Janspeed

iTrader: (1)

Bloody hell! You're right (or left!)!!

chrisowe

Its all lies, definitive proof here.
YouTube - Moon Truth

boomer

A very valid point (which i had forgotten to take into consideration) - thanks

As for the one sixth (or even 36th) being the solution - i am still far from convinced. I need to have a read of my Haynes and come back with some figures

mb

Bubba po

That's true. Lunar basalt is totally different to terrestrial basalt. The istotopic signature is utterly different, there is a high range of concentration of titanium which is unique to them, they are very high in iron and there is a high incidence of shock metamorphism, lack of oxidisation and they are characteristic of being erupted onto a surface that lacks any atmospheric pressure.

If any of the naysayers can explain to me how I have managed to study these rocks without someone bringing them back from the moon, I'd like to hear it.

astraboy

Try this one instead:

astraboy.

unclebuck

I blame the Clangers....

john_s

iTrader: (1)

Don't forget that the lunar ascent stage only needed to carry enough fuel to get into orbit around the moon. The command module that remained in orbit had the rocket motor (and associated fuel) used to escape the moon's gravity to come back to earth.

TonyG

I seem to remember somewhere that for each pound of mass you need to get into Earth orbit, you need 25 pounds of fuel. Remember, at launch you're not just lofting the rocket up, but all the fuel it contains too.
Oh, and I think the scientific instruments visible in the Apollo 14 picture is the Surveyor 3 lander - parts of which was brought back to Earth by the astronauts.

StickyMicky

I think the reason we don't bother going back, is that its a bit crap and not really of any interest.

Mars on the other hand is a much more intresting prospect IMO

Julio Jordio

Not if you believe some who say that the US basically bribed them not to say a word. There is evidence of this to some extent.

Gotta ask, why didnt the Russians go after the US proved it was doable? Wouldnt they wanted to have proved they were just as "good" for want of a better word?

Julio Jordio

Bit crap and not of interest?

So I suppose it'd intrest you to know that at the moment Nasa and other agencies are doing a lot of research into an element which is only found on the moon, called Helium 3? Its a radioactive Isotope which they are trying to develope into a fuel. They 6 tonnes of this stuff, could power the whole of Europe for a year.

So they are trying to develope ways to mine this from the Moon, and have also mentioned that they think it could be applied to propulsion in spacecraft. Basically a mini nuclear reactor in a ship which could overcome the huge distances needed to travel to say Mars for example.

I find it incredibly interesting lol.

Leslie

Please can you show us some of this evidence of bribery?

What is a "doable" by the way.

Les

Miniman

iTrader: (2)

They went with unmanned missions several times in anticipation of a manned landing (test landings, collecting samples, landing other equipment that cosmonauts would need), so they did get there, but the program was not completed (with manned missions) precisely because they weren't as "good" as the US.

They do however have lots of other space achievement.

+Doc+

Good lord, not another Space thread.

'prove they landed on the moon'
'prove they didn't'
etc...

It reminds me of Little Britain.

Julio Jordio

I'll do some digging now Les..... Cant remember where I read it.

I'm not saying It happened, just that some skeptics think they may have. I'll see what they used as "evidence" for this, but I clearly remember it being mentioned somewhere.

The Isotope Helium 3 is very interesting however, they are considering the possibility in the future to use it as fuel for nuclear reactors and such. Its only found in minute amounts on Earth but the Moon has a much higher concentration of it apparently.

Leslie

Thanks Julio.

Les

Julio Jordio

Here it is, I havent looked further to see what the proof is of this, but this is what I had read....

The Soviets, with their own competing moon program and an intense economic and political and military rivalry with the USA, could be expected to have cried foul if the USA tried to fake a Moon landing. Theorist Ralph Rene responds that shortly after the alleged Moon landings, the USA silently started shipping hundreds of thousands of tons of grain as humanitarian aid to the allegedly starving USSR. He views this as evidence of a cover-up, the grain being the price of silence. (The Soviet Union in fact had its own Moon program).

FlightMan

Silently shipping how?

By aircraft? Flight plans. By ship, shipping logs. Maybe they used a Saturn V to drop it? But that's not exactly silent is it?

So the moon landing were faked and the secret never got out, but the shipping of grain to the Soviets did leak out, via theorist Ralph Sene.

I think if the Soviets knew the moon landings were faked, they'd have asked than a heck of a lot more than grain! Maybe West germany for starters.

This thread is foofing hilarious.

Julio Jordio

No idea mate lol, I've just read alot about the moon landings, from all angles. Its just something that interests me, and although I cant put my finger on what, something just doesnt sit right with me about the Moon Landings. I do think we've been there, but we certainly dont know the half of it imho.

billythekid

One thing that I have always wondered is why do we spend $Bns on Mars rovers when we have so little data on the moon. Seems a bit odd to me, always has.

john_s

iTrader: (1)

As someone pointed out on another forum... at that time, the Americans couldn't keep a hotel room break in quiet, which only involved a handful of people.

Could they really have kept something on this scale covered up?

billythekid

+1

However, I do think there is a possibility that they went for other reasons. Military or economic or whatever, I suspect there were other reasons.
I also think there is a chance the images everyone seems to think are fake, are indeed. Because the mission was classified because of the above.

Sonic'

Dont forget the Russians were the first to get to the moon, only it was unmanned

Luminous

iTrader: (3)

Problem with conspiracy theorists is that no evidence is ever enough. Even if we do go back to the moon, and go back to where we landed in the past they will just claim any evidence that is found was planted.

Personally I think they were incredibly lucky (reckless). It was a silly space race, and we ended up going to the moon before we were really ready. Hopefully one day we will return. Issue of course is that if we return we have not really "achieved" that much, but it will still have cost an inordinate amount of money.

Leslie

Thanks for that Julio. Well I did not know about all the aid, but still would not take that as actual proof of a conspiracy over the Moon trips. I think that there were enough other countries which could have detected a fiddle going on, like ourselves for instance.

When you see the whole setup at Cape Canaveral and the complexity of everything involved as we did on our extra special military tour and see a moon shot being prepared, it is difficult to accept that it was a giant deception. Meeting the NASA staff socially was also pretty convincing.

Les

Leslie

Terminator X

iTrader: (7)

I don't doubt their ability to get to space back then, it's just the landing on the moon, wandering around then getting off the place again that seems unlikeley 40yrs ago.

Can anyone explain this rather than ask me to explain why it wouldn't be true:

1. No crater under lunar module yet Buzz etc leave footprints in the moon dust.
2. Buzz etc don't take off or travel large distances when jumping around.
3. Letter C written on a rock.

TX.

Nimbus

1. The dust was blown away. You can see it in some photos (will try to find them). I heard the lander was only at 25% thrust during the final seconds of landing.
2. He did travel further/higher than he would in earth gravity. What were you expecting exactly?
3. It's a piece of hair caught up during development of the photos. If you look closely, it's pretty obvious it's not a letter C written by someone. It just has a passing resemblance.