Man on the Moon..

[joey13]

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.

What like going to the moon themselves

[Imploding Turtle]

What like going to the moon themselves

What's your evidence that it didn't hadden?

[joey13]

What's your evidence that it didn't hadden?

For starters NASA still haven’t designed a spacesuit to protect against radiation on the moon surface , surely that is sufficient evidence.

[Rileybobs]

For starters NASA still haven’t designed a spacesuit to protect against radiation on the moon surface , surely that is sufficient evidence.

Are you genuinely saying that the USA didn’t land on the moon? Just to be clear. I thought you were joking.

[taio]

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.

[Bosscat]

For starters NASA still haven’t designed a spacesuit to protect against radiation on the moon surface , surely that is sufficient evidence.

Perhaps you should provide evidence they havent

Read this...

https://space.stackexchange.com/questio ... -radiation" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[mealdeal]

For starters NASA still haven’t designed a spacesuit to protect against radiation on the moon surface , surely that is sufficient evidence.

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.

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.

[Imploding Turtle]

For starters NASA still haven’t designed a spacesuit to protect against radiation on the moon surface , surely that is sufficient evidence.

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"?

[joey13]

Perhaps you should provide evidence they havent

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 ?

[joey13]

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"?

So why are NASA designing new suits then ?

[joey13]

Perhaps you should provide evidence they havent

Read this...

https://space.stackexchange.com/questio ... -radiation" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That’s that explained then

[taio]

So why are NASA designing new suits then ?

Just a hunch but it might be about making improvements

[mealdeal]

So why are NASA designing new suits then ?

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.

[Bosscat]

That’s that explained then

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&sourc ... o-&ampcf=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Rileybobs]

Seems like joey13 has got a pretty watertight case here.

[Imploding Turtle]

So why are NASA designing new suits then ?

Because i don't know if you've noticed but they like to send people to places for more than just a few hours.

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.

[LoveCurryPies]

As we head deeper into space the astronaut’s suits will have to last much longer than a few days.

[Six fingers]

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

[Imploding Turtle]

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

Nothing screams "i'm secure in my opinions" as disabling comments on your youtube video where your opinion is shared.

[Imploding Turtle]

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

Alright, i got bored after a minute and a half of being preached to like a door-to-door bible basher.

So i'm not sitting through 45 minutes of that. Give me the bullet points. What "evidence" does it claim?

[joey13]

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.

A fool , ok then big man

[Imploding Turtle]

A fool , ok then big man

We've done away with your radiation evidence. What's your next best evidence?

[martin_p]

A fool , ok then big man

At least you’re not denying it

[dermotdermot]

It definitely happened as I can quite clearly remember watching it live on television.

[SonofPog]

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.

[Bosscat]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6MOnehCOUw

So did they built the massive rocket or not? I'm confused.

Yes

[SonofPog]

Yes

Good to know... As long as they faked the footage on the moon, i'm happy with that.

[mealdeal]

A fool , ok then big man

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.

[Swizzlestick]

Mott the Hoople and the Game of Life, yeah yeah yeah yeah

[joey13]

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.

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

[GodIsADeeJay81]

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

https://www.space.com/after-apollo-why- ... -moon.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

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.

[mealdeal]

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

Which part of this don’t you understand? Apollo was a programme. It was completed as planned.

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.

[claptrappers_union]

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 ?

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.

[Billy Balfour]

You cannot reason with the wilfully ignorant.

[martin_p]

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.

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.

[Imploding Turtle]

You cannot reason with the wilfully ignorant.

"You cannot reason someone out of a position they did not reason themselves into" - Someone, sometime.

[Dyched]

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.

[Vintage Claret]

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.

[Bosscat]

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.

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

[Imploding Turtle]

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

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]

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 ?

You don't understand vacuum do you... perhaps you should as there is a huge one between your ears where this subject is concerned joey

[Imploding Turtle]

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.

[SonofPog]

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;

[Imploding Turtle]

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;

[joey13]

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;

How would they know the dust is sticky , they haven’t been

[Imploding Turtle]

How would they know the dust is sticky , they haven’t been

This point undermines your argument.
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.

[Six fingers]

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

[Bosscat]

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

Its made of foil not cloth

[Wile E Coyote]

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.

[tim_noone]

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.

Why Criminally insane??