Automotive Deals HPCC Amazon Fashion Learn more Discover it Pink Floyd Fire TV Stick Health, Household and Grocery Back to School Handmade school supplies Shop-by-Room Amazon Cash Back Offer TarantinoCollection TarantinoCollection TarantinoCollection  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Introducing new colors All-New Kindle Oasis AutoRip in CDs & Vinyl Water Sports
Customer Discussions > Science forum

was the moon landing real or fake, and why?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 1000 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Nov 23, 2010 7:01:38 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 7, 2010 5:28:31 PM PST
iruri says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on Nov 23, 2010 7:13:42 PM PST
Gary S. Hurd says:
I think it was real because, 1) I have known several people that worked on Apollo missions, and 2) only ignorant crackpots deny it happened. Betting against stupid people is almost a certain winning strategy.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 23, 2010 7:23:27 PM PST
Ronald Craig says:
"I think the moon landing was false because there was no Blast Crater under the LEM."

That's because the heat and pressure was absorbed by unfortunate moon squid.

"Some of the Transmissions between Armstrong and Houston were less than the 1.3 seconds it should have taken."

That was the result of the signals passing through the superconductive bodies of moon squid.

Moon Squid are our friends.

Except when they're not.

(Seriously, where do these nutters come from?)

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 23, 2010 7:47:35 PM PST
iruri says:
Ronald, That's the first I heard of Moon Squid. Wow what next?

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 23, 2010 7:50:22 PM PST
Terry L says:
How does one cook moon squid? They sound tasty.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 23, 2010 7:51:05 PM PST
TS says: Sorry Iruri -- this is nonsense.

Proof:

#1
<<
1. No blast crater or any sign of dust scatter as was seen in the 16 mm movies of each landing.[123]

No crater should be expected. The Descent Propulsion System was throttled very far down during the final landing. The Lunar Module was no longer rapidly decelerating, so the descent engine only had to support the module's own weight, diminished by the 1/6 g lunar gravity and by the near exhaustion of the descent propellants. At landing, the engine thrust divided by the nozzle exit area is only about 10 kilopascals (1.5 PSI).[124] Beyond the engine nozzle, the plume spreads and the pressure drops very rapidly. (In comparison the Saturn V F-1 first stage engines produced 3.2 MPa (459 PSI) at the mouth of the nozzle.) Rocket exhaust gases expand much more rapidly after leaving the engine nozzle in a vacuum than in an atmosphere. The effect of an atmosphere on rocket plumes can be easily seen in launches from Earth; as the rocket rises through the thinning atmosphere, the exhaust plumes broaden very noticeably. To reduce this, rocket engines designed for vacuum operation have longer bells than those designed for use at the Earth's surface, but they still cannot prevent this spreading. The Lunar Module's exhaust gases therefore expanded rapidly well beyond the landing site. However, the descent engines did scatter a lot of very fine surface dust as seen in 16mm movies of each landing, and many mission commanders commented on its effect on visibility. The landers were generally moving horizontally as well as vertically, and photographs do show scouring of the surface along the final descent path. Finally, the lunar regolith is very compact below its surface dust layer, further making it impossible for the descent engine to blast out a "crater".[125]

***
In fact, a blast crater was measured under the Apollo 11 Lunar Module using shadow lengths of the descent engine bell and estimates of the amount that the landing gear had compressed and how deep the lander footpads had pressed into the lunar surface and it was found that the engine had eroded between 4 and 6 inches of regolith out from underneath the engine bell during the final descent and landing.[126],pp. 97-98

#2 Transmissions
1. The lack of a more than two-second delay in two-way communications at a distance of a 400,000 km (250,000 miles).

The round trip light travel time of more than two seconds is apparent in all the real-time recordings of the lunar audio, but this does not always appear as expected. There may also be some documentary films where the delay has been edited out. Principal motivations for editing the audio would likely come in response to time constraints or in the interest of clarity.[119

2. Typical delays in communication were on the order of half a second.

Claims that the delays were only on the order of half a second are unsubstantiated by an examination of the actual recordings. It should also be borne in mind that there should not be a straightforward, consistent time delay between every response, as the conversation is being recorded at one end - Mission Control. Responses from Mission Control could be heard without any delay, as the recording is being made at the same time that Houston receives the transmission from the Moon.
3. The Parkes Observatory in Australia was billed to the world for weeks as the site that would be relaying communications from the Moon, then five hours before transmission they were told to stand down.

The timing of the first Moonwalk was moved up after landing. In fact, delays in getting the Moonwalk started meant that Parkes did cover almost the entire Apollo 11 Moonwalk.[120]
4. Parkes supposedly provided the clearest video feed from the Moon, but Australian media and all other known sources ran a live feed from the United States.

While that was the original plan, and, according to some sources, the official policy, the Australian Broadcasting Commission (ABC) did take the transmission direct from the Parkes and Honeysuckle Creek radio telescopes. These were converted to NTSC television at Paddington, in Sydney. This meant that Australian viewers saw the Moonwalk several seconds before the rest of the world.[121] See also The Parkes Observatory's Support of the Apollo 11 Mission, from "Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia" The events surrounding the Parkes Observatory's role in relaying the live television of man's first steps on the Moon were portrayed in a slightly fictionalized 2000 Australian film comedy The Dish.
5. Better signal was supposedly received at Parkes Observatory when the Moon was on the opposite side of the planet.

This is not supported by the detailed evidence and logs from the missions.[122]>>

more here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories

See also

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 23, 2010 9:00:42 PM PST
You were just completely gutted on this very same "evidence" on another thread. Starting another one and recycling the same BS, w/o any acknowledgment that we have just refuted it so thoroughly that you didn't even attempt a rebuttal, is INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 23, 2010 9:31:23 PM PST
Ronald Craig says:
"How does one cook moon squid? They sound tasty."

Shoga-yaki, I should think. Gingerly, in other words. ;)

Actually, you should ask Marilyn over in Aliens, as she is the foremost resident expert on all things loony, I mean LUNAR and squiddly, to tell the teuth of the matter.

So let's all get crackin' on eatin' some kraken!

Posted on Nov 23, 2010 9:33:33 PM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on Apr 26, 2011 12:22:30 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 23, 2010 9:38:14 PM PST
Ronald Craig says:
Kull wahad! By the antepenultimate ring segment of the Holy Maker, 'tis The Broken Record, in person!

Posted on Nov 24, 2010 4:20:57 PM PST
DRM says:
That men landed on the moon and that the Americans were the ones to do it bothers and threatens some people.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 24, 2010 4:27:45 PM PST
Deckard says:
iruri said:
"I think the moon landing was false because there was no Blast Crater under the LEM.
Some of the Transmissions between Armstrong and Houston were less than the 1.3 seconds it should have taken."

Are you related to Robert Winn?

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 24, 2010 11:00:37 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 24, 2010 11:02:11 PM PST
Yog-Sothoth says:
I have enjoyed the movie, "The Dish" with Sam Niell, which recounts the use of the Parkes radio telescope during the Apollo 11 landing. Rather sappy and sentimental, but quite entertaining.

Posted on Nov 25, 2010 5:15:37 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 25, 2010 5:15:53 PM PST
Pete R. says:
I think it was real because I saw an Apollo liftoff, and I promise you that SOB made it at least to the Moon.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 25, 2010 10:10:17 PM PST
iruri says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on Nov 25, 2010 11:32:52 PM PST
Iruri -

Irony aside, it's clear that, in viewing the lander video, you have made an understandable error. Well, actually that's one understandable error and one error of obstinacy. The understandable error is: since the video of the moon landing is shown from the point of view of the lander, you think that the audio was also recorded in the lander. It wasn't. The audio is recorded at the Houston end, which is why ground control responds quickly to lander transmissions. The obstinate error is your refusal to listen to TruthSeeker, who explained this to you.

Could you please indicate when the astronauts respond too quickly to ground transmissions?

And the magic number for delays is 2.6 seconds, not 1.3, since message/response requires a round trip.

Posted on Nov 26, 2010 11:07:55 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 26, 2010 11:13:49 AM PST
Roeselare says:
I wonder if NASA would have been clever enough NOT to show a significant blast crater in the video if NASA had faked the video?

How about the invisible stars? Would they have included a lot of stars?

Other governments have faked pictures recently, there's been some pathetic Photoshop examples, but they're always found out eventually. For many reasons, government agencies rarely employ the best minds.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 26, 2010 11:22:33 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 22, 2011 1:41:03 PM PST
iruri says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on Nov 26, 2010 11:28:37 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 26, 2010 11:36:31 AM PST
Iruri -

"I think the moon landing was false because there was no Blast Crater under the LEM." Really? So when Truthseeker pointed out that

"In fact, a blast crater was measured under the Apollo 11 Lunar Module using shadow lengths of the descent engine bell and estimates of the amount that the landing gear had compressed and how deep the lander footpads had pressed into the lunar surface and it was found that the engine had eroded between 4 and 6 inches of regolith out from underneath the engine bell during the final descent and landing."

this apparently didn't register, right?

Please discuss this.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 26, 2010 11:29:16 AM PST
iuri:

Yes, yew are rat. The moonshot, h'it were shure a fake. But yew know that rasslin is real. The moonshot wuz faked by newyork jooz and masons and the Cownsul on Furrin Reelations.

Posted on Nov 26, 2010 11:47:44 AM PST
iruri says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 26, 2010 11:56:17 AM PST
iruri says: "I think the moon landing was false because there was no Blast Crater under the LEM. Some of the Transmissions between Armstrong and Houston were less than the 1.3 seconds it should have taken."

You must be a teabagger...

I bet you don't believe global warming is real either.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 26, 2010 12:16:12 PM PST
iruri says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on Nov 26, 2010 12:25:20 PM PST
Iruri -

"I think the moon landing was false because there was no Blast Crater under the LEM." Really? So when Truthseeker pointed out that

"In fact, a blast crater was measured under the Apollo 11 Lunar Module using shadow lengths of the descent engine bell and estimates of the amount that the landing gear had compressed and how deep the lander footpads had pressed into the lunar surface and it was found that the engine had eroded between 4 and 6 inches of regolith out from underneath the engine bell during the final descent and landing."

this apparently didn't register, right?

Please discuss this.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 26, 2010 12:26:41 PM PST
iruri says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 220 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Science forum

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Science forum
Participants:  219
Total posts:  5500
Initial post:  Nov 23, 2010
Latest post:  Jul 1, 2015

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 9 customers

Search Customer Discussions