Originally posted by Quasaire
There are three things said about the moon landing that I find credible against it.
- Remember certain motion pictures of the American flag and all? The flag is blowing as if there is wind. Well, the moon is too small and hence, gravity too feeble to support an atmosphere. So how can a flag blow?
- There are absolutely no stars on the pictures. Even on Earth with clouds and all, if conditions are right, you can see stars. There was no stars on the pictures of the moon landing. Perhaps the resolution back in 1969 of modern camera's was not good enough to pick them up?
- As noted in your quote, the moon landing was 34 years ago. How come we cannot even get a Mars Polar Lander on Mars? In fact, we have not even done another moon landing have we? I mean how much has technology advanced since the late 60s? Supercomputers, the Internet, cell phones, microwaves, Satellite communication, plasma TVs etc. Even NASA said it, the computers used to take man to the moon back then are weaker than a digital wristwatch today.
[/list=1]
Do not get me wrong, I don't strongly question the validity of the moon landing but those are three things that do make me wonder. It's kind of strange you know. The US was in a very stressful Cold War with the USSR back then. It would make perfect sense if NASA decided to fake the landing to psychologically damage the USSR's leaders and scientists. The USSR's space program wasn't centralized, unlike the US', which many say is the reason the US won the space race, or did we?
1. The dust was only something like 3" deep. Under that is pretty much solid rock.Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
I think we went to the moon, but a couple of things from the never-went-to-the-moon crowd did surprise me. First, there was no divot under the engine of the lunar lander. At 2000 LBS of thrust or so [I think this is what I have heard], and considering that the engines were running right up to touchdown, how do we avoid making a hole in the loose moon dust?
Also, I have seen a picture, in fact I may have it, where a third astronaut can be seen in the reflection of the helmet of one being photographed on the moon. Clearly the reflection is not a reflection of the photographer. Did we ever land three men on the moon? Perhaps this photo was from another mission? Has anyone seen this? This one has really stumped me for the moment. I keep meaning to review the history of the landings but perhaps someone knows the explanation here?
Finally, did you all know that on one mission, and this is in the public record, the astronaut orbiting above the moon saw a blinking light, in the same location and on several passes, on the surface of dark side of the moon. I think this remains a mystery.
Originally posted by russ_watters
1. The dust was only something like 3" deep. Under that is pretty much solid rock.
2. I've seen a number of photoshop'd pics. I'd like to see the one you mean though.
3. Never heard that one.
2. There are absolutely no stars on the pictures. Even on Earth with clouds and all, if conditions are right, you can see stars. There was no stars on the pictures of the moon landing. Perhaps the resolution back in 1969 of modern camera's was not good enough to pick them up?
Also addresses the waving flag and the no stars in the pictures.From www.badastronomy.com
Bad: In the pictures taken of the lunar lander by the astronauts, the TV show continues, there is no blast crater. A rocket capable of landing on the Moon should have burned out a huge crater on the surface, yet there is nothing there.
Good: When someone driving a car pulls into a parking spot, do they do it at 100 kilometers per hour? Of course not. They slow down first, easing off the accelerator. The astronauts did the same thing. Sure, the rocket on the lander was capable of 10,000 pounds of thrust, but they had a throttle. They fired the rocket hard to deorbit and slow enough to land on the Moon, but they didn't need to thrust that hard as they approached the lunar surface; they throttled down to about 3000 pounds of thrust.
Now here comes a little bit of math: the engine nozzle was about 54 inches across (from the Encyclopaedia Astronautica), which means it had an area of 2300 square inches. That in turn means that the thrust generated a pressure of only about 1.5 pounds per square inch! That's not a lot of pressure. Moreover, in a vacuum, the exhaust from a rocket spreads out very rapidly. On Earth, the air in our atmosphere constrains the thrust of a rocket into a narrow column, which is why you get long flames and columns of smoke from the back of a rocket. In a vacuum, no air means the exhaust spreads out even more, lowering the pressure. That's why there's no blast crater! Three thousand pounds of thrust sounds like a lot, but it was so spread out it was actually rather gentle.
Originally posted by wimms
this con stuff is just right disgusting.
Not only do they think NASA is too stupid to go to moon, but they right off assume NASA is too stupid to even make an errorfree hoax! come on.
this con stuff is just right disgusting.
Not only do they think NASA is too stupid to go to moon, but they right off assume NASA is too stupid to even make an errorfree hoax! come on.
Quasaire,
1. Does someone REALLY think that they couldn't shut the bloody doors in a studio to avoid any 'breeze'?
2. Does anyone really think they FORGOT??! to 'add' the stars??
3. Does 'non-piloted' flight ring any bell to you? safety measures are different. On other hand, distances and flight times are WAY different. Remote controlling such craft isn't playing quake, mind you.
When I first heard of this con theory, without knowing details, my first thought was that images they got were too crappy for headlines, so photographers made few truthful setups to show the public better images. But even that is wrong.
Originally posted by Quasaire
There are three things said about the moon landing that I find credible against it.
- Remember certain motion pictures of the American flag and all? The flag is blowing as if there is wind. Well, the moon is too small and hence, gravity too feeble to support an atmosphere. So how can a flag blow?
There is no credible evidence to support the moon-landing conspiracy theories. All available evidence, including photographs and videos, scientific data, and eyewitness testimonies from astronauts and mission control personnel, support the fact that the moon landings did occur.
The lack of stars in the photographs is due to the limitations of the cameras used on the moon. The cameras were set to capture the bright lunar surface, which resulted in the stars being too dim to be captured. Additionally, the astronauts were wearing bright white space suits, which could have caused overexposure in the photographs.
The moon landings required a significant amount of resources, technology, and expertise, which may not have been available to other countries at the time. Additionally, the political and economic landscape has changed since the moon landings, making it less of a priority for countries to invest in space exploration.
The American flag appears to be waving in the photos due to the lack of air on the moon. Without air, there is no wind to cause the flag to move. The flag was designed to have a rod along the top to keep it extended, but due to the astronauts struggling to plant it in the ground, the flag appears to be in motion.
The Apollo missions were primarily driven by the political and ideological competition between the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Once the United States achieved its goal of landing on the moon, there was less motivation to continue sending astronauts to the moon. Instead, the focus shifted towards other space exploration endeavors, such as building the International Space Station and sending missions to Mars.