wu :: forums - Print Page


    
      
        wu :: forums
        (http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~wwu/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi)
      

        general >> truth >> Moon landing
        
(Message started by: BNC on Jan 11^th, 2005, 3:20am)

Title: Moon landing
Post by BNC on Jan 11^th, 2005, 3:20am

Came across this site:
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/masonapo.htm

What do you think? ;)

Title: Re: Moon landing
Post by TenaliRaman on Jan 11^th, 2005, 6:10am

I actually have a 30 minute video clip of FOX and MSNBC documentary on this very samething. I have found that the arguments made are pretty convincing.

(Note : My mention of FOX and MSNBC is not to claim credibility of the source , infact i have rather found the media to be least credible ... i might even listen to my mom who makes guesses of what is going to happen from the **family soap shows** she watches on TV).

The counter replies given by NASA were not really strong. Each one of their explanations were actually counter-argued in the video clip and that too very convincingly.

Before anyone starts to throw pots and pans at me, i will make clear that my stand on this is so far neutral. I am just lending my ear to every argument made and waiting for a proper judgement.

Anyways one may even consider this topic too old to discuss anyways.I guess it lacks the fizz it had some years ago. (Though i am amazed at the number of ppl who come to chat with the exact same question still :D )

-- AI

Title: Re: Moon landing
Post by rmsgrey on Jan 11^th, 2005, 7:23am

I thought it was very entertaining - for instance, the assertion that a closed system will naturally cool slowly (conveniently bypassing conservation of energy), or the repeated assertion that the same astronauts that are being roasted by sunlight cannot possibly cool by any means because they are surrounded by a perfect insulator, so no heat could possibly escape them... It's probably not worth mentioning that the Earth as a whole is subject to the same intensity of unfiltered solar radiation, and surrounded by the same vacuum and yet manages to maintain an average global temperature of around 15 Celsius (~60 F). Obviously it's kept cool by its natural gradual cooling...

Which raises the question of how they can tell that "anyone with a knowledge of High School Physics" can easily tell the moon landings to be fake - presumably they found someone with such knowledge and asked them, since they themselves apparently don't have such knowledge...

Maybe they should experiment with leaving a thermos full of icecream in the sun for a while, or enjoy a nice dessert of Baked Alaska - where icecream miraculously (by their physics) stays frozen despite sitting in a hot oven for a while (even hotter than their figure for the temperature of sunlight on the moon)

Title: Re: Moon landing
Post by Icarus on Jan 11^th, 2005, 8:24pm

This nonsense has dogged space flight since its inception. Just in case someone reading this doesn't remember more of their high school science than these idiots:

The writer is correct that in space the vacuum has too few molecules for cooling by heat conduction. But even though he blathers on about heat by radiation from the sun, he totally ignores that heat is carried away by radiation as well. This is the infrared radiation that infrared motion detectors are designed to sense. Everything with a temperature above absolute zero gives it off. This is why it gets colder at night: heat is radiated out into open space. In the day, heat from the sun overwhelms that lost to space, and the environment grows warmer. At night, heat lost to space overwhelms that obtained from the moon and stars, so the environment grows colder. Overall, heat gained from the sun is balanced by that lost to space, so the overall temperature of the Earth does not change much. This is why rmsgrey points out that if we didn't also have this heat loss mechanism, the Earth would of fried long ago from all the heat we gain from the sun.

Everything radiates, not just the Earth and Sun. The problem of heat is actually one of trying to keep the inflow of radiation balanced with the outflow for a temperature at which humans can live. While tricky, this is not an impossible task. Thermostats & furnaces have been doing much the same in houses all over the world for decades.

As for the supposed pressure problem. I live about 30 miles from one of the premier space museums in the world. The Cosmosphere in Hutchison, Kansas, has an extensive collection of artifacts of space flight. I have seen up-close the gloves worn by the Apollo astronauts, both outer and inner layers, and they are definitely designed to operate under pressure. And, yes, they are indeed difficult to work in. Astronauts complained (and still complain) of this all the time. They are a good match for what I have seen in these supposedly faked films. And if you ever look at the astronauts' hand actions in these films you will notice that , contrary to the flat-out lie these idiots tell, the movement is awkward and difficult.

I have also heard some of the claims of "mistakes" made in "faking" the films, and found the claims laughable. These people have no concept of how perspective works and ignore simple but inconvenient laws of physics in pursuing their mania. One example: They claim that after planting the flag on one of the missions (the first, I think, but don't remember for sure), you can see the flag wave a little in a breeze. What they so conveniently fail to mention is that it is JUST after the flag was planted. The inertial movements of the flag generated by this action had not yet died away. An analysis of the motion shows it to be entirely consistent with this explanation, and not with the idea of a breeze blowing the flag.

If these films were faked, then I must say that NASA produced some of the most extraordinary special effects, two decades or more ahead of their time. The motions of the astronauts in them are consistent with a (1/6)g gravitational field. This is far better than Hollywood could produce until realistic CGI became available in the 1990s, yet NASA supposedly did it with live actors in the late 60s and early 70s. Hollywood still can't do it with live actors today, despite spending more money these days on films than NASA did on the moon missions.

Title: Re: Moon landing
Post by Barukh on Jan 11^th, 2005, 11:43pm

I think one of the strongest arguments supporting man landing on the Moon is not technical nor technological, but political. Let's not forget about the presense of an opposite super-power then - the Soviet Union. Believe me, there were many brilliant specialists in the USSR - were all this fake, they would discover it quickly and the officials would make much noise. And this didn't happen.

But I do remember watching in the late 70s the (Hollywood?) movie Capricorn One (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077294/?fr=c2l0ZT1kZnxzZz0xfHR0PW9ufHBuPTB8cT1jYXByaWNvcm4gb25lfG14PTIwfGxtPTIwMHxodG1sPTE_;fc=1;ft=2) about the faked Mars mission.

Title: Re: Moon landing
Post by TenaliRaman on Jan 12^th, 2005, 8:04am

Hmm it was possible for them to give pretty good video transmission from space, i wonder why couldnt they develop a good video editing tool?

In this documentary that i mentioned earlier, they show a photograph where a small moving vehicle which goes around the moon is shown. This vehicle has sort of a mast. Unfortunately the cross hair of the photo goes behind this mast.
(Possible explanation : NASA tried to enhance the photo for clarity and made that blunder which is plausible)

Another objection raised was that the thrust of the engine must have produced a dent on the surface where it lands. Unfortunately , the photos dont show any such dent under the craft that landed on moon.
(Possible explanation : maybe the surface of moon isnt as soft as we might have thought)

Well they also raised speculations of double shadows (two light sources??).
(Possible Explanations : They carried a torch light with them??)

There were many such objections but i really dont recall them. Hehe, as i say it again, i am neutral on this. Just waiting for some more clear explanations. :)

-- AI

Title: Re: Moon landing
Post by THUDandBLUNDER on Jan 12^th, 2005, 9:29am

Quote:

There were many such objections but i really dont recall them.

TenaliRaman, all those objections seem to have been adequately addressed here (http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html).

Quote:

Hehe, as i say it again, i am neutral on this.

::)

Title: Re: Moon landing
Post by TenaliRaman on Jan 15^th, 2005, 11:52am

OK!! That kinda settles it!! ::)

-- AI

Title: Re: Moon landing
Post by SWF on Jan 16^th, 2005, 2:33pm

I don't know what this means, but the movie "Apollo 13" was on the Science Fiction Channel this morning.

Title: Re: Moon landing
Post by rmsgrey on Jan 17^th, 2005, 8:59am

on 01/16/05 at 14:33:06, SWF wrote:

I don't know what this means, but the movie "Apollo 13" was on the Science Fiction Channel this morning.

The UK Sci-Fi channel runs occasional documentaries - besides, things like space exploration are SF made fact - three are a number of space technologies out there, patented by the SF authors who invented them (though, famously, Arthur C Clarke neglected to patent geosynchronous communication satellites)

Title: Re: Moon landing
Post by Dina on Jun 13^th, 2005, 1:14am

I know it was faked. I saw the Appollo capsule up close. There is no way a person could have survied the dense raidiation of the Van Allen belts. The level of exposure would have been deadly within 10 min's, and yet they cruised though it for an hour. The Appollo capsule did not have the amount of shielding it would have needed. Go see it for yourself. Plus my best friends brother works for NASA, he has told us there is no way we went to the moon. We can't even get a man on there now, and we have better technology.

Title: Re: Moon landing
Post by towr on Jun 13^th, 2005, 2:27am

Ah, and I suppose there's not really anyone in the ISS either, right?

Title: Re: Moon landing
Post by THUDandBLUNDER on Jun 13^th, 2005, 10:29am

Quote:

I know it was faked. I saw the Appollo capsule up close. There is no way a person could have survied the dense raidiation of the Van Allen belts.

http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/waw/mad/mad19.html

Title: Re: Moon landing
Post by Icarus on Jun 13^th, 2005, 5:54pm

on 06/13/05 at 01:14:48, Dina wrote:

The idea that the Van Allen belt radiation is so strong that it is lethal in 10 minutes is ridiculous. The magnetic trap that forms them simply isn't strong enough to capture that many radioactive particles. T&B's link is just one place where you can find authoritative analysis of the risk, rather than credulous claims. As for seeing an Apollo capsule, I have the great good fortune to live just 30 miles from one the finest space museums in the world, the Kansas Cosmosphere in Hutchinson, Kansas. It extraordinary collection includes the Apollo 13 capsule, so I have had many opportunities to view it up close. If this was a fake, then I must say that it was an incredibly expensive, extensive, and pointless, fakery. The shear wealth of artifacts from the moon missions available here alone makes the idea of fakery unlikely. Then you have to add in the fact that, as good as it is, the Cosmosphere only contains a small fraction of the artifacts available. For all of these artifacts to have been faked would have been far beyond what was needed to accomplish any purpose supposed by conspiracy theorists such as yourself.

Quote:

Plus my best friends brother works for NASA, he has told us there is no way we went to the moon. We can't even get a man on there now, and we have better technology.

It is true that we cannot get to the moon right now. But not for lack of technological ability. Rather, it is because the tooling and expertise developed for the Saturn V booster has been lost in the 30 years since the program was discontinued. After the Apollo missions, we no longer had a need for a booster that powerful. Maintaining it without a clearly defined reason was too expensive, so the Saturn V was discontinued, and its tooling recycled for other uses. The engineers and techs who oversaw the design and building of these massive boosters have retired, and often expired, since then, taking the expertise they gained in these systems with them.

We know how to build Saturn Vs, but it would take a massive retooling effort to do so, plus some testing to relearn the quirks of the system. When the need for a booster of this power is felt again, though, we will certainly develop a new one (in fact, this has already been partially done), rather than reviving the outdated Saturn V.

Title: Re: Moon landing
Post by monster on Oct 14^th, 2005, 6:04am

They start to find the ultimative proof now at http://moonfake.icb.at

Dont know if it is just a joke... :D

Title: Re: Moon landing
Post by ima1trkpny on Jun 23^rd, 2007, 11:04pm

Well... if anyone feels like erecting a massive telescope (somewhere in the neighborhood of 200m in diameter) and figure out someway to launch it into space so as to avoid the distortion of the atmosphere you should be able to see the flaq which is 125cm long. To see the rover it would require a telescope with about a 75m diameter. Second, the suits actually have airconditioning units to keep the temperature of the interior of the suit to life sustaining ranges. The suit itself creates a closed system which is more than strong enough to maintain a pressurized system for the astronaut as well as acting as an insulator. And one other thing... if the whole program is a fake and we lack the technology, etc. how come we were able to build the space station (with the so-called fake suits)? And yes, there is proof the space station is real... in fact some nights you can see it with your bare eyes, using a telescope works even better.

Title: Re: Moon landing
Post by rmsgrey on Jun 24^th, 2007, 9:26am

on 06/23/07 at 23:04:24, ima1trkpny wrote:

You think the ISS proves anything to conspiracy theorists?

1) Unmanned satellites exist
2) Orbit is a heck of a lot easier to reach than lunar orbit, which is easier than lunar surface and return
3) Almost 40 years later, we have all sorts of shiny tech that they didn't have back then, so what we can do now doesn't prove anything...

Personally, I believe in the moon landings, but I don't expect to be able to convince a conspiracy theorist of anything...

Title: Re: Moon landing
Post by towr on Jun 24^th, 2007, 9:44am

I always thought the hardest part was getting into space. Once you're there, going to the moon is a relatively small step; not even half as likely to get you killed than reentry.

Of course, nothing would convince a real conspiracy nut; after all, the better your arguments against a conspiracy, the more likely you're part of it.

Title: Re: Moon landing
Post by ima1trkpny on Jun 24^th, 2007, 8:39pm

I know what you mean about the ISS, but we had a space station not long after the supposed moon landings. It is now no longer used and the orbit has been terminated but you used to be able to see it in the sky when the sun would reflect off it.
I agree with Towr... the most difficult technological parts are those that protect the craft from reentry, the astronaut's suits, and the life support equipment in the craft. Yes, it is difficult to achieve lunar orbit but the actual calculations are quite easy and with some skill a human pilot could steer to the correct angle, etc. Take off and leaving earth's gravity is the hardest part in the sense that it requires the most energy and work. Once you have achieved orbit it is merely calculating the right spot to use the thrusters to launch yourself towards the moon using circular motion equations. (Tangent to orbit, etc) Yes... I know easier said than done... but it was entirely possible with the technology we had at the time. I mean for God's sake we built Hydrogen bombs, etc we can start a fusion reaction yet we can't make it to the moon???

Title: Re: Moon landing
Post by rmsgrey on Jun 25^th, 2007, 9:59am

on 06/24/07 at 09:44:56, towr wrote:

I always thought the hardest part was getting into space. Once you're there, going to the moon is a relatively small step; not even half as likely to get you killed than reentry.

The problem with getting to lunar orbit from earth orbit is one of having enough fuel to get there (and back) before your life-support runs out (OK, having some form of guidance is also useful...)

Earth to orbit is the most expensive in terms of fuel, but you need to lift everything for any further travel from earth to orbit as well, so any extended missions have a hefty added cost. Of course, that goes away if/when some form of space-mining is established so you don't need to lift all your raw materials from ground level...

Title: Re: Moon landing
Post by denis on Jul 9^th, 2007, 7:13am

on 06/23/07 at 23:04:24, ima1trkpny wrote:

I think this is a good approach to convince the naysayers. If you point the Hubble to the moon, you would not be able to resolve the rover or the lunar landing module directly (Hubble's can only resolve objects and areas on the moon as small as 280 feet) but you might be able to resolve the shadow projected from the lunar landing module onto the lunar surface when the sun is low on the horizon.

But then again, the naysayers will probably tell you the telescope's pictures are faked...

Title: Re: Moon landing
Post by SWF on Jul 9^th, 2007, 9:43pm

There is a laser reflector (http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEhelp/ApolloLaser.html) placed on the moon that is used to measure distance to moon, but it is not easy enough to use than anyone can try it. Anyway a skeptic might say that it may have been sent to the moon but not placed by astronauts walking around up there.

Title: Re: Moon landing
Post by ima1trkpny on Jul 23^rd, 2007, 7:46am

on 07/09/07 at 07:13:51, denis wrote:

Or on second thought, how 'bout we just send them up to see for themselves ;D (just being sarcastic... but some of the open avoidance tactics used by conspiracy theorists in an attempt to save face and avoid proving their arguement, frustrate me beyond words...)

Title: Re: Moon landing
Post by SWF on Oct 15^th, 2007, 5:36pm

I found a moon photo (http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-118/html/sts118-s-002.html) on the NASA space flight website that has clearly been pasted into the picture with astonauts. If you look at the high resolution version, it can be seen that the orientation of the moon is upsidedown from the way it would appear from the shuttle launchpad. Also, the lighting of the sky seems inconsistent with the moon being full. For those who do not have access to a view from the northern hemisphere see this page (http://www.answers.com/topic/near-side-of-the-moon). It is distrubing to me that NASA would put out such a photo.

Title: Re: Moon landing
Post by ima1trkpny on Oct 15^th, 2007, 5:57pm

I'd be willing to bet that whole picture was taken in front of a backdrop and not in front of the actual launch pad or at the minimum the astronauts and the moon were photoshopped into a picture of the lauchpad at dusk. The moon is most definately faked... but there are other inconsistencies that I can't quite put my finger on.
As for NASA, yeah that's a pretty big screw up... but the first tip off that it isn't really just a random break from training is that everyone's hair and makeup is perfect. LOL The whole thing is staged.

Title: Re: Moon landing
Post by towr on Oct 16^th, 2007, 12:24am

The backdrop seems a bit grainy compared to the people on the foreground..

Title: Re: Moon landing
Post by SWF on Oct 16^th, 2007, 8:22pm

I agree that the shuttle doesn't look quite right, but at least it is right side up.

What can we conclude from all of this? This shows NASA is not above faking moon photos. Is this just another example in a long line of fakes, or does this demostrate that almost 40 years after Apollo NASA still can't make a good moon forgery and, thus the moon landing photos must have been real.

Title: Re: Moon landing
Post by towr on Oct 17^th, 2007, 4:31am

on 10/16/07 at 20:22:07, SWF wrote:

I agree that the shuttle doesn't look quite right, but at least it is right side up.

Oh, well, we can fix that..

Quote:

What can we conclude from all of this? This shows NASA is not above faking moon photos.

I doubt they're trying to pass this photo off as real, in the sense of taken in front of a shuttle prepped for launch with the moon out. It's just a portrait photo in front of a backdrop.

Title: Re: Moon landing
Post by rmsgrey on Oct 17^th, 2007, 4:33am

It looks to me like a bunch of people posed in front of a poster somewhere in the "front" of the building by a publicity hack - equivalent of having a photo of a rugby team in front of a "World Cup 20078" poster. The web-page doesn't claim that they're in front of an actual shuttle - just that they've taken a break from training (it's pretty obvious that they're not training at that moment)...

Title: Re: Moon landing
Post by DC1E2L on Oct 17^th, 2007, 4:35am

Quote:

"World Cup 2008"

Do you mean 2007...?

Who is the person that has been added in with the superb editing?

Title: Re: Moon landing
Post by rmsgrey on Oct 17^th, 2007, 4:49am

on 10/17/07 at 04:35:47, DC1E2L wrote:

Do you mean 2007...?

Who is the person that has been added in with the superb editing?

I do indeed...

Title: Re: Moon landing
Post by towr on Oct 17^th, 2007, 5:00am

on 10/17/07 at 04:35:47, DC1E2L wrote:

Who is the person that has been added in with the superb editing?

James Purnell (http://digital-lifestyles.info/2007/10/01/photoshopped-uk-broadcast-mp-in-fake-photo-scandal/)
He was there in spirit ;)

[e]http://bogusjourneys.blogspot.com/[/e]

Title: Re: Moon landing
Post by DC1E2L on Oct 17^th, 2007, 5:02am

LOL. What program did you use?

Title: Re: Moon landing
Post by towr on Oct 17^th, 2007, 5:06am

I just used GIMP to play around a bit.
(I put James on a different layer, then cut the rightmost-guy out and put him on a layer in front, so it'd fit nicely. Then I merged the layers, and smudged things together a bit more)

Title: Re: Moon landing
Post by ima1trkpny on Oct 17^th, 2007, 8:11am

Hahaha! ;D Very nice Towr.
I find it officially awesome that James Purnell looks like Carson Kressley (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/images2/carsonkressley.jpg) perfect choice for Secretary of Culture... ::)

Title: Re: Moon landing
Post by lopez on Jul 13^th, 2012, 5:12am

A moon landing is the arrival of a spacecraft on the surface of the Moon.

Title: Re: Moon landing
Post by littlemisschic on Jul 26^th, 2012, 8:42pm

Very expensive to create I believe but a Hoax all the same just the US trying to beat the Russians!

And doing it HOLLYWOOD style!

Title: Re: Moon landing
Post by towr on Jul 26^th, 2012, 9:56pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6MOnehCOUw

Title: Re: Moon landing
Post by Mickey1 on Oct 18^th, 2012, 2:23pm

It occurred to me that I made a Ph. D. in cosmic rays (Univ of Lund, the department started with funding from the US Airforce - perhaps because of concern for astronaut radiation protection) and that I later became a health physicist, and that I therefore should make a comment.

My modest comment is that these things a relatively well known and should not present much of challenge:

- the human body’s sensitivity to radiation dose,
- the comic ray spectrum around the Earth, and
- the behavior of charged particles in a magnetic field

Another question is: is it possible that the superpowers lie to each other in the space race?
I believe you might not always expect them to tell the truth in military matters.

Title: Re: Moon landing
Post by towr on Oct 18^th, 2012, 11:05pm

on 10/18/12 at 14:23:28, Mickey1 wrote:

Another question is: is it possible that the superpowers lie to each other in the space race?

Not about things that are easily verifiable/observable by the other. And I imagine they'd sooner stay quiet about thing, since that doesn't give the other side any ideas.

Title: Re: Moon landing
Post by flashlearner on Oct 19^th, 2012, 7:52pm

Hello,

Actually H. G. Wells landed on the moon in 1901 with his scientific novel "The First Man in the Moon" ;D

Best regards

Alex

Title: Re: Moon landing
Post by benmartorano on Oct 19^th, 2012, 8:52pm

I love a good cover up as much as the next guy, but I do beleive we landed on the moon

Title: Re: Moon landing
Post by Grimbal on Oct 22^nd, 2012, 7:27am

"we"?

If you are not sure you did, you probably didn't. :P

Title: Re: Moon landing
Post by benmartorano on Oct 22^nd, 2012, 4:09pm

lol... yeah "we" as in the USA

Title: Re: Moon landing
Post by rmsgrey on Oct 23^rd, 2012, 4:30am

on 10/22/12 at 16:09:43, benmartorano wrote:

lol... yeah "we" as in the USA

That's a big rocket...

Title: Re: Moon landing
Post by benmartorano on Oct 25^th, 2012, 3:31pm

lol yeah. not sure i would wanna be on that rocket