So the moon landing was faked!

[gillywibble]

In reference to the schematics and workings of the computer, 'The Delirious Data Subsystem of the LM', how can you accept that is evidence, when you cannot possibly understand how it should or even did work?

If we can't debunk that one on a computer forum, we are surely lost

3) unusual lighting?

This is yet another common myth. It's been debunked a million times.

I disagree with this debunking. If the reflectively were the case, then why isn't luminosity consistent, i.e. why do we see patches of deep shadow?

13 why robots?

Have you really asked that?

I take your point on this one, it struck me as odd at first glance.

As for 18 years. What do you expect, once the projects been disabled, we don't exactly have stuff ready to launch.

Because with more modern technology it must surely be quicker to complete than the original Apollo missions?

 

[Glaucus]

What, do you know how shadows work?
Light can't curve. Therefore him being lite from behind can cause a deep shadow on the ground as there's no light sauce, however the reflection from the surrounding area illuminates him at the front.

The light can't reflect of the floor, travel in a curve and hit the floor again.

No, we are not surley lost. Computers are complicated, especially in a multi computer specific task, like apollo. It was not a CPU, in a motherboard, with a gfx card, that was designed to do everything and anything.
It was a custom made system to do extremely specific tasks. So that argument doesn't hold up either.

 

[gillywibble]

Anyway quick question for those that do not believe we have been to the moon. If we have not been to the moon then how did the retroreflectors equipment get there?

Unmanned moon missions. The Russians have also done this.

10, is not proof of anything, you are just reading into it, your own viewpoint.

Well of course but then, so are you.

 

[Glaucus]

Well of course but then, so are you.

Not at all, I suggest a reasonable and plausible alternative.
You are the only one who read into it and showed it as some sort of evidence.

 

[Glaucus]

How about this James van Allen letter in respons to hoaxers

Ø The radiation belts of the Earth do, indeed, pose important constraints on the safety of human space flight.

Ø The very energetic (tens to hundreds of MeV) protons in the inner radiation belt are the most dangerous and most difficult to shield against. Specifically, prolonged flights (i.e., ones of many months' duration) of humans or other animals in orbits about the Earth must be conducted at altitudes less than about 250 miles in order to avoid significant radiation exposure.

Ø A person in the cabin of a space shuttle in a circular equatorial orbit in the most intense region of the inner radiation belt, at an altitude of about 1000 miles, would be subjected to a fatal dosage of radiation in about one week.

Ø However, the outbound and inbound trajectories of the Apollo spacecraft cut through the outer portions of the inner belt and because of their high speed spent only about 15 minutes in traversing the region and less than 2 hours in traversing the much less penetrating radiation in the outer radiation belt. The resulting radiation exposure for the round trip was less than 1% of a fatal dosage - a very minor risk among the far greater other risks of such flights. I made such estimates in the early 1960s and so informed NASA engineers who were planning the Apollo flights. These estimates are still reliable.

Just one of many radation reports
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/tnD7080RadProtect.pdf
Which shows the dosage for each apollo missions and talks about radation in general.

 

[gillywibble]

Russians did not claim to do something they didnt.They did send a man to space.

So why the cover up? They clearly didn't want it known that Gagarin was not the first.

Wires, there is no wires, every now and then in videos you get some disturbances from photographic anomalies, that are very normal and happen on earth. Like the crosshairs being behind an object, these are normal photographic anomalies.

We will have to agree to disagree on that point.

You need to actually read what van Allen has said, and not take out of context sentences.

I did read what he said. He changed his mind.

Please don't post Wikipedia as evidence.

As for the computer stuff it is not evidence at all, neither of us understand it. And who's it made by? Using which plans? Backed up by what systems actually in apollo machinery.

It is convincing and needs to be debunked.

 

[gillywibble]

What, do you know how shadows work?

It was Jan Lundberg saying it, not me.

 

[Robosapien]

Which is what happens and what you see I videos. It doesn't get suspended in the atmosphere and blowen about on earth.

The rockets produced little gas, there is very little for those gas molecules to bump into and there's nothing to keep blowing on the dust, there's no atmosphere and then that dust falls back under moon mavity with no friction, which is exactly what is in the videos and what physics predicts.

The gas would have to be fired at immense speed to make up for the lack of quantity though - which would definitely clear a lot of dust, launching it higher up and for a longer time (giving it that suspended/aloft quality) than you would expect on Earth due to the weaker mavity.

Feynman was right, there's always two ways of thinking about something in physics, and usually one of them proves to be wrong.

 

[gillywibble]

Not at all, I suggest a reasonable and plausible alternative.
You are the only one who read into it and showed it as some sort of evidence.

My interpretation is also reasonable and plausible. I posted it as part of the overall picture.

 

[Glaucus]

It was Jan Lundberg saying it, not me.

You must think it, as you posted it as evidence. Therefore you belive the rubbish.

Shadows and light illumation is easy to understand, there isn't one thing wrong with that picture.

You haven't read what van Allen said as again you posted this rubbish, which isn't backed up.

Why cover it up? If it did happen that way many reasons, like not looking like they failed. Public opinion(less of an issue for communism) there's many reason.

Disagree, how can you disagree, hardly any photos show any thing even remotely with wires.
Again many people have tried replicating moon walks with wires and speed altering, no one has made a convincing video.

 

[Glaucus]

The gas would have to be fired at immense speed to make up for the lack of quantity though - which would definitely clear a lot of dust, launching it higher up and for a longer time (giving it that suspended/aloft quality) than you would expect on Earth due to the weaker mavity.

Feynman was right, there's always two ways of thinking about something in physics, and usually one of them proves to be wrong.

Clearance lot of dust? Dust is cleared. That isn't what you were saying earlier.
The moon isn't soft either, there's a thin layer of dust over a solid rock surface. No creator would be formed if that's what you are applying.

And no relative to vacuum, the rockets produce hardly any gas to suspend and push particles around, you get a small patch straigh under the thrust vector.

 

[Zatoichi.uK]

What about the wire flashes, has that been explained?

Its lense flare from the sun shining on the antennas mounted on their backpacks.

 

[gillywibble]

You must think it, as you posted it as evidence. Therefore you belive the rubbish.

Happy to be corrected, nothing wrong with that.

You haven't read what van Allen said as again you posted this rubbish, which isn't backed up.

I posted links

Why cover it up? If it did happen that way many reasons, like not looking like they failed. Public opinion(less of an issue for communism) there's many reason.

That confirms my point. The Russians wouldn't have wanted the Americans whistle blowing the original failed mission.

Disagree, how can you disagree, hardly any photos show any thing even remotely with wires.

Sorry, I meant the cross hairs and fake photography in general, something I alluded to under point 3.

 

[gillywibble]

Its lense flare from the sun shining on the antennas mounted on their backpacks.

Thank you.

 

[alexthecheese]

Please don't post Wikipedia as evidence.

Your evidence is Youtube videos with only a few hundred views. What's the difference?

Good thread. I'll have a gander at more of the videos this evening. Can't imagine we're going to change eachother's minds, but at least it's interesting having the debate.

 

[Glaucus]

That confirms my point. The Russians wouldn't have wanted the Americans whistle blowing the original failed mission.



Sorry, I meant the cross hairs and fake photography in general, something I alluded to under point 3.

You posted links, wow. Shall I post links to out dated scientific thoughts?
Why not read what he thinks at the time of apollo and before apollo within explorer 1 and explorer 3.

No what you have done is read out of contested and tried to show it as prove.

There is tons of debunking sites, listing photographic anoles and providing explanations and in any cases replicating the results with no photoshopping or wires.


Now think of it from the other point of view, what Russia thinks is meaningless. What would whistle blowing for UsA achieve? It would only achieve to show that Russia was more advanced than anyone thought, so again why would they do that. Look at it from both sides, not one.

Now whistle blowing on apollo, would be very different. You would be showing UsA to be vicar less technologically advance than the world thought, this is a big benefit. Also it's the total opposite to your scenario.

Don't post wiki as evidence?
For a start you've posted, rubbish youtube with unknown origin or non qualified origin.
Secondly, it wasn't evidence, it was showing you the explorer missions.
So try again, read it and do your self a favour and go read up on James and the radiation belts.

 

[gillywibble]

So try again, read it and do your self a favour and go read up on James and the radiation belts.

I have read what Van Allen wrote.

 

[gillywibble]

Your evidence is Youtube videos with only a few hundred views. What's the difference?

Just a deep suspicion of Wikipedia that's all, point taken

 

[TnT_ZZZ]

Hi ocuk

1st post rant lol

In the 1960's the most amazing technological feats of engineering were made that to date have not been beaten.

SR 71 First flight 22 December 1964

Concorde First flight 2 March 1969

Apollo 11 July 20, 1969 The most powerful rocket ever made still to date.

So to those conspiracy theories who say we did not have the technology what a load of rubbish.

 

[Glaucus]

I have read what Van Allen wrote.

No you haven't, that link is a reworked book. It isn't even the interview he apparently said that from.

Something I can't even find the original source for, coupled with the fact that collier is hardly independent.
Then when you take everything else that James van Allen has said and that is traceable to source. Paints a very different picture.