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. polscie

    polscie New Member

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

    So man has landed on the moon.

    Questions:

    Can we ever build a ship that understands the
    nature and characteristics of the space path
    between the earth and the moon?

    It is said that there is no gravity on the moon,
    so again a question of a spaceship that could
    reach the moon's vicinity of responsiblity, let
    alone what is the fuel needed to land this spaceship
    on the surface of the moon.

    While Man was on the moon this bright light,
    where was it coming from?

    How come,given the distance of communications
    between the earth and the moon and yet the signals
    received were clear?

    just a few, for now

    polscie

     
  2. oldjar07

    oldjar07 Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    1,915
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    38
    "We've landed on the moon? No way. We've landed on the moon!"
     
  3. Someone

    Someone New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2010
    Messages:
    7,780
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes. Back in 1969. It's not a particularly complex trip compared to what space probes are doing today.

    Actually, it is said that there is weaker gravity on the moon than on Earth. All objects exert gravity on the objects around them in proportion to their mass, and the moon is quite massive. The moon's gravity isn't as strong as Earth's gravity, but it's definitely enough to orbit around. For an example of the strength of the moon's gravity, consider that it is the primary cause of tides on Earth.

    Aerozine 50 and Nitrogen tetroxide. From a more ephemeral standpoint, the fuel that got people to the moon was the political will required to spend the resources on the project.

    Which bright light? The moon seems bright because it reflects light from the sun towards the Earth. The engines of the lander would not have produced enough light to be seen from Earth.

    They used powerful radios, networks of antennas, and most of the recordings released for use in media have been processed for clarity (and had the time delay removed).
     
  4. Poor Debater

    Poor Debater New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2,427
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It is not necessary for a ship to understand space any more than it is necessary for a car to understand the road. Understanding is a human quality, not a machine quality.

    Not by anyone who's educated. The Moon has gravity about 1/6 that of the Earth.

    Rocket fuel will work, if you build a big enough rocket.

    The Moon shines with reflected light from the Sun. As always.

    As space goes, the Moon isn't that far away.
     
  5. Bishadi

    Bishadi Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2010
    Messages:
    12,292
    Likes Received:
    52
    Trophy Points:
    0
    India sent a mission to map the moon.

    Can anyone show the pictures of the lander?

    The dune buggy?

    We all know, they found bunches of water on the moon before the US did but if they 'mapped' the moon, then there are either pictures of the lander, or there are not.
     
  6. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    14,837
    Likes Received:
    4,814
    Trophy Points:
    113
  7. Margot

    Margot Account closed, not banned

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2010
    Messages:
    62,072
    Likes Received:
    345
    Trophy Points:
    0
    My uncle worked on this NASA project..

    I am just amazed that these kids think it was a Hollywood stunt.

    I think we get dumber every year.
     
  8. Bishadi

    Bishadi Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2010
    Messages:
    12,292
    Likes Received:
    52
    Trophy Points:
    0
    my step mom went to school with them astronauts.

    ie... personal friends of the family

    and i still have to keep an open mind


    still no pictures!?!?!?

    at least show the tire tracks
     
  9. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    14,837
    Likes Received:
    4,814
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Follow the link in my post. It should be obvious from there.
     
  10. Bishadi

    Bishadi Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2010
    Messages:
    12,292
    Likes Received:
    52
    Trophy Points:
    0
    found lots of pics

    cool

    When india first returned images and the water was confirmed, i was one of the first to inquire about 'lander pictures'......

    basically, when Asu first published the initial pictures, i didnt see any lander!

    I was looking for the tracts, the shadow, anything ...................

    Sure have lots of them now! (just bunches and bunches)


    But of all the items that crack me up, it is the water issue.

    India proved there is water. Why not the USA?

    Look at how i see it;

    the solar wind is full of H, He, C, O....... ie..... bunches of H and O as part of the solar wind and naturally moving through space, every day (and nite too, huh huh).....

    basically, water is all over the universe.

    Likewise, if the O is so abundant in our atmosphere and the sun is firing solar flares full of ionized H at us, then what does H and O make? Where did our oceans come from?


    Now imagine if the earth was having a pole reversal and the magnetosphere was down and a solar flare (coronal mass ejection) occurred at the same time, what would happen?

    Think about it a bit.

    These are examples of quick thinking....... when data is learned/available

    (ie.... i gave you ideas, lets see if you come up with the answers)
     
  11. perdidochas

    perdidochas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2008
    Messages:
    27,293
    Likes Received:
    4,346
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male


    Huh?

    Nobody with any sense has said there is no gravity on the moon. There is approximately 1/6 of earth's gravity on the moon.

    What bright light? Do you mean the radiance from the moon that is reflected sunlight?

    Almost nothing was in between the earth and the moon.
     
  12. Dware

    Dware New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2010
    Messages:
    5,130
    Likes Received:
    46
    Trophy Points:
    0
    People that dont believe in the moon landings simply prove we as a Nation are getting dumber
     
  13. Bishadi

    Bishadi Banned

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


    that is like claiming, if people dont believe the bible they are going to hell
     
  14. Dware

    Dware New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2010
    Messages:
    5,130
    Likes Received:
    46
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Its not like that at all.

    I believe in the Bible but i dont expect or care if some dont, its a matter of personal "faith"

    Moon landings are a fact, there is no debate, it happened.
     
  15. Bishadi

    Bishadi Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2010
    Messages:
    12,292
    Likes Received:
    52
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Than you are accumstomed to manmade stories and question very little with the use of science and common sense.

    The one aspect i like about equilibration is, soon people like you will not matter.
     
  16. Dware

    Dware New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2010
    Messages:
    5,130
    Likes Received:
    46
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Im guessing that was some sort of nerd insult...

    Can you confirm..

    Thanks.
     
  17. ChrLz

    ChrLz Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    69
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Why didn't you look for them before posting? Why didn't you follow the link that was given? Those are not examples of 'quick thinking'..

    And yet in all the time since, you have not educated yourself?

    And did you not *check* if the camera had sufficient resolution to do so? I presume you are referring to Chandrayaan, which did not really have sufficient resolution to get those images, although it did get this:
    Impactlab - Chandrayaan image

    Doesn't really compare to the latest LRO images, like this:
    NASA - Latest Apollo site mapping images

    Mapping the Apollo regions to the resolution necessary to show any hardware has *never* been a priority of any spacecraft, as it is only of general interest. The new LRO images are just a nice by-product of the LRO's much closer orbit and better imaging systems. And imaging Apollo bits gave the LRO technicians the ability to do some camera/craft calibration using known objects.

    You seem easily amused. The US missions tests were inconclusive. Different missions have different priorities and abilities. Not sure why that would 'crack you up'.

    While pretty much everything does come from the stars, the reason why there are differing amounts of water on different planets and moons is NOT precisely known, and is FAR more complex than your scenario suggests. Perhaps you should start here:
    Wiki - Origin of Water on Earth

    Why don't you tell us? And please show your calculations, supporting references and peer review (if you think this is ontopic).

    Quick thinking is nowhere near as useful as proper, methodical ontopic research and considered and lateral thinking, especially when issues are complex and NOT able to simplified down into a few sentences.

    Why should we run around researching for/correcting you?

    That is possibly the worst and most inapplicable analogy I have ever heard. See below*.

    * I'd suggest you start another thread on which you point out all the bible stories for which there is proven science and hard evidence. In the meantime, and ONTOPIC, please provide any part of the documented history of Apollo that you cannot find proven science and hard evidence for, and that you now dispute having considered it properly.

    Would you mind providing your definition of equilibration? Thanks.
     
  18. Bishadi

    Bishadi Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2010
    Messages:
    12,292
    Likes Received:
    52
    Trophy Points:
    0
    i did. i aint all giddy like you over pictures
    You are apparently upset by my posts having any doubt.

    Im glad

    okey dokey

    basically, no matter what i say, if it aint published by someone else, i am wrong, irregardless...............?!?!?
    nah

    funny..... you like the ON Topic approach!
    the slow learners need homework

    You still cant spell very well!
    The bible proves unequivocally and itself as evidence that mankind can create.

    who took the pictures of the first step?



    hot going to cold, just because
     
  19. ChrLz

    ChrLz Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    69
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You did? Why then, did you say:
    Either you knew of them before, or you just found them. Which is it?

    Why do you say I'm 'giddy'? After all, it was you who said the pictures were 'cool'.

    First I'm giddy, now upset? Is this a hobby of yours, some sort of astral reading? Why don't you just stick to the facts, instead of trying to make some mileage out of what you think I'm feeling.

    For example, those words of yours were in answer to my points about Chandrayaan resolution. That was.. a FACT. A fact that would suggest you are highly UNfamiliar with the topic.

    So ANSWER the question. What resolution did the Chandrayaan probe have? What would it have been capable of showing?

    If you post uninformed rubbish that is contradicted by a comprehensive, consistent and largely testable and verifiable historical record, then YES, you are indeed wrong.

    So we now have your admission that you are happy to post unsupported claims, and will simply refuse to back them up. Thanks for verifying what was already quite obvious.

    Ad hominem ignored, but noted...

    Was that deliberate irony?

    :roll:

    Good grief - a .. question..!!??
    Let's assume you mean Neil Armstrong's first step? There were no still pictures taken, but it was 'filmed' by a live tv camera that he deployed after he exited the hatch, but before he descended the ladder. Didn't you know that? If that is the level of your knowledge on this topic, I suggest you pick another CT, or spend at least a few weeks researching (at non CT sites). You could start learning about the camera deployment by examining the Apollo 11 Lunar Surface Journal, at, say 109:21:09. Do you need a link?

    Great answer - right up there with the rest of your stuff. Thanks for coming, and showing how the average Apollo denier thinks. Or not.
     
  20. Bishadi

    Bishadi Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2010
    Messages:
    12,292
    Likes Received:
    52
    Trophy Points:
    0
    i posed the question in 2009. And there were no pictures.

    I was on the ASU site looking at them, well before the current hoard of pictures and threads like this
    i like art
    i didnt open this thread

    again, i was on the 'topic' within days of the photos being available

    No
    it's possible
    sure...... add it to the thead

    i have no problem with learning

    how about read some 'stuff' yourself:

    http://www.chemteam.info/Chem-History/Planck-1901/Planck-1901.html

    i offered evidence that is relevant to learning about where the errors could be.

    I already comprehend that if the lander was landing with thusters, there would be no dust for the foot print

    How about you?

    Is there dust on the lander?
     
  21. Peter Szarycz

    Peter Szarycz New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2011
    Messages:
    734
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Although photographs and footage (Capricorn 1) can always be forged, there is one particular 10-minute footage of the lunar landscape as the lander blasts off the surface and goes into a slanted trajectory. That footage has been around since the early 70s, seen probably by millions, and could not have been forged with the technology of that era. Moreover, one cannot deny the evidence in samples returned back to Earth by the Apollo missions. These rocks (regolith) are all spongy, obviously deposited in a low gravity environment, and contain much larger crystals than rocks on Earth. Such large crystals can also only grow to their size in a low-grav env't. What's more, these lunar rock samples contain isotopic ratios different from their terrestrial equivalents.
     
  22. Bishadi

    Bishadi Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2010
    Messages:
    12,292
    Likes Received:
    52
    Trophy Points:
    0
    http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5921HR.jpg

    that the lander

    almost point blank under the engine

    that is the boys talking

    http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/frame.html?CFID=27452&CFTOKEN=29535414



    same link




    lots of rocks

    but i think it is like 22kilos from that first mission but that little brief case handed to them when they boys were taken from the ocean capsul didnt have 22kg of weight in it as it was handled like a little empty brief case

    I know many have many 'explanations' but i am just observing


    and under that lander, there were no engines (boosters) running and there is no 'dust' on that lander, especially with how deep that foot print was of the 'first step'


    the links i posted are 'their pictures' from nasa library

    with the conversations from the boys describing what they did, from 'their' words (per se)

    you ascertain!

    i like to keep an open mind. How about YOU?
     
  23. Poor Debater

    Poor Debater New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2,427
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Why should there be dust on the lander? Dust kicked up in a no-atmosphere environment doesn't billow, it moves in straight lines away from the point of disturbance.
     
  24. Bishadi

    Bishadi Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2010
    Messages:
    12,292
    Likes Received:
    52
    Trophy Points:
    0
    apparently you didnt read, the part when about landing 'left' (drifting of the landing axis)

    they would have drifted right under their own 'dust' cloud (by the engines)

    then under that lander, if the engines were on (firing) would have cleared the whole area surrounding the lander.

    KISS

    i am using photographs to provide evidence whether the claims made by buzz and armstrong fit what they said.

    they dont

    ie.... that lander could not land on a dust covered surface, with the engines on, and then the dust settling underneath the lander but not on the lander.

    Then; how could the foot print have the inch depth of dust around the lander and not upon the lander?

    Use reason and common sense. Forget me, forget da uttttter evidence. Just read the so called 'first hand' accounts and the pictures and either you have a solid explanation or you have logical evidence that should at least offer you something to think about.

    i aint trying to break anyones back on the subject and i aint using someone else's ideas. I came up with this all by myself and have done the look see for my own personal understanding.

    i just see things a bit more in depth than many and crack myself up sometimes.


    Ie.... if you see this argument anywhere on the internet, i am why!
     
  25. Poor Debater

    Poor Debater New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2,427
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The LEM videos show dust only being kicked up in the final few seconds before touchdown, well after the lateral motion occurred.

    Apparently you didn't look closely at the photo you yourself provided. Here's a blowup, showing that areas in the blast shadow of the engine (said blast shadows being provided by small pebbles on the surface) definitely have less dust than adjacent areas outside of the blast shadow. The dust lines radiate out from the point underneath the center of the engine bell.

    [​IMG]

    So undoubtedly you'll just say, oooo, they sure faked it good.
     

Share This Page