A snap poll, did we land on the moon?

Another question, why nobody tries to revisit the moon after so many years?

This post has been edited by Panda: Jun 23 2009, 02:08 AM

mythbuster said it's true!

The 1st person dat landed on the moon never came back. So, the Mythbusters is kinda true, i guess.

I think there were later visits.

The reason nobody tries is the cost involved compared to what may be gained from visiting the moon. We pretty know enough of our moon. Better to spend resources on researching Mars.

Because the moon had been conquered by mankind already... so its kinda boring to visit again
The new frontier is Mars...

we should go to Jupiter~ or Titan(Saturn largest moon)

Titan is the only moon known to have a dense atmosphere, and the only object other than Earth for which clear evidence of stable bodies of surface liquid.

This post has been edited by Alex_tan168: Jun 23 2009, 02:47 AM

if proven to be true or fake, nothing is going to be changed. science is all about paradigm shifts. so whats this again?

This hoax is getting stale...

Moon landing was more of a political objective rather than scientific one. US and USSR was in a arm race as well as a space race so everybody is racing to be the first in everything that time including landing on the moon. Interest on moon landing diminished as political will shrunk after the end of the Cold War.

Another hoax thread.

This subforum is about science,not hoax like this.

the only point needed to debunk this is that soviet never expose US for staging a fake moon landing.

Morning!

WOW! From Nuclear Physics to Moon Landing! This is endless!

With the chance of a successful landing on the moon was calculated to be 0.0017%, it really makes your brain came into clock thinking, eh?

What's with the commotion of the Moon Landing was a fake? Photos as evidence? Hmmm...Still skeptical? The Apollo astronauts used what was, at the time, a special transparency film produced by Eastman Kodak under a NASA contract. But then again, with the temperatures reaching till a high magnitude, the film would melt like chocolate on the moon at 250° temperatures. So, how the ~!@#$%^&* heck did the photos came from? Aaahhhh...there's alwaiz a catch! Don't yu love it, eh? The Estar melting point is 490° F, although some shrinkage and distortion can occur at approximately 200° F. (As advanced technologies can be, it MUST have a point of limitation at a certain point)

Another point to ponder: If Neil Armstrong was the first man on the Moon, then who shot the video of him descending the ladder and taking his initial steps on the lunar surface? Surely, NASA isn't going to release the foul-ups and blunders. (They are not Dotards for Christ sake!)

Computer technology. Ring a bell, eh? Mind yu that the computer technology did not exist in the 1960's to build the Apollo guidance computer. How the frigging heck did they guide the Apollo? Skeptical, eh?

To me, for America to came with an idea of a hoax makes absolutely ~!@#$%^&* no sense! Yes...I know and it is true the Americans were at competition with the USSR, but the risk involved in trying to perpetrate a hoax would be tremendous. It takes no Einstein to figure out the devastating effect of the hoax being exposed. Hey, reputation of United States would be at stake for ~!@#$%^&* Christ! More humiliating than failing to land/reach the moon. (It's akin to a feeder in DotA if yu ask me)

Would NASA would be willing to take that risk? After Apollo 11, what's with the following landings? Come on! Okie, NASA would pawn a Dotard like me anytime but of course not the Russians, right? The USSR fully understood the difficulties of a Moon landing and they were smart and they tracked American progress closely...and hey! They acknowledged that the Apollo moon landing were as real as yu and me.

Came year 2009, to fly to the moon today would be nearly as difficult and likely more expensive than it was three decades ago (Technology is there but costing (fundings) is another issue. Psychologically speaking, where is the motivation? Ask yu? Ask me?

Anyway, NASA is one of the more open and well received of all government agencies. Questions? No problem, it will be addressed accordingly. They are a group (came in a dozen to thousands) of "smart scientists, researchers, mathematical analysts, engineers, astronauts, cosmonauts, etc...they are the brains of NASA. But would they lie? For those who believes they did lie, I'll take it as an ignorance. Given the opportunity, I wouldn't trust a sales person more than a NASA's personnel.

Regards, Joey

p.s: I have often been "misunderstood" of "providing no more proof than the plausible advocates", which in a sense I admit it is correct. I have not proven anything, nor do I assert otherwise. This goes the same to the correlation of science is art or art is science thread that I've initiated.

This post has been edited by Joey Christensen: Jun 23 2009, 10:34 AM

come to think of it ........... there's several issues that is pending ...


1. Supercomputer vs mainframe (desktop-size vs room-size)
2. Weight of the rocket
3. Extreme efficient shuttle design (aka Inspector Gadget's all-in-one body)
3. Super human (aka astronaut) adaptive brains
4. Insane luck


1. Supercomputer vs mainframe (desktop-size vs room-size)
Basically, in 1969 ... we know those computers is basically mainframes ... so they do calculations ... like our computer do


not just that .. mainframes consists of around 1800 sq feet (that time) .. it looks like this design


btw like this model Imsai 8 bit computer (8 BIT!!) built in 1974 ... most of our pc is around average 2.4ghz (overclocked ones no need to mention)
http://www.futurebots.com/imsai1.jpg

ok, this RCA 1802 Microcomputer controllers is control STOP TRAFFIC LIGHTS ...


so we roughly know how BIIIIIIGGGGG is the computer to fly and land to the moon ... and how FAASSST is the processing for what-farking-experiment they do in moon ... i dun know how they stuff the computer in the space shuttle ... obviously it's important to have computer ..... or else, how to they keep the space shuttle HOVERING (AKA AUTO-PILOT) on their head, while they land on moon

that time, there is NO AUTO-PILOT, unlike nowadays, in the comercial airplane (Boeing etc) .. the pilot can sit back and enjoy the cruise ...


2. Weight of the rocket
So far, we all know ... if you travel to Singapore (or other place) ... ur car must have enough fuel to come back .. am i right? so basically they go to the moon also applies to this .... they have to come back to tell their Story .....

apparently ... during that time ...... all the rockets was able to carry 14-15 tons weight (ONE WAY ONLY) .. normally for orbital trips.. and satelites ..
tip: orbital (cosmonaut) trips just need 1 way fuel to go up .. then the gravity will put it back down (go down = free ride)

today ........ rockets are more larger and able to carry up to 25 tons (US carry the largest weight)


3. Extreme efficient shuttle design (aka Inspector Gadget's all-in-one body)
basically .... we assume US in 1969 has a SPECIAL TECHNOLOGY that can carry the fuel + astronaut + space shuttle + mini space shuttle (landing) + computer (1800sq feet size) + power generator (to run the pc) or big battery (duracell rabbit maybe)

unbelievable? well ... believe it ...... they even provide MAKAN for the astronauts ....... hey, astronaut also human mah, they also need to makan ...
dun ask about kencing and berak .... that time no toilet ... they have SH|T in their suits (or pants)

dun even ask if the space shuttle got equipment to REPAIR things if emergency occurs .... US are 100% percent they'll success, NO FAILURES, so everything is PERFECT, no need fire extinguisher etc ... no need tools either


3. Super adaptive human (aka astronaut) brains

And so they went to the moon, and sit on their MINI SHUTTLE and proceeds to land on the moon, leaving their space shuttle in AUTO PILOT mode (assuming the mainframe is running)

since this is a 1st time landing ....... Neil Armstrong must be having a hard time .... THEY'RE LANDING ON AN ALIEN ENVIRONMENT ... EVERY MOVE MUST BE PERFECT .... so the astronauts manage to land safely ... i dun even know how they land .... even vertical landing vehicle, helicopter is not manufactured at that time .... maybe US has some alien vertical landing tech that time ...
(even today, probes are landed using balloons and parachute, and out of 24 probe missions to Mars, only 1 success)

so they open the champage ... partied ... then ready to go back the Main Shuttle .. the moment they step in the Mini Shuttle ... check the MINYAK, OK minyak cukup, time to blast up .... start the engine ... and return to the Main Shuttle


4. Insane luck
AGAIN ... Neil Armstrong is having DAMM hard time .... LANDING/DOCKING on the Main Shuttle requires PERFECT, GOD-LIKE LUCK to have 100% success ... failure, the Mini Shuttle might have to crash to the Main Shuttle, and they cannot come back to tell their Story

and so, with again the Super adaptive human brains ... he manage to land on the Main Shuttle (remember: there's NO TRAINING, NO EXPERIMENT, NO PROTOTYPE, JUST PURE LUCK)

(even today ... docking in the Space Station, require not only pure accuracy (computer aided with calculations), but there's a mechanical hand to actually put the shuttle closer and locking it ...... there's no such thing as combining 2 space shuttle together in space ........ even today, there's no aeroplane which can land on other aeroplane)




Mini Shuttle



the more i think, the more it sound like a big joke ................ just like Christoper Columbus story ..... sailing to the New World with 1-way food supply and a sure-success plan ........

even today .... US cannot make the space station alone .... let alone travel to the moon and back

1. The computer on board Apollo is a small one, the size of a shoe box and have the processing power of about today's ordinary calculator. It is enough to do calculations that are based on set formula, moreover, the computer's job are dedicated, calculating all the required parameters.

Computers on a modern commercial jet are about as powerful as a 386 processors, they do not have to work around a universal platform like windows/linux/mac OS so they require significantly less processing power.

2. The rockets used to send Apollo astronauts are the same kind that put US spy satellite into space during the cold war. Majority of the fuel spent is to escape Earth's gravity. Since astronaut simply drop into the atmosphere and have a ocean landing. You don't have to carry the same amount of fuel for your return trip.

As for the part where the lunar lander return to it's orbiting module, there's enough fuel on the lunar lander to launch PART of the entire package landed on the moon. They don't bring everything back. At 1/6 the gravity of earth and no atmosphere, you need significantly less fuel to exit the gravity of the Moon.

3. The environment call for innovation. Never heard of energy bars and MRE? Packing boxes of rice onto the lunar module is a waste of space when you can compact all the nutrition and much needed energy into compact form.

Oh, uhh, solar panel anyone? Who need to bring that much batteries on board? In space it's 24/7 sunlight so solar are super efficient even at 10% conversion rate. In situation where you have infinite energy at your disposal, pretty much everything from water to air can be recycled, astronaut didn't liked the idea of eating their own waste(who does?) so, they don't recycle their bowel movement.

The US government has a lot of technology at their disposal that time, they're at least good 10-20 years ahead in technologies before we start seeing mainstream use of similar appliances.

4. lol... do you know they still check docking visually on the ISS? Astronaut can actually override the computer and guide the shuttle into dock with ISS. When you can override a computer in such task, you can bet that human can do that without the intervention of computers.

5. Luck did play a role in Apollo space program, bad luck struck Apollo 13.

Maths of randomization and probability will crush luck into moon dust.

The reason why an airplane can't land on another airplane has more than one factor that lunar modules don't have to live with.

- Planes are flying at a very fast speed relative to each other.
- Atmospheric condition, turbulence, air pressure mean that the plane is never flying at the same speed all the time.

Oh wait, wouldn't that mean mid-flight refueling is impossible? How do they do it I wonder?

People always forgot in outer space, you need little energy to propel a thing going forwards as there is no friction, and once goes forwards, it forever goes forwards without need of any continous energy input. You just need some fuel for escaping the moon's gravitiy and for trajetory for return path.

We cannot apply earth landing difficulty compared to moon that had little gravity and no air. It is harder to land on earth than land on moon due to gravitation pull is larger.

Anyway, I do think helicopter does exist way before the moon landing.

US can make the space station alone if they wish to. A lot of project didn't be carried out due to lesser interest and no major benefit to do so compared to other priority especially on military front. Actually a lot of money and funding is always emphasis on military front, even the internet we are using now is because of military research product.

Were there any research done before any of these statements were made? It is usually a good idea to read up on something before you start talking about it especially if you have no idea on what is going on.


The space shuttle was not used to go to the moon. It didn't even exist during the time of the moon landing. Here's a little link to the wikipedia page in regard to the space shuttle-Space shuttle.

Autopilot system for planes was first created in 1912.-Another wikipedia link-Autopilot

The rocket system that was used to launch the Apollo mission, the Saturn V has the ability to carry a payload of about 47 metric ton to the moon.-Another wikipedia link-Saturn V

The helicopter existed before the moon mission but I'm pretty sure they don't work in space-More wikipedia links-Helicopter

If you compare the trip to the moon as a trip to Singapore by car, at the end of the trip your car would be missing a lot of its parts at the end of the journey. You don't bring back the entire rocket that you use to go into space with. A large part of the rocket ship is left in space to save fuel.

There's a lot more of inaccurate information in that post that if you made it into a drinking game where you drink each time you find wrong information, you would get a lot of people dying from alcohol poisoning.

Oh wow lol, these are even stronger facts that what I could come up with, although of course I didn't wiki anything. I thought he was referring to Saturn V only having 14-15 ton payload capacity. He actually took facts of the shuttle as the lunar lander. o.O

I will choose "not sure" for the poll lolx..i've seen many controversies over the hoax, never rili go n investigate the genuineness..i guess if they happened to grasp some soil on the moon for analysis..that could be a solid proof for the true landing?

btw, what i enjoyed over the moon landing project is the anecdote saying that US discovered the moon gravitational force isn't sufficient to let ballpen work so they dumped alot of fund to invent some anti-gravity ballpen...while USSR easily solved the problem by using a pencil...that was funny....

LOL,

One question on this ballpen issue, means that we can't write on paper when upside down? We can now trying it out to see whether we can write the paper on upside down position.

Ball pen ink doesn't flow back when you put it upside down, right? Because there back of the ink is not open air, just like you turn a bottle/can upside down with a hole straight away with letting chance of flow in the first place, they can't flow out.

In ordinary condition when we writing using a ball pen, besides gravitational pull, ballpen ink flow out based on pull of ink itself. (I forgot what is the term right now), vicious flow something like that?

lolx, ya i noticed tat, ..tatz y it's just an anecdote, and more of a joke for dissing US..btw, ur comment enlighten me that i misintepreted the original story..it's not the gravitational force, it's due to the near-vacuum atmosphere lolx..however, it doesn't change the ballpen ink flow issue, i still perceived the viscous flow explanation is right o..i juz correcting it to fit with the originality of the joke, not because of I want to give a condition where experiment is harder to be done o..lolx..

Capillary action is the words I believe.

I think the entire pen vs pencil thing is a myth anyway. It doesn't take millions of dollar to invent a 50 cent equipment

It's capillary effect.

It's the same effect that drives water up in the plant.

the space pen is real but not developed with NASA money, a company develop the space pen and both Russian and US space program is using it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_pen

you can buy one for $ 60 USD, now you can write upside down, underwater and in a furnace

http://www.spacepen.com/originalastronautmodels.aspx

---

Added on June 27, 2009, 9:42 pmfor those who think the computer in the 60s is room size and cannot fit into the rocket, in 1961 they aready develop a rocket guidance system computer in the Minuteman 1.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/06/05/tob_minuteman_1/

Also the first landing on moon does that a lot of luck, they are struggling to find a flat surface to land, and have just several second of fuel left before finally touching down. they do have testing on the landing module and several test fail including on tested by neil armstrong which he have to eject before it crash and blow up.

here is an article on the development of the camera for the mission

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/15.01/nasa.html

This post has been edited by robertngo: Jun 27 2009, 09:43 PM

I think the questions need to be more detailed.
Do you mean the 1969 landing? 1st human landing on Moon?
Because there are many more Moon landings after that.
But if you're talking about 1969 landing, I think it's a hoax.

what is the evidence you have found that can prove the Apollo 11 landing is fake?

Apollo 11 astronauts left an array of corner mirrors on the moon. A corner mirror is three mirrors arranged like a corner of a box, all at right angles to each other. Such a mirror reflects light directly back toward the source of the light. Scientists shine a laser at the moon, and measure the time it takes to reflect back.

The fact that scientists can do this means that man has been to the moon.

the moon hoax people will said that these mirror are all put there by unmanned mission.

Bro, I was just giving my personal opinion on it.
I have read on a few forums regarding the Moon landing, and obviously there will be another team that is the Non-believers churning out their informations.
Do not ask me for proof or anything, because I can tell you now, that I don't have any.

But nevertheless, I still stand firm on my believe that 1969 Moon landing did not accomplished/fake.
Personal opinion btw#

There's always a reason behind a belief on either side. You've read about some that reinforce the point that it did not happen, why not share it with us?

Yo there.
It's not like I don't want to share it with you.
Just that I've read it in another forum, so if you guys wanna check it out, its at www.unexplained-mysteries.com.
There are loads of informations there, thousands of replies and hundreds of topics and also many other different sub-topics.
This is the link to the ET Life & UFO subtopic, http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...php?showforum=7
Happy reading~

P/S: This is actually where I read about most mysterious stuffs at the past 2 years, but stopped recently when I changed job because limited WWW access in the new company.

Edit*
Try this topic too, although it's in conspiracy theories~
http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...pic=113834&st=0

This post has been edited by Vengeance_Mad: Jul 4 2009, 01:06 PM

To TS:

I believe the landing was real. It wasn't easy, and they nearly blew it when they accidentally broke the button off that turns on the thrusters so that the crew capsule and lander can separate and return home, but they did it. It was a combination of fantastic knowledge, skills and lots of luck.

As to why we don't go back to the moon, well it costs a lot of money, and there's really no benefit in going to the moon because there's nothing there except regolith. So from an economic and scientific point of view, it's a big waste of money to keep going there. We should spend that money on Mars instead.

Curious though... how do we know that no one has landed on the moon ever again?

Aha, now this is something my boss brought up during my training. Usually any major launches will pop up on NORAD's radars so the US will know.

For all we know, there might be an alien base on the dark side of the moon

there are lunar orbiter that taken high definition photo of the dark side of the moon, there is really no little green man there.

also a launch will require a Saturn V size rocket and a space program that employed tens of thoudsand of people, no one can pull of a secret program to launch with a rocket that big to the moon.

Interesting to read

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Moon_L...piracy_theories

u got punked!

Interesting how that happened




This post has been edited by prolog: Jul 17 2009, 12:11 PM

watch this mythbuster test on how flag can appear to be flapping in wind

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhab86KoVjU

This post has been edited by robertngo: Jul 17 2009, 10:57 PM

I still stand not believing 1969 Apollo 11 Moon landing!

Mythbuster is a myth. I wonder how much NASA paid them
They could only answer some of the weak conspiracy claims.
But they cannot answer most of the conspiracy theories.


Watch this documentary to the end
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5MVVtFYTSo...re=channel_page

This post has been edited by prolog: Jul 18 2009, 09:00 PM

can you list what are the strongest conspiracy that cannot be explained?

for instance, the shadows, no stars
Surface temperature of the moon
below -200 C in the shadow
above +200 C under the light





and, all the conspiracy theories in the videos

natgeo have a compilation of moon haox claim and explaination.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...res/photo3.html

photo of the landing site

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastro...-imaged-by-lro/

This post has been edited by robertngo: Jul 19 2009, 12:38 AM

I'd be glad if you could explain
1. How they survived through the Van Allen radiation belt with virtually no shielding
2. Howcome their camera still worked in extreme temperatures on the surface of the moon. The tape would have melted
3. How come after 40 years with super computers and advanced technology, NASA is still struggling to walk on Mars. It is virtually the same type of alleged technology to land and walk. The only difference is the distance

This post has been edited by prolog: Jul 19 2009, 11:15 PM

Hmm, if im not mistaken they put some special thing to make the flag appear as it is flapping. Saw on CNN.

I doubt the moon landing. (Im not saying its not true. Just doubt).

And the mythbuster thing, just proves that it CAN be done here on Earth. It has actually hits back at them.

1. You can survive the Van Allen radiation belt, as long the exposure time is short enough. In this case, they had exposure in terms of hours, not days.

More here: http://www.clavius.org/envrad.html

2. You're assuming that the temperature of the camera would immediately jump up to 200c, when in fact, heating is always a time dependent process, and the same applies with cooling.

3. Because the whole Apollo 11 launch to landing on Moon and back to Earth took 8 days. A one way trip to Mars takes 8 months. There was no need to recycle food/waste on the Apollo missions; this is essential instead for a mission to Mars, which increases complexity a lot. There is also a loss of political will to fund such programmes; there is no longer any space race to push for so much funding; the Apollo mission is an exception, not the rule when it comes to funding

distance by itself is a big enough issue to tackle IMO

Oh yea?

How long was the Hiroshima blasted? Seconds? Minutes? Days? Months?


The radiation was blasted out in spherical movement in a few seconds and dispersed.



Cities away from Hiroshima blast also suffered from radiations

They suffered from weird diseases and dying for several generations.
skin cancer, weird diseases, mutation, loss of hair and endless others



Again, how long was the radiation dispersal?
It dispersed out at the speed of light yet it still managed to ionize the human DNA.




LOL..Several hours in the bowl of charged particles can literally cook you.

This post has been edited by prolog: Jul 20 2009, 12:06 PM

this should clear up some doubt
link

you made it seems like the astronauts were wearing civilians clothings while up there, and is equally succumbable to what the poor atomic bomb victims suffered from back down on earth.

Well according to physics, it requires several feet of LEAD box to survive through Ven Allen Belt. The astronauts where wearing a millimeter shielding

If you're a physics student you would know how many inches of lead would stop a single beam of gamma ray.
gamma rays require 1 cm (0.4 inches) of lead to reduce their intensity by 50%.


You can do the math if the intensity is sooooooo high

This post has been edited by prolog: Jul 20 2009, 02:04 PM

Sigh... http://www.clavius.org/envrad.html

Darling, I am a physics student. You do not need to stop gamma rays. Getting hit by gamma rays do not kill you, but they do increase the chance of you suffering down the line from cancer or something. You'd need a massive massive dose to actually kill you immediately.

And if you knew your physics better, you'd know that gamma rays aren't remotely close to being the main source of radiation in the Van Allen belts because the belts are formed mainly by trapped charged particles in the Earth's magnetic field, which photons would easily traverse. And again, the shielding need not protect from all radiation. Heck we are exposed to radiation every single day we walk on the surface of the planet, and heck even if we were 10 miles underground we'd still get some (albeit a lot less).

You have ignored the fact that the atomic bomb explosion had other sources of radiation, namely the highly unstable (and hence highly radioactive) daughter products, and concentrated exclusively on gamma rays only. Breathing in the 'radioactive wind' would probably have been the most dangerous thing to do in a nuclear explosion event, because the daughter products are still highly radioactive. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase...fisfrag.html#c1

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/mp11.asp (talks about the rays emitted - but mainly concentrating on the close to explosion site effects, not further away

This post has been edited by bgeh: Jul 22 2009, 04:50 PM

I think its all abt the camera exposure. The surface illumination were too strong and overexposing the shot. Stars are lost in the background as an effect. Most orbital satelite photos also do not exhibit stars for similar reasons.

Try taking ur video cam out in a starry night and capture it with a bright floor as a foreground. I dont think u'll get the stars recorded. Video cameras in the 60s are low-res and makes it worse to capture a minute star with little lights emitting power.

Telescopes are somehow good at capturing stars.....well one thing is because its highly sensitive n its huge.

---

Added on July 22, 2009, 11:44 pmIm waiting for the Lunar Orbiter to come up with 3x the resolution in the coming weeks.

The ones they have on the Lunar landing sites now are too low-res coz its far.

If the photos are clear and without doubt, then it will rest the case for the conspirators.

This post has been edited by maranello55: Jul 22 2009, 11:44 PM

I believe the moon landing did happen, but the way they accomplished it is way beyond what anyone thinks. And there are many strange stuff on the moon which NASA never revealed to the world right till today ~ as well.

It seems we will all get a much bigger picture of the true state of affairs in the coming 1-3 years, but till then, keep your fingers crossed, as all this is just endless speculation, I'll admit...

the moon is reflecting light from sun so camera cannot capture dark background with proper exposure, like how hard it is to see a sky full of star with the light pollution in the city. optical telescope also effected by the light pollution there is movement to reduce light pollution from our cities

http://www.skyandtelescope.com/resources/d...p_Problems.html

This post has been edited by robertngo: Jul 23 2009, 07:16 PM

think moon landing in religious way.. my opinion says it was all fake

if there is strange stuff on the moon that nasa never revealed, how do you got to know about it?

I'm sorry but we are at a science discussion here.
But I do agree with you.
1969, Apollo 11, fake.

well the soviet never disputed the Apollo 11 landing, why would the Soviet work with Nasa to keep secrect and lose the space race?

also there is up to 400,000 people that are involve in the Apollo project, no one have come out the expose this is fake, how can Nasa be so successful in covering up the truth with so many people involve. it very hard to keep a secret with such a large organization, like the Israel nuclear program even as they try hard to cover it up there is so many leak on the program that many are quite sure that Israel have up to 80 nuclear warhead.

also the moon rock collected by the mission have been verified by lab test and been verified as moon rock.

Could someone explain about the flag having a wavy thing even though there isnt any air on the moon? I read before that the picture taken with the flag, it was as though the flag was at earth.

I still cant believe that people still find moon landing controversy so exciting.

When looking back at the videos of moon landing. It seems so impressive that the late 60s technology can actually put a person on the moon.
I'm still 50-50 whether to believe it or not.
Serious..

its true kot...

1940's already invented a atomic bomb.
War time (whether world war or cold war) was actually a good catalyst for technology advancement, sadly to say.

Before the moon landing, human kind already knew how to send statellite to space and orbiting for spying etc.

For the sake of humanity and exploration, I want to believe that the Moon landing is true and I do believe that its true.
The facts just overweights the myths.

Unmanned probes can collect rocks too

I read The Star paper a fortnight ago (can't remember which day exactly) and NASA did provide explanations for all possible questions hurled to them. But of course we can's be sure how far it is true. How hard is it for NASA to create some cock and bull story to convince people when they can cheat (if they ever cheat) the whole world for so many years before this debate comes to rise?

which ummanned mission can collect up to 100kg of moon rock? the ummanned luna probes only send by a few hundred gram of rock.

and it is highly impossible to do a series of secret launch to the moon to collect moon rock with the world not knowning about that.

This post has been edited by robertngo: Aug 6 2009, 12:09 AM

I don't know the part of Russia, and will never know.
For one, they might not even have the abilities to track&trace the locations of NASA's rocket at that time.
It was 1969 and they only have about <5 satelites up there?
With most of them orbiting earth, and with the technology at that time?
I doubt they can do that.

How sure of you that the rock is > 100kg?
Media and news do not ALWAYS report the truth.
Especially news from US@.
That being said, you concur that you believe in everything that the media and US has said?
Because I don't.



And it is exclusively because of that, that I am here, doubting the 1969 moon landing.
If I were to believe in them, I won't be here saying this.

LOL yea. The lander module didn't seem to have a place to carry a 100kg rock. 100kg rock is quite huge

This post has been edited by prolog: Aug 11 2009, 09:43 AM

I smell bullshit on the Apollo moon landings. I smell too much bullshit.

For example, recent news has it that NASA is going to digitally "re-master" footage of the moon landings. Because the original ones had been erased or taped over in a colossal lack of foresight by the agency. Supposedly.

My opinion: YEAH RIGHT.

Does anybody here know the meaning of the word "ret-con"? Comic book fans will be familiar with it for sure.

This post has been edited by Dickson Poon: Aug 11 2009, 12:07 PM

he dint land on moon . he dint touch the surface with his skin

The flag was said to have a wire mesh to make it look stiff and to extend itself like that. Of course having a limp flag wouldn't look impressive at all.

the flags waved because the astronaut moved it when setting the flag, vacuum = no = air friction = longer time for the flag to stop waving.

the astronaut had left the flag, but it was still waving.

This post has been edited by mindkiller6610: Aug 12 2009, 12:46 PM

I can't believe that people are still trying to authenticate this issue.... THEY DID LAND ON THE MOON!!
If you actually watched what CNN, NASA, & Mythbusters released, you will not doubt it.

opps, my mistake, it is 100 lb not 100kg, they can carry an entire rover to the moon, do you think they have capacity to bring back to rock, the lunar rover weight 210 kg. . and the moon rock have been send to labs all over the world and no one denied it was not from the moon. even the Russian verify it against their own moon rock collected by luna unmanned mission.

---

Added on August 12, 2009, 2:32 pmat the time Soviet have the capability to remote control a rover on the surface of the moon, they have lauch satelite to the moon. also at the same time of the Apollo3 11 landing the Soviet have lauch a luna mission to attempt landing a rover on moon in a last ditch attempt to upstage NASA by returning with moon rock before the Apollo mission return, but their mission failed

This post has been edited by robertngo: Aug 12 2009, 02:35 PM

I read the national geographic article. I thought it was horrible.

First of all, were the photos used in there also the originals? I would bet not. I would bet that the photos in there were edited and touched up to look good... but also to cover up any signs or artefacts that would have caused speculation in the first place, or "paint" these artefacts to appear to have been caused by something else.

The article also gives nothing but plausible explanations to counter over-simplified hoax claims. Do you know the meaning of a plausible explanation? It's one of those things that make you think "it could be, but who is to say it might not?".

Take a look at this: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...res/photo8.html



It could be, but who is to say it might not?



It could be, but who is to say it might not? ACTUALLY.... this attempt to debunk the moon landing hoaxes lies closer to the heart of the matter than the other paragraphs which seek to dismiss them as matters of "scientific" minutae.

A lot of photography professionals who've examined the originals do say that the photographs are too picture perfect, appear to have been created specifically for mass consumption, and do reveal that they have been shot in a controlled environment like a studio.

Did they have automatic cameras at the time? Did the astronauts have the time to adjust aperture and shutter speed settings in order to get such well composed and iconic photographs while on the moon?

I think that a lot of people who don't believe that the moon landings could be a hoax simply have invested themselves too much in the idea that it is real, or that "there is no way to know for sure". They cannot even bring themselves to acknowledge that they can be LIED to in such a manner, in fact they REFUSE to believe it, and thus they will do everything they can to preserve and maintain their peace of mind. The simplest way is of course, outright rejection and derision.

---

Added on August 14, 2009, 10:05 pmhttp://www.clavius.org/envrad.html

^ Now we have a webpage specifically created to debunk the hoax claims... all of which have been summarised to single lines of contention.

I could go further and explain and argue, but it would be better for me to ask a question, instead.

I want to ask the readers here: Do you know how the international press works?

How do agencies like AFP, Associated Press and Reuters decide what stories to bring to you, and how they are to be PRESENTED to you?

Do you know how the mass media works... as well as who decides how they work?

---

Added on August 14, 2009, 10:42 pmI feel like writing an article about the Iraq war and what it taught me about the media and propaganda and how it's helped me to interpret current events.

I also feel like writing an article on HOW to cover up a conspiracy, drawing on patterns that I have observed from almost all "unsolved mysteries" that have had more and more pieces added to the puzzle over time.

The question is.... is anybody even interested in knowing?

The second concern of mine is: isn't it true that the people who already have the ability to perceive, have already done so and are well on their way to understanding more?

Meaning that the people who don't have that ability are in fact wilfully keeping themselves that way?

This post has been edited by Dickson Poon: Aug 14 2009, 10:43 PM

Eh...Apollo not just landing once right? Few time if not mistaken. Till apollo 13 have problem. With this few time, woudin't people will suspect it at that time? Or the US enemy will not suspect anything and said something?

This post has been edited by ozak: Aug 15 2009, 10:25 AM

I believe that the moon landings are a type of "open secret" in the global aerospace industry.

Quite possibly, without the image of Man walking on the moon, public approval of NASA's (and every other space agency's) research expenditure as well as its forgiveness for various space disasters would be a lot lower.

This post has been edited by Dickson Poon: Aug 14 2009, 11:28 PM

its real. no secrets can be concealed when ur talking abt americans

The Americans cannot be trusted....they can do whatever to make you believe that they are the big boss...

Check this interesting site out, watch the 5 parts youtube video too, interesting:
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/moon.htm

Okay I think there is enough counter arguments that explains all the issues involving this 'hoax'. Those interested to learn more about them can find links for and against the argument that the landings were a hoax. Decide for yourself.

Despite the effort to prove the authenticity of the event, some people will never believe it. So I see no no point for this thread to continue. All this thread will be is a regurgitation of 'conspiracy theory' or proof of falsehood and 'facts'.

Moon landing fake or True? Look at the arguments/facts and you decide for yourself.

Closing this thread.