Man on the moon?

That had to wear visors to protect themselves from sun breams.

They - not that.

Sorry - that was carp typing.

Eel Armstrong would agree!

Lisa Simpson 29 Dec 13:26
On a general point, why do right wing loonies/bigots struggle with the correct use of apostrophes? It seems to be an ongoing theme on here.

oh dear

:( :(

So would his brother, Ray.

Fck off with your numb smileys you utter cu nt.
:)

looks like I have upset someone

:( :(

I am so sorry


:D :D

diddums

lol lisa

late contender for post of the year that

Did man go to the moon - For me the jurys still out but I'm leaning towards no.

The case for. - We all saw it on TV, surely the Russians must have monitored the Apollo craft up and back. Could so many people involved in an elaborate lie all keep quiet about it all this time.

The case against - All the conspiracy theorists who pick holes in the footage, shadows where there should not be, flags flying in the breeze etc. plus the Yanks are not past fabricating anything to further their own agenda's.
Why have they never been back, because there is nothing there?, possibly. Or because they never went in the first place. Forty years ago did a craft with all the computer proccessing power of a pocket calculator really go to the moon and back 8 times in total without incident when modern high-tec space shuttles suffer catastrophic failures regularly.

The day a moron on here upsets me I shall step out of the tent, bidding my fellow explorers adieu.

Don't slam the flap on the way out.

They did go back. Several times.

sorry Lisa

I will be all luvvie to you from now on

Dont want to see tears

;) ;)

High tech space shuttle have suffered disasters largely because of the drive to make them re-usable.

I serioulsy believe many people who doubt the moon landings are ignorant of the fact that there were 6 moon landings and the chances of the USA faking them all defies reason

looks like my mate down the pub was right

:0 :0

when was the last one simon?

1972

The US and UK governments tried to fake WMDs

HTH

;) ;)

But Gordo saved the world.

Man DID go to the moon.

There is no doubt. It's just a few bored nerds using the internet to try and make their mark by creating some conspiracies for idiots to agree with, who say there is any doubt. (Oh, and the people who read and believe it).

Has anyone seen the pictures that NASA published, where it was noticed that they had doctored them? The crosshairs on the camera lens disappear behind some objects in the foreground - which is impossible!

I'll happily have a look at that Wedged, although as a starting point retoucing photos is commonplace - it would be more remarkabe if they publishem them all without retouching.

Do you have a link?

someone posted this

http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html

http://pseudoastro.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/sibrel_crosshair.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_lRr7B9t07eI/SK_MYYovDNI/AAAAAAAAAGs/uh3-2k_0h8g/s1600-h/crosshair6.JPG



Two examples there. The crosshair is etched onto the camera lens to help calcualte distances etc at a later date, but it seems to have tripped them up after they have super imposed objects into the frame.

my advice would be to get another hobby

Looking at the first, why are there two supposed crosshairs? Does the site give the original source for the photos?

http://thewebfairy.com/moon_files/nasa9.gif

And for both, aren't the crosshairs normally in the middle of shot?

That last one has crosses all over the shop!

definitely. i had some doubts but if you watched these conspiracy theories being ripped apart piece by piece then you would change your mind.
some of the theories border on fanatsy but if you tell a mistruth often enough alot of people will believe it.

the computer power was very limited but each computer had a set task and was unable to do anything else. modern day computers probably only have so much power due to the advances made by nasa.

some of the best minds in the world worked towards putting men on the moon and i think it was costing roughly 5% of americas gdp. that might be wrong but i think i read that.
tens of thousands of some of the brightest people worked for a decade with a massive, almost unlimited budget. in that context, almost anything is possible.

the fact is that the american public and politicians became very uneasy spending such huge amounts of money on the space programme, hence why nobody has been to the moon since 1972.

it was a great achievement by man, and its a shame that so many people doubt that it happened. if nothing else, the technological advances made helped make modern life what it is.

good summary John especially about how its a pity many cannot acknowledge one (if not the) of the greatest achievments by human kind

I understand that most calculations were done by slide-rule - computers didn't invent angles, nor mathematics.

John do you believe in WMDs still

;) ;)

The TV may tear apart the conspiracy theorists but they have free rein. On the net they dont

As for the photos - well, ffs.

I doubt very much that's true lisa. Calculators were around at the time.

Over the past few years I have been in constant debate with several members of the 'Bad Astronomy' website and Apollo believers who visit this site. Bad Astronomy is a website that is a general meeting place for people who think that they can explain the hoax theories concerning the Apollo program and the site goes into detail on other anomalies that appear on space footage. During my time debating on the site, I was issued several challenges by sceptics who said that if I could show 'official NASA footage' showing certain anomalies, then that evidence MAY make them think that something is definitely amiss with the NASA Apollo footage. Needless to say, as at the time of writing, none of them have come forward and changed their stance.

?

well...quite!

We'll know either way when a team made up of several countries goes to the moon in the future, as there will be debris (launch platform, cameras, flags) and machines (the rover) left all over the moon's surface if they landed.

'left all over the moons surface' ?

I think the moon is a little bigger than that depicted on the Clangers

In addition to the stuff that's already there.

Gene Hackman 29 Dec 13:17
BonViv 29 Dec 13:13
Iwantyourmoney
Putting smiley faces doesn't help your case as it add's **sexuality to the "nutjob con theorist" monicker i'm afraid

And replying with such answers,by bringing **sexuality into a man on the moon thread,doesn't dispel the suspicion that you lean firmly to the right wingers "believe every bit of sh1te you are told" type.

Brilliant!

Oh the irony of "believing what is written"

lol madsimon

BonViv

Brilliant!

Oh the irony of "believing what is written"

;) ;)

A slide rule went to the moon - worth Googling just how important they were in the space programme Sparky

madsimon 29 Dec 14:09
'left all over the moons surface' ?

I think the moon is a little bigger than that depicted on the Clangers

or button moon?

Fair enough!

madsimon 29 Dec 14:09
'left all over the moons surface' ?

I think the moon is a little bigger than that depicted on the Clangers


You seem to be trying to belittle my statement for some reason?

Yes, numerous objects are said to be strewn over the moon surface if they have indeed been. They know exactly which grid they landed in (it was very deliberate), so they can re-visit and find them if they so wish.

to pick up a few things here.

it was hardly "without incident". apollo 11 was within a few seconds of disaster. armstrong had to land manually as the computer was taking them into a crater. this meant more fuel was burned that was planned. i think they had less than 10 seconds worth of fuel left.
apollo 13 was hardly without incident.

the space shuttle has roughly a 2% disaster rate (2 out of roughly 100). equate that to the apollo missions, which have a smaller sample rate. with even a 4% disaster rate, there is a very high chance that all 8 would come back.

the "breeze" -

no wind doesnt mean things cant move. the flag pole had to be twisted into the ground. the twisting motion made the flag sway.

the shadows -

the moon surface is very uneven, therefore shadows run in odd looking directions. this happens on earth aswell.
the astronaunts were visible in the darkness behind the lander due to light being reflected up off the moon. thats how light works. whether on earth or anywhere else.

there were no stars in the sky as the camera, like a human eye, cant cope well with extremes of light.
the bright surface of the moon - the incredible dark of space - thats ok. but when you add bright stars into that dark, the camera, just like your eye, couldnt cope.

next time you are at a floodlit football game, on a clear night, look up past the floodlights and see how hard it is to see a star.

if you have doubts, look out for mythbuster moon special, or look up something similar on youtube.

wmds?

i am not a conspiracy theorist. i take things as i find them, in each individual case.

when it comes to moon photos, i am more likely to believe professional photographers than some hick in a caravan park saying "that shadow shouldt run like that"

One of the biggest debates between hoax theorists and sceptics concerns the non appearance of stars from the surface of the Moon. If the objects in the sky that appear in the film to the left from the Apollo 15 Mission are not stars what are they? We can rule out marks on the lens of the camera or in the film because these objects appear on various parts of each shot and not just in one place.

http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html

Doesn't the site name offer you any clue?

Let me help. The site producers are also responsible for:
www.gullible-fckwits.co.uk

I think that site is owned by Nasa

You're actually embarrassing.
I thought, after years of reading some of the guff posted on here, I was immune.

I'm not.

I suspect you believed the film Schindler's List to be true depiction

:0 :0

Did the USA stole the enigma machine?

;) ;)

Is that the one where it isn't actually the Titanic that slams into the twin towers; it's actually JFK flying a white Fiat?

filmed in studio (nap)

go to the Science Museum - take a look at the lunar landing capsule thingy and think how could that thing have made it to the moon and back? I can't have it.

Oh well that settles it.

have you seen it sparky? Looks like it was put together in someone's shed. I can just about conceive the thing getting there, but taking off and getting back through the atmosphere? nope.

Seen it? My dad nicked a bit of it!

Do you believe it?

Since 1969 how many people have stepped foot on it?

Why has Russia not done it since?

In fact why has the USA not done it since?

In fact why has China not done it since?

It should have been just like Mount Eeverst, it took man a long time to do it but 1000s have done it since.

Seems all very suspect to me

Landing on the Moon was never done in the name of science, it was about building bigger and better rockets and dominating your enemies. The only scientist ever to set foot on the Moon was on the last mission.

There seems to be a new impetus on landing on the Moon, China, India, the Ruskies and again the US want to go there. I can guarantee there is ulterior motives to this.

Reyes. I don't think they would use the Lunar Landing Module for the return jouney to Earth. It only held 2 people, for starters! :D

Met Elvis and Hitler last time I was up there.

naydam - what else did they have to get back in then? i thought all the other bits are jettisoned on the way there?

the base, the bit with the glorified tinfoil, was left on the moon. i was like you, i only started to doubt it happened once i saw what they went to the moon in!

Iwantyourmoney 29 Dec 14:38
I suspect you believed the film Schindler's List to be true depiction


Would you like to expand a little on this one please

Why? you are not saying that is was a true depiction?

:0 :0

I am not saying what exactly

So you bring up something that you have no opinion on?

No point wasting my time with you. Is it?

;) ;)

cetainly wasnt possible in the sixties to land on the moon and probably a 1000\1 today

right-ho

think they are trying to get there now, if not before as i think the( elite)will need to leave soon

There is a similarity with the South Pole expeditions - no-one went there on foot between 1912 ( 1914 Shackleton attempt failed ) and 1958. Why - presumably getting there symbolises human achievement, but once it's been done, what's the point. Well it took the USA 6 moon landings to realise there was no further point, no economic advantage, no new information to learn by having a human there. That's changing now - new powers want a symbol of how far they've come, it can be done cheaper than before, and we've thought of lots of new experiments we'd like to do, and mankind may journey there again. Like with the South Pole, we're now interested in sampling the air, crushing deep glacial ice and seeing what isotopes come out, measuring the sun's brightness in summer and the temperature. Back in 1911/12 we just wanted to prove we could do it.

sorry I troubled you ben

Besides, there are ladders going much of the way up Everest now. When there are ladders to the moon you'll see plenty of tourists going up and down.

cardifffc 29 Dec 20:25
cetainly wasnt possible in the sixties to land on the moon and probably a 1000\1 today

In the whole thread this is my favourite. I can't even decide why - it just made me laugh out loud.

Iwantyourbraincells, escapee from the politics forum.
Being as stupid as always too.

Literally, a stupid winker.

Poor Lisa

Getting battered on the forum by a winker

:0 :0

Fack the Moon

Triffids on BEEB 1 in 4 minutes

Good answer Bongo but I think I've stated the main reason.

Kennedy made his famous speech before American's had even sent a man into space and was in response to Yuri Gagarin going into space. The Russian's had beaten them to everything before hand and were winning the ratings war. The Moon landings were never about science it was about winning a cold war.

BTW the Russian's tried and failed to bring an automated rock sample back only a few weeks before Apollo 11 succeeded.

Triffic

apollo 11 astronauts,i think,were there as a piece of equipment had to be aligned correctly.a reflective surface to gauge the distance of the moon from earth.some folks will never believe though.buzz sorted one out a few years ago.

Always pleasing to watch

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUI36tPKDg4

...and still funny.old guy should have been a boxer.

Ovalman. 29 Dec 20:57
Good answer Bongo but I think I've stated the main reason.

Kennedy made his famous speech before American's had even sent a man into space and was in response to Yuri Gagarin going into space. The Russian's had beaten them to everything before hand and were winning the ratings war. The Moon landings were never about science it was about winning a cold war.

did'nt he say they would land a man on the moon before 1970

as you have stated i think it was a race he could not afford to lose

tbf he was dead quite a few years before

russians never been,cos nobody wants to be second.

um, he was a bit dead at the time, but yes, all the impetus came from a desire to beat the Russkis. Of course, if there were ANY reasonable doubt about whether the landings were genuine, the Russians would have been all over it.

sorry CB a race the US could not afford to lose

Sparky has gave you the answer to your question, Wit-Ham.

cheers ovalman just spotted that

There's images here taken from space but they're not clear :

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/apollosites.html

You conspirator's would want some clearer images, not sure if the Japanese, Chinese or Indian's have them.

Good points earlier Ovalman; we shouldn't underestimate the motivation brought on by competition and also by fear. I remember my school physics teacher talking about being in Africa and seeing Sputnik fly overhead, shining brilliantly against a perfectly black sky just after sunset, and thinking the world has changed forever and the new one is now sh1t scary. Against the Cold War backdrop and the Kennedy pledge, the USA had to go for it

which moon first ?

Earth has a second moon, of sorts, and could have many others, according to three astronomers who did calculations to describe orbital motions at gravitational balance points in space that temporarily pull asteroids into bizarre orbits near our planet.

The 3-mile-wide (5-km) satellite, which takes 770 years to complete a horseshoe-shaped orbit around Earth, is called Cruithne and will remain in a suspended state around Earth for at least 5,000 years.

Cruithne, discovered in 1986, and then found in 1997 to have a highly eccentric orbit, cannot be seen by the naked eye, but scientists working at Queen Mary and Westfield College in London were intrigued enough with its peregrinations to come up with mathematical models to describe its path.