What like going to the moon themselvesnil_desperandum wrote:For anyone still doubting that it happened 50 years later, don't you think that during all those passing years the Russians might just have come up with some evidence that disproved it? It was after all a space race, and Russia lost. They'd be all over this if they thought they could discredit the Americans.
Man on the Moon..
Re: Man on the Moon..
-
- Posts: 19799
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:12 am
- Been Liked: 5483 times
- Has Liked: 2540 times
- Location: Burnley, Lancs
Re: Man on the Moon..
What's your evidence that it didn't hadden?joey13 wrote:What like going to the moon themselves
This user liked this post: Bosscat
Re: Man on the Moon..
For starters NASA still haven’t designed a spacesuit to protect against radiation on the moon surface , surely that is sufficient evidence.Imploding Turtle wrote:What's your evidence that it didn't hadden?
-
- Posts: 16885
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:37 pm
- Been Liked: 6958 times
- Has Liked: 1483 times
- Location: Leeds
Re: Man on the Moon..
Are you genuinely saying that the USA didn’t land on the moon? Just to be clear. I thought you were joking.joey13 wrote:For starters NASA still haven’t designed a spacesuit to protect against radiation on the moon surface , surely that is sufficient evidence.
Re: Man on the Moon..
joey13 wrote:For starters NASA still haven’t designed a spacesuit to protect against radiation on the moon surface , surely that is sufficient evidence.
He asked for evidence.
Re: Man on the Moon..
Perhaps you should provide evidence they haventjoey13 wrote:For starters NASA still haven’t designed a spacesuit to protect against radiation on the moon surface , surely that is sufficient evidence.
Read this...
https://space.stackexchange.com/questio ... -radiation" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Last edited by Bosscat on Sun Jul 21, 2019 2:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Man on the Moon..
In a way you are right, Apollo astronauts suffered a rate of cardiovascular disease* far higher than might be expected in individuals of their fitness levels.joey13 wrote:For starters NASA still haven’t designed a spacesuit to protect against radiation on the moon surface , surely that is sufficient evidence.
New spacesuits are certainly something that NASA acknowledges they need to improve. But unfortunately, that also kind of disproves your assertion too.
* due to the way radiation damaged their DNA.
-
- Posts: 19799
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:12 am
- Been Liked: 5483 times
- Has Liked: 2540 times
- Location: Burnley, Lancs
Re: Man on the Moon..
Nope.joey13 wrote:For starters NASA still haven’t designed a spacesuit to protect against radiation on the moon surface , surely that is sufficient evidence.
The radiation dosage on the moon's surface, at it's maximum, is 380 mSv per year compared to 2.4 mSv per year on the Earth's surface.
The Apollo 11 crew spent less than 3 hours on the surface outside the lander. The equivalent to about 4 months on earth.
And this is assuming the suits provide zero protection, which is obviously not going to be true.
What's your next best "evidence"?
This user liked this post: Bosscat
Re: Man on the Moon..
Plenty of articles about NASA working on a spacesuit for moon landingsBosscat wrote:Perhaps you should provide evidence they havent
Also why did the astronauts when stepping onto the moon walk on dust , the dust would have been blown away by the landing craft engines , there’s no wind on the moon to blow it back , explain that ?
No stars in any of the footage apart from Earth ?
Re: Man on the Moon..
So why are NASA designing new suits then ?Imploding Turtle wrote:Nope.
The radiation dosage on the moon's surface, at it's maximum, is 380 mSv per year compared to 2.4 mSv per year on the Earth's surface.
The Apollo 11 crew spent less than 3 hours on the surface outside the lander. The equivalent to about 4 months on earth.
And this is assuming the suits provide zero protection, which is obviously not going to be true.
What's your next best "evidence"?
Re: Man on the Moon..
That’s that explained thenBosscat wrote:Perhaps you should provide evidence they havent
Read this...
https://space.stackexchange.com/questio ... -radiation" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Re: Man on the Moon..
Just a hunch but it might be about making improvementsjoey13 wrote:So why are NASA designing new suits then ?
Re: Man on the Moon..
Because they’ve acknowledged that the old ones needed improving, as much as anything because the astronauts discovered that moon dust was particularly abrasive, almost glass sharp and it damaged the outer layers.joey13 wrote:So why are NASA designing new suits then ?
The reason stars aren’t visible in lunar photographs is because the landings took place during lunar daytime. Pop outside with your camera now and see if any stars show up on your photos.
Seriously, if you are genuinely trying to say that NASA didn’t achieve 6 moon landings you are a fool.
These 2 users liked this post: Bosscat longsidepies
Re: Man on the Moon..
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&sourc ... o-&cf=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;joey13 wrote:That’s that explained then
-
- Posts: 16885
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:37 pm
- Been Liked: 6958 times
- Has Liked: 1483 times
- Location: Leeds
Re: Man on the Moon..
Seems like joey13 has got a pretty watertight case here.
-
- Posts: 19799
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:12 am
- Been Liked: 5483 times
- Has Liked: 2540 times
- Location: Burnley, Lancs
Re: Man on the Moon..
Because i don't know if you've noticed but they like to send people to places for more than just a few hours.joey13 wrote:So why are NASA designing new suits then ?
Edit: Also, the need for pressurisation in existing suits make them basically like big balloons which suck for mobility. That's right, radiation exposure isn't the only thing they're considering when it comes to suit design.
This user liked this post: Bosscat
-
- Posts: 4294
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 9:00 am
- Been Liked: 1600 times
- Has Liked: 679 times
Re: Man on the Moon..
As we head deeper into space the astronaut’s suits will have to last much longer than a few days.
-
- Posts: 88
- Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2017 9:03 am
- Been Liked: 18 times
- Has Liked: 7 times
Re: Man on the Moon..
Watch this And there's your proof
https://youtu.be/xciCJfbTvE4" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Plus the fake moon rock the USA gave to Holland
Someone's got to be bulling
https://youtu.be/xciCJfbTvE4" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Plus the fake moon rock the USA gave to Holland
Someone's got to be bulling
-
- Posts: 19799
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:12 am
- Been Liked: 5483 times
- Has Liked: 2540 times
- Location: Burnley, Lancs
Re: Man on the Moon..
Nothing screams "i'm secure in my opinions" as disabling comments on your youtube video where your opinion is shared.Six fingers wrote:Watch this And there's your proof
https://youtu.be/xciCJfbTvE4" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Plus the fake moon rock the USA gave to Holland
Someone's got to be bulling
This user liked this post: Bosscat
-
- Posts: 19799
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:12 am
- Been Liked: 5483 times
- Has Liked: 2540 times
- Location: Burnley, Lancs
Re: Man on the Moon..
Alright, i got bored after a minute and a half of being preached to like a door-to-door bible basher.Six fingers wrote:Watch this And there's your proof
https://youtu.be/xciCJfbTvE4" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Plus the fake moon rock the USA gave to Holland
Someone's got to be bulling
So i'm not sitting through 45 minutes of that. Give me the bullet points. What "evidence" does it claim?
This user liked this post: Bosscat
Re: Man on the Moon..
A fool , ok then big manmealdeal wrote:Because they’ve acknowledged that the old ones needed improving, as much as anything because the astronauts discovered that moon dust was particularly abrasive, almost glass sharp and it damaged the outer layers.
The reason stars aren’t visible in lunar photographs is because the landings took place during lunar daytime. Pop outside with your camera now and see if any stars show up on your photos.
Seriously, if you are genuinely trying to say that NASA didn’t achieve 6 moon landings you are a fool.
-
- Posts: 19799
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:12 am
- Been Liked: 5483 times
- Has Liked: 2540 times
- Location: Burnley, Lancs
Re: Man on the Moon..
We've done away with your radiation evidence. What's your next best evidence?joey13 wrote:A fool , ok then big man
Re: Man on the Moon..
At least you’re not denying itjoey13 wrote:A fool , ok then big man
-
- Posts: 3484
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:50 pm
- Been Liked: 660 times
- Has Liked: 205 times
Re: Man on the Moon..
It definitely happened as I can quite clearly remember watching it live on television.
Re: Man on the Moon..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6MOnehCOUw" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
So did they built the massive rocket or not? I'm confused.
So did they built the massive rocket or not? I'm confused.
Re: Man on the Moon..
YesSonofPog wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6MOnehCOUw
So did they built the massive rocket or not? I'm confused.
Re: Man on the Moon..
Good to know... As long as they faked the footage on the moon, i'm happy with that.Bosscat wrote:Yes
Re: Man on the Moon..
The fact you must have read the entire post, ignored everything that debunked your theory and focussed on the fool bit, makes my point. Anyone who in 2019 thinks that NASA faked the moon landings is a fool. Every single piece of ‘evidence’ has been dealt with and isn’t even worth addressing anymore.joey13 wrote:A fool , ok then big man
NASA didn’t just decide to crack off a moon landing in 1969, the Apollo programme was just that, a programme and every mission tested a little bit more of the process until humans were landed on the moon.
By Apollo 11, the only part of the process that hadn’t been tested was just that last bit - landing and returning. Do you think NASA also fake the Apollo 1 cabin fire that wiped out the entire crew and Apollo 13 where the mission was aborted after an oxygen tank explosion? Did they also fake the landings of Apollo 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17? Here’s a clue, they didn’t.
This user liked this post: Bosscat
-
- Posts: 4069
- Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2016 9:40 pm
- Been Liked: 1507 times
- Has Liked: 580 times
Re: Man on the Moon..
Mott the Hoople and the Game of Life, yeah yeah yeah yeah
Re: Man on the Moon..
Yes that really makes your point ,it didn’t happen ,America decides it wants to spend a few days on the moon , repeat the process 6 times then not bother for 47 years , brilliantmealdeal wrote:The fact you must have read the entire post, ignored everything that debunked your theory and focussed on the fool bit, makes my point. Anyone who in 2019 thinks that NASA faked the moon landings is a fool. Every single piece of ‘evidence’ has been dealt with and isn’t even worth addressing anymore.
NASA didn’t just decide to crack off a moon landing in 1969, the Apollo programme was just that, a programme and every mission tested a little bit more of the process until humans were landed on the moon.
By Apollo 11, the only part of the process that hadn’t been tested was just that last bit - landing and returning. Do you think NASA also fake the Apollo 1 cabin fire that wiped out the entire crew and Apollo 13 where the mission was aborted after an oxygen tank explosion? Did they also fake the landings of Apollo 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17? Here’s a clue, they didn’t.
-
- Posts: 14571
- Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:55 am
- Been Liked: 3437 times
- Has Liked: 6339 times
Re: Man on the Moon..
https://www.space.com/after-apollo-why- ... -moon.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;joey13 wrote:Yes that really makes your point ,it didn’t happen ,America decides it wants to spend a few days on the moon , repeat the process 6 times then not bother for 47 years , brilliant
Going to the Moon was about establishing dominance over Russia.
They stopped because they did it and they had other things to worry about.
Now as a planet we are ready to go again and further out but note that it isn't just the Americans this time.
Re: Man on the Moon..
Which part of this don’t you understand? Apollo was a programme. It was completed as planned.joey13 wrote:Yes that really makes your point ,it didn’t happen ,America decides it wants to spend a few days on the moon , repeat the process 6 times then not bother for 47 years , brilliant
Why didn’t they start Apollo II and just carry on going to the moon? Because they’d done it, the budget was huge and couldn’t be justified, especially with other demands weighing heavily on it (Vietnam). Politically the attention shifted, the public lost interest in space and NASA focussed its efforts elsewhere.
-
- Posts: 5898
- Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2016 10:40 pm
- Been Liked: 1770 times
- Has Liked: 359 times
- Location: The Banana Stand
Re: Man on the Moon..
For the dust, it depends how deep the dust is on the surface. Are you suggesting that the surface is hard just a few inches under a dessert terrain? All the rocky deserts I’ve been in are dusty even when you dig down. It would matter if you blow the surface dust away, as they’ll be dust underneath it.joey13 wrote:Plenty of articles about NASA working on a spacesuit for moon landings
Also why did the astronauts when stepping onto the moon walk on dust , the dust would have been blown away by the landing craft engines , there’s no wind on the moon to blow it back , explain that ?
No stars in any of the footage apart from Earth ?
As for stars, you can’t take pictures of stars unless you a setup a long exposure or really wide aperture. If they wanted stars in the shot, the subjects photos would be over exposed.
Try it tonight with your camera. Take pictures of stars in your garden with someone doing star jumps in the foreground.
-
- Posts: 3979
- Joined: Mon May 28, 2018 3:00 pm
- Been Liked: 1857 times
- Has Liked: 652 times
Re: Man on the Moon..
You cannot reason with the wilfully ignorant.
This user liked this post: Bosscat
Re: Man on the Moon..
joey gets the dust thing very wrong. He correctly identifies there's no wind on the moon but doesn't really understand what that means. There's no wind because there is no atmosphere. Because there is no atmosphere the thrust engine of the Lunar Module would only impact on dust directly in it's path (as there's no air to disturb which is what causes dust to blow up from a wider field in the same situation on earth). So there would have been dust (you can even hear Aldrin mention it as they were about to land), but only directly under the landers thrusters. Armstrong descended a ladder attached to one of the landers legs, well away from the thruster, so the dust was untouched.claptrappers_union wrote:For the dust, it depends how deep the dust is on the surface. Are you suggesting that the surface is hard just a few inches under a dessert terrain? All the rocky deserts I’ve been in are dusty even when you dig down. It would matter if you blow the surface dust away, as they’ll be dust underneath it.
As for stars, you can’t take pictures of stars unless you a setup a long exposure or really wide aperture. If they wanted stars in the shot, the subjects photos would be over exposed.
Try it tonight with your camera. Take pictures of stars in your garden with someone doing star jumps in the foreground.
These 2 users liked this post: Bosscat Imploding Turtle
-
- Posts: 19799
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:12 am
- Been Liked: 5483 times
- Has Liked: 2540 times
- Location: Burnley, Lancs
Re: Man on the Moon..
"You cannot reason someone out of a position they did not reason themselves into" - Someone, sometime.Billy Balfour wrote:You cannot reason with the wilfully ignorant.
This user liked this post: Bosscat
Re: Man on the Moon..
The fact that there is only 1 real photograph of Neil on the moon destroys the idea of a conspiracy imo.
If you’re gonna fake something like that, you surely would get stacks of photographs of the first human on the moon.
If you’re gonna fake something like that, you surely would get stacks of photographs of the first human on the moon.
This user liked this post: Bosscat
-
- Posts: 2212
- Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 3:03 pm
- Been Liked: 935 times
- Has Liked: 608 times
Re: Man on the Moon..
If it was faked then somehow NASA managed to get Jodrell Bank to join in on the conspiracy as well as I was listening to one of their scientists on the radio last week describing how JB tracked Apollo 11 all the way to the moon and the surface and back!
They also tracked and un-manned Soviet craft that was around at the same time trying to beat them to it which eventually crashed.
They also tracked and un-manned Soviet craft that was around at the same time trying to beat them to it which eventually crashed.
Re: Man on the Moon..
We are fighting a losing battle m8 the conspiracy theorists will never accept it.Vintage Claret wrote:If it was faked then somehow NASA managed to get Jodrell Bank to join in on the conspiracy as well as I was listening to one of their scientists on the radio last week describing how JB tracked Apollo 11 all the way to the moon and the surface and back!
They also tracked and un-manned Soviet craft that was around at the same time trying to beat them to it which eventually crashed.
At the end of the day it was at the height of the cold war and Russia would be all over it if it didn't happen
-
- Posts: 19799
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:12 am
- Been Liked: 5483 times
- Has Liked: 2540 times
- Location: Burnley, Lancs
Re: Man on the Moon..
Debunking their bullshit isn't about changing their mind, it's about making sure it doesn't go unchallenged so that others don't look at their nonsense and think "well, if no one's going to contradict him then maybe he's right".Bosscat wrote:We are fighting a losing battle m8 the conspiracy theorists will never accept it.
At the end of the day it was at the height of the cold war and Russia would be all over it if it didn't happen
This user liked this post: Bosscat
Re: Man on the Moon..
You don't understand vacuum do you... perhaps you should as there is a huge one between your ears where this subject is concerned joeyjoey13 wrote:Plenty of articles about NASA working on a spacesuit for moon landings
Also why did the astronauts when stepping onto the moon walk on dust , the dust would have been blown away by the landing craft engines , there’s no wind on the moon to blow it back , explain that ?
No stars in any of the footage apart from Earth ?
This user liked this post: joey13
-
- Posts: 19799
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:12 am
- Been Liked: 5483 times
- Has Liked: 2540 times
- Location: Burnley, Lancs
Re: Man on the Moon..
martin_p wrote:joey gets the dust thing very wrong. He correctly identifies there's no wind on the moon but doesn't really understand what that means. There's no wind because there is no atmosphere. Because there is no atmosphere the thrust engine of the Lunar Module would only impact on dust directly in it's path (as there's no air to disturb which is what causes dust to blow up from a wider field in the same situation on earth). So there would have been dust (you can even hear Aldrin mention it as they were about to land), but only directly under the landers thrusters. Armstrong descended a ladder attached to one of the landers legs, well away from the thruster, so the dust was untouched.
This makes sense. A lot of the dust you see blasting away from the ground on earth would be caused by air turbulence. On the moon's surface there would be no air turbulence to disturb the dust outside the direct blast of the rockets.
Re: Man on the Moon..
The dust of the Moon is really sticky.
"The dust on the Moon, while it would be extremely fine-grain, is also highly charged due to Sun's radiation and solar winds, so it would stick quite good to the surface, grain to grain, but also cling to astronauts' space suits, something that was made quite apparent when they had fairly big problems getting it off and somewhat cleaning the space suits before going back to the Lunar Module (LM) during several Apollo missions."
there's also a misunderstand that the lander came directly down, it didn't,
"The Lunar Module on the Apollo 11 mission, named Eagle, didn't land directly but was navigating horizontally to the Moon's plain at a fairly low altitude for quite some time trying to find a suitable landing site. This means, that the LM landed with engines at an angle to the surface of the Moon for the most part, and only straightened for the very last few meters. This would limit the amount of dust raised, and it being blown away mainly in one direction away from LM"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BvbD-1qZtc" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
https://space.stackexchange.com/questio ... ok-like-it" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"The dust on the Moon, while it would be extremely fine-grain, is also highly charged due to Sun's radiation and solar winds, so it would stick quite good to the surface, grain to grain, but also cling to astronauts' space suits, something that was made quite apparent when they had fairly big problems getting it off and somewhat cleaning the space suits before going back to the Lunar Module (LM) during several Apollo missions."
there's also a misunderstand that the lander came directly down, it didn't,
"The Lunar Module on the Apollo 11 mission, named Eagle, didn't land directly but was navigating horizontally to the Moon's plain at a fairly low altitude for quite some time trying to find a suitable landing site. This means, that the LM landed with engines at an angle to the surface of the Moon for the most part, and only straightened for the very last few meters. This would limit the amount of dust raised, and it being blown away mainly in one direction away from LM"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BvbD-1qZtc" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
https://space.stackexchange.com/questio ... ok-like-it" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
-
- Posts: 19799
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:12 am
- Been Liked: 5483 times
- Has Liked: 2540 times
- Location: Burnley, Lancs
Re: Man on the Moon..
It's also important to remember that the dust would have settled fairly quickly. I think joey's expecting the scattered dust to hang around, floating for some time like it would on Earth. It wouldn't.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E43-CfukEgs" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E43-CfukEgs" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Re: Man on the Moon..
How would they know the dust is sticky , they haven’t beenSonofPog wrote:The dust of the Moon is really sticky.
"The dust on the Moon, while it would be extremely fine-grain, is also highly charged due to Sun's radiation and solar winds, so it would stick quite good to the surface, grain to grain, but also cling to astronauts' space suits, something that was made quite apparent when they had fairly big problems getting it off and somewhat cleaning the space suits before going back to the Lunar Module (LM) during several Apollo missions."
there's also a misunderstand that the lander came directly down, it didn't,
"The Lunar Module on the Apollo 11 mission, named Eagle, didn't land directly but was navigating horizontally to the Moon's plain at a fairly low altitude for quite some time trying to find a suitable landing site. This means, that the LM landed with engines at an angle to the surface of the Moon for the most part, and only straightened for the very last few meters. This would limit the amount of dust raised, and it being blown away mainly in one direction away from LM"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BvbD-1qZtc" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
https://space.stackexchange.com/questio ... ok-like-it" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
-
- Posts: 19799
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:12 am
- Been Liked: 5483 times
- Has Liked: 2540 times
- Location: Burnley, Lancs
Re: Man on the Moon..
This point undermines your argument.joey13 wrote:How would they know the dust is sticky , they haven’t been
Because using your thinking, how could they have known the dust was "sticky" and therefore account for it when they faked the landings?
FWIW you don't need to go to another planet or celestial body to understand how the charged particles of dust there will interact with each other. You can theorise and experiment on earth to find that out.
-
- Posts: 88
- Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2017 9:03 am
- Been Liked: 18 times
- Has Liked: 7 times
Re: Man on the Moon..
how do you explain the flag flapping in the wind
If you had watched the you tube vid I posted earlier in stead of only watching one minute you would no the proofs
If you had watched the you tube vid I posted earlier in stead of only watching one minute you would no the proofs
Re: Man on the Moon..
Its made of foil not clothSix fingers wrote:how do you explain the flag flapping in the wind
If you had watched the you tube vid I posted earlier in stead of only watching one minute you would no the proofs
-
- Posts: 8527
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 5:22 pm
- Been Liked: 2889 times
- Has Liked: 1763 times
Re: Man on the Moon..
ANYONE ONE WHO SERIOUSLY BELIEVES THEY DIDNT LAND ON THE MOON IS CRIMINALLY INSANE.
not to mention disrespectful to the memory of those true heroes that entered Apollo 11 fifty years ago.
not to mention disrespectful to the memory of those true heroes that entered Apollo 11 fifty years ago.
-
- Posts: 17108
- Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2017 8:12 pm
- Been Liked: 4384 times
- Has Liked: 15117 times
Re: Man on the Moon..
Why Criminally insane??Wile E Coyote wrote:ANYONE ONE WHO SERIOUSLY BELIEVES THEY DIDNT LAND ON THE MOON IS CRIMINALLY INSANE.
not to mention disrespectful to the memory of those true heroes that entered Apollo 11 fifty years ago.