Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Illiniblue35

Did we land on the moon?

14,116 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

RamboIII

It is funny when people who do not know a thing about the Van Allen Belt use it as their argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Torchwood
LOL..Torchwood my dear, I have been looking for the information from the above statemant and I'm thinking that the government came and changed the informantion in the 4 1/2 hours that I was sleeping. LOL jk. I will find the information that I'm looking for, it may just take me awhile. (I have to go back through everything, sorry for my bad "record keeping" abilities) As for the radiation being toxic, I never stated that it would have killed the astronauts, I'm wondering as to why the radiation didn't damage the camera. Based on the (missing) information that I was searching through, I know that I saw somewhere that stated the radiation would not be enough to kill them, but that the radiation belt is like a cloud with condensation in it, and when the rocket passed through, it would have clung to the outside, and seeped to the inside, and that yes the astronauts would have recieved a small does of radiation, just not enough to kill them. I will find this information my dear, I just need to sort through the 30 pages I was looking through lastnight (early this morning.) :blush:

radiation behaving like condensation? I spose it could get trapped in the magnetic fields produced by electrical equipment in the capsule, but those fields would be weak and I dont think theyd trap enough to damage anything.

Ive tried to google it myself but none of the key words brought up any promising lines of inquiry so I thought Id better come back to you!:)

maybe the radiation missed....

ramboIII: care to enlighten us knowlessmen?

Edited by Torchwood

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RamboIII

Not really, I participated in a thread daily that went about 250 pages on this same topic... if I get started again I wont be able to stop, and last time did not go too well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cynical1
The whole thing was shot on a Hollywood lot. Stanly Kubrick did around the time he shot 2001 a Space Odyssey

Just humor my dumbass, where is the proof we did go?

TV & Moonrocks? I need more please.

Edited by Waspie_Dwarf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Waspie_Dwarf
Just humor my dumbass, where is the proof we did go?

TV & Moonrocks? I need more please.

Aren't rocks which are proven to have come from the moon enough?

Besides which where is the evidence we didn't?

Edited by Waspie_Dwarf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bornagainuhmanduh
They were in the van allen belt for only a split second (when your travelling at that kind of speed you can only be anywhere for a split second!)...not long enough to fry anyone or anything.

And the lack of gravity wouldnt really effect you after only a few days....as has already been stated both russians and americans(and at least one brit iirc) stayed up for over a year on MIR etc and didnt have much trouble when they got back.

Isn't that only with proper exercise?

Edited by uhmanduh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bornagainuhmanduh
Torchwood, my dear. On Wikipedia, (yes I know LOL).....it states that the radiation will still stick to everything, and penetrate the rocket. hmmm... I also have an article...that states with no exercize, being up in space, that after only a few days, the muscle mass can be reduced 30%. (some people more, some people less). I'm sorry if I'm not making too much sense, I'm a bit tired. Here's the link to the NASA article though.

http://www.nasaexplores.com/show2_912a.php...-202&gl=912 I would also like to point out, that they found out that it was needed to exercise, from personal experience. (Not my own of course) :innocent:

Thank you airika dahlink! I was watching a science program on public broadcasting about the first Russian cosmonauts in space. They found that the muscle loss was rather significant after a few days, as you stated, around 30% depending on the individual. This is why they now exercise. I have been trying to find the transcripts to the program to get the specifics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cynical1
Aren't rocks which are proven to have come from the moon enough?

Besides which where is the evidence we didn't?

Rocks are the best answer you can provide? Try again.

There are many unanswered questions, educate yourself on the subject!!!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
flyingswan
Rocks are the best answer you can provide? Try again.

There are many unanswered questions, educate yourself on the subject!!!!!!!!

Try these websites, all non-NASA, for independant verification of Apollo:

A geologist's explanation of moon rocks, including the difficulty of faking them:

http://meteorites.wustl.edu/lunar/howdoweknow.htm

Astronomers around the world track Apollo going to and from the moon:

http://www.astr.ua.edu/keel/space/apollo.html

Several accounts of tracking Apollo radio transmissions, including a Swedish radio ham and the Russians keeping NASA honest:

http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/trackind/Apollo17/APOLLO17.htm

http://www.parkes.atnf.csiro.au/apollo11/

http://www.honeysucklecreek.net/Apollo_11/index.html

http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/content...rs/271/03.shtml

One of many sites debunking the hoax claims:

http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/Conspi...GototheMoon.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
airika
Rocks are the best answer you can provide? Try again.

There are many unanswered questions, educate yourself on the subject!!!!!!!!

I also feel that some of the statements made by Mr. Armstrong himself are a bit contradictory. I would also like to state that the government is not above doing anything to deter us from the truth. I have read a lot of information on Mr. Von Braun, and needless to say, I strongly feel that there could have been some sort of "conspiracy". There are MANY coincidences found surrounding his appearance. The book that he wrote is eerily similar to that of the moon landing, and the book was written in 1952 I believe. (I may be wrong on the year, but it was DEFINATELY written before the moon landing.) Mr. Von Brauns depiction of his lunar module, is almost exact to that of the one used in the "actual mission". I am sure that this one was just a coincidence, but I feel it merits being said. President Kennedy was assinated exactly one week after meeting with Mr. Von Braun about the moon landing. Mr. Von Braun was also on the south pole collecting meteors shortly before the the alleged landing even happened.

Edited by airika

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
flyingswan
How did the camera, that the little known invention called the remote control controlled, survive the Van Allen belt? :)

How do communication satellites and the satellites for the GPS navigation system survive for years continuously in the Van Allen belts? The Apollos only spent an hour or so in the belts in each direction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
airika
How do communication satellites and the satellites for the GPS navigation system survive for years continuously in the Van Allen belts? The Apollos only spent an hour or so in the belts in each direction.

I have stated in this post previously, that today, the satellites and other things in orbit, are protected against the radiation, and they are also turned off when near the belts. I believe that is the answer to your question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
flyingswan
I also feel that some of the statements made by Mr. Armstrong himself are a bit contradictory. I would also like to state that the government is not above doing anything to deter us from the truth. I have read a lot of information on Mr. Von Braun, and needless to say, I strongly feel that there could have been some sort of "conspiracy". There are MANY coincidences found surrounding his appearance. The book that he wrote is eerily similar to that of the moon landing, and the book was written in 1952 I believe. (I may be wrong on the year, but it was DEFINATELY written before the moon landing.) Mr. Von Brauns depiction of his lunar module, is almost exact to that of the one used in the "actual mission". I am sure that this one was just a coincidence, but I feel it merits being said. President Kennedy was assinated exactly one week after meeting with Mr. Von Braun about the moon landing. Mr. Von Braun was also on the south pole collecting meteors shortly before the the alleged landing even happened.

Apart from engineering necessities like legs to land on and rocket power, Von Braun's moon lander didn't really look much like the actual LM:

http://www.astronautix.com/craft/vonander.htm

How did VB know there were lunar meteors in Antarctica when the rest of the scientific community didn't find them until 1979?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
flyingswan
I have stated in this post previously, that today, the satellites and other things in orbit, are protected against the radiation, and they are also turned off when near the belts. I believe that is the answer to your question.

Read my post again. Those satellites are permanently in the belts.

Furthermore, they are designed for the known radiation levels in the belts, and the radiation levels experienced by the satellites are consistent with NASA's claimed radiation exposures for the Apollo astronauts. Dozens of countries build and operate these satellites, the radiation levels are hardly secret.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
airika
Apart from engineering necessities like legs to land on and rocket power, Von Braun's moon lander didn't really look much like the actual LM:

http://www.astronautix.com/craft/vonander.htm

How did VB know there were lunar meteors in Antarctica when the rest of the scientific community didn't find them until 1979?

My dear, I would first like to point out that I never once stated that he collected lunar meteors, and we have no proof that what NASA states are lunar meteors, are actually that. The only thing that we have to go by is their word. The government doesn't exactly have a great track record of telling us the truth, and with some of us being like questioning children, asking about the moon landing and our "parents" (the government) refuse to give us straight answers to some of our questions, then yes, people are going to speculate and ask more questions then before. Here is a link from googlescholar that I was refering to. http://www.reformation.org/general-groves.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
flyingswan
My dear, I would first like to point out that I never once stated that he collected lunar meteors, and we have no proof that what NASA states are lunar meteors, are actually that. The only thing that we have to go by is their word. The government doesn't exactly have a great track record of telling us the truth, and with some of us being like questioning children, asking about the moon landing and our "parents" (the government) refuse to give us straight answers to some of our questions, then yes, people are going to speculate and ask more questions then before. Here is a link from googlescholar that I was refering to. http://www.reformation.org/general-groves.pdf

I recall that the first lunar meteors were actually discovered by a Japanese expedition, and it was they, not NASA who identified them.

There is also the fact that the Russians collected a few very small lunar samples with unmanned missions in the years after Apollo. The three sources of lunar material all have common features that show they have a non-earth origin.

It is also interesting to note that the moon samples don't fit any of the three major theories of the lunar origin that existed pre-Apollo, and a new theory that matched the samples wasn't developed until several years after Apollo. This means that if they were faked, whoever faked them had to make them consistent with this future theory, which you must admit shows remarkable abilities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Waspie_Dwarf
we have no proof that what NASA states are lunar meteors, are actually that. The only thing that we have to go by is their word.

In a thread full of wrong this is a pinnacle of wrongness of Everest proportions.

The Lunar samples have been tested around the world by many different scientists from many different universities. The Soviet Union also returned samples from the moon using unmanned spacecraft so we have an alternative source to make comparisons with.

The lunar meteorites have been identified on Earth after comparison with the lunar samples. They were only recognised as having a lunar source AFTER Apollo.

Edited by Waspie_Dwarf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
flyingswan

Another point worth noting on the "Von Braun South Pole" explanation of moon rocks:

A lunar meteorite looks pretty much like any other meteorite, with an external surface showing the effects of the heating it received during its passage down through the atmosphere. You need to get it back to a lab and examine the interior composition to identify it as a lunar meteorite.

About 1 in 450 meteorites discovered have been identified as Lunar ones.

NASA has some 380 kg of lunar material. The known lunar meteorites amount to some 50 kg total.

For the Von Braun theory to work, he must have therefore gathered up a couple of hundred tonnes of meteorites in his short holiday to Antartica and practically swept the continent clean for future meteorite hunters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MID

Well, Waspie and Obviousman and Flyingswan...et. al.

You have done a fine job with this, as usual!

I though I might get into this...( ;) )

airika:

You said,

I also feel that some of the statements made by Mr. Armstrong himself are a bit contradictory

Might you clarify what you mean by that?

Neil has been very articulate and clear in his statements regarding the mission of Apollo 11...for almost 40 years. I'd like to know what you're talking about.

President Kennedy was assinated exactly one week after meeting with Mr. Von Braun about the moon landing. Mr. Von Braun was also on the south pole collecting meteors shortly before the the alleged landing even happened.

Coincidence, in the matter of President Kennedy (perhaps you're implying that President kennedy's death had something to do with the fledgling Apollo program?). Besides, he met with Dr. Von Braun because he wanted an update on his Saturn 1 program, which he got. The Apollo block 1 spacecraft wasn't even built yet. In fact, the Gemini Program hadn't even started yet at that time. There was no lunar module, and the moon landing was six years in the future at that time.

Dr. Von Braun was taking a vacation in 1968 in Antarctica. He was an adventurer, and enjoyed doing unusual things. Geniuses tend to be a bit eccentric at times. He went to Antarctica on vacation. It had absolutely nothing to do with meteorites. He explored different places all his life. It all had nothing to do with Apollo. In fact, he was getting away from Apollo when he went to Antarctica...

I would like to point out, that NASA's favorite line is "It would be harder to pull off the hoax." When that is not true in the least.

In fact, it is true, if you knew anything about Apollo.

They were said to have installed a television camera into the side of the lunar module. There was no protection at all for this electronical equipment from the Van Allen Belt.

I think you've probably gotten a reasonable explanation of this.

The van Allen Belts did not provide a harmful dose of radiation to any Apollo crewman, nor to any equipment. The spacecraft were adequately shielded, the duration of exposure was less that 2 hours per mission, and the trajectories designed had the vehicles passing through the narrowest parts of the belts. The van Allen Belt horror is an old, tired, and erroneous thing which was refuted by Dr. Van Allen himself.

As to that camera, it was, as has been pointed out, deployed by the initial egressing astronaut by pulling a lanyard which deployed the MESA. The camera was powerwed up by the LMP who snapped a breaker in the LM to power it up.

The government doesn't exactly have a great track record of telling us the truth, and with some of us being like questioning children, asking about the moon landing and our "parents" (the government) refuse to give us straight answers to some of our questions, then yes, people are going to speculate and ask more questions then before

I'll tell you what.

If you have doubts about the most scientifically documented accomplishment in human history, something confirmed and substantiated by independent scientific organization the world over, just ask them here.

I guarantee you'll get an answer.

Why do you think Apollo was faked?

This would be the place to ask....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unlimited

Im gonna agree with MID for once...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MID
Rocks are the best answer you can provide? Try again.

There are many unanswered questions, educate yourself on the subject!!!!!!!!

Educate yourself on the subject??? :)

He actually said that, didn't he???

Perhaps, Cynical1, you would like to educate me on "the subject"...where did you get your education?

It's sounding suspiciously like it was at the Bart Sibrel school of lunar exploratory fallacy?

Just humor my dumbass, where is the proof we did go?

TV & Moonrocks? I need more please.

Let me give you a clue in this matter.

You seem to be adhereing to an accusation: that being that we did not in fact do what is documented and substantiated more than any single scientific accomplishment in history--land on the Moon.

Thus, you must show us proof that we didn't. Not the other way around.

Since that is going to be mighty difficult (trust me, it will), it would be best if you simply aired your doubts in question form here. Some of the more knowledgable people will be more than happy to explain various things that you may not know about, and erase your doubts through the onlky thing that really can do such a thing: knowledge.

That's what we're about.

So how about we get away from the "dumbass" stuff and approach this from the desire to learn something?

Alot of "dumbasses" have come here intent on causing a stir in the past. None of them are here today...because, they were, as you say, "dumbasses".

It's alot more fun to learn about things. There are several people here who will be more than happy to lend their scientific knowledge and practical experience to that goal.

Be nice. Ask a question. You'll probably find out something you didn't know. That's always a good thing.

After all, you yourself said..."There are many unanswered questions..."

Here is the place to get them answered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trinitrotoluene

I'm sorry I have to laugh at the "educate yourself on the subject". Did you not know that my good friend MID was labelled THE master NASA disinformationist by our friends from the past ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MID
I'm sorry I have to laugh at the "educate yourself on the subject". Did you not know that my good friend MID was labelled THE master NASA disinformationist by our friends from the past ;)

:)

Indeed I was so labeled, dear Gav.

It's rather refreshing NOT to have to deal with that moniker...at least at the moment!

You've let the cat out of the bag, so it may come back... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
postbaguk
Dr. Von Braun was taking a vacation in 1968 in Antarctica. He was an adventurer, and enjoyed doing unusual things. Geniuses tend to be a bit eccentric at times. He went to Antarctica on vacation. It had absolutely nothing to do with meteorites. He explored different places all his life. It all had nothing to do with Apollo. In fact, he was getting away from Apollo when he went to Antarctica...

Well, hello to all the usual faces, and the new ones as well! I thought the moon hoax had dried up on this forum, as it appears to be doing elsewhere.

Just want to pull the otherwise very reliable MID up on an issue with the Von Braun Antarctic excursion. I have in my possession an article from the May 1967 issue of Popular Science entitled "A Spaceman's Look at Antarctica". It details where Von Braun went, why he went, and what he got up to. When I get time I'll scan it, upload it somewhere and post a link to it.

Von Braun wasn't there specifically on holiday, he went with Dr Robert R Gilruth (Director of the Manned Spacecraft Centre in Houston), Dr Maxime Faget (Director of Engineering and Development), and Ernst Stuhlinger (head of the Research Project Lab at the Marshall Spaceflight Centre).

The reason they went?

"Seeking lessons for lunar and planetary missions".

"...to see what we could learn for our space program from man's activities at his last real frontier on earth".

Among other things, they visited 5 or 6 stations (US and New Zealand), used various modes of transport, visited dry valleys to see if they could be useful for trialling equipment for a possible Mars expedition.

Makes one wonder, if the hoax proponents are to be believed, why did NASA's leading rocket expert (Von Braun), an aviation and space pioneer (Gilruth), the designer of the Mercury capsule (Faget), and an electrical and rocket scientist (Stuhlinger) go to Antarctica, to hunt for lunar meteorites, which weren't even known to exist until 1982 (the first ones were found in 1979 but not identified as being of lunar origin until later). Even from a conspiracy point of view, this simply makes no sense.

Firstly, "NASA" went to Antarctica to hunt for lunar meteorites in 1967 that the entire world's geological community wouldn't know existed until 1982.

Secondly, instead of sending someone with a geology background, they sent four people crucial to the technical success of the Apollo hardware itself.

Thirdly, these four "rocket scientists" (loose term) managed to retrieve nearly ten times more lunar material in one week, than has since been found anywhere on earth.

Fourthly, the fact that the meteorites have various important differences to rocks found in situ on the moon has to somehow be explained away.

Yet again, it's another "hoax myth" that unravels itself the closer it's inspected.

Edited by postbaguk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unlimited
I'm sorry I have to laugh at the "educate yourself on the subject". Did you not know that my good friend MID was labelled THE master NASA disinformationist by our friends from the past ;)

MID excels at disinformation on any board..........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.