[Merged] Did we land on the moon?

[Frank Merton]

Do I get this right? There was no mention of the stars and so it was a hoax? Does any know what non sequitur means?

[turbonium]

Do I get this right? There was no mention of the stars and so it was a hoax? Does any know what non sequitur means?

It's not proof of a hoax, as I said, but there is no other logical, rational explanation for it. Solid evidence of a hoax exists, which confirms the logic is valid.

[DONTEATUS]

I hear you Frank M. this is such a waist of time trying to help Turboman understand !

[skyeagle409]

What did a nameless shuttle astronaut say about stars??

Just goes to show that you have not been paying attention.

And these quotes destroy your argument...

"Seeing the bright blue sky turning pitch-black and seeing stars appear while it is daytime is absolutely mind-blowing." - Mike Melvill, Spaceship One pilot.

http://www.iol.co.za...e-trip-1.237528

That doesn't disprove it. Check it out.

Science fiction shows make people think that once you are in space, stars are bright enough to be seen through a window in a well-lit room. This simply is not true. The astronauts on the lunar surface didn't see stars as it was daylight and the Sun on the lunar surface was simply too bright for their eyes or cameras. In fact, their helmets had "sunglasses-like" darkening, as the Moon gets more sunlight than any desert on Earth.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Can_astronauts_see_stars_in_space

So once again, you have no case.

[skyeagle409]

It's not proof of a hoax, as I said, but there is no other logical, rational explanation for it. Solid evidence of a hoax exists, which confirms the logic is valid.

How amusing! Goes to show that you know nothing about science. Especially since a number of countries, facts and evidence have already proven beyond any doubt that men landed on the moon.

Check it out.

The astronauts were on the Moon in bright sunlight and the lunar surface itself reflects light. So do things like the astronauts' white suits and the gold foil on the Lunar Module. Therefore, the camera settings were for a brightly-lit area and so the stars were too faint to show up. That's why you see a black sky and no stars in pictures from the Moon landings (there were six, by the way, not just one). If you look at photographs from other space missions showing sunlit objects in space, you won't see stars there either.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100114150355AAhgJm1

So once again, you have been proven wrong.

Edited February 11, 2013 by skyeagle409

[turbonium]

Just goes to show that you have not been paying attention.

That doesn't disprove it. Check it out.

Science fiction shows make people think that once you are in space, stars are bright enough to be seen through a window in a well-lit room. This simply is not true. The astronauts on the lunar surface didn't see stars as it was daylight and the Sun on the lunar surface was simply too bright for their eyes or cameras. In fact, their helmets had "sunglasses-like" darkening, as the Moon gets more sunlight than any desert on Earth.

So once again, you have no case.

Umm,,so who is "not..paying attention"??!!

Your quote refers to viewing from the sunlit lunar surface!! Look at the quotes I cited. Do you think they're referring to the lunar surface ?? No. Do you see why your comparison is nonsense?

[turbonium]

How amusing! Goes to show that you know nothing about science. Especially since a number of countries, facts and evidence have already proven beyond any doubt that men landed on the moon.

Check it out.

The astronauts were on the Moon in bright sunlight and the lunar surface itself reflects light. So do things like the astronauts' white suits and the gold foil on the Lunar Module. Therefore, the camera settings were for a brightly-lit area and so the stars were too faint to show up. That's why you see a black sky and no stars in pictures from the Moon landings (there were six, by the way, not just one). If you look at photographs from other space missions showing sunlit objects in space, you won't see stars there either

So once again, you have been proven wrong.

No, only your failure to grasp basic points has been proven once again.

What do photos have to do with my point? Nothing.

Have you grasped anything I've said here?

[skyeagle409]

Umm,,so who is "not..paying attention"??!!

You are not paying attention. Time and again, you have been proven wrong.

[skyeagle409]

No, only your failure to grasp basic points has been proven once again.

Once again, you have been shown that you are not in tuned with the facts.

What do photos have to do with my point? Nothing.

On the contrary, they proved the Apollo moon missions were not hoaxed.

[psyche101]

Umm,,so who is "not..paying attention"??!!

Your quote refers to viewing from the sunlit lunar surface!! Look at the quotes I cited. Do you think they're referring to the lunar surface ?? No. Do you see why your comparison is nonsense?

What seems to be nonsense is that you are comparing a sub orbital flight with a view from the moon. I thought you said to Sky that you were talking about the flight to the moon and back, as such, Sky's information seems to be much more relevant to the question at hand. A view from the surface of the moon, daylight or not is more relevant to the subject than the view from just over 100k's up. The comparison seems to favour Sky where seeing stars in space is concerned.

[DONTEATUS]

ITs really mind bending in here ! At least I have my thoughts of Mid to fall back upon ! He was the Best !

[turbonium]

What seems to be nonsense is that you are comparing a sub orbital flight with a view from the moon. I thought you said to Sky that you were talking about the flight to the moon and back, as such, Sky's information seems to be much more relevant to the question at hand. A view from the surface of the moon, daylight or not is more relevant to the subject than the view from just over 100k's up. The comparison seems to favour Sky where seeing stars in space is concerned.

A view of stars () from the lunar surface is not relevant to my point. It has absolutely nothing to do with my comparison. So drop it already.

Again, people can see 'amazing' stars while in space....

Seeing the bright blue sky turning pitch-black and seeing stars appear while it is daytime is absolutely mind-blowing." - Mike Melvill, Spaceship One pilot.

http://www.iol.co.za...e-trip-1.237528

"The coolest thing for me is the experience of floating around, not feeling my weight, and hanging by a window just after sunset and WATCH THE STARS in the big black dome of the sky as the Earth moves underneath. I somehow try to find 10-15 minutes every day to do that. I think most mornings I try to continue to postpone my meals so I can do that. It's kind of fun because I have to watch where the food is going because my eyes are really glued to the outside, It is just absolutely amazing, magical, wonderful feeling to do that." - Kalpana Chawla, (on Columbia's fatal mission).

Apollo is being compared while in LEO, and while en route to the moon, and during its return to Earth NOT FROM THE LUNAR SURFACE!!

Apollo astronauts didn't mention the stars at all. This is simply impossible - if they had actually flown to the moon it would have been mentioned repeatedly. There were (supposedly) nine flights to the moon, but not even one reported the incredible stars?? Not a chance.

It's a huge red flag - it signals a hoax.

Edited February 16, 2013 by turbonium

[Obviousman]

Wrong as usual.

Apollo 8

000:47:38 Lovell (onboard): I've got the P52 realign. You might kind of doublecheck me on it; maybe - I'm here and I'm going to turn down the floodlights and get - get my eye adapted here, because I don't see schmatz out there right now.

*

*

*

000:50:14 Lovell (onboard): Well, are we dark or light out there?

000:50:17 Borman (onboard): Well, you ought to be able to get it even in light. It's getting dark now.

000:50:20 Lovell (onboard): Okay. Well, I want to make sure we got a good one.

000:50:22 Lovell (onboard): Okay, Verb 37, Enter; 52, Enter. You want a REFSMMAT option?

[Jim is having a dialogue with the computer. Verb 37 - Change to the following program, then he keys in 52 to begin executing program 52. He then mentions that he wants to use the REFSMMAT option in this program. This extraordinary acronym refers to the simple idea of a reference orientation which can be well defined and used by the crew in their platform alignments. Jim is using the precise orientation of the launch site at Kennedy Space Center at the time of launch as the reference to which the platform is aligned. Jim's realignment will return the slowly drifting platform to the orientation it had at launch. Note that the actual launch site no longer matches this REFSMMAT. The turning Earth has rotated it away from it.]

000:50:32 Lovell (onboard): Verb 22, Enter; 3, Enter...

[Verb 22 lets Jim enter a number into one of the computer's registers; in this case, entering 3 selects option 3, the REFSMMAT option in the program.]

000:50:38 Anders (onboard): There's a couple of nice stars out here.

000:50:40 Lovell (onboard): ...Enter. Okay. All set, gentlemen?

000:50:44 Borman (onboard): Yes.

000:50:46 Anders (onboard): Hey, there's a bunch of stuff flying off this thing.

000:50:47 Lovell (onboard): I know; that's what I was afraid of.

000:50:50 Anders (onboard): Real bright - I wonder why they're so bright?

000:50:52 Borman (onboard): The Sun's shining.

000:50:54 Anders (onboard): Are we - We're boiling?

000:50:55 Borman (onboard): Is the sun shining, really?

000:50:56 Borman (onboard): Yes, look here, I got sun in it.

000:50:58 Anders (onboard): Oh Christ [laughter], I thought it was night time over here!

000:51:01 Anders (onboard): I can see a lot of stars over on this side.

000:51:06 Borman (onboard): What are you doing, Jim?

000:51:07 Lovell (onboard): Well, I'm getting the optics adjusted here.

000:51:09 Borman (onboard): Yes, they make you...

000:51:10 Lovell (onboard): Okay, 06; 06 is what? 06 is Acamar. Worst star in the world for me to look at! Oh, I'm getting more stars now.

[Jim is at the stage where he selects the stars he will use for the realignment. The first he has to use is number 6, Acamar or Theta Eridanus. At about magnitude 3, it's not the brightest star he could be given as his first.]

000:51:22 Lovell (onboard): Okay, here we go, gentlemen.

000:51:24 Anders (onboard): You got a real bright star...

000:51:26 Lovell (onboard): Zero off, right?

000:51:27 Borman (onboard): Yes.

000:51:28 Anders (onboard): Real bright star - star like...

000:51:30 Lovell (onboard): Zero off.

000:51:31 Borman (onboard): CMC; Optic mode should be CMC.

000:51:34 Lovell (onboard): CMC? Oh, to C, huh?

000:51:49 Lovell (onboard): Holy cow!

000:51:50 Borman (onboard): Any luck?

000:51:57 Lovell (onboard): Well, it stopped by a star. The star's out, but I don't know what it is, though.

*

*

*

009:19:09 Lovell: Also, I've been occasionally looking out to see if I could see stars at various Sun angles, and at this particular attitude, it's very difficult. In the scanning telescope the Sun is very bright and the Earth is very bright, And if I looked at the Earth and try to look for stars, I lose my dark adaptation very quickly.

*

*

*

013:32:42 Lovell: In the beginning, the operation with the S-IVB precluded immediate starting up of our sightings as we had scheduled since we had another evasive maneuver. The dumping of [propellant from] the S-IVB caused a tremendous amount of - of pseudo-stars in the area which made an optics calibration practically impossible. The method which we had worked out did not seem to work too well. The method which I finally used was to go into <a href="http://history.nasa.gov/ap08fj/03day1_green_sep.htm#p23" target="new">P23, go to Sirius, which was our brightest star, get the shaft and trunnion, and then fly the spacecraft up to Sirius to use that for the optics cal, which we did at a later time. With regards to light scatter, it appears that at almost any attitude during our Passive Thermal Control, we are receiving light scattering in the scanning telescope. It takes the form mostly of a wide band of light right across the center of the scope about 10 degrees either direction of zero. It is very difficult to see stars in this area. The realignments have been good. I have been able to pick up the star in the sextant to do the alignment, but I was not able to identify the star which we used in such cases as Regor or Menkent in the scanning telescope. The first star sighting which I took of the Earth showed a very indistinct horizon. But there did appear to be a very - or somewhat sharp line between what appeared to be the Earth's horizon and the atmosphere. The landmark line-of-sight filter appeared to help out this horizon definition. There is a very hazy and indistinct horizon through - between the space and the top of the atmosphere itself, and this is a very difficult one to use. As I said before, at times, looking at the Moon with the Sun in the near vicinity, the area around the Moon, the space around the Moon is not dark, but is a light - appears as a light blue. And this is also the same case as looking into the sextant during alignments with the star - with the Sun in somewhat [the] vicinity of the optics. However, I have no difficulty in finding these stars in the sextant. I also had no difficulty in spotting the stars I used, such as Sirius, Procyon, or Canopus against the Earth during our star-horizon measurements. I can see all three of those stars against the Earth background. I believe it will be very difficult to do a backup GDC alignment using the north set stars, since Navi is not too bright of a star. I was able to spot star constellations in the scanning telescope if they were very bright and well known, such as Cetus and Orion; stars of this nature. I was not able to perceive other constellations. That's about the only comments I have at this time. Over.

Apollo 9

000:35:30 Roosa: Hello, Apollo 9. This is Houston. Do you read? [Comm break.]

000:35:37 Schweickart (onboard): Hey, I can see it. I can see the stars now.

000:35:40 Scott (onboard): Shoot, I got Orion.

000:35:42 Schweickart (onboard): Still daylight, Jim?

000:35:43 McDivitt (onboard): Heck, yes. I can see a star. How do you like that?

*

*

*

004:09:02 Schweickart (onboard): There it is. I'm going to take the pictures.

004:09:04 Scott (onboard): Okay. No, you can't see it through here, Rusty, yet. Just wait.

004:09:11 Schweickart (onboard): Oh, beautiful, beautiful. Look at all those white stars!

004:09:20 Scott (onboard): Okay, now you can get one, Rusty.

004:09:22 Schweickart (onboard): Got it; it's going.

*

*

*

006:57:39 McDivitt (onboard): -- yaw. But really yaw is turning into pitch now, so -

006:57:43 Schweickart (onboard): Boy, are those stars bright out there.

006:57:50 Scott (onboard): The old Southern Cross. Hey, wonder if I can see the Magellanic Clouds?

006:57:58 Schweickart (onboard): We'll look some other night.

006:57:59 McDivitt (onboard): Yes, that's what I was thinking.

*

*

*

007:05:05 Scott (onboard): Yes. Boy, now, it's just - it's really zapping right off of the quadrant. Man, oh man!

007:05:19 Scott (onboard): Okay, the daylight star check, started out about 10 seconds prior to the official sunrise, and counted through to about 19 stars, the last few of which were in the Big Dipper - Well, the Big Dipper is the last one to remain visible starting from the upper right quadrant, going counterclockwise. When the sun came up, it filled the inside of the quad, and one of the jets on the LM quad that sticks down, the one that points to about - it's like about minus X. And as soon as that filled up with light, it washed out everything but a couple or three stars and the Big Dipper.

007:06:08 Schweickart (onboard): You can still see some, Dave?

007:06:09 Scott (onboard): Yes, I can still see a few stars, and right now it's how late, Rusty?

007:06:15 Schweickart (onboard): It's 06:15.

007:06:19 Scott (onboard): 06:15.

007:06:20 Schweickart (onboard): 07:06:15.

007:06:21 Scott (onboard): 07:06:15. I can still see a couple of stars, and the Big Dipper.

007:06:25 Schweickart (onboard): Great.

Apollo 10

023:32:21 Duke: 10, EECOMM's just corrected me. It looks like we'll have to do the dump once a day. We scheduled it a this time as close to midcourse as possible and yet still allow you, we hope, to clear it away so you can do the P52.

023:32:40 Young: Yes. There's a lot of stars out there right now.

023:32:42 Duke: Yes. I'll bet.

*

*

*

024:53:32 Duke: Say again, John. You were cut out.

024:53:36 Young: It's got to do with the way the sunshine is shining on the Earth, how much light is getting scattered back in the telescope, and how much is coming in off the LM. It's really - It's really blanking out all the stars.

024:53:51 Duke: Roger. Stand by.

*

*

*

026:06:09 Duke: Go ahead, 10.

026:06:12 Stafford: Okay. I can see the stars real great out my side window. I've got Sirius out my, side window, but even out through the rendezvous window - I can look up there - and I've got Orion and Rigel, there.

026:06:23 Duke: Roger. Boy, old Snoop really - when he's - the Sun's on the side. We really must block it all out.

026:06:31 Stafford: Yes. And I've got the Moon right up above the X-axis, now. It's a beautiful sight.

026:06:35 Duke: Roger. We envy you.

Apollo 11

071:59:20 Armstrong: Houston, it's been a real change for us. Now we're able to see stars again and recognize constellations for the first time on the trip. It's - the sky is full of stars. Just like the night side of Earth. But all the way here, we've only been able to see stars occasionally and perhaps through the monocular, but not recognize any star patterns.

071:59:52 McCandless: I guess it's turned into night up there really, hasn't it?

071:59:58 Armstrong: Really has.

etc, etc, etc. Still, I doubt this will bother Turbs; they have never let facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory.

[skyeagle409]

Wrong as usual.

Apollo 8

Apollo 9

Apollo 10

Apollo 11

etc, etc, etc. Still, I doubt this will bother Turbs; they have never let facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory.

Turbonium, just don't get it! And, he's broadcasting how wrong he is. His claims have been proven wrong, incorrect, not right, and everything else that is not correct, and he's proving it posting his flawed messages to everybody! He has failed to understand the significance of other nations and individuals confirming the reality of the Apollo moon missions.

Wouldn't it be something if it was later determined that Turbonium is actually an Apollo moon mission believer who is just here to have some fun and nothing else?

[monk 56]

Hi Skyeagle 409,

Hell i can't believe this stupid thread still exists!

Okay i look for pagan stuff throughout history and do a good job at it, but it is confusing so i don't make a judgement, who can with religion? I may be a sucker for my Greek Myths but i'm a serious astronomer, all this moon stuff winds me up, i and other astronomers have for 40 years been bouncing off a reflector by lazer that the very early astronauts left there, this thread is crazy!!!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/jun/21/mcdonald-observatory-space-laser-funding

[Obviousman]

It's funny but I don't consider the LRRRs to be proof. Yes, they prove that we have sent machines to the Moon but they don't prove - in isolation - that we sent men to the Moon; they could have been placed there roboticly. They certainly support that we have walked on the Moon when it is teamed up with all the other evidence but by itself, no.

[monk 56]

Hi Obviousman,

Have you any idea how puny our robotics were to land on the Moon compared to today? Obviously you know about now, because you are using it, be real Asimo and artificial intelligence was science fiction 40 years ago....but i still think Asimo is cute don't you?

I like him as long as he doesn't get Arnold red eyes Ha Ha! I'll be back!

[Czero 101]

Hi Obviousman,

Have you any idea how puny our robotics were to land on the Moon compared to today? Obviously you know about now, because you are using it, be real Asimo and artificial intelligence was science fiction 40 years ago....but i still think Asimo is cute don't you?

[media=]

[/media]

I like him as long as he doesn't get Arnold red eyes Ha Ha! I'll be back!

I don't mean to speak for O-man since he is more than capable of addressing this issue on his own... however, I think you have misconstrued the intent of his post.

The presence of the LRRR's on the Moon by themselves (which is what he means by "in isolation") do not explicitly provide proof that Man was ever on the Moon.

The Russian Lunokhod rovers both had Retro-reflectors on them as well and, even though they can both be "ranged" to this day, they were still robotic rovers and were controlled.from the Earth..

So, from a conspiracy theorist standpoint, that fact means that the mere presence of the LRRR's at the Apollo sites do not by themselves provide absolute proof that Man was ever there.

They do, however, provide supporting evidence for the Apollo missions.

Cz

Edited February 17, 2013 by Czero 101

[DONTEATUS]

I hear you MONK ! I too wonder where the I.Q `s are in this thread ?

It gets quite old to think that anyone even thinks that we didnt Go to the Moon 6 Times ! Even !

[postbaguk]

The first clip has been discussed - and I'm still waiting for your "easy peasy" demonstration to support your argument.

This whole discussion is about whether Armstrong's suit could reflect bright sunlight onto a reflective surface and back into a camera from a distance of several feet. You haven't offered a shred of evidence to support your claim that this is impossible. Plenty of evidence has been presented that should at least make you think, "Uh, oh, looks like I might have dropped the ball here. I'll just concede the point and move on". Where's your evidence Turbs? Or is your opinion based on blind faith?

Second clip - are you referring to the white bag's reflection in the ladder's side, at the 1:11 mark? (Sidenote: in video clips, could you please use specific time markers (ie: 1:11), instead of percentages? Thanks.) Anyway - the clip shows a white material reflecting at close range, like we saw in the ISS clip you posted earlier on. In both cases, it not a reflection from 10-15 ft. distance away...as you claim it has in the 'boot heel' image.

I view the MPGs in a browser taht doesn't display times stamps.

Close range? It's a distance of several feet. Regardless, look at this clip.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/a15v.1200031.mpg

The reflection here is being caused by the astronaut who is out of frame! He takes his time to bounce back toward the ladder, and we can see the reflection long before he comes into frame, which is still at a distance of several (5? 6?) feet.

However, only with an Apollo spacesuit (genuine replica), could we ever settle this issue, so....

It's a non-issue. You can't offer any evidence to support your bare-faced assertion.

Shall we agree to disagree on this matter, and move onward?

We have little choice but to agree to disagree, since you can't offer up a shred of evidence other than your own faith-based belief, and you refuse to accept evidence that is contrary to your pre-conceived notions.

[ali smack]

You wonder how and why anyone thinks we didn't go.

Yet loads of people believe in the conspiracy.

I get sick of people calling me an idiot because i don't believe in the conspriacy

[turbonium]

Wrong as usual.

Apollo 8

Apollo 9

Apollo 10

Apollo 11

etc, etc, etc. Still, I doubt this will bother Turbs; they have never let facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory.

Seems you missed my point, so I'll try and clarify it for you...

Do you know what a 'modifier' is?

A word, phrase, or clause that functions as an adjective or adverb to limit or qualify the meaning of another word or word group (called the head).

http://grammar.about.com/od/mo/g/modterm.htm

So when I say things like 'the amazing stars', I'm using a modifier to qualify the meaning of 'stars'.

To see the stars in utter amazement and awe. As something you will never forget. That's what I mean. .

I assumed this was known, so I often said 'stars' without adding the qualifier. Sorry for any confusion I may have caused on this matter.

.

Your Apollo quotes...

There's a couple of nice stars out here.

I can see a lot of stars over on this side.

Oh, I'm getting more stars now.

You got a real bright star

Real bright star

I can see the stars now.

Oh, beautiful, beautiful. Look at all those white stars!

Boy, are those stars bright out there.

There's a lot of stars out there right now.

I can see the stars real great out my side window.

Now we're able to see stars again and recognize constellations for the first time on the trip. It's - the sky is full of stars

These Apollo quotes are nothing like the quotes I've cited.

One says "beautiful", and that's about it.

It should have been an overwhelming experience, but it's clearly not.

Do you get my point now?

[skyeagle409]

Seems you missed my point, so I'll try and clarify it for you...

Do you know what a 'modifier' is?

A word, phrase, or clause that functions as an adjective or adverb to limit or qualify the meaning of another word or word group (called the head).

http://grammar.about...o/g/modterm.htm

Do you get my point now?

Face the facts" you have been proven wrong time and again!

Edited February 17, 2013 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

You wonder how and why anyone thinks we didn't go.

Yet loads of people believe in the conspiracy.

I get sick of people calling me an idiot because i don't believe in the conspriacy

There are those who love conspiracist and will pull almost anything out of thin air to create one. Here's another example.

Meteor Sparks Rumors, Conspiracy Theories in Russia

The meteor that tore across the skies over Russia's Chelyabinsk region early Friday led some suspicious Russians to conclude that it was a stealth military attack by either the U.S. or China, while others believed the end of the world was nigh, according to published reports.

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/15/16977509-meteor-sparks-rumors-conspiracy-theories-in-russia?lite

Claims of the moon hoax folks have been proven incorrect.

[monk 56]

Hi Czoro101,

Lunokhod 1 landed on the Moon 17 Nov 1970 but because USSR or Russia lost it's location, they didn't get anything from it from 1971 to 2010 in regards to a laser reflector, please scroll down link to "Retroreflectors on the Moon":-

http://en.wikipedia..../Retroreflector

However Apollo 11 put the first retroreflector on the Moon on 20th July 1969, although other Apollo missions put others there, the original still works, and worked before Lunokhod 1.

http://news.bbc.co.u...tech/399468.stm

The Space Race was very important to USSR at that time, and lost face by not being the first to have a manned landing on the Moon:-

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Space_Race

I will say they were clever for that time with Moon robots, probably in advance of USA, who were only concentrating on manned trips to the Moon, but most would laugh if you say that USSR and USA worked together, USSR would have loved it if they thought USA didn't have a manned flight to the Moon and would have told everyone!

http://en.wikipedia....ging_experiment

Obviously during this period USA didn't have any plans for robots on the Moon, don't confuse with satallite, it was all manned, indeed your cell phone today has probably a better computer than what Apollo 11 had:-

http://downloadsquad...lo-11-computer/

Edited February 17, 2013 by monk 56