Mankind to return to the moon?
#273
#276
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Runway two seven right.
Posts: 6,652
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
#277
Scooby Regular
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
Then, do you believe that none of 'the many' would have broken cover since
How much would that story be worth
#278
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!
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!
#279
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!!!
#284
Scooby Regular
#286
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
#288
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Geezer
#289
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!
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!
#290
#291
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
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
#292
Scooby Regular
#293
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
Geezer
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?
#294
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
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
#295
#296
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?
#297
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Geezer
#298
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
#299
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
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
#300
Please remember I have never stated the landings were faked however, some of the official pictures look odd, that's all.
Last edited by Klaatu; 15 September 2008 at 02:22 AM.