fake moon landing

Posted by: RM

fake moon landing - 11/09/05 01:39 PM

was the moon landing a fake? What do you think?
Posted by: DA Morgan

Re: fake moon landing - 11/09/05 04:47 PM

I think people that ask the question have time to take out the trash: And should.
Posted by: Uncle Al

Re: fake moon landing - 11/09/05 10:00 PM

Tell us how the corner cube reflectors used for lunar laser ranging to test the Nordtvedt effect were emplaced on the surface of the moon.

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0507083
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0411113
http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/pdf/prl83-3585.pdf
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0301024
Phys. Rev. Lett. 93 261101 (2004)
Nordtvedt Effect

Were you schooled in Kansas?
Posted by: erich knight

Re: fake moon landing - 11/20/05 05:51 AM

A posting on this space science site about a UK TV reality show that cons contestants into believing that they are sent into space, produced the comments below.

I thought you all would enjoy the suggestion for a reality show for fundamentalist, ROFL:

, The "contest winners" will have to not be space nuts
like us, or else they will notice that, for all the
rocket noise and shaking, the 3 G acceleration seems
to be missing in action. And how will the lack of
microgravity be explained?

Anyway, if I were to be hoaxed in any such way, I
would sue the pants off of the hoaxers, and then I
would have all future pants impounded for life. I
would sue if I didn't fall for it (and I wouldn't),
and I would sue if I did fall for it (in which case
I'd feel pretty stupid, but since the whole world
would've just seen me looking stupid, there would be
little point in hiding my stupidity).

The basis of the lawsuit would be emotional damage.
Space has been a dream for me since I was a little
kid. To be told that the dream is coming true for
lucky little ol' me, and to work my butt off
"training" so that the dream can be real, and then to
be fooled into thinking that "oh my God, I'm in
SPACE!!" And then to be told "PSYCH! we sure fooled
you!" This is cruel, and the hoaxers cannot be
allowed to get away with it. Yes, I do think there
are too many lawsuits, and yes, I think that charges
of emotional cruelty are overdone. But this is proof
that the category should not be done away with.

It is exactly like convincing a bunch of
kindergartners that they are going to the North Pole
to meet Father Christmas... "PSYCH! This is Norway,
and there is no Father Christmas! You dumb kids!
HAHAHA!!!" It is like convincing an American Southern
Fundamentalist congregation that they have been
Raptured, complete with meeting Jesus, only to tell
them "PSYCH! You're still on Earth, and this 'Jesus'
is actually an atheist! and gay! and a Democrat!
HAHAHA!!!" Some things just should not be done to
people. I hope the hoaxees punch the hoaxers in the
mouth, and get away with it. Plead emotional distress.

--
Space Future | To unsubscribe send email with the subject "unsubscribe"
www.spacefuture.com | to "sf-discuss-request@spacefuture.com".

You want emotional distress? Here's my, better, idea for a
space shot hoax/reality TV show. Instead of just sending them
into space, send them to Mars instead, but make it clear that
they would have to be asleep on the journey in order to
conserve supplies. Instead, they get put to sleep, loaded on
a plane, and flown to their "Mars base". You don't even have
to bring them home. Just let them start finding wierder and
wierder stuff around their base, maybe have them spot a few
aliens running around, and then end it with a close encounter
of some sort. More good ideas: give them clocks that run fast
and roll over at 24:37. Mess with the lighting in the base
and put filters on the windows so they think the sky looks
brownish. Show them fake newscasts on the TVs during their
"training" so they think everyone knows about their "Mars
shot". Kill off one of the actors on an expedition in some
sort of accident, or maybe have him captured by aliens. I
think it could run for a few seasons. A lot cheaper than
building a space shuttle simulator too, I think.

Matt
Posted by: BELLATOR

Re: fake moon landing - 11/21/05 03:11 AM

I hope Rob was kidding.

VB
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: fake moon landing - 11/23/05 06:46 AM

No Rob was not kidding ...
If the landing was false then why didnt Russia respond with equal doubts.Do you think KGB was so weak? Communist generally do accept defeat.
It is against their philosophy and you think that Russia would have overlooked the propaganda.
Obviously they are more informed than us.
There are so many people invovled in this project that I feel it is impossible to create such a big propaganda.
I was surprised when I first heard this discussion.Can someone cheat to such an extent?
And are there people who think we all are being cheated for pure nonsense?
The hollywood and press has played propaganda in past but never I imagined that this was possible..
For sake of my own peace I choose to believe that yes America had successfully landed the on the moon.
What do you say ?
Posted by: Ric

Re: fake moon landing - 11/24/05 01:16 AM

Of course we landed on the moon. To even ask this question is pure nonsense. Conspiracy theories are certainly interesting sometimes, but seriously... come on...
Posted by: socrates

Re: fake moon landing - 11/26/05 12:57 PM

I do have one question/urban legend, to add to this discusssion.
That urban legend is that the unmanned Russian Lunig probe, which lifted of a wek before Appollo and crashed, out of control onto the moon a few days before the Eagle landed, WAS IN FACT NOT UNMANNED. It carrried a single cosmonault, who was meant to sing the Soviet anthem from the surface of the moon three days before Apollo landed.

Has anybody else heard of this one.
Posted by: Beaker

Re: fake moon landing - 12/10/05 04:46 PM

I?ve heard quite allot about that conspiracy theory and some of the arguments are extremely compelling. As always I will go along with what I have been taught without absolute belief until it has been proven to me rather than just stated at me.
Posted by: Beaker

Re: fake moon landing - 12/10/05 04:49 PM

Sorry to be clear the Apollo moon landing forgery rather than the Russians having the first corpse on the moon.
Posted by: bazza

Re: fake moon landing - 12/15/05 04:37 PM

I have no doubt that the lunar landings were hoaxes. A scientific and logical examination of the facts and data cannot lead to any other conclusion. Scientific process must not be polluted by the emotional stress caused when the results of that process are psychologically traumatic. In this case an untruth on a truly global scale.

To believe that the landings were real would require a suspension of logic and intelligence of breathtaking proportions.
Posted by: physic

Re: fake moon landing - 12/15/05 04:59 PM

Bazza , on which facts do you base your "logical conclusions"? will you kindly explain?
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: fake moon landing - 12/15/05 06:24 PM

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2004/06may_lunarranging.htm
Posted by: bazza

Re: fake moon landing - 12/15/05 08:56 PM

Hi physic

here a a few questions on the subject. The list of "excuses" often recited like some sort of mantra whenever these questions are asked is usually deafening. Loud they certainly are but are devoid of serious scientific study.

1) Sceptics argue that the lack of stars on Moon photographs is acceptable, despite zero atmosphere to obscure the view. Yuri Gagarin, pronounced the stars to be "astonishingly brilliant". See the official NASA pictures above that I have reproduced that show 'stars' in the sky, as viewed from the lunar surface. And why exactly do you think there are hardly any stars visible on Apollo films taken from the Moon? The answers simple - Professional astronomers would quickly calculate that the configuration and distances of star formations were incorrect and so NASA had to remove them to make sure they could keep up the scam.

2) The pure oxygen atmosphere in the module would have melted the Hasselblad's camera covering and produced poisonous gases. Why weren't the astronauts affected?

3) There should have been a substantial crater blasted out under the LEM's 10,000 pound thrust rocket. Sceptics would have you believe that the engines only had the power to blow the dust from underneath the LEM as it landed. If this is true, how did Armstrong create that famous boot print if all the dust had been blown away?

4) Sceptics claim that you cannot produce a flame in a vacuum because of the lack of oxygen. So how come I have footage on this page showing a flame coming from the exhaust of an Apollo lander? (Obviously the sceptics are wrong or the footage shows the lander working in an atmosphere)

5) Footprints are the result of weight displacing air or moisture from between particles of dirt, dust, or sand. The astronauts left distinct footprints all over the place.

6) The Apollo 11 TV pictures were lousy, yet the broadcast quality magically became fine on the five subsequent missions.

7) Why in most Apollo photos, is there a clear line of definition between the rough foreground and the smooth background?

8) Why did so many NASA Moonscape photos have non parallel shadows? sceptics will tell you because there is two sources of light on the Moon - the Sun and the Earth... That maybe the case, but the shadows would still fall in the same direction, not two or three different angles and Earth shine would have no effect during the bright lunar day (the time at which the Apollo was on the Moon).

9) Why did one of the stage prop rocks have a capital "C" on it and a 'C' on the ground in front of it?

10) How did the fibreglass whip antenna on the Gemini 6A capsule survive the tremendous heat of atmospheric re-entry?

11) In Ron Howard's 1995 science fiction movie, Apollo 13, the astronauts lose electrical power and begin worrying about freezing to death. In reality, of course, the relentless bombardment of the Sun's rays would rapidly have overheated the vehicle to lethal temperatures with no atmosphere into which to dump the heat build up.

12) Who would dare risk using the LEM on the Moon when a simulated Moon landing was never tested?

13) Instead of being able to jump at least ten feet high in "one sixth" gravity, the highest jump was about nineteen inches.

14) Even though slow motion photography was able to give a fairly convincing appearance of very low gravity, it could not disguise the fact that the astronauts travelled no further between steps than they would have on Earth.

15) If the Rover buggy had actually been moving in one-sixth gravity, then it would have required a twenty foot width in order not to have flipped over on nearly every turn. The Rover had the same width as ordinary small cars.

16) An astrophysicist who has worked for NASA writes that it takes two meters of shielding to protect against medium solar flares and that heavy ones give out tens of thousands of rem in a few hours. Russian scientists calculated in 1959 that astronauts needed a shield of 4 feet of lead to protect them on the Moons surface. Why didn't the astronauts on Apollo 14 and 16 die after exposure to this immense amount of radiation? And why are NASA only starting a project now to test the lunar radiation levels and what their effects would be on the human body if they have sent 12 men there already?

17) The fabric space suits had a crotch to shoulder zipper. There should have been fast leakage of air since even a pinhole deflates a tyre in short order.

18) The astronauts in these "pressurized" suits were easily able to bend their fingers, wrists, elbows, and knees at 5.2 p.s.i. and yet a boxer's 4 p.s.i. speed bag is virtually unbendable. The guys would have looked like balloon men if the suits had actually been pressurized.

19) How did the astronauts leave the LEM? In the documentary 'Paper Moon' The host measures a replica of the LEM at The Space Centre in Houston, what he finds is that the 'official' measurements released by NASA are bogus and that the astronauts could not have got out of the LEM.

20) The water sourced air conditioner backpacks should have produced frequent explosive vapour discharges. They never did.

21) During the Apollo 14 flag setup ceremony, the flag would not stop fluttering.

22) With more than a two second signal transmission round trip, how did a camera pan upward to track the departure of the Apollo 16 LEM? Gus Grissom, before he got burned alive in the Apollo I disaster A few minutes before he was burned to death in the Apollo I tragedy, Gus Grissom said, 'Hey, you guys in the control center, get with it. You expect me to go to the moon and you can't even maintain telephonic communications over three miles.' This statement says a lot about what Grissom thought about NASA's progress in the great space race.

23) Why did NASA's administrator resign just days before the first Apollo mission?

24) NASA launched the TETR-A satellite just months before the first lunar mission. The proclaimed purpose was to simulate transmissions coming from the moon so that the Houston ground crews (all those employees sitting behind computer screens at Mission Control) could "rehearse" the first moon landing. In other words, though NASA claimed that the satellite crashed shortly before the first lunar mission (a misinformation lie), its real purpose was to relay voice, fuel consumption, altitude, and telemetry data as if the transmissions were coming from an Apollo spacecraft as it neared the moon. Very few NASA employees knew the truth because they believed that the computer and television data they were receiving was the genuine article. Merely a hundred or so knew what was really going on; not tens of thousands as it might first appear.

25) In 1998, the Space Shuttle flew to one of its highest altitudes ever, three hundred and fifty miles, hundreds of miles below merely the beginning of the Van Allen Radiation Belts. Inside of their shielding, superior to that which the Apollo astronauts possessed, the shuttle astronauts reported being able to "see" the radiation with their eyes closed penetrating their shielding as well as the retinas of their closed eyes. For a dental x-ray on Earth which lasts 1/100th of a second we wear a 1/4 inch lead vest. Imagine what it would be like to endure several hours of radiation that you can see with your eyes closed from hundreds of miles away with 1/8 of an inch of aluminium shielding!

26) The Apollo 1 fire of January 27, 1967, killed what would have been the first crew to walk on the Moon just days after the commander, Gus Grissom, held an unapproved press conference complaining that they were at least ten years, not two, from reaching the Moon. The dead man's own son, who is a seasoned pilot himself, has in his possession forensic evidence personally retrieved from the charred spacecraft (that the government has tried to destroy on two or more occasions). Gus Grissom was obviously trying to make a big statement as he placed a lemon in the window of the Apollo I spacecraft as it sat ready for launch!

27) CNN issued the following report, "The radiation belts surrounding Earth may be more dangerous for astronauts than previously believed (like when they supposedly went through them thirty years ago to reach the Moon.) The phenomenon known as the 'Van Allen Belts' can spawn (newly discovered) 'Killer Electrons' that can dramatically affect the astronauts' health."

28) In 1969 computer chips had not been invented. The maximum computer memory was 256k, and this was housed in a large air conditioned building. In 2002 a top of the range computer requires at least 64 Mb of memory to run a simulated Moon landing, and that does not include the memory required to take off again once landed. The alleged computer on board Apollo 11 had 32k of memory. That's the equivalent of a simple calculator.

29) If debris from the Apollo missions was left on the Moon, then it would be visible today through a powerful telescope, however no such debris can be seen. The Clementine probe that recently mapped the Moons surface failed to show any Apollo artefacts left by Man during the missions. Where did the Moon Buggy and base of the LEM go?

30) In the year 2005 NASA does not have the technology to land any man, or woman on the Moon, and return them safely to Earth.

31) Film evidence has recently been uncovered of a mis-labelled, unedited, behind-the-scenes video film, dated by NASA three days after they left for the moon. It shows the crew of Apollo 11 staging part of their photography. The film evidence is shown in the video "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon!".

32) Why did the blueprints and plans for the Lunar Module and Moon Buggy get destroyed if this was one of History's greatest accomplishments?
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: fake moon landing - 12/15/05 10:29 PM

"And why exactly do you think there are hardly any stars visible on Apollo films taken from the Moon?"
The distance from the earth to the moon is negligible. It's doubtful anyone could measure the parallax. The reason is probably because of the brightness of Earth requires a very fast shutter speed. That seems a lot more likely than your fantastic "explanation."

"In the year 2005 NASA does not have the technology to land any man, or woman on the Moon, and return them safely to Earth."

Why couldn't they just continue faking it? After all, they did it once before. There are many cases of humans losing technology.

"The alleged computer on board Apollo 11 had 32k of memory. That's the equivalent of a simple calculator."

Only partly true. They had STACKS of these "calculator" quality computers.
You are a kook.
Posted by: bazza

Re: fake moon landing - 12/19/05 12:11 AM

Hello all

I just need to try to understand this photographic question. You require me to believe that because of parallax when photos are taken by unmanned missions the stars are clearly visible but when the photos are taken on "manned missions" they are not visible. This is a new optical science I have not encountered before.

Another comprehension problem I have is trying to believe that humanity could "forget" technology on this scale and at this level. Supposedly mankinds greatest scientific acheivement and you expect me to believe that we have "forgotten" how it was done? It would be easier to forget how to construct automobiles, ships, aircraft etc!!

If you take the time to peruse the NASA issued details of the Apollo vehicles you will see that there were not "Stacks" of computers in board. There would not have been the power available to operate them even if they were fitted. Also the heat produced by these "Stacks" of computers could not be dissipated .
This is a science based forum, which is why I have demonstated by scientific method the Apollo hoax to be just that. The fact that the hoax itself was probably the greatest political exploit ever is best left to other forums.
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: fake moon landing - 12/19/05 03:36 PM

1. "You require me to believe that because of parallax when photos are taken by unmanned missions the stars are clearly visible but when the photos are taken on "manned missions" they are not visible."

No. I didn't say that parallax would make fewer stars visible. If you're not going to actually read my responses, please let me know now so I can reserve my comments for people who pay attention.

I said that it's probably the case that fewer stars can be seen because the shutter speed on the cameras is so fast. How many stars can you see in the day time on earth?

Humanity has forgotten LOTS of things. There are LOTS of companies that make automobiles. The technology is very old. Space programs are much more complicated and so far they're restricted to bureaucratic governments.

Okay, there were not "stacks", but A stack of three separate computers. Back in those days we didn't have the burden of overhead of the kinds of operating systems we use today. With so little memory, programmers had to be clever, creative, and very thrifty with code.

You haven't demonstrated anything scientifically. You've made a bunch of claims and then stated a bunch of inferences, electing to pretend that the most unlikely explanations are far more likely than the more obvious ones.
Posted by: bradp

Re: fake moon landing - 12/20/05 08:00 PM

my english is not so good but here goes.I find it very strange the only people who believe this 3rd rate manipulation of the masses are Americans.I agree with bazza but what worries me is people like Da morgan who seems to be clever does not know or want to believe what is going on in his/her country.Have you been paying attention lately?? AlQaeda??Irak??ect..
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: fake moon landing - 12/21/05 03:28 AM

Your grasp of English is the least of your problems. Your worst problem is your non-grasp of logic.
Posted by: bradp

Re: fake moon landing - 12/21/05 03:49 PM

what has any of the above to do with logic?? "problems"??? are you a failed teacher with too much time on your hands? Is your world in side your head?? maybe you need too get out more(if they let you) I have made millions with (my) logic can you say the same?? or can you not put to use all that wealth of information in your head.No wonder we still have wars.I know your problem!!!
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: fake moon landing - 12/21/05 05:40 PM

There are used car dealers who have made millions without using logic. Here's a fact about me: I twice turned down the opportunity to join startups that friends of mine started so that I could finish my degree. In each instance, my friends became multi-millionaires. I might have been become one, as well, but I chose a different path. I know very intelligent and logical people who sweep hallways for a living, or repair buses. Logic isn't about how much money you make.

I did teach for a time in college. I was very successful at it. By most accounts of my students, I was exceptional. When I retire, I expect that I will return to teaching either at college, or in high school.

I don't care how much money you've made or how intelligent you believe yourself to be. If you think that you have provided scientific evidence that Einstein was a fraud or that the US never landed on the moon, then you have deluded yourself.

Your data is faulty. Your reasoning is faulty.
Assertions are not data. Non sequiturs are not correct reasoning. No amount of used-car (or snake oil) sales will change that.
Posted by: jjw

Re: fake moon landing - 12/22/05 12:44 AM

Alleged fake Moon landing:

It seems that members Beaker, Bradp and Bazza feel strongly that the USA did not put a Lander on the Moon as claimed. I enjoyed the various arguments and the detailed items of Bazza but found them to be trivial observations of a serious scientific accomplishment. The Russians did not tout your views and they had some solid reasons to do so. I will not go through your entire list because the basis is faulty in my opinion. It is a little like you?re miraculous 5 stars after just coming on board; was that a Hollywood style promotion?

There are objects on the Moon that the USA put there at the time of the mission. If this is not popular in the UK or in Holland then you should try to live with it, it?s for real.
jjw
Posted by: jjw

Re: fake moon landing - 12/22/05 12:48 AM

Also note that being a millionaire is so common in the USA we do not consider that fact worth comment. To assert it is proof of poor logic.
jjw
Posted by: bazza

Re: fake moon landing - 12/23/05 09:21 PM

Gentlemen, I must remind you that this is a SCIENCE forum!!

Statements like " in my opinion", "try to live with it" etc do not belong here. We are not here to discuss anyones degree of patriotism or nationalism. Leave that to the politicians. I took the time to list a few of my observations which do not conform to known and agreed scientific principles. Please counter them with equally detached reasoning. It is not scientific method to 'cherry pick' a couple of points and then discard them quoting some sense of feeling or emotion.
We will all be the richer for genuine discussion and investigation.
Posted by: bradp

Re: fake moon landing - 12/23/05 09:24 PM

I see from your wordsthe falliblefriend that I hit the spot.I was only responding to your bad manners and what I mean is I made my mony with games(puzzles ect..) so it does seem as if your wrong about the logic thing.jjwoo4 there is no rubble on the moon what proof do you have?? A french sponsored company has been scanning space(a lot of it) and the moon since 1989 and still found nothing.The new project to go to the moon will take 20years??? is that how long they need to fuel it??
Posted by: bradp

Re: fake moon landing - 12/23/05 09:50 PM

I wonder if you can trust 100% what a govement tells you, with NASA you believe everything?? even though you know it is politics.I ask you to look back 2,10,50,100,1000year and see if what was said is what was now we know better.How many examples could your find 50% of history? 30%?? 10??I think you would struggle to find more than 5% was as it was stated to be at the time.I ask this how mush mony did Kennedy put in the Moon prodject? I think it was pissed off politics
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: fake moon landing - 12/23/05 10:16 PM

Brad,

I'm sure you see a lot from my words. Some people look at television snow and see imminent alien invasion. You see my words and see bad manners.

It is bad manners to come into a science forum and dump a load of poorly researched garbage as if it were a gift from the gods. I have cherry-picked nothing.

Bazza dumped a load of poorly researched, badly reasoned silliness onto this forum. I responded to a few that were obviously and easily refuted. You and he both have a problem grasping logic. It's a waste of time discussing it with you. There is plenty of information on the net refuting every claim you fellows have made. If you were familiar with actual research, you would be aware of these refutations and would not have posted them on here.

Look at this: http://www.clavius.org/

He refutes a fair number of your points itself - and he does so in greater detail than what I have done.

The funniest stuff from the conspiracists is about the Apollo computers: exactly the kind of argument one would expect from someone with a marginal understanding of the history and capabilities of computers.
Posted by: bradp

Re: fake moon landing - 12/23/05 10:26 PM

this one is for all the 160 IQ?s If less money was put into the Kennedy moon project than any other in the sixties would this give cause for daubt.I suggest you look at how much was spend and compare that to what Kennedy estimated it would cost and you will find it was impossible(unless it was funded through the private sector and for some reason there is no record(normal in the USA)
Posted by: bradp

Re: fake moon landing - 12/23/05 10:33 PM

Dear Thefalliblefriend would you agree with the above based on your understanding of financing, basic economics and the task the USA(NASA)had and within a short time span
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: fake moon landing - 12/23/05 10:46 PM

Give us specific numbers and state your source(s).

Apollo Project: FY05$
Project 2: FY05$
Project 3: FY05$

Source: whatever the source is.

(It doesn't have to be FY05. It can be FY69, or FY60, but it needs to be consistent.)
Posted by: bradp

Re: fake moon landing - 12/23/05 11:16 PM

I would be quite happy too but you insult and expect me to give you answers so you can insult.I think you must know that when you start to insult people that it is not a positive thing to do.
I suggest you take a few minutes yourself get some info and then speak.If you are not able to find enough info I will gladly point you the way.
If your first call was going to be NASA forget the whole thing
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: fake moon landing - 12/24/05 12:39 AM

Speak about what? You've given me precious little to support or refute. Everything you say is vague and unsubstantiated.

I don't expect you to give me answers so I can insult. I expect you to support the arguments you're making with more than just assertions and innuendo - if you really expect someone else to agree with you.
Posted by: bazza

Re: fake moon landing - 12/24/05 01:06 AM

Dear oh dear, school playground stuff!!
He started it!
He did it first!
I guess its the same old game, if you cannot oppose something with reason or science resort to waffle, insults, shouting and the like.
No one has explained to me ever on any website why known laws of physics do not apply to the Apollo evidenced as given to us by Nasa. I am a scientist and have never yet found any action, reaction or substance which disputes the known laws of science.
I cannot delete many years of training, study and principles the world holds as true simply because someone somewhere has labelled genuine sincere scientific investigation as "another conspiracy theory".
Its earth shattering to learn that we were so grossly hoodwinked and treated as fools for some political/financial purpose. But the truth when investigated and tested to be so cannot be bartered or degraded in an effort to overide personal and unpleasant awakenings as to the workings of government.
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: fake moon landing - 12/24/05 01:19 AM

You should try producing some actual science instead of just making claims. I don't care how much you consider yourself a scientist. I doubt you're even a lab technician.

Regardless of how many degrees you pretend to have, assertions aren't facts, innuendos are not logic.
Posted by: A Lurker

Re: fake moon landing - 12/24/05 02:02 AM

bazza:
?I have no doubt that the lunar landings were hoaxes. A scientific and logical examination of the facts and data cannot lead to any other conclusion. Scientific process must not be polluted by the emotional stress caused when the results of that process are psychologically traumatic. In this case an untruth on a truly global scale.
To believe that the landings were real would require a suspension of logic and intelligence of breathtaking proportions.?

?here a a few questions on the subject. The list of "excuses" often recited like some sort of mantra whenever these questions are asked is usually deafening. Loud they certainly are but are devoid of serious scientific study.?

Response:
People who circulate these questions are kind of like Creationists; lists of questions (parroted from others) are posted and when an answer is given, its ignored as being false no matter what the fact may be.
The people who believe the landing to be a hoax usually says they want proof of the landing they can see for them selves before accepting it to be a historical fact. At the same time they do not hesitate to believe the ?FACTS? in the kind of listing Bazza provided as proof against the historic event.

But let?s see, I?ll answer the questions that I can answer.
I have a feeling that responding is a waste of time since I suspect any straight forward factual answer or any suggestion that the moon landing actually took place, will not be accepted. But I had some time to kill.

I apologize for the length of this posting.

Bazza, I assume you did not compile this list yourself, but pasted it from some other sites since I recognize quite a few of them almost word for word. You do seem to be one of the persons who believe the landing to be a hoax and I will address the questions as if you asked them yourself.

Bazza
1) Sceptics argue that the lack of stars on Moon photographs is acceptable, despite zero atmosphere to obscure the view. Yuri Gagarin, pronounced the stars to be "astonishingly brilliant".

Response:
This is one of the most idiotic questions. This has nothing to do with what any SKEPTIC says. This is how photography works knucklehead. Get a couple of things straight ? the human eye/retina/brain and a camera/lens/film/development are two very different systems.
To photograph stars you need a LONG exposure time.
To photograph a bright moon landscape you need a short exposure time. Hence ? no stars visible.
No scientific study needed, only photography lessons and or experience. If you don?t believe this you can try it your self: Get out on a dark night when you see a lot of stars. Make sure it at a location that has no lights for miles for best results. Take pictures of the sky. Also put a person or an object in the foreground and illuminate with a flashlight take more pictures. Develop the film and count stars.

Bazza:
?See the official NASA pictures above that I have reproduced that show 'stars' in the sky, as viewed from the lunar surface.?

Response:
Where are the pictures ?you? have reproduced? Without seeing these I can only guess that the pictures have been processed to show the stars. It looks better that way you understand ? is that considered a hoax? (those pictures where almost certainly also accompanied with some mentioning of processing on the NASA site). Are you aware of what kind of processing it takes for the Hubble telescope pictures to produce such fantastic results. Is Hubble a hoax?

Bazza:
?And why exactly do you think there are hardly any stars visible on Apollo films taken from the Moon??

Response:
Answered above. If they wanted to take pictures of stars, they could, but they would need long time exposures of the sky only. A long time exposure with any landscape visible would over expose the film. A double exposure would accomplish the task. First take the long exposure (may also require a mechanism to track the stars) and then, without forwarding the film take a short exposure of the landscape.

Bazza:
?The answers simple - Professional astronomers would quickly calculate that the configuration and distances of star formations were incorrect and so NASA had to remove them to make sure they could keep up the scam.?

Response:
No, knucklehead. Yes, the answer is simple and already explained above.
The parallax is negligible between the earth and moon to detect star constellation
distortion.
The simple answer is that they did not bother trying to get the right exposure
to take pretty pictures of the stars. They were on a MOON EXPEDITION.

Bazza:
?2) The pure oxygen atmosphere in the module would have melted the Hasselblad's camera covering and produced poisonous gases. Why weren't the astronauts affected??

Resoponse:
Hmm, Maybe this is the most idiotic one.
WTF? Why in the world would oxygen melt camera covers?
Why was Michael Jackson not affected by SLEEPING in a tank with pure oxygen to ?.. well, I don?t know why he did that ? health reasons, skin complextion?
Maybe he did not have any melting Hasselblad camera cover in there?
SHOW ME a scientific explanation on why camera covers melts in pure oxygen.
Better yet, you can easily conduct an experiment yourself. Get a Hasselblad camera cover (better make sure it?s a Hasselblad cover, maybe other covers don?t melt in pure oxygen, chuckle) and then put it in a container with pure oxygen. Observe.

Bazza:
?3) There should have been a substantial crater blasted out under the LEM's 10,000 pound thrust rocket. Sceptics would have you believe that the engines only had the power to blow the dust from underneath the LEM as it landed. If this is true, how did Armstrong create that famous boot print if all the dust had been blown away??

Response:
?There should have been a substantial crater blasted out? (My underlining).
TELL ME WHY there should have been.
If a helicopter lands in snow or sand (they can do that you know), there are no foot prints leading from the helicopter when the crew leaves and nobody knows why? bwa ha ha.
Seriously, some dust was probably swept away. The footprints are still there. Some closest to the lander base may, after the take off, be a little fuzzy.


Bazza:
?4) Sceptics claim that you cannot produce a flame in a vacuum because of the lack of oxygen. So how come I have footage on this page showing a flame coming from the exhaust of an Apollo lander? (Obviously the sceptics are wrong or the footage shows the lander working in an atmosphere)?

Response:
I have never heard any skeptic claim this. Is this a skeptic who think space flight is a hoax? Fuel used by any rocket engine used in space has components to supply the oxygen needed for the combustion.

Bazza:
?5) Footprints are the result of weight displacing air or moisture from between particles of dirt, dust, or sand. The astronauts left distinct footprints all over the place.?

Response:
This is a FALSE STATEMENT. No air or liquid needs to be present to allow compression of sand or dust to produce a footprint. If you are going to copy questions and statements, read them first and think about them. This one you can also reproduce yourself in a physics lab using a vacuum chamber and flour for example. Not much scientific research here either.


Bazza:
?6) The Apollo 11 TV pictures were lousy, yet the broadcast quality magically became fine on the five subsequent missions.?

Response:
Here you show your likeness to the creationist crowd, thinking that magic must be involved. No, this is what we reasonable people would call evolution. In this case it is evolution of broadcast techniques based on earlier experience and new development. Not a lot of science research needed for this one.

Bazza:
?7) Why in most Apollo photos, is there a clear line of definition between the rough foreground and the smooth background??

Response:
I have not seen this in pictures. Would you present samples?


Bazza:
?8) Why did so many NASA Moonscape photos have non parallel shadows? sceptics will tell you because there is two sources of light on the Moon - the Sun and the Earth... That maybe the case, but the shadows would still fall in the same direction, not two or three different angles and Earth shine would have no effect during the bright lunar day (the time at which the Apollo was on the Moon).?

Response:
I have seen some photos presented with this ?non parallel shadow? issue. To me
It just looks like shadows falling on non flat surfaces creating an illusion of not being ?right?. In some of the pictures it is hard to see that the ground is not flat due to the intense sunshine. In others I have seen shadows created by reflected sun light from the LEM or an astronaut in a white suit. Also, take a photo of railroad tracks. You KNOW they are parallel but does it look like it in the photos? Same thing.
Not a lot of scientific research needed here.

Bazza:
?9) Why did one of the stage prop rocks have a capital "C" on it and a 'C' on the ground in front of it??

Response:
I?ve seen this question before many times. It?s been explained but as usual the explanations is ignored. Fiber on the lens at copying time. There are other copies made without the ?C? looking fibre.
Again, not a lot of scientific research needed. Just photo lab experience.

Bazza:
?10) How did the fibreglass whip antenna on the Gemini 6A capsule survive the tremendous heat of atmospheric re-entry??

Response:
What does the Gemini program have to do with the so called ?moon landing hoax??
Why do you think the whip antenna was made of fiberglass?
Can some types of fiberglass withstand tremendous heat?
Can the whip antenna have been made out of something that looks like fiberglass?
Why don?t you write and ask NASA?
What is a whip antenna anyway?

Bazza:
?11) In Ron Howard's 1995 science fiction movie, Apollo 13, the astronauts lose electrical power and begin worrying about freezing to death. In reality, of course, the relentless bombardment of the Sun's rays would rapidly have overheated the vehicle to lethal temperatures with no atmosphere into which to dump the heat build up.?

Response:
Here you go again with your, this or that WOULD happen. Based on what scientific fact? In this case you state that the sunshine would rapidly overheat the capsule.
Maybe if it does not rotate. But it did rotate. What are you basing that statement on. I have to admit that I don?t know the physics on heating/cooling capsules or a space suit. Maybe someone else can fill me in on this.

Bazza:
?12) Who would dare risk using the LEM on the Moon when a simulated Moon landing was never tested??

Response:
What kind of BS is this? Who told you the LEM was never tested? That?s just incredible stupid to believe. It was not tested in moon gravity since we don?t have much of that around on earth. If I recall correctly, the LEM was tested in the desert in normal gravity. I recall seeing some footage in TV of these tests. But other simulations were made as well.
Not much sciensce to research here either. As of matter fact, I?m sure you can find out details on testing from NASA but I guess you?ll assume they are LYING.

Bazza:
?13) Instead of being able to jump at least ten feet high in "one sixth" gravity, the highest jump was about nineteen inches.?

Response:
And this proves??. What? Did anyone at Huston control go:

Armstrong, we want you to jump as high as you can. What, that?s all you can do? 19 inches? Nobody will believe we went to the moon if they can?t see you jump 10 feet straigt up. Now COME ON, put some backbone into it.

I recall, yes I?m that old, the concerns about astronauts feeling light and tempted to fool around. They needed to be very careful because they still had the same mass of body weight plus equipment (suit and backpack). Inertia can do funny things to you if you don?t pay attention. Maybe, if you pay attention in physics class, you?ll learn more about this. Not a lot of new ground breaking scientific research needed here.

Bazza:
?14) Even though slow motion photography was able to give a fairly convincing appearance of very low gravity, it could not disguise the fact that the astronauts travelled no further between steps than they would have on Earth.?

Response:
See response to #13.

Bazza:
?15) If the Rover buggy had actually been moving in one-sixth gravity, then it would have required a twenty foot width in order not to have flipped over on nearly every turn. The Rover had the same width as ordinary small cars.?

Response:
What is the base for this statement?
If the landing was a hoax, would such and obvious flaw have been overlooked?
I can?t prove it mathematically but I?d say that the statement is incorrect.
They were extremely careful operating the rover to avoid any accident leading to possible injuries or even loss of their own life. Again here you only need to calculate the forces involved, which I admit I?m not able to now. Someone?

Bazza:
?16) An astrophysicist who has worked for NASA writes that it takes two meters of shielding to protect against medium solar flares and that heavy ones give out tens of thousands of rem in a few hours. Russian scientists calculated in 1959 that astronauts needed a shield of 4 feet of lead to protect them on the Moons surface. Why didn't the astronauts on Apollo 14 and 16 die after exposure to this immense amount of radiation? And why are NASA only starting a project now to test the lunar radiation levels and what their effects would be on the human body if they have sent 12 men there already??

Response:
Here is a bunch of crap information. First. Who was the ?astrophysicist who has worked for NASA?. That is just put in there to sound credible.
The old ?Russian scientists?. Do you also believe the discoveries The Weekly World magazine reports when ?Russian scientists? finds aliens in Siberia. WHO WERE the scientists.
If all these discoveries were true, don?t you think there would be a larger outcry about the moon landing than a few oddballs on the internet?
If in fact NASA is planning to start a project to test lunar radiation levels, could it be that they now have better equipment to test with? Should they stop being cautious because astronauts made it back ok 35 years ago? Maybe they want to examine risks for longer expeditions?
Or MAYBE it?s just BS and they are not planning this at all?
If you really wanted to find out about radiation protection, why don?t you contact labs you would trust and just ask them?


Bazza:
?17) The fabric space suits had a crotch to shoulder zipper. There should have been fast leakage of air since even a pinhole deflates a tyre in short order.?

Response:
He He. ?There should have been?. This is just too much. You don?t think a zipper can be airtight? They HOAXED the airtight zipper?


Bazza:
?18) The astronauts in these "pressurized" suits were easily able to bend their fingers, wrists, elbows, and knees at 5.2 p.s.i. and yet a boxer's 4 p.s.i. speed bag is virtually unbendable. The guys would have looked like balloon men if the suits had actually been pressurized.?

Response:
Ha, Ha, Ha. again: ?would have looked??. No base in facts. Just blurted out.
Who told you that fingers, wrists, elbows, and knees were EASILY bent. They were not. These space suits have much in common with commercial diver suits. These are also pressurized. They actually work under MORE EXTREME environment than the astronauts. Are these divers a HOAX? Go see these divers for yourself.

Bazza:
?19) How did the astronauts leave the LEM? In the documentary 'Paper Moon' The host measures a replica of the LEM at The Space Centre in Houston, what he finds is that the 'official' measurements released by NASA are bogus and that the astronauts could not have got out of the LEM.?

Response:
I don?t know what to say about this one. What?s with the ?official? measurement from NASA? Lets see. The ?Paper Moon? guy measured a replica of the LEM and find it differs from the ?Official measurement?. If the landing was a hoax and the door was too small, did they have a larger LEM during the HOAX filming and left a smaller replica at the The Space Centre in Houston? Or did they make smaller suits using smaller actors and then made larger suits for the museum that does not fit the replica?
That?s just silly Bazza.

Moving on??

Bazza
?20) The water sourced air conditioner backpacks should have produced frequent explosive vapour discharges. They never did.?

Response:
?should have?. Why? And why would NASA produce air conditioner backpacks that produces frequent explosive vapor discharges?
How does this support the hoax believers?


Bazza:
?21) During the Apollo 14 flag setup ceremony, the flag would not stop fluttering.?

Response:
I have seen that footage several times. The flag moves when the pole is handled. Why should it not? Even shortly after, wile the metal pole is still swaying, the flag moves. Why should it not. After left alone, it does not move. You don?t need ANY scientific research to see this.

Bazza:
?22) With more than a two second signal transmission round trip, how did a camera pan upward to track the departure of the Apollo 16 LEM? Gus Grissom, before he got burned alive in the Apollo I disaster A few minutes before he was burned to death in the Apollo I tragedy, Gus Grissom said, 'Hey, you guys in the control center, get with it. You expect me to go to the moon and you can't even maintain telephonic communications over three miles.' This statement says a lot about what Grissom thought about NASA's progress in the great space race.?

Response:
What the heck does Gus Grissom joke with the control center have to do with tracking a departing LEM? If you take the time to check all jokes between any astronaut and the control center(there were many), I?m sure you can find some connection to the Kennedy murder as well.
As for tracking a departing LEM. Oh, that seems tricky. I wonder how those model planes flying around are controlled? Hmm, how are those target seeking missiles find their target. I?m sure the engineers at NASA found a simple solution for that. I could do it you know.
Here Bazza reveals that he now what Grissom was thinking:
?This statement says a lot about what Grissom thought about NASA's progress in the great space race?. To me it sounds like most of the jokes between astronauts and the engineers; a lot of poking fun at each other.

Bazza:
?23) Why did NASA's administrator resign just days before the first Apollo mission??

Response:
Holy cow, That?s it. A guy (the admin guy) quits JUST days before the mission. I say, it must have been a HOAX.
Ever heard of politics in the office? This was a high prestige and high pressure project. You don?t think people got hired and fired and quit during this project. Get real man. Now, if the entire control crew had walked out just before launch and the mission went OK, then I too would have raised an eyebrow or two.

Bazza:
?24) NASA launched the TETR-A satellite just months before the first lunar mission. The proclaimed purpose was to simulate transmissions coming from the moon so that the Houston ground crews (all those employees sitting behind computer screens at Mission Control) could "rehearse" the first moon landing. In other words, though NASA claimed that the satellite crashed shortly before the first lunar mission (a misinformation lie), its real purpose was to relay voice, fuel consumption, altitude, and telemetry data as if the transmissions were coming from an Apollo spacecraft as it neared the moon. Very few NASA employees knew the truth because they believed that the computer and television data they were receiving was the genuine article. Merely a hundred or so knew what was really going on; not tens of thousands as it might first appear.?

Response:
What is the source of this information. Surely not only from some web site? Thousands of hobby radio enthusiasts and other countries spy resources could not find the source of the communication came from earth orbit and not from the moon? Are you trying to say they were all in on the hoax. Get a grip.
Radio signal tracking is easy to perform. If the signal comes from orbit, chances are they come from orbit. If the signal comes from the moon, it comes from the moon.
Do you really for one second think that the rest of the worlds radio fanatics and above all the Russians, would not scream BLOODY MURDER if the signals did not originate from where the should. This is a LAME argument for the hoax stupidity.

Bazza:
?25) In 1998, the Space Shuttle flew to one of its highest altitudes ever, three hundred and fifty miles, hundreds of miles below merely the beginning of the Van Allen Radiation Belts. Inside of their shielding, superior to that which the Apollo astronauts possessed, the shuttle astronauts reported being able to "see" the radiation with their eyes closed penetrating their shielding as well as the retinas of their closed eyes. For a dental x-ray on Earth which lasts 1/100th of a second we wear a 1/4 inch lead vest. Imagine what it would be like to endure several hours of radiation that you can see with your eyes closed from hundreds of miles away with 1/8 of an inch of aluminium shielding!

Response:
The human eye can simply not see this kind of radiation. Bunch of crap.
What is this sentence saying?
?Imagine what it would be like to endure several hours of radiation that you can see with your eyes closed from hundreds of miles away?. Hundreds of miles away from what? Explain this a bit further please.
Another little fact you may have missed. The space shuttle was not designed to enter the Van Allen Belts. The Apollo vehicles were designed to fly through twice.

Bazza:
?26) The Apollo 1 fire of January 27, 1967, killed what would have been the first crew to walk on the Moon just days after the commander, Gus Grissom, held an unapproved press conference complaining that they were at least ten years, not two, from reaching the Moon. The dead man's own son, who is a seasoned pilot himself, has in his possession forensic evidence personally retrieved from the charred spacecraft (that the government has tried to destroy on two or more occasions). Gus Grissom was obviously trying to make a big statement as he placed a lemon in the window of the Apollo I spacecraft as it sat ready for launch!?

Response:
They let Gus?s son in on the accident scene? Gus?s son has forensic evidence of what? That a fire took place? Was it arson? Why has he not stepped forward with it, especially if the government has tried to destroy it. How is it known that he has this ?evidence??
This information is just great. No source (as usual) and the story is just too stupid ?
holding on to the evidence ? WHY.

Bazza:
?27) CNN issued the following report, "The radiation belts surrounding Earth may be more dangerous for astronauts than previously believed (like when they supposedly went through them thirty years ago to reach the Moon.) The phenomenon known as the 'Van Allen Belts' can spawn (newly discovered) 'Killer Electrons' that can dramatically affect the astronauts' health."

Response:
CNN reports are always correct??. Trust them. They always critically examine new scientific reports before reporting.
Let?s say that some scientist claimed to have discovered this phenomenon.

The hoax believers obviously draw the conclusion that this finding was correct and anyone passing through the Belts would get seriously affected and thus, since none of the moon astronauts showed any affect, the landing must be a hoax.

What if the finding was not exactly as stated. This does happen a lot after peer reviewing findings. How often do you see CNN reporting scientific findings that was once news worthy but later found to be not so spectacular.
We can just as easily say that the finding of the ?killer electrons? is a hoax because the moon astronauts showed no affect.

Bazza:
?28) In 1969 computer chips had not been invented. The maximum computer memory was 256k, and this was housed in a large air conditioned building. In 2002 a top of the range computer requires at least 64 Mb of memory to run a simulated Moon landing, and that does not include the memory required to take off again once landed. The alleged computer on board Apollo 11 had 32k of memory. That's the equivalent of a simple calculator.?

Response:
And the point is?
They had the latest in what computing power was available for this task. They had what it took for the mission. Would they have been better of with better computer technology? They would probably have loved that and felt better about simulations too.


Bazza:
?29) If debris from the Apollo missions was left on the Moon, then it would be visible today through a powerful telescope, however no such debris can be seen. The Clementine probe that recently mapped the Moons surface failed to show any Apollo artefacts left by Man during the missions. Where did the Moon Buggy and base of the LEM go??

Response:
This has been discussed so many times as anything else in this list of Hoax ?evidence?. It have been established that even the Hobble telescope can not resolve
Artifacts left behind. So, no, you can?t see them. Not yet.
They are still using instruments left behind. Go figure that?.

Bazza:
?30) In the year 2005 NASA does not have the technology to land any man, or woman on the Moon, and return them safely to Earth.?

Response:
Oh COME ON. Who came up with this? When did NASA announce this? If NASA did not, then WHO? And on what grounds was it determined they don?t have the technology?
What they do not have is: FUNDING. Get this straight. FUNDING. You understand?
M-O-N-E-Y. Of course the technology exists. They have more technology now than they had then (in the days of the moon landing).
Do you think it takes LESS technology to send a vehicle to Saturn and successfully send a probe to Titan and get pictures from its surface. NASA is still navigating Cassini around Saturn for continuous findings. Do you think it takes LESS technology to put two rovers on Mars (largely put together from off the shelf components) and drive them for a year (initially planned for 90 days) on a limited budget.
If there is no FUNDING for a moon expedition, there is no reason to use the technology (that the DO have) or even develop new and better technology to put a human on the moon.

Bazza:
?31) Film evidence has recently been uncovered of a mis-labelled, unedited, behind-the-scenes video film, dated by NASA three days after they left for the moon. It shows the crew of Apollo 11 staging part of their photography. The film evidence is shown in the video "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon!".?

Response:
Another piece of information given with absolutely no backup. Who guarantees whatever film evidence was shown is authentic and what it actually depicts?
The training the astronauts went through was pretty detailed. I remember watching
Reports on TV on how they trained. I was very much into the moon landing project at that time and watched TV about it as often I could. They had moonlike sets to practice all experiments they needed to perform. They also practice in the desert for moonlike landscape. Some of these reports (films) could probably be used today to claim that everything was staged.


Bazza:
?32) Why did the blueprints and plans for the Lunar Module and Moon Buggy get destroyed if this was one of History's greatest accomplishments??

Response:
Sigh! Who claims any blueprints were destroyed? Why is it believable that they were destroyed? Because it was a hoax and the blueprints was not detailed enough to be real?

If you worry about lost blueprints, don?t fret. Lunar Module 2 (LM-2) built by Grummans (never flown of course) is on display at the National Air and Space Museum, Washington, DC. It?s the real thing.
LM-9 On display at the Kennedy Space Center (Apollo/Saturn V Center). It?s the real thing.
There are also other partially completed LM?s on display in some other locations.
So if you can?t get the blueprint, you can always look at a real one and reverse engineer it if you have the time.

To conclude, the questions raised by the ?hoax believers? are rather lame I think. All items in this list are easily dismissed. Bazza says the questions are raised but ?are devoid of serious scientific study.? I say most of these questions are not a problem at all for people who graduated school and were awake in physics class.

Now, if the landings had been hoaxed for real. THAT would have been an even greater feat than the missions themselves in my mind. So many people to control and make sure they stick to their story.
HEY, maybe Kennedy was killed because he was planning to reveal that he suggested to fake the whole thing to begin with. I think I?ll start a web site with this ?theory?. I?ll charge for access of course, I?ll be rich.


In a later post from Bazza:
?Another comprehension problem I have is trying to believe that humanity could "forget" technology on this scale and at this level. Supposedly mankinds greatest scientific acheivement and you expect me to believe that we have "forgotten" how it was done? It would be easier to forget how to construct automobiles, ships, aircraft etc!!?

Response:
As I said before. NO, the technology is not forgotten. Just not used now because there is no __________ and therefore no reason to use it and develop upon it.
(Can you guess what goes into the blanks?)

I hope I have helped your comprehension problem a little bit.

Earlier stated by Bazza:
?To believe that the landings were real would require a suspension of logic and intelligence of breathtaking proportions.?

Response:
No Bazza, you only need to pay attention in class and maybe take up photography as a hobby. It seems to me that you are the one who have suspended logic and intelligence. A temporary measure I hope.
Posted by: bradp

Re: fake moon landing - 12/24/05 02:02 AM

here is something to think about while you look up the cost of Kennedys re-election stunt.
Goerge Bush jr. 15 jan 2004(re-election year) title: Bush outlines plan for moon landing
Bush"In the last 30 years no human being has set foot on another world or ventured into space more than 386 miles" "cost 12 billion over the next 5 years" Bill Nelson(shuttle 1986)"You can?t go to the moon by 2014 wth that"It would be for Bush?s succssors to figure out how to finance the costliest part of the plan.Bush says"We need to see and examine and touch for ourselves" surly he missed out again.A crew exploration vehicle to ferry poeple first to the space station and then to the moon.30 years ago it was non stop! Bush says"Time table for robotic missions(yes metal men,hello) to the moon no later than 2008 a new manned spacecraft by2015 and to the moon by 2020.SO now(2005) we need at least 15 years and at least 15 billion to send a man to the moon but better send robots first(just to clear up the rubble from 35 years ago when it took 4 years a flying calculater and 620million.Thefallible I would check all of this and then see if the Chinees or the French or the Russians want to build a flying calculator and fly to the moon, land, go for a walk and maybe drive around abit.I am sure you could do it .Just like 35 years ago
Posted by: bradp

Re: fake moon landing - 12/24/05 02:56 AM

A Lurker I think you did very well on most points and I have seen you seem to understand that without enough funding none of this is pos.I suggest you look at how much funding went into kennedy?s cold war battle toy(I am sure He made everyone in the USA feel good about them selfs)Maybe I am one of those poeple who just notices things..like Fox news and CNN on at least three ocasions(I saw) talking about where Bush jr will be in three days,two days reading a book to children.I said to my wife why do they want us to remember where he is on that day.First I thought of Dallas then maybe a hit(Sadam) but It did bother me. maybe luck?? maybe 2+2 I don`t know
Posted by: A Lurker

Re: fake moon landing - 12/24/05 03:03 AM

Bradp,

When you came on to this discussion, you excused your self for bad English. In other threads I have seen you say: Bradp from Holland. Well, I?m European as well and I think you need to structure your sentences a little better. There is no excuse to write condensed heavy text blocks that are hard to read whatever your English level is. I am sure that even in Holland you use capital letters after a period (as the rest of Europe does) and put two spaces after a period. If you want to appear as smart as you say you are, shape up your writing skills. Just a suggestion.
Posted by: A Lurker

Re: fake moon landing - 12/24/05 03:06 AM

Bradp,
No I'm not going to look into anything else for now. I'm only responding to the Moon Hoax arguments that are so blantantly silly. Any other research I will leav to others.

Happy Holidays.
Posted by: bradp

Re: fake moon landing - 12/24/05 03:22 AM

Maybe you cant read or maybe its this translation program on my palm(Vertaal.3 Dutch to german,English, Spanish) I am sorry If It is not clear what I am trying to say.If you are used to writing on a palm then maybe you will understand.I said maybe you cant read because I dont think I said I was smart.It seems understanding is not big in here.Are you another frustrated teacher who has hondreds of ways of doing things but never does one.Again try doing this on a sony clie with a translator
Posted by: A Lurker

Re: fake moon landing - 12/24/05 03:33 AM

Bradp,
No I'm not a teacher. Come on dude, you need to be a little more supportive of teachers. If you have not seen what your postings look like on a "Normal" display, maybe you should try to check it out. Maybe visit a friend who has a PC or go to a library and log in there.
Your postings are just a little hard to read. I like to see a little structure to what I read. That's all.
Posted by: A Lurker

Re: fake moon landing - 12/24/05 03:36 AM

Wait a minute, did you not say you made millions?
get a PC or a Mac. Then learn how to use them and post wonderfully structured postings. How's that?
Posted by: bradp

Re: fake moon landing - 12/24/05 03:51 AM

sorry Only have this with me.looks very much like a text message but I think its not all me some letters change to caps and periods change I dont think its all my fault.Its a sony clie th55(palm) anyone help?? Maybe Its the Einstein and Nasa people. I do think some of you poeple have a bad attitude and that has really shocked me.Most smart people I have met are not insulting and on the defensive and seem open and interested(at any level)Cant go to a library or one of my companies as I am in Candanchu.
Posted by: jjw

Re: fake moon landing - 12/24/05 03:54 AM

Reply to Bazza:

First and foremost I am patriotic and I do respond to sources that accuse my country of fraud with a little less that total indifference. Now getting to your multiple items of accusation I went through them. Too much space is required to answer each supposition.
1) I filmed the events at home from my TV. The glare was exceptional. Stars could easily be turned off for a camera view.
2) Who says ?pure oxygen? was used. Too dangerous and best diluted for conservation and re-circulated. Your camera argument serves naught.
3) You say no dust but yet dust for a foot print. A foot print was made.
4) Rockets contain all chemicals required to burn, including oxygen.
5) You want air required for a footprint. Displacement of particles works.
6) You argue improvement of equipment is detrimental, why?
7) Probably due to the effect of shadows.
8) Curved surfaces can create non-parallel shadows.
9) Some sloppy grip got there first- or they are not ?c?s.
0) It would have to due to whip location. Not a director?s oversight.
1) Why do you consider some science fiction movie relevant?
2) NASA would dare and they did dare.
3) Your gravity picture may itself be in error. ? was estimated.
4) This is purely your subjective observation of the facts.
5) Your conclusion of the effects of gravity on the Moon errs. Surface gravity is the measure of falling objects and that is where you get the 1/6th. On surface can differ.
6) You want to say no to 12 men going to the Moon with out proof.
7) You?re speculating again. Give the people credit for knowing.
8) You simply ask questions that contain no scientific merit.
9) If you are correct they must still be in the LEM, are they?
0) Possibly, if your contention is correct, NASA worked it out?
1) I think you are at fault here. Some flutter is not beyond reason.
2) This implies an astronaut was making a joke, if he did, so what?
3) This item begs rejection. You tell us why some person resigns.
4) Astronomers have been bouncing lasers from the mirrors we left.
5) You are reckless with conclusions. This is irrelevant argument.
6) Film evidence! Any USA news agency would buy it if for real.
7) You suggest documents were destroyed. Logically this means?

You are welcome to believe as you wish. You can not carry your burden of proof by supposition and conjecture. Much more could be discussed, like your air pressure item of 5psi to a tire at possibly 30psi. Anyway I am too busy for this. jjw
Posted by: bradp

Re: fake moon landing - 12/24/05 03:55 AM

You do know candanchu??Do you want me to come down to this level? What is it you do??
Posted by: jjw

Re: fake moon landing - 12/24/05 04:45 AM

bradp:

I suspect your reply was meant for some one else. I respond just to clarify. I find that Candanchu is a ski resort in Spain. Enjoy and make a long visit.
jjw
Posted by: A Lurker

Re: fake moon landing - 12/24/05 05:01 AM

Bradp,
If you only have access to the clie, then that's fine with me. Let's get back to the topic.
Do you really believe that the moon landings were hoaxed? If you do believe that, why?
Posted by: bradp

Re: fake moon landing - 12/24/05 04:31 PM

I am not sure they were real.I have my doubts based on a few simple assumptions.I have studied the USA?s way of manipulating the masses for the last 20 years(the best) I found it hard to believe they realy wanted to go to the moon.Kennedy was desperate after falling behind in the cold war(propaganda) and more important Kennedy needed to win the elections and that was not going to be easy with Vietnam at its peak.This does not prove anything but it is the real reason wy this project started and I think it should be kept in mind throughout.There was so much at stake.Here is what I have a problem with.
Posted by: bradp

Re: fake moon landing - 12/24/05 04:52 PM

Kennedy could not pass a bill to fund the project but settled for half(less money than other projects because like today, the money was being pumpt into the war)It srikes me if nothing else odd that Russia and eurospace could not get there projects of the ground for lack of funds(Russia 7 fold Eurspace 14fold that of the USA)The top russians and europeans(most french and Indian British)could not get the project of the ground for 7 or 14 times the funds the USA had used.My brother used to work for Eurospace and I ask him why they didnt want to send someone to the moon.He said there was no way they could come up with that kind of money and that the Chinees or USA would get there first.I ask him if he thought the moon landing was a hoax.He laughed as if were a child.
Posted by: bradp

Re: fake moon landing - 12/24/05 05:05 PM

He told me they had still not even got the spacesuits right(something he was working on).In the late 60`s the russians repeatedly said it was a hoaxbut their the russians so why should we listern.I could go into more detail but I am lazy.NASA has said of late they will be short on funding from 2008 and unless they get an extra 2bilion year there is no way they will put a foot on the moon before 2020(total 35b-50b usd)
They are starting from scratch.
Posted by: bradp

Re: fake moon landing - 12/24/05 05:19 PM

I ask why they dont use the spaceshuttle with a lander inside and he said the first problem is protecting the crew and that had not been solved allthough they were nearly there.
Alot of the points put earlier by bazza I think it was are typical contamination(maybe NASA).
I do find it strange if nothing nasa are working there socks of on how to get man into Space safely(more than 500miles)
I am not sure it was real but that is only based on my understanding of funding and the opinions of my brother.What do you think??
Posted by: jeff

Re: fake moon landing - 12/24/05 10:03 PM

I have to say that the evidence falls on the side of a hoax. There are too many inconsistancies across such a broad range. I would not accept these explanations when dealing with other subjects.
Posted by: A Lurker

Re: fake moon landing - 12/26/05 06:30 AM

Bazza,
You might be out Christmasing or so. I'm looking forward to your response.

Brapdp,
You seem to be interested in political games and their history. As far as the moonlanding, you must undestand that if it was hoaxed, then the american government needed to control THE WORLD. Not only people in the USA itself. This will end my discussion with you in this matter.
Posted by: A Lurker

Re: fake moon landing - 12/26/05 06:53 AM

jeff wrote:
"I would not accept these explanations when dealing with other subjects."

Well, that's brilliant jeff. Staying focused on one subject and try not to get explanations for other subjects get in your way for the current one.
Sorry. No answer requested, I just could not resist.
Posted by: bradp

Re: fake moon landing - 12/26/05 06:51 PM

A.Lurker "need to control the world" hello!!! can you name a place they have not tryed to control?????????? Oh my! I think your write this should not go any further.
Posted by: bradp

Re: fake moon landing - 12/26/05 06:54 PM

ps I do think the USA should control some as the UN is there there to make money for the rich.Have a nice holiday
Posted by: habib

Re: fake moon landing - 12/26/05 11:14 PM

Why do Americans have to insult everyone? why call people "idiots" "knuckleheads" etc? are your arguments so fragile you must resort to insults?
Posted by: jjw

Re: fake moon landing - 12/27/05 01:43 AM

Habib:

At times sheer frustration can cause anyone to lapse from the normal and reply with an insult. Frustration borne of poorly documented accusations of fraud or of alleged hoax against your country or its scientists is a perfect example of conduct that may warrant such a response. Do you think it is less objectionable for me to say you are an idiot (I never would) than for you to say my people and my country is a fraud or dishonest. This is a distinction that I do not see worth debate.

Please read the assertions that have been made to see for yourself if they are offered in the sense of scientific discussion or are framed in the nature of libel and slander. If you agree with them that is fine with me but I hope you will have better reason to do so.
jjw
Posted by: habib

Re: fake moon landing - 12/27/05 06:05 PM

Its no excuse to insult someone just because they do not agree with what you say. It's no wonder so few people stay with this site. I am now checking out and will seek out a genuine science group that does not insult and bully its contributors.
Posted by: jjw

Re: fake moon landing - 12/27/05 07:25 PM

habib:

You must follow your own course.

You leave me with the impression that you believe it is acceptable to accuse one of fraud or creating hoaxes but not to call someone an idiot. The former implies criminal conduct while the latter only implies diminished mental skills.
I hope you find what you seek.
jjw
Posted by: jeff

Re: fake moon landing - 12/28/05 12:22 AM

How do you people work out that questioning someones scientific standpoint is an accusation of fraud? you really are paranoid, the bizarre names you choose to be identified by rather than something adult or genuine are an indication of mental aberation.
The world is a big place and not everybody has been force fed the media garbage you have.

I'll just bail out and leave you to your fantasy world. Cheers Habib, you vote with your feet and have led the way, mind you fair votes are a novelty to americans anyway.
Posted by: A Lurker

Re: fake moon landing - 12/28/05 02:41 AM

Habib said:
"Why do Americans have to insult everyone? why call people "idiots" "knuckleheads" etc? are your arguments so fragile you must resort to insults? "

Response:
Maybe you're gone already, but if you peek...
I used "knucklehead" because I don't think that's really an insult on the same level as "idiot" or other expressions prefixed or suffixed by four letter words. I'll try to refrain from using the term. I did not call anyone "idiot" but I did call statements "idiotic" because I find them to be so.
I'm not American. You assume too much. Are you aware of the fact that this is an Australian site?
Further more, if you (anyone) come into a science forum with farfetched statements with no factual backup, you should expect some resistance. You need to be a little tougher. I agree that name calling should not be used, but as mentioned above, sometimes in the heat of the discussion, that happens some time.

Jeff,
If you don't think that hoaxing the moon landing and fool the whole world is not fraud, then what in your book would be fraud?

Now, where is bazza? Would anyone else care to comment on my responses to bazza's 29 or 30 items? Or do you whish to continue whining smile
Or maybe the hoax believers got converted - or not :rolleyes:
Posted by: bradp

Re: fake moon landing - 12/28/05 11:38 AM

I agree lurker with most of your points and maybe the way to proof is through the evidence we collected on the moon.I dont think we have send a robot for samples so lets checkout these rocks and "moondust" collected.We are able to hoax film and sound but I think it is more unlikely with the samples. Have they been tested independently???
Posted by: bradp

Re: fake moon landing - 12/28/05 11:53 AM

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast23feb_2.htm
check this and remember it is a NASA/gov page
Posted by: bradp

Re: fake moon landing - 12/28/05 11:54 AM

Again I ask have they been tested independently??
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: fake moon landing - 12/28/05 12:12 PM

"http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast23feb_2.htm
check this and remember it is a NASA/gov page"

I went to that page. Did you read it? It was a scathing critique of moon-hoax theology, but it contains nothing new. All this stuff has appeared elsewhere.

What constitutes an "independent" laboratory test?
I like the last few lines of the article you referred us to:
---
Even Dr. Robert Park, Director of the Washington office of the American Physical Society and a noted critic of NASA's human space flight program, agrees with the space agency on this issue. "The body of physical evidence that humans did walk on the Moon is simply overwhelming."

"Fox should stick to making cartoons," agreed Marc Norman. "I'm a big fan of The Simpsons!"
---
Posted by: bradp

Re: fake moon landing - 12/28/05 02:25 PM

" Even Dr Robert Park" yes thats proof.Have you noticed where he works and who he is payed by??
"Independent" from the US gov,NASA or supported/sponsored investigation by the US gov.
You had noticed on the page there is NO independent proof or opinions( I hope!!!)
That was the point I was making and I thought it would be obvious.
Posted by: bradp

Re: fake moon landing - 12/28/05 02:42 PM

If there is no doubt why the propaganda?? With this I am not saying it was a hoax. Would you agree to this,if we cant find independent study of the rocks and moondust it would not help NASA`s defence and would add fuel to the fire.
Posted by: DA Morgan

Re: fake moon landing - 12/28/05 05:52 PM

Agree with it? Absolutely not. It is pure unadulterated rubbish.
Posted by: bradp

Re: fake moon landing - 12/28/05 05:56 PM

try Dalmore 18 years and tell me what you think DA Morgan
Posted by: A Lurker

Re: fake moon landing - 12/29/05 07:46 AM

I think by now, since there has been no constructive disagreements to my responses to Bazza?s list of statements/questions about NASA?s moon landings missions, we can conclude that:
This list of ?proof of moon landing hoax? is dead. The questions or statements have been answered and explained.

This thread can be closed.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: fake moon landing - 12/29/05 08:53 AM

So the grand conspiracy began with Landing on Moon.
Since we all believe in it ... I guess one day landing will become a kind of folktale in the general masses.
But what about the other launches ?
And why is Japan failing to produce technical superiority in Space Launching?
Strange.
Technologically what are they missing?
The sharing between two great country has been very limited.
India stands out as a very simple country and even India is going to launch some kind of Moonship...
I wonder whether the entire controversy is about that particular launch or the entire Space program?
Posted by: bradp

Re: fake moon landing - 12/29/05 11:52 AM

dkv only about the ability to land on the moon in 1969.
Lurker you are wright lets put the list to sleep and deal with the Hoax(or is that one)
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: fake moon landing - 12/29/05 11:59 AM

dkv only about the ability to land on the moon in 1969.
REP: Thanks that you answered.
In 1969 World was under tremendous pressure.
Anything is possible.
But such a Lie ...

[content edited] .. is there any light ?
Best method will be to get a confirmation from the Lords.

See you after a heartbreak.

:-))
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: fake moon landing - 12/29/05 09:44 PM

I dont see how two photographs taken on different missions and at different places on the moon can have EXACTLY the same background. The same rocks with the same shadows and the same horizon details with the same light intensity. How? It dont add up to me somehow. that and the no dust on take off thing leave me feelin a bit uneasy.
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: fake moon landing - 12/30/05 04:59 PM

"I dont see how two photographs taken on different missions and at different places on the moon can have EXACTLY the same background. "

Can you provide the two pictures in question, with sources please?
Posted by: DA Morgan

Re: fake moon landing - 12/30/05 09:00 PM

Don't hold your breath. If they existed the link would have been posted.
Posted by: A Lurker

Re: fake moon landing - 12/31/05 02:04 AM

Mom said:
?I dont see how two photographs taken on different missions and at different places on the moon can have EXACTLY the same background. The same rocks with the same shadows and the same horizon details with the same light intensity. How? It dont add up to me somehow. that and the no dust on take off thing leave me feelin a bit uneasy.?

Response:
Well, ?mom?, I certainly hope you are not a detective or have any aspiration of becoming one.
First, who told you the pictures were from
different missions?
Second, I?ll tell you how this adds up.
If the pictures have ?EXACTLY the same background. The same rocks with the same shadows and the same horizon details with the same light intensity?, then THEY ARE OBVIOUSLY FROM THE SAME MISSION AND WERE TAKEN AT THE SAME LOCATION. As simple as that.

Now to your dust mystery. I assume you are talking about the film that shows the take off of the upper part of the LM.
Are you, yourself wondering about this? Or did you read about this on the internet? I?m assuming the latter.
Why do you expect to see dust in these pictures? Think about it for a minute.
The LM has two parts, the astronaut compartment (the Ascent Stage) and the Base part with the four legs (the Descent Stage).

Descent Stage height: 10 feet, 7 inches
Diameter (diagonally across landing gear) : 31 feet
(As described here: http://users.specdata.com/home/pullo/F_R.HTM)
I think these dimensions are right comparing with pictures with astronauts close to the LM

Only the ascent stage takes off. And it takes off from a platform, the descent stage, which is about 10 feet (3 meters) above the ground. The blast does not hit the ground. There may have been some dust settled on the surface of the
descent stage at the landing, but with the poor picture quality, that dust (if any) is probably not just visible.
Posted by: adrian

Re: fake moon landing - 12/31/05 09:15 PM

Hi all

I too have reservations on this subject. I have lived under a system where we had to accept what we were told by the government simply because if the goverment said it then it had to be true. To dissent brought first ridicule then arrest. Now I am free to question and to explore, I treasure this ability.

I have reservations when I see blue sky in the command module window two days into the flight. This is not an acceptable circumstance and has yet to be excused.
Posted by: bradp

Re: fake moon landing - 01/01/06 03:11 PM

I dont question the photos or the film(I could make a fake photo or film with no problem)
I dont understand why NASA(US gov.) are holding back evidence and contaminating this whole subject.Why did NASA buy up Binders conflicting(with the NASA moon landings and probes) information. Remember Binders moon project was independent(semi wth Army) Why were only two moon rocks(Apollo 14) sent around the world for studie and noone has found anything out of this world in them(NASA has with its samples???)
Lets put it this way(remember its the cold war sixties) USA gets a gun-Russia gets a gun. USA gets a rocket-Russia gets a rocket. USA gets a nuke-Russia gets a nuke.Russia go to space-USA go to space. USA go to the moon-Russia??????????
So in other words you are saying the USA won the cold war in the sixties???? Do you believe that??
Posted by: bradp

Re: fake moon landing - 01/01/06 03:23 PM

1998 NASA send the Luna prospector to map the moon. I have a great Idea lets go to the moon.. ok..we will need a map. No we can do that in 36 years lets just go there. mmmmm The Binder thing worries me more.
Posted by: DA Morgan

Re: fake moon landing - 01/02/06 07:07 PM

What you should be worrying about is your mental health.

Things of consequence are happening on this planet and you are spending your time and energy worrying about an inanity.

But hey ... what's wrong with a distraction from reality that doesn't involve illegal drugs. Who cares if the planet is getting warmer, if torture is being committed, if crony kleptocracy is the order of the day ... when you can "worry" about mapping the moon.
Posted by: adrian

Re: fake moon landing - 01/03/06 12:17 AM

Mr Morgan, I notice a common theme of your posts is to question peoples sanity. It is not healthy to state that people that do no agree with you are deranged, in fact people will assume the reverse to be true.

As Shakespeare once said " methinks he does protest too much".

You mention illegal drugs also, I do not think you should experiment with them until the doctors have exhausted all legal therapies for your paranoia.
Posted by: A Lurker

Re: fake moon landing - 01/03/06 05:55 AM

Adrian:
"I have reservations when I see blue sky in the command module window two days into the flight. This is not an acceptable circumstance and has yet to be excused."

Post that picture or a link. I'm sure I can explain what you see in that picture.

I am trying hard, very hard, here to NOT speak my mind (maybe even be rude) to ignorant people. So far I think I'm holding up. But if you (you meaning ALL you people who have a "hard time" believing the moon landings) cannot show something that I cannot explain about the landings, and I mean the PHYSICAL LANDINGS here, not any other nebulous "theories" around the NASA organization.

If you (you, meaning anyone who don't believe the landings took place) don't back up any BS you mention about any hoax, then shut up and post your idiotic rants elswere.

Yo see... I'm loosing my calm already.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: fake moon landing - 01/03/06 06:04 AM

I've already lost my patience, that's why I'm refraining from posting.

"Amaranth"
Posted by: A Lurker

Re: fake moon landing - 01/03/06 06:27 AM

I guess that's a good idea Amaranth, maybe I'll do the same.
Posted by: DA Morgan

Re: fake moon landing - 01/03/06 05:26 PM

Adrian: I would agree with you if it were merely a question of disagreeing about interpretation of facts.

But the disagreement here is quite different. We are having a discussion in which one side is pointing to verifiable peer reviewed observation d the other is casting about somewhere between pure fantasy (they know it to be untrue) and psychosis (they can not discern the difference between reality and fantasy).

This isn't about which tooth paste makes your teeth whiter and brighter. It is about whether 2+2 equals 4: And it does!
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: fake moon landing - 11/30/09 01:45 PM

Need to link this to the "anti-knowledge" thread.

Three words: "Laser Ranging Station"
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: fake moon landing - 11/30/09 04:03 PM



"... all of the hoax evidence go away."

True. The "hoax evidence" can't possibly "go away." To "go away" it must first be present.
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: fake moon landing - 11/30/09 05:00 PM


I understand how this works. This forum is a magnet for crank science. Cranks are relentless time-wasters. I present evidence, you claim it is refuted based on some bit of nonsense. It's like arguing calculus is someone who has never heard of the fundamental theorems.

I'm not going to cover every stupid thing you put up. I have no interest in wasting time debating cranks. I will mention the first thing on your list - the moving jacket argument is silly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbJvgqoeFSU

... only because it's not inconvenient to do so.
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: fake moon landing - 11/30/09 05:47 PM

Assertions are not facts. The video is not "proof." It's evidence. Just because you say that the reconstruction in the video is bogus does not make it so.

Regarding your comment about helmet size relative to the flag, it is irrelevant till to you show the math, based on field of view. The question is "how close was the astronaut to the flag?"

We have all sorts of evidence - not proof, but evidence - that men walked on the moon. The entire case of the moon-hoaxers rests on disputing that evidence. They do so with assertion and with misrepresentation of science.

It does make me wonder (just a little) whether any of the hoaxers has any significant training in science.
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: fake moon landing - 11/30/09 07:44 PM

I'm not sure what he's doing there. It looks like he's either exercising or performing some kind of test. He's wearing the jacket. His torso is actively moving and jerking the jacket. There is some kind of apparatus (tube) also attached to the jacket that is being propelled by his chest. His chest is bumping the apparatus is moving and jerking the jacket as well.

It's not clear how much of this motion is due to the effect of gravitation on the suit.
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: fake moon landing - 12/01/09 02:09 PM

The side-comment on that video referred to the command module being about 120K from Earth. If you do the math, the effect from gravity should be about 1/900th that on Earth. We aren't given the margin of error on that is, so let's say anywhere from 1/800th to 1/1000th. That doesn't sound like "microgravity," to so much as milli-gravity.

I understand that you are suspicious and it doesn't seem right to you. Two questions:

1. Have you asked a physicist or aeronautical engineer about this?

2. Have you tried to derive equations or build a simulation of some kind? You would need a bit more information than what is in the video, I think, though most of it is probably available online. (For example, you need to know if they were coasting or accelerating at that point.)
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: fake moon landing - 12/02/09 07:05 PM


"You sound like you know a few things."
Thanks. I do know a few things, but I'm not an expert in this area.

"Just tell us what you think causes the behavior of the jacket corner and the dogtags."
I didn't see the dog tags. I watched the jacket corner over and over and over and I think it's largely caused largely by the motion of its wearer, but also affected by some kind of acceleration - possibly, but not necessarily, Earth's gravity.

I'm not sure what kind of behavior to experience in space. Orbiting stations are in free fall (orbiting is falling). So you can get zero-g effects just because you're not in space. Still, it's not my area. I appreciate the fact that you did an personal experiment. Would prefer to see an actual analysis.
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: fake moon landing - 12/03/09 06:00 PM

"The corners of this astronaut's jacket seem to be in a very different environment.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=TejsnPThmd4 "

That's correct. The space station is actually in orbit (free fall). We expect zero-g there, even though it's (much) closer to Earth! Apparently, the STS was also orbiting when that video was taken.


"I can't identify any force other than gravity that would make it go back down."

Look at first paragraph at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle


The implication is that locally, gravitation is indistinguishable from acceleration. That is, if the vehicle is accelerating, it will be indistinguishable from gravitation.


Fake moon landing guy demonstrates Galileo's principle of equivalence:
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/image/featherdrop_sound.mov


Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: fake moon landing - 12/04/09 01:22 PM

Originally Posted By: FatFreddy

So you are saying that the behavior of the jacket corner is not that of zero-G, is that right?



I'm saying,
1) I don't know for sure, but
2) Yes, it's not what I would expect from zero-g.
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: fake moon landing - 12/06/09 06:32 AM


If the thing was 120K from Earth (half way to moon as the annotation says), then there was no zero-G to be consistent with.

As I said, I think the gravity is about 1/900th (approximately). The calculation is trivial.

As the acceleration (due to gravity) would be much less, I wouldn't expect it to move like that. Therefore I postulated that the module was accelerating at that point.

The idea that the jacket is connected to something could explain the movement. I don't see anything string, but there could be. I'm not sure how a connection in the back could affect movement in the ftont.

let me be clear:
I think you're wrong to expect it to behave as zero-g.
I also think these other guys are wrong to say that it is at zero-g. Regardless of whether the ship itself is accelerating, it shouldn't be at zero-g.

OTOH, I'm not sure I buy the other explanations either. I considered the idea of fabric memory, but it doesn't seem likely to me. (Again, not an expert.)

I don't understand the last explanation.

It would be interesting to see a model of this (but I don't have time to do it myself). It might be interesting to just do a simple model of gravity with two particles, one with g=9.81 m/s^2 and the other with .00981 m/s^2. (Maybe there's a web that demonstrates the difference.)

I still think the most likely explanation is the one I gave. That's the one that seems most reasonable to me. The others are possible, but the don't seem likely. However, I would be happy to defer to an actual physicist.

However, I don't consider this as evidence of a faked moon trip.
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: fake moon landing - 12/07/09 01:59 PM


"I made it very clear that I understood that."
It didn't seem too clear to me since you kept comparing it to observations in an orbiting space station.

"Disinfo" agents? You mean the government is paying them off to spread the disinformation? Or are they doing it because they otherwise stand to benefit?

SpreadingTheMuse doesn't claim to be a teacher on YT, but a former instructor (which is not necessarily a professor). Teachers (to include professors) are not infallible. Nobody says they are - even if he's wrong (and I don't know that he is), it's not an argument he's lying. Frankly, I'm not willing to dismiss his answer. (Though I would still like to see a model of the behavior.)

I'm not going through all these videos. I'm not that interested in this.

In the last video played at double speed, things don't look normal to me. When the astronaut jumps he does not accelerate back to Earth in a normal way.
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: fake moon landing - 12/07/09 05:23 PM



You wrote:

"When the speed of the Apollo 11 astronauts is doubled, their movements look exactly like they would look on earth. Take a look at the 30:40 time mark of this video."

and you provided this link:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8455110982587487066#

Actually, no, it doesn't look exactly like it would look on Earth - at least it doesn't look exactly like what I would expect.
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: fake moon landing - 12/08/09 06:31 PM


The thing starts off with a few videos, each an hour long, that I don't have time to watch.

I've addressed three of your points so far:

1. The flag moving as the astronaut walks past.

2. The moving jacket.

3. The speed up of the film.

I've explained in each case why I don't think any of these is sufficient evidence - or, in fact, any evidence at all.


I have already spent far more time on this subject than it's worth. I'm not watching the damn videos from a woman who isn't even a scientist who is apparently not even talking about the moon landings.
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: fake moon landing - 12/09/09 01:44 PM

I think the stuff pretty much shows that he doesn't take you seriously.
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: fake moon landing - 12/10/09 07:19 PM



Without reading the threads and just taking your description at face value, I disagree with them. I do agree with their explanation that lack of an atmosphere explains the observation adequately. I don't know much about sand, but it seems unlikely that one couldn't create relatively dust-free sand. Again, though, I'm ignorant about the physical properties of sand beyond what one would learn from the occasional excursion to the beach.

That's not to say that I consider it likely that this was dust-free sand. That is, I don't consider this evidence that the moon-landing was a hoax.
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: fake moon landing - 12/11/09 01:35 PM


First, the guy could be right. I'm no expert and neither are you on the properties of sand.

Second, the guy could be wrong and that still doesn't make him an agent. Maybe he's simply mistaken or maybe he doesn't know what he thinks he knows.

Third, it hardly matters to the point of the exercise, because this is not evidence the moon landing was hoax.

Science is not a game of gotcha where we're trying to catch people in verbal mistakes. "AHA! You said X here and Y here! You *must* be lying!"
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: fake moon landing - 12/13/09 09:20 PM

I will consult a geologist when I happen across one - if I think of it. None of the geologists I know right now are at the PhD level. Just because a person is a geologist doesn't mean the person is an expert on the formation of sand - any more than the fact that someone has a PhD in computer science makes him an expert on artificial intelligence. That you have consulted a geologist is not very compelling to me, as people often misrepresent what they think they know - sometimes from lying and sometimes for other reasons.

We haven't discounted that the guy doesn't know what he thinks he knows. He may have some experience and have drawn some poor conclusion from the experience he does have.

Even if he is lying or exaggerating his experience, it's not evidence of any kind that he's a government agent. It's consistent with a government conspiracy, but it seems to me that any non-conspiring reality is consistent with conspiracy. The more reasonable and mundane, the more likely the conspiracy is just better than we can detect. OTOH, I could be part of this conspiracy. I can't prove otherwise. From my perspective, it could be YOU who is the government agent trying to make people who question the government seem like a bunch of conspiracy theorists.
Posted by: Ellis

Re: fake moon landing - 12/13/09 11:32 PM

You know what-- if half the effort that people put into proving that this moon landing was a fake were to be put into the shot at Mars we'd be there in no time at all!

Occam's razor suggestion is usually right. The simplest explanation is most likely the correct one-- thus I believe those rockets got to the Moon-- and HOORAY for that!

However I don't want to stop your great string of rebuttals FF the first- keep going , it makes for great reading.
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: fake moon landing - 12/14/09 12:55 AM

Ellis, it never ends.

Obscurantists have no idea that the rest of us actually have lives and interests beyond theirs - and if they did have an idea, they would not care. They expect everyone to drop everything we're doing and follow their "reasoning" and examine their "evidence" forever until we reach the same conclusions that they have.

This can go on indefinitely if we let it. If we don't respond, we're just under the influence of the powers that be. If we do respond, we're in on it.
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: fake moon landing - 12/14/09 05:40 PM

There were a LOT of issues I didn't address. As I pointed out in my message to Ellis, you're assuming I have a LOT of time that I want to spend going over your evidence. I don't have that kind of time. The fact that the PRC government orchestrates what their astronauts are going to officially say doesn't mean they faked their space trip.

If I were to expend the effort you ask, I anticipate I would find a lot more of what you have already provided - a whole lot of nothing.
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: fake moon landing - 12/15/09 01:57 PM

15 minutes here, 5 minutes there ... pretty soon it adds up to real time - and I actually have
1. A real job
2. A family I try to interact with
3. My own research in anticipation of entering a doctoral program
4. Volunteer work trying to educate students (partly a task of removing false knowledge)
5. A dog I like to spend some time with (6 hours every weekend)

And guess what - moon-hoaxers are not the only ones who want you to spend 15 minutes here and 5 minutes there.

In any case, I watched part of it. Difficult to tell much, except one thing. A lot of people with almost no knowledge and extremely poor reasoning skills are trying to refute something they don't even understand.

No. I don't think the Chinese space walk was faked.
Posted by: Kate

Re: fake moon landing - 12/15/09 02:05 PM

It does seem rather far fetched that the Chinese would fake something so (relatively) mundane as a spacewalk. I do agree, though, that those "bubbles" are intriguing.
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: fake moon landing - 12/15/09 05:17 PM

I think it's "fluttering" because it's made of a stiffer material than a normal flag. It absolutely does not look like what I would expect from a normal flag under water. The "fluttering" is more like "waving" or "jostling."
Posted by: millenien

Re: fake moon landing - 12/16/09 01:59 AM

It's sad that people question something like this, but there are still the flat earth people, so you never know.
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: fake moon landing - 12/16/09 04:54 PM


"Now students can go and ask their physics professors what causes the fluttering and that should settle the issue."

The issue is already settled among scientists and even the vast majority of non-scientists. Those for whom it is not settled are not going to be persuaded by the ravings of lunatic physics teachers who are obviously government agents.
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: fake moon landing - 12/16/09 06:58 PM

Certainly true that scientists can be paid to lie and certainly true that fraud is a problem. That doesn't mean that the majority of them are fraudsters or liars. It also obviates the problem that people from all walks of life can be paid to lie and might commit fraud.

But what you're alleging is that the VAST, VAST majority of scientists who actually understand the stuff are committing fraud in exactly the same way and on exactly the same side of the "argument."

A recurring theme with your denialism is that because the government can't be trusted, any crazy thing that you want to maintain must be true.
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: fake moon landing - 12/16/09 08:59 PM


"There are probably lots of scientists who think Apollo was a hoax."

That's what you think. I think the number is staggeringly small.

But there's probably a huge number of scientists who doubt gravitation, but they don't speak out for for fear the zionist, Freemason, NWO reptilian overlords will make them "disappear."
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: fake moon landing - 12/17/09 09:34 PM

Wow! Bill Kaysing's nonscientific "work"! And Eustace Mullins! Can't get any more authoritative than that! And this blogger took a physics class and met some random anonymous physics instructor who told him the truth! Can't get any more intellectually rigorous than that!
Posted by: millenien

Re: fake moon landing - 12/21/09 09:13 AM

The moon flag was designed to look like a strong wind was blowing. In all the tv coverage before the moon landing, the flag was shown on earth, before it was taken up, as stiff as a board, stuck in the position it's always shown in. If anybody can find a picture of the flag on a day when the wind isn't blowing on the moon and it's drooping, then we'll have something.
Posted by: millenien

Re: fake moon landing - 12/27/09 02:25 PM

I have a possibly dumb question. But then, what better place . . . .

The "Moon Landing" was covered by journalists from news agencies around the world. Pretend for a second or two that you own one of those news agencies. Either you are one of the hundreds of thousands of people who have been brought into this vast conspiracy, or you have been kept from the normal investigation that goes into news reporting. In other words, you know or suspect that something of global importance, something that has been called the greatest achievement of mankind, is a fraud.

Where do you think your interest lies, in ignoring your suspicions, or in exploiting them for the unimaginable financial gain you would get from exposing the greatest hoax in the history of the world?

And just how much hush money would you, your descendents, the thousands of staff you employ and their descendents, and all the peripheral people who might have overheard conversations in the any of the bars that seem somehow to locate around newsgathering organizations--just how much hush money would you need for forty years of continuing this conspiracy?

Oh wait! I think I know the answer. Like Carl Allen (aka Carlos Allende) and his Philadelphia Experiment, you were probably one of those people in a bar who misunderstood a conversation and built a hoax of your own around it.

(Carl Allen, whom I never our in ten years of acquaintance saw sober, tried to get me to publish his research, which consisted solely of notes he had written in a science fiction novel. Any other versions you've ever heard of the Genesis of the Philadelphia Experiment are pure and unadulterated bullshit.)
Posted by: Momos

Re: fake moon landing - 01/16/10 01:53 PM

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: fake moon landing - 01/17/10 04:04 AM

Thanks for the links, Momos.
Posted by: Momos

Re: fake moon landing - 01/19/10 01:23 PM

Well, I can really understand why they banned you smile
Sorry, but If I had a forum for discussions related to some particular topic (e.g. Astronomy) and sombody starts complaining about "green zombie-jews taking over world control" I would delete the thread immediately.

In my opinion there are at least two or three major problem in tlaking with conspiration-therorie-thruthers:

a) Lack of real knowledge, so wrong assumptions are made. Sometimes assumptions that "feel" right on first thought but wich are totaly out of context.
Usually these facts can be explained by real experts on the subject, but since these explanations are somewhat complicated the truthers just won't get it. (the universe and physics tend to be more complex then we think)

-> This is the case with: no stars visible, flag moving, shadows in wrong directions, too good light, etc.

b) The big picture is ignored.
For example: The Apollo-Programm and the Moonlanding wasn't done out of thin air. There have been other projects before (mercury), from other states as well. So the major obstacle (getting something into orbit) has been solved.
Or do you suppose all this other projects have been fakes as well?

Instead of looking at the really big holes in the conspiration theories (e.g. communication over several changing stations due to earth rotations is hard to fake and a Soviet Union eager to see a US project fail) the truther are always nitpicking at minor technical details (Which of course can be explained, but you would need certain knowledge to do so).
(the cross-hair stuff is such a technical detail)

c) No matter what the facts are, some people just believe in the absurdest things. There is no way to get you to change your mind. (Probably the same goes for me).
So the only reason to discuss such matters with truthers is to show other yet undecided people how to interpret these facts correctly.

-------------

So in my opinion the Apollo project was the culmination of a long series of projects, starting with the German A4 and V2, followed by several very successful steps by the Soviet Union and the United States (satellite, manned flight, space walk, rendezvous in orbit, ...) . So the really big task: "getting someone savely into orbit and back" was unquestionably solved. Therefore the moonlanding is exactly in the right political and technological timeframe. (Ok, would the US in 1950 have announced they brought someone to Jupiter and back, I would be skeptical to).

Posted by: Momos

Re: fake moon landing - 01/21/10 02:50 PM

There is no evidence for fakery.
What you call evidence is mostly just misunderstanding of physics.
And in my opinion a moon hoax is way more implausible then a successful project in a long row of other successful projects, step by step increasing in complexity.

Of course: if you see two fallen trees in the woods you could speculate there have been two flying saucers battling each other with some kind of death rays damaging does trees...
Or you could stick with the ordinary explanation: some storm.

Both speculations can explain all he facts, so it will be nearly impossible to prove there have NOT been any aliens.
That's why Ockhams Razor is so important.
Posted by: redewenur

Re: fake moon landing - 02/15/10 04:56 AM

In the light of the sum total of all evidence, the above is inconsistent with reason, logic and common sense, inviting the ridicule of the rational individual. Such ideation, undoubtedly less conspicuous in pre-scientific cultures, is starkly profiled in the modern world. The U.S., for example, has long been duly acclaimed as a world leader in theoretical science and its practical application in technology - yet, though certainly not alone in spawning conspiracy theorists, it's ironic that so many its citizens seem to live in a kind of twilight zone where large swathes of reality are ignored and rejected in the process of sustaining false beliefs.
Posted by: Mike Kremer

Re: fake moon landing - 02/18/10 07:28 AM

Originally Posted By: FatFreddy
You keep playing dumb about the evidence of a hoax. I guess all I can do is keep posting it to keep it from getting buried to make sure everybody sees it. Here it is again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1UEv2PIzl4
At the 2 minute 35 second mark of the video the flag is still. When the astronaut goes past it, it starts to move.

There's an analysis of that here in this three part series.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr76qSQ9Z...&playnext=1
-----------------------------------------------------------------ETC---->----------ETC----->--------ETC---->


[quote=Mike Kremer]

Oh Boy....I am afraid I could not wade thru all those pages and pages "Of Fake Moon landings"
Let alone copy them all and clog up SAGGs forum unnessesarily.
Nor is there any point in reading or spending hours looking at YouTube , for non existent dubious answers.
We all know the Astronauts landed on the Moon , leaving Scientific equipment there.

My admiration goes out to Fat Freddy for the superhuman collection he has made on everything he feels is fake about the Moon landings.
I assume that because of the movement of the Flag on an airless Moon Fat Freddy feels that
that particular incident was filmed on the Earth.

Well it hasnt taken me more than ten minutes to spot a few flaws in the Moons moving flag reasoning.
First and importantly...nobody has actually stated what the flag was made from
Was it Cotton Terylene, or Nylon?
The differences affected by static would be substancial.
the pole would have been an insulator...metal , even aluminium would have been considered too heavy in the Lem, where every ounce counted.
Remember that flag was assembled after they landed.
The straight wire was threaded thru the seam along the top of the flag. The flag would have picked up a static charge from their gloves. Being dissimilar materials.

The video talked about the corner bending away from the astronaut as he ran past. That if it was static it would have bent towards the astronaut.
TOTALLY WRONG ...Its more than likely that the first two astronauts, as they stood by the flag for their photo take,
passed their static charge to the (plastic) flag, sitting on its insulated pole. Static attraction or repulsion depends upon the type of static charge on both surfaces.
The third astronaut running by on the other face of the flag...would almost certainly carry the same static charge on his body suit as the first two astronauts.
Meaning that the Moon flag would tend to bend AWAY, before coming back after the charged leaked away, or redistributed itself upon the flags surface. (Which it actually did)

As for the woman rubbing her hair with the blue Balloon.
She did not demonstrate that she had collected a static charge upon that balloon.
she could have stuck it to the wall first to prove that first. Plus her holding the balloon with her two hands only helped any static to leak away quickly.
Her flag was held up by a metal tripod, so that any charged leaked quickly away into the floor.
The top half of her flag was printed or painted in black. the colour or print made with carbon or graphite... that will again quickly leak away any charge that I feel she DID NOT have. therefore this heavy flag did not move.
Nor do you hold a hopefully charged balloon right on the lower corner of a flag. That pointed flag corner again encourages the charge to leak to the floor.
Have you ever played with a balloon, you can make it stick to just about anything.

By the way, for any one interested that USA flag is still up on the moon.
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: fake moon landing - 02/18/10 05:27 PM

Mike, you and Ready miss the point.

Governments - and particularly the US Government CANNOT BE TRUSTED - and therefore ANYTHING and I mean absolutely ANYTHING you posit against them must be true!

So if we say that cancer is a plot by our government to eradicate humans so their overlords from Dimension Q can take over the planet and despoil our resources, and then if you doubt this, you are either 1) a government plant or 2) just plain gullible.

Now bend over and prepare for assimilation.
Posted by: redewenur

Re: fake moon landing - 02/18/10 09:34 PM

I stand corrected
Posted by: Momos

Re: fake moon landing - 03/02/10 10:57 AM

Yes, the chinese are the 3rd nation capable of sending people to orbit.
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: fake moon landing - 03/03/10 03:27 AM

My God! There's a bubble in there! And how do we know it's a bubble? Because some random people on the Internet ASSERTS it's a bubble!

But ... they removed all the others to fake this ... and then they leave in some obvious ones? Why would they do that? Well, because they're not too smart. Smart enough to remove thousands of bubbles except a couple????

Well yea! But how do you know it's a bubble? Because it is!
Posted by: kallog

Re: fake moon landing - 03/17/10 01:12 PM

Man this is the longest thread I've ever seen on the internet, 4-5 years!!

But hey I think all the controversy is great. It'll never die but it'll always give people an opportunity to exercise their critical thinking skills. That kind of skepticism is what stops us all being brainwashed like a bunch of Muslims or medievils. It's not so important whether it's right or wrong.

It's a pity people aren't as vocal about the holocaust as the moon landings. That's an event with less hard evidence, greater consequences and blatant government coersion of people's beliefs, along with obvious stated and unstated motives. Nobody'll get arrested for denying the moonlandings or 9/11, but there are poor sods sitting in prison today for making even milder statements about the holocaust.
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: fake moon landing - 04/06/10 05:28 PM

There are other reasons they might have closed it out - because despite your belief in your own common sense, you're really not open to plausible explanations.
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: fake moon landing - 04/06/10 05:41 PM

How useful is common sense in science?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60uJ7sOx_1A
Posted by: redewenur

Re: fake moon landing - 04/07/10 08:12 AM

Thanks for that, TFF. It illustrates the limits of our ability to form sound practical judgements beyond those that have proven most useful throughout our evolution.

If there's one thing that common sense tells us, it's that common sense is an indispensable asset in surviving the vicissitudes of everyday life. Inevitably, it also plays an elementary ( smile ) part in forming hypotheses. But common sense is not quite science. Thank heavens scientists for applying the scientific method, and mathematicians for their rigour.
Posted by: OVE

Re: fake moon landing - 04/28/10 08:21 AM

The astronaut's carrying the moon rocks (lunar meteorites) with them, only went up to Medium Earth Orbit (MEO), to the safe zone between the inner and outer Van Allen Belts. Remained there a couple of days, took some pictures of earth, sent a probe to the moon, and then returned safely back home with the moon rocks.



NASA: "The safe zone offers reduced radiation intensities to any potential spacecraft that must fly in the radiation belt region....The safe zone appears as a gap between the inner and outer 'donut,' beginning about 7,000 km (4,350 miles) and ending about 13,000 km (8,110 miles) above the Earth's surface" http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2006/safe_zone_shift.html

The moon is 385 000 km (240 000 miles) away from Earth.



Picture of Earth from the safe zone.
Posted by: Momos

Re: fake moon landing - 04/28/10 10:23 AM

No problem to pass the Van Allen belt unless you stop there for a week.

http://www.wwheaton.com/waw/mad/mad19.html

A Capsule in MEO would have been detected by the Russians and is inconsistent to the communication system.
Posted by: OVE

Re: fake moon landing - 04/28/10 03:42 PM

Originally Posted By: Momos
No problem to pass the Van Allen belt unless you stop there for a week.

http://www.wwheaton.com/waw/mad/mad19.html

A Capsule in MEO would have been detected by the Russians and is inconsistent to the communication system.


It's safe to stop in the safe zone, that's what they did.

Both USA and USSR were bluffing and kept it a secret.

They tracked the decoy probe, that was sent to the moon from the safe zone.
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: fake moon landing - 04/28/10 03:55 PM

It was safe for Columbus to turn around and go back where he came from, so that's what he did.
Posted by: preearth

Re: fake moon landing - 06/26/10 01:14 PM

Originally Posted By: FatFreddy

I think it's safe to say that "Bad Astronomy" is a government damage-control site that is not dedicated to truth, but to obfuscate truth.


I have just been reading your experiences with http://www.bautforum.com

What you say about them is exactly true; I have just been through it.

I am amazed that your experience is exactly what I have seen (and not just at bautforum.com).

Given my experience with http://www.bautforum.com, I will give some thought to what you say about the Moon landing. About it being a hoax.

Here is what I tried to post and defend on http://www.bautforum.com


They wouldn't let me post the animations and conducted other insidious, underhanded forms of censorship, while pretending that they never censored anything.

When Worlds Collided.

Heaven and PreEarth were planets, a binary system orbiting the Sun. This happy arrangement continued for countless years, until, some unfortunate circumstance caused Heaven to collide with PreEarth, forming the Earth.

We investigate the evidence that the Earth is the child of such a collision. We show that the planets Heaven and PreEarth were of similar size and mass. We show that many of the Earth's topographical features, such as mountain chains and ocean basins, were created during the collision. We show that certain hard to explain features of the Earth, such as its magnetic field, can now be more easily understood. And, in establishing all this, we uncover a new theory on the origin of the Moon.

Much of PreEarth's crust survived the impact and is today the continental crust of the Earth. Although broken and contorted, giant pieces of the ancient crust acted as ships floating on a newly molten interior, insulating, and protecting, life from the fires below. Heaven itself, together with its crust, if it had one, disappeared into the interior of the PreEarth, never to be seen again. If we put the broken pieces of PreEarth's crust back together, we obtain the following map.



This map is a flat representation of part of a globe. Hence, some distortion is inevitable.....

Read the rest here: http://preearth.net/

The whole idea of the theory is summarized by this animatation:



The impact area was that within the circle.

Pangaea (considered as a land area on PreEarth) was outside the circle.

Heaven was completely submerged into PreEarth (causing massive expansion).

When Pangaea (considered as a land area on PreEarth) is mapped from the sphere of PreEarth to a flat map, you get exactly the map of the first graphic up above. In fact, that is how this map was first produced.

Here is a standard map of Pangaea



The expansion in size of PreEarth after swallowing Heaven, caused Pangaea to spilt apart and break up into what we now call continents.

The circular region where Heaven entered is now called the Pacific Ocean (not all the Pacific, but most of it).

Here is an animation showing how the Atlantic Ocean opened up.



and another showing the opening around Antarctica.



and another showing the opening of the Indian Ocean.



Cool animations, eh?

The author, Kevin Mansfield, is a mathematician (PhD from UNSW) from New Zealand.

From: http://preearth.net/

He has started up a bulletin board at:

http://www.preearth.net/phpBB3/search.php?search_id=newposts

See if there are any topics that interest you?
Posted by: kallog

Re: fake moon landing - 06/27/10 04:25 PM

Why not just follow the rules of the forum you're posting to?


"Do not use this bulletin board as a vehicle to promote your own website,..."

"... don't embed a huge image (meaning an image that's over 100k or extends beyond the right-hand edge of a typical display) inline using the [IMG] tag but link to it instead."


Personally I do use dialup, and it is painfully slow when I click on a thread that you've posted to, because it seems every one of your posts consistently contains huge images. Even when it's unrelated to the topic.
Posted by: Ellis

Re: fake moon landing - 06/29/10 12:51 AM

To get back to the topic! Because this is NQS I can reference a TV programme without scorn from the throng--- OK?

I was watching my current favourite TV show last night ( Big Bang Theory) when the group of scientists set up an elaborate system of lasers and measures that used the instruments left behind on the moon to measure how long the message took to bounce back.... AND co-incidentally proving that the equipment left there was in fact still there to be bounced off.

Now I know this show is fictional (mostly!) but I am interested as a non-scientific person to know if this experiment could be performed ---and if so why is there still doubt about the journey, and if not--- what an inventive script writer this show has!

It was a very nice episode, one of the funniest!
Posted by: redewenur

Re: fake moon landing - 06/29/10 03:51 AM

Originally Posted By: Ellis
I am interested as a non-scientific person to know if this experiment could be performed ---and if so why is there still doubt about the journey...

See: 'What Neil & Buzz Left on the Moon' - http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2004/21jul_llr/

Reason and delusion are incompatible and, sadly, many people are afflicted with delusional disorder.
Posted by: kallog

Re: fake moon landing - 06/29/10 02:57 PM

Originally Posted By: Ellis

instruments left behind on the moon to measure how long the message took to bounce back.... AND co-incidentally proving


They did that on Mythbusters too.

There's doubt about the journey, but there's also belief in a magic invisible man in the sky. The thoughts of the seething masses don't really have any scientific value.

Tho the reflectors on their own don't prove people landed on the moon. They recently found a Russian reflector too, and we know that wasn't put there by astronauts.

Posted by: paul

Re: fake moon landing - 06/29/10 03:59 PM

Originally Posted By: Kallog
They did that on Mythbusters too.


I watched a mythbusters episode titled
" Air Cylinder Rocket " Season 4, Episode 21
that was debunking the possibilities
of using a compressed air cylinder to propel a small boat.

the method used was a simple pipe leading from the air cylinder to the rear of the boat , the pipe then turned 90 degrees downward , then turned 90 degrees horizontal again.

the exit where the air came out was apx 2 inches above the bottom of the boat.

the test started and as most boats do the boat took off , but this boat took off pretty fast , then it lost momentum.

they debunked it , I debunked them.

they didnt account for the boat riding on top of the water
so when the boat took off , the boat lifted up.

lifting the pipe out of the water...

compressed air cant push against air as good as it can against water so the boat lost momentum.

I wouldnt place much faith in the engineers on mythbusters.

heres a link to the section about the tank going through a brick wall.

through a wall

and heres a video showing part of the boat experiment.

overview of the episode

heres the effects of not venting a tank really impressive.

train tank car implodes-free vacume energy

shoot some steam in it , but dont vent it , and you get all
the free energy you could possibly need.

imagine a large piston...








Posted by: redewenur

Re: fake moon landing - 06/29/10 04:33 PM

I think that, for the overwhelming majority, the question of authenticity doesn't arise, since they are sufficiently in touch with reality. There may be some who, being perhaps unsophisticated or unaware of events, require updating before being convinced. Dealing with the conspiracy theorist is a different matter. To deign to point to the particular - e.g. the reflectors - as evidence, is a waste of time. Worse, it plays to the tune of the pathologically deluded. They have in place a mental barrier between their 'theory' and the deluge of data that we refer to as the real world. The typical response to any threat to that barrier is agitation and aggression.
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: fake moon landing - 06/29/10 04:58 PM


When you blow up a balloon and release it, the balloon can fly all over the place for a short while. This doesn't happen because the air from the balloon is pushing against the air outside the balloon. It happens because the balloon pressure is no longer in equilibrium.

Imagine the balloon is tied off with the air inside. In that case, the pressure is equalized in all directions. It's pushing with constant pressure at every point inside the balloon. When you release the opening, the air inside the balloon is pushing against every place on the inside of the balloon - except the opening. The pressure is no longer in equilibrium.

This is a demonstration of Newton's third law. (Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.) The air coming out the balloon on the other side causes a force that is counter-balanced by the force on the other side that is pushing the balloon.

The same principle is what would make the compressed air canister work (or not work). I did not see the mythbuster's episode, but I'll look for it in future.

The same principle is what makes rockets work. It's not that the burning fuel is pushing against the air outside the rocket (although that happens, it's not what's producing the lift). Rather, the force of the expanding gas is pushing against the rocket and NOT pushing against the exhaust area.

And regarding the mirror panel left behind on the moon - it's irrelevant for the moon-hoaxers. I recently heard someone say that you can't reason a person out of an opinion they didn't use reason to get into in the first place. For those of us whose brains are not broken, it has produced highly relevant and useful information.
Posted by: kallog

Re: fake moon landing - 06/29/10 05:08 PM

Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend

The same principle is what makes rockets work. It's not that the burning fuel is pushing against the air outside the rocket (although that happens, it's not what's producing the lift). Rather, the force of the expanding


That's true, but I think having the exhaust underwater would slow the release of the air, applying less force to the boat, but lasting longer. Whether that'd make the boat travel a longer or shorter distance isn't clear to me. It would probably depend on lots of other factors.

Still, there's other ways to realize that compressed air isn't much use for vehicle propulsion. Like determining its energy content.

Still again, moving a boat at low speed (and ignoring waves) takes very little force, unlike a car which always has some friction regardless of speed. I wonder if you could actually travel a lot further in a boat on the same amount of energy as a car - as long as you go slow enough. ??

Posted by: paul

Re: fake moon landing - 06/29/10 05:15 PM

Ah , but lift a BOAT PROPELLER up out of the water and see how fast the boat will go , by forcing the air backwards.

its basicaly a fan in water.

the boat did move as rapidly or more as a standard motorised boat would , momentarily.

and then as soon as the water moved under the boat , the boat lifted , and the rear of the boats bottom could be seen as in the below image.

and the pipe could be seen above water.

causing its momentum to decreased.



the mythbusters dishonestly busted this as the compressed air from the pipe is supposed to react against the water.

notice in the above image the boat propeller is still under the water , you cant even see it.

how many BOATS have you seen with propellers placed above the BOTTOM of the boat?

if the above moving boat were the boat that mythbusters used
the pipe that released the compressed air would be located at a height apx 2 inches above the water level seen at the rear of the boat in the above image.

But its a energy thing , they probably got a few bucks for this one.






Posted by: kallog

Re: fake moon landing - 06/29/10 05:25 PM

Originally Posted By: paul
Ah , but lift a BOAT PROPELLER up out of the water and see how fast the boat will go , by forcing the air backwards.

its basicaly a fan in water.


A boat propeller isn't optimized for air. Replace it with an aircraft propeller and engine of the same power and it would go faster. That's why swamp boats have bigger propellers than normal boats.
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: fake moon landing - 06/29/10 05:35 PM

Yes. A propeller works on a slightly different principle. The shape of the propeller induces a pressure differential between the front and back of the prop. That differential induces the thrust.

Of course the third law applies, but also Bernoulli's principle (the same thing that makes a plane fly). A prop blade is a kind of wing, except that the rotational force is converted to thrust instead of lift. (Well, I guess on a helicopter, it's also converted to lift, but probably not a boat prop.)
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: fake moon landing - 06/29/10 05:39 PM

Kallog,
Agree on all counts.

Paul,
Again, I didn't see the mythbuster's episode, but unless they were somehow using the compressed air to power a prop, I don't understand the relevance of your reply.
Posted by: paul

Re: fake moon landing - 06/29/10 05:43 PM

Originally Posted By: Kallog
A boat propeller isn't optimized for air.


and a jet of air isnt optimized for water.

but put the air at a sensible depth below the water , and the boat would not have lost momentum until it ran out of air pressure.

or better yet put a air motor behind a propeller then turn the propeller with the compressed air.

anyway , the shows results were clearly bought and paid for.

these guys are not that stupid.

I would like to see them redo this one correctly.



Posted by: paul

Re: fake moon landing - 06/29/10 05:54 PM

Originally Posted By: Kallog
I don't understand the relevance of your reply.


the relevance was to give a visual representation of where the
mythbusters placed the pipe that released the compressed air.

ie.. above the water line.

where the air could not possibly react against the water
once the boat began to move.

and it moved rapidly...


as for the relevance to this topic , it is to show that nay sayers will use any available method to accomplish their goal.

those that believe we didnt go to the moon are simple nay sayers , they havent got a drop of water in their bucket because their bucket wont hold any water.

Posted by: kallog

Re: fake moon landing - 06/29/10 11:06 PM

Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend
Paul,
Again, I didn't see the mythbuster's episode, but unless they were somehow using the compressed air to power a prop, I don't understand the relevance of your reply.


I can see what Paul's saying. I'd certainly expect some difference in efficiency between underwater and out-of-water. But it might even be the other way round and wouldn't be enough to make it practical for actually travelling to places. Maybe enough for some sort of joy-ride tho.

Another weak reason why it still wouldn't work is after the boat got so fast the pipe was out of the water, that should have slowed it down until the pipe was back underwater, then sped up again, so basically got to some equilibrium position. But it didn't, it just ran out of air after a brief moment out of the water.
Posted by: kallog

Re: fake moon landing - 06/29/10 11:10 PM

Originally Posted By: paul
anyway , the shows results were clearly bought and paid for.


Yes, paid for by you, the viewer through advertising. Its like the news, they tell the people what they want to hear because it's those same people who ultimately pay them.

But there's many other ways to show that compressed air isn't a practical substitute for petrol, which I suppose is partly what they were getting at - as well as how cartoons use it.
Posted by: paul

Re: fake moon landing - 06/30/10 04:07 AM

Quote:
Both redewenur and TheFallibleFiend are as nutty as fruit cakes.


SHHHHH !!!

personaly I believe that NASA landed two men on the moon , but not first.

the Russians claim that prize.

they just didnt make it back and were most likely alive as the craft landed on the moon.

whats the big deal anyway , its not like it would take much to get there , just a burn or two.
Posted by: kallog

Re: fake moon landing - 06/30/10 04:45 AM

Is that belief based on information, or a blind desire to assume that everything you don't understand is wrong?
Posted by: kallog

Re: fake moon landing - 06/30/10 04:48 AM

Originally Posted By: preearth

Do you think that these two are really so stupid?

No. It is more likely they are propagandists.


Didn't psychologists find that overt homophobics are often repressed homosexuals?

But anyway, about your colliding planets. Could you please explain how the gravitational potential energy didn't melt the crust? I havn't actually done any calculations on that but I'd be amazed to find it might not melt.
Posted by: Amaranth Rose II

Re: fake moon landing - 06/30/10 05:06 PM

You are violating the terms of service with your insults and name-calling. You have been warned.
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: fake moon landing - 06/30/10 07:27 PM

The Russia missions to plant French reflectors had limited success. They only recently located the first reflector. But we've been getting signal from the American reflectors since they were planted - one by each of three Apollo missions.

This doesn't prove the reflectors were not planted remotely, but it would explain why ours worked - we had people planting them in person, instead of robotic rovers.

Moreover, there is no good reason to think the moon landing was hoaxed - none. All of the so-called evidence is just silly stuff that has been refuted many times over. Your estimate of my intelligence or how well I can be trusted is irrelevant to me, as are all the rest of your opinions. Those opinions are also irrelevant to nearly everyone else on the planet judging by the success of your website.
Posted by: paul

Re: fake moon landing - 06/30/10 08:03 PM

The Russian Moon Landing

some say its faked , but of course some say the U.S. Moon landings were faked.

I just found this today , so I havent examined it really well.
Posted by: kallog

Re: fake moon landing - 07/01/10 05:59 AM

Originally Posted By: paul
some say its faked , but of course some say the U.S. Moon landings were faked.


And some say the h****aust was faked. But sadly we know that happened just as they say it did, because people get locked up for making claims like that. The government is always right, especially when they punish dissidents. That just proves how right they are!

I mention that just in case you want to know what a real conspiracy looks like. It also involves social engineering so the general public will help in the job of persecuting anyone promoting officially-incorrect ideas.
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: fake moon landing - 07/01/10 12:46 PM

Some people say Einstein was a fake and that he didn't really author his ideas; other people say that Uri Geller is a fake psychic. Are those two claims equivalent?
Posted by: kallog

Re: fake moon landing - 07/01/10 01:10 PM

Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend
Some people say Einstein was a fake and that he didn't really author his ideas; other people say that Uri Geller is a fake psychic. Are those two claims equivalent?


They're equivalent in that those claims can both be made publicly in any western country without the people making them being imprisoned for it. They're also equivalent in that they won't be censored by Google or Youtube.
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: fake moon landing - 07/01/10 01:44 PM

They're also equivalent in that they both appear in the same sentence authored by the same individual and that they are both statements about human beings. They're also equivalent in that both individuals were of Jewish heritage. They both have the letters R, L and E in their names. They both speak (or spoke) English. I feel I have seen pictures where they are each wearing pants.

Are the claims about Einstein and Geller equivalent in the evidence that supports them?
Posted by: kallog

Re: fake moon landing - 07/01/10 01:59 PM

Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend

Are the claims about Einstein and Geller equivalent in the evidence that supports them?


I don't know because I've never investigated either of them. The point I was trying to make in my recent post was that we have one special issue that people aren't free to openly debate. I think it's great that people question Einstein's authenticity, and Geller's. Doesn't mean either is right or wrong, but it gives us the chance to build more informed opinions. Or, if we choose, to accept only one side of the story, which is also fine. Not everybody has to be right about everything.
Posted by: kallog

Re: fake moon landing - 07/01/10 02:55 PM

Here's a funny made-up new article I found. Although it's fiction, it highlights the distorted prejudices many people have.


This morning, the internet search service Google has discontinued its service in Germany and forwards queries on the German Google address into neighboring Holland. This was due to a longstanding dispute with the German authorities to restrict certain search results that violate German laws. In addition to content that, according to the Berlin rulers, is harmful to the youth, the German internet censorship – the “Digital Berlin Wall” – is mainly targeting political content. Thus, the theories of right-wing dissidents and so-called Holocaust deniers in Germany will be prosecuted by law. So far, the search engine giant Google cooperated with the German authorities and excluded German internet users from search results that point to relevant pages. In the neighboring Netherlands, political censorship of such kind does not exist. It remains to be seen how German authorities will react on Google’s declaration of war. Insiders assume that Berlin will put Google on the list of obscene materials harmful to minors, which would exclude the Mountain View software giant from the lucrative German market. With this U-turn, Google wants to return to its former company motto “don’t be evil” and reject all the censorship efforts of national governments.
Posted by: preearth

Re: fake moon landing - 07/08/10 06:21 AM

Originally Posted By: redewenur
To deign to point to the particular - e.g. the reflectors - as evidence, is a waste of time.

Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend
And regarding the mirror panel left behind on the moon - it's irrelevant for the moon-hoaxers. I recently heard someone say that you can't reason a person out of an opinion they didn't use reason to get into in the first place.

Both redewenur and TheFallibleFiend want you to believe that;

NASA reflector panel on Moon PROVES Americans astronauts landed on the Moon.

But I happen to know that, during the Luna 17 and Luna 21 missions, French-built reflector arrays were placed on the Moon.

Thus, redewenur and TheFallibleFiend will have you believe that;

French-built reflector panel on Moon PROVES French astronauts landed on Moon,... or,...

Reflector panel placed on Moon by Soviets PROVES Russian astronauts landed on the Moon.


Do you think that these two are really so silly?

No. It is more likely they are propagandists.

---------------------------------------

The opening of the Indian Ocean.



A cool animation, eh?

From: http://preearth.net/

And see if there are any topics of interest to you on my little forum:

http://www.preearth.net/phpBB3/search.php?search_id=newposts


Posted by: kallog

Re: fake moon landing - 07/08/10 09:27 AM

Originally Posted By: preearth

But I happen to know that, during the Luna 17 and Luna 21 missions, French-built reflector arrays were placed on the Moon.


Yep, we all know that now. A story was posted about it on this very site recently.
Posted by: preearth

Re: fake moon landing - 07/25/10 12:03 PM

Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend
Some people say Einstein was a fake and that he didn't really author his ideas;

Is that right? Tell me more.
Posted by: preearth

Re: fake moon landing - 08/07/10 02:37 AM

Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend
Some people say Einstein was a fake and that he didn't really author his ideas;


No seriously,... when I studied special relativity I noticed that many people had published relativity type stuff before Einstein,... so I am interested in seeing what others say.
Posted by: preearth

Re: fake moon landing - 08/11/10 05:45 AM

Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend
Some people say Einstein was a fake and that he didn't really author his ideas;


Is TheFallibleFiend on holiday.

I have found a couple of sites about Einstein being a fake on the internet, but nothing really compelling.
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: fake moon landing - 08/17/10 03:09 AM

Originally Posted By: preearth

I have found a couple of sites about Einstein being a fake on the internet, but nothing really compelling.

Kinda the point.
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: fake moon landing - 08/17/10 03:09 AM

"I have found a couple of sites about Einstein being a fake on the internet, but nothing really compelling."
Bingo.
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: fake moon landing - 08/17/10 03:11 AM

"The moderators were quite hostile with me."
Shocking!
Posted by: preearth

Re: fake moon landing - 08/17/10 01:17 PM

Originally Posted By: FatFreddy
I stopped posting on that thread because the moderator started deleting my posts because I was winning the debate.

I have a forum at;

http://www.preearth.net/phpBB3/search.php?search_id=newposts

I try not to censor,... but, no ads, no porn, no rubbish.
Posted by: magiimice

Re: fake moon landing - 11/13/10 02:24 PM

Well, the fact that man have been to the moon is true. But maybe the filmatisaision of the event is FALSE! Isn`t that i likely senario?
Posted by: Bill S.

Re: fake moon landing - 11/14/10 02:24 PM

Really, magiimice, you can't let something as logical as that spoil the fun of a good conspiracy theory. :P
Posted by: Ellis

Re: fake moon landing - 11/18/10 04:50 AM

I suspect that 'filmatisaision' of anything would be likely to inject a little conjecture into most subjects!
Posted by: Bill S.

Re: fake moon landing - 11/22/10 06:42 PM

This thread seems to have settled out at 11 pages. I guess that means that a lot of people have opinions about the validity, or otherwise of the moon landings. I wonder how many have access to the Russians' monitoring of the American landing. smile
Posted by: preearth

Re: fake moon landing - 12/01/10 06:19 AM

Originally Posted By: magiimice
"e=mc2" Albert Einstein

magiimice:

"e=mc2" Albert Einstein, Hasenöhrl, Poincaré, Planck and Olinto De Pretto.

Olinto De Pretto published e=mc2 a few years before Einstein.

Apparently, Einstein knew about this, but never credited De Pretto.

He didn't credit Hasenöhrl, Poincaré or Planck for their contributions either.

http://www.scienceagogo.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=36687
Posted by: Bill S.

Re: fake moon landing - 12/08/10 08:52 PM

Quote:
Olinto De Pretto published e=mc2 a few years before Einstein.


Which has what to do with the veracity, or otherwise, of the moon landings?

Going back to my previous post, though, does anyone think that if the Americans had not really landed on the moon, the Russians would have failed to notice that fact?
Posted by: Bill S.

Re: fake moon landing - 12/13/10 09:10 PM

Surely I can't have killed a thread, without even mentioning infinity. smile
Posted by: preearth

Re: fake moon landing - 12/13/10 10:56 PM

Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Quote:
Olinto De Pretto published e=mc2 a few years before Einstein.

Which has what to do with the veracity, or otherwise, of the moon landings?

Nothing, actually. It is just a comment on magiimice's tag line.
Posted by: preearth

Re: fake moon landing - 01/23/11 01:20 AM

Once upon a time this was a very popular thread.

What Happened?
Posted by: Bill S.

Re: fake moon landing - 01/23/11 02:04 PM

Quote:
Once upon a time this was a very popular thread.
What Happened?


Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that people tend not to answer questions!

How about:"does anyone think that if the Americans had not really landed on the moon, the Russians would have failed to notice that fact?"
Posted by: Max

Re: fake moon landing - 02/23/11 08:24 PM

I doubt that Apollo 11 was real and I know that Apollo 12 was fake.

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/moonmars/features/magnetotail_080416.html

added to this...

http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/phase/phases-1999.html

together with this...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing#Manned_Moon_landings

Connect the dots. The astronauts of Apollo 12 would have been electrocuted. Apollo 11 cut if awfully close. Too close.
Posted by: Max

Re: fake moon landing - 02/23/11 11:29 PM

I'll go ahead and spell it out. One of the three can't be true...

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/moonmars/features/magnetotail_080416.html
NASA
"Apollo astronauts never landed on a full moon and they never experienced the magnetotail."

http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/phase/phases-1999.html
NASA
Full Moon
Nov 19 1969 14:45

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing#Manned_Moon_landings
WIKI
Apollo 12 Lunar Landing date
Nov 19 1969
Posted by: kallog

Re: fake moon landing - 02/24/11 07:48 AM

One of these can't be true:

1) A 2nd hand, partial qoute from "Tim Stubbs, a University of Maryland scientist working at the Goddard Space Flight Center."

2) Apollo 12 landed on a full moon.

Hmm. Tough choice!!! We know those reporters always perfectly represent what their sources tell them. And we know those Maryland scientists always utter perfect truths.


But that avoids the more important point which is:

"On the moon’s dayside this effect is counteracted to a degree by sunlight: UV photons knock electrons back off the surface, keeping the build-up of charge at relatively low levels."

And Apollo 12 landed on the dayside according to Wikipedia.
Posted by: Max

Re: fake moon landing - 02/24/11 08:49 AM

So you would choose #2...Apollo 12 landed on a full moon, they did experience the magnetotail, and enjoyed watching the...

"two million degree electrons in the plasma sheet race around like crazy and many of them hit the moon's surface. Solar wind electrons are relatively cool at only 140 thousand degrees, and fewer of them zip all the way down to the shadowed surface of the moon's nightside."

Interesting choice. I wonder why the astronauts didn't mention it?
Posted by: kallog

Re: fake moon landing - 02/24/11 04:37 PM

Originally Posted By: Max
"two million degree electrons in the plasma sheet race around like crazy and many of them hit the moon's surface. Solar wind electrons are relatively cool at only 140 thousand degrees, and fewer of them zip all the way down to the shadowed surface of the moon's nightside."


Sounds like fun. But do you know what that would look or feel like?

Keep in mind that existing solar wind that everybody's known about for ages has "only" 140,000 degree electrons.
Posted by: Max

Re: fake moon landing - 02/24/11 06:21 PM

hehe, I was just being stupid like you were. When I read your first reply, I thought, "Sounds just like an agw alarmist. Ignore the facts and attack the source." Apollo 11 was obviously faked and now we're seeing that Apollo 12 was also faked. In fact, NASA has been nothing more than a delivery boy shuttle service to your nearest orbit. smile
Posted by: kallog

Re: fake moon landing - 02/25/11 03:57 AM

Attack the source? Sure. There's a clear contradiction in the information on the site you posted, and Wikipedia. One of the sources must be wrong!

Anyway. Why do you think Apollo 11 or 12 was faked? Can you show any evidence that hasn't already been discredited? This "two million degree electrons" thing isn't evidence until you can show that such conditions would actually be noticed by astronauts.
Posted by: Max

Re: fake moon landing - 02/25/11 06:28 AM

The info I posted came from NASA. It is published on a NASA server. There is no need to debate what happens when the magnetotail lashes the moon. Mostly everything in the article is speculation. The salient points are...

"No one can say for sure what happens on the moon when the magnetotail hits, because no one has been there at the crucial time."

"Apollo astronauts never landed on a full moon and they never experienced the magnetotail."
Posted by: kallog

Re: fake moon landing - 02/25/11 03:07 PM

Originally Posted By: Max

"Apollo astronauts never landed on a full moon and they never experienced the magnetotail."

Yea, that's the clear contradiction I was talking about. Wikipedia says Apollo 12 landed on a full moon.

How do those words show the Apollo 12 landing was faked? It's just the words of one person quoting another person. It's not gospel.

I suspect the scientist being interviewed was talking about the night side of the moon, where Apollo 12 did not land. The reporter may have confused that with the whole moon.
Posted by: Bill S.

Re: fake moon landing - 02/25/11 06:02 PM

Oh, well, perhaps the Russians just weren't watching!
Posted by: Max

Re: fake moon landing - 02/25/11 06:50 PM

There is a lot of info on the magnetotail out there. I would suggest that you read some of it before you comment about astronauts being anywhere on the moon when passing through the magnetotail.

Wiki is just quoting the dates. No proof of anything. lol!

"I suspect the scientist being interviewed was talking about the night side of the moon, where Apollo 12 did not land. The reporter may have confused that with the whole moon."

No. "and they never experienced the magnetotail." You need to read the whole sentence and keep things in context.
Posted by: kallog

Re: fake moon landing - 02/26/11 10:28 AM

Originally Posted By: Max
"and they never experienced the magnetotail." You need to read the whole sentence and keep things in context.


I can see that quite clearly. That's why I keep saying it's contradictory. Can you explain how this contradiction shows the Apollo 12 moon landing was faked?

Did the person writing the article know it was faked and accidentally revealed that information which he should have kept secret? What is your reasoning?


The location on the moon is important because that site says the effects would be stronger on the night side. All the flying dust and electric zaps were supposed to happen on the night-side, not the day-side where Apollo 12 landed.
Posted by: Max

Re: fake moon landing - 02/26/11 05:06 PM

Originally Posted By: kallog
All the flying dust and electric zaps were supposed to happen on the night-side, not the day-side where Apollo 12 landed.


You misread the article. There is a lot of info out there. Read it. Don't rely on one article. NASA knows they haven't sent a manned mission to the moon when it was in the magnetotail.
Posted by: kallog

Re: fake moon landing - 02/27/11 04:15 AM

Originally Posted By: Max
You misread the article. There is a lot of info out there. Read it. Don't rely on one article.


So your argument now depends on "a lot of info out there"? That means your original post about connecting the dots of the three websites was meaningless and didn't show anything.

Can you spell out your complete chain of reasoning, without deferring to an undefined body of information that makes unspecified claims?

What exactly is supposed to happen to astronauts on the day side of the moon in the magnetotail? Really what? Should they be vaporised? Should they be electrocuted? Should their spacesuits be damaged? Should they notice electric sparks? Should their vision be obstructed by dust? This seems to be quite crucial to your argument but you haven't stated it yet.
Posted by: Max

Re: fake moon landing - 02/27/11 08:49 AM

Read the original article if you want speculation of what the astronauts would expect to experience. It's all there for you. I could quote it for you but you seemed to have missed it the first time, why would you read it now? There are a lot of websites where you could read and form a valid opinion if you were interested. I'm not going to pick websites for you. You have already shown that you will only insult the scientists and take things out of context and I'm too old for those kind of childish games. I prefer a more constructive debate rather than the alarmist method. I apologize that you were unable to connect the dots, but I did spell it out for you in the next post. wink

There are other NASA websites that say the same thing...

"Apollo astronauts never landed on a full moon and they never experienced the magnetotail."

And this...

"No one can say for sure what happens on the moon when the magnetotail hits, because no one has been there at the crucial time."

I'm flattered that you value my opinion, and I apologize that I can't offer anymore than what the NASA scientists and others have told us. Again...

"No one can say for sure what happens on the moon when the magnetotail hits, because no one has been there at the crucial time."

"Apollo astronauts never landed on a full moon and they never experienced the magnetotail."
Posted by: kallog

Re: fake moon landing - 02/27/11 10:37 AM

Originally Posted By: Max
Read the original article if you want speculation of what the astronauts would expect to experience. It's all there for you.


It really is not there. This is what's there instead:

"On the moon’s dayside this effect is counteracted to a degree by sunlight: UV photons knock electrons back off the surface, keeping the build-up of charge at relatively low levels. But on the nightside, in the cold lunar dark, electrons accumulate and surface voltages can climb to hundreds or thousands of volts.
Imagine what it feels like to be a sock pulled crackling from a dryer. Astronauts on the moon [no mention of dayside or nightside, but the context implies nightside] during a magnetotail crossing might be able to tell you. Walking across ...
The ground, meanwhile, might leap into the sky.... and generally make life difficult for astronauts.
Stranger still, moondust might gather itself into a sort of diaphanous wind. ... strongest at the moon’s terminator, the dividing line between day and night."


So you can see it certainly does not speculate that any of these effects would appear on the dayside, which is where the Apollo 12 astronauts were.


Do you still think I missed it? I ask you again to show how it says the dayside would have these effects. Alternatively, apologize for telling me I hadn't read it properly.


Quote:
for those kind of childish games

Please don't use insults.


Quote:

"Apollo astronauts never landed on a full moon and they never experienced the magnetotail."

It's an exact quote from the same person. So it could easily perpetuate the same mistake. When you're trying to think critically you can't blindly trust the words of any one person.
Posted by: preearth

Re: fake moon landing - 02/27/11 11:39 AM


Was the moon-landing faked? Join the action at;

Replacement for shuttle. Why not the Saturn V?
Posted by: Max

Re: fake moon landing - 02/27/11 06:38 PM

People who "think critically don't get lost on one article. Childish games? Yes, you do play them. Not an insult, just the truth.

"So you can see it certainly does not speculate that any of these effects would appear on the dayside, which is where the Apollo 12 astronauts were."

You read it wrong...again.

"It's an exact quote from the same person."

Other scientist say it differently. Read and learn. I'll offer this, then yoyo.

"Charge differential between the day and night side of the Moon might actually generate an ion “wind” flowing from the negatively charged night side into the more positively charged sunlit side."
Posted by: Max

Re: fake moon landing - 02/27/11 06:53 PM

Two options here...

1. NASA is lying about Apollo 12.
2. NASA (and others) are lying about the magnetotail.

All in all...NASA is lying. Can't be trusted.
Posted by: kallog

Re: fake moon landing - 02/28/11 04:57 AM

Quote:

Other scientist say it differently. Read and learn. I'll

Got some references?


Quote:
negatively charged night side into the more positively charged sunlit side."


OK, now I see that you're just not understanding it. It also clearly says that wind would be the strongest on the boundary between night and day. The astronauts weren't on the boundary, and there's no mention of how noticable it might be further into the day side.

So you read it wrong. Will you apologize for repeatedly insulting me?
Posted by: kallog

Re: fake moon landing - 02/28/11 05:01 AM

Originally Posted By: Max
Two options here...

1. NASA is lying about Apollo 12.
2. NASA (and others) are lying about the magnetotail.

All in all...NASA is lying. Can't be trusted.


"You have already shown that you will only insult the scientists and take things out of context and I'm too old for those kind of childish games."

This is getting tiring Max. You clearly are not somebody who can form any kind of reasoning in his mind. That's not going to change by talking to me because you're not even trying to think.
Posted by: Max

Re: fake moon landing - 02/28/11 06:55 AM

No, you are trying to argue over speculation. I have no interest in joining you.

1. I did not come here to argue with anyone.
2. I did not come here to debate speculation.
3. I did not come here to disprove a moon landing.

I read an interesting article that seemed odd. I knew my memory was correct. I remember sitting on the front porch, looking at the full moon, wishing that I was one of the astronauts, filled with pride that WE were there. Then, I remembered this thread and thought it would be fun to add this to it.

Red faces at NASA. Shame on you! Three years later, published all over, and I'm the only one to notice? Sad!

BTW, I have read a lot on this topic. I haven't formed my opinion from just one article and I have not misread the article that I linked to. The ESA has a lot of info on this topic.
So, all that and we're back to where we started...

1. Apollo astronauts never landed on a full moon and they never experienced the magnetotail.

2. There was a full moon on Nov 19 1969

3. Man flew to, landed on, walked on the full moon, and then returned home during the 6 day magnetotail crossing of Nov 19 1969 and doesn't remember, nor did they notice anything out of the ordinary.

One is wrong. Two are true. NASA knew about the magnetotail. Are you saying that they used human guinea pigs?
Posted by: kallog

Re: fake moon landing - 02/28/11 11:05 AM

Originally Posted By: kallog
Quote:

BTW, I have read a lot on this topic. I haven't formed my opinion from just one article and I have not misread the article that I linked to. The ESA has a lot of info on this

No matter how much you've read, if you can't describe a complete logical argument (even to yourself) then you cannot trust your conclusion. Talking to others is a great opportunity. Would you really want to form an opinion knowing that it's never been challenged?


Quote:

1. Apollo astronauts never landed on a full moon and they never experienced the magnetotail.
2. There was a full moon on Nov 19 1969
3. Man flew to, landed on, walked on the full moon, and
One is wrong. Two are true.


Yea that makes sense. I vote for #2 and #3 being true based on no reason to be wrong (#2) and a wide range of different evidences (#3). What evidence do you have for #1 being true?
Posted by: kallog

Re: fake moon landing - 02/28/11 11:34 AM

A similar story coming from the same scientist:

"Because the biggest flows would involve microscopic particles too small to see with the naked eye, an astronaut would not notice dust speeding past. Still, if he or she were on the Moon's dark side alert for lunar sunrise, the astronaut 'might see a weird, shifting glow extending along the horizon"

Is that consistent with what you found?
Posted by: Max

Re: fake moon landing - 02/28/11 06:18 PM

"Is that consistent with what you found?"

The Japanese articles that I've read actually show a model of the moon with the dust rising over the entire surface.
Still, speculation, and not why I'm here. Try to understand at least that much. I know it is difficult, but try.

"What evidence do you have for #1 being true?"

A lot. You would too if you would just read and learn. You do know about the ESA cluster satellites, right? NASA has already said that they are going to have to rethink space travel. Yes, I should have bookmarked the articles, but I didn't realize that I was going to find evidence of a faked moon landing.

Claiming to have gone to the moon during a magnetotail crossing would just compound the other lies.

Apollo 11 and 12...Fraud.
Posted by: Bill S.

Re: fake moon landing - 02/28/11 08:13 PM

No one has responded to the question about Russian observation. Two possible reasons for this come to mind.

1. It is a totally naive question, the absurdity of which escapes me. I can live with that.

2. It is a reasonable question, but it takes the fun out of conspiracy theory. Far be it from me to spoil anyone's fun.
Posted by: kallog

Re: fake moon landing - 03/01/11 10:07 AM

Originally Posted By: Bill S.
No one has responded to the question about Russian observation. Two possible reasons for this come to mind.

2. It is a reasonable question, but it takes the fun out of conspiracy theory. Far be it from me to spoil anyone's fun.


I vote for option #2. To me the interest is in the technical details.
Posted by: kallog

Re: fake moon landing - 03/01/11 10:44 AM

Originally Posted By: Max

A lot. You would too if you would just read and learn. You do


Yea, common story. Read lots of things and formed a general opinion but you have no idea how you came to it. You never stopped to analyse your reasoning. It's just a belief representing your prejudices.
Posted by: Max

Re: fake moon landing - 03/01/11 06:05 PM

Bill,
I haven't seen anything from the Russians on this topic. What were they watching with and what did they see?
(edit)
Show me the Russian observations for Apollo 12.
Thanks

Kallog,
You've read nothing and made your choice. Smart! For some illogical reason, you think that insulting scientists will prove your point. (alarmist method) I've grown tired of that type of brain dead argument and refuse play your silly game. So, you focus your attacks on me. (alarmist method)

1. You never stopped to analyse your reasoning.

2. It's just a belief representing your prejudices.

You must enjoy being wrong about everything. There is a lot to learn out there. Get busy.

(edit)
Apologize? Yes, you do owe Tim Stubbs an apology.
Posted by: Bill S.

Re: fake moon landing - 03/01/11 10:00 PM

Originally Posted By: Max
Show me the Russian observations for Apollo 12.


Unfortunately I don't have access to this information. Part of the reason I raised this point was that I find it difficult to believe that with all the technology available, one nation could claim to have put men on the moon, with all the monitorable communication this would involve, without a close competitor in the space race being able to keep an eye on what they were really doing. I hoped that someone else might have more information.
Posted by: kallog

Re: fake moon landing - 03/02/11 06:58 AM

Originally Posted By: Max

illogical reason, you think that insulting scientists will

To avoid that you must blindly accept every word every scientist says. To do otherwise would be insulting them the way I did.

Now quite sure how "NASA are liars" is any better.

At the end of the day, you have no reasons, so it's just a belief. I'm not trying to show people my beliefs. I'm trying to discover the holes in yours. I already did that.
Posted by: redewenur

Re: fake moon landing - 03/02/11 01:29 PM

Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Originally Posted By: Max
Show me the Russian observations for Apollo 12.
I hoped that someone else might have more information.

We should know that information does not cure such beliefs. If 40 odd years of information has failed to penetrate the locked-down mind of the denialist, then I don't anticipate that even your gallant efforts will be the key, Bill.
Posted by: Max

Re: fake moon landing - 03/02/11 07:48 PM

Ahh, another alarmtard with his imaginary enemy, the denialists. You even had to invent a word for them. I can invent words, too. Alarmtards will believe anything. Like, Global warming...Alarmtard language for "the advance greenhouse effect". You are absolutely wrong with your attack. For about 40 years, I believed the moon landings were real without a doubt. An open mind allowed me to see the flaws. My mind has been changed, yours is still in a 40 year lockdown mode.

Bill,
Why are there no independent observations? This seems crucial to you. Shouldn't the Russians (and others) have documented some type of observation?

Kallog,
The only thing you've discovered is how to do the alarmist dance. You have avoided the salient points and tried to debate speculation and then claimed victory for your ignorance. My beliefs aren't important because I'm not trying to impose my beliefs on anyone. I have no need to insult scientists because the content is all that matters. If the content fails, the scientist fails. No need to mention anything about the scientist. I had you figured out from your first post and wasn't going to give you anything else because nothing is worse that an internet alarmist know it all who is above all other scientist. Our debate would be nothing more than your attacks on scientists, cherry picking irrelevant quotes and using them out of context, insult me for something written in an article that I didn't write, you telling me what I believe, climaxed by self-proclaimed victory over all scientists and everyone else because no one compares to you. BTW, I haven't read any of your comments in the climate change section. I can see that you are an alarmist just from your writing style in this thread. You guys are easy to spot.

Anyway, I've enjoyed stringing you along and watching you do the alarmist dance. In the end, the truth will be found.
Posted by: Bill S.

Re: fake moon landing - 03/02/11 09:28 PM

Quote:
I can see that you are an alarmist just from your writing style in this thread. You guys are easy to spot.


Kallog; this question would be way off topic if it were not for the above quote.

Some time ago my son looked at just one of your posts, in an exchange with Bryan, and decided that you were a Libertarian. Could he have been right?
Posted by: Bill S.

Re: fake moon landing - 03/02/11 09:38 PM

Originally Posted By: Max
Shouldn't the Russians (and others) have documented some type of observation?


I suspect that in the competitive atmosphere of the time any doubt that could have been cast, would have been cast. This is why I chose to ask about the Russians rather than any others.
Posted by: kallog

Re: fake moon landing - 03/03/11 02:46 AM

Originally Posted By: Max
Kallog,
The only thing you've discovered is how to do the alarmist dance. You have avoided the salient points and tried to debate speculation and then claimed victory for your


Huh? I clearly showed that the 3-website connnect-the-dots idea you posted did not lead to the conclusion you claimed. That's it. I don't know what other reasoning you might have because you haven't stated it.

If you believe every document on NASA's website is gospel truth then it's impossible to claim that Apollo 12 was faked.
Posted by: Max

Re: fake moon landing - 03/03/11 04:01 AM

The three websites didn't lead to a conclusion, they lead to a comment..."one is wrong, two are true". My "opinion" is that #3 is wrong and your opinion is #1 is wrong. Why would you assume that I believe that NASA speaks the truth about anything?
Posted by: redewenur

Re: fake moon landing - 03/03/11 04:25 PM

"Alarmtard"? Dear me Max, perhaps I should apologize for the the use of the word denialist, since you are obviously going to outgun me on abusiveness. But seriously, in my non-abusive opinion, any adult of reasonable intelligence and access to freely available information who believes that the Moon landing was fake is out of touch with reality to an extent that perhaps inspires sympathy rather than ridicule.
Posted by: Max

Re: fake moon landing - 03/03/11 07:26 PM

Looking...No, I don't see where I asked for your opinion of my mental state. I'm sorry that you are so prejudiced against non-believers. That comes from your alarmist mentality. I have already predicted that you alarmists would try character assassination, and there you are...attempting to insult my intelligence. I read you like a book.

"freely available information"...Yes, that's where I found the evidence to suggest that Apollo 12 was fake.

BTW, an apology followed by more insults is meaningless. The 'denialist" doesn't bother me. The rest of your post doesn't bother me. Your 2nd post doesn't bother me. Your method to attack those who don't agree with you is why I won't bother to debate with an alarmtard.

No amount of debate on this forum is going to prove or disprove a moon landing. I have strong reasons for not believing, you have your reason for believing. We'll leave it at that for now.

Take some pointers from Bill. He is capable of having a constructive debate.
Posted by: Bill S.

Re: fake moon landing - 03/03/11 07:44 PM

OK, Max, lets have a definition of "alarmtard". I like the sound of it, but wouldn't dare use it without a clear definition. smile
Posted by: Max

Re: fake moon landing - 03/03/11 08:34 PM

A nonsensical word without meaning. I like this one...

Alarmtard
1...
2. An alarmist wearing a leotard.
Posted by: Bill S.

Re: fake moon landing - 03/04/11 02:27 AM

Originally Posted By: Max
An alarmist wearing a leotard


Your imagination does you credit. smile
Posted by: redewenur

Re: fake moon landing - 03/04/11 07:38 PM

Originally Posted By: Max
Looking...No, I don't see where I asked for your opinion of my mental state. I'm sorry that you are so prejudiced against non-believers. That comes from your alarmist mentality. I have already predicted that you alarmists would try character assassination, and there you are...attempting to insult my intelligence. I read you like a book.

"freely available information"...Yes, that's where I found the evidence to suggest that Apollo 12 was fake.

BTW, an apology followed by more insults is meaningless. The 'denialist" doesn't bother me. The rest of your post doesn't bother me. Your 2nd post doesn't bother me. Your method to attack those who don't agree with you is why I won't bother to debate with an alarmtard.

No amount of debate on this forum is going to prove or disprove a moon landing. I have strong reasons for not believing, you have your reason for believing. We'll leave it at that for now.

Take some pointers from Bill. He is capable of having a constructive debate.

I can see you're upset, but I gave an honest "opinion" that the only factor that can account for a view such as yours on this matter is a deficient grasp of certain realities recognized as self-evident by most people. This might understandably occur among some people of low intelligence, and that's certainly no negative reflection on their personalities. It's neither an insult to their intelligence, nor assassination of their characters.

Okay yes, I confess, I find it impossible to have a reasonable debate with you on this topic. I'll leave you to debate with those better equipped to accommodate you.
Posted by: Bill S.

Re: fake moon landing - 03/04/11 09:43 PM

Max.
One thing I am not clear about is why you classify as alarmists (with, or without, leotards), those who accept the moon landings as genuine.
Posted by: Max

Re: fake moon landing - 03/05/11 12:19 AM

Red, You're funny. Looking...No, I only see three deranged posts from you that do not even touch the topic. It is no wonder that you're having problems with any type of debate. This thread is about moon landings. It is not,
"The Redewenur Psychoanalysis and Evaluation of Max"
Use that superior intelligence of yours and tell everyone what happens inside a magnetotail and why we shouldn't have any concerns. Use scientific explanations...IF you are capable. If not, more insults will be fine. I'll understand.

Bill,
The moon landings aren't part of it. It's a style of "debate" used by most alarmists. I have no idea if they really are alarmists. If not, they've been arguing with too many and it's rubbing off on them. lol. Astroturfers all use the same method. I call it The Alarmist Method. Very transparent and easy to spot. I don't have any problems with the moon landing believers. Most of my friends are moon landing believers and so was I, for many years. I don't have any friends that are alarmists, never met any except on the internet.

I could see where this was going from the first reply. I could have posted a few links, they are easy to find, but the scientists don't deserve to get beaten up by internet bullies with bad case of Grandiosity. Megalomania is a big problem these days.
shocked
Posted by: Bill S.

Re: fake moon landing - 03/05/11 02:12 AM

Quote:
Megalomania is a big problem these days.


Of course, it's rife, what else would you expect? The internet has suddenly given the ordinary person, with opinions and often with attitude, a chance to take those opinions out of the pub, off the street corner and right across the world. It's still a novelty, and will take a while to settle out.

Its probably important for those with a modicum of common sense to set a sane(ish) example. smile
Posted by: Max

Re: fake moon landing - 03/05/11 01:30 PM

Full Moons Get Electrified by Earth's Magnetic "Tail"
Effect "could bring about serious damages to the human missions," expert says.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/11/101118-science-space-full-moon-electric-charge/
Posted by: Bill S.

Re: fake moon landing - 03/05/11 01:56 PM

Max, Interesting article. As you will be aware, it contains the quote "Apollo astronauts never landed on a full moon and they never experienced the magnetotail."

Would I be right in thinking that there are official statements that say the opposite?

Could there be a distinction between a full moon as perceived from Earth, and a full moon as perceived by the astronauts who might not be in a direct sun - Earth - moon line?
Posted by: kallog

Re: fake moon landing - 03/12/11 04:33 PM

Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Could there be a distinction between a full moon as perceived from Earth, and a full moon as perceived by the astronauts who might not be in a direct sun - Earth - moon line?

No. The relevance of the full moon is that's when it's in the Earth's magnetotail. I rather think somebody got misquoted or confused between "passing through the plasma sheet on the night side of the moon" and "anywhere on the moon any time while it was full."

But even if they in the right spot at the time, all the stories about the effects are quite mild, clearly suggesting that people could survive fine, but just there might be some inconveniences or possible, but unquantified damage to some types of instruments.

And we happened to be there during very quiet plasma conditions," ... "Things might be very different during a solar storm, or during a passage through the plasma sheet, the region that was looked at in this study," he said.

"Certainly when you have big electric fields, you start to worry about damage to sensitive electronics, etc. And if those electric fields mobilize dust, that could become an additional problem."


Oh, what's a libertarian? Someone who believes in freedom?? Well I'm not a slave trader if that's what he was thinking.
Posted by: Max

Re: fake moon landing - 03/13/11 08:24 AM

More speculation. I could speculate about a static discharge between the lunar lander and the surface of the moon when landing.

Try to focus on the salient points, Kallog.

"And we happened to be there during very quiet plasma conditions," ... "Things might be very different during a solar storm, or during a passage through the plasma sheet, the region that was looked at in this study," he said.
Posted by: kallog

Re: fake moon landing - 03/13/11 10:00 AM

Originally Posted By: Max
Try to focus on the salient points, Kallog.

"And we happened to be there during very quiet plasma conditions," ... "Things might be very different during a solar storm, or during a passage through the plasma sheet, the region that was looked at in this study," he said.


So? Were the Appollo 11 astronauts supposed to be have passed through the plasma sheet? Is this another contradiction?
Posted by: Max

Re: fake moon landing - 03/14/11 07:38 PM

I haven't checked Apollo 11. Apollo 12 would have had to of spent 6 days inside the magnetotail and passed through it from one side to the other. This is an interesting topic. There is much more to it than a faked moon landing. Imagine traveling through space with lame 20th century technology, then..."ZAP"...Oops, we just got hit by a magnetic reconnection. "What was that?"
Posted by: paul

Re: fake moon landing - 03/14/11 11:50 PM

Im not replying to anything anyone has posted in this thread.

but I do have a genuine question concerning the
1ST ( American ) moon landing Apollo 11

in the below video there is a distinct lack of lag between
communication from the lunar lander to the earth.

there are immediate responces , and what seems to be houston stepping on a communication with a reply to the communication that is in progress.

anyone that watches the news experiences a few seconds of lag from their country to countries far away on earth , so at 180,000 miles distance from the earth to the moon
means that the communication is traveling at the speed of light.

or more!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BvbD-1qZtc

if you listen to the entire video all the way through
you will find the immediate replies from houston but at the very end of the video , when the lunar lander reports
houston tranquility base here the eagle has landed
houston immediately replies
roger tranquility we copy your on the ground.

notice while the eagle (lunar lander) was flying the call sign of the sender (radio) was eagle.

but only after the lunar lander (eagle) landed would
the call sign change from (eagle)to (tranquility).

this shows the instant communication better than anything.

my question is could the heated electrons in the magnetotail somehow increase communication speeds.

looks like it moved a bit Max , think about it.

now its over 220,000 miles to the moon.

well that certainly breaks the speed of light.

because its only 186,000 miles per second.





Posted by: kallog

Re: fake moon landing - 03/15/11 03:11 PM

Can't watch the video because of my internet connection. But couldn't it have been edited for viewer convenience?

Another possibility is they just preempted the delays and started speaking 2s sooner. You did mention "stepping on.. with a reply". Obviously they're not communicating backwards in time!!!!
Posted by: kallog

Re: fake moon landing - 03/15/11 03:17 PM

Originally Posted By: Max
This is an interesting topic. There is much more to it than a faked moon landing. Imagine traveling through space with lame 20th century technology, then..."ZAP"...Oops, we just got hit by a magnetic reconnection. "What was that?"


Yes, I'd like to find out what's the cause of this inconsistency. Obviously something, somewhere must be wrong. And as you say it gives a bit of opportunity for retrospective worrying!
Posted by: paul

Re: fake moon landing - 03/15/11 04:06 PM

its a conspiracy in its infancy.

but it appears to be true until you think about it.

the voice recording was obviously made in houston and not

in the lunar lander.
Posted by: Bill S.

Re: fake moon landing - 03/15/11 07:08 PM

Originally Posted By: K
Obviously they're not communicating backwards in time!!!!


Kallog, what's happened to your imagination!
Posted by: paul

Re: fake moon landing - 03/16/11 06:20 PM

Bill

of course they are communicating backwards in time

you of all people should realize that.

its the quantum space time leverage components associated with the twist of dark matter as the photons are excited during the radio communications.

causing a semi transparent conflicting junction that is not bound by the fabric of space , that in fact this junction tears through the fabric of space thereby tearing time itself lending itself to the increasing velocities of the transmissions.

which results in a backwards movement of time seen only by the radio transmission as it observes the two points of transmission.

the radio transmission itself accelerates faster at point B

than at point A

as the transmission is transmitted
its as if the beginning of the transmission which is further from the earth is overcome by the end of the transmission
because the beginning of the transmission is shrinking as it approaches c.

and before the dinner bell rings the end of the transmission actually passes the beginning of the transmission.

the end of the transmission whirls past the beginning of the transmission which whips the beginning past the end

this process repeats itself until time has driven it backwards.

but you probably already knew that.


Posted by: kallog

Re: fake moon landing - 03/16/11 10:28 PM

Originally Posted By: paul
its the quantum space time leverage components associated with the twist of dark matter as the photons are excited during the radio communications.


Ah yes, how silly of me to forget that from high school.
Posted by: Bill S.

Re: fake moon landing - 03/17/11 12:42 PM

Originally Posted By: Paul
but you probably already knew that.


Of course! but I could not have expressed it as eloquently. smile
Posted by: paul

Re: fake moon landing - 03/18/11 09:46 PM

Apollo 17

listen carefully as houston or earth says

remember that piece of tape there

the astronaut replies "yea that came off"

then houston begins to say something and is stepped on

by a repeated "yea that came off"

its the same transmission repeated its not the astronaut repeating his transmission.

Posted by: Max

Re: fake moon landing - 03/19/11 01:14 AM

WOW! Good find, Paul. There's something about that second "yea that came off", I can't put my finger on it. Almost as if it came from an alternate reality or something. shocked
Posted by: kallog

Re: fake moon landing - 03/19/11 02:43 AM

Sounds just like what I hear on the phone when I call the other side of the world. My own voice coming back faint and unclear occasionally.

Still, it's kind of pointless trying to make anything of these videos because we don't know how they were edited. You can't see anyone's mouth moving so there's no need for the sound to be synchronized with the picture - they're free to cut out audio pauses whenever they want for viewer convenience.
Posted by: Max

Re: fake moon landing - 03/24/11 12:25 AM

We need to pay attention. The moon phase chart I posted was for BC dates. I missed it, you missed it, we all missed it...Or has it been changed.

Hmmm
Posted by: kallog

Re: fake moon landing - 03/24/11 07:59 AM

HAHAHA! Indeed it is! Oops :P
Posted by: Max

Re: fake moon landing - 03/24/11 09:22 PM

No one picked #2: There was a full moon on Nov 19, 1969. lol! So much for my childhood memory. I guess it was just an "almost" full moon. shocked That's what struck my curiosity...When I read that we have never landed on a full moon, my childhood memory said, "Hey, wait a minute here..."

http://www.briancasey.org/artifacts/astro/moon.cgi

Check Nov 19 1969. It looks full to me. smile
Posted by: kallog

Re: fake moon landing - 03/25/11 10:50 AM

Yea haha what a cock-up. It's good how clearly you posed the problem, but dumb of us to ignore that other option!

Originally Posted By: Max

http://www.briancasey.org/artifacts/astro/moon.cgi

Check Nov 19 1969. It looks full to me. smile


Kind of close. 80-90% full. I guess we have to convert that to position relative to the magnetotail.
Posted by: paul

Re: fake moon landing - 03/25/11 07:02 PM

I remember it well , it was a full moon and I remember that
I had a cardboard lunar lander that I got from some fast food place attached to a string on a broomstick.

I was on my front porch leaning over the banisters and landing the lunar lander in the yard.

the moon was full.

but then again the north star was also very bright and it was in the northern sky.

and now its gone.
Posted by: kallog

Re: fake moon landing - 03/26/11 01:48 AM

OK here's a bunch of rough calculations that show the Moon wasn't in the plasma sheet while the Apollo Nov astronauts were there. Doesn't say anything about the magnetotail in general which is all vague and big.


Data:
Thickness of plasma sheet: 6 Earth diameters
Distance to moon: 30 earth diameters
Date of landing: Nov 19 1969
Date of leaving: Nov 21 1969
Date of full moon: Nov 23 1969
Period between full moons: 30 days

The angle between the moon and the line straight away from the Sun is 0 degrees on Nov 23
It's about 20 degrees on Nov 21 (23-21)/30 * 360deg
It's about 50 degrees on Nov 19 (23-19)/30 * 360deg

The angle between the edge of the plasma sheet at the moon's orbit, and the line straight away from the Sun is arctan(3/30) = 6 degrees.

So, the sequence of events would be:
Land on moon at 50 degrees
Leave moon at 20 degrees
Plasma sheet hits at 6 degrees
Full moon at 0 degrees
Therefore the astronauts weren't on the surface inside the plasma sheet.
Posted by: Bill S.

Re: fake moon landing - 05/15/11 09:22 PM

This has nothing to do with moon landings, fake or otherwise. I post it simply so that others may draw any parallels they see fit.

It is taken from an article in the “Sun” newspaper of 27. Aug. 1967. The article includes a picture, to which reference is made, but the only copy I have is too poor to reproduce.

“I must say this for the flat-Earthers: they don’t scare easily. You might have thought that the latest pictures of a satellite’s-eye view of the Earth, taken from 214,000 miles up, would have shaken them. Not at all.

Mr Samuel Shenton, Secretary and guiding light of the Flat Earth Society, had the answer. Mr Shenton always has the answer: Faked.

‘You see those lines running across the photograph, especially at the bottom? That shows it’s a composite. Mocked up, probably, from a static model’.”

Does nothing ever change? smile
Posted by: paul

Re: fake moon landing - 05/16/11 06:46 PM

Using a fish eyed lense even a flat earth would appear to be a sphere.

to be blunt about it , as soon as the flat earthers produce any location where I can travel to and look off the edge of the earth , that is when I will begin to believe the earth is flat or that Im hallucinating.

Posted by: preearth

Re: fake moon landing - 08/01/11 04:55 AM

The moon landing was faked. There are (essentially) no stars in the moon landing photos.
Posted by: Bill S.

Re: fake moon landing - 08/01/11 10:25 AM

There may, or may not, be a lot of reasons to suspect that the moon photos were faked (or doctored), but should we confuse the photos with the event?
Posted by: paul

Re: fake moon landing - 08/06/11 08:55 PM

it was a 6.25 watt video camera.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_TV_camera

Posted by: Bill S.

Re: fake moon landing - 08/07/11 10:20 PM

The nature of the cameras used is not really relevant to the fact that even if one could provide evidence that pictures were doctored, or even faked, that would not necessarily prove that the landing didn't take place.

I have just been writing up notes of a geological field trip in which the group leader used some very damaged specimens to demonsrtate how to distinguish between three different fossil genera. The photos I have used in my notes are of fossils from from my own collection as they are better specimens than we had in the field. You might say that my pictures are faked, you would be right, but that would not be proof that I did not visit Chillesford Church Pit on the date in question.
Posted by: paul

Re: fake moon landing - 08/08/11 12:46 AM

preearth had commented on the lack of visible stars in the moon landing photos.

I was commenting on the camera that took the photos.

the camera must not have been capable of capturing the dim light of the stars.

but heres one that shows the earth and stars

Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: fake moon landing - 08/08/11 03:05 PM


http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...058_600x450.jpg
Posted by: paul

Re: fake moon landing - 08/08/11 03:25 PM

Nice find TFF

the article states that the exposure time was too short to capture the light of the stars that would have been visible through the glare of the light reflecting off of the moon.

so it was both a combination of the light reflection and the camera.
Posted by: paul

Re: fake moon landing - 08/13/11 04:18 PM

I fully agree that mythbusters was a fraud FatFreddy.

when the astronaut twist the flag pole the flag is given momentum , and the flag is not made of a rigid material so the flags momentum is slowly transfered from the top of the flag to the bottom of the flag.

the flag is not weightless , and since the flags weight is being pulled downwards by the moons gravity the flag appears to wave in the wind.

all that is happening is the flag is given momentum , the flag reacts to that momentum , the flag pendulums , then it comes to a stop because the moons gravity has pulled the flag down as far as it can.

this video shows no proof that the moon landings were faked , it only shows that mythbusting by mythbusters is a myth.

just like the compressed air powered boat , that mythbusters said wouldnt work , even though they installed the nozzle above the bottom of the boat so that it would fail as soon as the boat started moving.

and the boat quickly moved because the air escaping the nozzle was pushing against the water , then the boat just stopped because the nozzle was lifted above the water due to the forward motion of the quickly moving boat that lifted the boat and thus lifted the nozzle out of the water , removing the resistive force supplied by the water , the air just escaped the nozzle and had nothing but air to push against.

anyone who has ever ridden in a boat probably knows that if you look at the the back of a quickly moving boat you can see the water is not touching the back of the boat and the mythbusters placed the nozzle on the back of the boat.

mythbusters was a farce and should be recognized as such and should not be relied on as a source of information.

this is a air vs air reaction by mythbusters.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejEJGNLTo84

the above clyinder would have probably reached over 100 mph if it would not have struck the walls.

but it shows how forcefull a air vs water reaction would be.

fishing boats sit in your yard , and could be compressing air using solar power all week long waiting for you to go fishing in your boat that never needs gassing up.

then while your fishing it is also re-compressing the air
in the cylinders.


Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: fake moon landing - 08/13/11 08:35 PM


That wasn't from the Mythbuster's program.

http://space.about.com/od/frequentlyaskedquestions/tp/LunarLandingHoax.htm
Posted by: paul

Re: fake moon landing - 08/13/11 09:08 PM

TFF

I was commenting on your link below
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...058_600x450.jpg

the comments I made about mythbusters was from FatFreddys video link.
Posted by: paul

Re: fake moon landing - 08/13/11 09:18 PM

I suppose you are refering to the flag moving more when the flag was twisted in the vacuum.

did you notice that they didnt twist the atmospheric example much at all?

1:35 into the video
apx 30 degrees. !!

but they twisted the vacuum example apx 120 degrees.

2:04 into the video.

maybe if they would have used a mechanical device to move the flag both times the same distance and at the same speed they would have proven something.

LOL

but this test proves nothing.
except that mythbusters knew how to stack the deck.



Posted by: Ellis

Re: fake moon landing - 08/14/11 06:27 AM

Why do you not want there to have been a moon landing? I think it was one of the high-lights of my life to see the possibilities that were opening up--- now gone forever.

What would be the motivation for using so much time, effort and bad feeling to denigrate such a great achievement? Sometimes when I am on-line I think I am the only one who thinks humans really did achieve such an amazing thing.

Aah well!! Back to shopping and "reality" TV like our overlords want us to!
Posted by: redewenur

Re: fake moon landing - 08/14/11 07:54 AM

Originally Posted By: Ellis
Why do you not want there to have been a moon landing?...What would be the motivation for using so much time, effort and bad feeling to denigrate such a great achievement?

Plausible reasons here:
http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2009/06/the_psychology_of_crankery.php
Posted by: Bill S.

Re: fake moon landing - 08/14/11 02:22 PM

Originally Posted By: Ellis
Why do you not want there to have been a moon landing?


It's fun?

Actually, conspiricy theory fulfills a psychological need, arising from a youthful need to kick against the establishment. Some people never grow out of it.
Posted by: paul

Re: fake moon landing - 08/14/11 03:24 PM

Quote:
Why do you not want there to have been a moon landing?


I actually think that there was several moon landings.

Im not one of the believers of the conspiracy.

other conspiracies yes , but not this one.
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: fake moon landing - 08/14/11 04:52 PM

Yesterday I took pictures of a honey bee nest, wild grapes hanging down in bunches, poke weeds filled with fruits (no poke salad for me thanks), Paw Paw likewise fruiting up, and many other interesting things. Last night on Hulu.com, I watched Jose Ferrer play Cyrano de Bergerac. It's not perfect, but it's a pretty darn presentation of one of my favorite plays. (I'm also fond of Steve Martin's update of the character in the movie Roxanne.) I also added a post to my blog at http://thefalliblefiend.blogspot.com/ .

The day before that I went to work and solved a programming problem I had been stressing over for two days. I went for a long walk with a friend during lunch and pointed out hickory trees, Virginia pines, Eastern White Pines, Carolina Hemlocks, and many others.

Today, I ate my oatmeal on the deck, put up the umbrella and made a pot of coffee. I just started "The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks." I talked for a little while to both of my daughters. I did NOT get yelled at by my wife, even though I broke the couch. Eventually I'll download pics from the last few days onto the computer. I've already figured out the identities of some other plants, most notably the Southern Magnolia that someone planted outside the wildlife refuge.

Most of today I will spend learning a new programming language called Python. It's not "new" at all, actually, but it's new to me. I installed it yesterday and have been playing with it. Previously I had written VBA to control processing massive amounts of data via ArcGIS libraries, but the newer versions of ArcGIS will support Python over VBA.

I stayed up late the last two nights to see the Perseids, but I think the light pollution is too much around here and it was a bit cloudy last night.

In the back of my mind I'm thinking of a problem over at projecteuler.net . I should know how to do this sort of problem, but I've forgotten so much over the years. It's okay. I'll eventually figure it out. So far I've solved 16 problems in the week and a half since I started. They are getting harder and more interesting.

I'll probably call my mom and dad later and talk about some stuff I've been thinking about. My step-dad (whom I cannot help but think of as my real dad) is native American and I think he will be interested that I noticed a crapload of hemp dogsbane near where I work. Indians used to make cordage from it and I found a YT video on how to do that.

I hope to spend at least an hour planning for activities for the coming school year. My colleagues and I put on a science fair and a math night every year for the local kids. We also supply science and math tutors for them. We get other groups to help us like NIH and NASA, NAS, etc. It's a lot more work than most people think.

I also need to plan for my professional development. My employer will pay for classes in proportion to their relevance to my job - probably 100% for any programming or hard science classes. I've been meaning to do a review of thermodynamics and to augment it with a class on statistical mechanics. We'll see.

My youngest just came onto the deck to talk to me for a while. She's making a blueberry pie and wants to know if I'll make dinner tonight. Her boyfriend might be coming. She left and then my wife told me that we have potatoes if I want to make them with the steaks.

I'm modifying my reading list. The top item for now is a translation of Mendel's pea paper which is available online. I'm thinking the next will be Donald Prothero's "Evolution: What the Fossils say and why it Matters" which I'll read concurrently with Henrietta Lacks.

My youngest came and asked me if I could make baked potatoes instead of mashed potatoes and also a salad. She leaves for college in less than a week. My wife told her she should be the one making dinner instead of daddy since it's her handsome boyfriend who's coming to dinner. OTOH, I like the kid and this is a small thing. And they're going to spend the afternoon at the Smithsonian's natural history museum. (Such a cool date!) I can have dinner ready by the time they get back.

My oldest just got back from a week at the beach today. She returns to college (the same school) a week after her sister. She's majoring in Chem and minoring in Mandarin. It's going to be her toughest semester ever taking both advanced p-chem and advanced organic along with her honor's thesis. But on the good side, she's finished her Chinese requirements, so that will give her some free time to work on the other stuff. Then she'll have an internship at a company that's been courting her and then probably grad school.

I've barely covered a third of what I have going on. I've got plenty of worthwhile stuff to keep me occupied without wasting time on stupid crap. Conspiracy "theories" are a distraction from doing things that take patience, effort, and practice.

My last advice to both girls before going off to college was and is this: avoid drama. Some people thrive on it, create it ex nihilo when it's in short supply, nurse it, command it, apply it relentlessly to their friends and enemies alike. Avoid those people. Be friendly with them as you are friendly to everyone, but do not acquire them as friends. They will drag you down, waste your time, and give you nothing but gossip and confusion in return.
Posted by: Bill S.

Re: fake moon landing - 08/14/11 09:39 PM

Originally Posted By: TFF
Conspiracy "theories" are a distraction from doing things that take patience, effort, and practice.


TFF, you seem to have a satisfyingly full life. Before I retired I fondly imagined that, once retired, I would have time to do lots of things that work prevented me from doing. Strangely, I seem to have even less free time for those things now, so I guess I am fortunate enough to have a full life, as well.

Perhaps there are less fortunate people who need things like conspiracy theories to fill voids.
Posted by: paul

Re: fake moon landing - 08/15/11 12:11 AM

what will you do with the other half of your day?

you dont want to get slack you know , sedentary lifestyles can lead to heart / arterial problems.

I love to examine conspiracy theories to see if I can figure out where the conspiracy is wrong or lacks evidence.

but its not something I spend alot of time on , like I did the 911 stuff.

It really seemed as though the conspirators were right , until I began to study the reasons they used to prove that 911 was a inside job.

little by little each of the pieces fell out of the
conspiracy picture.

and soon to me the conspiracy became nothing but a lack of understanding on the part of the conspirators logic.
Posted by: paul

Re: fake moon landing - 08/21/11 02:45 AM

at the end of the video the girl says
so the conspiracy theorist were correct.
then one of the men says
so nasa 0 conspiracy theorist 2

but on the mythbusters series they say

so the conspiracy theorist werent correct.
then one of the men says
conspiracy theorist 0 nasa 2


a little sound editing.

still mythbusters was a fraud , even in this case when they stacked the deck by changing the distance and speed of the flag waving.

who ever made the above video just edited the words (zero and two) and changed them around.

look at the guys mouth when he is saying two , it moves alot more than it should , like he is pronouncing a two syllable word - ZERO.








Posted by: Bill S.

Re: fake moon landing - 08/24/11 12:34 AM

Now we have conspiracy theorists identifying conspiracies in the work of other conspiricy theorists.....where will it all end?
Posted by: paul

Re: fake moon landing - 08/24/11 01:48 AM

I know , and we have anti conspiracy theorist who are conspiring to conspire that we have conspiracy theorists identifying conspiracies in the work of other conspiricy theorists.....where will it all end?



Im not sure it can ever end.
Posted by: Max

Re: fake moon landing - 09/07/11 02:33 AM

I have a new conspiracy theory. It doesn't involve the moon landings but does involve NASA. This isn't about Nibiru, so don't get side tracked. I'll keep it short.

NASA X-Ray Image of G1.9

Link
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/chandra/news/08-062.html


NASA...Cover-up?
"They then show an absurd picture that has been bouncing around the Internet for several years as a photo of "Nibiru". This picture of a blue ball surrounded by orange flames is obviously not of any astronomical object. It is not even a clever fake."
http://astrobiology.nasa.gov/ask-an-astrobiologist/question/?id=14046


Strange! NASA fakes pictures?
Posted by: kallog

Re: fake moon landing - 09/07/11 05:22 AM

Google "supernova remnant" and you'll find plenty of similar pictures.

Why are people so consistently fooled by anything roughly circular with a bright edge in the top-left of the picture? Maybe it's too much exposure to computers where that same optical illusion is used to make buttons look like solid objects - and people somehow forget they're still only flat pictures on the screen.

In space the sun isn't shining down on everything from above.

Turn it upside down and see if it still looks like an object.

Posted by: Max

Re: fake moon landing - 09/07/11 05:44 AM

You missed the point. It is a NASA x-ray image of G1.9. In the next paragraph, a NASA scientist who is talking about G1.9 calls the NASA photo a bad fake. Shouldn't a NASA scientist who is talking about G1.9 be aware of the NASA pictures of G1.9? He described it very well so he has obviously seen the picture. Why is he claiming that it is a bad fake? Why is that website setup to "debunk" a NASA photo?

No one is fooled here, Kallog. Try to focus. This isn't about seeing circular with a bright edge in the top-left of the picture. Nice misdirection, but uncalled for.
Posted by: Bill

Re: fake moon landing - 09/07/11 02:25 PM

Here we go! A conspiracy theorist (CT) takes a NASA statement and misquotes it out of context and claims that it shows that NASA is faking things again. He even gave a link to the actual NASA statement, then claims that the statement says that NASA is faking it. Where the NASA statement says that a picture is a fake it is clear that it is talking about something other than the real G1.9 picture. And if the CTs are using a real picture they are definitely completely misusing it to represent something in our solar system rather than near the center of the galaxy.

Max, try reading the statement you linked to.

Bill Gill
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: fake moon landing - 09/07/11 07:31 PM

Photos are often copied about the web with modifications, but I think this one actually does probably refer to a non-modified version of the original. The original picture does have an artificial quality about it. It's possible the critic is talking about a different picture, but probably he's mistaken. If it were me, I would just send him an email to ask. (I might even copy D. Green, the study lead.)

In a sense all such "photos" are faked, because they are all manipulated to some extent. Let's look at the credits.

Supernova remnant G1.9+0.3. Image Credit: X-ray (NASA/CXC/NCSU/S. Reynolds et al.); Radio (NSF/NRAO/VLA/Cambridge/D. Green et al.); Infrared (2MASS/UMass/IPAC-Caltech/NASA/NSF/CfA/E. Bressert)

This is clearly a composite image from 3 sources: X-ray, radio, and infrared. (Nothing wrong with that, btw.) Also, any of these sources aren't like photographic images - or, they are like photographic images where the colors have been shifted around ... because, people can't actually SEE x-ray, radio, or infrared. Again, nothing wrong with that.

I don't do a lot of work with images, but I can imagine there's a bit of artistic license in putting things like this together. How could there not be?

The "blue ball" is not really a ball. It could be the front of some wave or it could be just a bit of haze that accidentally resembles a sphere to our human brains. It's translucent and you can see something (stars? flecks of gas?) through the other side and it's concentrated near the upper part of the image. Our brain just fills in the "sphere."

I wrote all this before hand, but now I clicked the image and find it here, confirming some of what I had inferred:
http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2008/g19/

The critic was right that real objects in the sky don't look like this. There are probably a lot of crazy things percolating about this image - that it's a planet or star in our solar system or some other silly crap.
Posted by: Max

Re: fake moon landing - 09/07/11 09:06 PM

It isn't that complicated. Bill. First off, let me assure that I did not quote anything out of context. I quoted the salient point of the article and posted the link for everyone to read. Second, I never claimed that NASA was faking anything. I thought I was clear, but I'll try again, just for you.

I am simply asking why a NASA scientist would claim that a NASA photo is fake. Again, it is not MY claim...It is a NASA claim. It is my question.

Ad hom is fine, but at least try to squeeze in an answer.

I am asking why NASA would support a website to discredit a NASA photo.

I read the article, without your spin, Bill. He describes the NASA photo perfectly and claims it isn't even a clever fake.

I am aware of how the photo was made. The NASA website in the second link explains everything. I wouldn't care if it was a picture of a monkey. The fact is...A NASA scientist is claiming that a NASA photo is fake.

I would also like to know...(again, this is a question)...How NASA has an image of a 140 year old supernova remnant that is 25,000 light years away? X-ray, radio, and infrared are faster than the speed of light? Our perception? Making it 25,140 years old?

Thanks

Edit.
Wouldn't it have been better to explain what the 2008 picture really was instead of claiming that it was a bad fake being circulated by CT's?
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: fake moon landing - 09/07/11 09:25 PM

Your response it to me, but you are addressing Bill, so I'm not sure whether you were actually addressing me. I don't recall saying or even hinting that you misrepresented anything in that post. I'm pretty sure I understood your original post clearly, as well as both NASA responses.

I don't think I spun anything. I made what I think are reasonable inferences. I think if someone really would like an explanation that they would contact the critic and the lab that produced the photo to ask them if there is a miscommunication (or to determine if there was something going on that was missed).

You asked:
"How NASA has an image of a 140 year old supernova remnant that is 25,000 light years away? X-ray, radio, and infrared are faster than the speed of light?"

We infer the supernova occurred approximately 25,140 years ago. That is, the image does not represent the instant that the star went supernova, but 140 years after the fact.

"Wouldn't it have been better to explain what the 2008 picture really was instead of claiming that it was a bad fake being circulated by CT's?"
Assuming he was talking about that photo (and I think he was), then, yes. OTOH, it seems reasonable to me that he did not realize this was a legit NASA image - and he might have been responding to claims that incorrectly identified it as a photo. Of course, the easiest way to find out is to contact him. (I frequently contact experts, if I'm sufficiently interested - though I'm not in this case.)
Posted by: Max

Re: fake moon landing - 09/07/11 09:37 PM

Yes, I was addressing Bill. My bad.

So, he is just uninformed and not qualified to be speaking on this topic? I'll have to accept that. That's a shame. It is "Ask an Astrobiologist" at NASA for crying out loud! :-)
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: fake moon landing - 09/07/11 09:50 PM

It's not clear to me that he is either uninformed or unqualified. If the image were presented in some other forum as being something other than what it was (a photo, for example, rather than a composite image), then his response makes sense. Of course, we can't know that for sure without asking him.

Everyone makes mistakes, including extremely competent people. (I'm also not saying he is extremely competent as I've never read any other of his posts and astrobiology is not my field anyway.)

As I remarked previously, all such images are in a sense fakes, even though they are legitimate and not fraudulent.
Posted by: Max

Re: fake moon landing - 09/07/11 10:24 PM

Well, it is clear to me. The purpose of that article is to discredit a photo of G1.9 while commenting on G1.9. It should be noted that his comments are his uninformed opinion and no research has been done. Along with a NASA disclaimer that it is his opinion and not supported by anyone at NASA. Quality control.

I found this by accident. On March 8, 2011, the magnetosphere was absent of almost all magnetic reconnections and the earth seemed to be too polarized. Looking for an answer only took me to Eleinin, Nibiru, Planet X...G1.9 is real, so I focused on that, only to find the denial page.
Posted by: Bill

Re: fake moon landing - 09/07/11 10:46 PM

Originally Posted By: NASA Link
You have encountered one of the crazy lies currently circulating on the Internet. To answer your question directly about G1.9+03, it is a supernova remnant (that is, an expanding gas cloud from a supernova explosion) about 25,000 light years away that was discovered in 1984. It has recently been determined using data from the Chandra x-ray telescope to be the youngest-known supernova in our Milky Way Galaxy. For details see Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernova_remnant_G1.9%2B0.3. However, if you don't search Wikipedia but instead just google "G1.9+03" you immediately encounter an extraordinary collection of claims about this object. For example, "Disclose.tv, truth revealed" states that it is a "confirmed binary red dwarf star" in our own solar system with "planets or large satellites encircling it". They then show an absurd picture that has been bouncing around the Internet for several years as a photo of "Nibiru". This picture of a blue ball surrounded by orange flames is obviously not of any astronomical object. It is not even a clever fake.

As far as I can see the NASA spokesperson is replying to a lot of questions about a CT subject that does not in reality have any thing to do with G1.9+03, but has ripped off NASA images to enhance what they are saying. If this is an actual NASA image then possibly the spokesperson was not fully informed. Possibly he was really getting tired of having to answer a lot of dumb questions based on CT frauds.

Max, If I misunderstood what you were trying to say I apologize, but if you don't want to be mistaken for a CT then be careful how you state your position.

Bill Gill
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: fake moon landing - 09/07/11 11:26 PM

You seem to have missed the point - that was not a photo. If he were responding to an article that called this a photo, he was right. If the objects of his ire had wanted to be taken seriously, they ought to have supplied an actual citation (or at least a proper, working link to the actual source).

It makes sense that organizations like that would have different levels of publication for these sorts of things depending on the sort of peer review they get. Those particular articles may not have any peer-review at all, so it makes sense NASA would have the disclaimer.

Where I work we have multiple levels of publication depending on how much peer-review a product gets. I just wrote an internal paper that had two reviewers (one from in my own division and one from another division). It's a minor paper. For a complete study they might have had a dozen reviewers at each major phase of the project. If something is not reviewed, that is clearly stated and it's noted that's it's not an official publication.

I think it would be a bizarre and debilitated scientific environment in which scientists could not communicate unless they had peer review.
Posted by: kallog

Re: fake moon landing - 09/08/11 01:25 AM

Originally Posted By: Max
You missed the point. It is a NASA x-ray image of G1.9. In the next paragraph, a NASA scientist who is talking about G1.9 calls the NASA photo a bad fake. Shouldn't a NASA


OK So the picture's a fake. All NASA employees are gods. Even the ones who use words like "crazy lies". Everything they say must be taken literally.

So now we have a new blue planet in the solar system, and it's on fire. What next? Should we send a probe there?

OK that's not quite what you're saying either, but it's as good as. As Bill said, quoting NASA blogs is a favourite game of conspiracy theorists. I'll repeat - not all NASA employees are gods.

Posted by: Max

Re: fake moon landing - 09/08/11 03:19 AM

Kallog, Neither you nor I believe that NASA scientists are gods, or anything other than uninformed humans so you can save the cutsie replies.

If you want to get technical, then it is a computer generated image. Again, the content of the picture and how it was made isn't important...They way it is presented by that NASA scientist is the problem.

"You have encountered one of the crazy lies currently circulating on the Internet."
Yes, his website.
Posted by: kallog

Re: fake moon landing - 09/08/11 11:13 AM

What exactly is your point? You said he was trying to discredit that photo or something along those lines.

Are you complaining about the behavior or breadth of knowledge of the writer? I agree it's not a very professionally written article, but that seems a bit unimportant in the grand scheme of things.

Or are you considering him to be an official mouthpiece of NASA? Despite apparently contradictory statements on other NASA pages.
Posted by: Bill

Re: fake moon landing - 09/08/11 02:39 PM

Ok, just a general comment on what has been said in this thread about supernova G1.9 etc.

Max posted a comment about a conspiracy theory concerning G1.9. His problem is that he found a NASA site that claimed the picture was an obvious fake. Part of the paper he linked to clearly stated the facts about G1.9. The first thing addressed in the paper was that this was in response to a question about a supposed brown dwarf inside our solar system (60 odd Astronomical Units is within our solar system). The writer points out that it is a lie that has been circulating on the internet, which is quite true. Some people may not believe it is a lie, but that is basically what it is. At the end he says that the attached picture, which is of G1.9, is an obvious fake. Well, it doesn't really look all that real, so I guess if he is used to answering dumb question he might just brush it off that way. In fact it is apparently a picture of G1.9, from the fine folks a Chandra. So Max is making a big deal about the writers error.

One thing that might be noticed about the place the paper was posted is that it is on the Ask an Astrobiologist site. I'm not sure that astrobiologists are necessarily highly conversant with pictures of supernovae, since there is usually not much chance of finding life on one. So the man made a simple mistake due to being out of his area of expertise, and possibly highly frustrated at having to keep answering the same silly questions over and over. I can't see that the result is anything to turn the world upside down over.

Bill Gill
Posted by: kallog

Re: fake moon landing - 09/09/11 02:54 AM

Originally Posted By: Bill
fine folks a Chandra. So Max is making a big deal about the writers error.


I totally agree. It's nothing at all.
Posted by: Bill S.

Re: fake moon landing - 09/09/11 06:27 PM

Originally Posted By: K
It's nothing at all.


There! and all the time, I thought it was CT. smile
Posted by: Max

Re: fake moon landing - 09/10/11 06:08 AM

He reminds me of the guy at Costco in the movie Idiocracy. Watch some of his videos. Really, I expect better from NASA. It very well could be a CT, and probably will be until they correct their blunders.

I found this while searching, maybe from a CT site but it is a NASA link and might be what I was looking for...If it is still out there, "whatever it is".

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2008/19nov_cosmicrays/

If anyone wants to see what the magnetosphere looked like on March 8, here's that link. It's in the movie archives.

http://www2.nict.go.jp/y/y223/simulation/realtime/home.html
Posted by: Bill

Re: fake moon landing - 09/10/11 02:20 PM

Originally Posted By: Max
I found this while searching, maybe from a CT site but it is a NASA link and might be what I was looking for

Well Max, what were you looking for? That might be a guide to any help you can get here.

I followed the first link in your post, the one to the high energy electrons. Interesting, but not really informative. They offered several speculations on what might be producing them, some much more speculative than others.

Of course one of the things about science is that you go looking for something, and suddenly something else pops up that you never expected. This sounds like one of those things. It may lead to something exciting at some time in the future.

Bill Gill
Posted by: Max

Re: fake moon landing - 09/11/11 07:15 AM

Absolutely. Just keep an open mind and keep collecting bits. If the search takes you to a CT site, read it and have a good laugh.

The magnetosphere looked really strange for a few days from around the 8th through the 12th. I was interested in seeing if the magnetosphere reacted to the Japan earthquake. I'm going to keep watching this to see if anything develops. It could be a way to detect that a major earthquake is going to happen. But, I doubt it.
Posted by: Bill S.

Re: fake moon landing - 09/19/11 03:34 PM

Here’s a sort of “CT thought experiment”.

In the latter half of the 1960s a rich consortium, working in a top secret site in a remote part of the world, made a successful lunar launch. They planted their private flag on exactly the spot on which the Americans claim to have landed. The fact that the Americans didn’t report the presence of the flag is, quite obviously, because they didn’t go to the moon.
Posted by: Bill

Re: fake moon landing - 09/19/11 06:09 PM

The same conspirators that faked the moon landing are still at work. Now they have faked pictures from the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter that show the stuff that was left behind and the astronauts foot prints.

LRO Moon Landing Pics

That's over 40 years they have continued this conspiracy.

Bill Gill
Posted by: preearth

Re: fake moon landing - 09/20/11 11:44 AM

Originally Posted By: Bill
The same conspirators that faked the moon landing are still at work....
That's over 40 years they have continued this conspiracy.
Bill Gill

So, if you believe the moon landing was faked, how come you never write up any articles to prove it.
Posted by: Orac

Re: fake moon landing - 09/20/11 02:19 PM

It's called ironic statement Preearth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony) ... somehow I don't think Bill G really believes it ... just a guess by me!
Posted by: Bill

Re: fake moon landing - 09/20/11 03:06 PM

Originally Posted By: Orac
It's called ironic statement Preearth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony) ... somehow I don't think Bill G really believes it ... just a guess by me!


Drat Orac, you saw right through me.

No I don't believe the moon landings were a fake. One of the huge problems with faking the moon landings would have been the huge size of the conspiracy, involving thousands of people from all around the world. There just isn't any way to get that many people involved in the cover up and not have anybody let it out.

Bill Gill
Posted by: Bill S.

Re: fake moon landing - 09/20/11 09:21 PM

Bill, that's the sort of response I was looking for to my "thought experiment". I suspect it would be impossible to achieve such a task without someone seeing it; conversely, I think it would be impossible to pretend to do it without “sussed out”.
Posted by: Bill S.

Re: fake moon landing - 04/08/12 06:11 PM

Fat Freddy, how's your cat?
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: fake moon landing - 12/23/12 01:31 PM

Look what I just came across.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/conspiracy...#post1061019785

It pretty much looks like the missions were faked.
Posted by: Bill S.

Re: fake moon landing - 12/24/12 02:01 AM

Welcome to SAGG, Rocky

Recently David Attenborough admitted that some of the animal footage in his series was photographed in captivity to obtain better results. This does not mean that his progs are fakes, or that he has not been to the locations shown.

If you discount all the possible evidence for faked photography, how much is left?