We Probably Never Made it to the Moon

a reply to: LastFirst

That video was made by Bart Sibrel, who is a liar and a fraud. The video shows the entire Earth with details that can be verified by satellite photographs. Those satellite images were not available at the time of the live TV broadcast, and it is impossible to get a view of the entire Earth in low Earth orbit.

a reply to: chris_stibrany

The lunar surface is too bright to show stars at the same time as photographing it correctly.

There are many stars in Apollo images taken in lunar orbit and en route when they used exposure times and film specifically for that purpose. Many of those images show planets exactly where they should be at the time they were taken.

a reply to: cooperton

The physics works fine. You can leave perfect footprints in fresh volcanic ash because it's very similar. Sand doesn't have jagged edges to allow friction to lock the particles together, so comparing with a desert is not comparing like for like.

a reply to: Grenade

Then you'll have no problem overlaying them for us and showing they match exactly, right?

a reply to: Grenade

Absolutely false.

There are many photos of Earth from the lunar surface, and live TV. All of them verifiable with satellite data.

I'm late to this party, so apologies if these have been posted:

They are photos of the Apollo 11 and 12 landing sites imaged by India's OHRC camera on their second lunar mission. Their lower resolution cameras on this and their first probe also show evidendce of human acivity at the Apollo 14, 15, 16 and 17 sites, as do Chinese and Japanese images. All of the raw images for those are freely available for you to download and check yourself. They show that the rocks and craters visible in Apollo imagery (be it 16mm footage, live TV or still photographs) are an exact match despite them not being visible in the original lunar orbiter probe photographs that they used to scout for landing sites.

More info:

onebigmonkey.com...

onebigmonkey.com...


Other stuff:

Yes, the Apollo computer was small, but all it was was the data entry point for numbers crunched by much bigger computers on the ground. It was not solely responsible for getting the craft to the moon and back - it's like going to a restaurant and assuming your plate cooked the dinner.

Yes, Apollo astronauts saw and commented on stars, all the time. They photographed them when conditions were right, they are not right on the lunar surface.

onebigmonkey.com...

Not having a working manned lunar programme is not the same as never having a working manned lunar programme. You can blame changing political priorities and slashed NASA budgets for it, not the lack of ability.

No, they didn't destroy all the data. The over-wrote Apollo 11's back up tapes because they had all the data they needed and tapes are expensive. All of the data are in reports, including telemetry data.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: cooperton
There is so much wrong in the OP that I just don't know where to begin .
Where would you like me to start ?

How the astronauts survived the lunar surface with 111,000mph solar winds

You do know it's not actually like a wind on EArth right?

On Earth there are around 90 million atoms of air in a cubic centimetre.

The solar wind has....

4.

a reply to: devilsadvocatetoday

The water was stored in a tank in the lunar lander, it as used for the astronaut backpacks as well for cooling the electronics in the lander

Lunar surface EVA times for the first four missions (Apollo 11 through 14) were limited to 4 hours, with oxygen stored at 1,020 pounds per square inch (7.0 MPa), 3.0 pounds (1.4 kg) of lithium hydroxide, 8.5 pounds (3.9 liters) of cooling water, and a 279 watt-hour battery. For the extended missions of Apollo 15 through 17, the EVA stay time was doubled to 8 hours by increasing oxygen to 1,430 pounds per square inch (9.9 MPa), lithium hydroxide to 3.12 pounds (1.42 kg), cooling water to 11.5 pounds (5.2 liters), and battery capacity to 390 watt-hours. [1]

Water was produced by the hydrogen/oxygen fuel cells in the Apollo service module as a byproduct pf electrical generation

After finish their lunar EVA the astronauts would return to the lunar, seal the hatch and repressurize the cabin

They would then service their backpack, replacing the battery, recharging the oxygen tank, replacing the lithium hydroxide CO2 scrubber and refilling the water for suit cooling

a reply to: firerescue

Additional info:

history.nasa.gov...#:~:text=The%20Lunar%20Module%20water%20supply,was%20accomplished%20through%20space%20radiators.)

Potable water, loaded prior to launch, was stored in three tanks, a 151-kg (332 lb) tank in the descent stage and two 19 kg (42 lb) tanks in the ascent stage (figure 3). The descent stage tank supplied all water during lunar orbit descent and lunar surface exploration. The ascent stage tanks supplied water during the ascent, rendezvous, and linkup phases. For the Apollo 15, 16, and 17 missions, which involved extended lunar stays, an additional 151-kg tank was installed in the descent stage.

To give an idea, a standard bathtub holds around 180 kg (litres) of water when full to the brim. The PLSS contained about 3 kg of water, not all of which would be used in an EVA.

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

Thank you for fighting the good fight against never ending stupid……. Or trolls just looking for attention.

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

Feel free to provide the photos and the satellite data.

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

Already done. If you read the thread before reacting I’ve already updated and shown the photo locations with an overhead map. Good idea to read the entire thread to see how a debate unfolds before you jump in head first.

a reply to: neutronflux

Or people with questions looking for a constructive discussion, even if that does get snowflakes panties twisted, can’t bear having their beliefs challenged or questioned?

This whole liars, hoaxers, trolls and idiots crap is wearing thin. Have I exhibited any of these characteristics? Is asking fair questions and researching to validate before accepting the narrative too much for you?

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

Again, this ash comes into contact with and absorbs what before falling to the ground?

a reply to: Grenade

Again, the primary physical characteristic of lunar soil, as with volcanic ash, is its physical structure, not moisture. That's what allows it to form a footprint, or wheel track under direct compression.

The behaviour of lunar soils on live TV and 16mm footages, as well as photographs of it caught in motion, are clear indicators of (and entirely consistent with) its structure, lack of water content, and an airless low gravity environment. The first sample of lunar soil was returned by unmanned Soviet probes. They have not contradicted the analyses of Apollo samples, neither have the Chinese studies. Soviet and Chinese images both show exactly the same kind of clear imprint in lunar soils from as those shown in Apollo images and film.

www.researchgate.net...

selena.sai.msu.ru...

www.planetary.org...

www.researchgate.net...

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

Any thoughts on the changes in diffuse reflection when disturbing the soil?

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: Grenade

Again, the primary physical characteristic of lunar soil, as with volcanic ash, is its physical structure, not moisture. That's what allows it to form a footprint, or wheel track under direct compression.

The behaviour of lunar soils on live TV and 16mm footages, as well as photographs of it caught in motion, are clear indicators of (and entirely consistent with) its structure, lack of water content, and an airless low gravity environment. The first sample of lunar soil was returned by unmanned Soviet probes. They have not contradicted the analyses of Apollo samples, neither have the Chinese studies. Soviet and Chinese images both show exactly the same kind of clear imprint in lunar soils from as those shown in Apollo images and film.

www.researchgate.net...

selena.sai.msu.ru...

www.planetary.org...

www.researchgate.net...

But then you have the Dutch who analyzed their "moon rock" from the US and it turned out to be petrified wood. One of the few substances that definitely aren't on the moon.

www.npr.org...

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

Again, this ash comes into contact with and absorbs what before falling to the ground?

That'd be an interesting experiment, totally dehydrated ash in a desert/low-humidity environment... does it stick the same way lunar soil does? I was looking at volcanic ash under a microscope and it appears to have the same qualities as the supposed lunar soil.. This would probably be the best way to replicate the conditions that were exhibited on the lunar surface. It would have to be dehydrated first, because there is a lot of water vapor in volcanic smoke, which wouldn't emulate the lunar surface's nearly 0% humidity.

originally posted by: cooperton

But then you have the Dutch who analyzed their "moon rock" from the US and it turned out to be petrified wood. One of the few substances that definitely aren't on the moon.

www.npr.org...

It was never analyzed, a piece of petrified wood had been found in the same drawer with a card. There was never any indication the piece of wood belonged to the card:
www.moonhoaxdebunked.com...

I was looking at volcanic ash under a microscope and it appears to have the same qualities as the supposed lunar soil.

That search continues up till today:

The ground natural volcanic scoria named GVS from Huinan country, Jilin Province of China, has been analyzed from the aspects of chemical, mineral, optical and microcosmic properties. The results show that the GVS is qualified to be used as lunar regolith simulant because of its high similarity with Apollo lunar regolith samples and previous commercial lunar regolith simulants.

www.sciencedirect.com...

originally posted by: cooperton
But then you have the Dutch who analyzed their "moon rock" from the US and it turned out to be petrified wood. One of the few substances that definitely aren't on the moon.

It was the U.S. ambassador that gave the rock to a former prime minister of the Netherlands. The museum got the rock from the estate of the former prime minister, so there's too many people involved to know for sure what happened.

a reply to: Grenade

You

Or people with questions looking for a constructive discussion

And again…


What does does false arguments concerning dust have to do with Russia and other countries evidence that humankind has landed on the moon. Such as radar, radio, and mapping / photographing of the moon? Countries that would very much like to embarrass the USA?

Third-party evidence for Apollo Moon landings

en.m.wikipedia.org...


Apollo 11
Main article: Apollo 11


The Bochum Observatory director (Professor Heinz Kaminski) was able to provide confirmation of events and data independent of both the Russian and U.S. space agencies.[17]
A compilation of sightings appeared in "Observations of Apollo 11" by Sky and Telescope magazine, November 1969.[18]
At Jodrell Bank Observatory in the UK, the telescope was used to observe the mission, as it was used years previously for Sputnik.[19] At the same time, Jodrell Bank scientists were tracking the uncrewed Soviet spacecraft Luna 15, which was trying to land on the Moon.[20] In July 2009, Jodrell released some recordings they made.[21]
Larry Baysinger, a technician for WHAS radio in Louisville, Kentucky, independently detected and recorded transmissions between the Apollo 11 astronauts on the lunar surface and the Lunar Module.[22] Recordings made by Baysinger share certain characteristics with recordings made at Bochum Observatory by Kaminski, in that both Kaminski's and Baysinger's recordings do not include the Capsule Communicator (CAPCOM) in Houston, Texas, and the associated Quindar tones heard in NASA audio and seen on NASA Apollo 11 transcripts. Kaminski and Baysinger could only hear the transmissions from the Moon, and not transmissions to the Moon from the Earth.[17][23]
The Arcetri Observatory near Florence, Italy, also detected transmissions coming from the mission[24][25] using a 10 meters dish.[26]

even if that does get snowflakes panties twisted

Your the one trolling, not me.

can’t bear having their beliefs challenged or questioned?

It’s not a belief. It’s a acknowledgment of overwhelming evidence that has nothing to do with your misconceptions concerning dust, and your biased views that lead you into unquestioning worship of other internet trolls that lie to market a manufactured product for those that can’t rap their minds around human kind land in the moon.

This whole liars, hoaxers, trolls and idiots crap is wearing thin.

More like you cling to false arguments concerning dust that have nothing to do with the radar, radio telemetry, photo, third party moon making evidence that the USA landed men on the moon.

Sorry if truth bites into your internet likes and profit for pushing the lie men never landed on the moon.

Have I exhibited any of these characteristics?

Yes. By you not understanding the nature of evidence, relentlessly pushing known and proven lies, and dismissing posters that have debunked your intellectual dishonesty.

Is asking fair questions and researching to validate before accepting the narrative too much for you?

The only thing you exhibit is confirmation bias.