More Moon fakery

reply to post by Cancerwarrior


Many of the things that you are listing as a anomaly about the moon can be explained by the Giant Impact Hypothisis (the heavy materials being closer to the surface, lack of a very dense core, why the Earth has a much larger core, magnitized rocks on the moon, etc, etc). I won't go into detail about it, take a look at the wiki article I listed to get more.

As for one side of the moon always facing us is rather simple: Tidal Locking



The speed of the rotation of the moon matches closely with it's orbit about the Earth. Our moon is not the only moon to do this in the solar system. The majority of larger moons around Jupiter and Saturn are like this also. Nothing mysterious about it. Simply gravity and orbital mechanics at work.

As for Earthquakes without impacts, I would ask the following:

As you pointed out, we can only see one side of the moon. Who is saying that there is no impact happening on the far side?
The moon is a very large rocky body that is in orbit about the Earth and feels the effect of tidal forces on it. Why is it impossible for quakes to happen?

The apparent size of the moon vs. the apparent size of the sun. The moon is moving away from us slowly at something like 1 to 2 inches a year. Tens of millions of years ago, the moon used to totally eclipse the sun as it looked much bigger in the sky. Tens of millions of years from now, the moon will look smaller and will never give a total eclipse of the sun again.

As for the moon not being magnetic:

Magnetic Field

The Moon has an external magnetic field of about 1–100 nanoteslas, less than one-hundredth that of the Earth. It does not currently have a global dipolar magnetic field, as would be generated by a liquid metal core geodynamo, and only has crustal magnetization, probably acquired early in lunar history when a geodynamo was still operating.[83][84] Alternatively, some of the remnant magnetization may be from transient magnetic fields generated during large impact events, through the expansion of an impact-generated plasma cloud in the presence of an ambient magnetic field—this is supported by the apparent location of the largest crustal magnetizations near the antipodes of the giant impact basins.

As for the age of the moon being 5.3 billion years, I would like to see a source for that. Please link it.

Cancerwarrior
...And don't forget, one side is always facing the earth, no matter where it is relative to orbit. All we are ever going to see is the side facing earth.

I don't see any way these phenomenon are natural in any way. ...

As others have pointed out, the reason only one side of the Moon faces earth at all times is perfectly natural and is due to a relatively well-understood mechanism of tidal forces on orbiting bodies. The Moon is said to be "tidally locked" to the Earth, which is a common and expected result, over time, for relatively larger moons that orbit relatively close to their parent body.

There are over 30 moons in our solar system that also only keep one face towards its parent body -- both moons of Mars, eight moons of Jupiter, 15 moons of Saturn, five moons of Uranus, two moons of Neptune, and Pluto's moon "Charon" (Pluto and Charon are tidally locked to each other -- each showing only one face to the other).

CaptainBeno
Notice how crap the LM assembly looked. Then think to yourself "would I get in that and trust a blast off from the moon"?

Ummmmm nooooooooo.

Oh sure, they did right? Pull the other one please.

I have flown in many many dodgy aircraft, but this one takes the Pi$$

Has anyone been to the national areospace museum in washington DC in the national mall area? Okay inside there they have some interesting stuff...

They have reentry capsuls, they have capsels that they used to orbit the earth, they have small space stations, rockets etc etc. All those are 100% REAL. You can tell by carefully examining them. Then in the corner they have the "lander". What A JOKE!!! A frackin movie prop. Looked and felt completely WRONG when compared to all the real space craft they have there.

reply to post by seabhac-rua


I don't think so. The stages of learning are:

unconcious unknowing
concious unknowing
concious knowing
unconcious knowing

I'm somewhere in the middle stages now. Most people are at stage one. They don't know what's going on. AJ might not be 100% legit, everyone knows that but lets say he's 50%. Then that means every show you're leanring something that previously was hidden to you. And he knows he can't fake out the people who are highly aware so he can't easily fake info, spread dis info, or propaganda. His audience is too aware and would see right threw it.

spartacus699
...They have reentry capsuls, they have capsels that they used to orbit the earth, they have small space stations, rockets etc etc. All those are 100% REAL. You can tell by carefully examining them. Then in the corner they have the "lander". What A JOKE!!! A frackin movie prop. Looked and felt completely WRONG when compared to all the real space craft they have there.

edit on 10-12-2013 by spartacus699 because: (no reason given)

The main difference is that the rockets and re-entry capsules are designed to be able to withstand atmospheric forces (wind drag, etc). The lunar lander did not need to withstand these forces, and its design was maximized for use in space only. It would not need to work anywhere but in space, so (with weight/mass being a vital consideration) all of the extraneous (heavy) parts of the design required to be able to withstand atmospheric forces had been stripped away.


The complete LM may look odd, but the basic concept of it is simple.

A pressurized cabin with an engine and small control thrusters (the ascent stage):



connected to the top of a set of legs and engine (the descent stage):



All the rest of that foil, fiberboard, and tape is just insulation, and is not really the "business end" of the LM. The LM is basically a crew cabin on legs.

reply to post by Cancerwarrior


As others have already answered I will add this we can actually see 59% of the Moon's surface from Earth!!!

The truth, however, is that we actually get to see more of it over the course of its elliptical orbit: 59 percent

Soylent Green Is People

spartacus699
...They have reentry capsuls, they have capsels that they used to orbit the earth, they have small space stations, rockets etc etc. All those are 100% REAL. You can tell by carefully examining them. Then in the corner they have the "lander". What A JOKE!!! A frackin movie prop. Looked and felt completely WRONG when compared to all the real space craft they have there.

edit on 10-12-2013 by spartacus699 because: (no reason given)

The main difference is that the rockets and re-entry capsules are designed to be able to withstand atmospheric forces (wind drag, etc). The lunar lander did not need to withstand these forces, and its design was maximized for use in space only. It would not need to work anywhere but in space, so (with weight/mass being a vital consideration) all of the extraneous (heavy) parts of the design required to be able to withstand atmospheric forces had been stripped away.


The complete LM may look odd, but the basic concept of it is simple.

A pressurized cabin with an engine and small control thrusters (the ascent stage):

connected to the top of a set of legs and engine (the descent stage):

All the rest of that foil, fiberboard, and tape is just insulation, and is not really the "business end" of the LM. The LM is basically a crew cabin on legs.

edit on 12/10/2013 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)

Taht's not what I saw at the museum.

spartacus699
Taht's not what I saw at the museum.

I think you're right. The spherical and cylindrical tanks in the first image should not be there. However, the rest of the shape of the ascent module in that picture is correct. The second picture in an LM ascent module under construction.

Here is the LM at the Smithsonian, where you can see the two parts together -- the pressurized cabin (ascent module) on top of the gold foil platform with landing legs (descent module).

Gravity, atmosphere or no gravity blah blah blah, this will fall to bits once that rocket charges up to "propel" this heap off the surface of "The Moon"


Suuuuuuure!!!

CaptainBeno
Gravity, atmosphere or no gravity blah blah blah, this will fall to bits once that rocket charges up to "propel" this heap off the surface of "The Moon"


Suuuuuuure!!!

I'm not sure why you think it wouldn't be able to withstand the Moon ascent launch. The ascent module looks to be of relatively strong design, with the crew cabin being in a cylindrical pressure vessel (the drum-shaped part in the middle left of the picture of the ascent stage below). The other pieces are simply shrouds covering the tanks and such. The general design looks sturdy.


And, like I said, the descent stage is a platform on legs. It may be hard to see that it is just a platform on legs while looking at all of the foil insulation, so here is a picture of an unused LM (with BOTH the ascent stage and the descent stage still together) on display at the Franklin institute in Philadelphia that is devoid of the usual foil insulation. This LM was built to be used for the cancelled Apollo 19 mission:

darkorange
If China succeeds in putting men on the Moon by 2020 that would make 70 years since last men on the Moon. Duhhh1

70 years!!! Does is not make it clear to you that Moon missions were staged back in 60th? Simply because the tech did not arrive there at that time to do so.

Pure logic.

Not really, and I wonder why you are fixated with time? 51 years ago two groups of aircraft designers in Britain and France set out to build an airliner that could carry 100 passengers and their luggage at twice the speed of sound in safety. Rival designers tried to match and beat that target and all failed.

This airliner had to maintain for two hours a cruising speed that fighter jets only attain for two minutes. It had to cruise efficiently without afterburners at a higher speed than the F-22 stealth fighters cruises at half a century later and it operated successfully for 26 years.

There have been no supersonic airliners at all for over a decade.

As time goes by will there be a conspiracy theory that Concorde was a fake and never really existed because the tech back then couldn't do it?

Think deeply.

darkorange
If China succeeds in putting men on the Moon by 2020 that would make 70 years since last men on the Moon. Duhhh1

70 years!!! Does is not make it clear to you that Moon missions were staged back in 60th? Simply because the tech did not arrive there at that time to do so.

Pure logic.

I wonder if your maths teacher would agree last men on Moon 1972 to 2020 is 48 years PURE ARITHMETIC

darkorange
If China succeeds in putting men on the Moon by 2020 that would make 70 years since last men on the Moon. Duhhh1

70 years!!! Does is not make it clear to you that Moon missions were staged back in 60th? Simply because the tech did not arrive there at that time to do so.

Pure logic.

2020 ? not even in 2069 (100 years after Apollo)

Soylent Green Is People
reply to post by CaptainBeno

 

I'm old enough to remember social climate of the early 1970s, and the way people felt that the Apollo program became a massive waste of money.

Apollo 11 and 12 were popular, and 13 became popular because of the accident, ....

At the time, you didn't find it strange that they went to the moon, three times in six months ?

May 18, 1969
July 16, 1969
November 14, 1969

Ove38

Soylent Green Is People
reply to post by CaptainBeno

 

I'm old enough to remember social climate of the early 1970s, and the way people felt that the Apollo program became a massive waste of money.

Apollo 11 and 12 were popular, and 13 became popular because of the accident, ....

At the time, you didn't find it strange that they went to the moon, three times in six months ?

May 18, 1969
July 16, 1969
November 14, 1969

edit on 24-12-2013 by Ove38 because: text fix

They could go as quickly as they could build the spacecraft and prepare the launch pads.

Apollo 10 in May 1969 was a dress rehearsal for the Moon landing. It is not odd that Apollo 11 came so quickly after Apollo 10's dress rehearsal mission (two months later, in July), because they wanted to get to the Moon quickly -- to (1) meet President Kennedy's "by the end of the decade" timetable, and, more importantly, to (2) beat the Soviet Union. The U.S. wasn't sure how far along the Soviets were in their Moon program, but they didn't want to lose the Moon Race.

As for Apollo 12, it came 4 months after Apollo 11, and they had the spacecraft ready, so why not show the world they could do it again?

CaptainBeno
Notice how crap the LM assembly looked. Then think to yourself "would I get in that and trust a blast off from the moon"?

Ummmmm nooooooooo.

Oh sure, they did right? Pull the other one please.

I have flown in many many dodgy aircraft, but this one takes the Pi$$

Sorry, if this is a dumb question, but Who was left behind on the Moon,to film the lift-off ?

crawdad1914
Sorry, if this is a dumb question, but Who was left behind on the Moon,to film the lift-off ?

It was filmed from a remote-controlled TV camera mounted on the Lunar Rover.

That camera on the rover was made to be remote control so the people back at Mission Control could track the astronauts as they did their moonwalks in areas away from the landing sites -- areas they got to by driving the rover.

The liftoff from the moon of Apollo 15, 16, and 17 (the three missions with rovers) were filmed, but only it took the third try (Apollo 17) for the camera operator back in mission control to really track the spacecraft well. The operator did not track the spacecraft at all for Apollo 15, and did a poor job of tracking Apollo 16 as it ascended. The problem with the tracking is that due to speed of light limitations, it took 2 seconds to send signals between the moon and Earth. Therefore, the camera operator on Earth needed to start (blindly) telling the camera to move upwards to track the ascent stage even before it lifted off. For Apollo 17, he calculated where the craft would be and when, and he moved the camera accordingly prior to liftoff, knowing that by the time the signal reached the camera, it would be correctly tracking the ascent of the craft.

Here is an article describing this:
Leaving the Moon, Watching at Home

reply to post by crawdad1914

remote control..

SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by Komodo

 

this is about the flag up there lasting 50+ years.....

Based on NASA's exploits on Mars it has become increasingly clear over the last 42-44 years that NASA does not want anyone near the Apollo landing sites because they are all unmanned landing sites with rovers.

They were stored in the lunar module and unfolded automatically upon landing on the moon, they were fully operated by Mission Control in Houston, officially they only operated the camera.

daryllyn
Alright.. I'm new to this moon landing fakery business. I see that everyone is pretty divided. I have never really given it much thought.

If you (the we didn't go to the moon people) could have me watch one documentary to convince me, which one would it be?

Edit: This isn't a loaded question, just truly curious.

edit on 03pmTue, 03 Dec 2013 17:45:37 -060013TuesdayTuesday1312 by daryllyn because: (no reason given)

The Fox TV moon landing hoax documentary and the What Happened On the Moon? documentary

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...