fake moon landing nice video

At 4:29 American Flag Waving

Its the transfer of motion of the pole to the flag when they put the flag pole on the dirt. There is only 1/6 gravity on the moon to stop the motion of the flag so it will continue for a little while. The flag should droop down quickly due to gravity. However, the flag didn't and it look stiff as cardboard. It will only droop down after a little while or so. The moon still has 1/6 gravity compared to Earth.

Edit : 1/6


[edit on 6-12-2007 by amitheone]

At 15:35 No Blast Crater

You can't have blast crater when there is no oxygen. Without oxygen, there will be no traces of black oxides to be observed but only melted glass from heating the fine powder sand on the moon.

In space, you can only have an impression of a crater during a forceful impact by space debris, but not during a very carefully controlled landing and take off. All it does is sift the sand like a high pressure compressed air. The aircraft only weighs about 1/6th its original weight on Earth so you don't need that much energy to blast it off. A blast crater is totally impossible in this situation.

We are dealing with almost weightless (1/6th of Earth's gravity) and airless environment. We should not explain things according to what we experience on Earth. They are totally different environment.

Why all these conspiracies? Are they trying to skew the truth? Trying to hide something whats really on the moon?

Edit: Added info - 1/6th and airless

[edit on 6-12-2007 by amitheone]

Originally posted by amitheone
At 4:18 No Stars :

"The stars were missing from the black lunar skies"

Obviously you can't see any stars at this perspective due to the contrast. Everything is so bright. This is the day side of the moon where the sun is shining brightly. You'll only see stars when you are on the night side. Try shining a flashlight towards your eyes in a dark room. Can you see anything? Barely!!

That's an outright LIE! Everyone knows you can see stars in broad daylight - Why if I just step outside now and take a look at the mid-afternoon sky I'll... Oh wait, heyyy You're right !!

Wow !!



Seriously, I was so hoping someone would actually use their brain and post what you just did. Some people are so intent on wanting this to be a hoax that inexplicably their brain turns off and any logic seeps out of their head...

First man to walk on the moon. . . makes you wonder who was holding the camera. Sadly, I'm a believer that we didn't go. Besides, there's always the chance we did go and the tape ended up destroying itself so they had to simulate the landing later, but really, details. . .

reply to post by D_Marx


The camera was set on the inside of an equipment storage hatch (Called MESA) that was opened from inside the cabin before the astronauts exited the LEM. The camera was preset to point in the direction of the ladder to take the shots of the first step on the moon.

109:20:58 Armstrong: Okay. Can you pull the door open a little more?
109:21:00 Aldrin: All right.
109:21:03 Armstrong: Okay. (Pause)
109:21:07 Aldrin: Did you get the MESA out?
109:21:09 Armstrong: I'm going to pull it now. (Pause)

[Neil is pulling the D-ring which releases the MESA, attached to the side of the LM under Buzz's station, and lets it swing down into an accessible position. Once down on the surface, he can adjust the MESA height if necessary. Training photo S69-31080 (scan by Paolo Dangelo) shows Neil working at the MESA. A drawing of the MESA shows the location of the TV camera which will show Neil's climb down the ladder.]

109:21:18 Armstrong: Houston, the MESA came down all right.
109:21:22 McCandless: This is Houston. Roger. We copy. Standing by for your TV.
109:21:39 Armstrong: Houston, this is Neil. Radio check.
109:21:42 McCandless: Neil, this is Houston. Loud and clear. Break. Break. Buzz, this is Houston. Radio check, and verify TV circuit breaker in.
109:21:54 Aldrin: Roger, TV circuit breaker's in. And read you loud and clear.

Originally posted by badw0lf

That's an outright LIE! Everyone knows you can see stars in broad daylight - Why if I just step outside now and take a look at the mid-afternoon sky I'll... Oh wait, heyyy You're right !!

I feel like crying. I really hope those who think this is a hoax to go back reading their science books in school.

i didn't see the documentary, but the whole history of the moon landing to me seems like reality satire

interesting read is gerhard wisnewskis "lügen um weltraum", i don't know if there's an english version out there..

Originally posted by Elhardt
Also pointed out on that documentary was that a mirror was placed on the Moon and we use that to bounce lasers off of to measure the distance of the moon. So yes, it's a fact, we've been to the moon, and more than once. You only make yourself look uneducated, paranoid and totally irrational when you keep denying we've landed on the moon.

Research it! There were several of these mirrors placed, but we can't even find them cause there is no data WHERE exactly they are. There are multiple different coordinates for even the apollo landing sites.. how exactly did they manage to land on the moon, when they don't even know WHERE they landed?

Originally posted by amitheone
"The noise level of a rocket engine is up in the 140-150 decibel range. In other words, enormously loud. How would it be possible to hear astronauts voices against the background of a running rocket engine?"

Sound can travel through any medium, but it cannot travel through a vacuum. There is no sound in outer space. You can't hear any rocket sounds in the moon because of absence of air or a medium. If it were so, then we would be deaf already due to the enormous explosion of the sun.

So wouldn't sound have travelled through the walls of the capsule?

reply to post by bobbyt


So your strongest argument is that its _impossible_ for NASA to picture two buggies in the same photo because they state that each of the buggies was intended to be used in separate missions ?

I can't see how that is a strong argument ?

Originally posted by ilali
So wouldn't sound have travelled through the walls of the capsule?

You will only get low frequency vibrations inside the lunar module. If loose objects is on the walls of the capsule, you'll hear the object vibrating instead and the sound transmitted. The actual thundering noise of the rocket will not be heard at all as there's no air. The thundering sound you hear is actually the shearing action between the high velocity exhaust jet and the surrounding atmosphere.

In a vacuum, you only take away the sound, but you don't take away the vibrations. It is still there. You can only feel it but not hear it. It couldn't transmit that frequency due to the absence of air.

If you still can't picture this, look at the diagram below:



You have a jar and you have a bell inside. The bell is switched on and you can hear it ringing. Once you pumped out the air from the jar, the ringing sound slowly diminishes and you can't hear it anymore. But, you can still see the bell vibrating. If you touch the base, you can feel the vibration.

This is what exactly happens on the space capsule. The bell is the rocket and space is the jar without air. You can't hear the rocket, but you can feel its vibration.

You can google it if you want to study this phenomena further.



edit: added info

[edit on 7-12-2007 by amitheone]

There must have been some kind of wire holding the flag straight on the moon across the top edge. It would not stay straight in that gravity. I watched the wrench drop footage that showed equal drops of different weights. Thr flag would surely fall as well.

Originally posted by amitheone
You will only get low frequency vibrations inside the lunar module. If loose objects is on the walls of the capsule, you'll hear the object vibrating instead and the sound transmitted. The actual thundering noise of the rocket will not be heard at all as there's no air. The thundering sound you hear is actually the shearing action between the high velocity exhaust jet and the surrounding atmosphere.

In a vacuum, you only take away the sound, but you don't take away the vibrations. It is still there. You can only feel it but not hear it. It couldn't transmit that frequency due to the absence of air.

Thank you.
So you cannot hear an outside explosion from inside the capsule.

Could you please explain to me, why in this official document www.hq.nasa.gov...
on page 73 (lower section), they all can HEAR loud noise from the oxygen tank explosion?

Originally posted by amitheone
If you still can't picture this, look at the diagram below:

You have a jar and you have a bell inside. The bell is switched on and you can hear it ringing. Once you pumped out the air from the jar, the ringing sound slowly diminishes and you can't hear it anymore. But, you can still see the bell vibrating. If you touch the base, you can feel it vibrating.

This is what exactly happens on the space capsule. The bell is the rocket and space is the jar without air. You can't hear the rocket, but you can feel its vibration.

You can google it if you want to study this phenomena further.
[edit on 7-12-2007 by amitheone]

i know, but the capsule was under pressure, so sound could have travelled there. if the rocket engine is connected to the capsule, shouldn't the vibrations have been able to produce loud noise?

All this nonsense with the lighting.. If you stand on a white surface (or anything light in color) the lighting from ANY angle will reflect light upon any surface within a certain distance.

Stand on a beach in the middle of the night. Look towards the moon and have someone stand behind you. By logic in the video, that person should not be able to see your back. I guarantee they can. And thats moonlight, not even sunlight. The reflections of that type of unfiltered light would reflect easily off of anything.

Originally posted by ilali

Thank you.
So you cannot hear an outside explosion from inside the capsule.

Could you please explain to me, why in this official document www.hq.nasa.gov...
on page 73 (lower section), they all can HEAR loud noise from the oxygen tank explosion?

I'm sorry, page 73 is blank. Page 72 and 74 is ok.

Oxygen is a great medium to transfer sound because it contains molecules. Enough concentration of this will enable you to hear the explosion in that concentrated area only.

Since I cannot read page 73 and find the actual distance from the explosion, I have to assume that the explosion is just near proximity to the folks out there, near enough to be heard.

8.7.3 Cryogenic Oxygen Tank Incident At approximately 55 hours 54 minutes • a loud noise was heard when the Command Module Pilot was in the left seat, the Commander in the lower equipment bay, and the Lunar Module Pilot in the tunnel. The noise was comparable to that noted in exercising the lunar module repressurization valve. The Command Module Pilot and Lunar Module Pilot also reported a minor vibration or tremor in the spacecraft.

or is this tank inside the capsule?

[edit on 7-12-2007 by ilali]

Originally posted by ilali

8.7.3 Cryogenic Oxygen Tank Incident At approximately 55 hours 54 minutes • a loud noise was heard when the Command Module Pilot was in the left seat, the Commander in the lower equipment bay, and the Lunar Module Pilot in the tunnel. The noise was comparable to that noted in exercising the lunar module repressurization valve. The Command Module Pilot and Lunar Module Pilot also reported a minor vibration or tremor in the spacecraft.

or is this tank inside the capsule?

[edit on 7-12-2007 by ilali]

By looking at the diagram below, we can now see where the cryogenic oxygen and hydrogen storage tanks are located. The space is so confined.



Assuming that this confined area is in a vacuum, still, it will be filled with oxygen molecules enabling the sound to be heard. The crew heard a hissing sound comparable to repressurization valve. This suggest a raptured tank.

I thought you were referring to an outside explosion in which you have to determine the distance of the explosion and the density of the gas. At the right distance and density, you can actually hear the explosion in space, but I don't think you'll live to tell the tale.



[edit on 7-12-2007 by amitheone]

Originally posted by ilali
i know, but the capsule was under pressure, so sound could have travelled there. if the rocket engine is connected to the capsule, shouldn't the vibrations have been able to produce loud noise?

You are correct, as I have earlier explained, there will be low frequency vibrations, but not the actual sound of the rocket we hear on Earth which goes...hooocccccccccc..(did that sound right? lol)

So, whatever is vibrating inside the capsule, that will make the sound. If its glass, it will sound glassy. If its metal, it will sound metallica.

Being at low frequency, it might be barely audible.

[edit on 7-12-2007 by amitheone]

thank you for your explanation

"At 15:35 No Blast Crater

You can't have blast crater when there is no oxygen. Without oxygen, there will be no traces of black oxides to be observed but only melted glass from heating the fine powder sand on the moon."



"The burning of fuel, especially hydrocarbon based fuel, with oxygen is
an oxidation process where the carbon is combined with oxygen and much
energy is released. On Earth, this oxidation occurs using free oxygen
in our atmosphere to support combustion. For a spacecraft however,
things become more complicated as there is no free oxygen in space. The
solution is to take oxygen with you.

There are two ways to do this, first you can pack oxygen in the form of
LOX or liquid oxygen. You then feed LOX with your fuel in the rocket
engine and you have combustion. This can be difficult as LOX must
remain under pressure, and can get very cold.

The second and sneakier way is to carry chemically bound oxygen. This
is a stable compound which has oxygen as part of its chemical formula.
We call these chemicals "oxidants." Examples are Potassium Permanganate
KMnO4, Hydrogen Peroxide H2O2, and Nitric Acid HNO3. When kept by
themselves, they are fairly easy to handle. When mixed with other
compounds, violent reactions can occur."
www.newton.dep.anl.gov...

WHAAAA?

No-O=No-GO





[edit on 7-12-2007 by Mindless]

"The feed and exhaust systems have been perfected, the ignition controlling electronics has been perfected, the fuel/air mix metering devices have been brought to perfection, and finally the catalytic converters (see below) have been found indispensable. But even then, fumes that leave the "afterburners" are not ideally clean - engine still burns only part of the fuel (or precisely the incompletely oxidized carbon atoms in the form of CO). The rest is discharged as polluting emissions (HC, CO, NOx) or is deposited on the internal engine walls as black carbon residue. All this has been caused by the incomplete combustion process. The reasons for it being that:
1. Hydrocarbons form the so-called associations, close molecular groups, interior of which is deprived of access of the suitable amount of air; the lack of oxygen impedes the full combustion.




The tendency of HC molecules to cluster causes local macro-groupings (condensing) of molecules to clog the pipes and fuel nozzles. The excess of air in the fuel mixture will not provide for the complete combustion. Hence, the exhaust fumes contain considerable amounts of unburned CO, HC, and soots.




2. Oxygen with negative 2 valence is negative, and hydrocarbon has neutral molecular structures which by passing through steel fuel lines gets negatively (micro) charged. Therefore, when these two atoms come together with the same potential in a combustion chamber, they repel, which result in incomplete combustion. Therefore, all serious research has been aimed at bringing about fuel reactivity with oxygen (oxygenated fuels); since increased oxidation means increased combustion, and the following rules had to be taken into consideration:

Rule 1: Unburned hydrocarbon (HC) as well as carbon monoxide (CO) emitted from a vehicle's exhaust system can be viewed as the additional fuel reserve, since, if proper conditions are met, HC & CO can be further burned in the combustion chamber. Therefore, creating such proper combustion conditions is paramount.

Rule 2: If a hydrocarbon molecule could better bind with oxygen molecules
(be more completely oxidized), then the toxicity of fumes would be considerably limited and in principle, one could dispense with catalytic converters.

Rule 3: Hydrogen's chemical reaction, determined by its valence (the electron "surplus" in the "outer" orbital shell), is affected by a magnetic field since proper magnets are the prime source of control of the position of electrons.

Rule 4: The application of a proper magnetic field enforces beneficial changes in fuel structure and enhances its general reactivity in the combustion process."
www.wholly-water.com...