Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.

How many of you actually believe the Moon Landing was fake?

1…1718202223…29

Comments

  • #572
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    quasar2010 wrote: »
    This spectrum has many frequencies of light from visable to infra-red, ultra-violet, microwave, x-rays, gamma rays, beta rays etc.
    I know about the spectrum thanks :) (leaving cert honours phyics :pac::pac:)
    But I didn't appreciate that there would be levels of X-rays on the surface of the moon sufficient to damage photgraphic film.


  • #573
    squod
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,702 ✭✭✭squod


    quasar2010 wrote: »
    2. Any form of footprint on Earth exists because we expell either moisture or air from a substance, compact it and form a print. .........?

    This was also covered in a previous thread. Mythbusters video is misleading to say the least. You can purchase a NASA approved 'mock' moon sand on teh internet and have a go of it yourself. The chance of replicating a load of footprints like the ones seen on the Apollo pictures is highly unlikely.

    Anyways, if you were an astronaut on the moon in one-sixth gravity would you bother bouncing around like a fuhken moron? Esp with a 91kg EVA Suit and backpack.


  • #574
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    quasar2010 wrote: »
    But the camera was made from a selection of aluminium based alloys, aluminium although reflective is also one of the best conductors we have on Earth and the heat would be conducted from direct radiation into the camera's workings very rapidly and like you say, there is no means of cooling apart from infra-red and conduction into the spacesuit.
    On Earth metal warms up and conducts heat very rapidly, unless it is 100% reflective like a mirror. The camera's must absorb heat from the relentless 200 degrees centigrade and have little means of cooling down. This could possibly lead to superheating well past 200 degrees C.
    The outside of the camera was painted white. Most of the infrared radiation was reflected away, just like most of the visible light was. So the heating wouldn't be insurmountable as you are making it out to be.

    Then all you need is to attach the sensitive bits to the frame with non-conductive materials like rubber or plastic.

    But you don't seem to understand how heat actually transfers.
    A metal object conducts heat regardless of how reflective it is. However it absorbs less infrared radiation (the only way to transfer heat in a vacuum) the more reflective it is, as the radiation simply reflects away rather than be absorbed.
    Also you again state the 200 degree temperature. But this is a dishonest and inaccurate way to present it. Only the actual ground of the Moon reaches that temperature anything above it is a vacuum therefore has effectively no temperature.
    quasar2010 wrote: »
    Microwave and x-rays are also a problem worth thinking about. If an airports xray machine can damage a camera film when it passes through the detector, what could x-rays on the moon do to the film?
    No atmosphere to protect against all the suns dangerous spectrum for that matter. Its an eye opener is this one really.
    Again we have more misunderstandings of how physics works.
    The scanners at the airports are using x-ray thousands of times more powerful than those encountered in space. Secondly the films where in aluminuim cases and cameras the entire time. And x-rays would simply be blocked by the metal.


  • #575
    Dragonblaster
    Closed Accounts Posts: 109 ✭✭Dragonblaster


    OMG, who's been feeding the trolls? BAD posters, BAD posters... dammit, I've been doing it too (raps self on head with rolled-up newspaper).

    Hey, Hoaxies, how about something NEW for a change?
    • Have we done disappearing fiducial marks yet?
    • How about the "uncontrollable" Lunar Module?
    • How about non-parallel shadows and multiple light sources?
    Well, don't please. Old, old, old news, debunked and buried and the rotting corpses just get dug up again and again, displayed as if they were Miss World candidates.

    clavius.org has answers to all these old potboilers and more.


  • #576
    Dragonblaster
    Closed Accounts Posts: 109 ✭✭Dragonblaster


    King Mob wrote: »
    The outside of the camera was painted white. Most of the infrared radiation was reflected away, just like most of the visible light was. So the heating wouldn't be insurmountable as you are making it out to be.

    Then all you need is to attach the sensitive bits to the frame with non-conductive materials like rubber or plastic.

    But you don't seem to understand how heat actually transfers.
    A metal object conducts heat regardless of how reflective it is. However it absorbs less infrared radiation (the only way to transfer heat in a vacuum) the more reflective it is, as the radiation simply reflects away rather than be absorbed.
    Also you again state the 200 degree temperature. But this is a dishonest and inaccurate way to present it. Only the actual ground of the Moon reaches that temperature anything above it is a vacuum therefore has effectively no temperature.


    Again we have more misunderstandings of how physics works.
    The scanners at the airports are using x-ray thousands of times more powerful than those encountered in space. Secondly the films where in aluminuim cases and cameras the entire time. And x-rays would simply be blocked by the metal.

    Much respect for your patient, detailed answers, King Mob. The trouble is, every answer is only ever responded to with another old chestnut we've all seen before.

    We went to the moon, fellers. Get over it.


  • Advertisement
  • #577
    squod
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,702 ✭✭✭squod


    Dragonblaster wrote: »

    We went to the moon, fellers. Get over it.

    Proof?


  • #578
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    squod wrote: »
    This was also covered in a previous thread. Mythbusters video is misleading to say the least. You can purchase a NASA approved 'mock' moon sand on teh internet and have a go of it yourself. The chance of replicating a load of footprints like the ones seen on the Apollo pictures is highly unlikely.
    Note here how squod offers nothing to support his accusation of misleading.
    The fact is the Mythbusters showed that it was possible to leave clear distinct footprints in grains in a vacuum thus without moisture.

    So the argument "it is impossible for those footprints to be made without moisture, therefore they wheren't on the moon" is clearly shown to fail.
    squod wrote: »
    Anyways, if you were an astronaut on the moon in one-sixth gravity would you bother bouncing around like a fuhken moron? Esp with a 91kg EVA Suit and backpack.
    Because it was bulky, tight and restrictive. Bouncing along rather than walking normally was simply more comfortable and more efficient.

    This is explained clearly and demonstrated in the Mythbusters episode.


  • #579
    Dragonblaster
    Closed Accounts Posts: 109 ✭✭Dragonblaster


    quasar2010 wrote: »
    There is no atmoshere inbetween the sun and the earth but solar radiation still gets here. Radiation doesn't use a calalyst as a means of transport like conductive or convected heat

    A catalyst is a substance that speeds up a chemical reaction without being chemically changed. Wrong word - I think what you were searching for was "medium".
    quasar2010 wrote: »
    " it is transported to the surface of the moon via the electromagnetic spectrum."

    Sorry, quasar, I only have an humble A-level physics, so this advanced stuff just looks like gibberish to me. It looks like it means something, but I have no idea what.
    quasar2010 wrote: »
    This spectrum has many frequencies of light from visable to infra-red, ultra-violet, microwave, x-rays, gamma rays, beta rays etc."

    Beta rays are nuclear electrons, not EM radiations, my friend/ 0/10, see me. Also note that all frequencies are not present in equal measure due to quantum mechanical considerations (Google "ultraviolet catastrophe").


  • #580
    Dragonblaster
    Closed Accounts Posts: 109 ✭✭Dragonblaster


    squod wrote: »
    Proof?

    Hundreds of photos, 4/5 of a tonne of rocks that CANNOT be explained away as earthly, miles of film, personal testimony from lunar vehicle workers, astronauts and mission control personnel.

    What have you got? "I can't see any stars in this picture?"

    Wow. I'm impressed.


  • #581
    squod
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,702 ✭✭✭squod


    Dragonblaster wrote: »
    Hundreds of photos, 4/5 of a tonne of rocks that CANNOT be explained away as earthly, miles of film, personal testimony from lunar vehicle workers, astronauts and mission control personnel.

    What have you got? "I can't see any stars in this picture?"

    Wow. I'm impressed.

    You've obviously haven't read through the thread, or any of my posts here. I assume you won't because you choose to believe in a hoax. That's fine too.


  • Advertisement
  • #582
    Dragonblaster
    Closed Accounts Posts: 109 ✭✭Dragonblaster


    squod wrote: »
    You've obviously haven't read through the thread, or any of my posts here. I assume you won't because you choose to believe in a hoax. That's fine too.

    I've read your posts, and the whole thread. I've seen it all before, and debunked it again and again.

    If you consider your posts slam-dunk proof of a trillion-dollar hoax, you flatter yourself, I'm afraid.


  • #583
    squod
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,702 ✭✭✭squod


    Dragonblaster wrote: »
    I've read your posts, and the whole thread. I've seen it all before, and debunked it again and again.

    If you consider your posts slam-dunk proof of a trillion-dollar hoax, you flatter yourself, I'm afraid.

    what I asked from you was.........
    squod wrote: »
    Proof?


  • #584
    Dragonblaster
    Closed Accounts Posts: 109 ✭✭Dragonblaster


    squod wrote: »
    what I asked from you was.........

    I told you what my proof was. Photos. Videos. Rocks. Personal testimonies. Subsequent proof by the LRO.

    To that, I will add:
    • The lack of ridicule of the Russians, allied to the fact that they made a huge rocket that could only be meant for the Moon: it blew up every time it was launched.
    • The fact that we haven't been "back" with faked moon landings every year since: with modern digital techniques, it would be even better.
    • Why no faked missions to Mars? Why only LEO stuff ever since December 1972?
    • Why fake 11 Apollo missions and 6 landings, maximising the chance that the fake would be "exposed"? Why not just have a single, carefully-faked landing with a handful of photos culled from hundreds by a group of bought photo experts?
    • The fact that not one person has confessed to the hoax since, 38 years the last landing? Not one bedside confession or attack of conscience.
    What's your best single proof of fakery? What's the one thing that screams "HOAX" to you? Name it, and I'll answer inside minutes.


  • #585
    squod
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,702 ✭✭✭squod


    Dragonblaster wrote: »
    I told you what my proof was. Photos. Videos. Rocks. Personal testimonies. Subsequent proof by the LRO.

    To that, I will add:
    • The lack of ridicule of the Russians, allied to the fact that they made a huge rocket that could only be meant for the Moon: it blew up every time it was launched.
    • The fact that we haven't been "back" with faked moon landings every year since: with modern digital techniques, it would be even better.
    • Why no faked missions to Mars? Why only LEO stuff ever since December 1972?
    • Why fake 11 Apollo missions and 6 landings, maximising the chance that the fake would be "exposed"? Why not just have a single, carefully-faked landing with a handful of photos culled from hundreds by a group of bought photo experts?
    • The fact that not one person has confessed to the hoax since, 38 years the last landing? Not one bedside confession or attack of conscience.
    What's your best single proof of fakery? What's the one thing that screams "HOAX" to you? Name it, and I'll answer inside minutes.


    *Everything here has already been covered on this thread, but then you know that because you just said you've read it :rolleyes:


    * Apart fom this one point.....
    [*]The fact that we haven't been "back" with faked moon landings every year since: with modern digital techniques, it would be even better.

    Which, to me, just sounds ridiculous.


  • #586
    Dragonblaster
    Closed Accounts Posts: 109 ✭✭Dragonblaster


    squod wrote: »
    *Everything here has already been covered on this thread, but then you know that because you just said you've read it :rolleyes:
    .

    You haven't answered any of that, ever. Yes, I have read your posts. I even read all your posts about effin' seatbelts. Not once did you cover any of those questions.
    squod wrote: »
    * Apart fom this one point.....

    Thank you.
    squod wrote: »
    Which, to me, just sounds ridiculous.

    Believe me, that doesn't exactly shatter my worldview.

    Why are 11 fakes in the 60s sensible and cunning, but even one further fake with much better kit is stupid?


  • #587
    namloc1980
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,613 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    How are NASA keeping the people who work on the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter quiet? Or especially how are they keeping the Arizona State University quiet? They manage the camera instrument on board LRO.

    How come the images returned by the Soviet Lunakhod rovers are perfectly similar in their depictions of the lunar surface to those returned by Apollo? Were the Lunakhods fake as well?


  • #588
    squod
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,702 ✭✭✭squod


    What you said.....
    Dragonblaster wrote: »
    You haven't answered any of that, ever.

    What I said..........
    squod wrote: »
    *Everything here has already been covered on this thread,
    .


  • #589
    Dragonblaster
    Closed Accounts Posts: 109 ✭✭Dragonblaster


    OK. Just answer one, directly, as a favour to me.

    Just one of those points.

    What's your number one clincher that proves that NASA conned one trillion dollars from the American public?

    What made you first say, "Hey, hang on: this is fake!" ?

    Please don't just say "read the thread" again or post a silly link: say what makes the landings fake.

    If you know what you're talking about, this should be easy.


  • #590
    squod
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,702 ✭✭✭squod


    namloc1980 wrote: »
    They manage the camera instrument on board LRO.

    Have you asked them about it? Have you asked their opinions? Did you find out why the LRO took low def shots of the landings sites and high def shots of nearly everywhere else?

    Did you ask them why there are lines through the landing site shots? etc etc..... If they get back to you PM me please I've a bluddy hundred questions for them.


  • #591
    Dragonblaster
    Closed Accounts Posts: 109 ✭✭Dragonblaster


    namloc1980 wrote: »
    How are NASA keeping the people who work on the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter quiet? Or especially how are they keeping the Arizona State University quiet? They manage the camera instrument on board LRO.

    How come the images returned by the Soviet Lunakhod rovers are perfectly similar in their depictions of the lunar surface to those returned by Apollo? Were the Lunakhods fake as well?

    Hey, namloc, don't you know that the USSR was the very bestest friend of the USA in the '60s and '70s? Don't you know anything?

    Naah, only kidding.

    Jeez, I crack myself up...


  • Advertisement
  • #592
    Dragonblaster
    Closed Accounts Posts: 109 ✭✭Dragonblaster


    squod wrote: »
    Have you asked them about it? Have you asked their opinions? Did you find out why the LRO took low def shots of the landings sites and high def shots of nearly everywhere else?[/QOTE]

    Have you? No! You assume. That's it.
    squod wrote: »
    Did you ask them why there are lines through the landing site shots?

    Footprints. That's all. The things you say you couldn't make on the Moon.

    And why would they PUT the lines there if the shots were fake and the lines shouldn't be there?

    If it's a fake why not hi-def FAKED shots?

    You know zip, mate.


  • #593
    namloc1980
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,613 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    squod wrote: »
    Have you asked them about it? Have you asked their opinions? Did you find out why the LRO took low def shots of the landings sites and high def shots of nearly everywhere else?

    Did you ask them why there are lines through the landing site shots? etc etc..... If they get back to you PM me please I've a bluddy hundred questions for them.

    Low res of the landing sites? I can only assume you didn't bother checking out the images. That's a shame, you should really look them up.


  • #594
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    squod wrote: »
    Have you asked them about it? Have you asked their opinions? Did you find out why the LRO took low def shots of the landings sites and high def shots of nearly everywhere else?

    Did you ask them why there are lines through the landing site shots? etc etc..... If they get back to you PM me please I've a bluddy hundred questions for them.

    Again what squod here isn't telling you is that the photos the LRO took of the Apollo sites are of the highest resolution the camera can manage, about 0.5m per pixel.

    And the reason there are lines is because they are artefacts of this resolution.


  • #595
    RRaff
    Closed Accounts Posts: 44 ✭RRaff


    Elvis is dead, Nessie was a log, Aliens do not kiddnap people and play with their bums and the moon land happened! Get over it people!


  • #596
    squod
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,702 ✭✭✭squod


    namloc1980 wrote: »
    Low res of the landing sites? I can only assume you didn't bother checking out the images. That's a shame, you should really look them up.

    :rolleyes:


  • #597
    Dragonblaster
    Closed Accounts Posts: 109 ✭✭Dragonblaster


    squod wrote: »
    :rolleyes:


    WOW! I was wrong! We never landed on the moon after all!

    I never saw that argument!

    Boy, am I bitch-slapped!


  • #598
    Dragonblaster
    Closed Accounts Posts: 109 ✭✭Dragonblaster


    RRaff wrote: »
    Elvis is dead, Nessie was a log, Aliens do not kiddnap people and play with their bums and the moon land happened! Get over it people!

    @RRaff

    The trouble is that all those things are still more believable than some of the trolls here.


  • #599
    squod
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,702 ✭✭✭squod


    Dragonblaster wrote: »
    Footprints. That's all. The things you say you couldn't make on the Moon.

    Proof?

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70133138&postcount=23


    You're pretty much exposing yourself. Good luck getting anyone to believe another word you say. You can't even provide the truth when its written in front of you.


  • #600
    Yitzhak Rabin
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,225 ✭✭✭Yitzhak Rabin


    RRAF banned for trolling.

    Dragonblaster, people are not obligated to answer your questions. Watch your tone, as sacarstic pisstaking posts are not condusive to a proper discussion.


  • Advertisement
  • #601
    namloc1980
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,613 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    Can any of the hoaxers explain this image please? It shows many of the things that the hoaxers claim are impossible on the Moon:

    lander2.png

    That is the Soviet Luna 21 on the moon after landing in January 1973, the image is from the rover it carried Lunakhod 2:

    - how come we can see the shadow side of the Luna 21 lander? Hoaxers claim that this is impossible and should be black dark as it is in shadow?

    - how come there isn't a crater where the retro rockets fired to slow the decent of the craft to the surface?

    - how come there is dust around the foot pads of the craft? Hoaxers usually cite that a leaf blower will blow away all dust on Earth so how come Luna 21 has dust all around?

    - how come the rover was able to drive for 37 km on the surface even though the hoaxers claim that the regolith would be so deep as to swallow a spacecraft or astronaut?


Advertisement