Did nasa really send astronauts to the moon?

This is great, i should of came here a long time ago.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Semicollegiate

 

Where did you hear that? No, no iodine. Not hydrocarbons either.

A moon hoax movie said that the propulsion chemical left a purple residue. I thought you might know. I was wrong. Appearently the NTO-Aerozine 50 is corrosive and carcinogenic and so a coloring agent could be added to show its presence.

Why would you expect to? [[sic] see a crater?]

Just an observation. The flag went right into the soil. Sand? How much sand should be blown away by a decelerating 30,000 lbs?

Why? [would the surface anneal over millions of years]

A documentary said that some of the stones of the Inca's buildings have annealed. Corrosion prevents alot of chemistry on Earth because it makes an inert layer on the outside of most materials that are reactive. The grains of mineral on the moon would have no corrosion, or much less, because of the almost non exsistant atmosphere. Anytime two chemicals are put in contact they could react or in terms of a crystal, perhaps they could anneal. That would mean less dust. or essentially a solid surface.

Probably not that fast but 1 million atoms doesn't carry much energy. You think that such things were not studied and accounted for?

Accounting for it is mute if it's a hoax. Circular logic.

I don't know what is flying through normal space. The Moon and Earth have probably swept out alot of stuff since the condensation and aggregation of the solar system. But maybe there is new stuff falling towards the sun from Pluto or stuff in a decaying orbit that just now crossed our path around the sun. Like the Perseid Meteors.

1 million atoms is kinda small but at 120,000 mph (head on counter rotating orbits) it might do some damage. A grain of sand at 120,000 mph would penetrate some amount of aluminum or titanium or whatever. Or a space suit.

Why don't you look for the answers yourself. There is a lot of readily available information. It doesn't sound like you've done much research, just come up with things that don't "seem right" to you.

edit on 9/4/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Well, you seem to be available (still talking) and knowledgable and I thought you might know, off the top of your head.

I've noticed that you give out facts

But you don't actually prove your strident assertions

Judging from your answers you forgot the research you may have done.

They never proved they weigh only 60 lbs.

How could anyone prove that we walked on the moon? Someone said?

Like with the 2009 financial crash, every one on the inside was on the same unreal page.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by thesneakiod

 

No, you complained that your highbrow Shakespeare conspiracy wasn't getting much coverage. Maybe it's because you have to be "specialised" in various subjects to fully comprehend it? Before you can even investigate it?

But let's face it, its not as mainstream or as potentially huge as the lunar hoax...

Still don't get what's wrong with a topic on the MLH, on a website that is largely conspiracy based?

Everything you learned in Freshman English was wrong. Care to debate it?

Well I can't can I? Seeing as I'm not specialised in the various subjects to debate it with you...

I'm assuming freshman means 1st year at high school?

Originally posted by denver22

Originally posted by thesneakiod
reply to post by seabhac-rua

 

You didn't answer my question.

Maybe you can explain the hammer feather drop.
If you drop a hammer and a feather what happens sir?

The hammer drops quicker. feather floats slowly to the ground.

See you have mentioned that a couple of times, and yes it a great argument, if that situation and test couldn't be recreated on earth...

Originally posted by thesneakiod
Well I can't can I? Seeing as I'm not specialised in the various subjects to debate it with you...

You're clearly not qualified in physics or astronautics either but that doesn't stop you does it...

To snakeoids and my fellow moon hoaxers please read

The mirror on the moon en.wikipedia.org...






big mulley:

Nick-named "Big Muley," this 11.7 kg Moon rock was the largest returned to Earth by Apollo astronauts. One side of Big Muley was peppered with meteoroid "zap pits." Below right: A close-up view of 1 mm diameter zap pits shows tiny craters lined with black glass surrounded by a white halo of shocked rock.

 

Just as meteoroids constantly bombard the Moon so do cosmic rays, and they leave their fingerprints on Moon rocks, too. "There are isotopes in Moon rocks, isotopes we don't normally find on Earth, that were created by nuclear reactions with the highest-energy cosmic rays," says McKay. Earth is spared from such radiation by our protective atmosphere and magnetosphere. Even if scientists wanted to make something like a Moon rock by, say, bombarding an Earth rock with high energy atomic nuclei, they couldn't. Earth's most powerful particle accelerators can't energize particles to match the most potent cosmic rays, which are themselves accelerated in supernova blastwaves and in the violent cores of galaxies. Indeed, says McKay, faking a Moon rock well enough to hoodwink an international army of scientists might be more difficult than the Manhattan Project. "It would be easier to just go to the Moon and get one," he quipped. And therein lies an original idea: Did NASA go to the Moon to collect props for a staged Moon landing? It's an interesting twist on the conspiracy theory that TV producers might consider for their next episode of the Moon Hoax. "I have here in my office a 10-foot high stack of scientific books full of papers about the Apollo Moon rocks," added McKay. "Researchers in thousands of labs have examined Apollo Moon samples -- not a single paper challenges their origin! And these aren't all NASA employees, either. We've loaned samples to scientists in dozens of countries [who have no reason to cooperate in any hoax]." Even Dr. Robert Park, Director of the Washington office of the American Physical Society and a noted critic of NASA's human space flight program, agrees with the space agency on this issue. "The body of physical evidence that humans did walk on the Moon is simply overwhelming."

Still not convinced ?

independent astronomers the world over tracked the command module on its way to and from the moon all the Apollo missions brought back much more lunar material than has ever been found on earth (382 kg, as opposed to the 50-ish kg found as meteorites) the moon rocks were studied by top geologists from all over the world and there are no disputes that they are of lunar origin, and that they didn't fall through the earth's atmosphere unprotected. The oldest moon rocks are around 4.5 billion years old, approximately the age of the earth itself. These couldn't be found on earth due to plate tectonics happening over the course of its lifetime. The Soviets' Luna 16, 20, and 24 probes brought back lunar material and matched the Apollo moon rocks. the LRO photographed the landing sites, and SELENE mapped the geography of the landing sites and found that it matched the photos taken on the moon (which they could not if the photos were faked)

The command module look at it then research it what the man power goes into it
what it is made of. :






Is there a price to inspiration and creativity? Economic, scientific and technological returns of space exploration have far exceeded the investment. Globally, 43 countries now have their own observing or communication satellites in Earth orbit. Observing Earth has provided G.P.S., meteorological forecasts, predictions and management of hurricanes and other natural disasters, and global monitoring of the environment, as well as surveillance and intelligence. Satellite communications have changed life and business practices with computer operations, cell phones, global banking, and TV. Studying humans living in the microgravity of space has expanded our understanding of osteoporosis and balance disorders, and has led to new treatments. Wealth-generating medical devices and instrumentation such as digital mammography and outpatient breast biopsy procedures and the application of telemedicine to emergency care are but a few of the social and economic benefits of manned exploration that we take for granted Well if it werent for NASA then we would be without
your beloeved online computer xbox/playstation/forum posting etc.

Originally posted by thesneakiod

The hammer drops quicker. feather floats slowly to the ground.

CORRECT!

See you have mentioned that a couple of times, and yes it a great argument, if that situation and test couldn't be recreated on earth...

LOL were the studio lights also in a vaccum .sir? Perhaps the lunar mudule were too hehe?

reply to post by AgentSmith


Oh, so now I need a degree in the specific subject I talk about ....I see..

I have a feeling your Exactly like your avatar....

Originally posted by thesneakiod
I have a feeling your Exactly like your avatar....

Almost but I actually fancy my girlfriend and enjoy having sex with her, so not quite.

reply to post by Semicollegiate

A moon hoax movie said that the propulsion chemical left a purple residue.

You mean a movie claiming the landings were hoaxed. Those movies say a lot of stupid things.

The flag went right into the soil. Sand? How much sand should be blown away by a decelerating 30,000 lbs?

Not really sand, more like dust. Dust blows away but why a crater? What's under the dust do you think? You need to think about the physics a bit more. You can start by calculating the amount of thrust needed.

A documentary said that some of the stones of the Inca's buildings have annealed.

Don't tell me...an ancient aliens documentary.

Anytime two chemicals are put in contact they could react or in terms of a crystal, perhaps they could anneal. That would mean less dust. or essentially a solid surface.

Which chemicals would do this? What chemicals are lying around on the surface of the Moon?

Accounting for it is mute if it's a hoax. Circular logic.

No. If you would bother looking you can find out quite a bit about it. But you don't want to bother, do you?

But maybe there is new stuff falling towards the sun from Pluto or stuff in a decaying orbit that just now crossed our path around the sun.

But maybe you could do some research.

A grain of sand at 120,000 mph would penetrate some amount of aluminum or titanium or whatever. Or a space suit.

Maybe it could. If it were there. Maybe I'll get hit by drunk driver on the freeway, but that won't keep me from driving.

They never proved they weigh only 60 lbs.

Why would they have to prove it? Why do you ignore (or not even research) the mountains of evidence which demonstrates that they walked on the Moon? Do some real research. Don't just accept the claims of a Moon hoax movie.

Originally posted by Phage Why do you ignore (or not even research) the mountains of evidence which demonstrates that they walked on the Moon? Do some real research. Don't just accept the claims of a Moon hoax movie.

It truly shows some of these guys/girls/ do not do the research phage, otherwise they would
not be posting things like why can't i see the stars claim.

Truly shocking that some do not even read the posts, let alone googling the truth.
I lost count how many times the radiation question has been posted in this short thread so far.

reply to post by VoidHawk

They did NOT fly around the belt, and it took them a little over two hours to fly through it.

I did not say they flew around it, I said they flew at the edge of it.
Trajectory Reference

Furthermore, Apollo 11's trajectory through the region of the Van Allen Radiation Belts has been mapped to show how the trajectory was designed to bypass the most intense areas of the this potentially dangerous obstacle.

Down the referenced page is a chart of the Van Allen Belt's geometry given by radiation intensity with the trajectory superimposed. You are mistaken, they did plan the path to minimize the astronaut's exposure. Why would they NOT have done this?

Originally posted by denver22
To snakeoids and my fellow moon hoaxers please read

The mirror on the moon en.wikipedia.org...

big mulley:

Nick-named "Big Muley," this 11.7 kg Moon rock was the largest returned to Earth by Apollo astronauts. One side of Big Muley was peppered with meteoroid "zap pits." Below right: A close-up view of 1 mm diameter zap pits shows tiny craters lined with black glass surrounded by a white halo of shocked rock.

 

Just as meteoroids constantly bombard the Moon so do cosmic rays, and they leave their fingerprints on Moon rocks, too. "There are isotopes in Moon rocks, isotopes we don't normally find on Earth, that were created by nuclear reactions with the highest-energy cosmic rays," says McKay. Earth is spared from such radiation by our protective atmosphere and magnetosphere. Even if scientists wanted to make something like a Moon rock by, say, bombarding an Earth rock with high energy atomic nuclei, they couldn't. Earth's most powerful particle accelerators can't energize particles to match the most potent cosmic rays, which are themselves accelerated in supernova blastwaves and in the violent cores of galaxies. Indeed, says McKay, faking a Moon rock well enough to hoodwink an international army of scientists might be more difficult than the Manhattan Project. "It would be easier to just go to the Moon and get one," he quipped. And therein lies an original idea: Did NASA go to the Moon to collect props for a staged Moon landing? It's an interesting twist on the conspiracy theory that TV producers might consider for their next episode of the Moon Hoax. "I have here in my office a 10-foot high stack of scientific books full of papers about the Apollo Moon rocks," added McKay. "Researchers in thousands of labs have examined Apollo Moon samples -- not a single paper challenges their origin! And these aren't all NASA employees, either. We've loaned samples to scientists in dozens of countries [who have no reason to cooperate in any hoax]." Even Dr. Robert Park, Director of the Washington office of the American Physical Society and a noted critic of NASA's human space flight program, agrees with the space agency on this issue. "The body of physical evidence that humans did walk on the Moon is simply overwhelming."

Still not convinced ?

independent astronomers the world over tracked the command module on its way to and from the moon all the Apollo missions brought back much more lunar material than has ever been found on earth (382 kg, as opposed to the 50-ish kg found as meteorites) the moon rocks were studied by top geologists from all over the world and there are no disputes that they are of lunar origin, and that they didn't fall through the earth's atmosphere unprotected. The oldest moon rocks are around 4.5 billion years old, approximately the age of the earth itself. These couldn't be found on earth due to plate tectonics happening over the course of its lifetime. The Soviets' Luna 16, 20, and 24 probes brought back lunar material and matched the Apollo moon rocks. the LRO photographed the landing sites, and SELENE mapped the geography of the landing sites and found that it matched the photos taken on the moon (which they could not if the photos were faked)

The command module look at it then research it what the man power goes into it
what it is made of. :

That is a big rock. Even assuming that it was retrieved from the moon and not deposited here by the astreriod that killed the dinosaurs, the presence of rock does not prove that a man grabbed it off of the moon.

I like the detail about the asteriod pits in it.

We have sent something to the moon, according to the laser reflector, it could have had communications links of any kind on it. And a claw for grabbing rocks. Does not prove a man was on the vehicle.

reply to post by Phage


They don't have to prove it, I'm just saying that they didn't prove it. How do you know that a man walked on the moon?

If there was faking, it could be argued that it was for the best. So the fakers would have a moral basis for continuing the illusion.

Originally posted by Semicollegiate

That is a big rock. Even assuming that it was retrieved from the moon and not deposited here by the astreriod that killed the dinosaurs, the presence of rock does not prove that a man grabbed it off of the moon.

I like the detail about the asteriod pits in it.

It has been suggested that researchers could not to tell the difference between fake and authentic rocks since no one had ever examined a moon rock before. This claim is utter nonsense. In addition to the rocks returned by Apollo, we have samples of lunar rocks that have fallen to Earth as meteorites. (Lunar meteorites are very rare with only 25 known samples.) Tests have shown the Apollo moon rocks and the meteorites are of identical origin, however the Apollo samples lack other features that would distinguish them as meteorites. Also, the moon rocks have characteristics that are not found in terrestrial or artificial rocks, such as evidence of meteoroid bombardment and exposure to cosmic rays. Likewise, terrestrial rocks have unique characteristics not found in the moon rocks, such as weathering and exposure to water. Finally, the moon rocks returned by Apollo have been determined to be between 3.1 and 4.4 billion years old. The Apollo samples are without doubt of authentic lunar origin.

NOTE: The Apollo missions returned rock and soil samples totaling 842 pounds, comprising 2,196 individual specimens. These specimens have been processed into greater than 97,000 individually cataloged samples. More than 60 laboratories worldwide actively pursue sample studies; some 1,100 samples are sent out to researchers annually.

Originally posted by Phage
LROC provides imagery as high as 0.25m. That's twice as good as what you will see from a satellite in Earth orbit.
wms.lroc.asu.edu...

edit on 8/31/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)

I don't understand. Why can it not zoom in to the flag then? Why can other satellites zoom so close in on the earth, yet we can't zoom in as close on the moon? I also disagree that the image you linked to is .25 M, considering that the max stated resolution for LROC is .5 M.

That being said, it still does not explain why we can zoom into a flag on a golf course, using commercially available software, yet we can't zoom in to a decent resolution on the moon.

Why can't we zoom in on these sites on the moon, with the amazing technology the government (and private sector) possess?

Originally posted by AngryAlien

Originally posted by Phage
LROC provides imagery as high as 0.25m. That's twice as good as what you will see from a satellite in Earth orbit.
wms.lroc.asu.edu...

edit on 8/31/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)

I don't understand. Why can it not zoom in to the flag then? Why can other satellites zoom so close in on the earth, yet we can't zoom in as close on the moon? I also disagree that the image you linked to is .25 M, considering that the max stated resolution for LROC is .5 M.

That being said, it still does not explain why we can zoom into a flag on a golf course, using commercially available software, yet we can't zoom in to a decent resolution on the moon.

Why can't we zoom in on these sites on the moon, with the amazing technology the government (and private sector) possess?

Those satellites you talk about are the size of the Hubble Telescope, show us a picture of a flag on a golf course then taken from SPACE !!!!

reply to post by Semicollegiate


Russia sent a robot to the Moon it sent back about 100g (4oz) of Moon DUST not rocks DUST, Apollo brought back 841.6 LBS (381.69 KG)

Care to explain that

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Those satellites you talk about are the size of the Hubble Telescope, show us a picture of a flag on a golf course then taken from SPACE !!!!

GeoEye operates at an altitude of 684 km (425 mi) above the earth and has the ability to zoom past .5M resolution. Take a look at some of their images on their site.

www.geoeye.com...

Remember, these are not their best images. They can zoom closer, but the US Govt will not allow sub .5M resolution images to be released. In a lower earth orbit, they could see even more detail.

SELENE was in a final circular orbit around the moon at 50-kilometres (31 mi). We can orbit closer to the moon, and we have technology that can zoom in far closer than what is being shown, so why can't we zoom in closer on the moon?

KH-11 sattelites were able to provide high fidelity images in the mid 1970's (down to sub .5 m resolution) and operated at a higher altitude than previous examples.

en.wikipedia.org...

KH-11 operating altitudes:

19 December 1976 – 23 December 253 km (157 mi) 541 km (336 mi) 541 km (336 mi)
23 December 1976 – 27 March 1977 348 km (216 mi) 541 km (336 mi) 537 km (334 mi)
27 March 1977 – 19 August 270 km (170 mi) 537 km (334 mi) 476 km (296 mi)
19 August 1977–1978 January 270 km (170 mi) 528 km (328 mi) 454 km (282 mi)
1978 January – 28 January 1979 263 km (163 mi) 534 km (332 mi) Deorbited

So, I'm just trying to understand why we cannot view the surface of the moon at even 1 M resolution. Even the lunar orbiter program in 1966 had the ability to zoom to 1 M resolution.

Originally posted by AngryAlien
I don't understand. Why can it not zoom in to the flag then?

At 50cm per pixel, it would be hard to see the flag from edge on as it would be smaller than 50cm, but if the Sun angle is low, you can see the shadow.

LROC site

Why can other satellites zoom so close in on the earth, yet we can't zoom in as close on the moon?

A lot of the high res imagery on Google Earth is aerial photography.

I also disagree that the image you linked to is .25 M, considering that the max stated resolution for LROC is .5 M.

LRO did lower its orbit for a short time. If you go back to that link I posted above. At the bottom are other links to the Apollo sites taken at 25cm pixel scale.