SenorToenails wrote:
1. Sound is a longitudinal wave, which requires a medium to propagate in. In vacuum, there is no atmosphere, thus no medium for them to propagate in, so soundwaves cannot exist. Therefore, no sound.Freke1 wrote:
There are still some questions that haven't been answered:
1. Why is there no rocket noise when the astronauts speak? The rocket produce 150dB roar.
2. How could they survive the radiation? (they needed a thick lead shield, I believe).
Has anyone any answers to these questions?
2. Radiation: A good portion of the suns radiation could be shielded passably by the space suit. They will get a larger dose of radiation than people on Earth (obviously). Much of the radiation would also be shielded by the space craft hull when they were in that.
OH SNAPDoctaStrangelove wrote:
My grandfather was Cyborg-pirate-ninja Jesus.topal63 wrote:
My grandfather worked on the space-fake movie lot. He said it was all faked, but alas he's dead now.
He lead the Lumberjack rebelion that toppled the evil empire of Xuuz.
Actually I've seen programs on the space program, and back then a TI-83 would have been baller shit. They said most of the huge consols you see are just on/off status lights that represented the position of settings.Im_Dooomed wrote:
Rockets idiot. Rockets. They propel out of the earths atmosphere. DO YOU REALLY THINK that they only had the technology of a CALCULATOR in the APOLLO MISSIONS? /FACEPALMFunky_Finny wrote:
If they didn't have simple tools like Photoshop or Vegas (or such like) then how the FUCK did they make a several hundred tonne object fly out of the gravitational pull of the earth and land with exellent precision on the surface of the moon? All with, as my brother, not friend Jay said, the technology of a calculator or washing machine?
GG.
Your idiocy I hate to say, is starting to piss me off. And I have no shred of respect for you at all. Sorry. I won't even bother to write up my own response in reply to your complaint their technology wasn't sophisticated enough. I'll just quote this again:Did you read it? Did you read it again? Did you think about it? God...This thread is sucking away my own sanity.Could 60s/70s Technology have made it to the moon? Did they have good enough computers and stuff?
Oh, the arrogance of the 21st century! It's true that computing technology of the time was really primitive compared to that of today, but a couple of things have to be considered.
* NASA was at the cutting edge of technology, and if they didn't have it they could buy it. What they had available to them was well in advance of anything else around at the time.
* It doesn't take much computational power to plot a course to the moon. Ok, maybe you or we couldn't do it, but we're talking Newtonian physics here that can be done on the back of an envelope by any physicists worth their salt.
One of the most commonly quoted 'facts' quoted about 60s technology is that "the modern washing machine has more computational power than the first lander." This is a questionable fact, but it hardly matters. It's amazing what you can achieve with primitive computers if you're not worried about fancy user interfaces. Also, most of what had to be computed in the Apollo missions could be done on Earth and radioed up. Everything didn't have to be carried on board.
But think of all the modern computing power you need for a flight simulator, and that's not even the real thing!
All the computing power you need in flight simulation programmes you can now buy for your computer is needed to generate the realistic surroundings. Very little is needed for the actual flying controls. The Apollo missions didn't need to generate pretty surroundings on a screen, they had the real thing!
I'm not saying they didn't do it, but it wasn't accomplished by high tech...a lot of the technology is just safety systems...They just had HUGE balls, and piles and piles of hand computations no doubt.
Computers just do things faster, the details are worked out ahead of time...super computer or cigarettes coffee and a basic calculator...only difference is the time it takes.
JEWS DID MOON LANDING...
it's true.
it's true.
Exactly. I don't even know how to use a slide-rule. NASA had the best engineers of the time working for them. Computers don't make it possible--they just make it easier.VicktorVauhn wrote:
Computers just do things faster, the details are worked out ahead of time...super computer or cigarettes coffee and a basic calculator...only difference is the time it takes.
QFE.Im_Dooomed wrote:
OK IM TURING THIS THREAD AROUND. INSTEAD OF US INTELLGENT PEOPLE HAVING TO ANSWER TO THESE IDIOTS, THEY HAVE TO ANSWER TO US.
First lets observe, MOON ROCKS:
http://klabs.org/richcontent/MAPLDCon02 … n_rock.htm
Apollo astronauts brought 841 pounds of Moon rock home to Earth. So, you tell me, did NASA go to the Moon to collect a bunch of props for a staged Moon landing set here on Earth?
WHAT DO YOU GOT TO SAY ABOUT THAT U CONSPIRACY THEORISTS??
I wish I could say nothing to see here folks, move along. But it's mildly entertaining and educational at the same time. Most have intelligence, some have heads filled with rocks. But not moon rocks! They are the same thing in your backyard
If you were on the moon... there would only be 1 source of light... but it the film/pictures there is 2 sources of light, there is a few really good documentaries on this...
what? where are there two sources of light?cPL.Phukz wrote:
If you were on the moon... there would only be 1 source of light... but it the film/pictures there is 2 sources of light, there is a few really good documentaries on this...
I've seen it mentioned somewhere. As he mentioned though there are good documentaries that prove the moon conspiracies are utter bollocks.HurricaИe wrote:
what? where are there two sources of light?cPL.Phukz wrote:
If you were on the moon... there would only be 1 source of light... but it the film/pictures there is 2 sources of light, there is a few really good documentaries on this...
Look closely at the shadows of the rocks on the groundHurricaИe wrote:
what? where are there two sources of light?cPL.Phukz wrote:
If you were on the moon... there would only be 1 source of light... but it the film/pictures there is 2 sources of light, there is a few really good documentaries on this...
Edit: also, the pictures were taken from a camera attached to the guys helmet... pretty weird he got the pictures dead right on what he was focusing on... theres just so much things that makes me believe humans did not land on the moon.
and just looking at the pictures, its easily noticable that there is no stars in the background... hmmmmm
Last edited by cPL.Phukz (2008-02-21 18:56:36)
The surface of the moon is somewhat reflective... you know, we can see it from earth and all. While there is a 'main light' from the sun, ay other 'light source' would just be reflected light from the surface of the moon.cPL.Phukz wrote:
If you were on the moon... there would only be 1 source of light... but it the film/pictures there is 2 sources of light, there is a few really good documentaries on this...
Reflector, now there is a photographic tool that most people don't know about. It's used to simulate a second light source by bouncing light from the primary light source... this is just applied to a larger scale.
These guy's will never listen to science and logic...but the thread has been entertaining!
I pity the fool!!!!1!!
Undulations on the moons surface will also cause there to be shadows cast in different directions...cPL.Phukz wrote:
Look closely at the shadows of the rocks on the groundHurricaИe wrote:
what? where are there two sources of light?cPL.Phukz wrote:
If you were on the moon... there would only be 1 source of light... but it the film/pictures there is 2 sources of light, there is a few really good documentaries on this...
Edit: also, the pictures were taken from a camera attached to the guys helmet... pretty weird he got the pictures dead right on what he was focusing on... theres just so much things that makes me believe humans did not land on the moon.
and just looking at the pictures, its easily noticable that there is no stars in the background... hmmmmm
Thx for Your answers! Appreciate them.
Sound propagate well through aluminium though and the astronauts weren't spacewalking inside the earth's protective magnetic field, they were far outside exposed to a powerful solar eruption at the time (bad luck I guess).
There're pages on the internet explaining most of the "abnormalities" on the moon photos:
A pole/rock will cast a different shadow when it's on a hill, that's why there are angeled shadows on the photos.
The moons surface is very reflective which eliminates dark shadows.
No stars on the photos because of the bright light causing the shutter to close quickly.
NASA picked the best shots out that's why they are well focused and positioned.
The camera cross behind objects is caused by "overflow" of color erasing the thin cross.
However here's some more info/rumours on the moon:
1. The moon appeares to be hollow.
2. The astronauts saw alien spacecrafts when they landed.
3. NASA allways airbrushed buildings on the moon out before releasing moon photos.
4. There's ice on the poles of the moon.
5. The moon was created by a mars size object hitting the early earth.
6. NASA was warned of the moon by aliens, that's why they never went back after putting so much effort in getting there.
There's a lot of conspiracy videos on the internet and it's seriously hard to figure out what is true. Just watch some videos about:
MKUltra, Kay Griggs, Alex Jones, Jim Sparks, The disclosure project, Kecksburg UFO etc. etc.
It is seriously hard to figure out what the f**k is going on.
Seriously 400 people in a city don't just stand in front of a camera saying: "Me and my son saw a huge (like five B-52's) black triangle flying silently". Or the 200 ex-military older gentlemen willing to testify to congress about their UFO experiences while on duty. This just doesn't happen unless there's something to it.
One day Neil Armstrong crashes the lander on the earth, 3 weeks later he makes a perfect landing on the moon (which is more difficult) while talking calmly into the microphone. It just doesn't convince me 100%, see?
Sound propagate well through aluminium though and the astronauts weren't spacewalking inside the earth's protective magnetic field, they were far outside exposed to a powerful solar eruption at the time (bad luck I guess).
There're pages on the internet explaining most of the "abnormalities" on the moon photos:
A pole/rock will cast a different shadow when it's on a hill, that's why there are angeled shadows on the photos.
The moons surface is very reflective which eliminates dark shadows.
No stars on the photos because of the bright light causing the shutter to close quickly.
NASA picked the best shots out that's why they are well focused and positioned.
The camera cross behind objects is caused by "overflow" of color erasing the thin cross.
However here's some more info/rumours on the moon:
1. The moon appeares to be hollow.
2. The astronauts saw alien spacecrafts when they landed.
3. NASA allways airbrushed buildings on the moon out before releasing moon photos.
4. There's ice on the poles of the moon.
5. The moon was created by a mars size object hitting the early earth.
6. NASA was warned of the moon by aliens, that's why they never went back after putting so much effort in getting there.
There's a lot of conspiracy videos on the internet and it's seriously hard to figure out what is true. Just watch some videos about:
MKUltra, Kay Griggs, Alex Jones, Jim Sparks, The disclosure project, Kecksburg UFO etc. etc.
It is seriously hard to figure out what the f**k is going on.
Seriously 400 people in a city don't just stand in front of a camera saying: "Me and my son saw a huge (like five B-52's) black triangle flying silently". Or the 200 ex-military older gentlemen willing to testify to congress about their UFO experiences while on duty. This just doesn't happen unless there's something to it.
One day Neil Armstrong crashes the lander on the earth, 3 weeks later he makes a perfect landing on the moon (which is more difficult) while talking calmly into the microphone. It just doesn't convince me 100%, see?
There are no alien cities on the moon, there have been no alien visits to earth, and 3 weeks of practice is a hell of a lot.Freke1 wrote:
Thx for Your answers! Appreciate them.
Sound propagate well through aluminium though and the astronauts weren't spacewalking inside the earth's protective magnetic field, they were far outside exposed to a powerful solar eruption at the time (bad luck I guess).
There're pages on the internet explaining most of the "abnormalities" on the moon photos:
A pole/rock will cast a different shadow when it's on a hill, that's why there are angeled shadows on the photos.
The moons surface is very reflective which eliminates dark shadows.
No stars on the photos because of the bright light causing the shutter to close quickly.
NASA picked the best shots out that's why they are well focused and positioned.
The camera cross behind objects is caused by "overflow" of color erasing the thin cross.
However here's some more info/rumours on the moon:
1. The moon appeares to be hollow.
2. The astronauts saw alien spacecrafts when they landed.
3. NASA allways airbrushed buildings on the moon out before releasing moon photos.
4. There's ice on the poles of the moon.
5. The moon was created by a mars size object hitting the early earth.
6. NASA was warned of the moon by aliens, that's why they never went back after putting so much effort in getting there.
There's a lot of conspiracy videos on the internet and it's seriously hard to figure out what is true. Just watch some videos about:
MKUltra, Kay Griggs, Alex Jones, Jim Sparks, The disclosure project, Kecksburg UFO etc. etc.
It is seriously hard to figure out what the f**k is going on.
Seriously 400 people in a city don't just stand in front of a camera saying: "Me and my son saw a huge (like five B-52's) black triangle flying silently". Or the 200 ex-military older gentlemen willing to testify to congress about their UFO experiences while on duty. This just doesn't happen unless there's something to it.
One day Neil Armstrong crashes the lander on the earth, 3 weeks later he makes a perfect landing on the moon (which is more difficult) while talking calmly into the microphone. It just doesn't convince me 100%, see?
conspiracy theories = fail
People need to closely examine the "science" behind theories, and the science behind the reported story before making their decision. I think you'll find 99.9% of the time, that the "facts" behind the theories are shaky at best.
Honestly, all this does is delve into the cynicism of modern society. Why can't we just accept the moon landings for the technological wonders that they are? Why is it that conspiracy theorists always need to take something and turn it into some "OH THE GOVERNMENT IS EVIL" type of thing?
And, for the record, I believe they're real.
And, for the record, I believe they're real.
Yes, sound travels though aluminum quite well. But the sound waves need to travel from the source to the aluminum...which would mean that there would have to be sound waves in vacuum, which can't happen.Freke1 wrote:
Thx for Your answers! Appreciate them.
Sound propagate well through aluminium though and the astronauts weren't spacewalking inside the earth's protective magnetic field, they were far outside exposed to a powerful solar eruption at the time (bad luck I guess).
And I did say that they were exposed to solar radiation, but their space suits and the shuttle shielded them from a lot of it. Obviously the Earth's magnetic field does not extend to the moon, so basically they had to hope for the best.
I won't even address the ludicrous notion of aliens on the moon.
You want this thread ended i can has it endedIm_Dooomed wrote:
I'm gonna try and end thsi thread with my post here:An email from a Geologist named Callum MacAlister to one of the website hosts:http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax … strong.jpg
Who filmed Neil Armstrong coming out of the Lunar Module when there was no-one on the surface to do this?
There was a video camera mounted and extended from the side of the landing module especially for this purpose.
As Armstrong started down the ladder he remotely deployed it, swinging it out from its storage position in the side of the module. Note how the left hand side of the video image is obscured by both the side of the Lunar Module and the arm of the storage compartment that lowered it. (The horizontal black bar across the middle is interference flickering across the TV screen it was filmed off.)Moon rocks are certainly non-terrestrial basalt in origin, and do not match in composition any other extraterrestrial rocks (i.e. meteorites). I could go on at great and boring length about QAPF diagrams, intergrown feldspars, oxygen-depleted micas and the like. But I won't.
So, my point? I KNOW man went to the moon. There's no other way moon rocks could have come here. If they had fallen as meteorites, the atmosphere would have oxidized them in a most obvious way. These rocks are genuine, and have spent, oh, the last 5 billion years or so in an oxygen-poor, radiation-bombarded environment (fusion trails...ask me later)http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/3127 … ovejf1.pngAnd therein lies an original idea: Did NASA go to the Moon to collect props for a staged Moon landing? It's an interesting twist on the conspiracy theory that TV producers might consider for their next episode of the Moon Hoax.
/win
no stars lolz so=fakeS.Lythberg wrote:
pics or it didn...
wait...
http://www.godandscience.org/images/moonearth.jpg
good enough for me, no photoshop in the 60's btw...
You're a fucking idiot.cPL.Phukz wrote:
Edit: also, the pictures were taken from a camera attached to the guys helmet... pretty weird he got the pictures dead right on what he was focusing on... theres just so much things that makes me believe humans did not land on the moon.
and just looking at the pictures, its easily noticable that there is no stars in the background... hmmmmm
You also are a fucking idiot.blademaster wrote:
no stars lolz so=fakeS.Lythberg wrote:
pics or it didn...
wait...
http://www.godandscience.org/images/moonearth.jpg
good enough for me, no photoshop in the 60's btw...
Stars DO NOT show up on film when it is SO DAMN BRIGHT.
The exposure on the camera was very fast, and with such a bright surface as the moon is, very faint stars will NOT SHOW UP ON THE FILM. FFS ask ANY PHOTOGRAPHER!
10's of THOUSANDS of photos were taken during the Apollo missions, and YOU BITCH ABOUT 10 OR SO THAT YOU'VE SEEN BEING SO PERFECT??
OMFG. Get damn clue. And for the record, the cameras were mounting on the chest region somewhere not on the helmet from what I've read.
Again, if you argue against the moon landings...
DID YOU EVEN READ MY POST ABOUT MOON ROCKS? HEY FUCKTARDS, HOW ABOUT YOU TRY TO ANSWER WHY NASA WOULD GO TO THE MOON TO COLLECT 100'S OF POUNDS OF MOON ROCK, BUT FAKE THE PART WHERE THEY HAVE THE GUYS WALKING ON THE MOON???
In case you can't read small text lets try this again:
NOW.
Nature is a powerful force. Those who seek to subdue nature, never do so permanently.
This is so funnycPL.Phukz wrote:
Look closely at the shadows of the rocks on the groundHurricaИe wrote:
what? where are there two sources of light?cPL.Phukz wrote:
If you were on the moon... there would only be 1 source of light... but it the film/pictures there is 2 sources of light, there is a few really good documentaries on this...
Edit: also, the pictures were taken from a camera attached to the guys helmet... pretty weird he got the pictures dead right on what he was focusing on... theres just so much things that makes me believe humans did not land on the moon.
and just looking at the pictures, its easily noticable that there is no stars in the background... hmmmmm
Apparently I've watched the same conspiracy vid as you as you're repeating what they claimed word to word!
Just look at the pretty stars blinking in the blue sky at noon...blademaster wrote:
no stars lolz so=fakeS.Lythberg wrote:
pics or it didn...
wait...
http://www.godandscience.org/images/moonearth.jpg
good enough for me, no photoshop in the 60's btw...
We landed on the moon.
Thread is now over, everyone stop talking. Thank you.
Thread is now over, everyone stop talking. Thank you.
As I previously stated before, stars ARE bright enough to be exposed on a camera film, regardless of the shutter speed. Tonight I will take a picture of the sky at 1/2000 of a second (The fasted shutter speed my camera will allow) to prove it to you.
And to explain the almost thousand pounds of lunar rock, they landed un-manned space craft on the moon, I'll accept that, and that could pick up rock. Maybe not as efficiently but it could certainly do it. Didn't they make a craft that would land on Mars able to do this? I'm sure if you sent enough of these to the moon (which they did, right?) you could collect enough moon rocks.
And to explain the almost thousand pounds of lunar rock, they landed un-manned space craft on the moon, I'll accept that, and that could pick up rock. Maybe not as efficiently but it could certainly do it. Didn't they make a craft that would land on Mars able to do this? I'm sure if you sent enough of these to the moon (which they did, right?) you could collect enough moon rocks.