Discussion Forum

I am watching this documentary just now called IN THE SHADOW OF THE MOON, about the alleged moon landings. Every bit of footage shown on the moon it shows a completely clear sky with not a single star, also who was filming Neil Armstrong as he stepped off the Lunar Lander??????

Did we Land on the Moon

Q: Did Man Land on the Moon Yes 60% No 30% Don't Know 10% There have been 10 responses to this poll

Spectrum,

Some dipshit conspiracy theorist once asked Buzz Aldrin this question and Buzz punched him in the chops. It's on You Tube somewhere.

So far the biggest hoax of the 21st Century are those bloody awful Twilight movies. You seen any of them?

The words unbelievably tedious hammed up load of old shit spring instantly to mind.

Regards

Skoob

---

Quote: Skoob1999

Spectrum,

Some dipshit conspiracy theorist once asked Buzz Aldrin this question and Buzz punched him in the chops. It's on You Tube somewhere.

So far the biggest hoax of the 21st Century are those bloody awful Twilight movies. You seen any of them?

The words unbelievably tedious hammed up load of old shit spring instantly to mind.

Regards

Skoob

---

Hi Skoob,
When I watched the moon landing in 1969 I thought it was real but now I am not sure for two main reasons.

1) The Van Allan Radiation belt protects us from being killed by deadly space radiation. Scientists say you would need six feet of lead to protect you if you went by it into space.

2) Even with our sometimes cloudy atmosphere we can still see plenty of stars. On the moon with no atmosphere you would without a doubt see hundreds of thousands of stars,
did they forget to paint them in because not even one is visible on all the moon footage.

regards


Spectrum

Hell NO we didn't land on the moon! You can tell the moon landing was fake! You could see all that sand like it was in a desert or something. Everyone KNOWS the moon is made of green cheese!

It was a woman.

---

Quote: SPECTRUM

[1) The Van Allan Radiation belt protects us from being killed by deadly space radiation. Scientists say you would need six feet of lead to protect you if you went by it into space.

2) Even with our sometimes cloudy atmosphere we can still see plenty of stars. On the moon with no atmosphere you would without a doubt see hundreds of thousands of stars,
did they forget to paint them in because not even one is visible on all the moon footage.

Spectrum

---

Spectrum,

1. Which scientists? Does this mean that the International Space Station, Skylab, the Mir, and all space flights by all nations in the past 50 years were fake?

2. Please walk outside at noon tomorrow, look straight up in the sky, and tell me how many stars you see. The light from the earth and the sun were so bright (just like the light on our planet during daylight hours) that they didn't see any stars! Think about it.

Aliens have landed and they live in Glasgow

---

Quote: Lynton

Aliens have landed and they live in Glasgow

---

Not very smart aliens, are they?

---

Quote: Jalapenoman

---

Quote: Lynton

Aliens have landed and they live in Glasgow

---

Not very smart aliens, are they?

---

That's why they landed in Glasgow

You should really do some checking on this subject.
The International Space Station even orbits at what is called
LOW EARTH ORBIT under the Van Allen Radiation Belt to protect the astronauts from deadly cosmic rays. Here on earth we are always told not to go out in the midday Sun. If you even managed to get to the Moon can you imagine the deadly radiation in the Midday sun on the moon. You would end up like
a radiation victim of an atomic bomb.

---

Quote: SPECTRUM

Did we Land on the Moon

---

No we didn't, but we left a flag.

No and I don't give a shit ("one great step for mankind" my BUTT!)

Ask the MUY POBRES if landing on the moon gave them a boost

---

Quote: queen mudder

It was a woman.

---

The most sensible answer given by one of the most attractive and sexually promiscuous of all TheSpoof writers.

Excerpt from a story I was writing and subsequently lost interest in:

"Recently uncovered documents prove that a typographical error is responsible for the conspiracy theory that the first moon landing was faked. The origins of the theory have now been traced to a little noticed article which appeared in an obscure weekly newspaper in Arizona.

The article, originally titled"The Moon Landing Was Naked", written by a young Gerald Rivers, was changed to "The Moon Landing Was Faked" when a drunken typesetter mistook an "F" for an "N". Gerald Rivers latter went on to become famed Fox News Reporter Geraldo Rivera."

---

Quote: SPECTRUM

also who was filming Neil Armstrong as he stepped off the Lunar Lander??????

Did we Land on the Moon

---

Yes but there's always a film crew there. Like those documentaries when some celebrity is climbing a mountain or fighting a giant octopus or parachute jumping. There has to be a camera crew or we wouldn't see it. There'd be somebpdy with a hand-held video camera who'd landed just before, and he would be filming it. It was probably a young Guy Ritchie or somebody. A man in a railway station waiting room in 1967 told me that this is how famous directors start off. Then he opened his raincoat. Not Guy Ritchie. The man.

The first camera, the one which shows Armstrong descending from the lander is the same black and white camera used to show the lunar landing from the module's point of view. Mounted on a leg of the lander it was later aimed toward the ladder by remote control to show Neil's desecent-or ascent-to the lunar surface. One of the first tasks after stepping onto the lunar surface was to set up a color camera to capture the rest of the event.

Sure, you might need six feet of lead to protect you from that much radiation but lead isn't the only material that can protect one from radiation.

I started in the SETI program almost as soon as they made it available for IBM PC. My wife worked at MITRE and my assistant Sysop was the head of the computer department at NASA. I can tell you one thing. They invested a lot of money in graphics programs. That's all I have to going to say about that.

---

Quote: Cal Jennings

I started in the SETI program almost as soon as they made it available for IBM PC. My wife worked at MITRE and my assistant Sysop was the head of the computer department at NASA. I can tell you one thing. They invested a lot of money in graphics programs. That's all I have to going to say about that.

---

Only Superman could survive in Space, on planet earth we have thousands of cosmic rays going through our body every second.
If it was not for the Van Allen Radiation Belt we would all be dead.

There are two van allen belts, an inner one and an outer one.

The inner one (situated between 300 and 1000 km up, depending on a variety of factors) is comprised of protons, or positively charged particles, commonly referred to as Alpha radiation. This can be stopped with a thin piece of card.

The outer belt situated at 10,000 to 40,000 km depending on a variety of factors (magnetic intensity, Earth's position to the sun, and solar wind intensity) is comprised of electrons, the negatively charged particles. At a height of solar intensity when the wind is strong, the earth's magnetic field is strong and our position in our orbit, these electrons can reach 10 Megaelectron volts, enough to disable an unprotected satellite or kill an unprotected human. This belt is quite narrow, a few kilometres across.

During the moon shots, very little was known about the belts, with them only having been discovered 15 years prior to the Apollo missions.

By sheer damned luck, the moon shots took place at a low in the cycle, otherwise, with the limited aluminium shielding protecting the capsule, Buzz Aldrin would be dead by now. However, the length of time of exposure, even at full energies, would mean that it took years for the effects to show. Aldrin has said that even if it had been a one way trip, he would still have gone.

Strangely, not one of the skeptics of the moon shots is willing to stump up the several million dollars required to prove that the moon landings were faked: pointing the Hubble at the Sea of Tranquility and looking. The module will be plainly visible next to the laser reflector that scientists have since used to determine with great precision the distance to the moon. NASA won't point the Hubble there to prove the landings happened because they know it would make no difference (see Chandryaan below), and only people who cherry pick the evidence believe otherwise.

The problem I have with conspiracy theories such as the moon landing one, is the sheer number of people who were involved. There were thousands of people involved in the six moon landings and one failure, plus nine missions there and back. ALL of them would have to be quiet about it. On top of this NASA would somehow have to fabricate the 382kilos of moon rock. Compare this with the 40kilos of moon rock that have fallen because of meteorite impact with the moon throwing up debris, and it becomes the simplest explanation that the 382 kilos were brought back by Apollo 11 to 17.

Finally, the Chandrayaan 1 spacecraft has taken pictures of the landing sites. However the Conspiracy theorists would have you believe that the Indians are now in cahoots with NASA in order to get the pictures of the lunar lander onto the Chandrayaan 1's pictures. If NASA took them there, and let them breath the tenuous lunar atmosphere until the saliva boiled off their tongue, they still wouldn't change their view point.

So...there's stuff left on the moon from six landings, a laser reflector precisely placed so we can fire a laser at the moon and see how far away it is, tons of video, still and sound recordings of being there, images from other space agencies, thousands of people who were there doing it, and a third of a tonne of moon rock. On the other side, we have a couple of pictures that don't make sense to people without a high school diploma in basic physics, and the fact that it was dangerous and expensive. Although the NASA would agree with the last two, but it didn't stop them.

Occam's razor would suggest that the simplest explanation is that twelve men have walked on the moon. To the conspiracy theorists, I say: Get a life. You're wrong, move on.

Iain

---

Quote: IainB

There are two van allen belts, an inner one and an outer one.

The inner one (situated between 300 and 1000 km up, depending on a variety of factors) is comprised of protons, or positively charged particles, commonly referred to as Alpha radiation. This can be stopped with a thin piece of card.

The outer belt situated at 10,000 to 40,000 km depending on a variety of factors (magnetic intensity, Earth's position to the sun, and solar wind intensity) is comprised of electrons, the negatively charged particles. At a height of solar intensity when the wind is strong, the earth's magnetic field is strong and our position in our orbit, these electrons can reach 10 Megaelectron volts, enough to disable an unprotected satellite or kill an unprotected human. This belt is quite narrow, a few kilometres across.

During the moon shots, very little was known about the belts, with them only having been discovered 15 years prior to the Apollo missions.

By sheer damned luck, the moon shots took place at a low in the cycle, otherwise, with the limited aluminium shielding protecting the capsule, Buzz Aldrin would be dead by now. However, the length of time of exposure, even at full energies, would mean that it took years for the effects to show. Aldrin has said that even if it had been a one way trip, he would still have gone.

Strangely, not one of the skeptics of the moon shots is willing to stump up the several million dollars required to prove that the moon landings were faked: pointing the Hubble at the Sea of Tranquility and looking. The module will be plainly visible next to the laser reflector that scientists have since used to determine with great precision the distance to the moon. NASA won't point the Hubble there to prove the landings happened because they know it would make no difference (see Chandryaan below), and only people who cherry pick the evidence believe otherwise.

The problem I have with conspiracy theories such as the moon landing one, is the sheer number of people who were involved. There were thousands of people involved in the six moon landings and one failure, plus nine missions there and back. ALL of them would have to be quiet about it. On top of this NASA would somehow have to fabricate the 382kilos of moon rock. Compare this with the 40kilos of moon rock that have fallen because of meteorite impact with the moon throwing up debris, and it becomes the simplest explanation that the 382 kilos were brought back by Apollo 11 to 17.

Finally, the Chandrayaan 1 spacecraft has taken pictures of the landing sites. However the Conspiracy theorists would have you believe that the Indians are now in cahoots with NASA in order to get the pictures of the lunar lander onto the Chandrayaan 1's pictures. If NASA took them there, and let them breath the tenuous lunar atmosphere until the saliva boiled off their tongue, they still wouldn't change their view point.

So...there's stuff left on the moon from six landings, a laser reflector precisely placed so we can fire a laser at the moon and see how far away it is, tons of video, still and sound recordings of being there, images from other space agencies, thousands of people who were there doing it, and a third of a tonne of moon rock. On the other side, we have a couple of pictures that don't make sense to people without a high school diploma in basic physics, and the fact that it was dangerous and expensive. Although the NASA would agree with the last two, but it didn't stop them.

Occam's razor would suggest that the simplest explanation is that twelve men have walked on the moon. To the conspiracy theorists, I say: Get a life. You're wrong, move on.


Iain

---

Well said that man.

---

Quote: SPECTRUM

I am watching this documentary just now called IN THE SHADOW OF THE MOON, about the alleged moon landings. Every bit of footage shown on the moon it shows a completely clear sky with not a single star, also who was filming Neil Armstrong as he stepped off the Lunar Lander??????

Did we Land on the Moon

---

Ever watch Mythbusters?

One of the NASA photos is fake because the shadows of the rocks and lunar lander are not parallel.

myth busted

The Mythbusters built a small-scale replica of the lunar landing site based on the photograph, using reflective sand similar to that found on the Moon, and a single light to represent the Sun. Next, they took a photo which was exactly the same as the NASA photo, including the differing shadows. The Mythbusters explained that the shadows were not parallel because of the way the light falls on the Moon's natural topography.

One of the NASA photos is fake because Neil Armstrong can be clearly seen while in the shadow of the lunar lander.

myth busted

To test this myth, the Mythbusters built a large-scale replica of the landing site, allowing them to take a photo which was nearly identical to the original NASA photo. The Mythbusters explained that Armstrong was visible because of ambient light being reflected off of the Moon's surface.

A flag cannot flap in a vacuum.

myth busted

The Build Team placed a replica of the American flag planted on the moon into a vacuum chamber at the Marshall Space Flight Center. They first tested at normal pressure and manipulated the flag. The momentum moved the flag around but the motion quickly dissipated. In vacuum conditions, manipulating the flag caused it to flap vigorously as if it were being blown by a breeze. This demonstrated that a flag could appear to wave in a vacuum, as the Apollo flag did.

A clear footprint cannot be made in vacuum because there is no moisture to hold its shape.

myth busted

The Build Team first tested whether dry or wet sand made a more distinguishable footprint by stepping in them with an astronaut boot. It was clear that the wet footprint had more detail than the dry footprint. They then placed sand similar in composition to the Moon's soil in a vacuum chamber and stepped on it with an astronaut boot, which made a clear print. The reason provided for this was that the unique composition of lunar soil allows it to behave differently than terrestrial soil.

The film of the astronauts moonwalking is actually film of the astronauts skipping in front of a high-framerate camera, slowing down the picture and giving the illusion they are on the Moon.

myth busted

Adam donned a replica NASA spacesuit and mimicked the astronauts' motions while being filmed by a slow motion camera. They also attached Adam to wires in order to mimic the Moon's lower gravity. While comparing their new footage with the original footage, the Mythbusters noted an initial similarity, but there were several small discrepancies attributable to filming in Earth's gravity. In order to film in microgravity, the Mythbusters boarded a Reduced Gravity Aircraft and filmed the exact same movements. Adam noted that the movements were more comfortable and more logical in microgravity, and their footage from the plane looked exactly like the original NASA film. The Mythbusters concluded that the moon landing film is authentic.

The Apollo astronauts left behind special equipment on the Moon like reflectors that scientists can bounce lasers off of.

myth confirmed

The Mythbusters went to an observatory equipped with a high powered laser. They first fired at the bare lunar surface but did not detect the laser bouncing back. Then they pointed the laser at a reflector left behind by NASA and received a confirmed bounce.

---

Quote: SPECTRUM

Every bit of footage shown on the moon it shows a completely clear sky with not a single star - Footage too grainy to show stars? Just guessing.

also who was filming Neil Armstrong as he stepped off the Lunar Lander?????? - Robotic camera on side of craft? Again, just guessing.

---

---

Quote: The San Francisco Onion

---

Quote: SPECTRUM

I am watching this documentary just now called IN THE SHADOW OF THE MOON, about the alleged moon landings. Every bit of footage shown on the moon it shows a completely clear sky with not a single star, also who was filming Neil Armstrong as he stepped off the Lunar Lander??????

Did we Land on the Moon

---

Ever watch Mythbusters?

One of the NASA photos is fake because the shadows of the rocks and lunar lander are not parallel.

myth busted

The Mythbusters built a small-scale replica of the lunar landing site based on the photograph, using reflective sand similar to that found on the Moon, and a single light to represent the Sun. Next, they took a photo which was exactly the same as the NASA photo, including the differing shadows. The Mythbusters explained that the shadows were not parallel because of the way the light falls on the Moon's natural topography.

One of the NASA photos is fake because Neil Armstrong can be clearly seen while in the shadow of the lunar lander.

myth busted

To test this myth, the Mythbusters built a large-scale replica of the landing site, allowing them to take a photo which was nearly identical to the original NASA photo. The Mythbusters explained that Armstrong was visible because of ambient light being reflected off of the Moon's surface.

A flag cannot flap in a vacuum.

myth busted

The Build Team placed a replica of the American flag planted on the moon into a vacuum chamber at the Marshall Space Flight Center. They first tested at normal pressure and manipulated the flag. The momentum moved the flag around but the motion quickly dissipated. In vacuum conditions, manipulating the flag caused it to flap vigorously as if it were being blown by a breeze. This demonstrated that a flag could appear to wave in a vacuum, as the Apollo flag did.

A clear footprint cannot be made in vacuum because there is no moisture to hold its shape.

myth busted

The Build Team first tested whether dry or wet sand made a more distinguishable footprint by stepping in them with an astronaut boot. It was clear that the wet footprint had more detail than the dry footprint. They then placed sand similar in composition to the Moon's soil in a vacuum chamber and stepped on it with an astronaut boot, which made a clear print. The reason provided for this was that the unique composition of lunar soil allows it to behave differently than terrestrial soil.

The film of the astronauts moonwalking is actually film of the astronauts skipping in front of a high-framerate camera, slowing down the picture and giving the illusion they are on the Moon.

myth busted

Adam donned a replica NASA spacesuit and mimicked the astronauts' motions while being filmed by a slow motion camera. They also attached Adam to wires in order to mimic the Moon's lower gravity. While comparing their new footage with the original footage, the Mythbusters noted an initial similarity, but there were several small discrepancies attributable to filming in Earth's gravity. In order to film in microgravity, the Mythbusters boarded a Reduced Gravity Aircraft and filmed the exact same movements. Adam noted that the movements were more comfortable and more logical in microgravity, and their footage from the plane looked exactly like the original NASA film. The Mythbusters concluded that the moon landing film is authentic.

The Apollo astronauts left behind special equipment on the Moon like reflectors that scientists can bounce lasers off of.

myth confirmed

The Mythbusters went to an observatory equipped with a high powered laser. They first fired at the bare lunar surface but did not detect the laser bouncing back. Then they pointed the laser at a reflector left behind by NASA and received a confirmed bounce.

---

and that one.

---

Quote: IainB

If NASA took them there, and let them breath the tenuous lunar atmosphere until the saliva boiled off their tongue, they still wouldn't change their view point.

On the other side, we have a couple of pictures that don't make sense to people without a high school diploma in basic physics.

---

This is how I feel about the flat-earth society who still won't acknowledge global warming.

This volcano shit is scary. Tectonic activity is no joke. I don't like the idea of melting hundreds of cubic miles of ice one little bit.

Yes have watched Mythbusters but its the cosmic radiation that's the big problem as there are plenty of scientists who say it would kill you if you are not protected by the Van Allen Radiation Belt. As for those that try to say there are no stars because it was so bright you should know then that the sky would definitely not be black.