1969 Moon Landing

[fleckneymike]

i was just making the point that "weighing up the evidence" is not a foolproof system for absolute belief

OK I surrender for today , you believers are probably right

But again you are confusing debates, if we apply that line of logic we'd doubt everything. Science as we know it would be redundant because although we could observe phenomena and collect evidence we could only say it's probably right.

To the question did a manned mission land on the moon in 1969 we aren't probably right, we are right.

[Zingari]

Again you are avoiding my question, how did footage, of men on the moon, get back from the moon, to earth (indeed how were we able to track and talk to the command module and the crewmen on its entire journey to and from the moon). Are we to believe that NASA went to the effort of building a programme capable of sending a ship to the moon, landing on the moon, broadcasting from the moon, collecting samples from the moon, taking off from the moon, returning to earth, but they neglected to put any men on board?

I forget the name of the satellite that was launched by NASA just prior to the moon missions , but all the information to all around the world came through that single source

Theres even pictures that show dust and rocks were disturbed and its also been proven the physics of how little power was being used and it explains why there wasnt a huge crater that some theorists believe would happen...again they choose to ignore it...why? Because they will never change their minds so its pretty pointless argueing with them...but its hard not to....but I'm leaving it for now anyway.

i can't see any disturbed dust , surely the feet would be covered and sunken and there would be a big crevice under the main rocket

[purpleronnie]

I forget the name of the satellite that was launched by NASA just prior to the moon missions , but all the information to all around the world came through that single source

i can't see any disturbed dust , surely the feet would be covered and sunken and there would be a big crevice under the main rocket

There are pictures showing disturbed dust and rocks, maybe if you google them, but I guess they could be fake...just like yours must be...right? .

Like I said the physics of how much power weas used at the moment of landing and its tiny....people seem to think that massive rockets were blasting there way to the surface at impact its not true.

[Captain...]

I forget the name of the satellite that was launched by NASA just prior to the moon missions , but all the information to all around the world came through that single source

i can't see any disturbed dust , surely the feet would be covered and sunken and there would be a big crevice under the main rocket

But why would it? With very little gravity I'm sure it would be quite simple to land in a very slow and controlled way, it is not like landing on earth where you need to counteract the much stronger force of gravity with a continuous reverse thrust.

[fleckneymike]

I forget the name of the satellite that was launched by NASA just prior to the moon missions , but all the information to all around the world came through that single source

Including the tracking of a moving object as it travels away from earth towards the moon? Give me strength.

The name of the satellite I believe you are referring to is the TETR-A, that re-entered the earths atmosphere on April 26th, 1968.

[purpleronnie]

But why would it? With very little gravity I'm sure it would be quite simple to land in a very slow and controlled way, it is not like landing on earth where you need to counteract the much stronger force of gravity with a continuous reverse thrust.

Look physics have proven why there was little disturbance so thats all you need (well most of us) maybe zing doesnt believe in Newtonian physics so......

[BoneDog]

It did disturb the dust even rocks, it went down to 25% of its power and in a forward motion all would give very little disturbance on the ground.

There are contradicting stories from NASA astronauts about this. Some say that they turned off the 10,000lb thrust engines about 3 metres from the moons surface, while others say they turned them off after landing.

The video/audio feed from one mission has Aldrin saying that the contact sensors have gone off and then five seconds later, after landing, they decide to turn off the engines.

The 10,000lb engines would have made a crater bigger than the craft itself. In tests in the desert, the engines moved massive rocks across the desert surface.

The dust and crater isssues are all put to bed in 'Wagging the Moondoggie'.

[BoneDog]

Look physics have proven why there was little disturbance so thats all you need (well most of us) maybe zing doesnt believe in Newtonian physics so......

Physics has proved nothing of the sort.

Physics, other sciences and modern technological breakthroughs have done the opposite and proved we haven't and cannot go to the moon in manned craft.

[BoneDog]

But why would it? With very little gravity I'm sure it would be quite simple to land in a very slow and controlled way, it is not like landing on earth where you need to counteract the much stronger force of gravity with a continuous reverse thrust.

The astronauts were kicking up dust and making footprints in their 'Moonboots'. On the videos the dust is seen to be very soft and easily displaced, and yet the 10,000lb reverse thrust engine had no effect on it whatsoever.

Oh yeah I forgot, they turned it off three feet above the surface!

[Finnegan]

Haven't and cannot? Surely the ISS is a bigger technological achievement than the moon landing and I'm guessing you don't doubt the existence of that?

I think anyone who honestly believes the moon landing was fake is a pratt but I do at least accept why they think it.

But to claim we've never been at all and still COULDN'T is just absurd.

[BoneDog]

i was just making the point that "weighing up the evidence" is not a foolproof system for absolute belief

OK I surrender for today , you believers are probably right

They're wrong!

The moon hoax is just about at the end of it's shelf life. Word.

[boring_jester]

Fake IMO, so many unanswered questions like:

1 in the shots taken when the American flag was erected it was flapping in the wind. How when the moon has no atmosphere?

2 How did they film the landing? Satelite cameras were not that advanced then.

3 why have we not been back there since?

Point 3 is the biggest reason it could of bin faked

[MooseBreath]

Point 3 is the biggest reason it could of bin faked

Deffo. Can't believe we only went once.

[leicsmac]

They're wrong!

The moon hoax is just about at the end of it's shelf life. Word.

In the same way that belief in a divine power is too?

Trust me - neither is going anywhere - fake or real.

[The Doctor]

Point 3 is the biggest reason it could of bin faked

have been

If it were actually correct, then perhaps but, Apollo 12 landed there in November 1969, & Apollo 14 landed there again in 1971.

Edit: Oh, and Apollo 15 (1971), Apollo 16 (1972), Apollo 17 (1972). Is 6 visits not enough?

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

90% sure it did happen, but not as certain as I once was.

[BoneDog]

Haven't and cannot? Surely the ISS is a bigger technological achievement than the moon landing and I'm guessing you don't doubt the existence of that?

I think anyone who honestly believes the moon landing was fake is a pratt but I do at least accept why they think it.

But to claim we've never been at all and still COULDN'T is just absurd.

It is not absurd, it is reality. You'd better get used to it because you're never going to see anybody get more than a few hundred miles away from the earths surface. They may do a few tests for a few hours dabbling with a bit more distance but we're going nowhere.

Here's a few simple pictures with instructions for all the dimwits who think that mankind is living in space because of the ISS! Too much Star Trek I say.

Read slowly and in a moran voice :

Picture 1

I have marked, with two dots in England, the distance between the surface of the earth and the ISS. Then I have drawn a ring around the earth to show how far in 'space' the station is. I have been very generous with the ring estimate and the real distance is around half what I've shown.

Picture 2

Another over-exaggerated example of the distance mankind has travelled.

Picture 3

The 'boot' of Italy.

Cut along the dotted line. Now stand up Italy so that the boot heel and sole (arrow 1) are touching the surface of the sea (that's the Med by the way).

When you've done that, arrow number 2 is the distance of the ISS above the surface of the earth.

As you will see, it is not really in space. It's a 90 minute train journey up in the air. "Space Station" is a misleading name.

Oh and no Finners, the ISS would not be a bigger technological achievement than sending man to the moon. NASA, their contractors, and other space agencies have admitted that they do not have the capabilities to send mankind to the moon. And yet they already have the ISS, so I'd say the moon thingy is a bigger technological challenge for sure.

[The Doctor]

The capabilities, or the money?

There's not that much worth that can be gleamed from another trip to the moon, and it's too close to make colonisation a worthwhile venture, so why, when they've been 6 fucking times, would they feel the need to go again - bar to attempt capture of the soup dragon?

[BoneDog]

The capabilities, or the money?

There's not that much worth that can be gleamed from another trip to the moon, and it's too close to make colonisation a worthwhile venture, so why, when they've been 6 ****ing times, would they feel the need to go again - bar to attempt capture of the soup dragon?

That's totally wrong. The people at NASA, and others, have stated numerous very important reasons for 'going back'. If they could do it they'd be there right now. They can't get there, and it's not because of a lack of funds.

Edit : Got to nip to Tescos but will no doubt have some more to say in a while. I've got three or four pages back to read yet.

[breadandcheese]

El Empty, what's the reason for Russia keeping silent on the conspiracy, when revealing it could have changed the shape of the Cold War?

[The Doctor]

That's totally wrong. The people at NASA, and others, have stated numerous very important reasons for 'going back'. If they could do it they'd be there right now. They can't get there, and it's not because of a lack of funds.

Edit : Got to nip to Tescos but will no doubt have some more to say in a while. I've got three or four pages back to read yet.

Ok then, so why can't they do it?

I'm guessing for the same reason we can't produce the paints used back in the 1600's. Health and Safety - back in the late 60's, early 70's we had nowhere near as much knowledge of the dangers of space (for instance the radiation) - hence we need new shit now, rather than the old shit we used.

[marko]

That's totally wrong. The people at NASA, and others, have stated numerous very important reasons for 'going back'. If they could do it they'd be there right now. They can't get there, and it's not because of a lack of funds.

Edit : Got to nip to Tescos but will no doubt have some more to say in a while. I've got three or four pages back to read yet.

Please enlighten us then as to what these reasons are.

Well, providing the Illuminati or NWO don't kidnap you on your way home!

[fleckneymike]

Please everyone keep up. Two things you should know before jumping in.

1. The Soviets are in on the conspiracy. No one is entirely sure why they were, but they were so that answers that question.

2. The Van Allen belt will kill you. Under NO CIRCUMSTANCES must you listen to any science which explains that passing through the belts isn't actually lethal and you must certainly ignore anything Mr Van Allen (he of the belts) says about it, especially when he tells you the conspiracies are wrong.

[marko]

Please everyone keep up. Two things you should know before jumping in.

1. The Soviets are in on the conspiracy. No one is entirely sure why they were, but they were so that answers that question.

Er, Mike, what about our Aussie friends? Don't leave them out of the conspiracy loop!

[fleckneymike]

Er, Mike, what about our Aussie friends? Don't leave them out of the conspiracy loop!

Sorry, sorry, my bad, completely forgot about the Australians. They were in on it also everyone, as were a few bearded blokes up in Manchester who tracked the whole thing from Joderell bank.