Man has landed on the Moon. July 20, 1969. Sir, questions, sir.

Discussion in 'Moon Landing' started by polscie, Oct 9, 2011.

You are viewing posts in the Conspiracy Theory forum. PF does not allow misinformation. However, please note that posts could occasionally contain content in violation of our policies prior to our staff intervening.

  1. Bishadi

    Bishadi Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2010
    Messages:
    12,292
    Likes Received:
    52
    Trophy Points:
    0
    wow,

    i posted the clip

    "As we got below 30 feet or so, I had selected the final touchdown area. For some reason I'm not sure of, we started to pick up left translational velocity and a backward velocity. That's the thing I certainly didn't want to do, because you don't like to be going backwards, unable to see where you're going. So I arrested this backward rate with some possibly spasmodic control motions, but I was unable to stop the left translational rate. As we approached the ground, I still had a left translational rate which made me reluctant to shut the engine off while I still had that rate


    likewise to go to the link, the dust was being claimed (by the boys) at 100ft.

    perhaps hollywood forgot to merge the screen imaging with the dialogue?
    i see what you are pointing at and them 'pebbles' of that size would not even be there if..................."""Armstrong - "We actually had the engine running until touchdown. Not that that was intended, .""..


    no i aint.

    i dont need to play games.

    I know what i posted and where the accounts came from.

    ie.... i thought you could have comprehended what was written, when read the first time.

    i just noticed that the link on my post from nasa, on the conversation, does not include the specifics, go to the left column and hit the apollo 11 link

    read the conversations from the guys, yourself (As nasa published of course!)
     
  2. ChrLz

    ChrLz Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    69
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    ..and didn't explain the relevance nor the point you are making, because it seems.. you CAN'T.

    Why don't you quote EXACTLY what they said, and how you interpreted it?

    Smarm isn't very becoming...

    ??? You didn't notice BEFORE? You haven't actually looked at the full-resolution images you are referring to? That's a bit embarrassing, and a bit of a habit, it seems...

    I wonder at the point of debating with someone who so clearly hasn't done the requisite research..

    Then ...stop playing them. Here's a challenge for you, 'Bishadi'... I suggest you THINK VERY CAREFULLY before accepting.

    Are you willing to go through a proper, methodical, scientific, step by step analysis, with all claims and points to be CITED and referenced?

    And is this particular topic (dust under lander) your 'favorite' evidence that makes you believe Apollo was faked? If it ISN'T, I suggest you pick your best, because as we go through the analysis, it will be embarrassing for you if your best was proved to be completely wrong...
     
  3. countryboy

    countryboy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    Messages:
    2,806
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Debating with trolls is pointless, though I sometimes do it too. :mrgreen:

    Especially trolls who don't seem to have a command of the language in which the debate is occurring. ;)
     
  4. Bishadi

    Bishadi Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2010
    Messages:
    12,292
    Likes Received:
    52
    Trophy Points:
    0
    here is more


    same site

    [Brinkley: "Was there anything about your Moon walk and collecting of rocks and the like that surprised you at that time when you were on the Moon, like, 'I did not expect to encounter this,' or, 'I did not expect it to look like this'? Or included in that, the view of the rest of space from the Moon must have been quite an awesome thing to experience."]

    [Armstrong: "I was surprised by a number of things, and I'm not sure (I can) recall them all now. I was surprised by the apparent closeness of the horizon. I was surprised by the trajectory of dust that you kicked up with your boot, and I was surprised that even though logic would have told me that there shouldn't be any, there was no dust when you kicked. You never had a cloud of dust there. That's a product of having an atmosphere, and when you don't have an atmosphere, you don't have any clouds of dust."

    "I was absolutely dumbfounded when I shut the rocket engine off and the particles that were going out radially from the bottom of the engine fell all the way out over the horizon, and when I shut the engine off, they just raced out over the horizon and instantaneously disappeared, you know, just like it had been shut off for a week. That was remarkable. I'd never seen that. I'd never seen anything like that. And logic says, yes, that's the way it ought to be there, but I hadn't thought about it and I was surprised."]




    and then


    102:45:08 Aldrin: 60 feet, down 2 1/2. (Pause) 2 forward. 2 forward. That's good.
    [Neil wants to be moving forward as he lands so that he can be sure of not backing into an unnoticed or forgotten hole behind him.]

    102:45:17 Aldrin: 40 feet, down 2 1/2. Picking up some dust.

    [Armstrong, from the 1969 Technical Debrief - "I first noticed that we were, in fact, disturbing the dust on the surface when we were something less than 100 feet; we were beginning to get a transparent sheet of moving dust that obscured visibility a little bit. As we got lower, the visibility continued to decrease. I don't think that the (visual) altitude determination was severely hurt by this blowing dust; but the thing that was confusing to me was that it was hard to pick out what your lateral and downrange velocities were, because you were seeing a lot of moving dust that you had to look through to pick up the stationary rocks and base your translational velocity decisions on that. I found that to be quite difficult. I spent more time trying to arrest translational velocity than I thought would be necessary."]

    102:45:21 Aldrin: 30 feet, 2 1/2 down. (Garbled) shadow.
    [What Buzz says here is sometimes transcribed as "Faint shadow" but I recently listened, once again, to both the Public Affairs tape and to the onboard tape and feel uncomfortable making a decision, primarily because the transmission is distorted and partially clipped. Buzz first saw the LM shadow when he looked out at 102:44:04, a fact which adds to my discomfort with the usual transcription. In 2006 I listened to the HSK recording of the Net 1 feed from Goldstone and am still not able to make a decision.]
    [Fjeld - "Perhaps Buzz did say 'Faint shadow' but was referring to the now fuzzy edge of the shadow on the streaking dust layer."]

    [David Harland suggests a transcription of 'Great shadow', but I still do not believe it is possible to definitively pull this one out of the noise.]

    102:45:25 Aldrin: 4 forward. 4 forward. Drifting to the right a little. 20 feet, down a half.
    102:45:31 Duke: 30 seconds (until the 'Bingo' call).

    102:45:32 Aldrin: Drifting forward just a little bit; that's good. (Garbled) (Pause)

    http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/a11.html






    so no dust, then there is dust, then pebbles go over the edge but then the pictures show the pebbles under the lander (engines were on when landed, previous post)





    As for the other post by the peanut gallery.................

    I do the homework myself, i dont need anyone to tell me what or how to think.

    That's the difference of me and most. I actually do what is required just so i can understand. i aint here to appease anyone else.

    How many looked at that other moon thread................. you can see how i affect the field of science.

    i was representing how the moon and earth got its water a long long long time ago.

    Soon you will see the large increases came from solar flares, while the earth was going thru a pole reversal. ie..... 250m and 65 (kt) extinctions occured at the same time............ note the change in atmospheric oxygen levels and the magnetic field reversal are recorded in the basalts


    remember, i do the homework and the brokebacks gobble
     
  5. ChrLz

    ChrLz Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    69
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    My question was:
    I'll take that as a NO.

    Very wise move, Bish. Your fear of what will happen is warranted.
     
  6. Bishadi

    Bishadi Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2010
    Messages:
    12,292
    Likes Received:
    52
    Trophy Points:
    0
    . Funny, I offered the claim and the step by step and the references.

    You just ain't a qualified peer (lack of integrity).
    I don't have any fears; I trust that all are capable of reading for themselves if the evidence is in frnt on them. Ie... Each item is from NASA with links. From the astronauts (their per se quotes) and their photos.

    You may use alternative data for your analysis. I just got mine from the source.

    The problem with you is you believe I would even care about you personal attacks. Well I don't! I just have that unique ability to think for myself and therein also be honest with myself even if it means completely ruining my whole outlook on things people consider true. Meaning I would have never even doubted the program until I analyzed the material myself.
     
  7. ChrLz

    ChrLz Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    69
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Funny, I don't see any sign of that.

    And anyone with a bit of brainpower would ask you - Why didn't you simply answer the question?

    Really? I'll let the readers decide.

    And that's it? What you have posted so far is the extent of your 'analysis'? Oh well, I guess the fears may show up later...

    ??? Gee, thanks for your 'permission'. While of course I will use other mainstream-accepted sources, I'll be using NASA information - but PROPERLY considered and analysed. And if you dispute any of the points, you will of course be able to offer your 'considered' rebuttal.

    Umm, you haven't done this before? I thought you said you had done several years of studies on some of these topics - I hope that doesn't just mean hanging around conspiracy sites and gathering opinions. If it does, you are in for a rough ride.

    Would you like to quote those personal attacks? Do you mean stuff like this:
    Is that the sort of personal attack you mean? But gee, those are .. your words. Now, quote mine, there's a good chap.

    I think blowing one's own horn is rather unbecoming. But if you are the only one who truly thinks for yourself.. I am in awe... (... of the fact that you think that..)

    Readers are invited to note that Bishadi just said he has done an 'analysis'. That will be important later.

    Now, before I proceed to properly look at the issue, and given there appears to be a suggestion of trolling, may I courteously ask:

    Is anyone ELSE genuinely interested in looking in great detail at the topic of the behavior of lunar regolith in a vacuum, with regard to the Apollo missions?

    Because if the only person who is disputing this is Bishadi, I'm not all that enthusiastic about proceeding.

    But if there are genuinely interested readers, or those sitting on the fence who might think he may be onto something, then I'm most happy to go ahead and show how a real analysis is done, and in the process point out all of the information that Bishadi apparently thinks is unimportant.

    The fact that I will be helping to educate others, will make the effort (admittedly a small one, as the info is all quite close to hand) worthwhile.

    Bishadi, before I begin (if I bother), do you have any corrections, additions or subtractions from what you have already posted? (Here's a hint, editing your previous posts NOW will not look good...)
     
  8. Bishadi

    Bishadi Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2010
    Messages:
    12,292
    Likes Received:
    52
    Trophy Points:
    0

    exactly. You cant read apparently. For example; the data and links i used are from nasa and the astronauts themselves. (per se)

    you be funny. What is better than direct from the source?
     
  9. countryboy

    countryboy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    Messages:
    2,806
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Here's a hint, if something is classified, it's not going to be posted on an internet conspiracy forum. ;)

    Are you talking about the "classified" video of the alien shooting the astronaut with the ray gun?
     
  10. Bishadi

    Bishadi Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2010
    Messages:
    12,292
    Likes Received:
    52
    Trophy Points:
    0
    what conspiracy forum?

    did you get the giggle?

    how about the OP, did you learn that in school or did you just learn how the moon got its 'water'?

    The fun part to realize, is that it would mean that there is water all over the universe, naturally.

    The part i like to share with people, is anyone and everyone can 'walk on water'. I know that claim may seem 'way out there' but i have learned the trick and rather enjoy sharing it with anyone.

    But then again perhaps i should stop representing the 'how to' as it could be considered 'top secret' in some circles.
     
  11. ChrLz

    ChrLz Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    69
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ad hominem ignored. (Although given the fact that Bishadi's responses don't seem to align with what s/he quotes, the words kettle, pot and black seem to apply.)

    Why does s/he repeat the 'per se'? It was redundant when used the first time..

    To properly analyse something even slightly complex, it is necessary to consider all aspects, and to provide cites and references from independent sources.

    Refer above. Plus Bishadi is disputing NASA's overall record of the Apollo mission, but s/he uses NASA as his sole source of information. Yes, clearly a scientist!

    Ad hominem.

    I haven't even started.

    From the horse's mouth... Why would anyone bother debating such a person?

    Yes, again, the words of a careful, considered approach...:rolleyes: One would have to ask why s/he started to post here, then?

    I'm guessing that Bishadi is referring to this other thread in this forum, which to date contains only his own posts, no useful subject, no reasoning of his own, no actual point, just parroted text and Youtube links. And it has (deservedly, perhaps?) elicited no response or interest whatsoever to date.

    Given that no-one has yet leapt to his defense here either, I wonder if he will, at some point, get the hint?

    Amusing. Anyway, unless someone else would like to take up these ill-informed claims and wishes to debate sensibly, this is over.
     
  12. Bishadi

    Bishadi Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2010
    Messages:
    12,292
    Likes Received:
    52
    Trophy Points:
    0
    but this subject is not rocket science but more like the sherlock holmes kind of science. This subject is about investigative honesty.

    kind of like what you are doing.

    there was no third party to prove the landing occurred.

    My first point was that when, India mapped the moon, i looked at the pictures from the ASU site, within days. I looked for the lander.

    i did see it.

    That was third party material i was interested in and it didnt pan out.

    you asked me to correct my previous post and for one, i couldnt and two, i could care less about being professional on such a subject. A kid could have figured out what i posted is pretty tough to get around

    and you are just ranting like a spoiled kid

    with you? Thank you


    IF any wish to read the thread, i questioned why the lander is not covered in dust?

    I offered the claims of Buzz and Armstrong that conflict the pictures;

    a) Armstrong claimed the engines were still on at landing - yet look under the lander, dust pebbles and the foot print that so many consider the 'first step' on the moon.

    b,c,d,e, and f.....................

    dont need them
     
  13. Bishadi

    Bishadi Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2010
    Messages:
    12,292
    Likes Received:
    52
    Trophy Points:
    0
    ooops...

    I DIDN"T see it!

    oooops....

    i hate making mistakes but at least i can admit and address them, when i see them.





    you asked me to correct my previous post and for one, i couldnt and two, i could care less about being professional on such a subject. A kid could have figured out what i posted is pretty tough to get around




    heck i had a disclose, right there
     
  14. Bishadi

    Bishadi Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2010
    Messages:
    12,292
    Likes Received:
    52
    Trophy Points:
    0
    you want the truth

    you cant handle the truth
     
  15. armor99

    armor99 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2009
    Messages:
    1,645
    Likes Received:
    27
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You know... it really is fascinating the number of people that think that it did not really happen. I am an engineer, and tend to think in a rational way. So the last time someone brought this up... I did the following instead....

    Instead of dismissing him, or telling him he was a fool... I asked... "Ok... so if it did not really happen... what are all of the things they would have had to do to fake it?". He was REALLY confused by that one. I mean really (as I explained it to him)... there are documents to forge, people to silence, and LOTS of technical challenges to overcome in the faking of such a thing...

    And as the conversation went on... and we talked about ALL of the things that would have been needed to "fake it", it became very clear in all of about an hour, that it would have been equally difficult to "fake it" as to do it "for real".

    This is especially true for the reflector that they have on the moon, that they measure the distance with all the time.... http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/ApolloLaser.html

    Awfully hard to get lasers and electronic equipment to LIE but I suppose it is still possible... :)
     
  16. Bishadi

    Bishadi Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2010
    Messages:
    12,292
    Likes Received:
    52
    Trophy Points:
    0
    a good question.

    send the rocket up and from there, act out the part. let the guys spin around the earth, then bring em back.

    how much BS was involved except the 'movie' part and that set and movie could have been done by a few people as the location was already in place for the simulations

    i thought the same thing and wondered the same.


    so open up them questions

    the refector is easy.

    i wanted to see pictures of the lander from india when they mapped the moon
    So share a picture of the reflector with foot prints around it.
     
  17. armor99

    armor99 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2009
    Messages:
    1,645
    Likes Received:
    27
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The reflector is easy? Ok... I guess I will have to open up a whole "bottle" of being an engineer to help you with this. I will assume for the moment that you understand that the whole point of a corner reflector (similiar to what they have on bikes) is to reflect light back to it's source. If you shine a laser to the reflector on the moon, you can very accurately measure how long it takes to make a round trip.

    So the only way that you can get an answer (distance and time wise) that would even make any sense, is if that reflector is where they say it is... on the moon. Now I posted the article... if you want... you can go and visit... I am sure they give tours etc. How exactly do you "fake out" a laser? You can't.... that means the reflector is on the moon.... just like they say it is. Or there is a continuing conspiracy.... etc... etc... etc... in which case there is NOTHING that I can say which would make the slightest difference....
     
  18. Someone

    Someone New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2010
    Messages:
    7,780
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There's no effective way they could have shut the Russians up.
     
  19. polscie

    polscie New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2009
    Messages:
    353
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0

    if the only thing you need is to lie in order to save yourself, then lie is a must.

    NASA is not the first one to lie.

    Moses Lied.
    Jesus Christ lied.

    You lied. everyone is lying because it is so easy to lie.

    No spaceship can ever land and at the same time take off from the surface of the moon. That is why it is impossible for Man to send MAn on the moon
    and go back safely.

    yes man can land a spacecraft.that's is all but to take off is another thing, and to comeback home alive is another thing.

    Man did not land on the moon.

    polscie

     
  20. Peter Szarycz

    Peter Szarycz New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2011
    Messages:
    734
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Are you kidding me? Moon's surface gravity is only 1/6th of that on Earth. You attach some explosives underneath the lander, detonate them, and there goes the lander back up into the orbit. Then you rendevouz the lander with the orbiter, you activate the orbiter's thrusters to increase its velocity, and by such you make the orbiter go higher in orbit. You leave the thrusters on long enough, and you leave the lunar orbit all together and heading back to Earth provided you got all the calculations right. What's so overly complicated about that, that no human mind could have solved each of these steps?
     
  21. polscie

    polscie New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2009
    Messages:
    353
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    man cannot land on the moon because he cannot build a ship to travel from earth and enter the moon's atmosphere, then land safely and expect to take off successfully and return to earth without much ado.

    man could possibly land on the surface of the moon but to take off I doubt it very much.

    polscie.
     
  22. Sadistic-Savior

    Sadistic-Savior New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2004
    Messages:
    32,931
    Likes Received:
    89
    Trophy Points:
    0
    LOL

    Googling that took me about 12 seconds.
     
  23. Sadistic-Savior

    Sadistic-Savior New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2004
    Messages:
    32,931
    Likes Received:
    89
    Trophy Points:
    0
    How did you determine that? Am I correct in assuming you have never been to the moon yourself?
     
  24. Peter Szarycz

    Peter Szarycz New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2011
    Messages:
    734
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You're talking about the moon now, or Venus? I've heard there is a lunar "atmosphere" on the order of billions times thinner than that on Earth, consisting mainly of hydrogen and helium, the former coming by the way of UV light splitting molecules such as water perhaps, but this atmospheric thinness or absence is precisely why you can attach explosives underneath the lander rather than a thruster and blast it back into orbit without worrying that atmosphere will slow it down.
     
  25. polscie

    polscie New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2009
    Messages:
    353
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think I am having a second thought.
    Man cannot even land a spaceship on the surface of the moon.

    polscie
     

Share This Page