Holy Ghost

**

thanks olly. and i'm richer for the knowledge!

angrynorth

Just to add to that, here is the closest picture we have of the landings site so far:



Also, you might get your wish soon if the LRO goes successfully, it is expected that this craft will be able to clearly photograph the landing site.

Holy Ghost

**

thanks angrynorth. interesting. you know what'll happen though.

- even if NASA produces photographic proof from the LRO, the flat-earthers will claim the images have been photoshopped.

- if the chinese go, they'll deliberately say 'we find no randing site' just to tweak the nose of the yankee running dog.

- if the EU sends a probe, it'll work out that the lunar rover was speeding, issue NASA with a retrospective spot-fine (plus 40 years interest) and confiscate the vehicle.

- if professor colin pillinger sends a british probe, it'll crash on the surface and leicestershire county council will fine him for interstellar fly-tipping then refuse to clear away the wreckage on grounds of health and safety at work.

ricardo

Some of the people who claim that the landings were faked use the radiation as the reason why it couldn't have taken place. So they believe totally what they were told about the radiation. Have they been up there and measured it or is it just something they read ?

bioforger

iTrader: (1)

What return? Just kidding

OllyK

It's usually ignorance about radiation. Most people have heard of X-rays and Gamma radition which are wave based and require signifcant sheilding. What they don't realise is that there is also particulate radiation such as Alpha and Beta particles, which can usually be stopped with a sheet of thick paper. The Van Allen belt is particulate radiation not wave and can easily be sheilded.

TonyG

No-one's mentioned that the Apollo astronauts also brought back pieces of the Surveyor 3 lander from the Moon Would an unmanned probe of the time have been able to land nearby, get across to Surveyor 3, then have the mechanical arms and dexterity to physically unscrew the parts and bring them back? Automatically? It wouldn't have really been possible to do it by remote control because of the radio signal time delay between Earth and the Moon.

TelBoy

I wondered whether it was worth replying to this, as i really don't have the enthusiasm to keep discussing something that doesn't concern me to any great extent, but i will. This is like the climate change thread, i've got people on there frothing at the mouth waiting for me to provide "evidence".

The facts are;

The CTers have put forward their claims for why they think this could have been faked. There's no doubt, it could have been faked. To ask me to provide evidence is merely challenging my ability to use Google.

Each one of the CTers points has been refuted by scientists. It's been done to death. Why do we need to pick on various aspects to reiterate what the experts have said before us? I don't have any new evidence to bring to the table, of course i don't.

Despite the scientific evidence, it remains a fact that the moon walks could have been faked. Only 20 or so people still living can hand on heart tell you whether they really occured. And that, as i've said, is the strongest evidence of all.

So. Since the seed of doubt was planted in my mind, i've been slightly sceptical, even in the face of such overwhelming (Googleable) evidence. And nothing provided so far proves (again, proves) that the events on the moon took place. It's just highly likely that they did. And therefore, seeing the lunar debris would extinguish any lingering doubts for all but the nuttiest CTer. I can't say it any more clearly, you just have to accept that there are sceptics like me around.

Can we lay this to rest now?

stilover

If you look into the sky on a sunny day. That big orange firery ball in the sky is one big nuclear reactor which gives off huge amounts of harmful radiation to man. Now, we are protected by all that harmful radiation by the Earth atmosphere, but the effects of the radiation can be seen hitting the Earth (Northern lights).

Escape the Earths protective layers, and you are in direct contact with all that radiation. Yet all you need to protect yourself is 2mm Aluminium and a space suit. Hmmm, I think not.

To try it for yourself. Buy/hire a space suit and run around a Nuclear reactor for a couple minutes. See what happens to you.

Holy Ghost

all this stuff apart, let's look at this from a common sense perspective.

could a secret this mind-blowing, naturally involving a lot of people, be kept a secure secret for this long without so much as the smallest scintilla of whistle-blowing from anyone on the inside?

at least with the assassination of JFK, there is some quite compelling evidence to at least call into question the lone gunman theory [for example the 'magic bullet' ballistics].

[shakes head].

no. and that's, pragmatically speaking, where the CT moonshot stuff falls apart and wanders into anti-establishment and anti-american fantasy fulfillment for loons. capricorn one was a hollywood movie.

OllyK

Interesting, didn't know that. I'm not sure remote control would have been an issue though, they remote controlled the first robot on Mars and that's much further away.

OllyK

Everything could be faked on that basis, why do you believe anything?

OllyK

See - this kind of ignorance is why these myths continue to go round and round. There's more than one kind of radiation. The Sun is a fusion reactor, the nuclear plants on earth are fisson, different types of reaction, different types of radiation. Alpha and Beta radition are particulate and the main issue of the Apollo mission and yes, they can be stopped with little more than a sheet of thick paper. I linked to the article about this 2 pages back!

Julio Jordio

Its an interesting subject.

The theory which I found interesting was the fact that they did make it to the moon, they did land the lunar module. However, all of the TV footage shown of the first landing was supposedly filmed from the control centre screen. There was never a direct live feed from the moon to the TV broadcaster. Why? If this was the most important feat of human achievement why were they not allowed the direct feed to enable far greater resolution pictures? It was shown in very poor black and white. Its also interesting to note that the transmission from the astronaughts is edited. They are told to switch to "private channels" to describe certain things, and there's plenty of code being used. I find it very intersting, but I dont know, I'm not sure their telling the WHOLE truth about what's happened. I certainly think the US Gov is capable of the above. Some of the things they have done to their own population over the last 70 years is astounding with regards to medical testing etc.

TelBoy

Because most things are observable and repeatable etc etc, come on Olly you should know that, you like a nice bit of science. But it's the absence of that which allows us "loons" to concoct our stories.

OllyK

OK, so the moon landings were observed and repeated, 6 times - check.

We're back to my question a couple of pages back, what evidence would you require to determine that the moon landings were not faked?

TelBoy

I didn't observe a damn thing, not with my own eyes. Un-check.

Footprints on the moon. That's all you need to show me. Bring the Hubble into close orbit and let's get it sorted out once and for all!!

OllyK

20 men walked on the moon, are you telling me that nobody else knows whether they did or not, those 20 alone either achieved the lunar landings or faked it? For it to have been faked would require the colusion of hundreds of people.

You do know that this happened from 1968 onwards and that quite a few people who were in their 20's and 30's back then are actually still alive?

stilover

And when the Lunar module takes off, who is the camera man who perfectly follows the Module back into orbit?

Maybe it was attached to the module by string?

PeteBrant

Good christ

TelBoy

Olly, for God's sake. For ALL the highly unlikelys that you can throw at this, you CANNOT prove it actually happened, can you grasp that? Yes it's improbable, that doesn't mean it's impossible. You won't convince me whatever you say. When i see the evidence, i'll graciously accept that i was wrong.

OllyK

So if you haven't seen it with your own eyes, it didn't happen?

Why would footgae from hubble (even if what you suggest were possible) be any less open to fakery than the hours and hours of original footage?

I suspect anything short of you visiting the moon yourself would end up being rejected as faked or at least fakeable, but even then, it's amazing what you can do with mind control drugs these days.

OllyK

Or maybe the camera was left behind on a tripod

PeteBrant

Well that's it for me. It's all getting a bit circular. My final considered thought is this:

If you think the moon landings are fake then you are ****ing mental.

TelBoy

See, now you're being flippant, Olly. You suspect wrong. I have no agenda whatsoever (although some CTers do). One day i'm sure, it will be resolved beyond any reasonable doubt, probably in your favour, so look forward to that day and let it go.

OllyK

Tel you can't prove absolutely prove anything. But there comes a point where there is great piles of evidence on one side and FA on the other. If you keep moving the goal posts everytime your requirments are met, there's little hope for you.

I don't think you will. You've said you need repeatable evidence, it's been supplied, the goal posts then shift to needing new imagery of the landing sites, I suspect when that appears there will be crys of "that's been faked too".

TelBoy

Oh i give up. You've forced me into submission too. Talk to somebody else about it.

OllyK

That day came and went 40 years go.

Leslie

I mentioned earlier that amonst all the hardware that I have seen at Cape Canaveral and all the NASA people I met, that I also talked to an astronaut who had walked on the Moon.

That astronaut was Pete Conrad who I am sorry to say was killed in a bike accident last year. He was known as the "Rock Man" because he kept on collecting so much of it that they had to stop him in case it was too heavy for the Moon Lander to get off again. I think I am a good enough judge of character to be able to say he was an honest man, like the others and what he told me about the missions was enough to convince me that there was no place to doubt them.

I find it a shame to see all these snide and unprincipled comments especially from one who asks everyone for proof of what they say but then says he is not prepared to produce any himself of his accusations.

I repeat, I think the more honest attitude is to accept the success of the moon landings. Should any positive proof of the opposite ever turn up, then people have a right to whinge about it, but until that does, what is the point of trolling all those who are prepared to accept the truth of it.

Les

stilover

Yes I gatherd that.

What I meant was, as the Module takes off, the camera follows the modules path perfectly. As if there was a camera man tilting the camera on the tripod to follow the module.

You know, as if it was staged in a hangar here on Earth.