40 Years on. Man on the moon. Truth or a Hoax ??

[sarrge2001]

Originally Posted by Teflon Turbo

you have been fed propaganda boys and girls.

since you are open minded keep this in mind...

people from here may well have been in serbia at the particularly time and if you were a greek conscript (for example) they could well have witnessed it first hand since the pay was double to do nato duties in serbia at that time, further more one would also have witnessed first hand the scale in which the russians helped their brothers with over 30,000 russian troops deplyed in serbia and technology that america had no clue about.

so while you may think you are right and you fight for that, you could just as easily be wrong with out even knowing. There is a difference between being fed the truth and knowing the truth.

i aint gonna comment anymore becaue you are just attacking individuals for disagreeing with you.

So let me get this straight.......there were Serbians, Greeks and Russians on the moon too?? I mean, THE MOON LANDING is what this thread is about

Isn't it???

[Trendy]

Haha Ive seen that 'Dark Side of the Moon' documentry, i missed the start. I thought it was real but i couldnt figure out why Secretary of State (or whatever) Donald Rumsfeild was openly admitting ordering hits on people, when the US have denied ever ordering assasinations (from what i know) ... then it hit me, i felt like a gulible tool. Its very funny, particularly some of the mock killings. Definatly worth a watch.

[yanknbank]

Whats with all the + symbols all over the pic??

jgb, it's called the Reseau plate. It was part of the camera that enabled it to operate as a handheld measuring camera (a very handy thing to have on the moon!). These sorts of cameras were usually a lot bigger and more than likely had glass plates instead of film. They would've been used for cartography and other such similar things.



The photo became known as the visor shot.
Armstrongs reflection in Aldrins visor is the one and only photo (high quality still) of himself on the moon. Armstrong of course was using the Hassellblad as he was first out the door and onto the surface.
Aldrin was given the camera and preceeded to take all sorts of photos of all sorts of subjects, of everything else, bar Armstrong himself. I think there might be one pic where armstrong's enviromental control pack appears on the very edge of the photo.
This didn't become apparent until well after the mission, Aldrin of course being asked to explain his rather obvious oversight (although obviously not too obvious at the time). He said he simply forgot in all of the excitement.
Others whispered that it was payback for him not being first onto the moon. He was originally slated to be first out of the LEM, but in the latter stages of planning for the mission, it was decided Armstrong (by Armstrong himself, who was the mission commander and others) would be first onto the surface. It was thought by some (but very, very quietly and discreetly) that Aldrin perhaps wasn't educated/intellectual enough to do or say the right thing on such a momentous occassion. Noone of course at the time or since has pubicly come out and said this. Aldrin also had other issues that he was dealing with at the time of the mission and wasn't perhaps the happy camper that he appeared to be.
That fact remains that he didn't, at any time, point the camera in Armstrongs direction. Maybe the problems that he was coming to grips with at the time, subconsciencly prevented him from completing such a basic task as documenting his partner, the only person other than himself in the whole of human history, to ever walk on the moon.

[yanknbank]

I forgot to add. Anyone here who thinks (even just a bit) that the moon shots were faked are perhaps even more dellusional than the turkeys who promote and spread this sort of crap.
Talk about gullible!

[Fordman1]

Originally Posted by XR6 Martin

Yeah where are all the pics of these shot down stealths?
I only remember one F117 which crashed in bad weather, wasnt shot down as far as I know.

The man said Stealth 'Bomber' NOT 'fighter'.....

....thus my answer on the B2. He needs to get his facts right

[OzJavelin]

Interesting to see that the self-centred generations which have followed doubt that those in charge in the 1960s could have possibly put men on the moon because they lack the "awesome" current technology - mobile phones, personal computers, Internet, iPones, iPods, HD TV, Blueray DVDs, etc. Interesting how we are now so self-focused on entertaining ourselves that we've gone backwards in capabilities - we no longer have commerical supersonic airliner, we no longer have a rocket powerful enough to take a manned mission back to the moon, etc. Personally I don't doubt they went, but I think they took a LOT of risks which we would be too gutless and bureaucratic to take today. Maybe the Chinese will and they'll get back to the moon first ..

[Bluepower]

[QUOTE=Teflon Turbo]people under estimate russians, they had the fastes jets and nukes before america and lead the world in espionage and every facet of military arms. they never complained about it after america acquired the technology or military might.

in the first balkans war, russia supplied serbs with crucial technology to, and
you wont read about this in media or in hollywood, america's number on propaganda tool, but over 20 stealth bombers were shot down by serbs and over 150 fighter jets too.

i wouldn't knock those russians, further more they never dropped any bombs on japan either.

QUOTE]

Russia do not have the fastest Jets in their Arsenal. The US have an Aircraft designated A12, loosely based on the SR71 Blackbird, it can sustain mach3.3 at altitude and is all weather interceptor capable.

The Mig25 can maintain Mach2.8, and can only do it for a short time, and only in "clean" configuration and in reheat - with external tanks and weapons, its more like mach 2.6.

The combat turn radius of the Mig 25 was always thought to be sketchy, and in Gulf 1, two Mig25's went head to head with 2 F15's from Lakenheath England.

Both MIG pilots were combat experienced, the F15 pilots 2 years out of flight school.

Both Mig25's were downed with missile shots.

There was one and one only loss of a F117 nighthawk fighter during the Balkans crisis, shot down by a SAM, and also an F16 shot down, which was the inspiration for the movie "behind enemy lines". No B2 has ever been lost in combat, only in testing, training, and one at guam on takeoff.

In the balkans, in one engagement, a solitary F15 accounted for 3 MiG29's and one SU27, so Russia can build some nice jets, but they are easy to kill in a turning or BVR situation.

The F15 Eagle, fielded by Israel, Royal Saudi Air Force, US Air Force and the UN has an unprecedented air to air combat record against Russian equipment, 100 air to air victories for zero losses.

The F22 Raptor is worlds better than the F15.

Mate, your comment was a fair generalisation, I thought id help out with some facts.


Chris

[Wally]

Here's a pic of Australia (left side of earth sunlight).

http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5923HR.jpg

It seems the guys at Honeysuckle Creek had the pick of the pics.

In case you cant make out OZ: http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11-110-50-26.jpg

Polaroid pic of Armstrong on Honeysuckle monitor

http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11HSK1092635.jpg

[Work Horse]

Originally Posted by Bluepower

No B2 has ever been lost in combat, only in testing, training, and one at guam on takeoff.



Chris

While we are OT, I worked in the UK for a multinational construction company during the 1990's. One of several safety inductions we were given was a long lecture on using "common scene" on site. I collared one of the foremen after it and said WTF was that all about. He told me is was for insurance purposes, the company had to be see to be proactive about employees using common sense on site.

WHY?

The company had a runway resurfacing contract at an RAF base. Plant and equipment had been left near the runway over night. A track-air machine, (a tractor fitted with air-compressors for jack hammers) with a faulty hand brake rolled to the edge of the runway. It was clipped by the wing of a B2 as it landed, doing several million pounds damage to the B2. The companies insurance was refusing to pay out because the employee who left the machine with the faulty hand brake did not show common sense.

So the joke around site then was, the Americans had spent billions on the futurist B2, it seemed to be infallible until it met Paddy with a jack hammer(many of the staff were Irish).

On topic, I don't believe the conspiracy theory is a resent product of "the self-centred generations which have followed those... in charge in the 1960s". The conspiracy theory has always been around.

I don't believe the conspiracy theory and like the response, it was actually easier to go to the moon than pull off what would have been involved in such a conspiracy.

[bathurst77]

Thing I dont understand about the conspiracy theorists, they will state as fact that there are reasons why the pics etc are wrong or technically flawed even tho they themselves are not super-experts on the finer points of video or physics or whatever, because they "read it somewhere" and ignore all the other experts who say they arent flawed.

They read 1000 pieces of information and scientists and experts and photos and videos etc all saying how its fact, but then they hear 1 or two things from people who "may or may not have some knowledge" sating it was fake,
They then choose to ignore the 1000 hard expert proofs and go withthe 1 or 2 "maybe experts"

Any how if the yanks faked it, Russia would have told on them straight away. (or at least sometime in the last 40 years)

And in the 1960s and 70s, it seemed inevitable that people were going to get to the moon pretty soon anyhow, so if they had of faked itthey would have been found out, DURING THEIR OWN WORKING LIVES! Why fake it if they knew that within months or a few years that other people would get there and say "Hey guys, where's this apollo lander you told us about?" It would have been a scandle to make watergate or any other scandle look like petty squabble.

We went, its a great thing that we went, i hope im alive to see us go back, or to mars

[bathurst77]

Originally Posted by tufLTD

The Russians knew it couldn't be done due to the huge amounts of radiation that the astronauts would have been exposed to. It would have killed them within minutes!
Totally bogus.

Is this the same radiation that kills all the skylab, MIR and space shuttle crews?

Can you give us your university qualifications in physics or cosmology, before you state this fact? As I have heard and read 1000s of experienced internationally respected experts saying that this is not so. I will be very interested to see your expertise in this field and your empirical evidence.

[bathurst77]

Originally Posted by Teflon Turbo

i don't think it happend only because i watched a doco ages ago on a certain type of radiation between the moon and earth that is so powerful and as someone said earlier that it would have killed them in minutes..

How many docos hav youwatched that said it DID happen? 100s or more?

But you saw one that that said it couldnt, and chose to go with the one.

I recommend a doco called "In the Shadow of the Moon".
Its not about what they say, just look at their eyes as they speak.

[bathurst77]

Originally Posted by gtfpv

it looks like there are 2 people in the reflection of the visor . one in a space suit , the other a shadow . !!!

If this was true, do you not think that SOMEBODY at nasa etc who was responsible for creating those 100s of doctored pic would have fixed that? One of the most famous apollo pics and nobody at nasa or in the iron triangle thought,"Hmm we best check this" and give it 2 minutes with airbrush.
And agin evenm the russians or chinese etc who hated america, enought to nuke it at teh time, and had their own space programs, they didnt notice this either?

Nor did the millions of experts and journalists and photographers etc over the last 40 years call them on it. These are the same journos who will call them over a dodgy email or credit card or the slightest naughtines. Or is every single journo in the world on the payola?

But one fringe website or book states it, so it is now fact.

[platinumXR]

Originally Posted by bathurst77

I recommend a doco called "In the Shadow of the Moon".

Awesome doco' that. And I do believe it was after Buzz clobbered that conspiracy-theory boxhead....I would have too.

[ebxr8240]

I'm getting REALLY sick of hearing these conspiracy-theories..
Havn't these people got better things to do ??

[Peuty]

Originally Posted by Bluepower

Russia do not have the fastest Jets in their Arsenal. The US have an Aircraft designated A12, loosely based on the SR71 Blackbird, it can sustain mach3.3 at altitude and is all weather interceptor capable.

The A12 was a development aircraft for the CIA's OXCART program, which ended up being the SR-71.

The A12 stopped flying around 1968, when it was replaced by the SR-71, which in itself was terminated for the second time in 1998.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by bathurst77

Is this the same radiation that kills all the skylab, MIR and space shuttle crews?

Can you give us your university qualifications in physics or cosmology, before you state this fact? As I have heard and read 1000s of experienced internationally respected experts saying that this is not so. I will be very interested to see your expertise in this field and your empirical evidence.

Well the lower van allen belt is about 3000 km above the ground whereas the space shuttle etc are all between 250 and 500km.

NASA have enormous amounts of documentation on this available online.

[Wally]

Originally Posted by bathurst77

Is this the same radiation that kills all the skylab, MIR and space shuttle crews?

Can you give us your university qualifications in physics or cosmology, before you state this fact? As I have heard and read 1000s of experienced internationally respected experts saying that this is not so. I will be very interested to see your expertise in this field and your empirical evidence.

I guess the fatality count from space radiation speaks for itself. :voldar02:

As far as i know, NASA and private enterprise are still developing an instrument (microdosimeter) that can measure space radiation to ascertain if there is any real danger and what exposure period is unacceptable.

I suspect there is more danger of getting the bends from a one hour dive than getting radiation sickness after a few weeks vacationing on the moon.

.

[DBourne]

i choose to believe it's real.

i love how there are people who will watch / read 1 docco on how it's fake and dissmiss any other evidence, doesn't matter who from or how many materials to back it up.

ah well, makes life interesting i guess.

[mattp]

http://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~jscotti/NOT_faked/

The above is a pretty decent website if anyone is interested in hearing rebuttals for most of the doubters usual reasons why the moon landing couldn't have happened.

[Rodp]

Originally Posted by Wally

I guess the fatality count from space radiation speaks for itself. :voldar02:

As far as i know, NASA and private enterprise are still developing an instrument (microdosimeter) that can measure space radiation to ascertain if there is any real danger and what exposure period is unacceptable.

I suspect there is more danger of getting the bends from a one hour dive than getting radiation sickness after a few weeks vacationing on the moon.

.

All but a couple of the astronauts that have passed through the Van Allen belts have developed cataracts... one known cause of cataracts, a sufficient dose of radiation.

I had read that due to the speed and the craft, the dose of radiation received while passing through the belts was equivalent to the dose you would receive in a year of living at sea level on Earth.

[SilentDave]

Nixon cancelled the lunar landing program when he became president due to the fact he didn't like Kennedy and also the US economy was taking a nose dive so budget cuts were made.

Due to the short time frame NASA were given to get Eagle to the moon by the end of the 60's they forgot to put a door handle on the lunar lander so if Buzz had closed the door when he exited they would both still be on the moon today(unless you believe they weren't there then they would be stuck in the middle of the sound stage in hollywood :P )

[metalmania]

Interesting read

http://www.russiatoday.com/Top_News/..._the_moon.html

[Wally]

Originally Posted by Rodp

All but a couple of the astronauts that have passed through the Van Allen belts have developed cataracts... one known cause of cataracts, a sufficient dose of radiation.

I had read that due to the speed and the craft, the dose of radiation received while passing through the belts was equivalent to the dose you would receive in a year of living at sea level on Earth.

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/531868

[Rodp]

Originally Posted by Wally

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/531868

Not a member, can't view it. :(

[daikin]

shadows, conspiracy theories. Life was more interesting back in the day. Would be awesome to see another landing if ever back on the moon or even better... on mars in the 21st century.

[Wally]

Originally Posted by Rodp

Not a member, can't view it. :(

Bugger nor can I anymore. :nutsycuck

I made a copy:

May 5, 2006 (Fort Lauderdale) — A recent study found that astronauts are at increased risk of developing cortical cataracts, but a higher intake of vitamin A may help decrease the risk.

Findings from the NASA Study of Cataract in Astronauts (NASCA) were presented here at the annual meeting of the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology by Leo Chylack Jr., MD, professor and vice-chair of ophthalmology at Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts. NASCA is a 5-year study designed to investigate the risk factors associated with the incidence and progression of cataracts in astronauts. Data were presented from the first year.

The study of cataract in astronauts is of interest largely because these workers are exposed to higher doses and different patterns of radiation than other more Earth-bound populations — and increased radiation exposure is linked to increased risk of cataract. The study included all 215 astronauts from the US astronaut program, and it includes those who have flown only in low-inclination (still partially in Earth's atmosphere) as well as those who have walked on the moon.

Two populations were used as control subjects: 90 military pilots and 90 ground-crew workers. Pilots are known to have an increased risk of cataract. Because a large proportion of astronauts had been pilots, pilots were included to help researchers separate out what aspects of cataract risk were related to the astronauts' airplane flying time vs the effects of space travel.

The Harvard Food Frequency Questionnaire was administered to all subjects, and both annual solar ultraviolet and space radiation exposure were determined. Any cataracts were ranked according to the Lens Opacities Classification System (LOCS) — a commonly used quantitative measure of cataract developed by Dr. Chylack that indicates degree of opacity and type of cataract.

As has been shown in other studies, increasing age was related to increased risk of cataract formation, regardless of type.

The first-year data suggests that exposure to radiation in space is related to cortical cataract formation but not to nuclear or subcapsular cataract formation, Dr. Chylack told Medscape. "In one sense that's good news, it suggests that the radiation exposure has not been that damaging. But on the other hand it does increase the complexity of cortical cataract."

Data were also obtained for 105 nutritional variables, and analysis showed a correlation between specific nutrients and risk for cortical opacity. A higher intake of omega-3 fatty acids appeared to be associated with increases in cortical opacity ( P = .012), while a higher intake of A vitamins was associated with a decreased risk for cortical opacity ( P = .004). Data on A vitamins came from such dietary forms as alpha- and beta-carotene.

The study is important because it quantifies the types of cataracts that astronauts develop, and it helps determine what types of risks they may face in deep space missions where ambient radiation levels are higher, said Eleanor Blakely, PhD, a biophysicist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. She was not involved in the study.

Another study at the conference suggests that omega-3 fatty acids have a protective effect against cataracts. Findings from the Age-Related Eye Disease Study (AREDS), presented by L. B. Lee, from the National Eye Institute, and colleagues, found that the risk for moderate nuclear cataract was reduced among people who had a high intake of DHA and EPA, which are 2 types of omega-3 fatty acids.

"The importance of this work is that radiation cataracts have always been associated with the posterior subcapsular region," Dr. Blakely noted. This study shows that space flight may be associated more with cortical cataracts, and "that diet actually can play a role in ameliorating that."

ARVO 2006 Annual Meeting: Abstract B650 and B653. Presented May 3, 2006.

Reviewed by Charlotte Warren

[fangq]

Originally Posted by ebxr8240

I'm getting REALLY sick of hearing these conspiracy-theories..
Havn't these people got better things to do ??

Believe it or not, there is a book titled

" Conspiracy Theories for Dummies "

In a way, the conspiracy nuts do serve a purpose : I think they will enable us to nail the gene loci for gullibility.

Steve

[Road_Warrior]

Originally Posted by SilentDave

Nixon cancelled the lunar landing program when he became president due to the fact he didn't like Kennedy and also the US economy was taking a nose dive so budget cuts were made.

Due to the short time frame NASA were given to get Eagle to the moon by the end of the 60's they forgot to put a door handle on the lunar lander so if Buzz had closed the door when he exited they would both still be on the moon today(unless you believe they weren't there then they would be stuck in the middle of the sound stage in hollywood :P )

Aside from the fact that the US economy was starting to run into troubles, the Lunar program was 'cancelled' because it had ended. The moon landings weren't the beginning of a journey, they were the end of it. The Apollo program had its genesis in the mid 1950's, and it took them all that time with trial and error, research, development and all the rest, to get where they got to in the end.

The other thing to bear in mind is that the Space Shuttle program was well and truly in train by this time. It was conceived even before the Apollo 11 Moon landing.

It wasn't given Presidential Authorisation with the appropriate entries in the US Federal Budget until 1972, but the fact is, the shuttle program was well and truly in progress by the time the last yank left the Lunar surface.

So with that in mind, I can fully understand why they would not have wanted two expensive space programs running simultaneously. One would have had to have been killed off. The most obvious one to kill off was the Moon Mission program, which, for all intents and purposes, had no point other than national pride and ****ing rights over those dirty commies. The shuttle program was intended to provide a reusable vehicle (the Apollo Lunar vehicles were disposed of after each mission) which could uplift a large, heavy payload into orbit, place it, and get it running, and return to earth and be used again. Dont forget, global communications was starting to expand rapidly at this time, and new satellites were needed. To those decision makers back then, it would have been a no-brainer and I can fully understand why they dropped the Lunar program and went with the shuttles.

I think that they did not realise the magnitude of their ambitions about Moon colonisation etc, until they had actually been there once or twice and realised the true enormity of cost v benefit, and the prospect of supporting a permanent base there with the level of tech they had at the time.

It is only now, with the benefit of hindsight, that people doubt the value of the shuttles, however this is when talking in context of Lunar and Martian exploration, as the shuttles cannot leave earth orbit.

[yanknbank]

Unfortunately NASA, but perhaps more correctly the US federal government through massive funding cuts, really did drop the ball after the Apollo program. Who would've thought back in 1972 after the last Apollo mission was flown, that it would be another 50 years at least (it's trending towards 60 now) before NASA was to go back to the moon.
It's taken a bit over thirty years for those policy mistakes to manifest themselves, but when the spaceshuttle is decommissioned in a few months NASA, incredible as it seems, will not have a vehicle capable of putting a man into space let alone into a low earth orbit.
From hero to zero in a bit over three decades. Who would have thought?