TelBoy

Gotta be a top contender for the "Wish i hadn't posted that" award

Klaatu

Well, did we?

Klaatu

Seem to recall you posted similar. But if you don't have the ***** to support your posts....

coolangatta

Yep, because there isn't one 'sane and qualified' person who would argue otherwise

Klaatu

So, like the IPCC, you can prove that?

FlightMan

Have you looked at ALL the data then? You must have lots of time on your hands. Or are you a speed reader?

Of course, there are those that think the Titanic was switched before sinking, that 9/11 was a Govt conspiracy, the moon landings never happened, Princess Di was killed on the orders of Prince Phillip, that NASA is covering up the existence of Martians, that numerous royal familes around the world were created by the mating of humans and extra terrestial reptiles.

The majority just accept that the world really isn't THAT interseting.

coolangatta

I've no idea who the hell the IPCC are but can you begin to think how many people would have to be 'in on the scam' to make just one fake landing
Then, do you believe that none of 'the many' would have broken cover since
How much would that story be worth

Klaatu

I have spent less time on the moon landings issue than on climate change, true. It's obvious why really.

But, FlightMan, the "offical" pictures don't add up. Go look at them. Perfect photographic conditions...I mean perfect. On a "once in a million" space flight to another planet. Think about it!

Klaatu

Depends if you are paid or not! Hey, I have signed the official secrets act, or equivalent, in at least 3 countries. You think I can keep shtum? You bet, and I'm not paid!!!

coolangatta

*** Edited for accuracy***

Klaatu

There's a few more satellites...only one not manmade.

coolangatta

I would doubt it because you're BONKERS!

Klaatu

Riiiggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhtttttt! Clearly you have no idea about the official secrets act in the UK.

coolangatta

Clearly, you are bonkers
BTW, I work in the nuclear industry so, as you might imagine, have had to sign up to said act too! Nothing unusual.

Klaatu

Try taking that overseas!

Geezer

I stand corrected, I put links to Apollo 16, apologies.

However, the lack of dust simply does not prove that they didn't land on the Moon in 1969, none of the other theories stand up to scrutiny. Even the lack of dust (and, it has to be said that the pictures of the feet are not taken at close range, you cannot unequivocally say there is no dust on them) proves little. It proves that things were not as expected, but then again, as it was the first time on the moon, did anyone really know what to expect?

The only odd thing about any of what you have said is the dust on the feet, the rest is just misunderstanding.

Geezer

coolangatta

If you look in my Location you'll see Japan!

I'm going for a lie down

Geezer

Why are you so hung up on the photos? Photography is an old and well understood science. The conditions on the moon, though harsh, are not particularly hard to allow for when taking photographs. If you go to the official NASA gallery, there are plenty of examples of poor photos taken on the mission. Unsurprisingly, NASA didn't want to use them to show off it's finest moment.......

Geezer

Klaatu

This is eactly the point I am making. The pictures prove nor disprove fact. But some pictures are "odd".

However, no dust of an kind only proves there was not force applied to debris, ie, NO rocket landing. Even in 1/6th gravity, more important that air (LMAO), there's no evidence of a powered landing in "official" pictures.

No dust, no rocket!

Klaatu

Oh yeah, that "uni-directional" agrement between the UK and Japan existed since the late 80's?

Nothing secret there matey!

Geezer

Mm, I don't know why you find air so funny, I didn't once mention that air was a fact, I said airless environment .

As for it being right once in a million think about it, well, perhaps you should think about it, they couldn't afford not to get it right. Same with the LHC, so many years in conception, massive cost, it works first time. Does that mean they faked switching it on? No, it simply means that alot of har working bright people did their job properly.

Geezer

coolangatta

I'm lying down. Suggest you do the same. 'out'.

Klaatu

i am not hung up on them. All I stated was that some are "odd". Look at my posts. Some of the "official pictures" ARE odd.

Do you know how the cameras were mounted? Did you know the "operators" had "difficulties" in operating the cameras? Chest mounted cameras, on a spacesuit? Did you see how difficult it was to move on the moon in space?

Klaatu

Huh? No air, air-less, what's the differece? Fact; regardless of air, force will act on any object. Then put gravity in there too.

ricardo

Why ? In hovering before landing the local dust would be blown away, and in low gravity and no air resistance it would have gone a considerable distance. By the time the pads touched there wouldn't be any dust just hanging around ready to settle out.

Nimbus

So you're balancing some "odd" looking photos on one hand, against all the other evidence supporting the landings, and you have doubts? Can you post a link to the pics you find odd so that we can see for ourselves and maybe offer an explanation?

Geezer

The only odd things in the photos are the LEM feet with (apparently) no dust on them. There isn't another single oddity in them. I wouldn't expect any "proof" any time soon.......

Geezer

Geezer

You really haven't understood what's been said have you. The fact that there is no air is very important. The force of the rocket will blast the dust, much like a solid object hitting it vertically, except the force applied is continuous. The dust, is the absence of air, is free to move at it's original ballistic trajectory (with the slightest of hinderence from the gas expelled from the engine, but that disperses very quickly). So it is moving away from where it is being blasted, with no air resistance, so it moves quite far. Obviously one sixth gravity aids this.

It is perfectly reasonable to expect that the majority of the dust will be blown clear of the LEM. A very close inspection of the LEM feet probably would indicate a small amount of dust.

I can't really make it any clearer than that, so if you don't understand now, it's pointless continuing this discussion. Not that there was much point in the first place....

Geezer

Leslie

Thats a perfectly reasonable statement.

Klaatu

Where's the blast crater under the LEM?? Even in a low gravity environment, there would have been evidence of such an event. And, dust would have been kicked up by the astronauts moving around the feet of the LEM (See official pictures, dust still present after landing sufficiently thick enough to leave footprints).

Please remember I have never stated the landings were faked however, some of the official pictures look odd, that's all.