Moon landing. Real or Fake?

[Bob Lee (QSC)]

So, we can see a 3 ft. rover driving around on Mars,

Big question: Is the camera on Mars or on Earth?

 

[Brad Johnson]

There seems pretty ample evidence that the Apollo moon landings did occur. If they were faked, OTOH, I would expect there to be aome evidence to that effect as well, even if there was a conspiracy of many thousands of people in on it.

I'm saying a list of astronauts is not proof of a moon landing.

 

[Brad Johnson]

Big question: Is the camera on Mars or on Earth?

Exactly. Or a satellite.

 

[nortonrider]

Never Mind, I found the answer to my question.

Yes, you can see the stuff left on the moon.

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

 

[Bob Lee (QSC)]

I'm saying a list of astronauts is not proof of a moon landing.

No, but it's a list of guys who say they've been there, and we have pictures and corroborating data.

 

[73jbass]

The moon landing is fake,but,Pro Wrestling is real...

 

[Pilgrim]

Absolutely real.

If for no other reason than to piss off the conspiracy junkies. Since they're always wrong, it must be real.

 

[scottyd]

One day the truth will come out, if it was real, it was a REAL waste of time and money... Shouldn't we have condos there by now?

 

[Gard]

One day the truth will come out, if it was real, it was a REAL waste of time and money... Shouldn't we have condos there by now?

Here's your hat:

 

[Scarlet Fire]

Uh... if it was "out further it would float away?" ... well it seems that tonka toy tin can they sent up in 1969 didnt float away and it had 250,000 miles to do it in.
The space station is 375 miles out... thats how far the shuttle has been. No further. Your telling me that in 1969 we where hell bent on getting out out of the earths orbit and landing on other planets so bad we had to beat the Russians... but after that we just said **** it, lets blow BILLIONS just to float around 400 miles or less and do nothing now? Sure... you know why? By faking the moon landing using a tin can and a couple of patsies to do it we generated EXACLY what was intended.... billions of dollars shoved into NASA and the defunked space program. So... why would we go back again? Its not going to generate billions.... its purpose was served. We beat the Russians and we filled the pockets of NASA and all the liars that faked the missions.

I'm not entirely sure what he's saying here, but I'll take a stab at it:

When going from LEO to lunar orbit, you're not escaping Earth's gravitational pull. In fact, when you get to the moon, you are still in an elliptical orbit around Earth. It's just become such a large orbit that apoapsis takes you right up to lunar orbit. This is called a TLI, or trans-lunar injection. This is why, when you reach the back side of the moon, a retro burn must be executed to reduce your velocity enough to be captured by the moon's gravitational pull. By no means is this a difficult maneuver. In fact, anyone with a moderate college-level of physics education can do the mathematics behind it.

Regarding a satellite sitting at roughly 400mi above the surface of the Earth, however, is an entirely different set of circumstances. I'm not sure why the two were even compared in the first place, as they really have very little to do with each other. If someone can tell me what this argument is trying to prove, then I'll address is further.

Now... you mentioned Russians putting dogs into outer space to test the radiation....
"Lets compare the Apollo cover-up with the USSR launch of the dog called Laika into space. She was launched into Space to see what the effects of Space travel would have on a live creature.

It was publicly announced that Laika died painlessly when her oxygen supply ran out, but the truth was finally revealed many years later that the dog had in fact died when the front nose cone of the craft carrying her had been ripped off after reaching Earth's orbit and that the dog probably died from the intense heat of the Sun.
Further investigations revealed that the nose cone had actually been designed to do this. So, in fact, the makers of the rocket had known that the dog would die even before she was sent into space... this evidence took 30 years to be revealed to the general public."

I guess I'm missing some critical context here, as I, once again, have no idea what is being argued here.

Also... the MAIN reason Russians had NOT sent anyone into space is because they had measured the amount of radiation and deemed it instant death to anyone trying to pass through the Van Allen belt. The space shuttle astronauts where even quoted as saying they where scared of the radiation coming from the Van Allen belt when they where docked at the international space station... the radiation was coming through the 1/4 inch thick aluminum shields on there helmets and they could see it with the naked eye.
Now consider this... they where not even remotely close to the Van Allen belt much less going through it.... and they had 2000k technology, not 1969 tonka toy Hollywood hyped play craft.

25) In 1998, the Space Shuttle flew to one of its highest altitudes ever, three hundred and fifty miles, hundreds of miles below merely the beginning of the Van Allen Radiation Belts. Inside of their shielding, superior to that which the Apollo astronauts possessed, the shuttle astronauts reported being able to "see" the radiation with their eyes closed penetrating their shielding as well as the retinas of their closed eyes. For a dental x-ray on Earth which lasts 1/100th of a second we wear a 1/4 inch lead vest. Imagine what it would be like to endure several hours of radiation that you can see with your eyes closed from hundreds of miles away with 1/8 of an inch of aluminium shielding!"

First: the poster is drastically overstating the danger of the Van Allen belts. A typical satellite traveling in an orbit through the radiation belts will experience about 25 sieverts of radiation per year (with 3mm of aluminum shielding). If an astronaut were to spend even 6 days in the radiation belts with such minimal shielding, this would translate to roughly .5 sieverts of radiation, at the most. This is just enough to give you a headache, and perhaps decrease your white blood cell count. Radiation sickness doesn't even occur until you reach the 1-2Sv range. The astronauts were not exposed to the Van Allen belts for long enough to reach this level.

Now... the 32k memory computer.... what the hell? Are you going to tell me all the technology it would take to put a man 250,000 miles from earth... stay in communication, record data... send back photos and video... route the flight plans.... control the space craft and shoot it back through orbit relied on nothing more then a simple calculator sized computer? Come on man... get real. The damn space shuttle still ****s up via the computer and its the most sophisticated flight computer on earth. Yeah bro.. i can see Armstrong in outer space, 250,000 miles out using a damn double A battery sized calculator to figure out how long it was going to take to get back.... lets see, 250,000miles Xs 24 hours in a day... 24000 miles an hour... "duhhhh Nasa, my batteries died".... bwahahaha... im SURRRRE.

This is just dumb. As I said earlier, the calculations needed to plan the orbit transfers here can be done by anyone with a respectable physics education, and believe it or not, a lot of it can be done with a pencil and paper! These are not terribly complex calculations that are being done. I can, in fact, do many of them with the calculator on my cell phone (which also transmits data to and from space almost constantly at the same time). Keep in mind, the Apollo Guidance System wasn't responsible for many of the tasks that modern flight computers are. It had, really, once central task: keep the rocket on the correct flight path. This does not require very much computing power.
And, as anyone who actually knew anything about the actual Apollo 11 mission would know, the astronauts did, in fact, have computer difficulties during the mission. In fact, the lunar landing was nearly aborted due to computer issues. It was because of the raw piloting skills of Neil Armstrong and a massive team of extremely intelligent scientists on the ground that they were able to land.

Oh... btw, the company (Hasselblad) and owners (Jan Lundberg) that made the SPECIAL camera that was said to have been used on the Apollo 11 mission publicly stated that there is no way there camera would have worked in the extreme temps the moon had. From -180F in the shade to an incredible +200F in full Sunshine.. They said the camera would have ****ed up and never recorded a thing... thats from the COMPANY. Not a conspiracy theorist. Also, Kodak even publicly exclaimed that if they had film that would withstand those kind of temps then they would have been selling it to the public a long time ago. It doesnt simply didnt exist. Fact... not conspiracy bro

A quick Google search didn't come up with any of these claims (except from very sketchy, unsubstantiated conspiracy sites). I'd like to see some sources.

Besides, there were a lot of photos that didn't come out well, as a matter of fact. NASA just published the highest quality pictures, which, to me, sounds perfectly reasonable. Who would want to look at photos that came out blurry, or totally blank?

Now... will someone PLEASE take time to explain ONE simple question i have laid out here? IF THAT DAMN ROCKET LANDED ON THE MOON... IT HAD TO HAVE USED THE ROCKET POWERED BOOSTERS UNDER IT TO DO SO... THAT ROCKET SHOOTS OUT 10,000 DEGREE HEAT ECT... EVERYONE HAS SEEN THE PICTURES. EVERYONE AGREES THEY ARE REAL... SO PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW IN THE HELL THERE IS DUST AND SMALL ROCKS LAYING RIGHT UNDER WHERE THE THING WAS SAID TO HAVE LANEDED? HOW? HOW? My oscillating bed room fan will blow hard enough to do that... why didnt rocket thrusters that fly someone 250k miles do the same or any at all. Simple question. Whats the answer?

It DID disrupt the dust and rocks that were under it. This is clearly visible in the landing and liftoff footage. Some of the astronauts were quoted as saying that it was like landing in a cloud of fog because of all the dust that was kicked up.

 

[Steveaux]

The Moon Landing is real.

If it wasn't, just think of how many people would have to be involved in the conspiracy.

I think it was Ben Franklin who said, "Three people can keep a secret ... if two are dead".

 

[KPAX]

Actually the rockets were the biggest, most powerful rockets ever made, right up to today - the Saturn 5.
The computers were very crude.
The people were the best.
The culture had the cajones to think BIG.
No ridiculous Coast To Coast radio and the like.

So we went in 1969 in primitive rockets and computers (we couldn't even land the things, they had to fall in the ocean) but we were able to go all the way to the moon and even have a little moon go cart to tool around in and broadcast live TV back to earth.
Now, it's gonna take us 10 years to figure out how to do it again.
Duh, I dunno.

 

[Bob Lee (QSC)]

The F1 engines, developed by Rocketdyne, that were used in Stage 1 of the Saturn V were over ten times more powerful than any previous rocket engine. Each one could produce 1.5 million lbs of full thrust (there were five on Stage 1). Because of its size, it was difficult for the Rocketdyne engineers to come up with a design where the fuel (kerosene) and oxidant (LOX) mixed evenly and burned smoothly.

 

[Ben Lesser]

This thread infuriates me on so many levels I can't even begin to explain.

Some people.

 

[GregC]

We have concrete proof of everything that happened regarding that. Anyone who doesn't buy into ever piece of it must be a moron.

That's how anti-conspiracy theory works. You're stupid if you allow doubt.

Since the thread was revived, have the folks who believe the landing happened generally implied that even a shred of doubt wasn't allowed? How many, if any, called everyone who doubted the slightest bit of this a moron or stupid? I'd enjoy links to those posts. There must be plenty of them, given your generalizations.

It's funny that many people doen't see they latch onto their proof just as hard as others latch onto their doubt. Black or white, either/or.

That's an inaccurate portrayal. You're claiming that those on one side are "100%ers", while those on the other merely have "doubt". When in fact, there are those who are just as firmly convinced that the landing did not happen--even though the evidence on that side has generally been demonstrated to be either weak, fabricated or based on flawed assumptions or data, by numerous sources. Meanwhile, the proof that those who believe the landing occurred are "latching onto" is far more substantial.

I'm saying a list of astronauts is not proof of a moon landing.

As Bob has since pointed out, there's plenty more proof than that--in just the last few pages of this thread. Did you miss it?

No, but it's a list of guys who say they've been there, and we have pictures and corroborating data.

 

[Eric Perry]

...These threads are fun. So much certainty in an uncertain world.

I like this.

This thread infuriates me on so many levels I can't even begin to explain.

Some people.

Dude, if something as innocuous as this thread "infuriates" you, then you need to up your meds. A lot.

 

[lump]

I move that conspiracy theorists be used to monitor nozzle temps on the next launch.

 

[Ben Lesser]

I like this.

Dude, if something as innocuous as this thread "infuriates" you, then you need to up your meds. A lot.

Intentional hyperbole is an oft misconstrued thing when there's no voice to go with it.

I will admit to finding it a bit baffling in places, but perhaps "infuriating" was the wrong choice of words.

Dr. Eric, your medical advice is duly noted, and I will henceforth medicate myself into a much happier and less hyperbolic state of being.

 

[nortonrider]

I move that conspiracy theorists be used to monitor nozzle temps on the next launch.

The next mission to the Moon?
Ten years away? after delays, budget cuts, ect.. it will be 20 years.

 

[lump]

The next mission to the Moon?
Ten years away? after delays, budget cuts, ect.. it will be 20 years.

For that kind of satisfaction, I'm willing to wait.