john turner
You don't want to do that. Trust me.
somebody mentioned there were engineering inconsistencies. i rebutted, with a credential list
. a weak list, perhaps, but a credential list all the same 
.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Moon landing. Real or Fake?
- Thread starter Mark Wilson
- Start date
- Status
somebody mentioned there were engineering inconsistencies. i rebutted, with a credential list
. a weak list, perhaps, but a credential list all the same .
They had trouble putting the flag into the soil and when they left, they blew the flag over.
The Dark Side of the Moon?
oh fooey!! more convincing material...making me want to cross over to the dark side and become a believermust resist the urge to beleive in first hand witness accounts,,,,must hold down the fort....
Not to mention that to create a telescope with the resolution to actually see a flag EDGE ON (if the flag is upright, it is going to present a cross section at most of a few centimeters where the pole itself is) at a distance of ~250,000 miles would be so far beyond our ability to grind a mirror for.
Not to mention that to create a telescope with the resolution to actually see a flag EDGE ON (if the flag is upright, it is going to present a cross section at most of a few centimeters where the pole itself is) at a distance of ~250,000 miles would be so far beyond our ability to grind a mirror for.
Thats the easy part, we gotta go up there and stand it back up too......
Oh yeah, and get the dust off it too...
...just in case you didn't click the link in my earlier post, here's a photo of the Apollo 14 landing site with quite a few interesting details visible:
And here's the NASA site with a few more photos:
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
Oh, and a link to Phil Plait's (EXCELLENT) blog, to a post about this very topic:
Link Removed
I wasn't really being critical of your list as much as I was being critical of the idea of a fake moon landing. Pure lunacy, I tell you. The previous renditions of that post were worse. I'm kinda glad I didn't go with them now.somebody mentioned there were engineering inconsistencies. i rebutted, with a credential list
Mike
Oh yeah, and get the dust off it too...
...just in case you didn't click the link in my earlier post, here's a photo of the Apollo 14 landing site with quite a few interesting details visible:
And here's the NASA site with a few more photos:
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
Oh, and a link to Phil Plait's (EXCELLENT) blog, to a post about this very topic:
Link Removed
Awesome! Cheers for that!
Missions Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17 had successful moon landings, each with two astronauts walking on the surface.
Apollo 13 went around the moon and came back without landing due to the explosion on board during the outbound part of the trip.
My father on his death bed said to me the most amzing thing in his life (1916-1989) was when he saw men walk on the moon. That being said? I never wanted to defame his memories,but I always allowed for it to be faked. Last week to hear that the original tapes were "Reused" ruined any chance of my believing it was ever true. That and the fact that "Hollywood" was going to help to restore the tapes from footage? I'm about done with the truth now. Isn't this sort of like life imitating art, I mean didn't George Lucas do the same with Star Wars?? The restored tapes should be awesome!! I think they should get Michael Bey.....I'm done now, thanks for the forum.
Oh yeah, and get the dust off it too...
...just in case you didn't click the link in my earlier post, here's a photo of the Apollo 14 landing site with quite a few interesting details visible:
And here's the NASA site with a few more photos:
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
Oh, and a link to Phil Plait's (EXCELLENT) blog, to a post about this very topic:
Link Removed
Looks like the skin on an orange to me, and not just any orange, a Valencia Orange destined to be floated to a waiting ship off the coast of Spain and end up in a marmalde on some British toast. Whats worse, I think the tree this orange came from was grown from a seed in Dallas in 1963....but I can't be sure
i think the mythbusters did a prettyg ood job at taking a crack at it, i still think its pretty fake tho
Apollo astronauts who walked on the Moon
As of 2009, twelve people have walked on the Moon. All human landings so far took place between July 1969 and December 1972, as part of the Apollo program.
Apollo 11 - Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin
Apollo 12 - Pete Conrad, Alan Bean
Apollo 14 - Alan Shepard, David Scott
Apollo 15 - David Scott, James Irwin
Apollo 16 - John W. Young, Charles Duke
Apollo 17 - Eugene Cernan, Harrison Schmitt
The technical questions aside, I would feel mighty uncomfortable calling these people liars.
And that's just to start. There are thousands of highly qualified people who worked intimately with the Apollo program and who absolutely vouch for its authenticity. In order to believe the moon landings were a fraud, you'd be accusing all of them of either purposeful deceit or monumental stupidity . . . or both.
As of 2009, twelve people have walked on the Moon. All human landings so far took place between July 1969 and December 1972, as part of the Apollo program.
Apollo 11 - Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin
Apollo 12 - Pete Conrad, Alan Bean
Apollo 14 - Alan Shepard, David Scott
Apollo 15 - David Scott, James Irwin
Apollo 16 - John W. Young, Charles Duke
Apollo 17 - Eugene Cernan, Harrison Schmitt
The technical questions aside, I would feel mighty uncomfortable calling these people liars.
And that's just to start. There are thousands of highly qualified people who worked intimately with the Apollo program and who absolutely vouch for its authenticity. In order to believe the moon landings were a fraud, you'd be accusing all of them of either purposeful deceit or monumental stupidity . . . or both.
"Pure lunacy"??? You have the terminity to use that statement in discussions of the moon landing?
Oh yeah, and get the dust off it too...
...just in case you didn't click the link in my earlier post, here's a photo of the Apollo 14 landing site with quite a few interesting details visible:
And here's the NASA site with a few more photos:
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
Oh, and a link to Phil Plait's (EXCELLENT) blog, to a post about this very topic:
Link Removed
Wow...you mean NASA finally figured out photoshop?
Personally, I don't see why it's so hard to believe in landing astronauts on the moon that some think it necessary to decide it couldn't have happened.
Rocket technology was very well developed by the 1950's and it was routine for the United States and the Soviet Union to use them to launch satellites into Earth's orbit. Putting a self contained payload unit on top of the rocket large enough to hold a person means that you need to increase the carrying capacity of the rockets by adding booster rockets. Then you need to provide for the astronauts' safety by making the compartment airtight and able to withstand temperature extremes. Theoretically this isn't hard, it's just a matter of making the necessary investment in time and money.
Development of this supportive technology allowed for NASA's Mercury and Gemini programs to put people into Earth orbit for a short time (a few minutes for sub-orbital flights for Mercury and much longer multi-orbit flights for Gemini) and then bring the astronauts safely back to Earth.
Do those who believe the moon landings were faked believe the Mercury and Gemini flights were also fake? I really want to know the answer to this.
Once NASA determines that the technology is ready enough to make Earth orbit flights relatively reliable, then it's really not a great leap in concept to provide a weeks worth of supplies and facilities necessary to make it to the moon and back.
Manufacturing another rocket assembly for descent to the lunar surface and subsequent ascent off the surface is also just another engineering obstacle to overcome (though admittedly difficult and expensive) as opposed to having to invent brand new technology from scratch.
The point is, the technology to land astronauts on the moon and bring them back safely to Earth was certainly within the ability of the United States in the 1960's and we then had the motive (the space race) to succeed in doing so. We spent the time and we spent the money and we succeeded. I'm honestly surprised that there are a significant amount of people who have convinced themselves that it didn't happen.
Rocket technology was very well developed by the 1950's and it was routine for the United States and the Soviet Union to use them to launch satellites into Earth's orbit. Putting a self contained payload unit on top of the rocket large enough to hold a person means that you need to increase the carrying capacity of the rockets by adding booster rockets. Then you need to provide for the astronauts' safety by making the compartment airtight and able to withstand temperature extremes. Theoretically this isn't hard, it's just a matter of making the necessary investment in time and money.
Development of this supportive technology allowed for NASA's Mercury and Gemini programs to put people into Earth orbit for a short time (a few minutes for sub-orbital flights for Mercury and much longer multi-orbit flights for Gemini) and then bring the astronauts safely back to Earth.
Do those who believe the moon landings were faked believe the Mercury and Gemini flights were also fake? I really want to know the answer to this.
Once NASA determines that the technology is ready enough to make Earth orbit flights relatively reliable, then it's really not a great leap in concept to provide a weeks worth of supplies and facilities necessary to make it to the moon and back.
Manufacturing another rocket assembly for descent to the lunar surface and subsequent ascent off the surface is also just another engineering obstacle to overcome (though admittedly difficult and expensive) as opposed to having to invent brand new technology from scratch.
The point is, the technology to land astronauts on the moon and bring them back safely to Earth was certainly within the ability of the United States in the 1960's and we then had the motive (the space race) to succeed in doing so. We spent the time and we spent the money and we succeeded. I'm honestly surprised that there are a significant amount of people who have convinced themselves that it didn't happen.
john turner
You don't want to do that. Trust me.
lol. how about the pictures they have now of the landers on the moon, taken from the satellite orbiting the moon?
- Status
