Re: Moon landings a hoax?
OK Guys, first post here so please be gentle. It's a long one I know but it explains a lot as I've had this very same discussion on other forums. :thumbsup: I'll break it into two parts! :1orglaugh
I'm a big fan of the space program and have visited Cape Canaveral many many times.
Until you see the actual full program details you can't begin to understand just how much effort was put into this.
With all great events there will ALWAYS be those who disbelieve that it happened that way.
This is a very good website and I suggest you all read it.
http://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~jscotti/NOT_faked/
The argument that the technology used to control the crafts were only as powerful as a calculator doesn't really wash because you have to remember that this was over 30 years. The technology they were using was simply state of the art at the time.
In 30 years people will look back at our current systems and say how did you ever get any work done with only 1GB of RAM??????
This discussion will go on forever but quite simply I do believe they went to moon in 69.
Also you might find these Q & A's quite interesting.
Are Moon Hoax believers stupid?
I am sometimes accused of treating hoax believers as if they are stupid. The problem I face here is that if I am asked a really stupid question it is very difficult, if not impossible, to answer without making them appear to be stupid. Who's fault is that?
The following are extracts taken from emails from hoax believers to give an idea of the type of questions and statements I receive from the vast majority of them. My replies, are NOT always my original replies, I was a lot more polite!
Some of the questions are sensible, but most are not, and display a number of common attributes:
1) Many ask questions that are already answered on my site, showing that they did not even bother to read the page before asking the question.
2) Many of the questions have obvious answers, given just a little independent thought.
3) Many of the assertions made clearly show that no independent research whatsoever has been carried out, they are merely repeating information as if it were a proven fact, when in fact it's utter nonsense.
4) They tend on average to know very little about science - spaceflight, vacuum, gravity, geology, astro-photography, radiation, orbital mechanics, thermodynamics, etc. - yet feel amply qualified to challenge known facts on these subjects. This part at least make sense, for if they knew the facts they wouldn't believe it was a hoax!
The following is just a very small selection, but they are representative of the hundreds I have received. Make up your own mind if any of these appear to you to be daft questions or statements, not all are.
1) They could have made the moon rocks by getting boulders and spraying dirt over the rocks.
No, this isn't meant to be a joke, it was a serious statement, I checked!
2) Why are there are no stars visible in the sky?
Not again! Try actually reading my page before asking questions about it.
3) They made the Apollo 13 movie don't you think they could have made the other Apollo landings fake? I do!!
Well, that proves it was all a hoax then. Also proves the Titanic didn't sink either. (How do you answer such a stupid remark?)
4) On almost ALL of my research papers I got off the Internet they say they filmed Apollo 11 in the Nevada Desert!!
That about wraps it up then, it must have been a hoax. I dread to think the sites you selected.
5) Aldrin's shadow is far longer than Armstrong's. Yet the only light on the moon comes from the sun and could not create such unequal shadows.
Armstrong is semi-crouching holding the lower part of the flag pole and Aldrin is standing upright and on higher ground!
6) The flag is shown waving in the wind.
Not again! Did you actually READ my page?
7) The astronauts never left earth orbit.
And not one radar installation, or visual observatory, across the world, noticed this obvious fact? Not even the Russians? Perhaps every time they orbited the world, which would have been around 15 times a day, when they should have been on the moon, everyone was taking a coffee break.
8 ) The moon rocks are not really from the moon, they are ordinary rocks faked up in a lab.
Not again! Did you actually READ my page? It is impossible to fake Moon rocks!
9) The lunar lander was so unstable that if the crew moved even a tenth of an inch during the landing stage they would have lost control and crashed onto the moon.
The landing was computer controlled and small thrusters were automatically fired to keep the lunar module stable during the descent. The crew had to move about a lot more than a tenth of an inch!
10) The lander was shown to be unstable during tests and could not have landed on the Moon
It is true that the test model was unstable. Tests were made on Earth of course, so the landers used in practice were not the same as the landers that went to the Moon. Gravity is six times stronger on Earth so the engines were much bigger and heavier, making the entire test lander bigger, heavier, and harder to control. It also required an extra jet engine that supported only 5/6ths of its weight to simulate 1/6th moon gravity. They have been described as the most unstable flying machine to have ever been tested. Landing on the Moon proved to be relatively easy compared to the tests on Earth.
11) Many Apollo photos show a lunar sky without stars, yet with no atmosphere on the moon, stars should be visible - a fact confirmed by Maria Blyzinsky, Curator of Astronomy at the Greenwich Observatory, London. If NASA could not hope to recreate the lunar sky, they may have opted for simple black backdrops. NASA claim that the sunlight was so strong it overpowered the light from the stars.
Not again! Did you actually READ my page?
I would be VERY surprised if the Curator of Astronomy at the Greenwich Observatory would make such a silly remark, but will have to take your word for it(???) However it is obviously wrong. Stand outside at night anywhere where the area is brightly lit and try and see stars in the sky. You cant! The light causes the pupils to contract thereby making the feint stars impossible to see. You have to BE in a dark area, not just have a dark sky! It doesn't matter that the lunar sky is very dark, the surface is very bright. Cameras with automatic settings, such as used by the astronauts, are affected in the same way. Try and take your own photo of the stars from a brightly lit area instead of just claiming its wrong.
12) How could they manage to get twelve astronauts into such a small spaceship?
PASS!
13) How could they make footprints? The surface is too dry.
Because there is no atmosphere, and therefore no weather, the particles do not get eroded and smoothed, but stays gritty and angular. This causes them to 'lock' together under pressure. There is also a far more technical explanation, but I will leave that for you to look up if you are that interested, it's too complex to summarise here.
14) Buzz Aldrin stands with the sun shining down across his left shoulder. Although his right side is in shadow, there is too much detail shown on that side of his space suit. It should be much darker and less visible because the contrast between light and dark is much greater on the moon.
Did you actually READ my page? Light reflects off the lunar surface, the lander, the astronauts, and everything else on the brightly lit surface. Some of this reflected light hits the shadowed areas.
15) Who took the video of Armstrong climbing down the ladder if he was supposed to be the first one on the Moon?
A video camera was deployed by Armstrong by pulling a lanyard from the top of the ladder causing an arm to swing out from the lander holding the video camera.
16) The film "Capricorn l" shows scenes just like the Apollo moon scenes, proving they never landed on the Moon. .
The makers of 'Capricorn l' would obviously want the film to look realistic and would have studied real footage! I despair at your mentality. I suppose World War Two didn't happen either because they were able to make the film 'Saving private Ryan" look the same as the real thing.
17) Object reflected in Aldrin's visor. Some theorists think that it is a helicopter, others say that it is a 12-metre glass structure. NASA claims that it is a piece of equipment on the lunar surface.
It's just some lunar equipment. Don't you think though that as there is a hell of a difference between a helicopter and a 12 metre glass structure that the 'theorists' (?) don't have much of a case? (I dread to think of the type of people that call themselves 'theorists' and believe it was a hoax. I wonder what their qualifications are? Stupidity?)
18 ) In this shot taken from the Lunar Module while it was 95 km above the moon's surface - is a shadow cast by the Command Module's rocket. But when larger aircraft fly at lower altitudes over the Earth, they do not cast such huge and defined shadows.
Neither does the lunar module. It is not a shadow on the lunar surface, its part of the lunar module seen through the window! It looks so obvious why did it not occur to you?
19) NASA is keeping it secret that there is a mile high artificial tower on the moon.
Amazing! Please explain why no telescope has detected it. Even my own telescope would resolve an object that large.
20) NASA is keeping it secret that there is a ancient ruined city on the moon.
Amazing! Not very good at keeping secrets are they?
