|
Post by Ich Liebe Rammstein on Jun 8, 2002 23:16:57 GMT -5
<<<< On the website, they were better able to expain in more detail than I was! I'd suggest going there! It's pretty good. >>>>
Ha. Believe us,that site has everything.
|
|
|
Post by Cassiopeia on Jun 9, 2002 12:10:08 GMT -5
>>I'm not really sure on that one. I mean,every picture I've seen of the moon has gravity on it. Unless it's illustrated. But I don't know. We could have. <<
Of course the moon has gravity. Gravity is a force, and anything with mass has gravity. The gravity on the moon is obviously not as strong as that on the earth, because the moon has much less mass. To be more specific, the moon has about one sixth the amount of gravity of that on the earth.
|
|
|
Post by Toxic-Avenger on Jun 10, 2002 11:55:22 GMT -5
Exactly, say you weigh 100 pounds on Earth, you would weigh 17 pounds on the moon, but you'd still have 100 pounds of mass.
<<In that movie the current president had an affair with a minor right before elections.
Boy, life imitates art don't it?
|
|
|
Post by 80s Child on Jun 10, 2002 19:08:31 GMT -5
^^Hate to be picky here, but the person who the last President had an affair with was not a minor, she was an informed adult capable of making her own decisions. Now back to your regularly scheduled moon-landing debate already in progress.
|
|
|
Post by Ms.Thang_Has-It-All on Jun 11, 2002 0:17:27 GMT -5
NO ^^^ That was in a MOVIE !!! I was using the movie "Wag The Dog" as an example!!!
|
|
|
Post by 80s Child on Jun 11, 2002 10:53:47 GMT -5
Ms. Thang, I was not addressing that point to you, but to Toxic-Avenger, concerning what he said about life imitating art.
|
|
|
Post by Toxic-Avenger on Jun 12, 2002 11:27:39 GMT -5
Why? I already knew that. The two incidences, one fictional, the other is real, resemble each other.
|
|
|
Post by LisaRocksYourWorld, yo on Jun 14, 2002 19:14:42 GMT -5
This is such an interesting subject. I wouldn't put it past the government to do something like that. Especially against the Russians. Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the Russians the pioneers in space travel? The US was sort of in a race against them... The United States, the leader, the "powerful country" could very well have done this in order to stay powerful and ahead. It actually makes sense. Annie, those points you brought up were fascinating. You would have had me fully convinced if Toxic-Avenger didn't give a logical explanation to each one. I'm completely torn on the whole thing. As for it not being able to be kept a secret, Perhaps even those "controlling" the mission were left in the dark.
|
|
|
Post by .Hunting:High:and:Low. on Jun 14, 2002 19:20:26 GMT -5
Especially against the Russians. Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the Russians the pioneers in space travel? The US was sort of in a race against them... The United States, the leader, the "powerful country" could very well have done this in order to stay powerful and ahead. It actually makes sense.You're quite right. Annie, those points you brought up were fascinating. You would have had me fully convinced if Toxic-Avenger didn't give a logical explanation to each one. I'm completely torn on the whole thing. Toxic, I deem thee the one who makes all of us conspiracy hungry people cringe. As for it not being able to be kept a secret, Perhaps even those "controlling" the mission were left in the dark. Personally, that is what I believe. Only a few "top" people knew what was really going on. All of the people back at NASA really thought we were going to the moon, they just probably launched a shuttle, had it land in the Pacific or Atlantic, or wherever, and got Armstrong and Aldrin to a base and fed them the info they were to share with the world. Sounds nutty, I admit, but more probable than going to the moon IMO.
|
|
|
Post by Toxic-Avenger on Jun 16, 2002 21:34:48 GMT -5
The Russians were pioneers in space, true. But they didn't have enough money among other reasons to keep doing experiments in space. Their economy was shot because of the arms build up. <<Toxic, I deem thee the one who makes all of us conspiracy hungry people cringe. >> Ah, but 'tis my job to make people cringe--I mean . . . ;D <<they just probably launched a shuttle,>> If this is what you mean, correct me if I'm wrong. The Space Shuttle wasn't rolled out until the late 1970's and that was just a proto-type. The first launch wasn't until a few years later. A reusable space vehicle has been on the books since the early 1960's but wasn't realized until much later. How would one explain the Apollo 13 and Apollo 8 Disasters? Not the Hollywoodized version but what really happened. Apollo 8, the capsule burned up and killed the astronauts inside. Apollo 13 was when the oxygen tanks exploded and destablized the Command Module. They had to use the moon's slingshot effect to get back to Earth. In other words, these astronauts were close to the moon and saw the surface. The news-people were on this story! Why would NASA want this kind of bad publicity? How would all the news-gathering resources of the world be able to fake this too? And why? ======================================== All right, I checked out a conspiracy theory website on this and if anything, the site only confirms that we landed on the moon and the writer here doesn't understand much about photography and lighting. Exhibit A: <<The following pictures were analysed by the professional photographer David Percy. He claims that the light on the Apollo pictures can only come from a studio.>> Really. <<Apollo 11: This photo with Neil Armstrong and Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin standing on the Moonsurface was taken by a camera that was placed above the Lunar Module. Take a good look at the shadows and notice that Aldrin's shadow is much longer than the one of Armstrong, while the only light on the Moon comes from the Sun.>>
Aldrin also has a third leg too, eh? They don't show what's behind him.
<<Apollo 11: The Sun shines over Aldrin's leftshoulder. Take a look at his rightshoulder, which is in the shadow. You can see too much detail on it. It should be much darker because the contrast between light and dark is much bigger on the Moon.>>
True, but the moon is highly reflective. You know those nights when you go outside and can read by the moon, it's so bright. The astronauts suits are white to light gray so the already bright sunlight would be bounced around. They can also lighten or darken photos.
<<There is no atmosphere that can dim the light on the Moon therefore should look all pictures much clearer,>> but take a look at the landscape behind Aldrin [C] it fades slowly to darkness.>>
There are no trees or mountains on the moon for scale, which also has a shorter horizon line than the Earth. It's very hard to gauge how big or how far away something is.
<< A strange object [D] reflects in Aldrin's helmet.(there are more theories on this one) NASA claims that it is a part of the equipment. Some theoretician's think that it is a 12-meter long glass structure.>>
Well that's it then. We DIDN'T land on the moon after all, that 12 meter long glass thingy was the clincher!
<<Apollo 14: Look at the Lunar Module and notice that there is no crater [E] under the module. My opinion: While a Lunar Module descends to the moon there should be a move of a serious amount of sand. >>
What I said before, the thrust doesn't have to be that strong, and it wouldn't move that much material. Also, there isn't that much dust on the moon. It's not like there's 20 feet deep of the stuff. Maybe a few feet here and a couple of inches a few meters away.
<<Notice [F] this looks like a footprint to me. That's very strange because how can there be a footprint under the module. >>
Doesn't look like a footprint to me, but then I can put my foot under a tripod or under my car. Not a mystery here.
<<Apollo 15: You should see stars [H] because there is no atmosphere around the moon. NASA claims that the sunlight was so strong that the stars vanish into it. >>
He also says: <<There is no atmosphere that can dim the light >>
The stars only are visible when it's as dark as can be, once that sun comes up it's BLAZING! Stand in a well-lit parking lot and tell me how many stars you see.
<<Look at [G] and notice that it is the shadow side of the module then why are the words UNITED STATES very visible while the surrounding golden foil is very dark. Is this picture been edit or does a spotlight make this effect. >>
It's called a "reflection."
<<In this picture, taken from the LEM, you can see at least two abnormalities. In section E you see an abnormal shadow on the moon's surface. NASA claims that this shadow is the shadow cast by the Lunar Module, but on earth, even when aircraft is flying low to the ground, it does not produce such a clearly defined shadow. >>
So it must be the LM, which looks slightly different than an airplane. An airplane is graceful looking, the LM looks like a bug.
<<If you will look at section 3 you will notice there are no stars in the sky. In fact, you will never see any stars in any NASA Moon photographs, or hear an astronaut mention anything about the glorious stars that are visible when out of the earths atmosphere. >>
See above.
<<if you look in areas 6 and J, you will again see no stars. In area K you will notice that one side of the LEM in covered in shadow, but somehow the symbol of the US flag in illuminated. This very well could have been a touch up job. >>
See above. Or it's reflected light, which has a tendancy to bounce around on lightly colored objects.
<<This is a picture of Alan Bean holding up a Special Environmental Examiner Container. This picture was taken off a camera that was strapped to Conrad's chest. If the camera was attached to Conrad's chest, the top of Bean's helmet L should not be in this picture.>>
I see, so it magically appeared as an image. You can take pictures without looking through a veiwfinder.
<<All of the shadows reflected in Bean's visor M are going off in separate directions, not in parallel lines like they should be. If you will look at the Environmental sampler that Al Bean is holding, N , >>
The moon is an uneven surface, nice try.
<<the reflection is coming from a light source other than the sun, but it is possible that light is being reflected off the space suit. >>
See?
<<There is a strange anomaly in the sky, It is yet to be determined what that might be.>>
Part of the LM.
<<In our last picture, we would like to direct your attention to the circled portion of the screen. These Lunar Rover tracks are quite well defined, don't you agree? Well, the fact is, you need a mixture of a compound, and water, to make such defined lines. We don't know if that idea is so convincing, but I assure you, this next one is.>>
Yep, no water or wind erosion on the moon, so the rocks are not going to wear down as much, if at all. The sand on the moon is powdery, and again, the low gravity helps a tread or footprint keep its shape. It's not going to cave in or fall apart so fast. A mixture of water and a compund? What "compound" might that be?
<<If you look at the rock labeled R you will notice a the letter C carved in the rock. left by the props department? >>
This doen't deserve a comment. But so what? A 'C' carved into a moon rock.
<<Here is a portion of the previous picture, blown up.>>
KABOOM! Oops.
<<Take a look at the cross hairs that appear on the picture. These hairs appear on EVERY lunar picture. These cross hairs are placed between the shutter of the camera, and the film, >>
I know what cameras look like and between the shutter and lens is a really difficult place to put stuff. The cross hairs would be all blurry if visible at all. Uh, no these are on the lens. They are used as sight gauges and help calculate size and distance.
<<supposedly. If you take a look at the cross hair on the left, this cross hair was placed behind the lunar rover, you can see the Lunar Rover is in front of the cross hairs. >>
Or the contrast rubs out the cross hairs. They're not going to make thousands of these things and stick them into the ground. If that's true, why isn't there any sand piled up around them, or a little crater where they're sticking up?
<<Facts about the Moon >>
This should be good.
<<There are millions of micro-metors traveling at speeds up to 6000 MPH, which would tear the ship to pieces. >>
Not quite millions. Alot, but not that many. The windows of the Shuttle are made of bullet-proof glass but they still get little star craters in the ship's body that have to repaired. Now, they are not METEORS, they are METEOROIDS, like asteroids. Meteoroids are outside of a planet's atmosphere. When they fall, they are meteorS and when they strike, they are meteorITES. There's a difference, not a big one but let's know what's we're talking about here, guy.
MILLIONS of Meteor(ites)? That would be one heck of a shower every night doancha think? Cool too. Make up for last year when the fog rolled in and I couldn't see the big meteor shower of October 2001.
<<If you look at the pictures/video of people on the moon, you will never see more than 3 stars. >>
Bright, bright sun.
<<When the LEM set down on the Lunar surface, it gave out 3000 lb. worth of thrust. This would have created a massive hole underneath the Lunar Module, but in pictures of the Lunar Module, the ground underneath is untouched. >>
Holes have no mass since they indicate an absence of material. How can a hole be massive when it has no weight? The thrust didn't have to be that strong either.
<<TO WIN THE SPACE RACE - Back in the late 60's early 70's, Russia and the US were in a heated battle to see, well, pretty much who was better. Once the US realized that they couldn't send a man to the moon, they couldn't just say, "OK Russia, we give up." >>
And Russia said, "Okay United Staters, we're cool with it too."
And there's this. The astronauts who have been on the moon placed some mirrors there for Earthbound experiments. Observatories shine a laser to the moon to the mirror there and measure the time it takes to get back which is usually under a few seconds. They do this to measure any variations in the orbit or position of the moon. So how did these mirrors get there? Why would they bother to fake that?
|
|
|
Post by Toxic-Avenger on Jun 19, 2002 11:09:07 GMT -5
Here's more:
<<About 20 miles about the Earth, there is a radiation belt named the Van Allen belt. No human can get through this belt, If you try than you get hit with 300+ millirems of radiation. Unless they are surrounded on each side by 4 feet on lead.>>
300 millirems?! You get 400 from living in Denver, Colorado
I hope that was a typo and he meant 200 miles because spy planes like the SR-71 Black Bird fly at heights of 19-20 miles above the Earth. Guess what! The Space Shuttle and the International Space Station orbit several hundred miles up. And the astronauts don't get fried. We've been through this belt many times.
Here are the recommended safe limits for radiation exposure.
The highest recommended limit for radiation exposures is for astronauts-25,000 millirems per Space Shuttle mission, principally from cosmic rays. This amount is beyond the average 300+ millirems of natural sources of radiation and any medical radiation a person has received.
Average Natural Background: 300 Millirems
(A milliRem is 1/1000th of a Rem. According to McGraw-Hill's Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms, a Rem is a unit of ionizing radiation equal to the amount that produces the same damage to humans as one roentgen of high-voltage x-rays. The name is derived from "Roentgen equivalent man." Wilhelm Roentgen discovered ionizing radiation in 1895 at about the same time that Pierre and Marie Curie discovered radium.)
For example, a hyperthyroid problem such as that experienced by former President George Bush is typically treated with a radioactive iodine drink designed to deliver about 10,000,000 millirems of radioactive iodine to the thyroid. It would coincidentally deliver a dose to the rest of the body of about 20,000 millirems. A slightly lower dose of radioactivity is used for cancerous tumors. Radiation to kill a cancerous tumor often involves a beam delivering 6,000,000 millirems to the cancerous tissue, but the whole-body equivalent dose is much less, as it was in the thyroid example cited above.
What is a lethal dose from a single instance of radiation? According to studies made after the atomic bomb explosions in 1945 at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, half of the people died whose entire bodies were exposed to 450,000 millirems of radiation from the atomic bomb. All persons died whose bodies were exposed to 600,000 millirems of radiation.
Millirems above natural background levels (average 300) and medical radiation
Naturally occurring radiation: 25 to 35-Human body's own radiation dose per year from radioactive elements and minerals in the body.
300-Average annual natural background radiation, sea level (includes your own body radiation, cosmic radiation and radon).
400-The city of Denver's average annual natural background radiation (altitude 5,000 feet).
Common Additional Sources of Radiation (Whole Body Equivalents per year in millirems above background levels)
12-Coast-to-coast US round trip flight in airplane at 35,000 feet of altitude.
10-Annual increase due to daily use of salt substitute (potassium chloride) or eating a diet heavy in such potassium-rich foods as bananas and Brazil nuts. Potassium is an essential dietary element that is present mostly in the muscles.
2-Annual exposure due to watching four hours of television every day.
Therapeutic Doses of Radiation to A Part of the Body (Whole Body Equivalents in millirems above background levels)
20,000-Therapeutic radioactive iodine treatment of thyroid gland. A localized dose delivers 10,000,000 millirems to the thyroid and about 20,000 millirems to the rest of the body. A radiation dose to kill a cancerous tumor often sends a beam delivering 6,000,000 millirems to the cancerous tissue, but the whole body equivalent dose is much less, as in the thyroid case.
<<{{When the LEM set down on the Lunar surface, it gave out 3000 lb. worth of thrust. This would have created a massive hole underneath the Lunar Module, but in pictures of the Lunar Module, the ground underneath is untouched.}} >>
Here are the specifiations of the Lunar Module
Empty: 8650 lb Crew & Propellant: 32,500 lb HEIGHT: 7.0 m (22 ft 11 in) WIDTH: 9.4 m (31 ft 00 in) THRUST: Descent Engine: 9870 lb maximum, 1050 lb minimum of thrust. THRUST: Ascent Engine: 3500 lb of thrust. <== The LM took off from its base so it was even lighter.
FUEL: 50-50 mix of Unsymmetrical Dimethyl Hydrazine UDMH & Hydrazine OXYDIZER: Nitrogen Tetroxide PRIME CONTRACTOR: Grumman Aerospace Corporation
|
|
|
Post by Selina21 on Jun 19, 2002 11:12:50 GMT -5
I have also seen pics of the Moon but I voted for I do not know
|
|
HairsprayQueen
Junior Member
Hey! Wait! I got a new complain. Forever in debt to your pricless advice--Nirvana
Posts: 137
|
Post by HairsprayQueen on Jul 5, 2002 13:55:40 GMT -5
When I was in Summer Scool a few weeks ago,we talked about this. Now I really don't know for sure. Everyone in my room don't think it happened,but the teacher insisted that it did. I'm not totally sure,but I still dn't think it happened.
|
|
|
Post by thevoicewithin on Jul 18, 2002 9:54:05 GMT -5
I believe that we did land on the moon. How would we have all of this knowledge about the moon if we hadn't? I doubt that they would have faked going to the moon. That would be stupid, because they know they would get caught eventually.
|
|
CH107
New Member
Posts: 58
|
Post by CH107 on Jul 18, 2002 14:24:56 GMT -5
Yeah, we landed on the moon. Toxic Avenger has very good points, and they are all very true. lol, didn't know after four hours of tv you got 2 rems. quite interesting. 300 millirems is a mere .003 rems. Hardly anything. Like TA said, the van allen belt is much higher, as 20 miles is only 105,600 ft, and the SR-71 flies in excess of 120,000 ft. Oh, and if anyone ever tells you, "You think they landed on the moon? Go find the flag. Show me the flag." lol, well, if you can develop a telescope that can maginify a little flag to the point where it's more than a dot and still be able to keep it under $100,000, i will. Actually, bring it down to no more than $1000 and i will. Point is, the moon is 365,000 kilometers away. That's about the same as going around the earth 9 times. It's gonna look like a tiny dot, if you were somehow able to pick it out of the background. Not to mention the flag, if placed at the correct angle, could be invisible to us, just because the thinnest points are facing the earth. Even the hubble would have trouble seeing a piece of cloth no more than a millimeter thick from 365,000 km away. Though, it'd probably be a hell of a lot easier than with our little back-yard telescopes.
|
|