(info on moon)Did we really go to the moon? [pictures]?

Question

http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t93/turtler29/Probe.jpg

http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t93/turtler29/footpeg.jpg

http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t93/turtler29/crater.jpg

http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t93/turtler29/carrpobe.jpg


Area 51 such a well hiden place..... Good place to film a replica of the moon, you know nevada nice and deserty...

Think about this one

Answer 1

Instead of asking for answers for you to judge, why not decide what evidence would convince you, and then seek to prove or disprove that evidence.

Answer 2

The first picture was deliberately overexposed to bring out the detail in the shadow (look how bright and washed out the surface is), and in any case there are two sources of fill lighting, the first being the lunar surface beyond the LM shadow, the second being the bright white spacesuit worn by the astronaut taking the picture. If you look at high res versions of that picture you can see the hoses on the suit casting shadows upwards, exactly as would be expected if they were being lit by reflection from the lunar surface.

In the second picture, no-one has yet been able to demonstrate that there actually SHOULD be any dust on the footpads. There are three very good reasons why there wouldn't be any:

1: The engine was supposed to be shut off when the LM was still a few feet off the surface.

2: Even if it wasn't the pads are right next to the engine. Why would you expect dust to sit in the pads while the engine was blasting it around not six feet away?

3: Dust on the surface would be blown away from the engine very effectively, since there is no atmosphere to cause great billowing clouds of dust. With that simple fact in mind there is simply no way for any dust particle to have a trajectory that would cause it to land on the footpad.

The third picture first of all gets the amount of thrust wrong. The LM descent engine generated 10,000lb of thrust at full throttle, but it was only at full throttle at the start of descent. By the time it got near the surface it was exerting only about 3,000lb, and the engine bell is about 54 inches across. Doing the calculations shows a pressure of about 1.5psi at the engine exhaust. Since the exhaust will spread widely in the vacuum, it would not create a distinct crater. However, there is plenty of photographic evidence of disturbance of the soil under the engine, and indeed in that picture the LM does seem to be sitting in a shallow depression such as might be blown out by a light wind such as the exhaust.

The final picture is an example of emulsion bleed, and the effects of low-res scans. If you look at the high res version of that picture you can see the crosshair only disappears behind the brightest white part of that antenna, but is still very much on top of the darker parts. On other pictures you can see the cross hair obscured only by the white stripes of the US flag. Are we really supposed to believe NASA used a plain red flag and pasted the white stripes on after it? That fine dark features are obscured by bright white ones is a well-known photographic effect.

Finally, Area 51 is not well hidden, and it looks like a desert. The Moon does not look like the desert in Nevada, nor does the surface behave like sand, nor does the dust display the behaviour you'd expect in an atmosphere.

Answer 3

1) Twelve 12 American astronauts have walked on the moon.

Apollo 11: Neil Armstrong & Buzz Aldrin
Apollo 12: Pete Conrad & Alan Bean
Apollo 13: << failed to land on the moon >>
Apollo 14: Alan Shepard & Edgar (Ed) Mitchell
Apollo 15: David Scott & James Irwin
Apollo 16: John Young & Charles Duke
Apollo 17: Eugene (Gene) Cernan & Harrison Schmidt


2) Why haven't we been back?

a) American astronauts visited the moon on six occasions.

b) The "moon race" was an extension of the cold war. It was mostly about national prestige. We got there first and achieved our primary objective. There was some good science: surveys, measurements, sample collection. But it was mostly about being there first. Once we achieved our primary objective, there was no political will to go back. There still isn't. Perhaps, if we discover He3 or something else valuable, there will be.

c) I used to travel to Crested Butte, Colorado every year to ski. Because I don't go anymore, does it mean that I never went?


3) What about the Van Allen radiation belts? Wouldn't it have killed the astronauts?

The existence of the Van Allen radiation belts postulated in the 1940s by Nicholas Christofilos. Their existence was confirmed in *1958* by the Explorer I satellite launched by the USA.

The radiation in the Van Allen radiation belts is not particularly strong. You would have to hang out there for a week or so in order to get radiation sickness. And, because the radiation is not particularly strong, a few millimeters of metal is all that is required for protection. "An object satellite shielded by 3 mm of aluminum will receive about 2500 rem (25 Sv) per *year*."

"In practice, Apollo astronauts who travelled to the moon spent very little time in the belts and received a harmless dose. [6]. Nevertheless NASA deliberately timed Apollo launches, and used lunar transfer orbits that only skirted the edge of the belt over the equator to minimise the radiation." When the astronauts returned to Earth, their dosimeters showed that they had received about as much radiation as a couple of medical X-rays.


4) The U.S. government scammed everyone?

In 1972, there was a politically motivated burglary of a hotel room in the Watergate Hotel in Washington, D.C. There were only about six or eight people who knew about it. However, those people, including Richard M. Nixon, the President of the United States, failed to keep that burglary a secret. It exploded into a scandal that drove the President and a number of others from office.

If six or eight people couldn't keep a hotel room burglary a secret, then how could literally thousands of people could have kept their mouths shut about six faked moon landings? Not just one moon landing, but six of them!


5) What about the USSR?

Even if NASA and other government agencies could have faked the six moon landings well enough to fool the general public, they could NOT have fooled the space agency or military intelligence types in the USSR. The Soviets were just dying to beat us. If the landings were faked, the Soviets would have re-engineered their N-1 booster and landed on the moon just to prove what liars Americans are. Why didn't they? Because the landings were real and the Soviets knew it.


6) Why does the flag shake? Where are the stars? Who took the video of Neil Armstrong?

On the subject of stars, take a look at the first link. Sorry, but there *are* stars in that photo. For the rest, visit "badastronomy" and "clavius". They deal well with all of the technical questions.


7) Finally, please tell us what you would accept as definitive evidence that the six moon landings were real. Is there anything?

Answer 4

REDIT: B, because of the fact of right here motives: a million) It became into shot in December, and the define of Africa could be seen. for this reason, it incredibly is evening in Africa. First time I replied this, i assumed it became into South u.s.. Then i found out that it became into shot interior the wintry climate. 2) For this twilight zone to be seen from the moon, the moon could have be type of on the earth-Moon orbit proper to the solar. 3) A powerful effect of conservation of angular momentum for the period of photograph voltaic formation is that (almost) each thing is rotating interior the comparable direction. it quite is, if we glance down Earth's axis from the North Pole, each thing is going counter-clockwise. which capacity no longer basically the moon is orbiting counterclockwise proper to the Earth, the Earth is orbiting counterclockwise with the solar besides. 4) for this reason, an hardship-free drawing shows that the moon is at the back of the Earth of their mutual orbit proper to the solar. A mnemonic for remembering the stages of the moon is rfile, it quite is, it sounds like a D, then an entire moon, after which like a C. So, from Africa on the time of the shot, the moon could be looking like a D. Addendum: I basically examine manjyomesando1's answer, and that became into my incorrect thank you to objective, yet she did it first. provide the lady her 10 factors. the full concern heavily relies upon on determining the place the poles are, and that could basically be guessed from a million) continental land hundreds, and a couple of) climate types. it incredibly is truthfully Africa because you will discover the Sahara desolate tract and the sub-Sahara savanna, while if it became into South u.s., that dry patch should not be there. ok, I lose this one, can no longer win all.

Answer 5

I think the moonshot was staged . I notice the Ted Kennedy drowning girl thing ( which was a black operation )happened while the capsule was en route to the moon itself .
Then about a month later there were the Manson murders . These three tended to distract attention from one another . There was all kinds of crap gouing on that summer .

Answer 6

If the moon landings were faked, then who [put those laser mirrors on the moon that astronomers use to monitor the ever changing distance from the Earth to the moon? Aliens?

And if NASA did fake it, why didn't the USSR try to expose the fraud in order to embarrass their main Cold War rival, the United States? You know that they would if they could.

Answer 7

I remember the summer evening that the event happened,so what does area 51 have to do with the moon shot ?
Area 51 is an area where the govt keeps you & everyone else guessing as to what their up to.

Answer 8

there will always be people who believe that the earth is flat as well! people love to stir up doubt and trouble, and i think this is one of those cases

i actually heard about a fairly large scale movement to discredit the moon landings quite a while ago, and i did some research, and found sites on both sides. Here are a few to get your started, but there are many more!

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast23feb_2.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Moon_Landing_hoax_accusations

etc etc there are thousands more!


good luck forming your own opinion!

Answer 9

I bet they didn't use the thrusters upon the moment of impact. Considering the gravitational pull of moon, it would take much for a slow safe descent.

Answer 10

Well wow, these are some interesting pictures! Although i dont think that the Americans would lie to the whole world plus i dont think at that time they had the technology to stage it as well as if they did.