YES, MAN HAS LANDED ON THE MOON. I've heard so much arguments saying it's not true, but I disproved some of them my myself (the lack of stars - as a photographer I'm aware of that a camera is not able to redord it in most of situations - I'm not gonna explain why). How about all the rest? Sorry, but my English sucks. I won't tell you. There are some interesting books. Read it. Or watch Discovery Channel. I'm sure I've seen a documentary on TV.
But what about the conspiracy?
Originally posted by pinsleepe
YES, MAN HAS LANDED ON THE MOON. I've heard so much arguments saying it's not true, but I disproved some of them my myself (the lack of stars - as a photographer I'm aware of that a camera is not able to redord it in most of situations - I'm not gonna explain why). How about all the rest? Sorry, but my English sucks. I won't tell you. There are some interesting books. Read it. Or watch Discovery Channel. I'm sure I've seen a documentary on TV.
Re: Re: Re: Has man landed on the moon
Don't you think the Russians would of outted us if we faked it?
Originally posted by whirlysplat
Firstly Swanky I have read this thread and I see some flaws.
the site does deal with the "kilometers apart - same hill" argument, which they put down to a simple error
no the metal hulls DID NOT PROTECT the astronauts from the lethal radiation
NASA scientists are now quoting "space radiation" as a hazard for getting a man to mars, well going by the moon landing, there is NO space radiation besides the belts themselves...
Fourth - People inside of NASA have started talking about the programme etc...
http://www.aulis.com/nasa2.htm
The earth reflecting light causing the different shadow directions/ moons surface reflecting light, the site then contradicts itself in that it says that if there were 2 or more light sources, there would be multiple shadows 9 WHICH THERE ISN'T (but according to it, there was in the earth/the surface itself and the sun)
but alas if someone debunks every argument out there with GOOD evidence...then I can be swayed (I'm not one to ignore evidence, even if it goes against my own preconceivd ideas!)
Read through this sote, and then try and come up with soem arguments against.
Re: Has man landed on the moon
Has man landed on the moon?Yes
1. Van Allen Belts - High and intense radiation, NASA says that the rocket was travelling so fast that the astronauts would have been unaffected by the short term exposure despite the fact that they had NO...repeat...NO PROTECTION AT ALL!.....yet not one person who went to the moon ever got cancer to my knowledge...hmmmNo one knows the cause for cancer. And cancer doesn't just magically appear when biomatter is first exposed to carcinogens, it takes a long time to develop. Admittedly, the astronauts are at a higher risk for cancer over their life-times. Intense radiation can cause radiation poisoning. But the Van Allen Belts (which is primarily an Earth bound phenomenon, the Sun does not support long-term radiation belts) are NOT high and intense. Even at peak exposure, astronauts can survive for months without it being lethal.
2. The Saturn V rocket (the one which took people to the moon), ALL plans and designs were "mysteriously" lost...please see following linkThat's neither here nor there. If they're lost, that's no evidence of a fake moon landing. And it's easier for you to believe that the US government faked the moon landings, but you can't believe that they really lost them, or are hiding the documents from the world for various security reasons? Please.http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...s_what_s_needed
now, forgive me for being slightly suspicious, but would not the equipment which made possible such a great technical achievement be copied and copied and studied etc?
a) Shadows going off in different directions despite one light sourceEasily explainable by distortion from the SPHERICAL 🙄 helmet visor, and uneven moon surfaces. And there were two light sources: sun, earth.
b) All photographs coming out picture perfect despite hugely different light and dark tones on the surfaceContrast doesn't necessarily cause poor imaging. There IS such a thing as exposure. Any half competent photographer can adjust aperture and exposure time to get at details in the shadows.
c) Pathetic jumps by the astronauts given their weight/gravity (it was calculated that given their weight and the moons gravity, they should have been moving much differently than they didTheir trajectories would depend very much on how much force they used to jump. Were you there? Did you have some kind of device that measured exactly how much force they were exerting?
d) Perfect lander landing...despite the fact that in the earthenvironment, there are movies showing that Armstrong/Aldrinfound it difficult to control in an EARTH environmentEarth's gravity is much stronger. It isn't surprising that lander maneuverability was easier in the moon's gravity.
e) The most convincing for me was on a documentary, where it showed 2 bits of film, one being shot 2 miles away from the other (and facing a different way), however when superimposed, it should them going up the same mound ROCK for ROCKThat's evidence of nothing -- a simple filing error.
f) Chest height cameras impossible angles (all clear)Are you saying that a photographer holding a camera at chest height can't take clear photos? This is just wrong on so many levels. 1. Ever hear of a box camera? 2. You don't know how many photos were taken, NASA probably only published the best ones. 3. You have no idea how the viewfinder was rigged inside the suit. 4. With a wide angle lens, the focal length can be kept perpetually on infinity and the pictures will come out clear every time.
Again, any half-wit photographer ...
g) No blast crater (despite considerable downward force while landing)It's a common misconception to think that a rocket or jet's exhaust actually contains all the thrust. A rocket producing 3000 pounds of thrust with an engine exhaust bell 5 feet in diameter would only cause 1 pound of pressure per square inch. And don't do the math. It's not a simple division. Fluid dynamics work very differently from regular mechanics.
h) I can go on...Please do.
3. The sun spitting out high levels of radiation at that time (again no protection for the astronautsThe sun doesn't normally emit high levels or radiation. Only during solar flares. Radiation from solar flares can shoot right through our bodies, and cause damage to DNA, WITHIN THE CELLS THAT IT HITS, causing mutation. But very specific mutation is required to lead a cell to become cancerous. Mostly it just dies. If enough radiation damages enough cells, radiation poisoning sets in and the victim can die from breakdown of too much tissue, not because of cancer (at least, not right away). In fact, you are being bombarded by solar radiation as you sit and read this. The particles going through you and through the Earth are hitting your DNA RIGHT NOW. And more likely than not, many of those cells do become cancerous. But your immune system is capable of recognizing and dispatching these wayward cells before they get a chance to divide uncontrollably. It's when specific mutations cause a cell to become cancerous AND be unrecognizable by your immune system that trouble starts.I can go on...but I ramble on....what do we all think?
Astronauts are advised to take cover during solar flares, so yes radiation in space can be a problem. But AGAIN, it's only during flares. Risk is present but not insurmountable.
Originally posted by Chiram
*Gaffaw* You have an interesting argument, but what possible reason would they have to lie to us?
didnt you read the poll? that answers the question right there.dont know how to tell you this but the government is not known for telling the truth about matters on subjects like this.
Did man go to the MOON??
Theres been loads of info flying arround apparently disproving that the US put a man on the Moon in 1969 and the other following years.
That it was a ploy to get funds fo NASA and save face because the USSR were the first to put a man in space. Plus its odd htat we havn´t been there since.
What do you think
Well, most of the "proof" I've seen was countered very plausibly. Then again generally it seems like a possibility, since it did indeed strengthen the position of the US. But I doubt that the USSR would have been unable to find that out. And I know for fact (or as close as it gets) that is possible (by physics) to reach th moon and more, so why not?