Moon landing - Page 2 - Politics and War Forum

Forum Post / Reply
You must log in before you can post or reply to messages.
Re: Moon landing
Friday, July 24, 2009 12:30 PM on j-body.org
by the way...
for the stars in the background, here's a pic of the international space station.... let me know if you see any stars in the background anywhere....


and one of the surface of the moon.


and hubble telescope:


and canada-arm with the earth's atmosphere in the background


and for good measure:
some more pics of Appollo 11:


http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/IMAGES/SMALL/GPN-2000-001211.jpg

Re: Moon landing
Friday, July 24, 2009 12:37 PM on j-body.org
Thank you for posting my point on the flaring flag. That's exactly what I was talking about.


THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.

Re: Moon landing
Friday, July 24, 2009 3:26 PM on j-body.org
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:

Now the landing is the hard to believe part, ESPECIALLY the tin cans that we used .......etc .

this is one of my major contentions with the whole moon landing scenario. has anyone seen the space capsules they had back then? for our 6th grade field trip we went to the smithsonian and i remember thinking "wow, those things are TINY!" i just find it hard to believe that the small equipment they were using was really that powerful.

it takes thousands of gallons of rocket fuel to blast off from earth. the fuel they used wasnt as potent as today, so even if they only needed 1/6th power to blast off, it would still need massive stores of fuel to do so. and they did everything with only rudimentary computers. today we have everything planned down to the Nth degree and measure in nanoseconds.....that just wasnt possible 40 years ago.



add to all of that my general mistrust of the government and the blatant propaganda that we were being fed for the length of the cold war, and i can very well see how and/or why they would try to do something like this.
a) it defeats the russians, who beat us into space to begin with.

b) its great PR to be able to associate this with jfk wanting to go to the moon by the end of the decade.

c) its completely diversionary, and we know how the govt loves to pull tricks like that.

furthermore, i dont think secrecy on this level would be any harder to achieve than that of most other govt projects. people were selected carefully and they probably felt that lying to the public served a greater good. sure, russia has plenty of spies over here....but of all of our secret bases/plans/etc, what did they really steal of any magnitude?


now im not saying that the landing didnt happen......but i dont think that faking it is as far fetched of an idea as what some people might say. it, like any alternative theory, is usually ruined by conspiracy freaks who are so far out in left field with their tone and actions that it prevents healthy debate from even forming.







Re: Moon landing
Saturday, July 25, 2009 1:15 AM on j-body.org
I couldnt find out how fast the module flew through space..... but I did the math and if you could sustain Mach 1 (speed of sound) from the earth to the moon.... the trip would take 13.07 days... when supposedly it only took 3

as for the footage.... here's some vids...

this is the first one I found.... it was just to funny not to post it here LOL



the rest are serious ones..

They are meant to be played in sequence.











Vid of the actual landing



There are a lot of things though that if you really get into it and do research yourself... it tends to make you question it more and more the deeper you get into it....

this is a big one trying to show that they where being held by wires.... the vid shows him being lifted up by something when he gets up.... theres to many to post them all..



IF your really curiouse do the research and decide for yourself...

And by the way.... I dont remember who mention the Concord..... but that plane was considered a massive faliure..... (engines would lite on fire among other things) and fighter jets dont get torn apart after flying 4 times as fast as the concord did... they can handle it...... it's just the the military is excessively anal about maintenance...






Re: Moon landing
Saturday, July 25, 2009 4:28 AM on j-body.org
Weebel, Mach 1 is a joke compaired to what the shuttle does today. The shuttle reaches speeds of 18,000+ miles per hour yes 18,000. Thats a whole hell of a lot faster then 768 mph, so if even back then if it was half as fast as the shuttle it would be able to hit around 9,000 miles an hour. 3 days is well within a reasonable timeframe.

I seriously wonder if anyone even does any research at all before they choose to believe we didnt land there. Theres pictures from the lunar orbiter of the apollo landing sites this has got to be the WORST conspiracy to ever be considered. Most all of the points brought up by the conspiracy theorists have been debunked with proof multiple times just do a bit of research.

You would more or less need to be retarded to believe we didnt go to the moon, Which brings me to the part where I giggle a bit because its not suprising at all that most of the org would buy into such a ridiculous notion.

To the guy who said what has space exploration ever done for us? LOL why dont you research the many things that change your daily life thanks to NASA.


208whp 239wtq
13.7 @ 102mph 2.19 60'
Re: Moon landing
Saturday, July 25, 2009 5:30 AM on j-body.org
NotsoOceansideEco wrote:

Weebel, Mach 1 is a joke compaired to what the shuttle does today. The shuttle reaches speeds of 18,000+ miles per hour yes 18,000. Thats a whole hell of a lot faster then 768 mph, so if even back then if it was half as fast as the shuttle it would be able to hit around 9,000 miles an hour. 3 days is well within a reasonable timeframe.

I seriously wonder if anyone even does any research at all before they choose to believe we didnt land there. Theres pictures from the lunar orbiter of the apollo landing sites this has got to be the WORST conspiracy to ever be considered. Most all of the points brought up by the conspiracy theorists have been debunked with proof multiple times just do a bit of research.

You would more or less need to be retarded to believe we didnt go to the moon, Which brings me to the part where I giggle a bit because its not suprising at all that most of the org would buy into such a ridiculous notion.

To the guy who said what has space exploration ever done for us? LOL why dont you research the many things that change your daily life thanks to NASA.

good post...

I gave you images of the ACTUAL landing sites on the freakin' Moon. There are reflectors on the Moon exactly where astronauts placed them! The blurriness, flag thing, and star thing have all been explained. And no one has yet explained why anyone has come clean on this "conspiracy" after 40 years. We just need one person to come out and leak incriminating evidence yet no one has. Plus Russia never called us out as a fraud, and you know for sure they'd be looking to do this.

To the conspiracy theorists: What would make you believe 100% that we went to the Moon?



Re: Moon landing
Saturday, July 25, 2009 7:42 AM on j-body.org
SPITfire wrote:

NotsoOceansideEco wrote:

Weebel, Mach 1 is a joke compaired to what the shuttle does today. The shuttle reaches speeds of 18,000+ miles per hour yes 18,000. Thats a whole hell of a lot faster then 768 mph, so if even back then if it was half as fast as the shuttle it would be able to hit around 9,000 miles an hour. 3 days is well within a reasonable timeframe.

I seriously wonder if anyone even does any research at all before they choose to believe we didnt land there. Theres pictures from the lunar orbiter of the apollo landing sites this has got to be the WORST conspiracy to ever be considered. Most all of the points brought up by the conspiracy theorists have been debunked with proof multiple times just do a bit of research.

You would more or less need to be retarded to believe we didnt go to the moon, Which brings me to the part where I giggle a bit because its not suprising at all that most of the org would buy into such a ridiculous notion.

To the guy who said what has space exploration ever done for us? LOL why dont you research the many things that change your daily life thanks to NASA.

good post...

I gave you images of the ACTUAL landing sites on the freakin' Moon. There are reflectors on the Moon exactly where astronauts placed them! The blurriness, flag thing, and star thing have all been explained. And no one has yet explained why anyone has come clean on this "conspiracy" after 40 years. We just need one person to come out and leak incriminating evidence yet no one has. Plus Russia never called us out as a fraud, and you know for sure they'd be looking to do this.

To the conspiracy theorists: What would make you believe 100% that we went to the Moon?




^^^^^^^^^^ Nothing, A majority of these people are the same idiots that believe the earth was created in 7 days by a holy omnipotent sky daddy, and that the earth is only 6000 years old. The devil put all the dead animals in ground to tempt us and obviously the entire fossil record is also a conspiracy.


___________________________________________________________________

Hahn Stage II - Mitsu TD06-20g |3" Turbo-back Exhaust | 61mm Bored TB |
HP Tuners | Innovate WB02 | Spec Stage 3 | Team Green LSD | TurboTech Upper | Full Addco Sways | Sportlines & Yellows |
Re: Moon landing
Saturday, July 25, 2009 11:10 AM on j-body.org
Weebel wrote:

I couldnt find out how fast the module flew through space..... but I did the math and if you could sustain Mach 1 (speed of sound) from the earth to the moon.... the trip would take 13.07 days... when supposedly it only took 3...

This thread is bringing out all the whacko theories as to why it's a conspiracy, but I'll address this one. The rest have been well debunked already here.

At the furthest distance from the earth, which is approximately 252,000 miles, to make the trip in 72 hours would take a speed of a little over 3500 MPH. In space, this is nothing. Most of our satelites are orbiting at 5 times that. Once you're out of the atmophere, the drag is virtually non-existant, and gravity barely has any negative effect as well. While I'm not up-to-date on all of the propulsion technology of today, I'm willing to bet if we did it again, we would get there in a single day.







Re: Moon landing
Saturday, July 25, 2009 2:55 PM on j-body.org
NotsoOceansideEco wrote:

Weebel, Mach 1 is a joke compaired to what the shuttle does today. The shuttle reaches speeds of 18,000+ miles per hour yes 18,000. Thats a whole hell of a lot faster then 768 mph, so if even back then if it was half as fast as the shuttle it would be able to hit around 9,000 miles an hour. 3 days is well within a reasonable timeframe.

I seriously wonder if anyone even does any research at all before they choose to believe we didnt land there. Theres pictures from the lunar orbiter of the apollo landing sites this has got to be the WORST conspiracy to ever be considered. Most all of the points brought up by the conspiracy theorists have been debunked with proof multiple times just do a bit of research.

You would more or less need to be retarded to believe we didnt go to the moon, Which brings me to the part where I giggle a bit because its not suprising at all that most of the org would buy into such a ridiculous notion.

To the guy who said what has space exploration ever done for us? LOL why dont you research the many things that change your daily life thanks to NASA.


For christs sakes.... I wasnt using the math to proove anything wrong..... all I said was at X speed it would take Y amount of time.... I dont know why I didnt do the math the other way around like Quiklilcav did.... my point was that I had no idea how fast the modual flew through space...

Although those massive speeds your talking about... I think your off a little.... the earth rotates a 1037MPH (going by a point on the surface at the equator).... Everything I've loooked up says the orbit speed of the shuttle is 17,500MPH...... this is something I dont get.... if your really in Asynchronous orbit you couldnt be going that fast.... you'de technically be sitting still and appear to be moving from earth...... and if you where in geosynchronous orbit.... you would be traveling at the same speed the earth rotates.... The only thing I can think of is that they are far enough out that the speed is increased in order to stay in the same spot over the earth... (think of how a record passes by faster on the outer edge).















Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Saturday, July 25, 2009 3:18 PM


Re: Moon landing
Sunday, July 26, 2009 8:27 AM on j-body.org
Weebel wrote:

Although those massive speeds your talking about... I think your off a little.... the earth rotates a 1037MPH (going by a point on the surface at the equator).... Everything I've loooked up says the orbit speed of the shuttle is 17,500MPH...... this is something I dont get.... if your really in Asynchronous orbit you couldnt be going that fast.... you'de technically be sitting still and appear to be moving from earth...... and if you where in geosynchronous orbit.... you would be traveling at the same speed the earth rotates.... The only thing I can think of is that they are far enough out that the speed is increased in order to stay in the same spot over the earth... (think of how a record passes by faster on the outer edge).

It only takes the shuttle about an hour and a half to orbit the earth. It's really moving that fast, as are many of our satelites. As I mentioned already, you have to remember that there is no drag in space. It's not hard to get things going that fast.






Re: Moon landing
Sunday, July 26, 2009 1:19 PM on j-body.org

Re: Moon landing
Sunday, July 26, 2009 10:48 PM on j-body.org
But arnt most satellites in geosynchronous orbit where they stay in the same spot in the sky (not circling the earth) .... so what would be the point to go any faster than that?

as for the moon landing.... im not saying we didnt.... but could you emagine the reactions from people if it tuned out that we didnt?

And why the hell are we sending all these probes to mars when theres a better chance for their to be life on Venus? no one ever even thinks about that planet...





Re: Moon landing
Monday, July 27, 2009 3:39 AM on j-body.org
Weebel wrote:

But arnt most satellites in geosynchronous orbit where they stay in the same spot in the sky (not circling the earth) .... so what would be the point to go any faster than that?
Geosynchronous orbit doesn't mean they stay in the same exact position relative to the Earth's surface, it means that they have an orbital period that synchronizes with the rotation of the Earth in a way that it will have the same positions at various times overhead every day as it did the previous day. If you could see it (actually on a clear night you can see a ton of them), you could time it, and it would pass over at the same exact times each day.

What you're thinking of is geostationary orbit. GPS and broadcast satelites are the ones that use this type of orbit. Perhaps surprizingly enough, GPS satelites do not have a geostationary orbit. They actually have a 12 hour orbital period.

If you want to really see how busy space is around our planet, check this out: NASA J-Track 3D. You can click on a satelite and get it's orbital info, speed, and orbit path.







Re: Moon landing
Tuesday, July 28, 2009 10:51 AM on j-body.org
oh oK.... so Satellite TV satellites would have an orbit like your talking about..

I am curious how GPS satellites can work withough being in a "fixed" location.... kinda weird





Re: Moon landing
Tuesday, July 28, 2009 1:48 PM on j-body.org
I'm not entirely sure, but they have all different types of orbits, that cross each other constantly. I know the theory behind the positioning, but I'm not sure how they're able to do it so accurately while their position is constantly changing so rapidly. The calculations must be insanely complex.

The funny thing is that the geostationary orbits are all at the equator, and they are further out than the majority of the geosynchronous satellites. The ones circling the globe 14-15 times per day are all relatively close to each other. There are also some major elliptical orbits, where the satellite accelerates drastically when it is closest with the other satellites. It's a wonder they aren't always colliding.

Seriously, check out the J-track and play around with it. You can zoom in and out, you can see the orbit paths, the flyover ground footprint, and you can keep one satellite centered, having the Earth pass below it. You can speed it up, and see how insanely congested the space is. If you set it to real time, it synchronizes back up with the actual current positions. It's a pretty cool application. There are a couple of other sites out there that have real time tracking, one of which uses the google maps engine, and you can even track the Shuttle position.







Re: Moon landing
Tuesday, July 28, 2009 6:22 PM on j-body.org
Ok I am going to be a royal dick here and flaunt some of my stuff.

I have been in Neil Armstrong's and "Buzz" Aldrin's presence at the Aviation Hall of fame, multiple years in a row. Both of those men along with many other astronauts have been inducted into the Hall of fame and they have talked about it. Neil Armstrong is and always has been known to keep to himself. For Gods sake he lives about 20 minutes away and rarely is he in the news much less have a tour bus or podium set up. Now they have been on the television to say support the space program so to whomever state why don't the astronauts try and encourage the country they do.

We along with other parts of the world have technology advanced enough either on earth or in space in telescopic equipment that people can look at the moon and if there was nothing there they would have noticed.

As for thinking the rockets that got them to the moon arent powerful enough. The original rockets used are saturn 5 rockets originally created to nuclear weapons. These were then scrapped all except 5 or so that nasa kept for space. In the first stage burn there were 5 engines that produced 7.5 million pounds of thrust and took them to around 26,000 miles and hour. My point is that the rocket as a whole and in the first two stages were built to withstand the heat and negative pull by the earth when leaving the atmosphere. The small landing ship that made contact with the moon had to deal only with its own thrust and 1/6th earth's gravity when landing on the moon. Space is a vacuum, physically stating that there were no other forces to damage the landing module. If you think the thrust from its engine would hurt it I would say you are wrong. For one NASA engineers designed the thing. These are the same guys that designed aircraft of the day and later. So no offense but are any of you an engineer for NASA or for aviation. Secondly if can look at a plan and how it is built. There is a framing system with an aluminum of ceramic skin. If you really examine a plane it is very structurally weak except in the places that are necessary so that it can be light weight. I know this because I grew up around planes, my father and grandfather were pilots.

I would keep going on debunking these myths. But my question is why would it bother you? And still why is only the moon landing in question not the fact that we had 13 people living in space with a broken toilet?

Sorry I guess I take my aviation stuff a little seriously.


LOLs (for Dayton people)


I accidentally the SHIFT LIGHT!!!!!!!!!!



The proper way of using the word seen. It is not I seen it that would be I saw it. He has seen the car is the right way to use the word. English class is Cool. By the way thats my sig
Re: Moon landing
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 11:00 PM on j-body.org
^^^^ Actually I know quite a bit about planes..... I've been an aeronautics nerd ever since I was a little kid....

And rocket science isnt really that hard... I used to build them from scratch (not kits) as a kid... the only real hard part was fiquring out the thrust needed to lift off straight and stay straight once in the air (after you got the balancing down)... wich is kinda funny since its obvious that's what NASA struggled with in the early days also going by some of there "test videos"....

Crap... if some people realized how much the wings flex on an airliner.... they would freak out LOL





Re: Moon landing
Thursday, July 30, 2009 7:23 AM on j-body.org
Weebel wrote:
Quote:

Crap... if some people realized how much the wings flex on an airliner.... they would freak out LOL

I'm sure you know this, but if you ever see someone freaking out about the wing deflection, show them this:
Wing Deflection Test
"They predicted a deflection of 24 feet before breaking"
Re: Moon landing
Thursday, July 30, 2009 10:06 PM on j-body.org
^^^^ thats actually pretty amazing...





Re: Moon landing
Friday, July 31, 2009 2:32 PM on j-body.org



It is 2009 and we are "piggy-backing" the shuttle back to Cape Canaveral. And yes, this is the pinacle of technology? Yhea...we went to the moon, landed and came back forty years ago, lol.
Retirement for this thing could not come soon enough, btw.


THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.

Re: Moon landing
Friday, July 31, 2009 2:56 PM on j-body.org
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:

It is 2009 and we are "piggy-backing" the shuttle back to Cape Canaveral. And yes, this is the pinacle of technology?

So let's hear your smarter, better plan to get the shuttle back to Kennedy. You're so great at nay-saying, so you must know the correct way to do things.
Mr.Know-it-all-G.T. wrote:

Yhea...we went to the moon, landed and came back forty years ago, lol.

LMAO. So now who's wearing the proverbial tin-foil hat?

You do realize the scope of the conspiracy you're alluding to, don't you?








Re: Moon landing
Saturday, August 01, 2009 8:35 AM on j-body.org
ummm its designed to fly up into space. its not made to commute from town to town. like a little puddle jumper.


wow nascars after they race are put in trucks and driven to other races. guess nascar doesnt really happen either, must be holograms thrown on the track, they were designed to race. not to drive on the roads. the shuttle was designed for space flight, not for flying around on joy rides.

hell david towed his car to the bash, his car must not be real either. hmmm we could go on for days and days on this one. sprint cars, gokarts, drag cars, race boats, other planes, yachts, your theories are getting funnier and funnier though. i can't actually believe you posted this as your proof we didnt go to the moon.





http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography
Re: Moon landing
Saturday, August 01, 2009 11:30 AM on j-body.org
Looks like when you was running on your emotions, it completely slipped your mind that the greatest minds in world is still using crude technology in 2009.
Plain and simple, either we were leaps and bounds in technology in 1969, or NASA is stagnant with mid 20th century transportation advancements. Either or, you decide.


THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.

Re: Moon landing
Saturday, August 01, 2009 12:49 PM on j-body.org
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:



It is 2009 and we are "piggy-backing" the shuttle back to Cape Canaveral. And yes, this is the pinacle of technology? Yhea...we went to the moon, landed and came back forty years ago, lol.
Retirement for this thing could not come soon enough, btw.


The shuttle has at least 3 different places it can land. NASA chooses the best based on weather, and probably many other factors. If it can't land in Kennedy for whatever reason, it'll land somewhere else. How else are they going to get it back to Kennedy? It's far cheaper and less strenuous on the the shuttle to put it on the back of a 747 than fuel it back up with liquid rocket fuel and fly it back to Kennedy.

I'm sure when we can teleport objects larger than an atom, they'll consider that.



Re: Moon landing
Sunday, August 02, 2009 7:51 AM on j-body.org
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:

Looks like when you was running on your emotions, it completely slipped your mind that the greatest minds in world is still using crude technology in 2009.
Plain and simple, either we were leaps and bounds in technology in 1969, or NASA is stagnant with mid 20th century transportation advancements. Either or, you decide.



no emotions, just common sence. or maybe just laughing at your post a little to hard. seriously dude. things don't have to be super advanced if they work. just because its 30 years later doesnt mean what worked before can't work now. its likely the cheapest way to get it from point a to point b since in the last 30 years nasa's budget has gotten smaller and smaller they have to make every dime count. and theres no sence spending tons of money on something that works and is efficient.


http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography
Forum Post / Reply
You must log in before you can post or reply to messages.

 

Start New Topic Advanced Search