I was wrong, if this is right. apollo did land on the moon.

Originally posted by stanlee
iits all bukllocks especially with apollo 14. when did the astronauts get large enough to have foot paths and foot prints visible from space.

You're given a demonstration of the technological achievements man has made, to the point of routinely sending probes to the moon and nearby planets with instruments sensitive enough to detect a footpath worn in the dust from orbit. And that's your response?

You. can't. be. serious.

reply to post by Anti-Evil


Yes that's right, contrary to what you may have been told we DID land on the moon

At first glance those that believe the Apollo missions were faked have quite a few claims that seem to hold water but if you dig deeper you'll find so much more evidence that says we did go to the moon. You have Engineers working round the clock for years to design and build an expensive Saturn V (they wouldn't have built the darn thing if they were just gonna shoot it into space empty), you've got mission control, you've got witnesses from all over the place, etc.

The benchmark for me was that the Russians never called foul, if Apollo had been a fraud, if there had even been the slightest doubt it was real, the Russians would have been the first going ape over it. I'm guessing the Russians went over every bit of footage from Apollo they could get their hands on, if their scientists had seen anything suspect they would have been the first to say something.

We did land on the moon.

To answer Komodo concerning edge. Its like a coin laying flat. I could see a contrail actually shoot out slowly into the blue sky surrounding the moon. Looking at the surface (flatside) optics that I had would not detect something coming toward me at that distance. Very much an amateur at that time with a borrowed scope. Listening on the radio and then looking for the lift off subsequently.

reply to post by Komodo


How about this:

Soviet Luna 16

Analysis of the dark basalt material indicated a close resemblance to soil recovered by the American Apollo 12 mission.

So we have a Russian probe that returned soil samples from the moon, these samples have a close resemblance to soil samples brought back from Luna 12.


Still blah blah blah I supposes?

[edit on 21/10/09 by Chadwickus]

reply to post by Chadwickus

[sarcasm]Well, everyone knows that the Soviet Union and the United States were such good friends in the 1960s and 1970s, so obviously the Soviets helped the U.S. with the whole Apollo hoax -- that's what good friends do. [/sarcasm]


...and back to the OP:
This may have already been mentioned, but the reason all of the Apollo missions were on the part of the Moon that faces the Earth was so the astronauts could communicate with the Earth. If they were on the far side of the Moon, there would be no radio, TV, or communication of any kind.

The only way to have communications with the far side would be to put a "lunar-stationary" satellite in orbit with a line-of-sight to both the Earth and the astronauts to act as a relay for communications.

That would be expensive to do, so not part of the original Apollo missions -- However, it was actually part of NASA's long-term (but unfulfilled) plans for exploring all of the Moon.


[edit on 10/21/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe

Originally posted by stanlee
iits all bukllocks especially with apollo 14. when did the astronauts get large enough to have foot paths and foot prints visible from space.

You're given a demonstration of the technological achievements man has made, to the point of routinely sending probes to the moon and nearby planets with instruments sensitive enough to detect a footpath worn in the dust from orbit. And that's your response?

You. can't. be. serious.

I suppose "stanlee" is not one of those hoax believers who has always said:
"if Apollo happened, then why haven't we -- with all of our technology -- ever been able to see any signs of those missions?"

He must be taking a different approach to finding evidence of a Moon hoax. Now that NASA (and Japan) has sent probes there that CAN see the evidence, he says:
"Bah! -- that evidence can't be real because it would be impossible to see anything from orbit."


[edit on 10/21/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]

The original Apollo 11 moon landing film has been lost by NASA. Barely a mention in the press. No-one fired. It's a national tragedy. In 40 years since Apollo 11 there was no other copy made? It's all just gone? What the hell is going on here??

Originally posted by Tifozi
In case this wasn't a joke:

Hubble looking to the moon is like you using binoculars to read a book.

Closeness means focus and the Hubble is capable of focussing on earth. Apparently the resolving power of Hubble, at 0.05 arc seconds, is barely too course to see the lunar lander. Yet, I somehow doubt this low a resolution with all those beautiful deep space pictures.

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull:
..you've got mission control, you've got witnesses...

It's funny you should mention mission control cause there were two mission controls. There was Launch Control which handled the real work of sending the Apollo probes into earth orbit for a few days and then landing them, and then there was Mission Control for the moon part. Mission Control was limited to the past and future astronauts of the moon mission. This is peculiar and so is Neil Armstrong's press conference after the landing where he looks like a broken man.

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull:
You have Engineers working round the clock for years to design and build an expensive Saturn V (they wouldn't have built the darn thing if they were just gonna shoot it into space empty),

It's compartmentalisation. I have no doubt that they were actually trying to reach the moon but they couldn't overcome the key hurdles by 1969. The most important hurdle is cosmic rays. On earth and in close earth orbit we are protected by the magnetic field, the air and the earth itself. Beyond that there are deadly amounts of cosmic nuclear radiation coming at every angle. NASA even admits this is the number one barrier to space travel today.

There is a heat problem in space this close to the sun. All spacewalks have an air conditioning tether. NASA says the moonwalkers had a heat exchanger but these do not work in a vacuum. We'd have roasted astronauts. An evaporative discharge air conditioning might work but they didn't have that either.

Likewise, the cameras they took the stills with should have fried in the heat. And in the vacuum their spacesuits would have puffed up rigidly especially at the fingers making those cameras virtually inoperative. The air filled tyres on the rover would have exploded.

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull:
The benchmark for me was that the Russians never called foul, if Apollo had been a fraud, if there had even been the slightest doubt it was real, the Russians would have been the first going ape over it.

Tell me what would be the benefit to the Russian government in calling the Apollo moon landings for a hoax? I think what speaks louder is the Russians not duplicating the feat themselves.

I often read: the moon rocks prove the moon landings. The moon rocks are basalt irradiated in a nuclear oven for 12 hours impregnated with a few meteorites from Antarctica. The upshot is they think "moon rocks" are being found in Antarctica now!

Another thing I read is: it was morning on the moon so it hadn't heated up enough, hence no need for air conditioning. There is no time lag for things to heat up in the vacuum of the moon. Yes, it depends on the time exposed and the angle of the sun but once an upright object like a human being is exposed to the sun the heating in the morning will be the same as at midday; more so in fact cause the sun is side on.

Originally posted by finemanm
The moon landings were real. We know that because independent scientist have been using the laser reflectors left on the moon by the Apollo astronauts for years to study the moon's orbit and rotation.

You don't need a laser reflector - they've been bouncing lasers directly off the moon's surface since 7 years before Apollo.

Despite the moon landings NASA presently has no idea how much shielding will be required for a mission to mars nor when it will be feasible. NASA didn't even release the photographs of the recent water probe bomb on the moon until a "cool off" period. What's with that? They need to filter everything? Their lies have ruined the enthusiasm for space exploration. In the 1960s they were talking bases on the moon by the 1990s and manned space exploration and somehow the Jetson's age just fizzled. Instead of encouraging discovery NASA has to obfuscate the real knowledge of space partly to cover their tracks for this moon hoax. NASA needs to be fired!

Originally posted by CarbonFooledYa
Barely a mention in the press. No-one fired. It's a national tragedy. In 40 years since Apollo 11 there was no other copy made? It's all just gone? What the hell is going on here??

Barely a mention? I've been seeing this in various news articles for years. It's a bit much to call it a "national tragedy" though. And there are many copies, maybe not as good as the original, but copies none the less. Plus there is all the 16mm DAC footage and hundreds of photos. So all is not lost.

Apparently the resolving power of Hubble, at 0.05 arc seconds, is barely too course to see the lunar lander. Yet, I somehow doubt this low a resolution with all those beautiful deep space pictures.

The beautiful deep space images of Nebulae and Galaxies that Hubble takes are tens of light years to hundreds of thousands of light years in size. If you want to see something as small as the left over Apollo hardware on the Lunar surface from Earth (or Earth orbit), you'd need a telescope with a mirror about this big (~300m)

This is peculiar and so is Neil Armstrong's press conference after the landing where he looks like a broken man.

In what way does he look like a "broken man"? Because he looks totally normal to me, perhaps a bit nervous, but it is a formal press conference. Neil was never a fan of the spotlight, not everyone likes speaking in front of an audience.

It's compartmentalisation.

The Apollo program was an open program. It needed to be in order to work. For example, each stage of the Saturn V rocket was built by a different company. There has to be open communication between them to make sure that it's all going to fit together in the end. There is no way the program could have been compartmentalized.

The most important hurdle is cosmic rays... ...NASA even admits this is the number one barrier to space travel today.

Radiation is a problem for long term missions in space. The Apollo missions were not out in space long enough for radiation to be a big problem.

All spacewalks have an air conditioning tether.

No they don't.

NASA says the moonwalkers had a heat exchanger but these do not work in a vacuum.

It worked by sublimation which works perfect fine in the vacuum of space.

Likewise, the cameras they took the stills with should have fried in the heat.

What heat? The film were kept in magazines, they were never exposed to direct sunlight. And the camera body reflected a lot of the light (heat) away.

And in the vacuum their spacesuits would have puffed up rigidly especially at the fingers making those cameras virtually inoperative.

The space suits were specifically designed to inflate to point as to still retain flexibility for the astronauts. And the cameras were modified so that the astronauts could use them easily. Some basic research would reveal this to you.

The air filled tyres on the rover would have exploded.

And speaking of basic research. If you spent a few minutes reading about the Lunar rover, you might have learned that they didn't use air filled tires, but instead a woven wire mesh. Just look at a photo of one AS16-114-18454. Note the shadow and that the sunlight is shining through it.

You really need to re-evaluate your information on the Apollo missions. Spend some time reading about the missions and learning about what really happened.

Originally posted by Anti-Evil
I just have one stupid -- nagging qustion.... what do you see in the photo... look close...

www.nasa.gov...


now - what is odd is... well we went there to see what we can see from home all those times... not one outside our line of sight... whats on the back side..?

and well it appears there is stuff on the moon that appears to be apollo sites... so, ah I'm speechless unless these are offical fakes which I doubt.

www.nasa.gov...


[edit on 20-10-2009 by Anti-Evil]

sorry, but those shadows are all over the moon...pointing to shadows and saying they are the apollos left behind, is stretching it a bit. besides we DO have telescopes that could easily see the craft, but it apparently has never been done. hhmm...wonder why??

Originally posted by jimmyx
besides we DO have telescopes that could easily see the craft, but it apparently has never been done. hhmm...wonder why??

No, we don't. It would require a telescope far larger than any ever built to see the landing sites from earth. Optical resolution is limited by aperture size, and there's no way to overcome that. It's basic optics 101.

The Lord Enki and his son Marduk spent several years on the moon. During this time they took measurements, tracked the rotation of the moon and earth and the solar system around the sun. They also observed and named the main 12 constellations. When they were finished they returned to the earth and passed the knowledge onto some select humans. These were the first human High Priests and Kings.

So perhaps these footprints and other things were left there by them? Certainly more credible then little tin cans built in the 60’s hehehe

Originally posted by jra

It's a bit much to call it a "national tragedy" though.

Losing the original tape of the US and world's greatest achievement is not a national tragedy? Boy NASA really did kill the enthusiasm for the space program. Ho hum, it's just the original moon landing tape.

Originally posted by jra
you'd need a telescope with a mirror about this big (~300m)

Point taken.

Originally posted by jra
It worked by sublimation which works perfect fine in the vacuum of space.

Yes, sublimation would work if you had a system that actually produced sublimation. NASA had a water cooled suit. The water took heat from astronaut and brought it to a plate in the backpack where it would freeze on a cold plate. The frozen water would then sublimate to vapour taking heat away. And how did the water in the suit turn to ice on the sublimation plate?

"Hamilton Standard introduced a porous plate sublimator on the PLSS : Heated water would pass through the sublimator, freeze at pores of the nickel plate that was partially exposed to ambient space temperature, vaporize as heat was introduced through exchange fins, sublimate the ice film, and thereby free the vapor to be discharged."

Ahh, it's because space is cold. Everyone know space is cold right? The Apollo 13 astronouts said that they were really cold in the direct sunlight, so it must be true. Tom Hanks said it's true. SPACE IS COLD... so says NASA.

Originally posted by jra

And the cameras were modified so that the astronauts could use them easily. Some basic research would reveal this to you.

I often hear that. That it was specially shielded against heat and radiation. The buttons and latches made bigger so those sausage fingers could open them. Some accounts say they were chromed, others say it was white painted aluminium. All that shielding is going to be useless once you take the cartridge out of the camera. The exposure to cosmic nuclear radiation would ruin the film. The Apollo photos you see are studio perfect.

Originally posted by jra
You really need to re-evaluate your information on the Apollo missions. Spend some time reading about the missions and learning about what really happened. ...

...And speaking of basic research. If you spent a few minutes reading about the Lunar rover, you might have learned that they didn't use air filled tires, but instead a woven wire mesh.

You're 7 years on this site but still say I'm uneducated for not swallowing the official story? Everything you've said is merely rote learning from NASA and their apologists. It was through the study a ton of very anomalous photos, movies and facts showing bazaar discrepancies that I arrived at this conclusion. I do not sacrifice my intellect to authority.

NASA was made aware of the problem with the tyres in the 70s. They retroactively altered some of the photos and changed the tyres of the Lunar Buggy on display from rubber tube to wire mesh.

Originally posted by jra

Radiation is a problem for long term missions in space. The Apollo missions were not out in space long enough for radiation to be a big problem.

It's very difficult to get a straight answer out of NASA as to what the radiation in space really is. This is what I mean about NASA, they will lie and obfuscate real facts about space to cover for the official story.
There's some info here.

Astronauts protected with only a spacesuit during normal-length extra-vehicular activity at geostationary altitude could receive about 0.43 REM per day under minimum to moderate solar activity conditions, which is sufficient to damage the eyes and other vital organs. Under high solar activity, and most importantly during large solar flare occurrences, daily REM values could be a thousand-fold higher and probably lethal....

During a solar flare:

Protected dose: 10-100 REM/hr

Unprotected dose: Fatal

Apollo was during a sun spot maximum:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d990994028e4.gif[/atsimg]

Oh dear, the astronauts would have fried.

Originally posted by CarbonFooledYa
Ahh, it's because space is cold. Everyone know space is cold right?

I sense sarcasm, but no space is not cold or hot. Only objects that are in space become hot or cold depending if they are in direct sunlight or not. The heat exchanger was inside the PLSS and not ever in direct sunlight. Thus it was cold and the feedwater froze on the nickel plate and would sublimate when the heat from the liquid cooled garment flowed through the heat exchanger.

The Apollo 13 astronouts said that they were really cold in the direct sunlight, so it must be true.

They were cold because there was no power inside the spacecraft. The Sun isn't what keeps the astronauts warm inside the spacecraft, it's all the electronics when they're powered up.

Some accounts say they were chromed, others say it was white painted aluminium. All that shielding is going to be useless once you take the cartridge out of the camera. The exposure to cosmic nuclear radiation would ruin the film. The Apollo photos you see are studio perfect.

The camera's had a reflective metal surface as you can see in this photo. The film magazines were specially designed to help shield the film from radiation. And if you think all the photos are perfect, then you clearly haven't seen all the photos.

You're 7 years on this site but still say I'm uneducated for not swallowing the official story?

Where did I say you were uneducated? I just said you should re-evaluate your information.

NASA was made aware of the problem with the tyres in the 70s. They retroactively altered some of the photos and changed the tyres of the Lunar Buggy on display from rubber tube to wire mesh.

Every single photo of the Lunar rover shows the wire mesh tires. And how would they have altered the photos? Why do you find it hard to believe that they used these special tires from the beginning? One of the reasons for using the wire mesh tires was because they were much lighter than a rubber tire. Weight was a very critical thing for the LM as I'm sure you're aware of.

I find your claim that NASA used rubber tires and then went back and edited photos afterward extremely hard to swallow.

Originally posted by CarbonFooledYa
It's very difficult to get a straight answer out of NASA as to what the radiation in space really is. This is what I mean about NASA, they will lie and obfuscate real facts about space to cover for the official story.
There's some info here.

What are they lying about? Your link talks about major solar flares. None happened during any of the Apollo missions. There was one between two of the missions like your link states, but none during. And due to there short time in space, the chances of encountering a major solar flare while on the Moon was slim.

I have a link for you. Sickening Solar Flares

Surely, though, no astronaut is going to walk around on the Moon when there's a giant sunspot threatening to explode. "They're going to stay inside their spaceship (or habitat)," says Cucinotta. An Apollo command module with its aluminum hull would have attenuated the 1972 storm from 400 rem to less than 35 rem at the astronaut's blood-forming organs. That's the difference between needing a bone marrow transplant … or just a headache pill.

Apollo was during a sun spot maximum:

Oh dear, the astronauts would have fried.

Only if they had been out on the Moon during a major solar flare, which they never were.

[edit on 25-10-2009 by jra]

reply to post by CarbonFooledYa

NASA was made aware of the problem with the tyres in the 70s. They retroactively altered some of the photos and changed the tyres of the Lunar Buggy on display from rubber tube to wire mesh.

What kind of nonsense is this???

Oh, I know...probably verbatim from some crackpot conpiracy Moon "hoax" website that spouts stuff without ANY evidence to support it, in hopes that some people will gobble it up. Well, yum, yum!

Look...the "tyres" (let's call them 'wheels' instead) were originally designed as, and always were a wire mesh...because of the WEIGHT! And, they were collapsible, for easier storage in limited spaces.

Finally, it is bollocks to assert that a traditional inflated 'rubber' tyre would explode in space, or in a vacuum. WHAT do you think the Space Shuttle uses????

Yes, very similar to what airlliners use, the Shuttle tyres are multi-ply specially designed inflated tires, with a primary rubber composite.
_____________________________________________________________

Oh, and jic my word or knowledge isn't good enough:

MICHELIN IS THE SOLE TIRE SUPPLIER TO THE NASA SPACE SHUTTLE

Michelin® tires are out of this world ... literally. Michelin is the sole tire supplier for the Space Shuttle program since the first launch in 1981.

*snip*
In addition to the routine checks for aircraft tires, space shuttle tires must also be checked by X-ray analysis, and be further tested against NASA's own standards before being mounted on the shuttle.

Surprisingly, a space shuttle tire is not much larger than a truck tire, but a main landing gear tire can carry three times the load of a Boeing 747 tire or the entire starting line-up of a NASCAR race -- 40 race cars - all hitting the pavement at up to 250 miles per hour. Michelin Aircraft Tire is a leading tire supplier for commercial and regional airlines, the military and general aviation. Space Shuttle tires are manufactured exclusively in Norwood, North Carolina.



Interesting facts and figures:

Number of tires on the Space Shuttle:
4 - main landing gear tires 44.5x16.0-21, 34 ply, 263 mph
2 - nose landing gear tires 32x8.8, 20 ply, 250 mph

The space shuttle tires are filled with nitrogen (as are most aircraft tires) due to its stability at different altitudes and temperatures. Due to the extremely heavy loads these bias ply tires are inflated to 340 psi (main gear) and 300 psi (nose gear).

The main landing gear shuttle tires are only used one time and the nose landing gear tires are used for two landings.

Weight: Since weight is of extreme importance, Michelin designs the tires with a minimum amount of tread to conserve weight, allowing for larger payloads. A few pounds may not seem to make much difference, but when you add up all of the ways to decrease weight throughout the Shuttle it can have a significant impact.

www.desser.com...

There! Do we all feel better for having learned something today? OK, class dismissed.






[edit on 25 October 2009 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by CarbonFooledYa

NASA was made aware of the problem with the tyres in the 70s. They retroactively altered some of the photos and changed the tyres of the Lunar Buggy on display from rubber tube to wire mesh.

If they could pull off photoshop work like that on 0000's of photos in the 70's it would be an even bigger feat that landing on the moon anyway!

Originally posted by CarbonFooledYa

I often hear that. That it was specially shielded against heat and radiation. The buttons and latches made bigger so those sausage fingers could open them. Some accounts say they were chromed, others say it was white painted aluminium. All that shielding is going to be useless once you take the cartridge out of the camera. The exposure to cosmic nuclear radiation would ruin the film. The Apollo photos you see are studio perfect.

After shooting a film you place a plate that goes between the camera and the film magazine. It makes the film magazine all around sealed and therefore you can take it out and switch in a new one. Once the new one is in place you remove the shield, take shots and place the shield back in etc. etc.
Also I'm not sure how many magazines they had to use on the missions.

[edit on 25/10/2009 by PsykoOps]

Looking at the Photos that is the best they can come up with? Something that looks like it was taken 200 years ago?

Want more proof then those 'So-Called'- Photos.