40th Anniversary of the Moonlanding but was it a hoax?
Comments
-
Percy Veere wrote:In addition to how the astronaughts were protected from the deadly radiation that exists between earth and the moon.
There's deadly radiation coming out of the sun too, but if you use proper shielding (sunscreen and a hat) and don't stay in it too long then you will be fine. This is what the Apollo missions did, spending less than an hour traversing the belts with the aluminium hull as shielding. Go read up on Van Allen belts, then come back here and explain why you still think the atronaughts (sic) should of died of `deadly radiation'.0 -
fluff. wrote:Percy Veere wrote:In addition to how the astronaughts were protected from the deadly radiation that exists between earth and the moon.
There's deadly radiation coming out of the sun too, but if you use proper shielding (sunscreen and a hat) and don't stay in it too long then you will be fine. This is what the Apollo missions did,
The Apollo astronauts wore sunscreen and hats..??? :shock:
Also, can someone explain to me - in those remarkably clear pictures that capaud posted - why are the crater shadows apparently pointing in entirely the opposite direction to the 'object' on the surface..??0 -
I particularly like this bit from the 'New Scientist' article:
Still, even future images are unlikely to be sharp enough to reveal whether the American flag planted during the Apollo 11 mission is still standing.
What happened - did the wind catch it and it blew away..? oh, hang on....
Seriously, why wouldn't it still be standing....?0 -
They're not! Craters are concave, object is, to all intents and purposes, convex; the shadows would only be wrong if the craters were like speed bumps.softlad wrote:... Also, can someone explain to me - in those remarkably clear pictures that capaud posted - why are the crater shadows apparently pointing in entirely the opposite direction to the 'object' on the surface..??A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject - Churchill0 -
softlad wrote:I particularly like this bit from the 'New Scientist' article:
Still, even future images are unlikely to be sharp enough to reveal whether the American flag planted during the Apollo 11 mission is still standing.
What happened - did the wind catch it and it blew away..? oh, hang on....
Seriously, why wouldn't it still be standing....?
The moon is regularly hit by debris, and there is a 1/6 earth gravity acting on it - over 40 years. There's a chance it's been toppled.0 -
You really are ignorant aren’t you? And you even admit it!softlad wrote:fluff. wrote:Percy Veere wrote:In addition to how the astronaughts were protected from the deadly radiation that exists between earth and the moon.
There's deadly radiation coming out of the sun too, but if you use proper shielding (sunscreen and a hat) and don't stay in it too long then you will be fine. This is what the Apollo missions did,
The Apollo astronauts wore sunscreen and hats..??? :shock:
Also, can someone explain to me - in those remarkably clear pictures that capaud posted - why are the crater shadows apparently pointing in entirely the opposite direction to the 'object' on the surface..??0 -
Porgy wrote:softlad wrote:I particularly like this bit from the 'New Scientist' article:
Still, even future images are unlikely to be sharp enough to reveal whether the American flag planted during the Apollo 11 mission is still standing.
What happened - did the wind catch it and it blew away..? oh, hang on....
Seriously, why wouldn't it still be standing....?
The moon is regularly hit by debris, and there is a 1/6 earth gravity acting on it - over 40 years. There's a chance it's been toppled.
A chance??? A flag pole being toppled. yeah right! I've got as much chance of teeing off from glasgow and hitting your living room window!
0 -
Fastlad wrote:Porgy wrote:softlad wrote:I particularly like this bit from the 'New Scientist' article:
Still, even future images are unlikely to be sharp enough to reveal whether the American flag planted during the Apollo 11 mission is still standing.
What happened - did the wind catch it and it blew away..? oh, hang on....
Seriously, why wouldn't it still be standing....?
The moon is regularly hit by debris, and there is a 1/6 earth gravity acting on it - over 40 years. There's a chance it's been toppled.
A chance??? A flag pole being toppled. yeah right! I've got as much chance of teeing off from glasgow and hitting your living room window!
Listen, no-one says it has been toppled - but a question was asked. It's probably still standing as the day it was erected.0 -
Since it's the hoax theorists who are out on a limb here speculating wildly, surely it's up to you lot to prove your point, something you have completely failed to do.
Having vague ideas that technology may not have been up to it, or -- er something about radiation, or that Neil Armstrong is a curmudgeonley old git does not constitue evidence.
Lou Reed won;t talk about "Walk On The Wild side" these days, does that mean it was faked?
Can one of you actually provide some good evidence to back up your claims?0 -
...or even attempt to do.Porgy wrote:Since it's the hoax theorists who are out on a limb here speculating wildly, surely it's up to you lot to prove your point, something you have completely failed to do. ...A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject - Churchill0 -
Porgy wrote:Fastlad wrote:Porgy wrote:softlad wrote:I particularly like this bit from the 'New Scientist' article:
Still, even future images are unlikely to be sharp enough to reveal whether the American flag planted during the Apollo 11 mission is still standing.
What happened - did the wind catch it and it blew away..? oh, hang on....
Seriously, why wouldn't it still be standing....?
The moon is regularly hit by debris, and there is a 1/6 earth gravity acting on it - over 40 years. There's a chance it's been toppled.
A chance??? A flag pole being toppled. yeah right! I've got as much chance of teeing off from glasgow and hitting your living room window!
Listen, no-one says it has been toppled - but a question was asked. It's probably still standing as the day it was erected.
When they "planted" the flag they encountered the problem that there was very little "dirt"
on the surface before they hit solid rock. It was barely standing on it's own because of this and they had to be careful not to knock it over when they walked near it.0 -
What if he done all that what you are asking? Would you still believe him? I somehow doubt it!softlad wrote:on the road wrote:I'm curious to know what it will take for the doubters be convinced they did actually go to the moon?
Come on, there's a lot of doubters on here, what do you want as proof?
as proof, I would like to see a full, honest and frank interview with Neil Armstrong in which he makes it categorically clear that he walked on the moon and confirms there was no cover up....
but I won't hold my breath....0 -
on the road wrote:]What if he done all that what you are asking? Would you still believe him? I somehow doubt it!
dunno - it would be a start though, wouldn't it...
like I said before (in case you missed it), I think the weight of evidence suggests that the moon landings did happen. But I enjoy entertaining the notion that they might not have done. As far as I'm concerned, if the case was that clear cut either way I would not be in any doubt whatsoever...0 -
Some of the reasons given for it being a hoax have very effectively been negated by Mythbusters a few years ago.
The flags fluttering, The lack of stars, the incorect lighting, etc were all shown to be possible on the moon.
As to proof. One of the Apollo missions deleverd to the moon a corner cube reflector that is still being used today. It is used by one of the American universities to measure the distance between the Earth and the moon. The chances of finding a 1 metre square peice of lunar surface with the same reflective properties as a corner cube are incredibly remote.
As for Columbus he never reached America he only got as far as the West Indies. The reason he gets the credit is his was the first well documented and published trip. Evidence exists for Vikings getting there earlier and the myths and stories mean that it is quite probable the Celts managed it as well. But no long maintained foothold, no documentation and no publicationaround the rest of Europe will always shroud it in doubt.
As for relying on what they show on films as a possibility you may as well go and live in cloud cuckooland.0 -
Cleat Eastwood wrote:Whats weird is as the lander takes off the camera tilts up in prfect harmony with it. How was this achieved and why.
Tie one end of string to landing craft and other end to camera lens. Take off."There's a shortage of perfect breasts in this world, t'would be a pity to damage yours."0 -
This website might help to explain some of the misconceptions.
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html0 -
As does this one. In quite some detail too.
http://www.clavius.org/Cleat Eastwood wrote:Whats weird is as the lander takes off the camera tilts up in prfect harmony with it. How was this achieved and why.
It was taken from the lunar rover which had a remote control camera (controlled from Houston). The astronauts parked it with the camera pointing at the lander. There's a delay in transmitting commands due to the OWLT (one way light time), but the exact lift off time & rate of ascent was known. There's only one mission where this was got exactly right, and that's the one that's shown all the time (and sometimes incorrectly spliced in with earlier missions). It just took practice. Something which the space business is all about.Specialized Allez
Trek 65000 -
risi wrote:
It was taken from the lunar rover which had a remote control camera (controlled from Houston). The astronauts parked it with the camera pointing at the lander. There's a delay in transmitting commands due to the OWLT (one way light time), but the exact lift off time & rate of ascent was known. There's only one mission where this was got exactly right, and that's the one that's shown all the time (and sometimes incorrectly spliced in with earlier missions). It just took practice. Something which the space business is all about.
that doesn't explain the camera following the Apollo 11 LEM, because the Lunar Rover did not go to the moon until Apollo 15...0 -
softlad wrote:risi wrote:
It was taken from the lunar rover which had a remote control camera (controlled from Houston). The astronauts parked it with the camera pointing at the lander. There's a delay in transmitting commands due to the OWLT (one way light time), but the exact lift off time & rate of ascent was known. There's only one mission where this was got exactly right, and that's the one that's shown all the time (and sometimes incorrectly spliced in with earlier missions). It just took practice. Something which the space business is all about.
that doesn't explain the camera following the Apollo 11 LEM, because the Lunar Rover did not go to the moon until Apollo 15...
Err, no, it doesn't. As I saidsometimes incorrectly spliced in with earlier missions
Never rely on secondary sources... especially tv 'documentaries' that like to make things look more interesting.Specialized Allez
Trek 65000 -
softlad wrote:I particularly like this bit from the 'New Scientist' article:
Still, even future images are unlikely to be sharp enough to reveal whether the American flag planted during the Apollo 11 mission is still standing.
What happened - did the wind catch it and it blew away..? oh, hang on....
Seriously, why wouldn't it still be standing....?
Stolen.
"There's a shortage of perfect breasts in this world, t'would be a pity to damage yours."0 -
