Originally posted by Badge01
All other expeditions, North Pole, South Pole, Everest, and other far reaches of the globe are required to have INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION of the event
before it is deemed worthy and right to be entered into the record books.
How were those expeditions independently verified? I honestly don't know.
Despite many 'landings' on the moon by alleged astronauts, and unmanned vehicles from the US and other countries, guess what one event
has never been independently verified?
That's right, the Apollo moon landings have NOT been subjected to verification.
I had given you this
link before on amateur astronomers observing and tracking the Apollo
. I'll also add this link from Wikipedia about the
independant tracking of Apollo
1. pictures were faked (see Brian Leary's infamous comments);
You mean the comments from that horrible Fox program that took his comments out of context? For the record, Brian O'Leary believes that the Apollo
2. the actual astronauts were substituted. The US may have landed astronauts on the moon (at least the first landing) but they may not have
been Aldrin, Armstrong and Michael Collins;
Why substitute them? That makes no sense.
3. the entire first mission may have been faked (we never left low orbit);
Radio communications work differently at low orbit then they would while going to the Moon. People with HAM radios were able to listen in on the
communications from Apollo. You can't do that if they are in low orbit since the spacecraft would only be in sight for a few minutes every 90min or
5. we have never sent humans through the Van Allen Belt and we never will (until we have better space capsules). We have sent humans to low
earth orbit and on one occasion we sent the shuttle higher, but near the beginning of the first Van Allen belt;
6. the Van Allen Belts are far deadlier than we first imagined (One doco has the real newsreport on this comment).
I replied to your comment on this in another thread and again you seemed to have ignored it. I'll quote it for you.
Originally posted by jra
Originally posted by Badge01
Actually, there was a news broadcast a few years ago saying that the VA belts were more deadly than originally thought.
The electrons are energized to speeds much higher than previously thought, yes, but the are still not deadly if you are just flying through them.
Satellites that have 3mm of aluminum shielding receive 25 Sv per year in the belts and they still operate. The highest radiation dosage received out
of all the Apollo missions was by Apollo 14. It was 0.0285 Sv. The legal limit per year for people who work with radio active material is 0.05 Sv.
That's 1/700 the lethal dose for humans. So I really don't think the Apollo astronauts had much to worry about when coasting through the belts.
To recap, ONE or more of the above may be true. (it's not clear which, as far as real proof).
But you're not willing to accept that it happened how NASA says it did?
To explain #2, if you have high profile astronauts and something goes wrong, it could be a -major- PR disaster. So the solution is to "seem"
to send Aldrin, Armstrong and Michael Collins, but to use 'no name' guys in the actual ship. That way if there was a catastrophe they could do some
spin control and cover up the deaths and say either we didn't make it, here's Armstrong, Aldrin, and Collins, safe and sound, or we did make it and
"they" got back OK.
I'm sorry, but that's one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. They were test pilots. They knew the danger and accepted it. Astronauts have
died in accidents before and after Apollo. NASA never covered them up, yes it's bad for PR, but so what. Accidents happen and you learn from them and
Numerous people died before Chuck Yeager broke the sound barrier. None of them had "no name guys" replace them incase they died. Chuck Yeager
himself continued to break many aviation records. He was never replaced by a "no name guy". And if you can land "no name guys" on the Moon then
why the cover up? It makes no sense.
I'm not alleging this, just offering an explanation for this fairly clever scheme, if in fact, it was true. Remember the whole Moon Landing
thing was not about exploration or gathering data (such as taking UV pic of the stars, or using an astronomic telescope and special camera to take
star pics), it was only about 'landing a man' and jumping around and planting a flag.
If that's all you think the Moon landings were about, then you are sadly mistaken. It was about exploration and gathering data. It was also about
beating the Russians and creating National pride as well.
Aldrin mentions that the chance of making the blast off and docking with the orbital module after liftoff from the moon was about, or less than 30%.
I.e. two in three chances that they'd not dock successfully and thus two of the members would perish.
I heard a documentary back in the 80s that was made in the 70s which said that the chances of missing the docking with the Orbiter was a LOT less than
30% (more like 8%). They said they really got lucky and with some last minute course corrections, Armstrong was able to dock.
I find those numbers hard to believe. Do you have a source at all for that?
Look at the press conference after the mission. Three very strange acting guys who appear to be embarrassed by the whole thing, and not proud
guys returning from the greatest expedition of all time.
Maybe they were tired after spending many days on a long trip in a small capsule and then 3 weeks in quarantine after that? Maybe they were also a
little nervous being infront of all those people and camera's in the press conference. I know I would be, as I don't like speaking to large
audiences myself. Many people feel anxiety when speaking to groups of people. I know Armstrong does for sure. To simply watch the footage and say,
"They look nervous and uncomfortable. They must be hiding something." is foolish. I've watched clips of it and I never got the impression that they
were hiding anything or not proud of there accomplishments.
Another Factoid. Despite being on the 'high ground' for the first time, the Astronauts, present at the HIGHEST OBSERVTORY in the solar system
(at the time) did NOT take any pictures of the stars. They did take a UV scope on a later mission, but NO pictures from this scope have been published
anywhere (that I'm aware). Though it's hard to take pictures of stars and people and bright landscape AT THE SAME TIME, it is NOT impossible to take
pictures of the stars from the Moon, if you use the right exposure and right camera and do it in the shadow of the LEM.
We've gone over this before. They didn't have a tripod for there still film camera. As for the pictures from the UV telescope I gave you direct
links to the pictures. And yet again you seemed to have ignored my replies.
IMO, going to the Moon and not taking a 'Hubble-like' photo or two of the stars, is like going to the Mauna Kea observatory in Hawaii and
never looking up at the stars. It's ludicrous.
A Hubble like photo? They didn't have the room to bring along so much equipment. There are a lot of weight restrictions. Bringing a big telescope and
mount and all that would have added a lot of unneeded weight to the LM. Every little gram was accounted for and if it wasn't needed, it wasn't
Again, you can't take a regular camera and take a pic of an Astronaut and get stars in the background, but you can use proper equipment (which
was available, or very light and easy to take - like a spotting scope with a time-lapse camera) and get pictures of the specific stars.
You're not going to get Hubble like images from a spotting scope. You need something like Hubble to get Hubble like pictures. Taking photos similar
to Hubble's can require up to many hours worth of exposures. They didn't have the time to do that sort of stuff. They were pretty busy during the
EVA's as it was.
Why not do this? One reason. Because these stellar photographs would NOT have been able to be faked. The precise alignments and orientation of
the various stars could be checked subsequently by Earth astronomers, including Amateurs and any attempt at faking would be instantly detected. Thus
they claimed they did not take the pics. (in fact Collins says he doesn't recall SEEING any stars).
The stars alignments and orientation would look no different on the Moon then they would on Earth. Why do you think that taking photos of stars on the
Moon would be proof they went there?
When Collins said he couldn't see any stars, he was referring specifically to when they were photographing the solar corona and not for the entire
mission. Seeing as how they used star charts with there navigation tool during there trip and spotted stars with it.