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

Lilly
I find it amazing that someone that believes that NASA is hiding the technology to cross interstellar space can not see the contradiction in believing that NASA has not got the technology to go to the Moon.

Indeed, just a teeny bit contradictory (to say the least).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
flyingswan
I bet noone makes it to the moon in your lifetime though

Twelve men have already walked on the moon in my lifetime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AtomicDog
good luck with the NASA agenda...peace

Since the NASA agenda is the human exploration of space, I'm sure that NASA appreciates your wishing them good fortune in their endeavors. On their behalf, I accept your wishes of good fortune.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rusich
Are you saying that it is impossible for a Russian to be called Molotov? Wasn't there a prominent Russian politican with just that name?

Yes, in the Stalin's government was a foreign secretary of Molotov. This name well known all foreigner. I 15 years a work with names of people. Each workday I reads 10 - 20 names of new clients. I can not recall that I saw such surname for these 15 years. This rare name. But this not it is important. It is Important contents of this article.

It may be the language problem, but I am having great difficulty understanding your arguments. Why can't you track Apollo? Didn't the Russians track their own lunar spacecraft? While communications are not my speciality, I am an engineer and the details of the tracking system made sense to me.

Molotov speaks that they took talks of astronauts with the Land and telemetry. But it does not speak be able they decode telemetry. But telemetry of more important talks of astronauts. Actions of space shuttle are reflected in telemetries. Decoded telemetry possible to compare to information walking from astronauts. But about this not said nor what.

But said that diameter of ray antenna was equal to half a disk of the Moon. So they could not say that does an Apollo beside Moons. They could say that something sends signals from the Moon. And so much for!

Speak of television picture now. This simply funny cartoon! We its have named a picture - ultrasonic study of pregnant woman. This collapse our observing of Apollo.

Hereon speaks that he saw a debarkation of americana on the Moon can only foolish man.

But we got a scene with our Lunohod. That is got, signal of TV from the Apollo was more weak than from our Lunohod?

Choose that you more like.

In any event we were not witnesses of debarkation of americana on the Moon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
flyingswan
Molotov speaks that they took talks of astronauts with the Land and telemetry. But it does not speak be able they decode telemetry. But telemetry of more important talks of astronauts. Actions of space shuttle are reflected in telemetries. Decoded telemetry possible to compare to information walking from astronauts. But about this not said nor what.

But said that diameter of ray antenna was equal to half a disk of the Moon. So they could not say that does an Apollo beside Moons. They could say that something sends signals from the Moon. And so much for!

Speak of television picture now. This simply funny cartoon! We its have named a picture - ultrasonic study of pregnant woman. This collapse our observing of Apollo.

Hereon speaks that he saw a debarkation of americana on the Moon can only foolish man.

But we got a scene with our Lunohod. That is got, signal of TV from the Apollo was more weak than from our Lunohod?

Choose that you more like.

In any event we were not witnesses of debarkation of americana on the Moon.

I'm still having difficulty following your arguments. What is so difficult about separating the audio signal - the astronauts voices - from the rest of the signal? Amateur trackers in the west have been doing that with Russian transmissions for decades - try googling on "Kettering Group" for more details. One member of that group picked up Apollo voice transmissions from the moon with a much smaller antenna dish that the one Molotov used.

With an antenna that can only see an area half the size of the moon, it will be easily observed if what you are tracking is in lunar orbit or on the surface. In one case you will have to keep scanning the antenna across the lunar disc, in the other you keep pointing it at the same part of the moon. In addition for the orbiting case, there's doppler shift and loss of signal when eclipsed by the moon.

I agree that the TV picture shown in the article is of poor quality, but TV requires a much better signal strength than audio, and the Apollo TV system had some unusual technical features that Molotov's system may not have been compatible with. As I recall, Lunokhod had a slower frame rate/lower bandwidth than Apollo, which would give a better picture quailty for a given signal strength.

Edited by flyingswan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MID
your right I had no business commenting here....I bet noone makes it to the moon in your lifetime though...good luck with the NASA agenda...peace

limited,

If your age is correct on your profile, you might want to consider, as flyingswan said, that 12 men have walked on the Moon in your lifetime.

Further 24 different men have been there, three of them twice...and all of them did so in your lifetime.

This of course happened between the time you were 7 and 10, but that would be old enough to have at least remembered the events, for most people, I should think.

Im just fascinated that if people did go to the moon.. then why not go back for 38 years?.

It was just 2 pages ago where this was explained, and it's been covered at length in other sections.

no i dont understand physics....I understand logic though..

This statement is rather contradictory.

You say you do not understand physics, yet you say you understand logic.

Do you realize that the two things are not mutually exclusive?

If you actually understood logic, it would not be possible for you to make a statement like this:

...honestly I dont know if we made it to the moon or not

Logic, combined with the astounding amount of information, and verification available, would lead you to the logical conclusion that this could not have but happened.

What is true is that you don't understand physics (as evidenced by this continual reference to the van Allen belts as an impossible obstacle), nor, by extension, much about space flight. In order to discuss Apollo from a position of some cohesiveness, a rudimentary understanding of these things is necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rusich
I don't see that any of this refutes my argument. You were bending the statistics and the true ones don't support your original position.

I am distorts statistics? So you will satisfy?

"Pioneer": 100% - bad;

"Ranger": 67% - bad; 33% - well;

"Lunar Orbit": 100% - well;

"Surveyor": 29% - bad; 71% - well

You are a future engineer? You are a vigilant elf, protecting value of West from goblin's attacks from the Orient(ha-ha-ha, we too look "The Lord of the rings").

Well, you are engineer, then answer for me. That speaks a sequence of these numerals for you?

Now I am an engineer, and I understand what is difficult to do and what isn't, so you will have to do better than this. Why is lift-off so difficult? Didn't the unmanned Russian Luna probes return from the moon with no problems, though several of them had problems getting there.

Landing on Moon is simply either as ride the bicycle. How to learn to ride a bicycle? Go to burn-in common-room, sit on the bicycle's simulator and turn a treadles. After ten trainings, you can do a cross-country bicycle-race (ha-ha-ha!). Previously you buy a medical insurance, but better place on the graveyard(ho-ho-ho!).

Our devices for delivery of soil of the Moon:

14.06.1969 Luna? - damage

13.07.1969 Luna15 - damade

12.09.1970 Luna16 - well

02.09.1971 Luna18 - damade

14.02.1972 Luna20 - well

28.10.1974 Luna23 - damade

16.10.1975 Luna? - damade

09.08.1976 Luna24 - well

-------------------------------------------

Total: 63% - bad; 37%- well

It is small problem?

The Shuttle never killed anyone until it had flown a lot more missions that Apollo did.

But Shatll is not landing on the Moon!

And you still haven't said what substance could plausibly be present and a danger.

Dust presents a greater danger for health itself. Presently in seal have appeared reporting that discovered polonium in the Moon soil.

Moon rocks have been described in peer-reviewed scientific papers. Try doing a bit of research instead of making these unfounded accusations. The Lunar Science Conferences are a good starting point.

I say to you about 380 kg soil of the Moon. You may present 380 kg of Moon soil instead of the paper? You may present whole Moonstones instead of the paper? Expert operation on the subject of authenticity of your Moon soil nobody did not conduct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Waspie_Dwarf
I say to you about 380 kg soil of the Moon. You may present 380 kg of Moon soil instead of the paper? You may present whole Moonstones instead of the paper? Expert operation on the subject of authenticity of your Moon soil nobody did not conduct.

Rusich, you are playing he oldest game in the hoax believers book. You know full well that the evidence proves you wrong so you just claim the evidence is a lie. If you do the research that has been suggested you will find that this "Moon soil" and Moon stone" you claim exists only on paper has been studied by experts from all around the world.

You have not given a single piece of evidence to support you own point of view it is time you started doing this as simply. Saying "you are wrong" to every point that proves you wrong does nothing to support your case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MUM24/7
Bone density issues only become a problem on missions lasting several months. Russian Cosmonauts have been able to walk within 24 hours of long duration missions lasting up to 400 days.

Sorry Waspie but this statement sounds contradictory to me...... :hmm:

First you state that bone density issues become a problem on missions lasting several months, then you say that the Russians were able to walk within 24 hours of missions lasting over a year......By stating this, you suggest that they didn't experience bone density problems......

So which one is it ?? Do Cosmonauts/Astronauts suffer from this problem or not ?? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Waspie_Dwarf
Sorry Waspie but this statement sounds contradictory to me...... :hmm:

First you state that bone density issues become a problem on missions lasting several months, then you say that the Russians were able to walk within 24 hours of missions lasting over a year......By stating this, you suggest that they didn't experience bone density problems......

So which one is it ?? Do Cosmonauts/Astronauts suffer from this problem or not ?? :)

A little bit of thought will show that there is nothing contradictory at all in that statement. Many older people suffer from osteoporosis but are still capable of walking, so where is the contradiction?

As was perfectly clear from my post I was answering this claim:

I recently started to question the authenticity of the moon landing. My biggest reason is due to the loss of bone density/muscle tissue all astronauts suffer after just a few days in space. The Russians sent people up and after 5 days they had lost so much bone density and muscle that they couldn't even walk, sit up etc.

and demonstrating it was wrong on both counts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MID
'Rusich' date='Apr 10 2007, 10:53 PM' post='1623073']

I am distorts statistics? So you will satisfy?

"Pioneer": 100% - bad;

"Ranger": 67% - bad; 33% - well;

"Lunar Orbit": 100% - well;

"Surveyor": 29% - bad; 71% - well

Concerning Ranger, Surveyor, and Lunar orbiter, you are correct.

Concerning Pioneer, you are incorrect:

Pioneer sucessfully executed 10 of its 20 mission, for a 50% success rate.

That averages 64% sucessful.

Our devices for delivery of soil of the Moon:

14.06.1969 Luna? - damage

13.07.1969 Luna15 - damade

12.09.1970 Luna16 - well

02.09.1971 Luna18 - damade

14.02.1972 Luna20 - well

28.10.1974 Luna23 - damade

16.10.1975 Luna? - damade

09.08.1976 Luna24 - well

-------------------------------------------

Total: 63% - bad; 37%- well

It is small problem?

This was a little more than a small problem for the Soviets.

Only about half as sucessful as the U.S. efforts...

An examination of the history of the Soviet manned space program will similarly reveal a large number of failures, some catastrophic.

The Soviets did place the first man into orbit around the Earth, but they also had the following firsts:

First man to die in a ground test.

First man to die in space.

...and the second, third, and fourth men to die in space.

First to kill lots of ground personnel in disasters.

First to destroy an entire launch complex in a catastrophic explosion.

First to fail to develop lift capacity required for a lunar landing mission.

Flying to the Moon was difficult.

The statistics clearly show that the U.S., despite the difficulty inherent in the task, had an easier time of it than the Soviets did. They suceeded, the Soviets did not.

Your data shows a pattern...

U.S. manned lunar landing flights:

Apollo 11-Well

Apollo 12-Well

Apollo 13- Damage

Apollo 14-Well

Apollo 15-Well

Apollo 16-Well

Apollo 17-Well

_________________

Total: 86% well, 14% bad.

It was alot more than a "small problem".

We just did it better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
flyingswan
You are a future engineer? You are a vigilant elf, protecting value of West from goblin's attacks from the Orient(ha-ha-ha, we too look "The Lord of the rings").

Well, you are engineer, then answer for me. That speaks a sequence of these numerals for you?

Landing on Moon is simply either as ride the bicycle. How to learn to ride a bicycle? Go to burn-in common-room, sit on the bicycle's simulator and turn a treadles. After ten trainings, you can do a cross-country bicycle-race (ha-ha-ha!). Previously you buy a medical insurance, but better place on the graveyard(ho-ho-ho!).

Our devices for delivery of soil of the Moon:

14.06.1969 Luna? - damage

13.07.1969 Luna15 - damade

12.09.1970 Luna16 - well

02.09.1971 Luna18 - damade

14.02.1972 Luna20 - well

28.10.1974 Luna23 - damade

16.10.1975 Luna? - damade

09.08.1976 Luna24 - well

-------------------------------------------

Total: 63% - bad; 37%- well

You said that taking off from the moon was the difficult bit.

All three Russian lunar take-offs were successful, Lunas 16, 20 and 24. That's 100%.

Now your argument has collapsed, you switch and say that landing is the difficult bit.

As to your statistics of landing attempts, two of the missions in your list failed during launch from earth, so are hardly relevant to moon landing. Has it occured to you that landing might be easier with a human pilot in control?

MID has already told you about the flying simulators.

Perhaps you could also explain why landing the LM on the moon is so much more difficult than landing a Harrier or a helicopter?

Incidentally, what are your comments on Chertok and Kamanin?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
flyingswan
Dust presents a greater danger for health itself. Presently in seal have appeared reporting that discovered polonium in the Moon soil.

People breath dust all the time.

You know perfectly well that the presence of polonium means nothing unless you specify in what quantities. Is your recent polonium discovery anything like this 1973 Apollo one?

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1973Sci...180..957B

You have yet to present any case for a prior indication of a hazard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MID
Perhaps you could also explain why landing the LM on the moon is so much more difficult than landing a Harrier or a helicopter?

I don't think he can...

According to the men whgo flew the LM, it was quite similar (which is one of the reasons they all did lots of helicopter flying in their training regimens for the landing missions...).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MID
Sorry Waspie but this statement sounds contradictory to me...... :hmm:

First you state that bone density issues become a problem on missions lasting several months, then you say that the Russians were able to walk within 24 hours of missions lasting over a year......By stating this, you suggest that they didn't experience bone density problems......

So which one is it ?? Do Cosmonauts/Astronauts suffer from this problem or not ?? :)

There was no contradiction in Waspie's statement.

Here's the deal:

Astonauts/Cosmonauts do indeed suffer from bone density loss over prolonged periods. Studies conducted from the time of Mir through the current ISS missions, where crews typically serve six month expedition durations, show bone density loss in the vicinity of 10%, and muscle mass strength and mass decreases of upwards of 45%.

...the loss reaches an equilibrium in these ranges and doesn't progress beyond those levels significantly.

Any astronaut of Cosmonaut who spends a couple weeks in space has some degree of post-flight effect. Even during these shorter duration missions, there are effects on strength and calcium loss. However, they are not profound in any case.

Long term astronauts all suffer these effects. Muscle mass and strength are recoverable over time, and bone mass rebuilds. However, bone structure recovery is apparently a much more long-term process (in excess of a year), and of course studies still continue on these matters.

There is nothing severely debilitating about either of these conditions in the short term. Of course, an astronaut returning from 6 months in space will be sitting down alot, and won't be bench pressing 300 pounds. But getting up and walking within 24 hours of returning from a year in space simply means they got up and walked...not impossible, and probably not a brisk power-walk on the trail either!. But one can do it.

These effects, however, have little relation to our Apollo lunar landing missions. The duration was too short on any of them to produce marked effects in the astronauts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Waspie_Dwarf
Has it occured to you that landing might be easier with a human pilot in control?

Not only that but in one huge respect unmanned missions have a distict disadvantage over manned missions. When an unmanned mission suffers a technical problem that will cause the mission to fail it will fail. When a manned mission suffers a technical problem that will cause it to fail it will often be repaired by the crew and will succeed.

Apollo 11 is a prime example of a mission that would have failed had it not had a crew on board. Armstrong took over manual control and avoided a rock field which the LM was heading for. If that had been an unmanned mission it would have attempted to land in the rock field and would almost certainly been destroyed.

Only now are we beginning to develop the computer ability to make these sort of decisions but even then the human brain is still the best decission making machine we have available to us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
leadbelly

MID, I hope you realize that many appreciate the example of your time and knowledge. Also, Waspie, et al.

Though, forgive me for this revealing look at the Moon Hoax subject. If this is typical, then it confirms that not all apply themselves equally to the task of understanding science.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeLigfPQERo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rusich
I'm still having difficulty following your arguments. What is so difficult about separating the audio signal - the astronauts voices - from the rest of the signal? Amateur trackers in the west have been doing that with Russian transmissions for decades - try googling on "Kettering Group" for more details. One member of that group picked up Apollo voice transmissions from the moon with a much smaller antenna dish that the one Molotov used.

With an antenna that can only see an area half the size of the moon, it will be easily observed if what you are tracking is in lunar orbit or on the surface. In one case you will have to keep scanning the antenna across the lunar disc, in the other you keep pointing it at the same part of the moon. In addition for the orbiting case, there's doppler shift and loss of signal when eclipsed by the moon.

I agree that the TV picture shown in the article is of poor quality, but TV requires a much better signal strength than audio, and the Apollo TV system had some unusual technical features that Molotov's system may not have been compatible with. As I recall, Lunokhod had a slower frame rate/lower bandwidth than Apollo, which would give a better picture quailty for a given signal strength.

Molotov say, that they could not to decode telemetry. The Apollon's telemetry is secret for they.

They could not to receive the qualitative TV picture from Apollo.

This collapse our observing of Apollo.

Here are two variant:

- or, our engineers could not cope with problem

- or, your engineers could not make transmission of qualitative television's picture

in any event we, russian, not witnesses of your debarkation on Moon

Once again repeat, from Land it is impossible attest a debarkation of people on the Moon!

But you had a possibility to get a russian witness of your debarkation on the Moon!

This meeting your astronauts with our Lunohod on the Moon!

You are not decided on this. Why?

You do not answer my questions, this gives me a right not to answer your questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Waspie_Dwarf
This meeting your astronauts with our Lunohod on the Moon!

You are not decided on this. Why?

Because Apollo 11 landed on the moon on 20th July 1969 and Lunokhod 1 wasn't launched until 10th November 1970.

Next question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MID
MID, I hope you realize that many appreciate the example of your time and knowledge. Also, Waspie, et al.

Though, forgive me for this revealing look at the Moon Hoax subject. If this is typical, then it confirms that not all apply themselves equally to the task of understanding science.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeLigfPQERo

leadbelly:

Thank you so much for you kind comments....and especially for:

THAT LINK!

:w00t:

I think that perhaps it says what some of us have thought...but decided to restrain ourselves from saying in good company.

I especially like the exposure they give to that drunken moron, Rene...the self-educated engineeer( :blink: ... :wacko: ). That is revealing....

Perhaps no one has been more foolish than he in this whole Moon hoax affair.

Ah but alas...perhaps no one has encapsulated the entire thing as well as Penn and Teller in this little snippet. They say what some of us (I AM SURE) have wanted to say (and probably have, in select company), but of course could not say here on this board.

I have just peed myself!

Thank You.

It has been a while since I laughed so hard.

That is truly a gift!

Kindest Regards,

M~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lilly
Ah but alas...perhaps no one has encapsulated the entire thing as well as Penn and Teller in this little snippet. They say what some of us (I AM SURE) have wanted to say (and probably have, in select company), but of course could not say here on this board.

I have just peed myself!

Too bad you didn't have one of those nifty Apollo pee bags handy! :D I must agree, that was hilarious. Penn and Teller simply do not do "politically correct" very well do they?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MUM24/7
A little bit of thought will show that there is nothing contradictory at all in that statement.

Is this your polite way of saying I'm a thoughtless twit ?? ;)

Maybe you should take a leaf out of MID's book and learn to explain yourself without appearing condescending....... :hmm:

There was no contradiction in Waspie's statement.

Here's the deal:

Astonauts/Cosmonauts do indeed suffer from bone density loss over prolonged periods. Studies conducted from the time of Mir through the current ISS missions, where crews typically serve six month expedition durations, show bone density loss in the vicinity of 10%, and muscle mass strength and mass decreases of upwards of 45%.

Thank you MID for the clarification.......

You always come across well-researched and intelligent and most importantly, a true gentleman........ :yes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MID
Molotov say, that they could not to decode telemetry. The Apollon's telemetry is secret for they.

They could not to receive the qualitative TV picture from Apollo.

This collapse our observing of Apollo.

Here are two variant:

- or, our engineers could not cope with problem

- or, your engineers could not make transmission of qualitative television's picture

Or, a third variant....your government at the time DID NOT ALLOW IT'S CITIZENS TO SEE IT...which would in fact be the case.

You didn't see Apollo happen in Russia because the government of the Soviet Union didn't broadcast it...for obvious reasons. That was the 'collapse of your observing of Apollo'.

Despite the fact that Apollo was broadcast live, for everyone to see the world over, the Soviet Union didn't show anything having to do with an American space mission on Soviet television until the ASTP mission in 1975.

However, a little more than half a billion people watched it happen live. Not in the Soviet Union however. It was...an embarrasment, I should suppose.

in any event we, russian, not witnesses of your debarkation on Moon

Once again repeat, from Land it is impossible attest a debarkation of people on the Moon!

There is little doubt that you are too young to have remembered.

However...NO ONE saw us "debark" from the Moon on Apollo 11...or 12, or 14...

There was no TV coverage of that, like there was on the J Missions....but you would've been what, 9 years old in 1972?

No matter...the live broadcasts of lunar liftoff from Taurus Littrow weren't shown on Soviet TV...

Perhaps by "debarkation" you are speaking of leaving the LM for a stroll on the Moon?

If that's the case, we all got to see that too...the world over...except in the Soviet Union.

From American land...and anywhere else in the free world, it was most certainly possible to attest to debarkation from the Moon, and we saw it all happen live....not in Russia, however.

You missed a great deal...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Waspie_Dwarf
Is this your polite way of saying I'm a thoughtless twit ?? ;)

That was not my intention and I apologise if it came across that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MID
Too bad you didn't have one of those nifty Apollo pee bags handy! :D I must agree, that was hilarious. Penn and Teller simply do not do "politically correct" very well do they?

:D ...no, they don't. Gotta love 'em for that!

We called it the UTCA (Urine Transfer and Collection Assembly...gotta love it...).

It was pretty nifty...I guess....

But I sure coulda used one about an hour ago... :blush:

...on second thought, the whole FCS (another of those old Apollo acronyms...for fecal containment system) would've been a better idea!!!!!

:w00t:

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.