quote:

Originally posted by electric_soul so it doesn't matter if they did or didn't anymore.

WTF!!! yes it does sheez... claiming something for over 50 years to be true and not a hoax is not a matter???

o.........k

I was watching 60 minutes when they were talking about all this, the reporter tried to interview Armstrong and tell him if it was all true...he didn't say anything but punched the reporter..

quote:

Originally posted by djSlain the government would never lie to a US citizen

Wrong forum your posting this message, post it in the Humour section.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Dj_Psygnosis Wrong forum your posting this message, post it in the Humour section.

my thoughts exactly!

quote:

i read that the area just outside the earths atmosphere is so radioactive, if anyone crossed it in a ship or not, they would die of cancer soon after

Ya, and I read evolution is disproved by thermodynamics. So what are you trying to say, that you believe everything that is written? Besides, astronauts wear space suits. You know, those white suits are not just for esthetic purposes, they have several functions. One of them is to protect from radiation.

quote:

Originally posted by Trancention So all those astronauts that have gone into space and those that are currently in space have died/will die soon from cancer? I don't think so.

There were no astronauts that got into space. It's all a big conspiracy.

quote:

Originally posted by Streakfury I wouldnt go into space even now, because it's too dangerous, so how they managed to run a space mission with (what are now) 30 year old computers etc i'll never know. Makes you wonder why they haven't been back. I mean, it's not like we know everything we can know about the universe just from a couple of trips to the moon and back.

They don't do it every day because it is very risky, and what's even more important, very expensive. The only reason they did it was to prove their superiority to the soviets. Right now there is no immediate need to go to the moon as is pretty uninhabitable, mainly because of low gravity and a lack of atmosphere. The only planet gravitationally suitable for colonization would be Venus. And for it to be colonized it would need to be pushed out of it's orbit and have it's atmosphere changed. So we're still pretty far from massively colonizing other planets, except for maybe having a few small outposts. When those minor benefits are compared to the costs of those missions, no wonder they aren't pursued with such endevour. We may see some small mining colonies on the moon though, if we run out of some resources on earth, though.

___________________
1+1=10

I saw a programme on this in the UK about 1/2 year ago.

A few things stuck in my memory..

1. The fact that the American Flag was moving when theres no atmosphere (wind?) in space.
2. The programme showed a number of space walks where the craters exactly matched up between different years. (ie the space shuttles landed in exactly the same place and the astronauts walked on exactly the same area! Just a coincidence!?
3. The fact that on one of the space walks, the shadows of the astronauts were in different directions, when the only source of light (the sun) was only coming from one direction!

Gets you thinking thats for sure...

Sigh ... this particular idiocy of a "theory" is a personal pet peeve. It astounds me to this day how ignorance can be couched in apparent intelligent half-truths and "science" to propogate more ignorance. At any rate, first I'll use snopes if anyone tries to bring up that stupid movie clip:

http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/hoaxes/moontruth.asp

Now then, if anyone would like to argue or dispute claims first provide credible sources so that the claim can be properly dismissed or scientifically analyzed.

quote:

Originally posted by tall paul 2 I saw a programme on this in the UK about 1/2 year ago. A few things stuck in my memory.. 1. The fact that the American Flag was moving when theres no atmosphere (wind?) in space.

Let me introduce you to a several hundred year old concept called Newton's first law of physics:

Any body at rest tends to stay at rest, and any body in motion tends to stay in motion, unless acted on by an external force.

The reason why the flag ripples and flexes with the "wind" is because there's no atmosphere on the moon. When the astronauts planted the flagpole they twisted it back and forth to sink it into the lunar soil. On the Earth, that would have made the flag "wave" for a few seconds, then stop. But that's because the flag pushes against air as it flaps, and the air slows it down. On the Moon, there was no air to stop the flag's motion, so it continued, just as Newton's First Law of physics says it should. So of course the cloth flag waved and rippled beneath the metal rod holding it out.

quote:

2. The programme showed a number of space walks where the craters exactly matched up between different years. (ie the space shuttles landed in exactly the same place and the astronauts walked on exactly the same area! Just a coincidence!?

Source?

quote:

3. The fact that on one of the space walks, the shadows of the astronauts were in different directions, when the only source of light (the sun) was only coming from one direction! Gets you thinking thats for sure...

Source?

At any rate, the simplest explanation to rationale away this silly theory is to explain how we accumulated several hundred pounds of moon rocks ...

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast23feb_2.htm

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by tall paul 2 3. The fact that on one of the space walks, the shadows of the astronauts were in different directions, when the only source of light (the sun) was only coming from one direction!

i guess this one is because of the fact that the earth also gives a lot of light to the moon (like the moon give us a lot of light on earth, the earth gives many times that light to the moon).

this conspiracy theroy is just plain stupid.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Source? Source? At any rate, the simplest explanation to rationale away this silly theory is to explain how we accumulated several hundred pounds of moon rocks ...

I agree with you on the moon rock, but then again is there nothing on this planet though that could resemble it, eg meteorite rock? Ive never seen moon rock before, just been told about it.

The points that i made were from a tv programme that i watched in Uk, about 6 months ago.. not sure on the name, but i was just saying that i remembered it when this topic came up and that the programme made you think that it may not be real?

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew i guess this one is because of the fact that the earth also gives a lot of light to the moon (like the moon give us a lot of light on earth, the earth gives many times that light to the moon). this conspiracy theroy is just plain stupid.

could be, i cant remember all of the programme and points they made, but it was quite convincing.. as i said, it made me think!

quote:

Originally posted by tall paul 2 I agree with you on the moon rock, but then again is there nothing on this planet though that could resemble it, eg meteorite rock? Ive never seen moon rock before, just been told about it. The points that i made were from a tv programme that i watched in Uk, about 6 months ago.. not sure on the name, but i was just saying that i remembered it when this topic came up and that the programme made you think that it may not be real?

Well, from my source:

"Moon rocks are absolutely unique," says Dr. David McKay, Chief Scientist for Planetary Science and Exploration at NASA's Johnson Space Center (JSC). McKay is a member of the group that oversees the Lunar Sample Laboratory Facility at JSC where most of the Moon rocks are stored. "They differ from Earth rocks in many respects," he added.

"For example," explains Dr. Marc Norman, a lunar geologist at the University of Tasmania, "lunar samples have almost no water trapped in their crystal structure, and common substances such as clay minerals that are ubiquitous on Earth are totally absent in Moon rocks."

"We've found particles of fresh glass in Moon rocks that were produced by explosive volcanic activity and by meteorite impacts over 3 billion years ago," added Norman. "The presence of water on Earth rapidly breaks down such volcanic glass in only a few million years. These rocks must have come from the Moon!"


Fortunately not all of the evidence needs a degree in chemistry or geology to appreciate. An average person holding a Moon rock in his or her hand can plainly see that the specimen came from another world.

"Apollo moon rocks are peppered with tiny craters from meteoroid impacts," explains McKay. This could only happen to rocks from a planet with little or no atmosphere... like the Moon.

Meteoroids are nearly-microscopic specks of comet dust that fly through space at speeds often exceeding 50,000 mph -- ten times faster than a speeding bullet. They pack a considerable punch, but they're also extremely fragile. Meteoroids that strike Earth's atmosphere disintegrate in the rarefied air above our stratosphere. (Every now and then on a dark night you can see one -- they're called meteors.) But the Moon doesn't have an atmosphere to protect it. The tiny space bullets can plow directly into Moon rocks, forming miniature and unmistakable craters.

"There are plenty of museums, including the Smithsonian and others, where members of the public can touch and examine rocks from the Moon," says McKay. "You can see the little meteoroid craters for yourself."


Just as meteoroids constantly bombard the Moon so do cosmic rays, and they leave their fingerprints on Moon rocks, too. "There are isotopes in Moon rocks, isotopes we don't normally find on Earth, that were created by nuclear reactions with the highest-energy cosmic rays," says McKay. Earth is spared from such radiation by our protective atmosphere and magnetosphere.

Even if scientists wanted to make something like a Moon rock by, say, bombarding an Earth rock with high energy atomic nuclei, they couldn't. Earth's most powerful particle accelerators can't energize particles to match the most potent cosmic rays, which are themselves accelerated in supernova blastwaves and in the violent cores of galaxies.

Indeed, says McKay, faking a Moon rock well enough to hoodwink an international army of scientists might be more difficult than the Manhattan Project. "It would be easier to just go to the Moon and get one," he quipped.

___________________
Retro ...

Another good site dispelling myths ... including your shadow theory.

http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/index.html

So unless anybody else would like to provide additional "concrete" evidence to back up this "theory" I shall consider it dead.

___________________
Retro ...

___________________

Most of those seem to rely on the various problems of converting 2 dimensional photography to 3 dimensional imaging. But let's look at each part.

First, the various shadows of the flag and what not:

quote:

This is a question posed about a lot of the photos taken on the moon. What needs to be realised is that the sun, while being the only source of direct light, was not the only light source. Light reflects off everything around the astronauts and because this is very bright light, the reflected light can be very significant. So the answer to all these questions is reflected light. In the photograph above the astronaut is significantly above the ground and is lit by reflected light off the surrounding lunar landscape. The fact he is wearing a pristine white spacesuit also helps, as it reflects most of that light again. So he really shows up against the shadow on the ground below him. The highly reflective white spacesuits also explain some of the light in individual pictures of the astronauts. These were taken with the sun's light reflecting off the photographer, providing a great deal of infill on the astronaut being photographed. Remember that the photographer would be reflecting a lot of light, think of a snowy landscape on a bright winter's day. This is a very common trick also used by photographers on Earth. They get someone to hold up a large sheet of white card or cloth. This reflects the sunlight back across the shadows on the person being photographed, providing a natural infill to any harsh shadows.

Next, the issues of stars:

quote:

Why can't you see the stars in the photographs on the moon? There's really no different between the sky on the Moon and the sky during day time on Earth. The fact that the sky on Earth is blue because of the atmosphere and it is black on the Moon makes no difference. You cannot see stars during the day. The lunar surface is very bright. Brighter than the brightest day in the hottest part of the world. This is obvious when you think about it. There are no atmosphere or clouds on the moon. In comparison to this bright surface, the stars are very dim. It is very difficult to get a photograph of a very dim object and a very bright object at the same time. If you set the camera to take a photograph of the bright object (using a fast exposure) you won't capture the dim object at all. If you set the camera to take a picture of the dim objects, then the bright objects will appear as very fuzzy and over-exposed blobs. The cameras and films the Apollo missions took with them were also designed to photograph activities on the moon's surface. They were not designed to take photographs of the stars. It doesn't mean the stars weren't there, just that the photographs did not capture them. The exposures were set to work with the brightly light surface and astronauts.

Next, the footprint. I'm assuming that whoever wrote this was thinking that the surface of the moon had the same consistency as the surface of the Earth. However, as yourself this, do you leave the same footprint on grassy ground as you leave on a beach? No, does mean that gravity on the beach is different than gravity in the city ? Of course not, the depth of your footprint depends on the consistency of the surface you are on.

Next, the flag thing again ... I think that that myth has been properly dispelled no?

Next, the lunar not leaving a crater as it "took off" from the moon. How the hell is the lunar lander going to leave a crater when the bottom portion of the lunar lander was left BEHIND.



Next, the shadow length ... I don't understand what the problem is ... one shadow is longer than the other because the two astronauts are standing approximately an astronauts length apart from one another. However, the shadow lengths also depend on the differences of the slope they are on. They are both standing on something of a hill, so the shadow they cast on the ground below the hill are going to be very different based upon their angles.

___________________
Retro ...