Forum Moderators: open
1. Apollo 14 astronaut Allen Shepard played golf on the Moon. In front of a worldwide TV audience, Mission Control teased him about slicing the ball to the right. Yet a slice is caused by uneven air flow over the ball. The Moon has no atmosphere and no air.
2. A camera panned upwards to catch Apollo 16's Lunar Landerlifting off the Moon. Who did the filming?
3. One NASA picture from Apollo 11 is looking up at Neil Armstrong about to take his giant step for mankind. The photographer must have been lying on the planet surface. If Armstrong was the first man on the Moon, then who took the shot?
4. The pressure inside a space suit was greater than inside a football. The astronauts should have been puffed out like the Michelin Man, but were seen freely bending their joints.
5. The Moon landings took place during the Cold War. Why didn't America make a signal on the moon that could be seen from earth? The PR would have been phenomenal and it could have been easily done with magnesium flares.
6. Text from pictures in the article said that only two men walked on the Moon during the Apollo 12 mission. Yet the astronaut reflected in the visor has no camera. Who took the shot?
7. The flags shadow goes behind the rock so doesn't match the dark line in the foreground, which looks like a line cord. So the shadow to the lower right of the spaceman must be the flag. Where is his shadow? And why is the flag fluttering if there is no air or wind on the moon?
8. How can the flag be brightly lit when its side is to the light? And where, in all of these shots, are the stars?
9. The Lander weighed 17 tons yet the astronauts feet seem to have made a bigger dent in the dust. The powerful booster rocket at the base of the Lunar Lander was fired to slow descent to the moons service. Yet it has left no traces of blasting on the dust underneath. It should have created a small crater, yet the booster looks like it's never been fired.
On a serious note I saw a nightime shuttle launch a few years ago it was one of the most amazing things in my life. The entire ground shook and rumbled then the sky started to glow. As the orbiter began to climb into the atmosphere the entire sky turned this errie orange color except for the bright white flame from the engines. It was a humbling experience.
Do you think the moon landing really happened?
Of course not. It was clearly filmed in Area 51. By aliens.
The giveaway was the retouching done to the film to hide the abandoned London double-decker bus behind the moon-launcher.
[straightdope.com...]
[edit]Another fine example of English slang not meaning the same as American! :)
[add]http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a951117.html <- The other famous quotation by Armstrong on the moon.
[edited by: Sanenet at 12:24 am (utc) on Nov. 2, 2004]
Sanenet, what you wrote makes no sense at all. :)
Trust me, the moon landings did happen.
BTW, didn't someone leave a laser reflector up there that's still in use? If the batteries hadn't died in the laser pointer I got in Boston (or was it Orlando?), I'd check it out myself. :)
What inconsistencies?
Each one of those (listed above) can be explained easily enough with a little digging.
For instance, the mention of 'who held the camera' indicates remote control might be how they panned those shots.
In this case though, it's all about developing and using Critical Thinking Skills rather than revising what one believes, based on these few suppositions.
I don't know whether it really happened and I don't think it matters one way or the other.
... and I don't think it matters one way or the other.
.. it's like saying Woodstock never happened, or Viet Nam, they really don't matter. These are the things that molded and shaped me into the tired old hippy that I am today. Had my imagination not run wild with the Saturn to Apollo missions I might have turned out completely different. Everything matters, even if it doesn't :)
It really DOES NOT MATTER. What difference does it make, one way or the other?
Each one of those (listed above) can be explained easily enough with a little digging.
C'mon it's not like those guys were rocket scientists or anything ;-)
Looks like the accomplishments of the "establishment" both shaped a hippie and had absolutely no effect on a member of the institution. Amazing.
It really DOES NOT MATTER. What difference does it make, one way or the other?
Let's see... from Apollo we got Medical monitoring, earth observation, communication and navigation, Velcro, Tang and Teflon. Did they actually have to go to the surface of the moon for these things? Nope, but the spirit of adventure and development that surrounded this thing may not have been so pervasive had we not really done it at all.
<shudder>Life without Tang</shudder>
I think someone switched the sugar cubes.....
I was 7 years old when they sent me on earth to study human behavior after the first human moon landing. So little changed since then, not surprising some humans doubt it actually happenend...
We will have telescopes on earth at the end of 2005 that can resolve the landing craft and rover left behind, but I am sure people will say then those photos are fakes too [antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov].
You do know the Russians orbited the moon and were planing a manned landing too, right?
This wasn't just a USA event.
All these people were in a conspiracy eh?
[en.wikipedia.org...]
On November 15th, this European moon probe will go into moon orbit for the best photos (including infrared and x-ray) ever [en.wikipedia.org].
[badastronomy.com...]
Those tinfoil hats don't make good eating... ;)
One highlight - from the debunking of the 'no crater left behind' theory:
Sure, the rocket on the lander was capable of 10,000 pounds of thrust, but they had a throttle...
And I'm not the only one who noticed:
[webmasterworld.com...]
If we went, why has NO ONE been back?
Surely the Russians, back in those days would have wanted to show how they were just as good as that was the whole push behind the space race? For all the shuttle missions and space station missions since then, why was a base never set up on the moon? Why haven't we been back?
And, depending on domestic policy in the U.S., NASA has plans to send robots to the moon over the course of ten missions, one per year starting in 2008:
[usatoday.com...]
Those missions are meant to assess the potential of using the moon for construction or fueling of spacecraft for future interplanetary space flights.
<added>
Which is about all the moon would be economically feasible to be used for. The cold war push for lunar missions had the hope of the moon having some resources -- none were apparent at the time, so the continued exploration became academic... and very expensive considering no apparent tangible reward. :(
</added>
Mankind has realized that humans are fragile in space, and its alot cheaper to send robots into space. When people die in space, their is a public outcry. When a robot dies in space nobody cares.
I believe that we will eventually develop robotic vehicles that will make human space exploration unneccesary, at least in this solar system.
When mankind finally develops FTL technology, maybe things will change.
When a robot dies in space nobody cares.
Give it a few years someone will form PETRA
People for the
Ethical
Treatment of
Robots and
Androids
