Flags on the Moon

[silverslith]

Sources, please? The Lunar-A mission, originally scheduled for 2004, was cancelled.

 

Darn!

 

I have seen about three documentaries on TV which seemed to have some good evidence. Unless they made it all up.

Still, problems with the photo's don't mean the didn't go. They might have had their film destroyed by the radiation outside the earths mag field and had to do all the pics in a studio. I heard the Russians cancelled their Lunar effort because the radiation was too much.

How come the spacesuits are being looked after by a couple of old women in a drycleaners shop? that wasn't in one of the conspiricy doco's. They are very fragile apparently, supposedly because of they are a few decades old.

Must ask Will Pickering about it again next time I see him (us Kiwis all know each other) last time I asked he just giggled and said "if I told you I'd have to kill you"

 

I've a mate who's one of the worlds leading optics experts. Involved in a number of over 2m scopes around the world. He emailed me the other day. Might see if he'll drop in. He's told me about some active mirror stuff they're starting to use where they measure the atmospheric distortions in real time and deform the mirror to compensate. When I met him he was about 20 and had some binoculars with 22" mirrors he'd ground himself.:eek2:

[InternationalSpaceAgency]

There is a reflective mirror on the moon that has been used to reflect laser beams to calculate the speed of light. No how did that get there? :shrug:

[silverslith]

There is a reflective mirror on the moon that has been used to reflect laser beams to calculate the speed of light. No how did that get there? :doh:

by unmanned probe?:shrug:

[InternationalSpaceAgency]

by unmanned probe?:shrug:

 

Take a horse to water, but cannot make it drink!

:doh:

[Tormod]

I have seen about three documentaries on TV which seemed to have some good evidence. Unless they made it all up.

 

The dilemma with responding to your posts is basically that you got your mind all set up for the hoax theories, and have problems seeing anything but lies.

 

I recommend reading some of the books about the Apollo astronauts, for example Moondust http://www.amazon.co.uk/Moondust-Search-Men-Fell-Earth/dp/0747563683/hypographycom in which Andrew Smith travels across the US to visit the 9 moonwalkers who are still alive (or were at the time of writing). It's a thrilling tale.

 

If you only want to have your hoax theories confirmed, you are in the wrong place. Debunking the Apollo missions is not a science, it is a fruitless waste of time.

[silverslith]

The dilemma with responding to your posts is basically that you got your mind all set up for the hoax theories, and have problems seeing anything but lies.

 

I recommend reading some of the books about the Apollo astronauts, for example Moondust in which Andrew Smith travels across the US to visit the 9 moonwalkers who are still alive (or were at the time of writing). It's a thrilling tale.

 

If you only want to have your hoax theories confirmed, you are in the wrong place. Debunking the Apollo missions is not a science, it is a fruitless waste of time.

 

mate I believe nothing.

I've yet to see evidence that proves either way. I have seen what appears to be evidence that contraindicates any manned moon landings and I have no motivation either :shrug: way.

[Tormod]

mate I believe nothing.

I've yet to see evidence that proves either way. I have seen what appears to be evidence that contraindicates any manned moon landings and I have no motivation either :shrug: way.

 

= hoax thinking.

 

If you have no interest in propagating hoax theories, then you should rise above it and try to learn about the lunar missions instead.

[Boerseun]

What do you mean "hoax thinking"?!?!

 

When Armstrong gets out the lander unit, you can *clearly* see the makeup lady in the background (to the left), plus some more of the production people. They must be from Catering, because the one holds a packet of peanuts.

 

And when they do the moonwalk 'bouncing', you can clearly see the speaker boom entering the screen every now and then to catch their 'microphone chatter'.

 

Hoax, definitely. Oscar material, hardly.

[Buffy]

mate I believe nothing.

I've yet to see evidence that proves either way. I have seen what appears to be evidence that contraindicates any manned moon landings and I have no motivation either way.

Morris, we're learning that you just like to be contrary, and that you have no personal beliefs of note (ya told me you "just like stick-poking" and "all New Zealanders do it"). Given that, I believe what you're saying is that you do believe that there was a laser ranging mirror left by Apollo 11.

 

Its so easy to discuss with you slith because we can choose whatever interpretation we need to! Stick-poking is *so* useful!

 

Easy to agree with,

Buffy

[silverslith]

Morris, we're learning that you just like to be contrary, and that you have no personal beliefs of note (ya told me you "just like stick-poking" and "all New Zealanders do it"). Given that, I believe what you're saying is that you do believe that there was a laser ranging mirror left by Apollo 11.

 

Its so easy to discuss with you slith because we can choose whatever interpretation we need to! Stick-poking is *so* useful!

 

Easy to agree with,

Buffy

 

Buffy you let your ego get in the way of learning and communication. I have hope for you, and when you deal with the overconfidence of youth (an evolutionary response to the need for youth to find their independence) you will be a wise and worthy adversary.

[silverslith]

= hoax thinking.

 

If you have no interest in propagating hoax theories, then you should rise above it and try to learn about the lunar missions instead.

 

When I see the footage at normal speed rather that slowed down I see normal earth gravity very clearly, not 1/6g.

[Boerseun]

When I see the footage at normal speed rather that slowed down I see normal earth gravity very clearly, not 1/6g.

'Course you do! And what's even *more* obvious, is the fact that when you play it at *normal* speed, or just play the published material at x6 speed, and you see the *actual* gravity, they jump about 6 times as far as they would have on Earth. But that is explained by the tiny special effects cables tied to their belts. You can even see the one stumble to the point of almost falling over when the one cable snapped.

[Buffy]

I have hope for you, and when you deal with the overconfidence of youth ...

Flattery will get you everywhere!

 

So cute! The bartender carded me!

Buffy

[Tormod]

When Armstrong gets out the lander unit, you can *clearly* see the makeup lady in the background (to the left), plus some more of the production people. They must be from Catering, because the one holds a packet of peanuts.

 

Got me there, old mate. I forgot that I have the documentary Capricorn One, which shows how this stuff is *really* done.

[CraigD]

When I see the footage at normal speed rather that slowed down I see normal earth gravity very clearly, not 1/6g.

I assume you’re referring to video of one of the famous “kangaroo hop” sequences, such as this short (1.8 MB) avi from the Apollo 17 mission.

 

A problem I have with the “slowed film” explanations for moon walk video is that, if the film was slowed down by a factor of 1/6, the men in the suits would have had to move 6 times as fast as they appear to. By my estimation, the figure in the above clip is hopping along at a respectable (for someone in a bulky spacesuit) 4 m/s. 6 times that is 24 m/s, more than twice as fast as the fastest athlete has achieved sprinting on a smooth track wearing running cloths.

 

Another problem I have with moon landing hoax conspiracy explanations is that nearly all of them propose that the alleged fake video was taken as an ordinary movie studio – most often either the MGM-British studio in Borehamwood, UK, where parts of “2001: A Space Odyssey” was filmed, or “a studio in the Nevada (USA) desert”. Yet close examination of video such as the above shows an interesting peculiarity – dust kicked up by the moving person falls back to the surface at almost exactly the same rate as the person. In the presence of Earth surface-normal pressure air, even dense, course dust falls noticeably slower than a human being, and fine dust may stay airborn for minutes. The only technique I can imagine for achieving this effect in a movie studio is to evacuate nearly all of its air so that the actors are in a near vacuum. A large, airtight studio set capable of withstanding an inward pressure of 1 atmosphere, while not technically impossible, would not be within the capabilities of an ordinary studio.

 

Another claim made by moon landing hoax conspiracy advocates is that the space suits shown in the Apollo videos could not have worked in the near vacuum of the Moon’s surface.

If you have no interest in propagating hoax theories, then you should rise above it and try to learn about the lunar missions instead.

While I don’t want to lend credence to Apollo hoax theories, and worry that by attempting to debunk them, I might do so, hoax theories do, I think, have some educational value. Dividing the students into 2 teams, one planning a spaceflight mission hoax, the other debunking the imagined resulting audio/video and other data, would, IMHO, provide a good learning experience for a 7-12 grade science class.

[Janus]

When I see the footage at normal speed rather that slowed down I see normal earth gravity very clearly, not 1/6g.

 

And just how should 1/6g look like compared to slowed down film?

 

The argument I've heard is that if you run the film at just about twice its normal speed, it looks like normal Earth gravity, and you should have to run it at 6 times normal speed in order for this to happen.

 

The problem with this argument, and something a couple of other posters to this thread missed, is that an astronaut jumping to a given height on the moon does not take 6 times longer to complete the jump than he would on the Earth

 

Here's why:

 

The time it would take for an astronaut to reach the apex of his jump of height 'h' can be found by

 

[math]t = \sqrt{2h/a}[/math]

 

to complete the jump you use

 

[math]t = 2\sqrt{2h/a}[/math]

 

So let's say that our astronaut jumps to a height of 0.25m

 

On Earth, where a= 9.8m/s², this works out to .45 sec to complete the jump.

On the moon, where a = 1.63m/s² it works out to 1.1 secs to complete the jump, or just 2.45 times as long to complete the jump.

 

This makes sense, because if we look at the formula above we can see that the t varies by the inverse of the squareroot of the acceleration, and the squareroot of 6 is 2.449...

 

Thus running film shot on the moon at just over double speed will look a lot like Earth normal gravity.

 

But CraigD's point still holds, the Astronauts would still have to be traveling at almost 10m/s in order for the film to look like it does "slowed down". That's around 22 miles per hour. That's a little fast given the suits they are wearing and gait they are using.

[Pyrotex]

And just how should 1/6g look like compared to slowed down film?...the Astronauts would still have to be traveling at almost 10m/s in order for the film to look like it does "slowed down". That's around 22 miles per hour. That's a little fast given the suits they are wearing and gait they are using.

Excellent Janus.

 

However, I have found that the kind of persons who are attracted to "conspiracy theories of non-occurrence" are generally not affected by math, logic or factual evidence. They are typically "powerless" folks who take some measure of pleasure in the small amount of "power" they CAN exercise by denying something that is important to others. Facts, evidence, logic, history--all are immaterial.

 

They find solace in bugging or annoying others.