The flag was blowing when theirs no air on the moon, neil armstrong left a footprint in the ground when the lunar lander left nothing. Do you think its really a hoax?|||It was fake. The rocks were fake. The reflectors were put up there by earlier unmanned probes like the Ranger missions.
Lawn furniture or super groovy interplanetary spaceship of the naive 60's?
http://moonmovie.com/images/AS11-40-5922…
(make sure to enlarge in order to really get a good look at American engineering at its finest)
Do some research on this guy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Parson…|||Typical. Answers with anything up to ten thumbs ups, and this twaddle gets best. What's the point?
Report Abuse
|||The moon landing hoax theory's were invented to sell books and videos. A few gullible people fell for the scam, and the hoax theory's snowballed from there.
Every piece of so called evidence for the hoax can be easily shown to be incorrect.
The flag waving in the wind? Find me one piece of film where the flag is moving without an astronaut interacting with it. You can't, because it didn't happen.
Actually, the movement of the flag while the astronauts are erecting it, proves beyond all doubt that it was in a vaccum.
Find me just one person, with a recognised qualification in a relevant field, who thinks the apollo missions were fake. You can't, because they don't exist!
The moon landings happened. there is Absolutely no doubt about it.|||Don't you think the millions of us watching would have noticed a fluttering flag? Why would NASA stage a hoax in a 30 mph, constant wind?
The flag fluttering point was covered well. The are actually two flag issues. The flag kept moving shortly after the astronaut let it go, because no air dampened it. The video and the collection of pics show it is still afterwords, so the fluttering claim is wrong.
Here is the most comprehensive explanation:
http://www.clavius.org/envflutter.html
And as for the crater issue, Clavius (by a rocket scientist) says
"The Lunar Landing Training Vehicle, for example, didn't produce any craters. And it directed even more downward thrust than the lunar module. Harrier jets and large helicopters routinely produce vast amounts of downward thrust without leaving large craters behind. "
But there is much more about the LM and the Moon:
http://www.clavius.org/techcrater.html|||Yes, six Apollo moon missions successfully landed on the moon in the late 60's and early 70's.
No, we haven't returned for the simple reason that the cost was prohibitively high and there was no compelling reason to spend the money on manned missions after the Space Race was won.
It was successfully argued that more emphasis should be placed on unmanned robotic probes and that ill-advised, poorly-designed money pit, the Space Shuttle. In hindsight, turning our back on the human exploitation of the moon was a terrible mistake in science.
NASA is finally planning a return to the moon in the next decade as a precursor to an eventual manned mission to Mars.|||%26gt;%26gt;Man was predicted to be able to go to the moon in 2020.%26lt;%26lt;
No, the current program of development and construction is predicted to take until 2020. If NASA got more money they could go more quickly.
%26gt;%26gt;If we really went, why havent we been back in 36 years??%26lt;%26lt;
Because it's very expensive, and the bill is paid by the US taxpayer. Once they beat the Russians they stopped being willing to pay the bill any more, so NASA was given less money and told not to waste it on future manned lunar missions. They still managed NINE flights to the Moon with six landings before then, however.
%26gt;%26gt;The flag was blowing when theirs no air on the moon,%26lt;%26lt;
Oh good grief. The flag was NOT blowing at all. Seriously, look at the actual footage of the flag. There's loads of it over the six landings. The flag moves ONLY when moved by an astronaut. Once the oscillations die away the flag hangs absolutely still, which is next to impossible in anything but a vacuum.
%26gt;%26gt;neil armstrong left a footprint in the ground when the lunar lander left nothing.%26lt;%26lt;
The LM did not leave 'nothing', there was some clear disturbance in the soil. If you're expecting a crater, I suggest you compare the pressure of the LM exhaust over the wide area of the engine nozzle (and consider that the nozzle never touched the ground, so the pressure was spread even thinner by the time the exhaust hit the surface) and the pressure of one man's weight on an area the size of a boot.
%26gt;%26gt;Do you think its really a hoax?%26lt;%26lt;
Not even slightly. And I know that based on an examination of more evidence than most of the hoax proponents even know exists.
[Edited to add]
For Beyond brainwashing:
%26gt;%26gt;NOBODY has witnessed any proof of the moon landings, all they have seen are selective black and white poor quality images shown to them through a very small box in the corner of their living rooms.%26lt;%26lt;
Thank you for proving my point. All of the eleven manned Apollo missions sent back live TV. However, only Apollo 7, Apollo 8, Apollo 9 and the Apollo 11 lunar EVA were in grainy black and white. Apollo 10, the Apollo 11 onboards and all the Apollo missions from 12 onwards included live COLOUR TV. Hours and hours of it, in fact. Since you are apparently unaware of this we can consider your conclusions ill-informed to say the least.
But the TV doesn't exist in isolation. There are piles and piles of evidence for Apollo. Again, I am certain I've seen more of it than you know exists to be seen.
%26gt;%26gt;IT IS A FACT THAT SPACE SUITS AND SHUTTLES WOULD NOT PROTECT THE ASTRONAUTS FROM THE RADIATION BELTS OUTSIDE EARTH ORBIT%26lt;%26lt;
No it isn't. When you've taken some time to understand the difference between particle and electromagnetic radiation, and the dozens of probes before and after Apollo that have sent back data about the radiation in space below, within and outside the van Allen belts, and the fact that billions of dollars of private commercial revenue depends on that data being accurate, then come back and tell us about the level of protection you'd need.
%26gt;%26gt;Our technology then was too primitive, who do the astronauts never give interviews where they are question about their so called trip?%26lt;%26lt;
HA! They do, many many of them. Only last year a film was released including interviews with the astronauts. Only last year a TV series was made including interviews with the astronauts. Most of them have written books on the subject. Honestly, do some real research, rather than just regurgitating the rubbish from conspiracy theorists like Bart Sibrel, who are only out to part a fool with his money.|||Yes they did land on the moon, only people who
- hate the government
- know less science than a Highschool student
- want to make money with their books and videos
- simply are trolling
claim otherwise.
NASA has i.e.
- eyewitnesses
- a whole load of documentation (including the tracking data from foreign countries)
- thousands of pictures
- hours of film
- the laser reflectors
- %26gt;300kg of rocks from the moon
- a congratulation from the russians
Most of the landingdeniers counterclaims don't even need an expert to be shown wrong, they are just stupid. .
Just one example:
You claim that the flag was waving in some wind
Now everyone who bothers to do some research (instead of relying on the fraudulent Snippets the Hoaxers show) will find out, that the flag was held up by a wire, and appeared only to be waving while (and shortly after) being handled by one of the astronauts.
You also have to ask yourself if it is really believeable that NASA would miss a waving flag if they wanted to fake it?|||It is not a question of belief, it is a question of historic fact.
The six Apollo Moon landings are among the best documented events in human history: thousands of pictures, hours of video, nearly half a ton of Moon rocks, and millions of eye witnesses, including myself. There is not a single scientist in the world who doubts that they took place. To deny them is to discredit the magnificent achievement of the team which went to the Moon, and to reveal abysmal scientific ignorance.
The proofs of the Moon landings have been documented in detail on web sites like these:
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxap…
http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm
http://www.clavius.org/
As to why we havent gone back, it's a question of money. Congress cut NASA's funding after the sixth lunar landing in 1972 because the public seemed to have lost interest in the Moon and the "space race" with the Soviet Union had been won. It was tragically bad timing, because Apollo 17 in 1972 was the _first_ Apollo voyage to have a trained scientist, Harrison Schmitt, on board, and was supposed to be the first of three scientific expeditions.
More was learned about the Moon and its history in that voyage than in the previous 5 put together, and much more would have been learned if the two next voyages had been funded. Instead the US space program was redirected into the boondoggle of the shuttle and space station programs, neither of which has made much contribution to science.|||Absolutely not. The points you mention are understood and refuted as a hoax. The hoax proponents cannot even see the impossibility of their claims. They bang on about the shadows for example but are reinforcing the fact hat we did go and do not know it.
Radiation is the other stepping stone in their education that trips them up. Searing hell is mentioned, radiation is used as a scary 50's type film killer. What they fail to realise is that we are bombarded by all sorts of radiation everyday. Radiation comes in different forms not just the dangerous stuff. The belts are understood, the type of radiation is understood and how to deal with it is an established fact.
If the usual suspect post up about the radiation, show your education. What specifically is your claim that the belts are a killer? Stop using the term "fact" when you do not appear to back it up. Youtube does not count as evidence.
Speaking of youtube, many if not all of the hoax claims inhabit places as such because the real scientific world does not entertain them. The people that produce the films cannot get any of their claims accepted, so the ferret around the edges thinking people actually care. There is a small following of back slappers for various reasons but they will not produce a paper on it and get it peer reviewed by the relevant experts. Such confidence is overwhelming...
Reason for stopping? Loot and public interest.|||I believe that the appollo hoax is a hoax. We haven't been back since then because it's too expensive. The flag was "blowing" because the flag pole was inserted using twisting motions, which left stationary ripples on the flag.
There are many more counter-arguments, but I won't bore myself with trying to prove something to people who don't want to listen.|||No!
NOBODY has witnessed any proof of the moon landings, all they have seen are selective black and white poor quality images shown to them through a very small box in the corner of their living rooms.
IT IS A FACT THAT SPACE SUITS AND SHUTTLES WOULD NOT PROTECT THE ASTRONAUTS FROM THE RADIATION BELTS OUTSIDE EARTH ORBIT THAT IS WHY ONLY UN MANED AND ROBOTIC CRAFT HAVE MADE IT TO THE MOON.
Our technology then was too primitive, who do the astronauts never give interviews where they are question about their so called trip?
You only have to watch the press conference when they come back to see that they were making it up and finding the question and answer sessions very difficult, because they were lying.
Watch the evidence against the fraud.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HT3_X9Su…
(A funny thing happened on the way to the moon)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCcwKjaOp…
(Moon hoax)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dM0FDGOss…
(feather and hammer)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gD2P-Po_…
(Visor)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnAPk6J-D…
(Bible)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xiVXd6lRU…
(Law suit)
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=0IhAFLmVT3…
(Punch)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQj-Mh__f…
(Photo)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mouUUWpEe…
(Ladder)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7n79Vl7_M…
(Slow motion)|||As far as i know the reason they never went back was that it was too expensive, and the people didnt want them wasting money on space travel when theres loads of things that need money down here.|||usually i have an each to their own attitude, but anyone that really truly thinks the missions were a hoax, is a mug|||NO. Stones had been brougth to earth and analysed|||No, I believe we were there.|||Is this question a hoax?|||I have an Apollo bicycle parked in the garage. it has a 24 speed derailleur gearset, indexed, which is far more that I need or want but just try to get a bike without that. It is not a hoax and neither were the Moon landings.
Would the flag be "blowing" inside a sound stage if the landings were staged? How much wind is needed to make a flag fly? Do you get that amount of wind inside a building? Could it be that the flag was crumpled from being folded up?
Since they said in the 1960s that the flag had a rod along the top to hold it out, and you can clearly see the rod in some of the photographs, then perhaps the flag story is meaningless.
What is the weight of an astronaut with all his equipment on? What is the area of his boot print? Pressure = weight divided by area.
What was the force exerted on the lunar surface by the rocket engines just before touchdown? The lunar descent module pilot had to throttle the motor back to prevent the module from rising. That measn the force exerted by the motor as it got close to the ground was far less than the weight of the module.
Over what area was that force exerted? Five, ten square metres with the greatest force near the middle and weakening outwards?
If you have seen the film taken from inside the module of the landing, you will notice a lot of dust being blown away from the surface. This dust was blown away from a fairly wide area. What was the pressure at the centre and the pressure at the edge of the area? The rocket motors would create a small depression in the surface, compared to what was there before, but is a shallow saucer like depression superimposed on what was a fairly uneven surface to start with. Therefore it does not show up.
If you are referring to the feet of the lander, then the same equations apply. Pressure = weight divided by area. There are four feet, each of which is far larger than an astronaut's boot sole.
In addition, the weight of the module bears straight down, the astronaut when walking exerts a force on the ground that can be resolved into vertical and horizontal components. Put crudely, he grinds his boot into the ground.
The two situations are strictly not comparable with each other since the surface is powdery.
Try it by blowing gently into a plate filled with dust.|||No, i do not believe man landed on the moon surely if we did we would come back to it?. For an example if you found a new territory you would go to it tell your friends then go back, not just go their and ditch it, this may be one of the many things we may just never find out.|||Hmm, well, I read this only today...there IS actually a reason we haven't gone back to the moon. It's all technical legal stuff as far as I can remember. If you specifically want to know, e-mail me and I can look up the scource by going through my internet history...
Anyway, do I believe it was a hoax? I used to think so... Especially since you learnt that the USSR was actually ahead in the space race when the USA suddenly landed on the moon. But I don't know...it's such a HUGE hoax...if they did it at all. I think it's something we won't ever know the answer to for sure.|||Yes I do, there are too many discrepancies for it to have been true.
Yes, why haven't they been back to study more, if as they say we may end up colonising the moon in the distant future? Fake invented to beat the Russians!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6MvcIs4O…
http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapoll…|||I have looked as various sites on this and believe it's a hoax. It was the great space race between the US and the then USSR. One had to come out on top to show its technology led, and I think a hoax was the way they did it.
No comments:
Post a Comment