July 23rd, 2014, 08:44 AM
How can we be sure that Neil Armstrong actually landed on the moon?
Or do we take whatever NASA's word, and pictures for it?
Can we be surer that that actually happened?
Aren't the only things we have to 'know' that he landed on the moon:
1) NASA said it.
2) NASA gave some low definition pictures of it.
3) NASA gave some low sound clips of it?
Originally Posted by jocular
Ramen, do you go out of your way to find crank stuff to ask about?
Third-party evidence for Apollo Moon landings - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Here are pictures of the lunar lander taken from earths telescopes. Now is that enough proof or do you want to see my moon rocks?
Well, we do know they would not have had enough time or enough fuel to land on on Mars or anywhere like that, so yeah, it pretty much has to be the moon they landed on.
We have a lot more than that, including physical proof.
That had enough fuel to land on Earth!
*cough*Nevada desert*cough*
@ Red Panda:
If they had gone there the Mexican illegal immigrants would have stole their moonbuggy, and we know that didn't happen.
Capricorn One reference?*cough*Nevada desert*cough*
Thanks, I missed that one.
I doubt that you're actually curious to know the answer, for a 3-second Google search turns up many definitive refutations of the standard conspiracy fantasy. But if you are merely misguided and are sincerely interested in the answer, rather than trolling, go study Clavius Moon Base - debunking the moon hoax for a start.
This gets the award for the "Most Unoriginal Thought of the Year." Why choose a tired, worn-out, idiotic, debunked at least 1000 times, conspiracy theory? Couldn't you find something equally stupid, but newer?
I'm with Chuck...this train done rode out the station. Let's come up with some new conspiracies. Like the shooting down of the plane by "Russian Separatists" ...Clearly this was a case of the Mossad and Illuminati taking control of existing military assets, and shooting down the plane....in order to kill several key members of the Reptilian elite....duh! it's right in front of your face! Wake up Sheeple!
I agree completely. RamenNoodles apparently didn't read the memo. This topic is stone-cold dead. Even BAUT/CQ doesn't get posts by these guys these days. Sites like clavius.org have taken the wind out of their sails. And Buzz Aldrin's "punch heard 'round the moon" took care of Sibrel in a way that reasoned argument couldn't.This gets the award for the "Most Unoriginal Thought of the Year." Why choose a tired, worn-out, idiotic, debunked at least 1000 times, conspiracy theory? Couldn't you find something equally stupid, but newer?
That was a great event. I read somewhere that Sibrel even had to apologize to Aldrin later.
I'd seen this 2min clip posted up on a similar thread. Sums it up a bit.
I love those guys.I'd seen this 2min clip posted up on a similar thread. Sums it up a bit.
The bit about catering costs is brilliant. Gets me every time.
Lately the comment I see a lot (from people who presumably hadn't been "involved" in such discussions before) is "oh, the mythbusters already proved it wasn't a hoax".
That initially irked me a little as these people don't seem aware of all the others who've already been fighting the good fight against ignorance, but in the end, it's good that the truth gets out in any form.
(Probably fair enough, too, as some people got introduced to the idea of a hoax through that Fox "documentary"; if they get back to the truth through another populist TV show, that may be 'balanced'.)
I think the other reason for the deadness of the topic is that real hoax believers (as opposed to Trolls trying to kick up a fuss) don't bother much with moderated forums anyway, as they can't get their lies to stick. They instead use things like youtube to post videos - where they can control the comments.
The moonbuggy was made of cardboard.
No-one wanted to steal it.
Although yes, it was a reference, the film actually came out after the conspiracies involving the Nevada desert.Capricorn One reference?*cough*Nevada desert*cough*
I guess that does satisfy a certain Dali-esque symmetry principle.
I continue to hope that Idiocracy was just a movie, rather than prophecy.I think the other reason for the deadness of the topic is that real hoax believers (as opposed to Trolls trying to kick up a fuss) don't bother much with moderated forums anyway, as they can't get their lies to stick. They instead use things like youtube to post videos - where they can control the comments.
Obviously. The OP can't even be bothered to respond.
After reading most of the third party sources, I believe that the spacecraft landed on the moon.
But how about the original post about "Neil Armstrong actually landing on the moon"?
Can the first party (NASA, the U.S. government) prove that the mission had men on it, with the footstep/ flag as evidence?
Not trying to encourage raging here...
Originally Posted by jocular
Yeah, it was Armstrong because he flubbed his famous quote.
snopes.com: Neil Armstrong's First Words on the Moon
I have the commemorative mug.
Theoretically speaking such an major event could be a setup.
(Just to get things straight : i am no hoax believer at all.)
But that would require a huge huge huge conspiracy, with a huge huge huge amount of people involved in it
to cover a huge huge huge amount of angles.
>To rediculous and to improbable to be true.
What uneducated, backwards, paranoid place on this planet do these people come from? And how do they accumulate 850+ posts on a science forum?But how about the original post about "Neil Armstrong actually landing on the moon"?
Can the first party (NASA, the U.S. government) prove that the mission had men on it, with the footstep/ flag as evidence?
Not trying to encourage raging here...
Don't forget that it was a space race and it was a major embarrassment for the USSR for us to get there first. They therefore must have tried everything to prove that we didn't get there such as pointing out that the radio signals and telemetry weren't coming from the moon. They could also shine a laser beam onto the corner-cube reflector mirrors that Neil and Buzz left on the moon.
You mean to tell me that you never considered these very obvious points?
Maybe these people seriously think the USSR agreed to be humiliated as the loser in the race to the moon? I don't think a Russian would stop with a single punch if that was ever said to his face, though.
^like
A picture of a man walking on the moon from Google.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...GpIGnPlgvS2X0Q
*cough* curiosity *cough*
*cough* curiosity *cough*
When you go to the original webpage and hover with mouse over the comic, it states:
Ok, so Spirit and Opportunity are pretty awesome. And Kepler. And New Horizons, Cassini, Curiosity, TiME, and Project M. But c'mon, if the Earth were a basketball, in 40 years no human's been more than half an inch from the surface.
True, but has there been a REASON to put a human on the surface of another body? Personally, I think drones are the future of exploration and humans will only step foot in dangerous new environments after the machines have set up shop. Makes more sense financially and in terms of risk to life. I would apologize for derailing the thread, but after another glance at the title...meh.
I would like to know how they got off the Moon. This little capsule on top of the landing module had to have the capability to rise up and accelerate to the speed of the lunar orbiting module. It is not just a matter of being fired up from the surface.
They used a felt pen, look it up.
Actually, the reverse argument makes a good case of why we did go to the Moon. They did it more than once. It's the old magician adage: "Never repeat a trick". If you faked a Moon landing and got away with it, you don't risk everything by faking a second, third, etc. Every time you do so increases the chance of the fakery being uncovered. Instead you do it once, then "decide" that the risks are too high and benefits too low to warrant a second trip.
A felt pen? Do they even work on the Moon?They used a felt pen, look it up.
Yeah, it doesn't make any sense. They needed a propulsion system that could accelerate a spacecraft through space somehow. If only someone could invent such a propulsion system.
Guidance systems retro-rockets propulsion, stabilizers what else? There was no ground control. It really is the feat that takes my surprise.Yeah, it doesn't make any sense. They needed a propulsion system that could accelerate a spacecraft through space somehow. If only someone could invent such a propulsion system.
Well let's see:
The fully fueled mass of the ascent stage was 4700 kg and its dry mass was 2150 kg. ( most of its mass was fuel) It has an engine with a an ISP of 311, so using the rocket equation we get an estimated delta v of ~2.4 km/s. The escape velocity from the surface of the Moon is 2.375 km/s, and to reach lunar orbit you don't need to fully reach escape velocity, so there we have it.
Are saying it WASN'T aliens?
Or even magic?
They broke the switch to fire their rockets. They were able to use the felt pen as a fix for the problem.A felt pen? Do they even work on the Moon?They used a felt pen, look it up.
To bad you didn't look it up.
Rome wasn't built in a day!They broke the switch to fire their rockets. They were able to use the felt pen as a fix for the problem.A felt pen? Do they even work on the Moon?They used a felt pen, look it up.
To bad you didn't look it up.
The command module would have continued to orbit in the same plane as it was in when the lander detached and landed. So there's no all that much guidance going on for the rendevouz.
And the timings for it all would have been able to have been worked out well in advance - on Earth with all the big heavy computers. (Known altitude of command module, speed of orbit, acceleration of ascent module, etc, all knowable figures - and I expect able to be done with pencil by the crews).
And the final docking once "close" was manually controlled.
So I'm not at all surprised it was possible.
And after ascent, but before they were close, they had rendezvous radar to find each other.
You are making some wild guesses there, aren't you? I have often planned to study how they met up with each other but generally this bit of the mission just seems to be ignored.
That is interesting for it gives me a term ("rendezvous radar") to search for.And after ascent, but before they were close, they had rendezvous radar to find each other.
Apollo 11 Lunar Rendezvous - The Untold Story of NASA’s Apollo 11 Moon Mission - Popular Mechanics
That was an amazing summary of the issues they faced. ThanksApollo 11 Lunar Rendezvous - The Untold Story of NASA’s Apollo 11 Moon Mission - Popular Mechanics
If you want to see how all the mechanics work, go play Kerbal Space Program. It's a bit silly, and they've taken some liberties with scale and the like, but it does give you a really good feel for how things work in space. After playing for a while, it's really not all that hard to do a rendezvous or fly to the moon and back with almost no planning. Some of that ease is due to the much smaller scale, some of it is due to the fact that kerbals don't need life support, and some is due to the information you've got to work with which real astronauts must calculate for themselves, but some of it is due to how predictable things are without an atmosphere (predictable, but not intuitive for most people).
Compared to the rockets needed to get in to space in the first place, a ship to go to the moon, land and then come back can be quite small.
~ Most of you know these things, and some better than I. The following is a brief run down as I understand it..
If there remains a argument I am unaware of it.. but would not mind at all being corrected if the need is seen..
Apollo eight was the first maned flight out to the moon.. It did not have the lander and hardware to make a landing.. and did not..
I seem to remember it.. Apollo nine did not leave Earth orbit but did undertake the undock and re docking required..
Apollo ten did the whole thing but could not make the landing as it did not carry a completed ascent engine..
Apollo eleven we seem to know all about.. twelve was equally successful. Thirteen blew a oxygen bottle and for more detail of that event.. They made a movie for you.. Fourteen through to seventeen were all successful missions to the lunar surface.. The last three included the buggy or maned rover.. That's a very brief and non to accurate account of the Lunar Missions.. Nine maned missions and with twelve people actually walking on the moon... Six manned landings. To ask the question posed is a sample of extreme ignorance and appalling judgments..
~ as has been well said; Do you think that the rest of the world would have let such lies become events of history and not made idiots of NASA.. and the USA ?... Yes.. is the only answer acceptable.. Would the USSR have let such as the lies above be unchallenged.. no..
How can so well educated people be so silly.. I have never understood.
Nope, I don't think my assumptions were wild at all. My main point was just that I'm not at all surprised it was possible; my surprise is only about your surprise, in post #40.
(And I don't agree that it's ignored. I've been reading about this stuff for years now, and have seen rendezvous discussed.)
Isn't it as simple as buying yourself a powerful private telescope and aim it at the listed landing sites?
Or, alternatively, go up there yourself, when we get those space elevators built.
Not even Hubble can get a good look at the sites (to a resolution that shows landers).
Some of the recent "visitors" to the Moon have seen tracks and stuff - I'll do a search for you.
Edit:
e.g. http://www.space.com/14874-apollo-11...oon-photo.html
e.g. http://global.jaxa.jp/press/2008/05/..._kaguya_e.html
Currently and still working, NASA has a Lunar Orbiter mapping and photographing in high resolution the Lunar surface.. All of it.
Some excellent views of ALL the previous landing sites are available to view.. and a search via Google will reveal all.. or check out the NASA site.. they share.. Some good images of the Apollo sites are freely available.. Just a little research for your self will meet your demands for images.. really.
| « The theory of blocking the truth | Is DMT Fibonacci? » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
