Moon Landing Questions

Posts: 8624

Couldn't find this one: What Happened on the Moon?

Others are fixed. Not sure if I got the original videos for all.

Posts: 2

	madthumbs wrote:
	Couldn't find this one: What Happened on the Moon? Others are fixed. Not sure if I got the original videos for all.

Cool.. thanks for a job well done.. Applause

Posts: 10

	madthumbs wrote:
	Thanks Suzette!

I have a problem with this photo, I am not saying the photo is/isn't "photoshopped" or fake, just offering a probable explanation.

It is pointed out that there are no tracks from the tires, but plenty of footprints, perhaps this is because they took it off the landing rig and set it down, thus making a lot of footprints (it couldnt have been that heavy, plus gravity is weaker on the moon), this may be the first photo of the car on the moon and hadn't been driven yet. If it was filmed on a set on Earth they would probably just roll it out onto the dust and take the photo, the tracks wouldn't have been a problem since they were supposed to be driving it around anyway. It seems extremely silly to me that NASA would go through the trouble of covering up or avoiding making tire tracks, let alone just "forget".
________
arizona dispensaries

Last edited by curious on Tue Feb 01, 2011 11:38 pm; edited 1 time in total

Posts: 30

I was just wondering that if they were able to land on the moon with people in it, why was it such an ordeal to get a little rover on Mars? The scheme to get that rover on Mars seemed rather crude by using parachutes and basically a giant rubber ball to protect it. If we managed to land HUMANS safely on the moon couldn't we have used the same strategy for the Mars rover?

Also why don't we dare NASA to land people on the moon again? If we accomplished such a magnificent task then shouldn't NASA be interested in having a continuous expedition to the moon since then? But heck we can barely send a rocket out to space like the Challenger disaster...

Don't know if this makes any sense, but interesting material here. I never really bothered to take a closer look at the moon landings.

Posts: 281

There is no way for NASA to have sent a man to the moon in 1969, they can't even do it today in 2008, almost 30 years later.

Everything is against them and they continue with the lie or why or why.

Posts: 37

Of COURSE they went to the Moon.

The visual evidence is plain to see to anyone who understands the physics of low gravity and an airless vacuum.

1. Prior to touchdown "kicking up dust" shows a shot NEVER seen before by human eyes - dust flying away in the invisible 'flame' of the hypergolic motor completely unencumbered by any atmosphere. It shoots away in 'straight' lines (1/6 Earth gravity) and disappears off-frame.

2. The astronauts bobbing around oddly (1/6 Earth gravity).... yes, the motion could have been slowed down, but if you watch the DUST you'll see that EVERY STEP throws up a material (which is like heavy dry flour) into small parabolae which quickly flop down again. How was the astronauts' motion slow, while the dust motion was quick?

3. The behaviour of the DUST is strange when you look at it closely. It never drifts around in clouds (it's in a hard vacuum), and it sticks to itself and any other surfaces when it touches them. It's in a hard vacuum!

4. There is no sound in space (vacuum!). The rocket will be 'silent' save for transmitted vibration through the lander frame into the cabin air.

5. No stars are visible in any video sequence. But the Sun's illumination on the Moon was TWICE as bright as midday's temperate zone blue sky sunshine on Earth. Can you see stars at noon?

6. For me the clincher is the take-off of the lunar lander from the Moon. The silent invisible flame rips up the gold-plated melinex wrapper of the descent stage and hurls the fragments (and a whole lot of dust) in straight lines off screen. "Sweet wrappers" blasted away at exhaust speed in straight lines without fluttering! A moment later, complete stillness returned to the Moon, and that's the way it stayed, I'm sure.

NONE of those shots could have been done more cheaply at that time than by going directly to the Moon.

There was no digital video editing at that time. There was very little digital electronics. For thirty years I have possessed calculators more powerful than the one million buck hand-built computer they took to the Moon.

All moonshot hoax material is handed out by people who HAVE something to gain by so doing. They are not worth your trust.

Posts: 8624

Can the space suits actually fit through the hatch of the lander? What about thermodynamics in that hard vacuum?

Many of the videos were obviously made to debunk possibly to cement people's belief in the landing.

Heres the lander taking off:

Posts: 37

	madthumbs wrote:
	Can the space suits actually fit through the hatch of the lander?

Yes - just. Or no, they were SO stupid they never thought of that!

	Quote:
	What about thermodynamics in that hard vacuum?

Those pliss devices were timed to flake out at the same time as the oxygen. Was it an hour?

	Quote:
	Many of the videos were obviously made to debunk possibly to cement people's belief in the landing.

I see, they made debunking videos which were so bad, you'd believe the original to be real?

Thanks for the vid. Makes my point completely.

Unless you believe it's possible to produce a vacuum in a 150ft high 300ft wide dome.

You do? Hahahahahahahahaha

Posts: 2699

Was a "Wag the Dog" scenario possible in 1969. While I can't argue very well on from a scientific point I can certainly see the psychological and political motivations behind deceiving the population.

Posts: 37

	edisme wrote:
	Was a Wag the Dog" scenario possible in 1969?

NO, for many reasons. (Thanks for the link! I hadn't seen the film and I thoroughly enjoyed it. It was brilliantly-written and acted by some of Hollywood's finest.) It is hard to suppose these days that it isn't happening all the time, if on a subdued level. The present incumbent certainly needs it...

	Quote:
	While I can't argue very well on from a scientific point

Well I can, I think. The missing elements of technology in 1969 were cable networks, wireless phones, digital electronics.

The spirit of the times demanded and expected LESS COMMUNICATION, and what little there was of it was more likely face-to-face. There were NO ways of editing and processing still and moving images with facility. What there was took TIME - far too much of it to cope with minute-by-minute changes in tactics.

	Quote:
	I can certainly see the psychological and political motivations behind deceiving the population.

Well at THAT time it was Richard Nixon who dabbled in that. His dabbling was limited by his limited intellectual capability. Low cunning and smarts he had - he began his career with a sleazy characterization of his opponent, who went by the unfortunate name of Alger Hiss.

But by not being up to the technology of his time - audio tapes - he failed to cover up his part in the Watergate burglary, and resigned his office.

Gene Krantz, on the other hand, led the engineering team monitoring the Apollo missions in PLAIN VIEW of the press box.

What happened on every mission was plain for EVERYONE to see, and for most of the time. It is quite obvious that he and the astronauts worked and trained together before and during the missions, and that astronauts were everywhere watching and taking part on the missions - it wasn't just the astronauts on the Moon.

The instruments in the control room were NOT computer terminals, just button panels and monitor screens.

Krantz was an engineer (he had little interest in the onlooking film or video cameras - he was deeply focussed on the mission).

He certainly wasn't a film producer!

I have seen the stuff about Stanley Kubrick's lens. It's another chimaeric rubric of these revolting times, where everyone seems to want to believe that NO-ONE is capable and courageous.

The ONE item I have found disturbing is the "tale" that Fra Mauro (Apollo 13's designated landing area) would NEVER have been in sunlight at the time when Aquarius would have landed.

I shall investigate this, but I doubt that I shall find the "tale" to be true, from bitter past experience.

Posts: 37

madthumbs wrote:

None of this talk about wires is convincing at all. Proof that you could do it wires isn't clinching evidence that it was done with wires.

Special attention is drawn to the scene where one astronaut helps up the other, and it "looks" as though the rising astronaut might have been raised by a wire.

But "the hand deceives the eye"- while the commentator is asking you to look at the rising astronaut, just take a look at the other.

His right hand (out of sight) is holding the rising astronauts left hand, and his feet kick some dust and splay as he takes the load. That wouldn't have been necessary at all if a wire were there...

And talking about the dust. As I've said before, the whole motion of the dust is peculiar. It is a little slower-falling than on Earth, but it doesn't billow at all - it makes no small clouds which drift away. As it comprises tiny refractive spherules, it sometimes makes little white temporary splashes as it typically rolls downhill. Nothing Earth-like about it at all...

The same goes for flashes of light. These are all over this footage, and probably ARE the result of radiation passing through.

The astronauts were at risk passing through the Van Allen belts and for the whole journey - but Life itself is a risk...

These guys were BRAVE. I admire them. I would have done what they did if I'd had the chance.

Posts: 8624

I agree about the wires, and feel the dust falls into the same category as unconvincing.

Now I've read someone state that the backpacks themselves wouldn't fit through the hatch on the lander, and that this could be verified by virtually anyone.

What about the vacuum? A vacuum thermos is capable of keeping things hot or cold for days. Our bodies alone are constantly producing heat, and being exposed to the solar radiation would have them generate much more heat.

Did you look at the video that showed how they used a monitor outside of the shuttle to show the earth outside the window?

I've also played this side by side with the original footage of the scene:

http://opposingdigits.com/vlog/?p=95

I don't like the guy's approach in Astronauts Gone Wild, but the astronauts do act very suspicious in it.

Posts: 263

this stuff works even better to discredit than does UFO talk. you know why?

because its easier for rational people to argue either side.
most rational people dont even really like to talk about ANYTHING regarding UFO's.

p.s. Terrence Mckenna is the only person who i will listen to when speaking about aliens Smile

Posts: 37

	madthumbs wrote:
	I agree about the wires, and feel the dust falls into the same category as unconvincing.

I'm not sure what you mean here.

I'm stating that "they were wired" is ridiculous, especially in a vacuum environment.

I'm also stating that the gravity was DEFINITELY NOT 1G and the dust wasn't Earth dust.

	Quote:
	Now I've read someone state that the backpacks themselves wouldn't fit through the hatch on the lander, and that this could be verified by virtually anyone.

There are pictures of astronauts entering and exiting the hatch.

	Quote:
	What about the vacuum? A vacuum thermos is capable of keeping things hot or cold for days. Our bodies alone are constantly producing heat, and being exposed to the solar radiation would have them generate much more heat.

The astronauts were dressed in white and their visors were gold. Their suits would reflect much of the sunlight on them, but the heat of the remaining absorbed sunlight and every effort of the astronauts would need rejecting in some manner - venting steam being the best option. I don't think that vented steam would be visible. There wouldn't need to be much.

	Quote:
	Did you look at the video that showed how they used a monitor outside of the shuttle to show the earth outside the window?

Yes. That seemed OK to me. That is, what was shot was pukka. I couldn't understand why they were claiming an out-of-focus effect was missing which was plainly visible in the original footage. It's as if their keeness to prove something wrong had blinded them to what was plainly apparent. There may well have been some reason why the astronaut couldn't get close to the window.