Merged Discussion of the moon landing "hoax"

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think the important thing to remember is that trolling should be done properly.

A 20/0 hook is an important part of the process....
 
PhantomWolf said:
His issue is that the bag "fell too fast" though so far he hasn't shown any math for how fast it should have fallen, and his timing has consisted of using the pause feature on YouTube and suggesting doing a frame analysis with the YouTube version. He then seems to be totally oblivious to why no one is taking him seriously.
Click to expand...

On the moon at 1/6 gravity, an object should take this long to fall t=.61*sqrt(h) where h is the height in feet.

Thus:

h Tmoon Tearth
1 0.61 0.25
2 0.86 0.35
3 1.06 0.43
4 1.22 0.50
5 1.36 0.56
6 1.50 0.61


So get an original film and play it again.

Unfortunately, this summer I visited NASA and they made a movie of a re-enactment of the landing because the original had "low quality". In their films they seemed to mix new and old footage. So who knows? The cover-up is complete.

For a jump (up and down) just double.
 
Last edited:
However, on the moon, at one sixth gravity the man would have been able to jump five feet with an easy jump even if his moon suit weighed 150 pounds because mgh on the moon equals mgh on earth. Thus at twice the mass and a sixth of the gravity, a 20 inch earth jump would equal a 60 inch moon jump.

Bet you didn't see any five foot jumps!
 
Justinian2 said:
However, on the moon, at one sixth gravity the man would have been able to jump five feet with an easy jump even if his moon suit weighed 150 pounds because mgh on the moon equals mgh on earth. Thus at twice the mass and a sixth of the gravity, a 20 inch earth jump would equal a 60 inch moon jump.

Bet you didn't see any five foot jumps!
Click to expand...

Sooooo, you think that a straight up jump with a suit that is anything but flexible is easy.

I bet they couldn't even begin to jump with that suit on earth.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
Paulhoff said:
Sooooo, you think that a straight up jump with a suit that is anything but flexible is easy.

I bet they couldn't even begin to jump with that suit on earth.

Paul

:) :) :)
Click to expand...

A man could jump more than 12 feet on the moon were it not for the suit.

You have a point, of course. The suit will diminish the jump. But from 144 inches or more to 15 inches?

I think they orbited the moon and crashed the lander on the moon. I think the 'landing' was filmed at area 51.

I simply don't think they had the technology for a landing back then. Heck, even recently NASA crashed a Mars probe that was supposed to land with retro rockets. And that used computers that were in some ways a million times more powerful.
 
Last edited:
I don't see how anything can be inferred from the height of the jump, since there is no data on how much flexibility the suit allowed, how contracted or bent the jumpers muscles and legs were, and how much effort was put into the leap. And, someone wearing a covering that is keeping them alive, probably isn't going to push its limits.

Better data would be to quote the testimony of some reliable stage hands who helped film the hoax.

Got that?
 
Denver said:
I don't see how anything can be inferred from the height of the jump, since there is no data on how much flexibility the suit allowed, how contracted or bent the jumpers muscles and legs were, and how much effort was put into the leap. And, someone wearing a covering that is keeping them alive, probably isn't going to push its limits.

Better data would be to quote the testimony of some reliable stage hands who helped film the hoax.

Got that?
Click to expand...

NASA even showed the filming of moon landing. They even showed the wires to the astronauts! They said the re-enactment was necessary since the old footage was poor. NASA even discussed the moon hoax theories.

The Saturn rocket was real!
 
Justinian2 said:
NASA even showed the filming of moon landing. They even showed the wires to the astronauts! They said the re-enactment was necessary since the old footage was poor. NASA even discussed the moon hoax theories.

The Saturn rocket was real!
Click to expand...

Where was this? When? What astronauts? What missions?

You're big on conjecture, short on details.
Not that we're surprised.
 
Justinian2 said:
Heck, even recently NASA crashed a Mars probe that was supposed to land with retro rockets. And that used computers that were in some ways a million times more powerful.
Click to expand...
This was because of a programming error, it had nothing to do with technological advancement.
 
Last edited:
Justinian2 said:
A man could jump more than 12 feet on the moon were it not for the suit.

You have a point, of course. The suit will diminish the jump. But from 144 inches or more to 15 inches?
Click to expand...

"Could" doesn't compel "did". Thus, "didn't" doesn't prove "couldn't". There were very good reasons why the astronauts didn't bound around jumping as high as they possibly could, primarily concerning safety. If they fell, they could crack their faceplate or damage their PLSS backpack.

And there was a five foot jump, on the very first mission. When Neil Armstrong was ascending the LM ladder at the end of the EVA, he grabbed hold of the sides of the ladder and jumped about 5 feet up. He felt safe doing this as he was holding the ladder to steady himself. It shows that high jumps were indeed possible. They were just not advisable unless steadied in some way.

Justinian2 said:
I think they orbited the moon and crashed the lander on the moon. I think the 'landing' was filmed at area 51.
Click to expand...

So you think they had the technology to take people all the way there, just not to take the final step? I ask in order to establish that you aren't going to later pull out any arguments about the Van Allen belts or the Saturn V not being powerful enough or anything.

Justinian2 said:
I simply don't think they had the technology for a landing back then.
Click to expand...

"Simply don't think" and a few bucks will buy you a cup of coffee. What particular aspect of the technology can you show was lacking?

Justinian2 said:
Heck, even recently NASA crashed a Mars probe that was supposed to land with retro rockets. And that used computers that were in some ways a million times more powerful.
Click to expand...

By "recently", do you mean a decade ago? The last time NASA lost a lander was the Mars Polar Lander mission back in 2001 (which was successfully reflown with identical hardware as the Phoenix lander a couple of years ago). Okay, that's one failure, due to very specific software reasons. Name some more, and show that their failures point to a consistent inability to master the underlying concepts, rather than handwaving about a single incompletely remembered case with a human error cause. You can't point to one failure as an absolute indicator that shows the technology was lacking. That's like saying that because there was a plane crash last week that therefore Boeing wasn't flying 707s in the 1950s. There were several robotic Surveyor landers that made successful touchdowns on the moon in the couple of years prior to the Apollo missions. The technology was very obviously workable.
 
Last edited:
Justinian2 said:
NASA even showed the filming of moon landing. They even showed the wires to the astronauts! They said the re-enactment was necessary since the old footage was poor. NASA even discussed the moon hoax theories.
Click to expand...

Absolute bulldust. Quote your sources.
 
Also, regarding the Mars missions, this were during the times of building things as cheaply as possible. Risk assessments were much more flexible, since life was not at issue.

For the moon landings, cost was not a priority.
 
Justinian2 said:
NASA even showed the filming of moon landing. They even showed the wires to the astronauts! They said the re-enactment was necessary since the old footage was poor.
Click to expand...


Even the OP gave up on this thread. Why bring it back to life, especially with such utter nonsense and no proof?
 
Justinian2 said:
Justinian2 wrote:
Click to expand...

I think they orbited the moon and crashed the lander on the moon.

What evidence, exactly, do you have for this claim?

I think the 'landing' was filmed at area 51.

I grew up in the Southwestern deserts. Nevada doesn't look like the Moon.

But let's start with the basics: what evidence, exactly, do you have for such a claim?

I simply don't think they had the technology for a landing back then.

Your opinion is noted. Do you wish to cite any relevant credentials which lend authority to your opinion? Otherwise, I think I'll keep my own counsel on the suitability of the technology.

Heck, even recently NASA crashed a Mars probe that was supposed to land with retro rockets.

Not "recently". MPL was over a decade ago.

And the last three U.S. landers (MER/Spirit, MER/Opportunity, and Phoenix) all touched down and operated successfully.

And that used computers that were in some ways a million times more powerful.

I have written code for, tested, and operated spacecraft flight computers. In what way, exactly, was the Apollo computing scheme, which included the most powerful and adaptable computer of all, inadequate for its goal?
 
Justinian2 said:
However, on the moon, at one sixth gravity the man would have been able to jump five feet with an easy jump even if his moon suit weighed 150 pounds because mgh on the moon equals mgh on earth. Thus at twice the mass and a sixth of the gravity, a 20 inch earth jump would equal a 60 inch moon jump.

Bet you didn't see any five foot jumps!
Click to expand...

Can you do a 20 inch jump with 25 pounds on your back? Would you do it just for fun if you knew that you could die if you fell?
 
Justinian2 said:
I think they orbited the moon and crashed the lander on the moon.
Click to expand...


Six times? (There were six Apollo missions which landed on the Moon, remember: 11, 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17.)


Justinian2 said:
I think the 'landing' was filmed at area 51.
Click to expand...


Six times? With each successive mission featuring a longer and more complex stay on the lunar surface than the one before it? (There were six Apollo missions which landed on the Moon, remember: 11, 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17. While Apollo 11 only had 2.5 hours' worth of moonwalks, Apollo 17 had 22 hours—nearly nine times as long.)


I strongly suggest you get yourself to a library, inside of which you will find shelves and shelves of books devoted to the topic of the Apollo missions, covering everything from the hardware to the experiences of the astronauts and much more. Even now you can buy new books on Apollo. For one site which has an extensive collection of books on space exploration, visit Apogee Books.

Here, I'll even help get you started with a just a partial list of the books that are available, presented in no particular order:

Carrying the Fire: An Astronaut's Journeys (Michael Collins)
The Last Man on the Moon: Astronaut Eugene Cernan and America's Race in Space (Eugene Cernan, Donald A. Davis)
A Man on the Moon: The Voyages of the Apollo Astronauts (Andrew Chaikin)
Chariots For Apollo - A History of Manned Lunar spacecraft (Courtney G, Grimwood, James M., and Swenson, Loyd S. Brooks)
Moon Lander: How We Developed the Apollo Lunar Module (Thomas J. Kelly)
Journey to the Moon: The History of the Apollo Guidance Computer (Eldon C. Hall)
Team Moon: How 400,000 People Landed Apollo 11 on the Moon (Catherine Thimmesh)
Magnificent Desolation: The Long Journey Home from the Moon (Buzz Aldrin, Ken Abraham)
Exploring the Moon: The Apollo Expeditions (David M. Harland)
Apollo EECOM: Journey of a Lifetime (Sy Liebergot)
Apollo Moon Missions: The Unsung Heroes (Billy Watkins)
Taking Science to the Moon: Lunar Experiments and the Apollo Program (Donald A. Beattie)
Moon Launch! A History of the Saturn-Apollo Launch Operations (Charles D. Benson)
Moon Trip: A Personal Account of the Apollo Program and Its Science (Elbert A. King)
Earthbound Astronauts: The Builders of Apollo-Saturn (Beirne Lay, Jr.)
Apollo: The Race to the Moon (Charles Murray, Catherine Bly Cox)
Geology of the Apollo 16 Area, Central Lunar Highlands (George E. Ulrich, Carroll Ann Hodges, William R. Muehlberger)
Apollo 11 - The NASA Mission Reports (Robert Godwin)
Apollo 12 - The NASA Mission Reports (Robert Godwin)
Apollo 14 - The NASA Mission Reports (Robert Godwin)
Apollo 15 - The NASA Mission Reports (Robert Godwin)
Apollo 16 - The NASA Mission Reports (Robert Godwin)
Apollo 17 - The NASA Mission Reports (Robert Godwin)

I could easily add dozens of other titles, but that ought to be enough to get you started.

Now, are you seriously trying to suggest that all these many books, written by all these many different authors, published in many different years, are all part of and in the service of some giant nefarious conspiracy to hide the fact that no lunar landings actually took place?

Or is it more reasonable to suggest that you simply had no idea of the sheer amount of published documentary material that is available on the Apollo program which demonstrates unequivocally that the landings indeed took place.

The Apollo 17 - The NASA Mission Reports book, for instance, comes with a CD containing over eleven hours of video footage taken on the surface, along with thousands of the still photos taken. Do you really wish to claim that over eleven hours of video footage and thousands of still photos taken on just this one mission were all faked? Really?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom