Faked images from our trip to the moon?

reply to post by StopFearMongering


Me? No I do not watch TV anymore. The occasional movie on the computer, that's about it. Too busy to waste my time staring at the idiot box

Originally posted by daddio
I would love to see the math on this, how far away is the moon? And then you have to catch it and NOT fly past it, how do you slow down the lander when approaching the moon, in the VACUUM of space, void of any substance or matter to thrust OFF OF.

That's not how physics works. By firing thrusters, mass is ejected at a high speed in one direction. Because of Newton's Third Law (for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction), a force is generated in the opposite direction.

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by StopFearMongering

 

Me? No I do not watch TV anymore. The occasional movie on the computer, that's about it. Too busy to waste my time staring at the idiot box

DVR only. Commercials sicken me...

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by daddio
I would love to see the math on this, how far away is the moon? And then you have to catch it and NOT fly past it, how do you slow down the lander when approaching the moon, in the VACUUM of space, void of any substance or matter to thrust OFF OF.

That's not how physics works. By firing thrusters, mass is ejected at a high speed in one direction. Because of Newton's Third Law (for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction), a force is generated in the opposite direction.

Too funny, I thought I would get a response like this, THERE IS NO MATTER IN SPACE to thrust off OF. That is why things in space can travel at far greater speeds than in OUR earth's atmosphere. If I remember correctly, the voyager 2 was traveling at approximately 65,000 miles an hour when it left our solar system. That was with NO ENGINES, just a sling shot around the sun for momentum.

Newtons law applies inside an atmospheric environment, not in space, sorry.

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


I used to work for Cox/Sanwa, we flew remote control planes and rockets. Maybe it is you who does not understand space. They use gyroscopes. Every watch or ride a mtocross bike off a jump? When the rider is in the air he can manipulate the trajectory of the bike and it's angle of attack by revving the engine which causes the back wheel to spin faster which brings the front end up, or he can pull the clutch in and hit the rear brake to stop the wheel, pulling the nose of the bike down, that is how a gyroscope works, spin it up and then stop it suddenly, the object it is attached to will move in the direction of the lost torque.

Rockets may "fire" in space if they have their own internal fuel and oxygen supply. But the thrust must be made upon something for there to be a reaction. Just because the pulse comes out the rear and there is nothing in front does not make the "rocket" work the way you think it does, sounds plausible but that is not how it works in the vacuum of space.

reply to post by TKDRL


HOAX

In science a theory is verified/proved if it can be repeated successfully
under strict conditions.

Since NASA was not able to repeat moon landing since 1972 even
with advanced technology proves that moon landing is a HOAX.


Love, puppet.

Originally posted by daddio
...THERE IS NO MATTER IN SPACE to thrust off OF. That is why things in space can travel at far greater speeds than in OUR earth's atmosphere...

...Newtons law applies inside an atmospheric environment, not in space, sorry...

Newton's Laws are more easily applied to a vacuum, because there is virtually no friction to consider.

I explained how a rocket engine works in a vacuum on the last page, but if you missed it, here it is again:

If the nozzle of a rocket engine is closed, then all of the forces inside the rocket are in equilibrium -- i.e., all the forces are pushing the same on all of the walls inside the rocket engine. However, if the nozzle is open/the engine is "lit", then the force pushing out the back of the rocket will need another equal force pushing in the front of the rocket (the opposite direction). It is this "equal and opposite force" pushing on the inside of the front of the rocket that makes the rocket move forward, and NOT the back of the rocket "pushing off of" something.

Guide to Rocket Propulsion

How do the space shuttle's reaction control engines work in a vacuum? How does the space shuttle use its engines to get back to earth? How do the space station's use rocket propulsion in a vacuum to adjust its orbit from time to time? How does the Russian Soyuz spacecraft use its thrusters to "steer" its way to the space station in order to dock with it? How do satellites in space use their thrusters from time-to-time to adjust their orbits?

Originally posted by daddio
Too funny, I thought I would get a response like this, THERE IS NO MATTER IN SPACE to thrust off OF. That is why things in space can travel at far greater speeds than in OUR earth's atmosphere. If I remember correctly, the voyager 2 was traveling at approximately 65,000 miles an hour when it left our solar system. That was with NO ENGINES, just a sling shot around the sun for momentum.

Newtons law applies inside an atmospheric environment, not in space, sorry.

Your concepts are highly mistaken. Here's a very good, basic introduction to Newton's Laws of Motion.

The reason things can travel so fast in space is due to Newton's First Law, "An object at rest tends to stay at rest; an object in motion tends to stay in motion." Once accelerated, a space probe has no reason to slow down. Compare that to objects in our atmosphere, which will slow down due to the drag created by the atmosphere.

Newton's Laws apply everywhere to the normal world we humans deal with. It gets a little more tricky at speeds near the speed of light, or at very tiny distances, but for most of what we talk about, Newton's Laws serve us very well.

Originally posted by daddio
Rockets may "fire" in space if they have their own internal fuel and oxygen supply. But the thrust must be made upon something for there to be a reaction. Just because the pulse comes out the rear and there is nothing in front does not make the "rocket" work the way you think it does, sounds plausible but that is not how it works in the vacuum of space.

That's exactly how they work:

curious.astro.cornell.edu...

[M]ass in the form of fuel is accelerated out the back (the action) and thus the rocket is forced to move forward (the reaction). The strength of the force pushing the rocket forward is called the "thrust". The faster the fuel is thrown out the back of the rocket and the more fuel that is thrown, the faster the rocket will be forced to move forward and thus the greater the thrust.

What about the theory that we did go to the moon and we did fake the moon landing.

TPTB did not want us to see what they found there so a staged landing took place for the viewers at home.

reply to post by grizzle2


This is solid evidence you DON'T know what you're talking about. You see a word spelled "radiation", and lump it all into ONE basket??:

Will you wear an Apollo space suit and volunteer to help at Fukushima...

This is also SOLID evidence that you didn't watch the UTube video I linked to, earlier.

TRY, try to understand the difference. Go learn the difference.

Uranium/plutonium-based Nuclear Power Plants do NOT radiate in the same way, nor the same types as stars, and other celestial sources.

You have been fed a load of CRAP, by the "hoaxers"...propaganda, on the 'radiation' issue. UNLESS you are an expert in the field? Personally educated, specialized in these sciences?? Thought not. Neither am I....BUT, it is quite obvious, when you read up, even from a layperson's standpoint....IF you apply yourself properly, and examine "both" claims.


Of course, the compelling FACTS that the ambient radiation environment in space outside the Earth's magnetic fields is not instantly and violently fatal to Human flesh is the FACT that ....


...27 MEN have made the journey!! Round trip, to the vicinity of the Moon, and return.

For, what you Apollo "hoax" believers FAIL at is the understanding of the entirety of Apollo. You sorts ignorantly natter on, with garbage claims of "impossible" this and "impossible" that, moving the goalposts continually.....BUT, for the most part, the "hoaxists" focus on the landings themselves.

Completely forgetting the rest....

• Apollo 8
  
  
• Apollo 10
  
  
• Apollo 13

Those? The THREE Apollo missions, total of NINE men who went out, and orbited, and returned. (Well...A 13 didn't really 'orbit'.....free return trajectory, because TIME was of the essence,in their case).


Face it.....the Apollo "hoax" claims were DOA, to intelligent, well-educated people who could actually UNDERSTAND the math and science. Shame that critical thinking skills aren't, apparently, endemic in all people.

(I chalk a bit of it up to youth, and inexperience. Though, there are a few older geezers equally deluded.....Ralph Rene', for starters qualifies in that category. Oh, and NO! Isn't "ad hom" to call him out as a crazy old fool....because he WAS! Same guy claimed he had "disproven" Einstein! With nothing to show for that claim, of course. RESEARCH him some more, why not? Claiming an "ad hom" attack on old Ralphie for calling him crazy is like being critical when someone calls Charles Manson crazy. Nuts is nuts.....and it's not a personal attack when it is TRUE!!!)


One more thing, on the "old geezers" who are critical in the beginnings, and nurturing of this "hoax" nonsense, form the outset ---- BILL KAYSING!

Look into his history, too. You will find some bats in his belfry as well.....and, the tragic part is?? Kaysing began this (he's called the "grandfather of the theory" by some people) on a sort of a bet!

A dare, if you will....someone challenged him to come up with, to concoct a "hoax theory" regarding Apollo that was clever enough to make (even ordinarily smart) people begin to question. IN that way, he used his scientific knowledge and acumen....but, in a nasty, evil way. The "anti"-Kaysing! LOL!



BTW....kindakurious raised an excellent point, about two million pages back in this already out-of-control thread. The "OP".

Let's re-visit Page No. 1, shall we?? I have done more research, to find photos and timelines of the flag placement, for the Apollo 14 mission and EVAs. BUT, I am waiting for the thread author to use the tools and sources already provided, to discover for him/her self.

(Always more valuable lesson, when the answers aren't just handed to you on a silver platter......).

We never went, all faked. Unmanned missions certainly have landed, and left behind mirrors etc. But no man. And no aliens there either. All a big test to see how they could fool people. Next test was 9/11. Hugely successful. I am waiting for test #3.

Originally posted by weedwhackerYou see a word spelled "radiation", and lump it all into ONE basket??:

This is also SOLID evidence that you didn't watch the UTube video I linked to, earlier.

No, I don't.

I didn't need to, I have studied the subject, and not just for this reason.

reply to post by weedwhacker


What is clear is that you're not addressing the facts. How could they go through the belts, and then spend so much time outside them, and then go through them again, without any radiation shielding whatsoever?

Oh wow, only the 57th post on this subject.

I guess there's another hundred skeptics to follow yet!

Originally posted by grizzle2

Originally posted by weedwhackerYou see a word spelled "radiation", and lump it all into ONE basket??:

This is also SOLID evidence that you didn't watch the UTube video I linked to, earlier.

No, I don't.

I didn't need to, I have studied the subject, and not just for this reason.

If you studied it,then you would know that not all radiation is alike. The people who do study radiation have no issues with the abilities of the Apollo spacecraft and spacesuits to protect the astronauts enough during the short Apollo missions.

What is your specific evidence that contradicts this scientific knowledge about radiation and the Apollo missions? Could you show me the investigations and calculations you have done that proves all of the other scientists wrong?

Originally posted by grizzle2

Originally posted by loves a conspiricyHow did the film survive the radiation and take perfect pictures?? Look at pics from Chernobyl....all grainy because the radiation messed with the film....yet on the surface of the moon where radiation is many times more extreme the film stayed perfect.

A very good point. Especially on the bright side of the moon, where there are no Van Allen Belts to protect the surface.

This quote alone makes me realize you do not understand what you are talking about when it comes to the Van Allen Belts....

...(By the way, Dr. Van Allen himself said that the astronauts were not on the van Allen belts long enough to be subjected to very dangerous doses of radiation. Are you now doubting Dr. Van Allen himself?

Originally posted by grizzle2
reply to post by weedwhacker

 

What is clear is that you're not addressing the facts. How could they go through the belts, and then spend so much time outside them, and then go through them again, without any radiation shielding whatsoever?

[Highlighted emphasis mine]

I don't know what you mean by saying "and spend so much time outside them". I believe you mean outside earth's magnetic field, and not outside the Van Allen Belts. The van Allen Belts and Earth's magnetic field may be similar in some ways, but the terms should not be used interchangeably.

And since you say you studied the radiation a spacecraft would get on the way to the Moon, then you would know that the type of radiation that the spacecraft was mostly subjected to would be better stopped by the fibrous insulation of the Apollo capsule. In fact, lead shielding would have been worse. The high enrgy photons wuld react with the lead shielding causing a phenomenon known as "bremsstrahlung" to occur:
Bremsstrahlung
So the fibrous insulation shielding was definitely better than the lead shielding for the type of radiation the Apollo spacecraft was subjected to.

Obviously the Van Allen belts provided the most radiation, but their time in the belts was very limited (Less than 1 hour each way).

reply to post by TKDRL


I would say that even if we did land on the moon, that there was such a competition between Russia and the U.S.
we would never share any info with them, that mean's picture's and televised images. So they managed to make many fakes to confuse the enemy at that time.They say a picture is worth a thousand words, I would expect this sort of deception on our part.My grandfather worked for Aerojet in Sacramento on the Appolo 8 rocket, he told me once that they did a lot of practice and that a lot of footage was taped of this in area 51.Go take a look at Google earth and area 51. There is also a spot on there that is under construction that looks similar to a mars landscape,
that is where they practiced with the rover. Footage was also taken of this and probable some was introduced as actual footage.Our government won't even show us all the footage of the moon or mars, do you actually think they would share any real footage with the rest of the world, especially Russia and China.

P.S. To this day I cannot get any info on my grandfather from Aerojet, go figure!

Maybe they changed the flag position so the camera can catch it on the way back up? Pretty easy to do in 0 gravity.

There is no conspiracy here. Just a good photo op in my opinion.

This argument is silly because of 100 facts, but ill give you one right now to think on.. IF all we did was fake the moon landing, then why did it take us so long? Why did we even bother getting into a space race with Russia if all we had to do is make a fake moon set? Not only that but do you think Russia, who were competing with the US to become the superpower would allow America to simply fake their landing and claim dominance?

Second I believe ANY Astronaut over a moon hoax nut any day. Most of the astronauts have come forward to say they saw "crafts" on the moon as well as structures there, these are highly trained men ( you dont become an astronaut by having a low IQ) who spent years training to go to the moon and yet you sit on your computer chair showing a picture of a "C" on a rock and thats your proof that these men are frauds?

HOWEVER I do believe A LOT of the moon photos have been edited/re shot. I know for a fact that there is "something" on the moon, whether it be Us, Aliens or a lost civilization i really dont know but I do know that we went there in the distant past.