The "Faked NASA moon landings" thread

by **orz** » Fri Jan 20, 2006 2:48 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>The guy who sweeps up says we went to the moon, it gots to be true!<hr></blockquote> But ask yourself; what was he sweeping up if the whole thing was fake!? In other words; if the moon landing was fake, those thousands of people at Nasa either were ALL in on it down to the last toilet-cleaner but have loyally kept their mouths shut for decades, OR Only a select few were secretly working on the fake landing, while 1000s of other workers, mostly highly qualified scientists, were working hard building and designing all manner of fully functional equipment and doing complex maths that they, as experts in their fields, geniunely believed would result in man walking on the moon. The whole moon landing project and all the science invovled must have been planned out in such detail as to fool 1000s of Nasa scientists into not only thinking it was totally feasible but working on it to completion. (bear in mind that moon hoax fans say it would have been to difficult for them to even fake a photo of the stars from the moon!) Which is it? Hint: NEITHER OPTION MAKES A JOT OF SENSE! <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/smile.gif ALT=":)"> <blockquote>Quote:<hr> I think NASA can come up with a nice tight shot of the equipment we left on the surface of our closest neighbor in the course of doing something never before acheived by human beings.<hr></blockquote> The thing is: from NASA's point of view, surely you see there's no need to do this, as they know full well they landed on the moon! I mean, they already have a whole load of nice tight shots of the equipment - taken when they were on the moon! <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/smile.gif ALT=":)"> Think of it this way: If the moon landing was fake and they wanted people to believe it was real, they would be MORE likely to produce a (fake of course) photo of the landing site. The fact that they haven't bothered to do this suggests that it IS real; as in a world where the moon landing did happen and everyone knows it, why would NASA bother wasting $$$$$$ trying to prove the obvious to what they certainly see as a few nutters on the internet? <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/smile.gif ALT=":)"> And here's the usual old rebuttal I know, but: If NASA posted a hubble picture of the Apollo site on their website tomorrow, would everyone say "Oh, OK, sorry, i was wrong, clearly we did go to the moon"? Or would the moon hoax fandom in fact claim it to be a fake, and endlessly pick over details of the shadow angles, blow up the compression artifacts to the size of a house and call them 'anomalies', point out speck of dust 'UFOs' ...etc etc....? <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/eyes.gif ALT=":rolleyes">

by JD » Fri Jan 20, 2006 4:13 pm

I think what is more interesting than anything else on this whole moon topic is that a significant portion of the population doubts the "official story" on what should be an easy, cast iron, fact verified by physical evidence. As a comparison, did anyone doubt whether Cook discovered Australia? They never even had photographs of the event to dissect, basically just had his log books to go by. Setting aside all evidence, pro and con of moon landings, the fact the debate even exists is really interesting and tells us a lot about our culture. Same with JFK assassination. The majority of people in that case believe there was an active conspiracy and subsequent coverup. Now whether or not the majority is correct in this case, the lack of any followup action to get to the bottom of things on the part of the general public, and the instituions that supposedly serve the general public is in and of itself very interesting. What all this is telling me is we are moving away from a rational, fact based version of the world, and into something entirely different. And I think it is all for the worse. OK - navel gazing done. Here is an additional point for moon landing skeptics to savour: If an astronaut fully suited could jump 1 foot in the air on earth, he should be able to jump roughly 6 feet on the moon. Now, if I was an astronaut on the moon, obviously I'd be a fit and adventerous soul. Wouldn't I jump like mad on the surface, and probably show this off a bit for the cameras too? Wouldn't I bound across the surface of the moon jumping higher and faster than a kangaroo? What a rush that would have been. Or would I just do that odd looking slow looking lame-lope that the astronauts did across the surface of the moon instead? I know that you'd want to keep your heart rate down so as to not overheat your space suit, but a 30 second sprint across the surface of the moon would surely have been possible, and would have been a feast for the cameras. So why didn't this happen? Or did it happen and I'm just not aware of it? As per lack of photographs of landing sites, good points on both sides. I can't see how it couldn't be technically done now. The images that spy satellites can produce should be up to the task. I'm not sure the equipment that could do it is easy to point at the moon however. The logic of the lack of photography and whether it makes them look more or less guilty is interstesting and those are great points. So overall on moon landings - I'm an agnostic to both the skeptics and the debunkers. Seen stuff on both sides that strikes me as good arguments. What are other people thinking on this?

by **Francis Parker Yockey** » Fri Jan 20, 2006 4:29 pm

"As a comparison, did anyone doubt whether Cook discovered Australia? They never even had photographs of the event to dissect, basically just had his log books to go by." You are aware of the fact that people live in Australia now, right? That they were able to duplicate the voyage successfully gave Cook's story credence. Never mind. Go right on believing anything you want, after all, who would doubt the government with their track record?

by **StarmanSkye** » Fri Jan 20, 2006 6:26 pm

re: Spotting Apollo artifacts via earth-based spy satellites, or Hubble. Orz: Great point: _____________________________________ If NASA posted a hubble picture of the Apollo site on their website tomorrow, would everyone say "Oh, OK, sorry, i was wrong, clearly we did go to the moon"? _____________________________________ Of course, Hoax diehards will find a flaw in EVERY proof or evidence that contradicts their faith-based thesis. No doubt, when the ESA Smart-1 spacecraft currently orbitting the moon and mapping the surface (capable of 7-meter resolution at 300 km elevation) flies lower and lower due to orbital decay, the images it will send back of Apollo flights will be trumped as 'fakes'. So too with images provided by the NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter which will arrive at the Moon in 2008. "It will be equipped with a camera capable of resolving the surface of the Moon down to half a metre (1.6 feet). Some of the larger structures on the Moon are 9 metres (30 feet) across, so they should be easy to spot by the orbiter." <a href="http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/moon.html">www.universetoday.com/am/.../moon.html</a> Spy satellites at an elevation of 80 to 100 miles have an optical resolution claimed to be a couple feet --there have been unofficial claims that they are capable of reading licence plates -- I don't know if that's true. But spy satellites, assuming a one ft resolution at 100 miles, even IF they could or would be pointed at the moon, would have an optical resolution (given they'd be some 240,000 miles from the moon) of one ft X 2400 -- or 2400 feet. That's off by at least a factor of 6 to detect something about 30 ft across. The Hubble telescope is several orders of magnitude more capable -- but even then, limited by the laws of physics governing light and lenses, the best the Hubble would be capable of is detecting objects on the moon of 405 feet, or 107 meters. The largest human artifacts left on the moon thru Apollo are about 9 meters -- so Hubble would have to be 15 times more powerful, OR about 8 times closes to the moon. I did a back-of-envelope calculation -- reducing distances by half 8 times nets an equivalency of resolution of 1.5 feet at an elevation of 937 miles -- which suggests that spy satellites, IF they could be made as optimally efficient as Hubble, could resolve objects down to an inch or less. But no doubt atmospheric diffusion and the spy satellites len's smaller size and technical limitations prevent spy satellites from having performance equal to Hubble. (Perhaps, even with 1/3 the maximum efficiency of Hubble, a resolution of one inch was considered perfectly adequate for spy purposes, a balance between cost and function.) Also: Excellant point, JD. I agree, the scientific skepticism and technical naivite' of a large segment of the public is an issue of equal if not greater interest and importance than the mostly trivial and sophomoric arguments supporting the hoax thesis. Even when information is so readily available via a few keystrikes on a search engine and reading a few webpages, people STILL remain mis-or-uninformed about a lot of things that really aren't that complex. Of course, we see that with how dumb much of the public is about current events and contemporary history, not to mention the even more obscure topics of parapolitics. Widespread suspician of and distrust of 'the government', along with mass media, academia/science, business, financial institutions, and gov. agencies like the Pentagon, Whitehouse, NASA, and CIA, would tend to make a society cynical and disenfranchised. The trends we've seen all add to this, so skepticism re: officialdom is not only logical but almost essential, extending from the evidence of protected institutional corruption, opportunistic exploitation of fear via the War on Terror, bureaucratic unaccountability, hyper-secrecy via National Security, Constitional Crisis, Congressional cowardice and incompetance, attacks on Bill of Rights, increasing influence of Religious Right, enormous waste, fraud and hypocrisy in the War on Drugs and Crime, shameless War profiteering, gov. subversion via Lobbying, election fraud and insider no-bid billion-dollar contracts, monopolistic control of 'news' via mass media co-option, lies to provoke Wars defending the Fed's ponzai scheme, IMF/World Bank/US State Dept. debt-peonage of the developing world ... It goes on and on and on. The American public has been lied to to such an extent, I really can't overly blame the Moon hoax believers for their instinctual mistrust of the NASA bureaucracy. But, to qualify -- After looking at the arguments, the ONLY thing that either wasn't too absurd to take seriously or that didn't fall apart on rigorous examination, was Jack White's time and motion studies re: the 5700+ photos the astronauts (presumably) took. But even then, White exaggerated the effort, complexity and time required for such things as the panaramic views the astonauts took. Also, I suspect that as many as three or even more different photos may have been printed from a given original slide image. This was possible by the large 4X5 film format, so each original positive-film image the astronauts took had the potential for a great deal of detail and information that could be 'parsed' into several blown-up photographs. So, I think there's much more that could be found about what went into creating NASA's Apollo photo archives. I don't find the argument compelling to 'prove' the 12 astronauts on 6 flights consisting of several hundred hours couldn't have taken the photos claimed. Starman <a href="http://sm3a.gsfc.nasa.gov/messages/676.html">sm3a.gsfc.nasa.gov/messages/676.html</a> In Reply to: HUBBLE AND DID THE AMERICANS GO TO THE MOON! posted by MALCOLM O'DELL on December 31, 1999 at 13:23:45: > IF THE HUBBLE SPACE TELESCOPE CAN RESOLVE A CAR HEADLIGHT FROM MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS OF MILES AWAY, WHY CAN'T NASA POINT IT AT THE NASA APOLLO LANDING SITES AND PROVE THE LUNAR MODULE AND THE CRASHED ASCENT STAGE ARE REALLY UP THERE ONCE AND FOR ALL!! It is true that the Hubble Space Telescope can see things very clearly - one can argue that it provides the clearest view of the sky in visible light "colors" that humans have ever had. However, its capabilities are still limited by the laws of physics. For a telescope with a circular collecting area of diameter D (2.4 m for Hubble), the smallest feature that one can resolve at wavelength L (550 x 10^-9 m for visible light) is given roughly by: resolution = 1.4 L/D = 3.2 x 10^-7 radians This estimate gives the "diffraction limited" resolution, or the resolution based on light's wave-like characteristics. It is difficult to improve upon this limit. The distance to the Moon is roughly 240,000 miles. Hubble's resolution corresponds to a physical dimension of size = x = 0.08 miles = 405 feet = 124 meters at the Moon's surface ... roughly the size of a football field. This is quite a bit larger than any of the artifacts you would want to see on the lunar surface, so even Hubble's tremendous clarity is not enough for what you would like to do! If we had an aircraft carrier at the lunar surface, then Hubble could probably get a pretty good look at it. How far can Hubble resolve a pair of headlights? We can reverse the above calculation to find out. Let's say that headlights are separated about 1.5 meters. Then we want: distance = / = 4700 km = 2910 miles Thus, Hubble can tell that there are two headlights on a car if the car were at a distance comparable to the separation of the East and West coasts of the US. If the car were any farther away than this, the two headlights would appear as a single blob of light - we could still see it, but it is harder to tell that there are two sources of light instead of one.

by **Iroquois** » Fri Jan 20, 2006 8:29 pm

First, thanks for raising some very intriguing questions about the Apollo missions, JD. The heat exchange problem was particularily interesting to me. Something I'd like to ask some co-workers about when I have the chance. About the following: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Now, if I was an astronaut on the moon, obviously I'd be a fit and adventerous soul. Wouldn't I jump like mad on the surface, and probably show this off a bit for the cameras too? Wouldn't I bound across the surface of the moon jumping higher and faster than a kangaroo? What a rush that would have been.<hr></blockquote> Remember what I said about respecting that mass on the Moon is the same as mass on the Earth and the Moon landings not being tourist trips? While its true that the intense emotional impact of actually standing on the Moon and the natural giddiness from the low gravity may entice someone to hop around like a kid with new tennis shoes. Doing so would be extremely dangerous, suicidal even. I could see risking a few cautious vertical jumps, but you won't get to 6x Earth height in those suits, especially if you are being somewhat careful.

by **Pirx** » Sat Jan 21, 2006 8:33 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>it's kinda fun to think things through from the basics, and what fundamentally makes sense, whether it be politics or technology.<hr></blockquote> Amen to that JD! You efforts to engage these questions by actually applying some brainwork instead of jumping on someone elses misguided bandwagon is, in my opinion, admirable. It's those thoughtful posts by yourself and others on this thread that keeps me coming back. To further aid your working this puzzle, I've posted some diagrams scanned from the aforementioned "Virtual LM" book that I hope will be helpful. There are some similar graphics on the PLSS backpacks in the book as well. Let me know if you're interested. <a href="http://home.usit.net/~aeromancy/post/LMSCAN1.jpg">home.usit.net/~aeromancy/...MSCAN1.jpg</a> Glycol and water, cooled the LM. I don't know what ratio was used. (bear in mind, I am NOT a space engineer. But I do work with them almost every day. Lots of this stuff goes way over my head, but I do have access to resources and very smart people.) Your "cargo container in the desert" model is an interesting thought, but you should add ice packed along all the surfaces in shadow. Note the standoff spacers in the LM diagrams. A box within a box. Perhaps a better model would be something more akin to a Thermos bottle? Gloves- <blockquote>Quote:<hr> Try handling really hot metal for say a minute or two<hr></blockquote> Good thing the Apollo guys didn't try any smelting while on the moon, could have been ugly. But I've pulled potatoes hotter than anything on the moon out of my toaster oven using all manner of flimsy materials, with only the occasional burn. Other stuff- <blockquote>Quote:<hr>I can google up a birds eye view of my garden, I think NASA can come up with a nice tight shot of the equipment we left on the surface of our closest neighbor<hr></blockquote> Perhaps your garden has a higher priority than anything on the moon. What exactly are you growing, Francis? We have much better telescopes than Hubble in orbit, with the best optic systems devised by human minds onboard. And they're pointed the wrong way. Few give a shit about the space. Fewer still the moon. Most would be far more interested in Francis' garden. Equating the Apollo "coverup" with 911- Well, if they'd buried all the hardware, refused me the data, the money and paper trail, offered a lot of conflicting data every time I asked a question, and denied me the historical context to understand how it all came to be....I'd have my doubts, to be sure. I'm only mildly surprised I have not yet heard a "single airplane theory" offered as part of a 911 investigation. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>difficult for them to even fake a photo of the stars from the moon<hr></blockquote> if only they had access to a planetarium....probably would have blown their budget. Expensive things, planetariums. I see StarmanSkye has posted lots of interesting points to which I can only add that the degree of resolution of DOD sats is way beyond license plates. And theres more to be seen beyond the optical wavelengths. There are plans being made for even larger scopes. (mirrors measured in kilometers) which could provide realtime video of a whole tri-state area at once. brrr... And the Lunar Recon Orbiter that StarmanSkye points out will likely spawn a cottage industry of "Moonhoax" media as "debunkers" exercise every filter known to Photoshop in their dogged efforts to discover the "truth" behind the photos delivered by the orbiter. I predict at least two books and maybe 3 or 4 videos within a couple of years after LRO arrives. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>If an astronaut fully suited could jump 1 foot in the air on earth<hr></blockquote> He'd make more money as an Olypiad. What is the weight of a moonsuit? I'll have to look that up. Jumping around on the moon would be quite dangerous, the weight and location of the backpack meant that when you jumped up, you'd tilt backward. Check out the shots of Gene Cernan flopping around after losing his balance working a drill. Betcha somebody in mission control had to change shorts after that. Moondirt is very slippery as one of its' constituents is tiny glass spherules. (which I don't think you can make in 1 gee..hmm) And I sure as hell wouldn't go jumping around in that suit that Orz posted. That has to be the most amusing concept for a moonsuit around. I'd never heard of Republic Aviation, you don't suppose there was any relation to Republic Films? The studio responsible for so many of those serials from the 40s' which were part of the inspiration for Star Wars and Indiana Jones films. Because that suit bears a resemblence to one of their robots- <img src="http://www.allthingsmike.com/CulturalBlender/robots/mechanicalmen.jpg" style="border:0;"/> What really puzzles me are the "lunar tools" they selected....what is that? An oil can and a grappling hook??? wtf? Maybe thats why the didn't get the contract. Neither did this design- <img src="http://home.usit.net/~aeromancy/post/suit.jpg" style="border:0;"/> But at least they considered the problem of falling over. both concepts suggest to me the scene of a moonscape littered with upended astronauts feebly flailing around like dying beetles. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Setting aside all evidence, pro and con of moon landings, the fact the debate even exists is really interesting and tells us a lot about our culture.<hr></blockquote> Well, that really the meat of the matter isn't it? As if reality wasn't tenuous enough...Certainly something to ponder. Cyril Kornbluth and Fred Pohl did a bit of extrapolation on that idea with an obscure short science fiction story called "The Marching Morons" many years ago. There were a couple of oblique references to it in the movie RoboCop with the phrase "I'd buy that for a dollar". The denziens of a future society who have no need for critical thinking or testing what they are told. Or as depicted in Spinal Tap "This knob goes to eleven" I want to post some more thoughts on this, but I must get back to work. I may have a different angle on the No Moon Hoax argument which requires no science or engineering, but it'll take a bit more rumination before I can post it. Regards- Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=pirx@rigorousintuition>Pirx</A> at: 1/21/06 10:44 pm

by **eric144** » Sat Jan 21, 2006 8:50 am

"if only they had access to a planetarium....probably would have blown their budget. Expensive things, planetariums." They are incredibly expensive, yes, but there is no way a planterium in the 1960's would have had the resolution of a photograph (think Milky Way) , nor would it have been able to show star postions on the moon. In fact it would have been fixed at a particular place on earth and not even been able to show the sky from other locations. The calculations would be enormously complex even for the earth never mind the moon. It would also not have been able to show the earth in the context of the star background. Even then, why didn't they take a single picture of the sky either on the Moon or on the way ? The cold side of the LM would not have been known at launch by the way. The sarcasm sounded like the people I used to teach computing to. Lame, grubby and indicitative of their IQ.

by **Pirx** » Sat Jan 21, 2006 8:50 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Finally, I used my common sense, I said to myself...if the US really went to the moon....they would have a national holiday and all the astronauts would be celebrities and there would be documentaries about it on the TV all the time..<hr></blockquote> Great idea! A holiday just like the one we mark for the Wright Brothers. Or Lindbergh, or Peary and Shackleton.........

by **orz** » Sat Jan 21, 2006 12:21 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>would have had the resolution of a photograph (think Milky Way)<hr></blockquote> And I'm sure they didn't have the length of a piece of string either.<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/eyes.gif ALT=":rolleyes"> Uh, resolution? Are you aware of how planetariums (planetaria?) work? Or more importantly how they worked in the 60's? Surely the very existence of planetariums, star maps, and the entire science of astronomy generally demonstrates that it's possible, to accurately calculate all sorts of stuff about the stars, their position, and their movements without modern computing power! Anyway, I don't see that the moon's far enough away from the earth to make much or any difference to the stars at all? Surely it would be at most a matter of taking an earth-based photo and maybe tilting it a bit or something!?... Those who claim it'd be too difficult to fake from the moon; please fill me in on exactly why! ie what would be different, and what would be required to calculate the difference and fake an image of it?

by **robertdreed** » Sat Jan 21, 2006 6:07 pm

"...I agree, the scientific skepticism and technical naivite' of a large segment of the public is an issue of equal if not greater interest and importance than the mostly trivial and sophomoric arguments supporting the hoax thesis. Even when information is so readily available via a few keystrikes on a search engine and reading a few webpages, people STILL remain mis-or-uninformed about a lot of things that really aren't that complex. Of course, we see that with how dumb much of the public is about current events and contemporary history, not to mention the even more obscure topics of parapolitics..." yep. As to the "lack of jumping astronauts"- it wasn't as if anyone thought they had the latitude to chance anything like that. If the result of taking such a risk led to a complication like a ripped space suit, it would have undone a lot of fond wishes. If the decision to remain eminently cautious meant that the moon landing looked like less of a party on-camera, that was a price that had to be paid.

by JD » Sun Jan 22, 2006 2:59 am

robertreed quote: " As to the "lack of jumping astronauts"- it wasn't as if anyone thought they had the latitude to chance anything like that. If the result of taking such a risk led to a complication like a ripped space suit, it would have undone a lot of fond wishes. If the decision to remain eminently cautious meant that the moon landing looked like less of a party on-camera, that was a price that had to be paid. " Maybe. Or maybe the production studio studio with one standard gravity didn't allow it? <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/roll.gif ALT=":rollin"> Let's face it - putting men on the moon is a risky venture. Despite whatever robertreed says, I think we would all agree that the act of putting a man on the moon is about a million times more risky than a man already on the moon doing some jumping? Like what kinda risks? Tearing his space suit? Come on. He wouldn't be landing on a bed of nails. He'd be landing in that nice moon dust. Doubtless the jumper would pick a spot that seem particularily dusty without rocks sticking out. Does anyone really that some 1/6 G show-off stuff wouldn't happen? Whether orchestrated by NASA or by a hot dog test pilot turned astronaut. It is interesting that in lieu of a jumping demonstration, or even throwing a football a mile, they had the lame golf demonstration. Undoubtably this was handy because they couldn't track the ball! Hardly a good demonstration for the folks at home, now was it? Maybe that's why it was picked? Pirx said: "Good thing the Apollo guys didn't try any smelting while on the moon, could have been ugly. But I've pulled potatoes hotter than anything on the moon out of my toaster oven using all manner of flimsy materials, with only the occasional burn. " Not having any data for confirmation, but my experience is that the thermal conductivity of potatoes is less than that of metal. So between that, quick hands, and proximaty of your toaster oven to the assigned plate I'm sure you are correct. However, try holding a metal tool at moon temperatures for five minutes. Or the rover's steering wheel. Rest assured your hands would get spicy hot without some serious thermal protection on your hands. I haven't seen the space suits gloves so can't say much else about the matter, merely that they'd need to be very thick and clumsy and have some type of heating/cooling piping built into each finger. Would be very hard to do anything with such gloves imo. Pirx again: "I'd never heard of Republic Aviation, you don't suppose there was any relation to Republic Films?" Republic Aviation was the manufacturer of legendary fighters such as the P-47 and F-105. Don't think there is any film production connection other than possibly that 1968/69 studio classic Apollo 11 <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/laugh.gif ALT=":lol">

by **Pirx** » Sun Jan 22, 2006 6:13 am

Lunar jumpers- This is well covered at the Clavius.org site- <a href="http://www.clavius.org/gravleap.html">www.clavius.org/gravleap.html</a> Footage of jumping and throwing things is available too, just look for them. (Apollo 15 and 17 probably have the best examples) <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Rest assured your hands would get spicy hot without some serious thermal protection on your hands.<hr></blockquote> Spacesuit gloves qualify as serious thermal protection. I you are really curious about suits check out SUITING UP FOR SPACE by Lloyd Mallan and John Day. A great history of suit development, and not nearly as dry as you might think. Check out the first sentence of the book- "The first person on earth to prove that the human body could survive in the hostile regions of outer space was a colorful young daredevil from Dorchester, Massachusetts, he later died unsung in an insane asylum." His name was Mark Ridge, and today we'd call him bi-polar instead of insane. He wanted to ride in an open basket balloon up to 17 miles above the earth, in the early 1930s'. His early experiments led him to climb into a tank of dry ice to see if his suit design could withstand temps of -100 F. It did. <img src="http://home.usit.net/~aeromancy/post/markridge.jpg" style="border:0;"/> And if that book isn't enough, check out what's currently considered the "bible" of spacesuit design-THE ORGINS AND TECHNOLOGY of the ADVANCED EXTRAVEHICULAR SPACE SUIT by Gary Harris. It's much more up to date, but a bit dry and technical. (and expensive) Or check out ILC Dovers' webpage- http://www.ilcdover.com/Curiously the company that made the lunar suits got their start manufacturing corsets. So not only were the astronauts wearing diapers, but glorified lingerie as well! <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Republic Films?<hr></blockquote> I was joking there of course. But was not aware they'd built the P47 of F105.

by **Pirx** » Sun Jan 22, 2006 7:07 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>but there is no way a planterium in the 1960's would have had the resolution of a photograph (think Milky Way) , nor would it have been able to show star postions on the moon. In fact it would have been fixed at a particular place on earth and not even been able to show the sky from other locations. The calculations would be enormously complex even for the earth never mind the moon.<hr></blockquote> Now perhaps you and I are attending different kinds of planetariums. The ones I'm familiar with trace their history back to at least 1229. <a href="http://commons.bcit.ca/planetarium/history.html">commons.bcit.ca/planetarium/history.html</a> And the more modern ones, at least since the 1930s' can replicate the night sky from any location on earth and at any time in history. Thats what they do. What makes you think the positions of the stars be different as seen on the moon? <blockquote>Quote:<hr>he cold side of the LM would not have been known at launch by the way.<hr></blockquote> You'll haved to clarify that for me, I don't quite understand what you are trying to say. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>The sarcasm sounded like the people I used to teach computing to. Lame, grubby and indicitative of their IQ<hr></blockquote> Good thing you're not teaching them astronomy. Okay, sorry, that was mean. I'll certainly cop to the sarcasm, I'm a congenital smartass. But I didn't intend the earlier post to be mean spirited. Struck me as funny as well as containing some potentially useful info regarding the oversight of the planetarium as it could apply to a hoaxed moonflight. Lame? everyone gets to be lame from time to time, perhaps today is my day. But thats just your opinion. Grubby? Nope. I'm all showered and fluffy, my nails are clean and my coat is shiney and vitamin-enriched. My IQ? You may just have me on that one as I don't recollect having it tested. I have found MENSA folks to be a bit irritating after an hour or two though. So perhaps you are right. Lighten up, Eric!

The "Faked NASA moon landings" thread

Re: Fake Moon Landings..... NOT!

Lack of Astronaut Jumping - why?

Re: Lack of Astronaut Jumping - why?

Re: Fake Moon Landings..... NOT!

Re: Lack of Astronaut Jumping - why?

Re: Cooling Again (and other posts)

stars

Re: I believe Lunar Landings were faked

Re: I believe Lunar Landings were faked

scientific illiteracy

Misc Replies

Re: Misc Replies

Re: stars

Who is online