Did the Americans put a man on the moon?

RedGableDave

My view, for the record, is of course they did.

However, I have listened to many people explain to me that there is no way it happened with various views like the following:

1. I cant drive from Donegal to Cork without refilling with diesel so there is no way they could get there
2. A picture of the footprints on the moon alongside Neil Armstrongs boots - obviously not matching
3. It is impossible to fly through the deadly Van Allen radiation belts
4. America and the USSR were working together which is why the USSR did not call them out as faking it.

Obviously these range from the sublime to the ridiculous.

So, can anyone give me their top three reasons for believing that it was all made up.

If I hear any arguement that I cannot refute then I will change my mind from obviously they did to OK, maybe they didnt.

My wife would be delighted!

Thank you.

sydthebeat

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2055822925/moon-landing-hoax

heres nearly 500 posts for you to get your teeth into

mikeecho

Ohh.. you believe in the moon.....

:)

harmless

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058275524/did-the-americans-put-a-man-on-the-moon

1. Well it would be a simple task to calculate the potential energy of the rockets involved and the distance they could possibly reach. I won't attempt it as I'm sure it's already been done.
2. Some photos were doctored for propaganda purposes and the USSR would have been only too happy to call them out if the whole thing was a hoax.
3. Why do you think so many Astronauts developed cataracts. Getting past the Van Allen belt is very dangerous but not impossible.
4. These space programs were a good excuse to spend massive amounts on rocket technology. Both sides knew the consequences of the other side getting the upper hand. (having to back down politically or face the potential of getting nuked)

silliussoddius

Seeing it's the 50th anniversary of Apollo 19:

wotzgoingon

They were never on the moon and that is fact. I was told by this red half animal cúnt.

greenspurs

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120012362#Comment_120012362

How can you land on cheese ............................................... ?

Consider it DEBUNKED....

Boom Boi iiiiii .... 😂

*edited - i didnt attach the post to give my 'joke' context ....

Wibbs

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058275524/did-the-americans-put-a-man-on-the-moon

1. It's not like a car journey. You're not burning fuel all the way. Not even the vast majority of the way. Basically you burn a lot of fuel to get out of the atmosphere into orbit, dropping your "fuel tanks"(stages) as you go. When you get into orbit where you're already going around 20,000 mph, you then essentially aim at the moon, fire your last big "fuel tank" rocket to give you even more of a push. This burn lasted around 30 seconds. At which point you drop that stage and you drift "fall" at high speed towards the moons gravity well. When you get there, you've slowed down as the moons' gravity is much weaker, you fire your engine to slow you down enough to go into orbit. To come back, you fire it again to get you out of orbit pointing towards the earth. By the time you get back to earth you're really motoring(bigger gravity well) 25,000 mph. Think of it as cycling up a steep hill. You put all your energy getting to the top and freewheel down to the bottom. Orbit is kinda like stopping at the top.
2. Yes they match. Do you think if they were actually faking it they'd make that mistake? Plus moon conspiracy morons nearly always concentrate on Apollo 11. The one with the early crappy video cameras that only spent a short time on the surface. They tend to avoid talking about the hundreds of hours of live colour video, sound, transmissions, hundreds of photos, samples, telemetry from the later missions.
3. Nope it's not Van Allen himself said it wasn't. Alpha and Beta radiation is stopped remarkably easily. Alpha is stopped by your bare skin. Thin paper would stop it dead. Beta isn't much more penetrative(it's only when you ingest alpha/gamma emitters that's a big problem). Gamma's got a lot more energy, but they flew with the lander part and it's engines etc into the "stream" of particles and went through it quickly. They essentially got a couple of xrays worth of a dose.
4. President Clinton got a blowjob from his intern in the Oval Office. The most protected person on earth pretty much. Only two of them involved. How quickly did that get out? But tens of thousands of Americans, Russians and a host of others in tracking stations around the globe, never mind the tens of thousands of engineers and scientists involved and yet...

wotzgoingon

....

Markus Antonius

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120044699#Comment_120044699

It's not like a car journey. You're not burning fuel all the way. Not even the vast majority of the way. Basically you burn a lot of fuel to get out of the atmosphere into orbit, dropping your "fuel tanks"(stages) as you go. When you get into orbit where you're already going around 20,000 mph, you then essentially aim at the moon, fire your last big "fuel tank" rocket to give you even more of a push. This burn lasted around 30 seconds. At which point you drop that stage and you drift "fall" at high speed towards the moons gravity well. When you get there, you've slowed down as the moons' gravity is much weaker, you fire your engine to slow you down enough to go into orbit. To come back, you fire it again to get you out of orbit pointing towards the earth. By the time you get back to earth you're really motoring(bigger gravity well) 25,000 mph. Think of it as cycling up a steep hill. You put all your energy getting to the top and freewheel down to the bottom. Orbit is kinda like stopping at the top.

How do you slow down a rocket that weighs 10 tonnes+ travelling at 25000mph in an environment that has no air?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120085438#Comment_120085438

By pointing the opposite direction and firing the rocket again.

It's basic physics.

Are you still trying to insist that all space travel is faked?

greenspurs

Jeez...

a reaction/reply time of 7 mins !!!! 😲

Better than any customer care department !!!😝

----------------------------------------

2 point warning applied for Breach of Charter.

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120085467#Comment_120085467

They have a complete lack of understanding of the science involved.

Wibbs

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120085438#Comment_120085438

Coming back to Earth is a tiny fraction of the vehicle that started out. It's not much larger than an SUV, and it is slowed down by "air". It uses the upper atmosphere to slow down. That releases a huge amount of energy hence they need an ablative heat shield to resist the fact they're essentially a fireball. At those speeds even the very thin atmosphere puts up a helluva resistance and they had to get the angle of entry just right. If they came in too steeply their heatshield woudn't take the strain and they'd burn up, too shallow and they'd literally bounce off the atmosphere.

Going to the Moon the gravity well is a lot weaker than Earth so by the time they "fall" there they've lost a lot of energy and speed, so it requires a lot less thrust to slow down enough to get into lunar orbit. Even so the rocket motor is not exactly small.

That motor worried them the most. They needed it to burn successfully to get them into lunar orbit and then needed it to burn successfully to bring them back home.

Markus Antonius

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120086644#Comment_120086644

But there's no air on the moon. How do they slow down the rocket enough to safely detach the lunar lander, slow down the lunar lander enough to safely land on the moon, successfully launch the lunar lander again reattach to the space rocket (which is likely still moving incredibly fast), then relaunch the space rocket towards earth?

Incredible isn't it? You would almost swear it was all one big fish story...

sydthebeat

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120086796#Comment_120086796

are you claiming the moon doesnt have an atmosphere?

gameoverdude

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120086796#Comment_120086796

Oh. I want smoked cod now. Cheers.

On a basic level, the science isnt difficult. The engineering and understanding is. Huge amount of precision involved (plus dosh).

wotzgoingon

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120086824#Comment_120086824

They were never on the moon. I was told by a red half animal.

Markus Antonius

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120086824#Comment_120086824

I would say the science doesn't exist and there is a huge amount of gullibility involved.

Apathy of the 99.9% of people combined with the desperation of the other 0.01% of NASA fans to not look like a fool for believing it - is what keeps the deception going and the $$$$$$ of government funds coming in.

robinph

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120086849#Comment_120086849

Explanations for all of it is available to you. A very tiny amount of effort on Google and you can find any amount of detail on the science involved in getting a rocket to the moon and back, you can then dig as deep as you desire into any thread of how it all worked.

If you reach a point at which you can show it to be wrong then Nobel prizes await you.

Deregos.

Whats also quite sad, is the amount of time wasted by honest, well meaning people, who spend ages attempting to disprove these unfounded conspiracy theories, all for ignorant people who'll never actually take the time to listen.

sydthebeat

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120086849#Comment_120086849

so if thats the case....

who benefits??

why would successive governments from all over the world spends billions on trying to keep quite something for which there is no benefit to anyone??

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120086796#Comment_120086796

Again, by pointing the engine in the opposite direction.

It's not difficult to understand.

Meanwhile there are the uncountable plot holes and unexplained steps in your idea that all space travel is faked. You continually ignore these.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120087195#Comment_120087195

The only explanation for this plot hole comes from flat earthers who claim that the conspiracy is to cover up the fact that the Earth is actually flat.

Markus refuses to clarify if this is his position or not.

Markus Antonius

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120086919#Comment_120086919

Eh, there is a miserable amount of explanation from NASA sources. For a few years all they had was a one page explanation on how rockets worked using cartoon of a boy on a skateboard throwing a bowling ball. Everything else on the internet is just speculative nonsense and the usual scoffing and dismissiveness from the ilk similar to what we have to put up with here on boards.

"Simple physics"

gimme a break...

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120087195#Comment_120087195

You clearly couldn't be bothered reading the post before responding. How could you read this line:

what keeps the deception going and the $$$$$$ of government funds coming in

and then proceed to ask that same ridiculous question of who does it benefit or how would they keep it a secret?

Answer: It benefits many, many people financially.

And as for the equally ridiculous question on how would they keep it secret: here you go, post #1:

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058202675/too-many-people-would-have-to-keep-it-a-secret

robinph

So when people figured out large portions of the theories around the movements of planets or the chemistry used in rockets hundreds of years ago, was that all faked by NASA as well? If you paid attention in secondary school then I'm sure that at some point things were exploded, or spun around, or magnets used for something or other designed to catch the attention of young inquisitive minds.

Those things that they will have shown you and had you experiment with yourself in school would have to be faked as well if all those fundamental bits of science don't exist, and you would have to be in on the deception too.

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120088130#Comment_120088130

 there is a miserable amount of explanation from NASA sources

There is a vast amount of information available online on this from sources that all corroborate each other.

For example you asked how the rocket slowed down to land on the moon. Google shows 18 million results for the question. Here are just a few:

https://www.iop.org/explore-physics/moon/how-did-we-get-to-the-moon#gref

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/articles/questions/how-did-apollo-missions-slow-down-space

https://www.rmg.co.uk/stories/topics/apollo-11-moon-landing-minute-minute

https://www.mpoweruk.com/Apollo_Moon_Shot.htm

You can get a child friendly summaries or you can get in-depth minute-by-minute accounts of all 6 lunar landings.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120088130#Comment_120088130

There's a great number more sources that just the children's explanation you are dismissing.

But notice how you don't seem to be able to explain why that explanation is not correct.

The concept is indeed simple physics. You don't seem to understand these simple physics or you are pretending not to.

The thread you link to is just more examples of you claiming things but failing to explain them or defending them against the mountains of issues they have. It's very odd you are claiming that thread somehow addresses the question you are asked.

Again I must ask if these are you genuine beliefs or are you doing a bit?

sydthebeat

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120088130#Comment_120088130

youre posts shown that you have very little grasp on anything scientific when it comes to space. You didnt know that the moon has an atmosphere for gods sake. You have no understanding of newtons laws of physics, and teh ability of an atmosphere to have an impact on motion.

so youll excuse me for taking your opinions with an extreme pinch of salt as you have consistently shown on this thread that you are seriously under informed and ill informed.

Markus Antonius

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120088341#Comment_120088341

The first and third articles here don't tell us anything useful. The second and fourth (in contradiction to @Wibbs who says it is air resistance that slows spaceships) say that it is the expulsion of gas that thrust the rocket.

In the rocket or thruster, it pushes gas out of the rocket, so the gas pushes the spaceship in the other direction.

Unfortunately for whoever wrote these articles and unfortunately for NASA who don't give any explanation for how it works - this is physically impossible. They are basically saying this all works because of Newton's 3rd law. This is humiliatingly incorrect.

Newton's 3rd law states that for every action there is an equal but opposite reaction. So car tyres have action, the road has reaction. Boat motor has action, water has reaction. Helecoptor rotors have action, air has reaction. Rocket/missile exhaust bell combustion has action, air has reaction. This does not give NASA spacecraft the right to break Newton's 1st Law or the thermodynamic law of conservation of energy when there is no reaction force in the vacuum of space.

All bodies will remain at rest or at constant velocity unless impressed upon by an external force

Energy cannot be created or destroyed but changes from one form to another.

NASA's works of fiction have no respect for these two laws and they know it. This is why the vast majority of all their footage is either animation, CGI, extremely restrictive camera angles or simply failure for the mission to succeed - like we've seen i the last few months with the constant failures of the Orion missions and even the more recent failure of the Virgin rocket.

The only way the rockets have any potential to work in space is if @Wibbs could maybe return and entertain us with how the air resistance is used on the moon...

magicbastarder

hang on, you're serious?

you're saying rocket thrust cannot work in a vacuum? of course it can. you think something that basic could undermine the idea of space travel, and no-one talks about it?

rockets actually perform more efficiently in a vacuum.

apologies if i've misunderstood you, but that's an absolute howler if i read you correctly.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120091667#Comment_120091667

Your argument is entirely and completely wrong on every level. You have demonstrated that you simply just don't have any understanding of physics at all and misunderstand concepts taught at secondary school level.

Claiming "the air has reaction" is complete nonsense and is not what is meant by Newton's 3rd law.

The confidence by which you express your complete and utter misunderstanding is amazing, especially when you are declaring all scientists around the world ignorant.

Again I have to wonder if this is just a bit where you are parodying conspiracy theorists to make some kind of backwards point.

Akrasia

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120091109#Comment_120091109

The moon has an atmosphere about as dense as the air surrounding the international space station.

For all practical purposes the moon has no atmosphere

The real question, is why Marcus thinks you need air to slow down a rocket?

Rockets carry propellent and an oxidiser to allow it to burn and generate high pressure gasses. Newtons 3rd law is that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. By shooting gasses in one direction, the gasses push the rocket back in the opposite direction. The rocket doesn't work because it's pushing off something, the propellant pushes the rocket at the exact force that the rocket pushes the propellant but in opposite directions

magicbastarder

Or to put it in more everyday terms; let's say you're sitting in an office chair on casters and throw a bowling ball away from you as hard as possible. What happens you in the chair? You roll away in the other direction a little.

This works regardless of whether there's air there or not.

Markus Antonius

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120091840#Comment_120091840

If you burn or expel anything in a vacuum, it will simply vent out and disperse with no net change in velocity/momentum of the vessel. In order to change the speed or direction of anything you simply have to obey Newton's 1st which requires an external force.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120091850#Comment_120091850

Did you actually try this? Try it and I guarantee that no matter how heavy the ball and no matter how hard you throw it, you will move very little and any movement will have been caused by pushing of the surrounding air not by "the ejection of mass". You may also get an aggressive sliding of the casters but this is due to you torquing yourself around your centre of gravity. Push the bowling ball at level below your centre of gravity and you will get miniscule/no movement at all.

A more effective way of pushing yourself on the office chair would be to use something external like the table or use a very large surface area gym ball which would maximize the amount of air you push against

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120091667#Comment_120091667

This is an equivalent of how they landed on the moon. Gravity is 6x less on the moon so they didn't need as much thrust

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNlZXso0-I4

Use thrust, a lot of it, to get a rocket into space (this has been done thousands of times), travel through vacuum of space, then use thrust to slow down as moon is reached. Use lunar lander (similar to the above) to land on moon. The details are complex, but the fundamentals are pretty straight-forward.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120092052#Comment_120092052

If you burn or expel anything in a vacuum, it will simply vent out and disperse with no net change in velocity/momentum of the vessel.

Nope. completely false and at odds with basic physics.

You are again displaying your lack of understanding and the fundamental flaw at the heart of this conspiracy theory.

People only believe something so silly because they don't understand basic concepts and have decided that it can't be that they are wrong, it must be every single scientist who is wrong.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120092206#Comment_120092206

Please remember though that Markus claims that all the space program is faked. So the above video is also fake according to him.

As are all physics textbooks.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120091840#Comment_120091840

The real question, is why Marcus thinks you need air to slow down a rocket?

It's indeed strange as most other moon hoax believers aren't as extreme in their claims.

Most at least understand how rockets work and don't believe that they don't work in space.

The ones who do agree with Markus tend to be the really extreme types who believe the world is flat and that space is filled with water or something.

robinph

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120092052#Comment_120092052

So would there be more movement caused by throwing a bowling ball whilst sat in a chair, or an air filled balloon?

Capt'n Midnight

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120092278#Comment_120092278

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdedV81UQ5k

1972 state of the art CGI.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120092677#Comment_120092677

I think the go among conspiracy theorists was that Nasa actually spent a sizable portion of their budget on developing super advanced CGI technology that they never again used outside of faking space missions.

I believe markus' contends that all footage from space, including scenes inside the ships and stations is all made by CGI.

The details of how this is done and why Nasa keeps leaving in things that blow the conspiracy remain vague and unaddressed

Deja Boo

...

Hoboo

Virgin can’t put a rocket into space in 2023 but we landed men on the moon 50 years ago yet not once since (something something too expensive).

In 1972, the same year as the last so called landing, the first calculator was released, retailing at $395. That’s the technology we had at the time. That’s the cost of the most basic technology, yet they claim to have been able to put humans on the moon 6 times in 3 years, but not now when we’ve never had so much wealth, technology and resources.

In comparison, Artemis 1 was 5 years delayed from 2017-2022, and that was an unmanned mission. Artemis 2 won’t be ready until sometime in 2024 at the very earliest for a manned mission, although it may not even be manned, time will tell. But they managed 6 manned landing in 3 years 50 years ago.

You could spend hours picking holes, absolute fairy tales 😂

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120092767#Comment_120092767

OK. If that's the case what is the reason that people aren't actually able to go to the moon?

Do you agree with the current claim that rockets don't actually work in space?

Neowise

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120085438#Comment_120085438

How do you slow down a rocket that weighs 10 tonnes+ traveling at 25000mph in an environment that has no air?

1) if rocket is orbiting earth.

2) and point the rocket so the burn pushes you in the direction of the red arrow.

Then the resulting path the rocket would take may look something like this,

3) so you have put lots of energy into the craft at point A, and it works its way up out further up the gravity well, until at some point, the energy put into the rocket will not be sufficient to escape earths gravity well, some where near point B it stops ascending away from earth and starts its fall back to earth, continually gaining speed until it reaches the 25000mph figure again, then it fires up the gravity well again until it stops again at point B and turns around and comes flying back down.

4) now, imagine you timed the burn perfectly, so that when reaching point B, you are in close vicinity to the moon, well at that point, you wouldn't need to scrub any of the 25kmph away, because its all been used to climb out of the gravity well towards the moon, all you need to do now is ensure that you don't escape out of the moons weak gravity well that you are in the vicinity off. the rocket can make a burn to orbit the moon and not fall back toward earth.

5) later when wanting to leave the moon and return back to earth, you just need to escape the moons orbit, and then earths gravity will do all the heavy work of getting you home.

Math is used to work out the exact length of burns that are required, all you need to do as a pilot of such a rocket is point it in the right direction and count.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120092776#Comment_120092776

Markus is contending that rocket engines do not work in a vacuum as according to him they require "air to push off".

magicbastarder

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120092052#Comment_120092052

Seriously, go back to school.

Based on your reasoning, no one has ever been into orbit, or else they'd have never been able to make it home.

Bogwoppit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120092787#Comment_120092787

This is exactly what Markus believes, he’s made this claim many times.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120092787#Comment_120092787

He also must not believe that satellites exists as they require rockets operating in space to get them into orbit.

Which lends credence to him being a fact earther if he does sincerely believe all of these things.

Big Bag of Chips

@King Mob you are on thin ice in this forum. Repeatedly posting simply to disagree with posters has been addressed with you before. You were thread banned for it. Engage in discussion. Offer your own explanation as to how the science works, like other posters are able to, or don't post.

If you offer no explanations or evidence then you yourself are also guilty of just parroting what you've heard. If you're going to disagree with posters, then post your reasoning for disagreeing. Not just "no, you're wrong".

That's not discussion.