21 Nov 16
Originally posted by sonshipYes, you are TOTALLY wrong, we did walk on the moon and the better the probes get the better the photo's will be that shows human footprints on the moon. One tidbit:
We may under estimate what Uncle Sam will do for the sake of National Security and beating out the Soviets in the propaganda war.
[quote]
It cost me my job and literally tens of thousands of other people too. The hoaxers came directly out of that miserable time for american science. The manned space program outside of low orbit crap came to a screeching ...[text shortened]... e wrong and maybe we really did walk on the moon.
But [b] " No lie can live forever. " [/b]
During one moonwalk, a corner reflector mirror was placed in an exact position to do one job that it has been doing since the 60's: It is a 'retro reflector' and what it does is to re-emit light coming in from some direction (within some limits) and retransmits that exact same light back at the exact same angle the light came in on. What that means is a laser fired to the moon from Earth, some of that light hits the retro reflector and it sends a bit of that energy back in the same direction it came, as if it were a mirror that was aimed so perfectly it would send a laser beam back to the laser that emitted the light. So it was placed there by humans, no robots could have or did do the job of placing it in a conspicuous place where laser light could reach it from Earth and then aiming the mirrors in such a way that laser beams would have that light go right back in the same direction as the laser shot.
What that does is allow an extremely accurate measure of just exactly how far the moon is away from Earth and it has been shown to see the moon receding from Earth at roughly one inch per year or thereabouts, give or take.
When a powerful laser hits that retro reflector, only a few of the actual photons make it back to the detectors which happens after about 3 seconds because it takes light that long to go to the moon and back.
The speed of light has been proven to be one of the fundamental properties of physics and has been shown by astronomers to be exactly the same speed here in our solar system as it is in stars or galaxies 5 billion light years away. It is fundamental to the nature of the universe, there is very very very little change in the speed of light in a vacuum like in space. On Earth it is different, going through glass, it slows down then back into air it speeds up to nearly what it is in space and there are ways on Earth to stop light completely, making it go ZERO miles per second but not in space unless you are near a black hole or other super high gravity field.
Anyway the gist of all that is humans were the only ones who could have placed that retroreflector on the moon, a robot or other probe could not have done the job especially in 1970 or so. That is proof enough for me, I'm sure you saw the 'one step for a man, a giant leap for mankind' video, poor as it was. That video was due to the Australian radio telescope that just got online with a minute to spare to capture that video.
But if after all I said, you will still have doubts and there is nothing I can say or do in spite of me being directly involved with Apollo, nothing I or anyone else can say will make a whit bit of difference to you, will it?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
21 Nov 16
2 edits
Originally posted by sonhouse
Yes, you are TOTALLY wrong, we did walk on the moon and the better the probes get the better the photo's will be that shows human footprints on the moon. One tidbit:
During one moonwalk, a corner reflector mirror was placed in an exact position to do one job that it has been doing since the 60's: It is a 'retro reflector' and what it does is to re-emit ...[text shortened]... ith Apollo, nothing I or anyone else can say will make a whit bit of difference to you, will it?
But if after all I said, you will still have doubts and there is nothing I can say or do in spite of me being directly involved with Apollo, nothing I or anyone else can say will make a whit bit of difference to you, will it?
I told you that I could be persuaded that I am wrong. And I meant it.
Don't project your stubbornness onto me.
I know about the reflector.
And i also contemplate the experiment where a feather and a heavier object were both dropped on camera and they fell at the same rate.
Impressive.
The feather was left on the moon, I am pretty sure.
They could have brought it back.
We saw two objects drop to the ground at the same speed.
We are told one was a feather.
Maybe. But maybe not.
And the dirt being kicked up by the moon buggy.
Some have noted that with 6% of earth's gravity that dirt should have rooster tailed much higher than it did.
And the landing of the Lunar Vehicle with its rocket blast didn't realistically stir up the moon dust or even make a CRATER, which that much rocket thrust SHOULD HAVE.
But the laser thing is a valid point which I am aware of.
Two matters which have caused me some pause are the suppose laser reflections and the feather and other object seen dropping.
I have no delight in embracing the wrong thing and thinking it is right.
I just really want to know if what I saw on TV in 1969 and have been told for years in this here USA are really true. Or is it indoctrination?
I saw it on TV that night.
21 Nov 16
1 edit
Originally posted by sonshipWhere did you get the 6% of Earth gravity number from? It is more like17% which is almost three times your figure. The real number is 1.622 meters per second per second which is in fact 16.55% of Earth which clocks in at 9.8 m/s^2. What dif does it make if the feather was brought back to Earth or not? You saw two different kinds of objects fall at the same rate. The visual WAS the experiment, not the stuff of the feather, which I gather you are saying it might have been a casting made of lead but it was a feather and nothing more. You read too much negativity into everything about space and I suspect that is because deep down you don't think peope should be out there in the first place, that our ONLY place is here on Earth, even though having cities on the moon and Mars could save the human race from extinction, which you also don't believe possible because your god will fix all our boo boos and we will meet this individual in heaven, well some of us anyway.But if after all I said, you will still have doubts and there is nothing I can say or do in spite of me being directly involved with Apollo, nothing I or anyone else can say will make a whit bit of difference to you, will it?
I told you that I could be persuaded that I am wrong. And I meant it.
Don't project your stubbornness onto me. ...[text shortened]... years in this here USA are really true. Or is it indoctrination?
I saw it on TV that night.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
22 Nov 16
5 edits
Originally posted by sonhouse
Where did you get the 6% of Earth gravity number from?
I'll recheck this. I could mean one sixth of the earth's gravity.
It is more like17% which is almost three times your figure. The real number is 1.622 meters per second per second which is in fact 16.55% of Earth which clocks in at 9.8 m/s^2. What dif does it make if the feather was brought back to Earth or not?
My only point there is, Do we know that that was really a feather being dropped ?
We have to trust someone's word for it.
Maybe it was... maybe.
You saw two different kinds of objects fall at the same rate. The visual WAS the experiment, not the stuff of the feather, which I gather you are saying it might have been a casting made of lead but it was a feather and nothing more.
The problem is that once a couple of things seem very questionable, people start to notice and look for other things.
Probably the most CURIOUS thing to me is the footage of the "Eagle" landing with rocket jets blasting to slow down its descent, and the holes and little craters are NOT blown over with dust. Dust should have been flying up everywhere.
And there seems to have been NO DUST in the inverted cup like feet on the legs of the Lander. And the fact that no crater was blasted into the moon surface by such a powerful rocket just seems mighty odd.
Look at the first minute of this video of a former employee of a rocket building corporation.
Science proves that NASA faked the moon landings - Moon landing Hoax
&t=1357s
You read too much negativity into everything about space and I suspect that is because deep down you don't think peope should be out there in the first place, that our ONLY place is here on Earth,
I am of the Star Trek generation.
I read Ray Bradbury's R is For Rocket Sci Fi stories of space travel in junior high and loved them. Few Scfi Fi space movies and stories have not intrigued me.
Do not over generalize. My concern is with the specifics of the Moon Walks.
My concern is not in over all opposition to space exploration.
It is the hype and the indoctrination that I consider specifically about the Apollo astronauts walking on the moon.
Do you believe that there could have been a Plan B JUST in case this thing didn't come off right or that someone got killed ?
Do you believe that NASA with high government secret services could say -
"Yes. Kennedy said we have to get to the Moon by this time. That is Plan A which we are shooting for. but JUST IN CASE we cannot, we have a Plan B which will save us some embarrassment and keep the US public enthusiastic about space exploration " ?
More than just scientific curiosity is involved in these major forces.
even though having cities on the moon and Mars could save the human race from extinction, which you also don't believe possible because your god will fix all our boo boos and we will meet this individual in heaven, well some of us anyway.
It could be that the real gullible one is you.
Watch the Eagle landing on the moon with its propulsion rocket blasting away. Look carefully at the ground ... CAREFULLY.
Why were the small craters not blown full of moon dust ?
Watch - 2:55 on. Look very closely starting at 3:36 . At 4:14 the astronaut says "Picking up some dust."
It doesn't look like the little crater holes and mounds are being blown away. And when the Eagle is seen sitting on the surface of the moon, there is absolutely no hole or crater blown out from those rocket engines.
There were sets made up with a model of the moon with camera tracks known about.
These may have been for testing.
And they may have been used for FAKING in case Plan B had to take effect.
It is your problem if you over generalize this concern about authenticity to a over all anti-science, anti-space exploration attitude of the doubter.
If you have really good explanations to counter my suspicions you would not need to collect these kinds of criticisms to defend the authenticity of moon walks.
What would impress me more is a reasonable explanation of WHY there was no jet blasted crater underneath the Eagle Moon Lander.
22 Nov 16
Originally posted by sonshipThere was only a very thin layer of dust and under that, solid rock. The rockets slowing the lander down didn't stay on long enough to produce even much heating much less blasting holes in the rock which would have taken a blowtorch for some extended time to make any impression on moon rocks.Where did you get the 6% of Earth gravity number from?
I'll recheck this. I could mean one sixth of the earth's gravity.
[quote]
It is more like17% which is almost three times your figure. The real number is 1.622 meters per second per second which is in fact 16.55% of Earth which clocks in at 9.8 m/s^2. What dif does it make if th ...[text shortened]... reasonable explanation of WHY there was no jet blasted crater underneath the Eagle Moon Lander.
Luna gravity is about 1/6th Earth gravity so it takes 1/6th the amount of fuel to get off the moon. There was no deception, did you even read my posts about the issue? What are you going to say when landers or orbiters will have enough resolution to spot the footprints of the astronauts? That is bound to happen and there will be an entire generation of doubters with much egg on their face.
Did you read the part where I said the original moon landing hoax book was by an AMERICAN, nothing at all to do with Russia or China, avowed enemies ATT?
Doesn't that tell you SOMETHING? Russia had radar capable of tracking Apollo almost all the way to the moon and THEY didn't call it fake. Doesn't THAT mean anything to you?
And the technology to fake it didn't exist back then, my talk about that generation of mainframe computers should tell you something about that, if you had bothered to read it.
Remember, I was THERE, working on Apollo, did you read THAT in my posts?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
22 Nov 16
10 edits
Originally posted by sonhouse
There was only a very thin layer of dust and under that, solid rock. The rockets slowing the lander down didn't stay on long enough to produce even much heating much less blasting holes in the rock which would have taken a blowtorch for some extended time to make any impression on moon rocks.
Thankyou for a reasonable explanation. That's better. And I will take it into consideration.
Another question about the landing Eagle: There was a powerful rocket engine pointing down and smaller rocket engines to control its horizontal motion. These engines were placed at the top of the vehicle.
Some have complained that the design is bad and would not work. Some have pointed out that rocket engines at the TOP of the Eagle, if thrusted, would cause the vehicle to TURN OVER on its side.
The movie has the Eagle making horizontal motion and then descending with the vertical thrust of the central downward pointing rocket. Why did it not tilt sideways out of control and tip over as the two rocket systems were blowing ?
Do you know for certain that the Eagle like moon landing vehicle was EVER tested SUCCESSFULLY on earth? I heard that it almost caused an astronaut to be killed, had he not ejected his seat OUT before it crashed.
Was this landing vehicle ever tested with success on the earth ?
If not, HOW are we to believe something unsuccessfully tested on earth would be invested in and trusted to work in outer space ?
It seems very unlikely to me.
Luna gravity is about 1/6th Earth gravity so it takes 1/6th the amount of fuel to get off the moon. There was no deception, did you even read my posts about the issue?
I need to re-read it.
What are you going to say when landers or orbiters will have enough resolution to spot the footprints of the astronauts?
I repeat. I could be persuaded that it really did happen.
Did it ALL really happen on all occasions? Once something fishy is noticed people begin to consider how much authenticity is involved.
Conspiracy theorists and the Mythbusters have been going back and forth about the footprint. Some conspiracy theorists have said a footprint in dust like that requires moisture in the soil. Mythbusters showed that it does not using a substance made by NASA intended to simulate moon dust.
But Conspiracy theorists have countered by doing the same Mythbusters' experiments with the same NASA provided moon dust simulated substance. They have said - "No, we did it. And you're wrong."
So I don't really know who to believe as of yet - the Moon Conspiracy testers or the Mythbusters guys.
A professional tracker who deals with tracks in the sand and dirt said that that kind of distinct shoe print needs there to be moisture in the dirt. My brother-in-law who was in the army is sure that that is not true.
Footprints in sand near the water on a ocean beach are distinct and clearer.
Go up far from the water into the dryer sand and your footprint is not clear, but indistinct and just a sloppy impression like dent.
Is there moisture in the desert sands of the Moon?
So I don't know yet who to believe.
That is bound to happen and there will be an entire generation of doubters with much egg on their face.
Did you read the part where I said the original moon landing hoax book was by an AMERICAN, nothing at all to do with Russia or China, avowed enemies ATT?
These kinds of arguments are not too helpful.
I believe the Bible.
That does not mean that I am not aware of Bible crackpots.
It is too easy to make a sweeping dismissal with the excuse that we could find a crackpot here or there.
And stay tuned because I am going to answer one of your criticisms about the plan of salvation which you made light of.
Doesn't that tell you SOMETHING? Russia had radar capable of tracking Apollo almost all the way to the moon and THEY didn't call it fake. Doesn't THAT mean anything to you?
If the Russians know that the US moon landing was faked, that is strange to me why they would not publicize it. It is a point.
However, as I said, when you get into financial and technical cooperation between even rivaling nations, there may be incentives NOT to purposely embarress business counterparts.
We need the Russians in some space experiments. And they probably need us too. Those earlier scientists are dying out now or are old. It could be two former rivals with an attitude of - "You play nice with me and I'll play nice with you. But we both know what the real truth is."
Maybe US scientists know how many Russians got killed in space experiments.
But they play nice for the sake of good business relationships.
Maybe the Russian scientists know that the US staged moon landings in the deserts of America, hoodwinking the US populace. But they play nice about it for the sake of modern business cooperation.
This is at least possible as a detente concerning the dirty laundry in the closets of both countries.
There are mighty forces, financial and business related which mold and shape some of these things. it is not just a matter of scientists. It is big business, tax incentives, propaganda, public control, and such powerful relationships which also come into play.
Conceivably it could be to the advantage of two rival nations to play mutual coverup concerning some matters.
And the technology to fake it didn't exist back then, my talk about that generation of mainframe computers should tell you something about that, if you had bothered to read it.
The ability for people to fake things is increasing almost exponentially. It is no longer so much "Seeing is believing" in this day of Photoshop and Computer graphics.
The Internet is a fountainhead source of lying, bearing false witness, concoction, deception and false information, half truths, and munipulation of visual images.
It disgusts me.
I do not believe all of the conspiracy theories about NASA.
But I do have some questions.
Remember, I was THERE, working on Apollo, did you read THAT in my posts?
I know someone older than you who was a lawyer who worked at NASA. I respect that you worked at NASA. I know someone else I can talk to maybe more qualified than you who also finds my suspicions surprising.
Maybe I am wrong.
Thanks for your more reasoned replies.
Now to address one of your quips about my faith.
The Bible is clear that GOING TO some place alone will never be the answer to man's problems. And that is going the Moon or Mars or Europa or HEAVEN. The Bible is clear that where fallen man goes he will simply TAKE his internal problems with him where ever he goes.
The Bible is clear that man's salvation does not depend ultimately on being transported physically to another place, even if that place has everything. It is an inward problem that needs an intensely inward remedy.
So going to Mars or going to Heaven are about the same. It is the inward transformation and liberation from a sinful nature that has infested man that Christ comes with.
A fornicator will go to Mars and be a fornicator on Mars, even if there is no one to fornicate with.
And a fornicator will go to Heaven and be a fornicator in Heaven, even if there is no one to fornicate with.
The salvation of the Bible is a matter not only of forgiveness but of sanctification, transformation, and conformation to the image of Jesus Christ.
And it also consists of being builded up horizontally in a corporate relationship with one another - a final collective vessel of humanity united and mingled with God.
22 Nov 16
Originally posted by sonshipBut you realize as you say, the internet if full of liars, but there was practically no internet in 1970, Lee had set up the basis for the internet but it was just a messenging system between scientists ATT, there were no viruses or google or any of the aspects of modern internet. You do realize the first moon landing hoax book was from an American, right? And if there was anthing to the hoax theory the Russians would have been the one to have benefitted the most from the 'exposure' of a hoax, you do know THAT don't you?There was only a very thin layer of dust and under that, solid rock. The rockets slowing the lander down didn't stay on long enough to produce even much heating much less blasting holes in the rock which would have taken a blowtorch for some extended time to make any impression on moon rocks.
Thankyou for a reasonable explanation. That's ...[text shortened]... lationship with one another - a final collective vessel of humanity united and mingled with God.
EVERY point of the hoax theories has been debunked ten times over and if you really wanted to pursue the subject you could google the debunking as well as the sites you tout, the actual hoax sites. It seems to me you still don't really want to know the truth.
How old were you when Armstrong landed on the moon?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
23 Nov 16
5 edits
Originally posted by sonhouse
How old were you when Armstrong landed on the moon?
I was a young adult in my upper teens.
( I wrote before that I knew a NASA employee older than you. Strictly speaking, I don't know if she is older than you.)
And I do follow some of the conspiracy rebuttals.
As indicated, I followed the Mythbusters on the footprint business.
I have followed rebuttals on the:
waving flag (was there air current or not?),
light sources,
shadow castings,
sound of hammering,
distance of objects such as hills and big rocks,
size and movability within the Luner Lander,
laser reflections done for years afterwards,
passing through cosmic radiation in the Van Allen Belts.
I have heard and am still eager to hear some counterpoints to the hoaxers.
And if and when I am persuaded that there is nothing to the hoax theorists, I'll be happy to admit that I no longer think there is anything to their theories.
But not yet.
Thanks for your submitted reasonable counter arguments.
23 Nov 16
Originally posted by sonshipI gather you simply don't trust the refutation of the hoaxers, there are plenty of sites going over every hoaxer point and showing when, why and where they were wrong.How old were you when Armstrong landed on the moon?
I was a young adult in my upper teens.
( I wrote before that I knew a NASA employee older than you. Strictly speaking, I don't know if she is older than you.)
And I do follow some of the conspiracy rebuttals.
As indicated, I followed the Mythbusters on the footprint business.
...[text shortened]... to their theories.
But not yet.
Thanks for your submitted reasonable counter arguments.
Like the flag waving, it was not due to air, it was due to the springiness of the poles and supports, like if you stuck a beach umbrella in the ground, the bits and pieces of the webbing poles holding the umbrella shape will wiggle around till it settles down and that is the sum of it for the flag.
The shadows were because of the different angles the guys were standing in and how some of them were at a slightly higher altitude and so the shadows would be different.
I don't know anything about the hammering.
Distance problems is just due to perspective, up close a small rock looks big but far away, looks small, don't know why they would even bring that one up. I guess any argument they make will be bound to fool SOMEONE and sell one more book...
The did put down a laser retroreflector, which ATT could not possibly have been done by robots since the computer tech at the time was in the area of strength of a Commodore 64, if that. Those comps had MAYBE 16 K of memory, not MEGS.
And the passing through the Van Allen belts, you know radiation builds up, you have a lifetime limit, right? When Apollo goes through the belt it's not like they were parked there looking at the scenery, they were going just about escape velocity, 25,000 odd miles per hour, like 7 miles per SECOND. So if the belt was say 100 miles thick (just a guess) then about 15 seconds is all you would spend there. Even if it was 1000 miles thick, it would be less than three minutes and out. Besides, the ship itself had a degree of radiation shielding, obviously not enough if you were to spend the night, like 8 hours or something, just a few minutes and you get X amount of radiation and they knew the strength of the belts and how thick they were and how many times you could traverse them and still be under a lifetime limit. That's all there is to the belts. Just don't spend days there. That is also why the ISS is only a couple hundred miles high to keep the astronauts from having to live months on end in the Van Allen belts. Also don't know why they would even bring up BS issues like that, that any smart 10th grader would know who had taken a science course. But again, they were not after whistleblowing, they were after book sales. So you were a teenager in '69, did you think it was fake just watching the daily reports? I was 28 ATT and I can assure you I loved every minute of it. Of course I was at Goddard and part of the team. Holding a moon rock in my hand was a high point of my life.
The cost of faking the moon landings would have exceeded the cost of actually doing it AND someone would have surely blown the whistle.
Out of all the thousands of people directly involved in this supposed grand conspiracy, not ONE of them called NASA out, it was outsiders who just didn't know how advanced we were in the 60's and 70's, but of course not in computers. Strong computers didn't come around for a couple of DECADES after Apollo. I still say it is treason to be dissing the space program like they did and I guess still are. They would not have the slightest clue as to how my own tracking system worked, I could tell you but it would take a lot more pages than are available here. And that is just one small system for Apollo, and the atomic clocks which was the other half of my job, very advance analog electronics and the general public would have had ZERO clue as to how any of those things worked. Ask anyone TODAY how an atomic clock works, see the blank expression on their face. Ask someone in the '60s, they would go, what's an atomic clock? As would most people today, yet these hoaxters have the arrogance and gall to think they can attack the most difficult and rewarding scientific acheivement of the entire world, and that technology led to many many other innovations finding it's way into human society.
24 Nov 16
Originally posted by sonshipThe cost of being found out would be to high for the small benefit for a small appearance of
I think a motivation would be intense Cold War competition for world dominance and display of technical superiorit. National Security could be the main factor. They may have deemed it, (and rightly so) a matter of National Security.
There was a race for the A Bomb.
There was a race for the H Bomb.
There was a race for space flight.
Why not a race fo ...[text shortened]... ack on a Plan B - Fake It.
Maybe - Fake It Now, and make up for it latter by really doing it.
success.
24 Nov 16
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayIndeed, and near 50 years later we should not even be HAVING this argument. We should have never had this argument 50 years ago either. To denigrate the highest scientific achievement of mankind is unconscionable and treason in my book.
The cost of being found out would be to high for the small benefit for a small appearance of
success.
24 Nov 16
And Sonship, why can't you just accept the absolute fact we went to the moon and look at the video's showing no craters being blown away and such and think about why, in the exact circumstances as that rocket taking off or landing on the moon, what is the scientific reason for the things you saw instead of just automatically looking at it like a fake and looking to all of us to prove we did it.
24 Nov 16
Originally posted by sonhousehttps://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=mythbusters+moon+landing+conspiracy&qpvt=mythbusters+moon+landing+conspiracy&FORM=VDRE
And Sonship, why can't you just accept the absolute fact we went to the moon and look at the video's showing no craters being blown away and such and think about why, in the exact circumstances as that rocket taking off or landing on the moon, what is the scientific reason for the things you saw instead of just automatically looking at it like a fake and looking to all of us to prove we did it.
Myth Busters debunked a lot of the conspiracy about the moon landings, they were
very good and enlightening.
25 Nov 16
Originally posted by KellyJayIt is just so sad we have to even have this conversation. Like I said, it is treason against the US to claim this BULLSHYTE.
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=mythbusters+moon+landing+conspiracy&qpvt=mythbusters+moon+landing+conspiracy&FORM=VDRE
Myth Busters debunked a lot of the conspiracy about the moon landings, they were
very good and enlightening.
25 Nov 16
Originally posted by sonhouseBeing skeptical isn't a crime. I agree with you on this topic, but others don't. Proving a point only strengthens the point towards those that accept it, and may persuade skeptical people.
It is just so sad we have to even have this conversation. Like I said, it is treason against the US to claim this BULLSHYTE.