Buzz Aldrin confronted about Moon Hoax

Census don't change the subject...
This thread isn't about the reality of the moon landing, it's about a jerk harassing our international heros and getting his a_ _ whipped.

Why aren't you discussing that?

Census - Nice post, however the point of the thread was to laugh a little about the video regardless of what you believe happened or didn't happen. There are many other threads for the discussion of if we went or not.

While there are several other comments about what members believe and do not believe, nobody was trying to prove their thoughts until you started in with your proof of a hoax posts. I know this is a conspiracy site, but sometime you just have to laugh a little and not take everything so seriously - maybe I should have posted this on BTS.

Mods - if the "we went/we didn't go" chatter continues, please close this thread - it wasn't the point of my post.

Thank you.

Originally posted by Census
1) Sceptics argue that the lack of stars on Moon photographs is acceptable, despite zero atmosphere to obscure the view.

Read up about how cameras work, exposure times, etc.. If you're taking a picture with something bright in it then it won't pick up faint light sources like stars.

2) The pure oxygen atmosphere in the module would have melted the Hasselblad's camera covering and produced poisonous gases. Why weren't the astronauts affected?

Good job then that after the Apollo 1 disaster they substitued the pure oxygen atmosphere for a Nitrogen/Oxygen one. Though I'm not even sure if your statement is accurate, but it really doesn't matter anyway.

3) There should have been a substantial crater blasted out under the LEM's 10,000 pound thrust rocket. Sceptics would have you believe that the engines only had the power to blow the dust from underneath the LEM as it landed. If this is true, how did Armstrong create that famous boot print if all the dust had been blown away?

Uh? The LEM rocket was nowhere near full power when it was landing, as it got nearer it would have been practically nothing and it did blow some of the dust away.

4) Sceptics claim that you cannot produce a flame in a vacuum because of the lack of oxygen. So how come I have footage on this page showing a flame coming from the exhaust of an Apollo lander? (Obviously the sceptics are wrong or the footage shows the lander working in an atmosphere)

Oxygen and Hydrogen were the fuels used for the engines. If you took, say a lighter on the moon you would have no flame because there is no oxygen in the mixture, the motor provided it's own otherwise it would be pretty useless.

5) Footprints are the result of weight displacing air or moisture from between particles of dirt, dust, or sand. The astronauts left distinct footprints all over the place.

Due to the lack of atmosphere and the dryness of the surface the duse carried a high static charge which caused it to cling together in said fashion.

6) The Apollo 11 TV pictures were lousy, yet the broadcast quality magically became fine on the five subsequent missions.

And it's even better now! It's called progress. Just over a 100 years ago we couldn't even fly using anything resembling modern methods, going by that logic I didn't fly on holiday because only a lifetime ago we couldn't take wing.

7) Why in most Apollo photos, is there a clear line of definition between the rough foreground and the smooth background?

Because there is no atmosphere, so no light refraction in the a non-existant atmosphere means there is literally blackness.

8) Why did so many NASA Moonscape photos have non parallel shadows? sceptics will tell you because there is two sources of light on the Moon - the Sun and the Earth... That maybe the case, but the shadows would still fall in the same direction, not two or three different angles and Earth shine would have no effect during the bright lunar day (the time at which the Apollo was on the Moon).

Due to the terrain, you can observe the same effect on Earth in everyday observations.

9) Why did one of the stage prop rocks have a capital "C" on it and a 'C' on the ground in front of it?

They didn't, the 'C' was deduced to being a hair caught in in the developing apparatus when making a copy, it was not in the original.

10) How did the fibreglass whip antenna on the Gemini 6A capsule survive the tremendous heat of atmospheric re-entry?

Because it was designed to? Gemini didn't go to the Moon anyway.?

11) In Ron Howard's 1995 science fiction movie, Apollo 13, the astronauts lose electrical power and begin worrying about freezing to death. In reality, of course, the relentless bombardment of the Sun's rays would rapidly have overheated the vehicle to lethal temperatures with no atmosphere into which to dump the heat build up.

No, the craft would still re-radiate heat like any blackbody object and with the only method of heat transference being through radiation it was designed to reflect.

12) Who would dare risk using the LEM on the Moon when a simulated Moon landing was never tested?

Uh? What do you mean? Because they did run simulations (as best as they could then) and they tested the LEM flight principle, they also ran trial missions to the Moon... They tested everything they could? What do you mean?

13) Instead of being able to jump at least ten feet high in "one sixth" gravity, the highest jump was about nineteen inches.

Do you want to try and jump 10 feet on the Moon? Launching oneself into orbit by accident or risking damaging the suit which keeps you alive playing kiddy games is probably why only sensible people got to go.

[quote
14) Even though slow motion photography was able to give a fairly convincing appearance of very low gravity, it could not disguise the fact that the astronauts travelled no further between steps than they would have on Earth. [/url]

You realise the suits were restrictive, right?

15) If the Rover buggy had actually been moving in one-sixth gravity, then it would have required a twenty foot width in order not to have flipped over on nearly every turn. The Rover had the same width as ordinary small cars.

Funnily enough they employed some of the best engineers and scientists in the world to make sure that everything was designed so things like that would not happen

[edit on 17-5-2006 by AgentSmith]

Who care's if he was harrassed. He got a haymaker in on the geek, now let's move on.

Seems that it's more important to point out the reporter's stalking tactics and about poor Buzz Aldrin being harrassed for years than it is to point out how devastating that video is. The astronauts' stories seem to contradict one another, they have next to zero knowledge of the Van Allen belt and it's true effects and dangers, and their body language is worse than O.J. Simpson's.

Let's talk about the video people and stop talking about the inconsequentials.

Peace

Originally posted by stealthyone
Mods - if the "we went/we didn't go" chatter continues, please close this thread - it wasn't the point of my post.

How can it not be? The videos provided are about astronauts' reactions to a damning piece of video evidence. Regardless of if that's what you meant, it is what it is.

Peace

Why would they have to be experts on the Van Allen belt? They didn't have the blueprints for all the craft in their heads either...
That's why you work in a team. It was the scientists jobs to assess the problems and overcome them, the astronauts were military personnel trained to fly and operate the craft as well as have the knowledge useful to the mission. Things like performing repairs, navigation, geology, etc. Why would they need to know the ins and outs of the VA belt?
If the scientists responsible for that side of things had been umming and arring then there would be a problem....

There is already an existing thread in which all these points and far, far more have been gone over again and again, I suggest anyone interested reads it and contributes there

An End To The Moon Conspiracy!

[edit on 17-5-2006 by AgentSmith]