who has the burden of proving it, too!!

Yes, I can and did answer it.

YOU brought the document to the discussion as evidence to support your position.

YOU claim you have read it and that you know that the documents shows how the equipment was tested.

YOU claim that it was possible to simulate an entire mission without any of the controllers knowing it.

If you have read the document as you have claimed to have done, then you should know the section that goes into great detail of the procedures and methods used to test the system, including the simulations they did use.

It is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to back up your claim with the evidence YOU HAVE BROUGHT TO THE DISCUSSION that you are correct.

IT IS ALWAYS YOUR BURDEN TO PROVE YOU ARE CORRECT, Turbs.

You can dance around that fact, evade it, ignore it and try to reverse it all you like, but that doesn't change the fact that the burden of proof has been and continues to be yours.

Hint: It's not me.

Fact: you're wrong.

Oh and hey... any chance you're going to get around answering this question - fourth time being asked now - any time this decade...?

I'm still waiting for Turbs to quote which section of the document they stated supports their views.

Since you have read the document it should be no problem for you to provide a quote and the specific page number where it backs up your assertion.

Cz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[/i]

Thank you for confirming the reality of the Apollo moon missions. Now, read this:

[/left]

And Sky, there's another pertinent piece of data in this Apollo 15 video that proves it's on the Moon:

That hammer and feather, falling equally, as they do and as they should, prove we're in a vacuum, certainly.

However, the drop Dave Scott made was from about 4 feet off the surface. The time of fall was about 1.25 seconds.

Oddly enough, that shows the gravity field present to be about 5.3 FPS2 .

If it was done on Earth, that drop would've taken a mere 1/2 second, and of course, air would've made a difference in the feather's fall as well

The drop time shows what is 1/6 of 32 FPS2 or....1/6g..5.3 FPS 2 It was on the Moon. Vacuum, and 1/6 g.

And yes, he was shown this before, long ago. It just proves that he's an HB...no interest in learning things, just ignore the facts and post innanities!

:tsu:

Edited by MID

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thread cleaned

Again, please keep personal attacks out of the discussion - attack the views being presented, not the person who holds those views.

We keep repeating this but it doesn't seem to be sinking in - please keep your comments civil, constructive and respectful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey MID

cAs a geeky teenager, I built the AMT (I think) LM model, but found the plastic base "inadequate". Built a frame and filled it with cement powder...nice grey color and texture that took those little astronaut footprints perfectly...

How would that run-of-the-mill cement mix compare to the lunat soil...grain wise? Are there any such comparisons? Just looking at the real thing, the cement mix seems a real good analogy..

Thanks...

Edited by mrbusdriver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've felt that the moon landing was not a conspiracy, unless Russia was in on it. Given the relationship between USA and Russia, if at the time, Russia had any inkling that USA faked the landing they'd been crying foul immediately.

Always been tempted to get a proper telescope and try to take a peek at the sites myself to see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Always been tempted to get a proper telescope and try to take a peek at the sites myself to see.

Assuming you mean that you'd like to get a view of the artifacts / hardware left behind at the landing sites, you'd need a really big telescope... one so big it actually cannot be built with current materials / technology.

Cz

Edited by Czero 101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Assuming you mean that you'd like to get a view of the artifacts / hardware left behind at the landing sites, you'd need a really big telescope... one so big it actually cannot be built with current materials / technology.

Cz

Indeed, looked into it, and seems I spoke without knowing the facts. Kudos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've felt that the moon landing was not a conspiracy, unless Russia was in on it. Given the relationship between USA and Russia, if at the time, Russia had any inkling that USA faked the landing they'd been crying foul immediately.

Always been tempted to get a proper telescope and try to take a peek at the sites myself to see.

It seems you realize that Cz is correct: there are no terrestrial tlescopes sufficient to see any Apollo landing sites.

However, the most advbanced cameras aboard LRO have shown the sites, with extraordinary detail---

Apollo-11-site-LRO-400x309.jpg

LRO-Images-Apollo-Landing-Site-3.jpg

These kind of proved things for all the folks who don't believe...(??)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, unfortunately I made the assumption of "Surely we can observe the surface of our own Moon from here".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, unfortunately I made the assumption of "Surely we can observe the surface of our own Moon from here".

Well, to be fair, we can... but only to a certain degree / resolution.

As I'm guessing you found out, a telescope with the resolution to observe the Apollo artifacts would require a mirror roughly 200 meters in diameter. With current technology, a mirror that large would bend and warp under its own weight, making it impossible to keep to the very strict specifications and tolerances required for optical telescopes.

Cz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I'm guessing you found out, a telescope with the resolution to observe the Apollo artifacts would require a mirror roughly 200 meters in diameter. With current technology, a mirror that large would bend and warp under its own weight, making it impossible to keep to the very strict specifications and tolerances required for optical telescopes.

If you are building a single "monolithic" mirror this is undoubtedly true, however using a mosaic of smaller mirrors, as the two Keck telescopes do, there is no theorical reason why a telescope this size could not be constructed... it would however be extremely expensive. The European Southern Observatory currently has plans for the Overwhelmingly Large Telescope ( OWL) which will have a mirror 60-100m in diameter.

However even a 200m telescope will not show the Apollo artifacts on the moon because of the limiting nature of Earth's atmosphere. Because it is constantly moving it reduces the angular resolution of telescopes dramatically. This is the reason that such a small telescope and Hubble can produce images superior to considerably larger Earth based instruments.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still waiting for Turbs to show where in the document they referenced supports their claims, or for them to admit the document does not support them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm back. Yaay.

Ready, Turbonium? And are you totally, absolutely sure that the topic of luminosity and visibility of the exhaust affected areas beneath the LMs of the Apollo missions is one of the VERY BEST pieces of evidence you have? After all, if you are forced to concede that you have no argument, that will mean that your best arguments aren't good enough...

Anyway, take your time thinking about it. I'm in no hurry. And I'd appreciate it if you would undertake this process in good faith. If you are unwilling to debate the topics seriously and methodically, say so now and you'll save me a lot of wasted time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm back. Yaay.

Ready, Turbonium? And are you totally, absolutely sure that the topic of luminosity and visibility of the exhaust affected areas beneath the LMs of the Apollo missions is one of the VERY BEST pieces of evidence you have? After all, if you are forced to concede that you have no argument, that will mean that your best arguments aren't good enough...

Anyway, take your time thinking about it. I'm in no hurry. And I'd appreciate it if you would undertake this process in good faith. If you are unwilling to debate the topics seriously and methodically, say so now and you'll save me a lot of wasted time.

Not going to hold my breath!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 15

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.