Moon Landing

[Sarex]

I was wondering what is the consensus of this forum on the topic of the Moon landing. Recently I have been watching a couple of documentaries and I must say they made me wonder. A lot of good questions are raised.

 

 

 

 

So share your opinion. Lets make this a fun one.

[Meshugger]

Do people make money out of claiming that the US never went to the moon?

 

Well, there you have it.

[Keyrock]

I'm typing this from the moon right now.  You'd be surprised how good the wifi is up here, even inside the hollow interior.  On the downside, Lizard People make terrible neighbors.  

Edited February 6, 2016 by Keyrock

[Sarex]

Now, now, let's watch the videos. Keep an open mind, I always say.

 

edit: My question to you guys would be, why do you believe it happened? What makes it an undeniable fact?

Edited February 6, 2016 by Sarex

[Nonek]

When I was a younger man I took part in an experiment with a friend who was bouncing light off the mirrored array that the astronauts placed on the moon during the Apollo missions, it was a thrilling event, though very mundane, and later on in the night while we barbecued and drank beers none other than Mr Patrick Moore turned up. Which left me an excited mess, as the Sky at Night is probably one of my favourite television programs since childhood. I fell out of touch with the chap hosting the research after he moved to the USA, but i've heard that he's still in the field somewhere and somehow.

 

Edit: Mr Moore was a very nice gentleman, and extremely intelligent, though slightly eccentric.

Edited February 6, 2016 by Nonek

[Sarex]

When I was a younger man I took part in an experiment with a friend who was bouncing light off the mirrored array that the astronauts placed on the moon during the Apollo missions, it was a thrilling event, though very mundane, and later on in the night while we barbecued and drank beers none other than Mr Patrick Moore turned up. Which left me an excited mess, as the Sky at Night is probably one of my favourite television programs since childhood. I fell out of touch with the chap hosting the research after he moved to the USA, but i've heard that he's still in the field somewhere and somehow.

 

Edit: Mr Moore was a very nice gentleman, and extremely intelligent, though slightly eccentric.

 

But does the presence of the mirror really mean that it was placed there by a human hand?

Edited February 6, 2016 by Sarex

[Rosbjerg]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=P6MOnehCOUw

[Sarex]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=P6MOnehCOUw

 

But then the question is, why was there even an arms race at all? The point was that the Russians had up till that point gotten all the firsts in the space race, the US public was loosing confidence, as such the moon landing "race" began. Also the purpose of the rocket was to show that a nuclear warhead could be delivered anywhere.

 

Also for the people who bother to watch the videos that I linked, they will see that what is argued is that the pictures/videos were fake. As for the moon landing it self, the opinions range from there being no moon landing done by humans, to some US astronauts landing on the moon but because of severe radiation poisoning (from the Van Allen Belts), they were replaced by other people for the public (the Soviets had a similar set up prepared for Yuri Gagarin).

Edited February 6, 2016 by Sarex

[kgambit]

Two scientists at the Laboratory of Atmospheric and Space Physics at the University of Colorado at Boulder, Hsiang Wen Hsu and Mihaly Horanyi studied the trajectory of the regolith dust thrown up by the rover on the Apollo 16's Grand Prix.  They showed that the dust particle trajectories were explainable only with a reduced gravity and lowered air resistance. 

 

http://www.popsci.com/blog-network/vintage-space/proof-we-landed-moon-dust

 

And here's a link to the paper published in the American Journal of Physics, vol 80, no. 5

 

http://scitation.aip.org/content/aapt/journal/ajp/80/5/10.1119/1.3699957

 

Plus the moon rocks show evidence of micrometeorite damage.  A phenomenon that does not take place on earth because they burn up in the atmosphere.  

 

Any geoscientist (and there have been thousands from all over the world) who has studied lunar samples knows that anyone who thinks the Apollo lunar samples were created on Earth as part of government conspiracy doesn't know much about rocks.  The Apollo samples are just too good.  They tell a self-consistent story with a complexly interwoven plot that's better than any story any conspirator could have conceived.  I've studied lunar rocks and soils for 40+ years and I couldn't make even a poor imitation of a lunar breccia, lunar soil, or a mare basalt in the lab.  And with all due respect to my clever colleagues in government labs, no one in "the Government" could do it either, even now that we know what lunar rocks are like.  Lunar samples show evidence of formation in an extremely dry environment with essentially no free oxygen and little gravity.  Some have impact craters on the surface and many display evidence for a suite of unanticipated and complicated effects associated with large and small meteorite impacts.  Lunar rocks and soil contain gases (hydrogen, helium, nitrogen, neon, argon, krypton, and xenon) derived from the solar wind with isotope ratios different than Earth forms of the same gases.  They contain crystal damage from cosmic rays.  Lunar igneous rocks have crystallization ages, determined by techniques involving radioisotopes, that are older than any known Earth rocks. (Anyone who figures out how to fake that is worthy of a Nobel Prize.)  It was easier and cheaper to go to the Moon and bring back some rocks then it would have been to create all these fascinating features on Earth."

 

 

http://meteorites.wustl.edu/lunar/howdoweknow.htm

Edited February 6, 2016 by kgambit

[Gromnir]

"But does the presence of the mirror really mean that it was placed there by a human hand?"

 

​am not sure you are considering just how complex a task it is to calibrate such a mirror given the distances and relative motions o' the heavenly bodies involved.

 

is a litmus test.  look at the moon landing conspiracy theory videos and is convinced, in spite o' all the data, evidence and global expert opinions that refute such videos, is litmus test o' fumbduckery.  serious.  

 

honest, why not look for credible sources that refute such nonsense, then compare.

 

sheesh.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Sarex]

@kgambit and Gromnir

 

But that still wouldn't explain the pictures/videos inconsistencies, or how they survived the Van Allen belt and the massive solar flare that happened on their trip to the Moon.

[Hurlshort]

Now, now, let's watch the videos. Keep an open mind, I always say.

 

edit: My question to you guys would be, why do you believe it happened? What makes it an undeniable fact?

 

Nah.  I mean if you want to waste time pondering ridiculously far fetched and vast conspiracies that would require a tremendous amount of people to be in on it and has no real motive, feel free to.  I'm busy.

[Gromnir]

again, rather than arguing from a place of ignorance, look for the folks who refute and answer the nonsense and then compare.   

 

upwards o' 10,000 scientists and engineers woulda' needed to be in on the conspiracy?

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Guard Dog]

Hopefully this will put your mind at ease. It's the Apollo 17 landing site taken by the LRO in 2009. At least we know Gene Cernan & Harrison Schmidt were not lying: 

[kgambit]

@kgambit and Gromnir

 

But that still wouldn't explain the pictures/videos inconsistencies, or how they survived the Van Allen belt and the massive solar flare that happened on their trip to the Moon.

 

There is absolutely nothing inconsistent in the pictures or the videos.   Regolith (moon dust) is ultra reflective for starters.   I know I saw a link detailing the explanations for the alleged inconsistencies - let me see if I can find it. 

 

The total radiation dose was ~32 mrem, or 0.016 rads (all from protons ≥100 MeV).; That is well below the levels required to cause illness let alone death.   The misconception is that the Apollo craft flew directly thru the Van Allen belt.  It actually skirted the edges of it, which significantly reduced the radiation threat.  Here's a fairly detailed study of the issue: 

 

http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/VABraddose.htm

 

or you can reference the actual dosimeter readings of the Apollo missions:

 

https://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/scripts/experiment/exper.aspx?exp_index=369

 

According to NASA there was no major solar flare during the Apollo missions.   There were 1400 detectable events but none of them posed a risk to the astronauts.

 

http://www.clavius.org/envsun.html

Radiation was not an operational problem during the Apollo missions. Doses received by the astronauts were significantly lower than the yearly average of 5 rem set by the US Atomic Energy Commission for workers who used radioactive materials in factories across the United States.

 

Average radiation doses for all astronauts on a particular mission were computed for each of the Apollo missions, and ranged from skin doses of 0.16 to 1.14 rads. The maximum dose limit was 400 rads to the skin for each of the Apollo missions, so actual radiation levels were well below the limit. Individual readings varied 20 percent because the astronauts were in different parts of the spacecraft, which had different shielding effectiveness, and because of their different duties and movements. Doses to blood forming organs were 40 percent lower than doses measured at the body surface.

 

The main reason the doses were low is that no major solar particle events occurred during the Apollo missions. One small event was detected by a radiation detector outside the Apollo 12 spacecraft, but no increase in radiation dose to the astronauts inside the spacecraft was detected. One possible effect of cosmic ray radiation was the light flash phenomenon observed during Apollo 11 and subsequent flights; although ionizing radiation can produce visual phosphenes, a correlation was not established between cosmic rays and the observation of the light flashes. (Further information on the light flashes can be found in this archive.)

 

Edited February 6, 2016 by kgambit

[Sarex]

Nah.  I mean if you want to waste time pondering ridiculously far fetched and vast conspiracies that would require a tremendous amount of people to be in on it and has no real motive, feel free to.  I'm busy.

 

Ok, I'm not forcing you to do anything.

 

again, rather than arguing from a place of ignorance, look for the folks who refute and answer the nonsense and then compare.   

 

upwards o' 10,000 scientists and engineers woulda' needed to be in on the conspiracy?

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

No, only the astronauts, the people who ordered it and the people who faked the material. The rest of them could have well thought that they were helping the Moon lading.

 

Hopefully this will put your mind at ease. It's the Apollo 17 landing site taken by the LRO in 2009. At least we know Gene Cernan & Harrison Schmidt were not lying: 

 

-snip-

 

Why are the pictures such a low quality? Especially considering this was taken in 2009. We have much higher res pictures of Mars that are older then that.

 

 

There is absolutely nothing inconsistent in the pictures or the videos.   Regolith (moon dust) is ultra reflective for starters.  

 

The total radiation dose was ~32 mrem, or 0.016 rads (all from protons ≥100 MeV).; That is well below the levels required to cause illness let alone death.

 

Then why is the lighting so inconsistent? Why do small rocks have black unlit sides but at the same time the much larger astronauts don't? Also why don't the videos and the pictures match?

 

Watch the video guys, it's really interesting.

Edited February 6, 2016 by Sarex

[Elerond]

@kgambit and Gromnir

 

But that still wouldn't explain the pictures/videos inconsistencies, or how they survived the Van Allen belt and the massive solar flare that happened on their trip to the Moon.

 

Here is NASA's answer for Van Allen belt question

 

http://spacemath.gsfc.nasa.gov/earth/3Page7.pdf

Edited February 6, 2016 by Elerond

[Elerond]

Here is some arguments against common claims against moon landing photographs 

 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/photogalleries/apollo-moon-landing-hoax-pictures/

 

Myth busters take on moon landing photos and myths around them

http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythbusters/mythbusters-database/apollo-moon-landing-pictures-fake/

 

Another explanations for happenings in moon landing footage.

http://lightsinthedark.com/2014/05/22/no-the-moon-landings-werent-faked-and-heres-how-you-can-tell/

[BruceVC]

 

@kgambit and Gromnir

 

But that still wouldn't explain the pictures/videos inconsistencies, or how they survived the Van Allen belt and the massive solar flare that happened on their trip to the Moon.

 

There is absolutely nothing inconsistent in the pictures or the videos.   Regolith (moon dust) is ultra reflective for starters.   I know I saw a link detailing the explanations for the alleged inconsistencies - let me see if I can find it. 

 

The total radiation dose was ~32 mrem, or 0.016 rads (all from protons ≥100 MeV).; That is well below the levels required to cause illness let alone death.   The misconception is that the Apollo craft flew directly thru the Van Allen belt.  It actually skirted the edges of it, which significantly reduced the radiation threat.  Here's a fairly detailed study of the issue: 

 

http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/VABraddose.htm

 

or you can reference the actual dosimeter readings of the Apollo missions:

 

https://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/scripts/experiment/exper.aspx?exp_index=369

 

According to NASA there was no major solar flare during the Apollo missions.   There were 1400 detectable events but none of them posed a risk to the astronauts.

 

http://www.clavius.org/envsun.html

 

Okay but guys Sarex may still have  a point which will be very difficult to dispute.....if the moon was made of cheese then there was no landing? It was indeed fake...and how do we not  know the moon is not made of cheese  

[kgambit]

Here is some arguments against common claims against moon landing photographs 

 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/photogalleries/apollo-moon-landing-hoax-pictures/

 

Myth busters take on moon landing photos and myths around them

http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythbusters/mythbusters-database/apollo-moon-landing-pictures-fake/

 

Another explanations for happenings in moon landing footage.

http://lightsinthedark.com/2014/05/22/no-the-moon-landings-werent-faked-and-heres-how-you-can-tell/

 

Score one for myth busters. 

[Gromnir]

*shakes head sadly*

 

10,000 scientists and engineers.  is not simple the astronauts.  these folks all worked together and needed share information.  load up a rocket with exact amount o' fuel needed to get to moon and Back.  have the rocket launch and be tracked by international sources. somehow come up with a hollywood sound stage w/o benefit o' cgi that can recreate light sources that is functional infinite remote and fool the folks who understand the way light actual behaves. dust trajectories. retroreflectors behaving exact as a scientist would predict.  and so on and so on.

 

fool the fumbducks requires little, but to expend ridiculous amounts o' money to stage a moon round trip and fool the 10,000 scientists and engineers working on the project requires a whole different scale o' conspiracy. 

 

rather than ask here, and convince self with youtube videos, do a little leg work and try and refute the conspiracy.  once you have information from reputable sources as well as the conspiracy theorists, compare.  all your questions will be answered.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps the only way to be convinced by the conspiracy videos is if you watch and then quit.  is a litmus test.  

Edited February 6, 2016 by Gromnir

[kgambit]

 

Okay but guys Sarex may still have  a point which will be very difficult to dispute.....if the moon was made of cheese then there was no landing? It was indeed fake...and how do we not  know the moon is not made of cheese  

 

 

 

Stop huffing glue.  It's bad for you.  

[Sarex]

Here is some arguments against common claims against moon landing photographs 

 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/photogalleries/apollo-moon-landing-hoax-pictures/

 

Myth busters take on moon landing photos and myths around them

http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythbusters/mythbusters-database/apollo-moon-landing-pictures-fake/

 

Another explanations for happenings in moon landing footage.

http://lightsinthedark.com/2014/05/22/no-the-moon-landings-werent-faked-and-heres-how-you-can-tell/

 

But what about the difference between the video and the pictures taken, one example from the video being the famous astronaut jumping while saluting. On the video the triangular pocket on his backpack is buttoned up and on the picture taken of the same jump it can be seen over his head being unbuttoned (12 minutes in on the first video I linked). Also the links you posted don't explain the inconsistency about the reflection of the moon dust, wouldn't it then be logical to conclude that everything would be lit up and that there would be no black spots in the pictures.

[Elerond]

Nasa's article about 2009 pictures taken by Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter of Apollo 12, 14 and 17 landing sites.

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/news/apollo-sites.html

[Sarex]

*shakes head sadly*

 

10,000 scientists and engineers.  is not simple the astronauts.  these folks all worked together and needed share information.  load up a rocket with exact amount o' fuel needed to get to moon and Back.  have the rocket launch and be tracked by international sources. somehow come up with a hollywood sound stage w/o benefit o' cgi that can recreate light sources that is functional infinite remote and fool the folks who understand the way light actual behaves. dust trajectories. retroreflectors behaving exact as a scientist would predict.  and so on and so on.

 

fool the fumbducks requires little, but to expend ridiculous amounts o' money to stage a moon round trip and fool the 10,000 scientists and engineers working on the project requires a whole different scale o' conspiracy. 

 

rather than ask here, and convince self with youtube videos, do a little leg work and try and refute the conspiracy.  once you have information from reputable sources as well as the conspiracy theorists, compare.  all your questions will be answered.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps the only way to be convinced by the conspiracy videos is if you watch and then quit.  is a litmus test.  

 

Oh, I'm not convinced it was faked, this is simply a discussion. As for your answer, well they could have done all of that and launched the rocket, to have it just stay in the orbit around earth. That would still mean that only the astronauts, the people who helped fake it and the people who ordered it would need to be in on it.