Were the moon landings faked?
-
nawlinsurfer-1 — 20 years ago(September 30, 2005 09:11 PM)
Bottom line is that the U.S. made 6 moon landings from 1969-1972. I could fathom faking one - possibly two, but not six missions. Too many NASA administrators, astronauts, scientists and engineers would have to be "kept quiet" and that's just impossible on such a large scale again, 6 missions! Unfortunately, yes, America wastes billions of taxpayer dollars on frivolous, repetitive space missions rather than use the money for things on earth such as medical care for the elderly & disabled, reinforcing the levees in New Orleans, fixing potholes nationwide, creating jobs & housing for the homeless, andoh, maybe having bomber squadrons drop large dry ice blocks over tropical storms in their infancy before they develop into hurricanes. Don't knock it until you try it and at least give it a test run. It could save lives and it would at least be money well spent for a "giant leap for mankind."
-
halfinn — 20 years ago(January 08, 2006 10:36 AM)
"maybe having bomber squadrons drop large dry ice blocks over tropical storms in their infancy before they develop into hurricanes. Don't knock it until you try it and at least give it a test run. It could save lives and it would at least be money well spent for a "giant leap for mankind." "
You gotta be kidding me. You're grasp of the SCALE of weather formations in comparison to something as insignificant as a block of dry ice is abyssmal. They don't need to try it to know it won't do squat. The phrase "snowball's chance in hell" comes to mind. -
zarathustra2k1 — 11 years ago(September 05, 2014 10:11 PM)
You're grasp of the SCALE of weather formations in comparison to something as insignificant as a block of dry ice is abyssmal
http://youryoure.com/
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/abysmal
Your'e speeling ov abizmal {inn facte yo'ure cumpassishun ine genurelle] ise abissmle
The Adventures of The Man With No Penis:
http://tinyurl.com/8ezrkh -
lseybold-2 — 16 years ago(August 25, 2009 09:33 AM)
Just for starters, pictures of the Apollo Lunar Module descent stages on the Moon's surface.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/apollosites .html
Why do you think they didn't go?
"I am a collage of unaccounted for brush strokes, and I am all random!"
-
lseybold-2 — 16 years ago(August 26, 2009 09:45 AM)
Actually, the crews of Apollo 11, 12 and 14 did sleep with their spacesuits on while they were on the Moon, although they took off their helmets and gloves. The Apollo 15 LM crew (Dave Scott and James Irwin) were the first to take off their suits to sleep:
"For the first time, no bulky spacesuit would compromise an astronaut's sleep on the Moon. The newly designed suits not only offered more mobility, to aid the work on the surface, but were easier to put on and take off, affording [Irwin] and Scott the luxury of stripping down to their long johns and placing the suits, like stowaways, in the back of the tiny cabin." Page 415-16 of
A Man On The Moon
by Andrew Chaikin.
"I am a collage of unaccounted for brush strokes, and I am all random!"
-
lseybold-2 — 16 years ago(August 26, 2009 10:02 AM)
Can we get footage of after they left?
Here's a short clip from Apollo 17. The cameraman (Ed Fendell) pans around the lunar surface after the LM lifts off. You need Real Player though.
http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/a17v.1880034.rm
If you don't have Real Player, there's a shorter version of this clip at the Apollo Archive site. Click on 'Apollo Multimedia' and scroll down to Apollo 17.
http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo_archive.html
"I am a collage of unaccounted for brush strokes, and I am all random!"
-
lseybold-2 — 16 years ago(August 26, 2009 02:39 PM)
Also, how did they get in and out of the Apollo?
I assume you mean how did they get into and out of Apollo Lunar Module while they were on the Moon's surface. From Jay Windley's site Clavius:
The forward hatch occupied the middle segment of the front wall of the cabin (Fig. 2), beneath the center instrument panel. The commander normally stood to its left and the lunar module pilot (LMP) stood to the right. After donning their suits and PLSSes, the pressure was bled away into space and the LMP opened the door. It was hinged on his side, so he had to crowd toward his side of the cabin and hold the door open against his legs. The commander would then turn round, get down on his hands and knees, and back out onto the porch. After he had gone down the ladder, the LMP could close the door, move to the commander's side of the cabin, open the door again, and repeat the commander's procedure.
The ingress procedure was the reverse. The LMP entered first on hands and knees, stood up and closed the door so that he could move to his side of the cabin, then held the door open for the commander. After the commander was in and standing, the door could be sealed and the cabin again filled with oxygen.
http://www.clavius.org/lmdoors.html
Photographs of Buzz Aldrin crawling out of the LM:
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS11-40-5862
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS11-40-5863
"I am a collage of unaccounted for brush strokes, and I am all random!"
-
HapHazzard — 16 years ago(September 09, 2009 08:27 AM)
The pertified wood is pretty simple to explain, and it's true it doesn't paint NASA in a good light - but Bearing in mind the world climate and attitudes in the 70's, I'm not surprised that they wanted to keep as much of the moon material they could. While I expect the rocks given to more prestigious universities were genuine, I wouldn't be surprised if more than a few they handed out were similar fakes. As to the landing site photos you can see tracks in the dust and pretty obvious man-made items sitting ON THE LANDING SITES. While photoshop is good, it's not good enough to fool all the independant scientists pouring over that data right now..and they were just the first photo's from it's highest orbit. The satellite is due to move closer and get higher resolution photos before the mission is over.
At this point, it really does beggar my mind why some people want to hold onto this idiotic belief that the missions never happened. There is no evidence whatsoever that that is the case - all the usual arguments (Van Allen belt, photo's touched, flags moving, not going back since) have been shot down with actual scientific explanations as opposed to the conjecture of the arguments themselves, and you are now getting photos of the landing sites themselves. The simple fact is a government put the entire resources of it's engineering community into a massive project to beat the Russians at a time when that had a meaning - but the project ended up being for all mankind, and it succeeded.
It was a great moment in history and all the doubters are, frankly, idiots. If the President of the United States couldn't cover up his knowledge of a break-in that downed a Presidency - if another President couldn't cover up the fact a war he started was effectively illegal - how the hell does anyone believe that a project involving hundreds of thousands of workers, billions of tax payers dollars, set on a stage watched by all that countries enemies for any slip up or sign of irregularity they could use as propoganda could be faked without any genuine evidence or confessions coming to light? In this case, it's ludicrous beyond belief. And more proof against it comes in all the time while nothing substantial supports it. Moronic.
It's a tender love song, very beautiful. {Whats it called?} Lick my love pump.