do you think we landed on the moon?

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

11-19-2010, 03:08 AM
michael craig

now im wondering if there even is a space station..
11-19-2010, 04:37 AM
Justin H

im sure we have landed on the moon, but definately not the first time. idk though. i havent watched any vids about it
11-19-2010, 05:43 AM
Jason Mallory

Quote:

Originally Posted by AJ Camacho

This might be helpful.. or not. From the...

http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apollo/S2ch3.htm
BIOMEDICAL RESULTS OF APOLLO
SECTION II
CHAPTER 3
RADIATION PROTECTION AND INSTRUMENTATION
by
J. Vernon Bailey
Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center

(relevant excerpts)
The solar and cosmic radiation found in space has long been recognized as a possible danger in space travel. Exposure to such radiation has the potential of causing serious medical problems. For example, radiation exposure can produce a number of significant changes in various elements of the blood, making an individual more susceptible to disease; also, ionizing radiations of the type found in space can produce significant damage to the lens of the eye. Radiation exposure can also cause temporary or lasting damage to the reproductive system ranging from reduced fertility to permanent sterility. The extent of damage depends upon the tissue involved, the duration of exposure, the dose received, and other factors.

...

Van Allen Belts

The problem of protecting astronauts against the radiation found within the Van Allen belts was recognized before the advent of manned space flight. These two bands of trapped radiation, discovered during the Explorer I flight in 1958, consist principally of protons and high-energy electrons, a significant part of which were, at that time, debris from high-altitude tests of nuclear weapons. The simple solution to protection is to remain under the belts [below an altitude of approximately 556 km (? 300 nautical miles)] when in Earth orbit, and to traverse the belts rapidly on the way to outer space. In reality, the problem is somewhat more complex. The radiation belts vary in altitude over various parts of the Earth and are absent over the north and south magnetic poles. A particularly significant portion of the Van Allen belts is a region known as the South Atlantic anomaly (figure 1). Over the South Atlantic region, the geomagnetic field draws particles closer to the Earth than in other regions of the globe. The orbit inclination of a spacecraft determines the number of passes made per day through this region and, thus, the radiation dose.

Particles within the Van Allen belts, in spiraling around the Earth’s magnetic lines of force, display directionality. This directionality varies continuously in angular relationship to the trajectory of the spacecraft. Therefore, dosimetry instrumentation for use in the Van Allen belts had relatively omnidirectional radiation sensors so that the radiation flux would be measured accurately. The Van Allen belt dosimeter (figure 2) was designed specifically for Apollo dosimetry within these radiation belts.

The rest of the document covers all other forms of possible radiation. Again, it comes down to whether or not you believe NASA. And keep in mind, this collective information about the function of radiation is known data that is used in order to plan satellite trajectories within safe margins of the belt.

Here is Alan Bean from Apollo 12 admitting that even though the Van Allen radiation belts were discovered before the Apollo flights NASA made no special preparations to protect the people from the radiation. In fact, this guy who 'went to the moon' didn't even know that he went through the belts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IM7EzTPxK2c&NR=1
11-19-2010, 05:44 AM
Jason Mallory

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim Elliott

The rocks dont lie. We went to the moon. They quite possibly jazzed the video up a bit, but that doesnt mean they didnt go.

http://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/lunar/index.cfm

Also, radiation is less of a big deal than the cold war left people think it was. A excessive dose will make you sick. The same goes for, iron or even water. The world is a radioactive.

http://rerowland.com/BodyActivity.htm

If you are admitting the film may have been tampered with, what is to stop them from misrepresenting the rocks that 'came from the moon?'
11-19-2010, 05:52 AM
Jason Mallory

The moon is 244,000 miles from earth. The Apollo rockets were not big enough to contain enough fuel to travel that far one way. They would have had to be at least as big as the Empire State Building.

This is a big enough problem until you stop to think about the lunar module. It is an impossiblility that the lunar module would have had enough fuel to travel 244,000 miles back to earth from the moon.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOdzhQS_MMw
11-19-2010, 06:05 AM
Tim Elliott

How exactly do you misrepresent a rock?

The answer is, you cant. To create fake rocks convincing enough to fool the hundreds and hundreds of scientists who have studied them would be a harder than going to the moon in the first place.

Look, you can request samples. Anyone can. Dont you think someone would have noticed if they were fake?

One of the marks moon rocks have is a distinctive signature left by their exposure to radiation in space. So which will it be, is your radiation real, or are the moon rocks real?
11-19-2010, 06:12 AM
Tim Elliott

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jason Mallory

This is a big enough problem until you stop to think about the lunar module. It is an impossiblility that the lunar module would have had enough fuel to travel 244,000 miles back to earth from the moon.

Of course the Lunar Module didnt have enough fuel to fly 244,000 miles back to Earth, thats why its still up there. Do you know what the Lunar Module was?

Also, you dont turn the key, put your foot on the gas and drive 244,000 miles. Thats not how it works.
11-19-2010, 06:13 AM
Jason Mallory

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim Elliott

How exactly do you misrepresent a rock?

The answer is, you cant. To create fake rocks convincing enough to fool the hundreds and hundreds of scientists who have studied them would be a harder than going to the moon in the first place.

Look, you can request samples. Anyone can. Dont you think someone would have noticed if they were fake?

One of the marks moon rocks have is a distinctive signature left by their exposure to radiation in space. So which will it be, is your radiation real, or are the moon rocks real?

The way you misrepresent a rock is to simply say that debris from a meteorite is from the moon. If you're going to lie about going to the moon, why wouldn't you lie about rocks ?
11-19-2010, 06:17 AM
Jason Mallory

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim Elliott

Of course the Lunar Module didnt have enough fuel to fly 244,000 miles back to Earth, thats why its still up there. Do you know what the Lunar Module was?

Also, you dont turn the key, put your foot on the gas and drive 244,000 miles. Thats not how it works.

The Command Service Module was approx. twice the size of the Lunar Module and still would not be big enough to contain the fuel needed to travel back to earth.
11-19-2010, 06:22 AM
Tim Elliott

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jason Mallory

The way you misrepresent a rock is to simply say that debris from a meteorite is from the moon. If you're going to lie about going to the moon, why wouldn't you lie about rocks ?

Rocks from the moon are nothing like meteorites. There are meteorites that are similar to the composition of the moon as a whole, but moon rock more closely approximates the earths mantle, for a good reason too.

There are complex breccias that are the product of meteorite impact. They also sampled soil and dust. I guess you didnt read that NASA link I posted but they have 840lbs of lunar samples from the multiple trips comprising a diverse array of lithologies.

You cant just tell people some meteorite debris are from the moon. No one would fall for that.
11-19-2010, 06:24 AM
Tim Elliott

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jason Mallory

The Command Service Module was approx. twice the size of the Lunar Module and still would not be big enough to contain the fuel needed to travel back to earth.

Why not? Where are your numbers coming from?

Does that mean we dont have any satellites out there either? And the Mars Rovers, all faked as well?
11-19-2010, 06:52 AM
Chad Bloom

I don't get the rock thing... What's the baseline, I mean how would anyone know one is from the moon if there is no previous moon rocks to compare it to?
11-19-2010, 08:12 AM
James III

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jason Mallory

The moon is 244,000 miles from earth. The Apollo rockets were not big enough to contain enough fuel to travel that far one way. They would have had to be at least as big as the Empire State Building.

This is a big enough problem until you stop to think about the lunar module. It is an impossiblility that the lunar module would have had enough fuel to travel 244,000 miles back to earth from the moon.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOdzhQS_MMw

Interesting, who was filiming the take off? It wasn't a stationary camara because it moved along with the module take off. Did they leave someone behind on the moon to take this amazing footage lol!
11-19-2010, 08:25 AM
Jason Mallory

Quote:

Originally Posted by James III

Interesting, who was filiming the take off? It wasn't a stationary camara because it moved along with the module take off. Did they leave someone behind on the moon to take this amazing footage lol!

Good point ! When I was watching it I thought the same thing.
11-19-2010, 09:21 AM
AJ Camacho

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jason Mallory

Here is Alan Bean from Apollo 12 admitting that even though the Van Allen radiation belts were discovered before the Apollo flights NASA made no special preparations to protect the people from the radiation. In fact, this guy who 'went to the moon' didn't even know that he went through the belts.

That probably is the case but did you read the document I posted from NASA? They admitted that their only precautions were to drive fast as hell through the radiation to reduce exposure time to nominal levels and then they had a dosimeter to monitor radiation levels as they passed through the belt. They punched the numbers and presumed that 2 hours of exposure wasn't lethal and after the fact discovered that the radiation exposure was within "allowable" tolerances (this during a time of DDT, lead paint, and asbestos). Yes, that means that the first guys through the belt were probably guinea pigs because even if the dosimeter went through the roof with radiation measurements it wasn't like they could just flip a bitch and get out of there (i presume).

If you wanted to argue against NASAs presumptions then you would have to look at the mapped Van Allen Belt and do the math yourself for radiation exposure over a 2 hour time frame. That stuff is way over my head though so I'm at a dead end on this issue. But then again, you would have to believe that NASA did indeed measure and map the Van Allen Belt.

And apparently the take off video was shot by a lunar rover that was left behind and controlled by remote from NASA.
11-19-2010, 09:29 AM
Eddie Bravo

Tim Elliott, check this....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZO6JPsszrY
11-19-2010, 09:38 AM
Eddie Bravo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmvNpNWmRLM
11-19-2010, 09:41 AM
Matt "Gumby" Glach

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eddie Bravo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmvNpNWmRLM

LOL you just stole a minute of my life but it was worth the laugh
11-19-2010, 09:46 AM
Eddie Bravo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SabtlXmCDdM

This is the footage dude is talking about, a must see...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Vrge-8F6rw
11-19-2010, 10:00 AM
Jason Mallory

Quote:

Originally Posted by AJ Camacho

That probably is the case but did you read the document I posted from NASA? They admitted that their only precautions were to drive fast as hell through the radiation to reduce exposure time to nominal levels and then they had a dosimeter to monitor radiation levels as they passed through the belt. They punched the numbers and presumed that 2 hours of exposure wasn't lethal and after the fact discovered that the radiation exposure was within "allowable" tolerances (this during a time of DDT, lead paint, and asbestos). Yes, that means that the first guys through the belt were probably guinea pigs because even if the dosimeter went through the roof with radiation measurements it wasn't like they could just flip a bitch and get out of there (i presume).

If you wanted to argue against NASAs presumptions then you would have to look at the mapped Van Allen Belt and do the math yourself for radiation exposure over a 2 hour time frame. That stuff is way over my head though so I'm at a dead end on this issue. But then again, you would have to believe that NASA did indeed measure and map the Van Allen Belt.

And apparently the take off video was shot by a lunar rover that was left behind and controlled by remote from NASA.

The Van Allen radiation belts begin around 700 miles from earth and extend out 24,000 miles. No way they traveled that distance. You can believe what NASA says if you want to but it simply could not possibly happen.
11-19-2010, 10:15 AM
Jason Mallory

'First step on the moon' - take one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDs23G2zQMo

'First step on the moon' - take two

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9XBAxdKVRE
11-19-2010, 10:22 AM
Eddie Bravo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfYBJFPuiwE
11-19-2010, 10:54 AM
AJ Camacho

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jason Mallory

The Van Allen radiation belts begin around 700 miles from earth and extend out 24,000 miles. No way they traveled that distance. You can believe what NASA says if you want to but it simply could not possibly happen.

Why couldn't they have traveled that distance?

From what I could gather the rocket traveled anywhere from 24,000mph to 2,200 mph (they were gliding to the moon, it wasn't a constant propulsion) at a decelerating rate until it approached the moon's orbit. If you avg out the speed.. (24000+2200 /2) to 13,100 mph that would make the flight 1.8 hours (24,000/13,100).

That falls in line with NASAs report. Do you have conflicting information about the speed of the rocket? We could plug those numbers in and see what we get.
11-19-2010, 10:56 AM
Jason Mallory

Quote:

Originally Posted by AJ Camacho

Why couldn't they have traveled that distance?

From what I could gather the rocket traveled anywhere from 24,000mph to 2,200 mph (they were gliding to the moon, it wasn't a constant propulsion) at a decelerating rate until it approached the moon's orbit. If you avg out the speed.. (24000+2200 /2) to 13,100 mph that would make the flight 1.8 hours (24,000/13,100).

That falls in line with NASAs report. Do you have conflicting information about the speed of the rocket? We could plug those numbers in and see what we get.

How convenient.
11-19-2010, 11:03 AM
James III

Quote:

Originally Posted by AJ Camacho

And apparently the take off video was shot by a lunar rover that was left behind and controlled by remote from NASA.

But did NASA really have the technology to remote control a Camara 238857 miles away and through the earths atmosphere in 1969?

Could they even remote control camaras on the other side of the Earth in 1969?

Eddie cheers for the mid-flight footage. Never seen that one before.
11-19-2010, 11:13 AM
AJ Camacho

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jason Mallory

How convenient.

Not really, I used your Van Allen belt measurements. The one's I found were different but the differences weren't enough to complain. Like I said, I didn't have any preconceived answers to the points you guys have made. All I did was research the claims by themselves and this is the information I'm finding. I'm literally learning about this stuff as I am looking it up.

Again, if you don't want to believe NASA about their speeds then why even bother to believe them about the Van Allen Belt? They are the authority for space travel because they did it.. if you remove them as a valid source of information then there is no real discussion about any of this stuff... unless you can find Russian or Chinese reports validating some aspects of information but disavowing others.

I really don't have any dogs in the race and sort of don't care either way. If it helps, just consider my posts as a devil's advocate or a "what NASA would say" post. I've tried to just post raw information without any judgement as I have no plans on making this a personal discussion.
11-19-2010, 11:16 AM
AJ Camacho

Quote:

Originally Posted by James III

But did NASA really have the technology to remote control a Camara 238857 miles away and through the earths atmosphere in 1969?

Could they even remote control camaras on the other side of the Earth in 1969?

I don't know about 1969 but apparently they did for later flights. I guess the further debate on the issue is on whether or not people are editing later lander footage out of context into these conspiracy vids or if NASA just pulled a major moronic boner?
11-19-2010, 11:38 AM
Jason Mallory

Quote:

Originally Posted by AJ Camacho

Why couldn't they have traveled that distance?

From what I could gather the rocket traveled anywhere from 24,000mph to 2,200 mph (they were gliding to the moon, it wasn't a constant propulsion) at a decelerating rate until it approached the moon's orbit. If you avg out the speed.. (24000+2200 /2) to 13,100 mph that would make the flight 1.8 hours (24,000/13,100).

That falls in line with NASAs report. Do you have conflicting information about the speed of the rocket? We could plug those numbers in and see what we get.

So a flight to the moon only takes 10 hours ?
11-19-2010, 11:46 AM
Jason Mallory

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jason Mallory

So a flight to the moon only takes 10 hours ?

Wrong.

Manned missions do it quicker: 3 days, 3 hours, 49 minutes
Next up, the Apollo missions in comparison were fairly quick to reach the Moon. The Apollo 11 astronauts were launched atop a huge Saturn V multi-stage rocket on July 16th 1969 from Kennedy Space Centre and sent quickly on their way. They reached lunar orbit after only three days in space on July 19th 1969.

From Universetoday.com
11-19-2010, 11:50 AM
AJ Camacho

I don't know.. by the time they were out of the earth's orbit they had decelerated to 2,200 mph and would then accelerate again as they approached the moon's gravitational field. Honestly, that math is a bit over my head to account for a solid time based on an object that was changing speeds to drastically.

The 13,100 mph avg is only an effective form of measurement for the distance covered while exiting the earth gravitational field.
11-19-2010, 11:59 AM
Doug "Minnesota"

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eddie Bravo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfYBJFPuiwE

Eddie, have you read the book Body of Secretsby James Bamford? In it he describes the CIA operation "Dirty Trick". In it, the CIA plotted to kill John Glenn during the manned mercury mission, then blame it on Cuba/Communists under a false flag play to get public support for an invasion.
11-19-2010, 04:30 PM
Tim Elliott

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eddie Bravo

Tim Elliott, check this....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZO6JPsszrY

One rock, given to a politician, when tested by experts was found out later to not be a moon rock at all. Im comfortable with that, just like Im comfortable there might have been some editing of the landing video to make it more impressive.

According to NASA, they send out 400 samples a year to scientists. And they must do, because look how much research has been done on them by various universities.
http://scholar.google.co.nz/scholar?...en&as_sdt=2000
11-19-2010, 04:50 PM
AJ Camacho

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jason Mallory

Wrong.

Manned missions do it quicker: 3 days, 3 hours, 49 minutes
Next up, the Apollo missions in comparison were fairly quick to reach the Moon. The Apollo 11 astronauts were launched atop a huge Saturn V multi-stage rocket on July 16th 1969 from Kennedy Space Centre and sent quickly on their way. They reached lunar orbit after only three days in space on July 19th 1969.

From Universetoday.com

?

I never said it was right.

Did you just strawman yourself? Read my last post. The 13,100 mph average shouldn't be used for the duration of the flight to the moon.. it would be far too fast.
11-19-2010, 06:31 PM
NelsonLucca

We've never been to the moon. This could be debated forever but when you weigh the 2 sides honestly. Faking it seems more likely.
11-20-2010, 10:14 AM
James III

Quote:

Originally Posted by NelsonLucca

We've never been to the moon. This could be debated forever but when you weigh the 2 sides honestly. Faking it seems more likely.

It's so strange to me that something that supposedly happened contains so many cracks in the story. I find that so baffling. Of course I can't say if we did or didn't but from looking at all the evidence from both sides I would probably bet that it was staged.

Regarding the rock that could only have come from the moon could that have come from unmaned Rover missions that picked up the samples instead?

Also wern't there supposed to be Telescopes in 2010 outside NASA that could see the moons surface? Couldn't someone use that to check if the footprints are still on the surface? That would be convincing evidence if man has actually set foot on there or not.

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page