QUOTE(irish mickey @ Feb 23 2007, 03:57 AM) 
why would they fake it hear everyone say!!!!!1
one word for yall MONEY
one word for yall MONEY
What you mean?
Full Version: Did We Really Land On The Moon?
What you mean?
QUOTE(LP)
...Anyway Darthy, I look foreword to further debates and wish you luck on your quest to find the truth about the Moon landings.
For me the quest is finished, like I show in previous posts, and conclusion is:
We did not go to the moon, period and punctuation.
I have to say that.
Regards,
Darthy
QUOTE(Darthy @ Mar 8 2007, 09:52 PM)
For me the quest is finished, like I show in previous posts, and conclusion is:
We did not go to the moon, period and punctuation.
I have to say that.
Regards,
Darthy
We did not go to the moon, period and punctuation.
I have to say that.
Regards,
Darthy
I agree you didn't lol the U.S.A. and N.A.S.A. did.
And lol what was that Scarlett? 
QUOTE(locally pwned @ Oct 5 2006, 06:25 AM)
Here's a thought: Supposedly, what was the reason for the "space race" in the 50's and 60's? Wasn't the US competing with the Soviet Union, each vying for technological and scientific superiority?
My point is this: remember Apollo 13? In trying to show the world it's technical prowess, why would the US fake a failed mission to the moon?
My point is this: remember Apollo 13? In trying to show the world it's technical prowess, why would the US fake a failed mission to the moon?
QUOTE(Darthy @ Oct 5 2006, 09:12 PM)
QUOTE
My point is this: remember Apollo 13? In trying to show the world it's technical prowess, why would the US fake a failed mission to the moon?
May be by the time of the Apollo 13 mission in April 1970, public interest in space travel was beginning to diminish.
Respectfully,
Darthy
ha ha, i knowww, this ones kinda old now, and i brought this "why would they" issue back just because i noticed that this point requires one word of description that was not made even though we all know it.... EMBEZZLEMENT!
Cold wars are the ultimate in bluffing, personally, i think the cold war is always going on, there are continuous games of call my bluff going on between aspiring powers and superpowers. A failed space mission would be/is a great waste of money, but i am sure there would be great profit in a faked failed space mission which could go towards the funding of weapon related research and production.
I'm sure this is what Irish Mickey was refering too.
QUOTE(irish mickey @ Feb 22 2007, 10:57 PM)
why would they fake it hear everyone say!!!!!1
one word for yall MONEY
one word for yall MONEY
hmm, on the one hand i feel a little silly posting this because i do realise that the point i have made is nothing new and you had probably moved on from this level onto the scientific realm perhaps because it is so obvious. On the other, i just wanted to stick something in because i have read a good few pages of posts and links that everyone has added to this topic and they have inspired in me a newly found interest.
I think maybe more evidence could be found by doing some research and looking for inconsistencies into the budget of the years of moon landings, and perhaps corrolating NASA fundings/budget with weapons production fundings/budget in some way. See if all that stuff adds up. Sorry, i dont know all the clever words for it
CHEERS everyone
nn23
"We" the collective "humanity" sent men to walk on the moon (after we landed there, I might add).
No amount of conspiratorial meandering will alter that fact,
but it may, sadly, deprive some of one of our ("we" again) greatest achievements.
No amount of conspiratorial meandering will alter that fact,
but it may, sadly, deprive some of one of our ("we" again) greatest achievements.
QUOTE(JohnWho @ Mar 25 2007, 02:16 PM)
"We" the collective "humanity" sent men to walk on the moon (after we landed there, I might add).
No amount of conspiratorial meandering will alter that fact,
but it may, sadly, deprive some of one of our ("we" again) greatest achievements.
No amount of conspiratorial meandering will alter that fact,
but it may, sadly, deprive some of one of our ("we" again) greatest achievements.
Are you lol sure JohnWho?
Have you read my posts?
Regards,
Darthy
QUOTE(Darthy @ Mar 25 2007, 11:41 AM)
QUOTE(JohnWho @ Mar 25 2007, 02:16 PM)
"We" the collective "humanity" sent men to walk on the moon (after we landed there, I might add).
No amount of conspiratorial meandering will alter that fact,
but it may, sadly, deprive some of one of our ("we" again) greatest achievements.
Are you lol sure JohnWho?
Yes.
QUOTE
Have you read my posts?
Yes.
That's OK, each one believes what it wants.
I hope you don' believe on that (by a matter of faith) just because NASA said they are gone there.
Respectfully,
Darthy
I hope you don' believe on that (by a matter of faith) just because NASA said they are gone there.
Respectfully,
Darthy
QUOTE(Darthy @ Mar 25 2007, 10:38 PM)
That's OK, each one believes what it wants.
I hope you don' believe on that (by a matter of faith) just because NASA said they are gone there.
Respectfully,
Darthy
I hope you don' believe on that (by a matter of faith) just because NASA said they are gone there.
Respectfully,
Darthy
And I hope you don't believe on what you believe (by a matter faith) just because you read it on the Internet!
No I don't JohnWho.
Read this please:
What you think about that?
Regards,
Darthy
Read this please:
QUOTE(Darthy @ Feb 19 2007, 07:21 PM)
...Before I engage actively in this debate, a long time ago, I begin for asking questions directly to NASA, but when I entered in scientific fields with difficult questions, they lasted much more time to answer me saying, "we have to pass your question to the appropriate department", and when I insisted because answers, they gave me, are not satisfactory, they had left to answer me. You can trie and you will see.
For instance, see what NASA answered to a question of one girl here:
What kind of an answer is that? They talk about everything and does not answer to the question!!! Have they something to hide? These kind of things do not dignify NASA, don't you think?...
Regards,
Darthy
For instance, see what NASA answered to a question of one girl here:
QUOTE(NASA)
Radiation Belts and Manned Space Flight
Dear Sir:
Would you please explain how the Van Allen Belt affected the first manned space flights. How were they protected?
Reply
Dear Belinda
All manned flights (except those of Apollo) have stayed below the radiation belt: the Space Shuttle, for instance, orbits at about 215 miles. The atmosphere is very rarefied there, and radiation belt particles descending to that level may well come back without encountering anything. However, such particles have thousands of Earthward excursions each day, so the only ones which are likely to survive long are those that are always confined to higher levels.
A more subtle effect is also at work. The equations governing the motion of trapped particle indicate that each has a characteristic value of magnetic intensity, below which is cannot penetrate. Suppose a particle is reflected by the intensity existing at 215 miles. As it happens, the Earth's magnetic field--its region of magnetic forces--has some irregularities, so in some regions that intensity is only reached at 100 miles. Now and then the particle's orbit will happen to descend in that region, where it penetrates to much deeper (and denser) layers of the atmosphere, and may be quickly lost, even if elsewhere it stays at safe heights. One such notorious region exists above the southern Atlantic Ocean.
So the radiation belt does not reach the levels where Mercury, Gemini, Soyuz and Mir used to orbit and where the Shuttle and Space Station do so now. The early Russian Sputniks failed to discover the radiation belt because they too stayed in such low orbits and Explorers 1 and 3 only detected it because they were rather poorly controlled and rose above 1500 miles.
You will find more on my web sites, e.g. http://www.phy6.org/Education/wexp13.html
Dear Sir:
Would you please explain how the Van Allen Belt affected the first manned space flights. How were they protected?
Reply
Dear Belinda
All manned flights (except those of Apollo) have stayed below the radiation belt: the Space Shuttle, for instance, orbits at about 215 miles. The atmosphere is very rarefied there, and radiation belt particles descending to that level may well come back without encountering anything. However, such particles have thousands of Earthward excursions each day, so the only ones which are likely to survive long are those that are always confined to higher levels.
A more subtle effect is also at work. The equations governing the motion of trapped particle indicate that each has a characteristic value of magnetic intensity, below which is cannot penetrate. Suppose a particle is reflected by the intensity existing at 215 miles. As it happens, the Earth's magnetic field--its region of magnetic forces--has some irregularities, so in some regions that intensity is only reached at 100 miles. Now and then the particle's orbit will happen to descend in that region, where it penetrates to much deeper (and denser) layers of the atmosphere, and may be quickly lost, even if elsewhere it stays at safe heights. One such notorious region exists above the southern Atlantic Ocean.
So the radiation belt does not reach the levels where Mercury, Gemini, Soyuz and Mir used to orbit and where the Shuttle and Space Station do so now. The early Russian Sputniks failed to discover the radiation belt because they too stayed in such low orbits and Explorers 1 and 3 only detected it because they were rather poorly controlled and rose above 1500 miles.
You will find more on my web sites, e.g. http://www.phy6.org/Education/wexp13.html
What kind of an answer is that? They talk about everything and does not answer to the question!!! Have they something to hide? These kind of things do not dignify NASA, don't you think?...
Regards,
Darthy
What you think about that?
Regards,
Darthy
Darthy -
I've talked to many PC technicians (using an example meaningful to this board) on numerous topics and often their technical answer to what I thought was a simple question doesn't give me anything I can use. I then would ask something like "so you are saying it is a problem with the power to the video card" and they'll say "yes" and then ramble on some more in a technical vein.
So, too, it appears to me, is that NASA response. I'm reading it (generalizing) that they are saying that the space flights are not entering the Van Allen Belt and rambling on technically. They think that they have properly responded and even provided additional information for the questioner for further study if they are so inclined. The obvious follow up question would be "so, you are saying the radiation belt didn't affect the space craft because they didn't get close enough to it?", which I believe would have been given a "yes", with, of course, a continued technical rambling.
To assume that they are hiding something because you don't understand the answer, doesn't seem productive to me.
But, that's just my opinion.
I've talked to many PC technicians (using an example meaningful to this board) on numerous topics and often their technical answer to what I thought was a simple question doesn't give me anything I can use. I then would ask something like "so you are saying it is a problem with the power to the video card" and they'll say "yes" and then ramble on some more in a technical vein.
So, too, it appears to me, is that NASA response. I'm reading it (generalizing) that they are saying that the space flights are not entering the Van Allen Belt and rambling on technically. They think that they have properly responded and even provided additional information for the questioner for further study if they are so inclined. The obvious follow up question would be "so, you are saying the radiation belt didn't affect the space craft because they didn't get close enough to it?", which I believe would have been given a "yes", with, of course, a continued technical rambling.
To assume that they are hiding something because you don't understand the answer, doesn't seem productive to me.
But, that's just my opinion.
QUOTE(JohnWho)
To assume that they are hiding something because you don't understand the answer, doesn't seem productive to me.
With all due respect, I think who didn't understand the answer was you.
Everybody who read the answer and the given link, immediately see they don't answer the question.
See this:
QUOTE(Darthy @ Post #41)
At that time I was 22 years old and was ending my graduation. When I finished it, I went to take a specialization in electronics and physics and it was there when I began to study radiation that I knew it would be impossible to any human being to cross the Van Allen belts, like NASA says in its site quoted at May 17 2006, 08:01 PM.
The link for the site is:
http://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/wradbelt.html
As you see, NASA should indicate this link to answer that girl and it didn't, why?
Regards,
Darthy
QUOTE(NASA)
Radiation Belts and Manned Space Flight
Dear Sir:
Would you please explain how the Van Allen Belt affected the first manned space flights. How were they protected?
Reply
Dear Belinda
All manned flights (except those of Apollo) have stayed below the radiation belt: the Space Shuttle, for instance, orbits at about 215 miles. The atmosphere is very rarefied there, and radiation belt particles descending to that level may well come back without encountering anything. However, such particles have thousands of Earthward excursions each day, so the only ones which are likely to survive long are those that are always confined to higher levels.
A more subtle effect is also at work. The equations governing the motion of trapped particle indicate that each has a characteristic value of magnetic intensity, below which is cannot penetrate. Suppose a particle is reflected by the intensity existing at 215 miles. As it happens, the Earth's magnetic field--its region of magnetic forces--has some irregularities, so in some regions that intensity is only reached at 100 miles. Now and then the particle's orbit will happen to descend in that region, where it penetrates to much deeper (and denser) layers of the atmosphere, and may be quickly lost, even if elsewhere it stays at safe heights. One such notorious region exists above the southern Atlantic Ocean.
So the radiation belt does not reach the levels where Mercury, Gemini, Soyuz and Mir used to orbit and where the Shuttle and Space Station do so now. The early Russian Sputniks failed to discover the radiation belt because they too stayed in such low orbits and Explorers 1 and 3 only detected it because they were rather poorly controlled and rose above 1500 miles.
You will find more on my web sites, e.g. http://www.phy6.org/Education/wexp13.html
Dear Sir:
Would you please explain how the Van Allen Belt affected the first manned space flights. How were they protected?
Reply
Dear Belinda
All manned flights (except those of Apollo) have stayed below the radiation belt: the Space Shuttle, for instance, orbits at about 215 miles. The atmosphere is very rarefied there, and radiation belt particles descending to that level may well come back without encountering anything. However, such particles have thousands of Earthward excursions each day, so the only ones which are likely to survive long are those that are always confined to higher levels.
A more subtle effect is also at work. The equations governing the motion of trapped particle indicate that each has a characteristic value of magnetic intensity, below which is cannot penetrate. Suppose a particle is reflected by the intensity existing at 215 miles. As it happens, the Earth's magnetic field--its region of magnetic forces--has some irregularities, so in some regions that intensity is only reached at 100 miles. Now and then the particle's orbit will happen to descend in that region, where it penetrates to much deeper (and denser) layers of the atmosphere, and may be quickly lost, even if elsewhere it stays at safe heights. One such notorious region exists above the southern Atlantic Ocean.
So the radiation belt does not reach the levels where Mercury, Gemini, Soyuz and Mir used to orbit and where the Shuttle and Space Station do so now. The early Russian Sputniks failed to discover the radiation belt because they too stayed in such low orbits and Explorers 1 and 3 only detected it because they were rather poorly controlled and rose above 1500 miles.
You will find more on my web sites, e.g. http://www.phy6.org/Education/wexp13.html
I didn't go to the phy6.org website, but was referencing the rest of that quote which as I understand it was NASA's response to Belinda's (whoever that is) question and it seems to be a reasonable, but not perfect, response.
Beyond that, I'm done with this thread.
I only joined it because it had degenerated into a "Clintonism" - what's the definition of "we".
We, you and I didn't go to the moon. Heck, as far as I know, we've never gone anywhere together.
But the earth folks "we" have gone to the moon.
We went without me, but we went, just the same.
Only just noticed this thread.
But I really do not believe man has ever landed on the moon, or ever will.
How will something made of cheese support the weight of a spaceship.
Prior to posting I carried out experiment to check my theory. Maybe I got my scaling factors wrong I'm not sure, maths isnt my stong point.
I stood on a 1lb piece of cheese in the kitchen, it worked ok for a few minutes. Then disaster struck, I started sinking into the cheese, or rather the cheese started coming up between my toes.
For me my experiment proved the space landing was a fake.
But I really do not believe man has ever landed on the moon, or ever will.
How will something made of cheese support the weight of a spaceship.
Prior to posting I carried out experiment to check my theory. Maybe I got my scaling factors wrong I'm not sure, maths isnt my stong point.
I stood on a 1lb piece of cheese in the kitchen, it worked ok for a few minutes. Then disaster struck, I started sinking into the cheese, or rather the cheese started coming up between my toes.
For me my experiment proved the space landing was a fake.
QUOTE(bilko @ May 25 2007, 08:37 PM)
Only just noticed this thread.
But I really do not believe man has ever landed on the moon, or ever will.
How will something made of cheese support the weight of a spaceship.
Prior to posting I carried out experiment to check my theory. Maybe I got my scaling factors wrong I'm not sure, maths isnt my stong point.
I stood on a 1lb piece of cheese in the kitchen, it worked ok for a few minutes. Then disaster struck, I started sinking into the cheese, or rather the cheese started coming up between my toes.
For me my experiment proved the space landing was a fake.
But I really do not believe man has ever landed on the moon, or ever will.
How will something made of cheese support the weight of a spaceship.
Prior to posting I carried out experiment to check my theory. Maybe I got my scaling factors wrong I'm not sure, maths isnt my stong point.
I stood on a 1lb piece of cheese in the kitchen, it worked ok for a few minutes. Then disaster struck, I started sinking into the cheese, or rather the cheese started coming up between my toes.
For me my experiment proved the space landing was a fake.
But, I believe that they, and the images that were shown, showed a lot of "moon" dust.
Please try your experiment again,
this time with extremely fine grated cheese.
I, for one, am anxiously awaiting your results.
QUOTE(bilko @ May 26 2007, 10:37 AM)
Only just noticed this thread.
But I really do not believe man has ever landed on the moon, or ever will.
How will something made of cheese support the weight of a spaceship.
Prior to posting I carried out experiment to check my theory. Maybe I got my scaling factors wrong I'm not sure, maths isnt my stong point.
I stood on a 1lb piece of cheese in the kitchen, it worked ok for a few minutes. Then disaster struck, I started sinking into the cheese, or rather the cheese started coming up between my toes.
For me my experiment proved the space landing was a fake.
But I really do not believe man has ever landed on the moon, or ever will.
How will something made of cheese support the weight of a spaceship.
Prior to posting I carried out experiment to check my theory. Maybe I got my scaling factors wrong I'm not sure, maths isnt my stong point.
I stood on a 1lb piece of cheese in the kitchen, it worked ok for a few minutes. Then disaster struck, I started sinking into the cheese, or rather the cheese started coming up between my toes.
For me my experiment proved the space landing was a fake.
I am sure what you were standing in was not cheese.Wrong colour.
Well, one problem with Cheesy Moon Theory is that its supporters have never sufficiently explained the problems associated with the stability of dairy products in the vacuum of space. One group (from Wisconsin if memory serves) has actually postulated the existence of an "ether" around the moon which shields its tasty surface from space, though I believe this to be pure conjecture.
However, the issue of the solidity of the moon's surface was solved by the discovery of dark crispy regions detected by robotic lunar probes. From the data, scientists have determined that the outer crust is made mostly of cheddar that melted and solidified into a hard, crunchy state long ago (most likely by solar radiation).
Below the crust, according to the theory, lies the semi-melted cheddar mantle, the Monterey Jack outer core, and finally the super-heated, extra-gooey mozzarella inner core.
However, the issue of the solidity of the moon's surface was solved by the discovery of dark crispy regions detected by robotic lunar probes. From the data, scientists have determined that the outer crust is made mostly of cheddar that melted and solidified into a hard, crunchy state long ago (most likely by solar radiation).
Below the crust, according to the theory, lies the semi-melted cheddar mantle, the Monterey Jack outer core, and finally the super-heated, extra-gooey mozzarella inner core.
QUOTE(bilko @ May 26 2007, 01:37 AM)
Only just noticed this thread.
But I really do not believe man has ever landed on the moon, or ever will.
How will something made of cheese support the weight of a spaceship.
Prior to posting I carried out experiment to check my theory. Maybe I got my scaling factors wrong I'm not sure, maths isnt my stong point.
I stood on a 1lb piece of cheese in the kitchen, it worked ok for a few minutes. Then disaster struck, I started sinking into the cheese, or rather the cheese started coming up between my toes.
For me my experiment proved the space landing was a fake.
But I really do not believe man has ever landed on the moon, or ever will.
How will something made of cheese support the weight of a spaceship.
Prior to posting I carried out experiment to check my theory. Maybe I got my scaling factors wrong I'm not sure, maths isnt my stong point.
I stood on a 1lb piece of cheese in the kitchen, it worked ok for a few minutes. Then disaster struck, I started sinking into the cheese, or rather the cheese started coming up between my toes.
For me my experiment proved the space landing was a fake.
I canīt believe in this!!!!!!!!!
Darthy
QUOTE(Darthy @ May 27 2007, 12:12 PM)
QUOTE(bilko @ May 26 2007, 01:37 AM)
Only just noticed this thread.
But I really do not believe man has ever landed on the moon, or ever will.
How will something made of cheese support the weight of a spaceship.
Prior to posting I carried out experiment to check my theory. Maybe I got my scaling factors wrong I'm not sure, maths isnt my stong point.
I stood on a 1lb piece of cheese in the kitchen, it worked ok for a few minutes. Then disaster struck, I started sinking into the cheese, or rather the cheese started coming up between my toes.
For me my experiment proved the space landing was a fake.
But I really do not believe man has ever landed on the moon, or ever will.
How will something made of cheese support the weight of a spaceship.
Prior to posting I carried out experiment to check my theory. Maybe I got my scaling factors wrong I'm not sure, maths isnt my stong point.
I stood on a 1lb piece of cheese in the kitchen, it worked ok for a few minutes. Then disaster struck, I started sinking into the cheese, or rather the cheese started coming up between my toes.
For me my experiment proved the space landing was a fake.
I canīt believe in this!!!!!!!!!
Darthy
I believe it 'Darthy'. 'BC', is a Diverse Community.
Just one question -
how did the cheese get there in the first place?
how did the cheese get there in the first place?
Well John, according to Cheesy Moon Theory, the fundamental building blocks of the universe are tasty dairy products!
It is curious; I wonder where the "moon is made of cheese" story came from. It doesn't look to me like cheese at all.
But then, do you see a human face in the moon..."the man in the moon?"
It is curious; I wonder where the "moon is made of cheese" story came from. It doesn't look to me like cheese at all.
But then, do you see a human face in the moon..."the man in the moon?"
QUOTE(locally pwned @ May 27 2007, 08:41 PM)
But then, do you see a human face in the moon..."the man in the moon?"
Well, yeah, and now that you mention it, he does look a bit cheesy!
Very simple, really. Remember 'the cow jumped over the moon' and surely all that exercise turned her milk to cheese (Ergo, the huge layer of cheese covering entire moon).
(Ergo, the huge layer of cheese covering entire moon).
QUOTE(MaraM @ May 27 2007, 10:37 PM)
Very simple, really. Remember 'the cow jumped over the moon' and surely all that exercise turned her milk to cheese (Ergo, the huge layer of cheese covering entire moon).
(Ergo, the huge layer of cheese covering entire moon).Now that is udderly ridiculous.
And we have proof the moon is made out of cheese. Thanks to Google: http://moon.google.com/
Just zoom all the way in...
Just zoom all the way in...
QUOTE(yano @ May 28 2007, 03:08 AM)
And we have proof the moon is made out of cheese. Thanks to Google: http://moon.google.com/
Just zoom all the way in...
Just zoom all the way in...
Well,
there you go -
if it's on the Internet
it must be true!
What a find Yano! 
Check this out:
http://mars.google.com
Hopefully when we finally land on Mars, we can see pics and such of it.
http://mars.google.com
Hopefully when we finally land on Mars, we can see pics and such of it.
When God created Mars, she must have been on acid.
QUOTE
Check this out:
http://mars.google.com
Hopefully when we finally land on Mars, we can see pics and such of it.
http://mars.google.com
Hopefully when we finally land on Mars, we can see pics and such of it.
QUOTE(bilko @ Jun 5 2007, 09:19 AM)
When God created Mars, she must have been on acid.
QUOTE
Check this out:
http://mars.google.com
Hopefully when we finally land on Mars, we can see pics and such of it.
http://mars.google.com
Hopefully when we finally land on Mars, we can see pics and such of it.
With Respect,I think that is a silly remark.
Maybe I didnt see the same picture you did. To me it looked very much like acid induced atrwork of the 60's and 70's.
Or maybe you were refering to the fact that if God does exist, I believe it is a woman. Or even that God would take acid.
Maybe your religious and thats whats got to you. Well I probably hold equally as strong beliefs in God not existing. Blah, not going to get into a religious debate on a topic labled "did we really land on the moon"
Light hearted remarks are not meant to be anything but silly.
Or maybe you were refering to the fact that if God does exist, I believe it is a woman. Or even that God would take acid.
Maybe your religious and thats whats got to you. Well I probably hold equally as strong beliefs in God not existing. Blah, not going to get into a religious debate on a topic labled "did we really land on the moon"
Light hearted remarks are not meant to be anything but silly.
A terrific photo - a bit of a misunderstanding - and eep!
Although I can't (nor should) speak for DSTM, I've read many of his postings and he's honestly not a 'religious' fanatic - gentle smile. In fact, I think we can simply blame the entire misunderstanding on the pesky inability to 'see' people and facial expressions, etc, when we read words here on our forums? Gentle grin. (I just apologised for not realizing that some comments re 'poor little tink' were made in jest and spent time defending when none was needed - huge grin and drat to myself!
Not to worry, thankfully we always seem to work things out here at our Bleeping - yipee!! (Although I'm always a tad concerned lest I use the wrong 'smilie' inadvertently and offend someone - but think I'm finally getting the hang of them).
Kindest thoughts,
Mara
Although I can't (nor should) speak for DSTM, I've read many of his postings and he's honestly not a 'religious' fanatic - gentle smile. In fact, I think we can simply blame the entire misunderstanding on the pesky inability to 'see' people and facial expressions, etc, when we read words here on our forums? Gentle grin. (I just apologised for not realizing that some comments re 'poor little tink' were made in jest and spent time defending when none was needed - huge grin and drat to myself!
Not to worry, thankfully we always seem to work things out here at our Bleeping - yipee!! (Although I'm always a tad concerned lest I use the wrong 'smilie' inadvertently and offend someone - but think I'm finally getting the hang of them).
Kindest thoughts,
Mara
I agree MaraM. Everyone is entitled to their free speech of religion. (Geez, I just used 2 rights guaranteed in the 1st amendment in JUST one sentence about one post... lol)
QUOTE(Darthy @ May 16 2006, 01:27 PM)
Sunlight would cast shadows that would never intersect.
that is false... shadows are warped by the terrain, and the distance each objects are from each other, and the shape of the object casting the shadow, all affect the direction percieved by the viewer.
QUOTE
The surface of the moon is a vacuum. The landing module would have been heated to 250 degrees on the light side where they landed. There is no way they could have rejected the heat for as long as 72 hours as they claim on some Apollo missions.
the astronauts inside the space suits have a special body suit on, with little pipes with ice water running inside them, to keep the astronauts cool. The actual module, well, it can survive an entry into the earth's atmosphere, which i'm sure is way hotter than 250 degrees.
my 2Ē
QUOTE(tazz88 @ Jul 12 2007, 10:44 PM)
the astronauts inside the space suits have a special body suit on, with little pipes with ice water running inside them, to keep the astronauts cool.
I understand what you are saying. It just seems implausible for the technology of the time. The amount of energy to keep water that cool would be difficult to contain in a body suit. Think of your refrigerator, with the freon and the condenser. Did they pack a fridge around?
Wow this thread got into religion at one point, and I had nothing to do with it!
(The thread topic is a great conspiracy theory.) I remember watching some special on primetime several years back about this very moon landing issue. I found the evidence against the case very compelling. Who knows.....lol.
(The thread topic is a great conspiracy theory.) I remember watching some special on primetime several years back about this very moon landing issue. I found the evidence against the case very compelling. Who knows.....lol.
QUOTE(blueandgold04 @ Jul 13 2007, 11:27 AM)
I understand what you are saying. It just seems implausible for the technology of the time. The amount of energy to keep water that cool would be difficult to contain in a body suit. Think of your refrigerator, with the freon and the condenser. Did they pack a fridge around?
Actually... the space suits are very heavy with (cooling? you might have me on this one) equipment around 150lbs without the astronaut iirc... you just don't notice in zero G.
Actually, you will notice in zero G... It has nothing to do with weight, but rather mass. Mass is independent of gravity, but it still takes a force to move it.
Also, I was thinking about the energy required to run such a system.
Also, I was thinking about the energy required to run such a system.
I was working in Huntsville when we did the apollo program, remember the space blankets that came out shortly thereafter.
Take enough layers of mylar and aluminum foil and your R value is astronomical, they joked about building a thermos bottle that would hold a ice cube in the sahara desert for a long time.
what's funny about this thread was my ex-girlfriend, a telephone tech support argued with me for almost a year that man never went to the moon, after 2-3 hours with me in the air and space museum in DC she changed her mind
the "hoax" had gotten just a little too elaborate
Take enough layers of mylar and aluminum foil and your R value is astronomical, they joked about building a thermos bottle that would hold a ice cube in the sahara desert for a long time.
what's funny about this thread was my ex-girlfriend, a telephone tech support argued with me for almost a year that man never went to the moon, after 2-3 hours with me in the air and space museum in DC she changed her mind
the "hoax" had gotten just a little too elaborate
Of course we did it.
Those that are "certain" that we did not are either ignoring the factual information
or simply having fun irking other folks with their conspiracy theory.
Regarding the bulky space suits -
check this out for a new, 21st Century look - One giant leap for space fashion: MIT team designs sleek, skintight spacesuit.
Those that are "certain" that we did not are either ignoring the factual information
or simply having fun irking other folks with their conspiracy theory.
Regarding the bulky space suits -
check this out for a new, 21st Century look - One giant leap for space fashion: MIT team designs sleek, skintight spacesuit.
QUOTE(JohnWho @ Jul 20 2007, 06:48 PM)
Of course we did it.
Those that are "certain" that we did not are either ignoring the factual information
or simply having fun irking other folks with their conspiracy theory.
Regarding the bulky space suits -
check this out for a new, 21st Century look - One giant leap for space fashion: MIT team designs sleek, skintight spacesuit.
Those that are "certain" that we did not are either ignoring the factual information
or simply having fun irking other folks with their conspiracy theory.
Regarding the bulky space suits -
check this out for a new, 21st Century look - One giant leap for space fashion: MIT team designs sleek, skintight spacesuit.
You ruined my fun.
It was fun putting on those bulky space suits?
Wonder if the new ones come in "one size fits all"?
Wonder if the new ones come in "one size fits all"?
in addition to the other good points as proof of a moon landing, one should bear in mind that the moon landing was during the cold war. The USSR was watching us like a hawk. Do you think they would have kept quiet if they had seen (Or not seen, as the case maybe) on their radar, radios and other spy paraphanila that we had not landed on the moon?
QUOTE(blindfred @ Dec 2 2007, 02:51 AM)
in addition to the other good points as proof of a moon landing, one should bear in mind that the moon landing was during the cold war. The USSR was watching us like a hawk. Do you think they would have kept quiet if they had seen (Or not seen, as the case maybe) on their radar, radios and other spy paraphanila that we had not landed on the moon?
Uncle MAO would have said something too...
or uncle HO.(Chi Minh)
The people that argue that we never landed on the moon are not old enough to have seen it broadcast on live television in the 60's and 70's. President Kennedy mandated that!
They have also never been to a Cosmosphere (Space Museum) anywhere!
If you think it is all faked, there is a heck of a great Cosmosphere in Hutchinson KS. Out in the great plains.
You can see all kinds of "fake" spacecraft.
An SR71 BlackBird spy plane is hanging from the ceiling. That never existed either!
You can see the Liberty 7 Mercury space capsule that was dropped in the ocean and lost.
Apollo 13. The one that we had to bring back from an aborted moon landing to save the crew.
And a host of other spacecraft including a LEM (Lunar Excursion Module) all used by NASA, that never existed
Yep, the moon landing never happened!
With far less computing power than you are using right now!
They have also never been to a Cosmosphere (Space Museum) anywhere!
If you think it is all faked, there is a heck of a great Cosmosphere in Hutchinson KS. Out in the great plains.
You can see all kinds of "fake" spacecraft.
An SR71 BlackBird spy plane is hanging from the ceiling. That never existed either!
You can see the Liberty 7 Mercury space capsule that was dropped in the ocean and lost.
Apollo 13. The one that we had to bring back from an aborted moon landing to save the crew.
And a host of other spacecraft including a LEM (Lunar Excursion Module) all used by NASA, that never existed
Yep, the moon landing never happened!
With far less computing power than you are using right now!
Well if they actually landed... that would be the best. Cause well u see.... all of us haf to actually space travel one day... whether u like it or not
I wish that NASA would launch people on to the moon one more time, just so that they can prove people have been on the moon. Then again, with today's technology, that would probably be easy!
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.