|
Post by omni on Sept 3, 2006 20:05:19 GMT -4
Hello, I am just wondering about several things I am hoping someone in here can help me with.
1. Why has no one gone to the moon and back since Apollo? Or even just at the orbit of the moon for that matter?
2. If the answer is that there is nothing there for anyone to go after then why where there so many trips done by the USA in such a short time?
3. Has China made plans for Lunar landing 2011?
4. If so, what are the chances they will land close to where USA landed so they might actually proof once and for all if Man has actually gone to the moon or not?
5. The rocks and samples gathered there and brought back 800+ KG(?) can only be from the Lunar surface?
6. I read on these boards that the rocks from the moon are the same as from comets and rocks that have fallen to the earth, is it possible that the samples are actually not from the moon but rather just peices gathered over the years before and possibly after the Apollo missions? (Thus only what 1100 samples are handed out to inspect yearly?)
7. What are the chances that a tape and foils will stand against a launch and landing when today we have peices of spacecrafts falling of at takeoff? (Given that the tape and foils are exposed and not in a sealed compartment)
8. Is it possible that finding a tangible proof for a hoax is so hard because everything people have to work with has actually been screened and sensored over and over again?
9. When an astronaut said that the dust even got in the pours on the skin and all joints of the suit, if dust got to the skin through the spacesuit shouldnt he be dead? (Or was he referring to the dust coming off the suit inside the LM after he tok it off?)
10. The craters in the so called Area 51 shown in the FOX documentary are simular, is it possible it actually happaned there? (Thus no artificial background but in fact real scenario)
11. When Armstrong? jumped approx 5 feet up the ladder (not seen that footage btw) what would be the needed force to do so, and was such a jump ever made again? (From what I have seen the jumps were just about the same as we would do on earth when in an uncomfortable suit)
12. When watching the takeoff in one of the missions has anyone done calculations on the speed incresment of the LM, i.e. it should start slowly and then cradually pick up speed shouldnt it? (I know the gravity is less on the moon than on earth)
13. Is it possible that the death of Baron and his family was in fact done by some goverment agency or individuals? Given that his report also went AWOL week(?) afterwards could be taken as a possibility of foul play. Keep in mind that there were many who would stand to lose a lot of money if that program were to stop, it is known his report showed the program in a very bad light. It should also be easy for someone with authority to manipulate the investigation of his death, I mean, suicide, he was in the end of his biggest project in his career and wham he kills him self and his family.
14. What did the USA stand to lose if they had failed to go to the moon in that decade?
15. What did the USA stand to win by going to the moon in that decade?
*edit* 16. If the gravity on the moon is one sixth of that on earth why dont we see the astronauts taking longer steps/jumps? I am not good at math so I cant calculate it, but I find it likely that a 2+ meter jump between steps would be far from impossible, specially when moving down a hill. I saw this footage where 2 astronauts were going rather fast down a hill but they were going about the same as we would here on earth, how is that possible that they didnt in fact go further in each jump?
Try not to shoot down those thoughts with comments like "you are stupid to believe that"
Remember that a good scientist tries to break down his own theories, so no one else can,. So for the hard believers of the Lunar landings, have you looked at the matter from the other point of view? Have you tried to see possibility of a hoax.
I for one was a hard believer of a hoax until few days ago when i found these boards, I now find it likely that we did go, I mean the evidence is rather impressive isnt it. But if I would manipulate the data given out, have endless money and seemingly endless resources I think it would be possible to make such a hoax. Keep it mind it wasnt needed to be bulletproof because we cant proof one way or the other, its just guesses and speculations from both sides, given that one side is at an advantage because the data avalible supports them doesnt make them right.
Also keep in mind that everything all goverments have done is forgiven more or less after a certain period of time, look at history and see the plots, assasinations, wars and sabotages.
For me it is easy to think that it is possible to make such a hoax, but I believe neither side, I take both as possibilities but I lean more on the hoax theories to be honest.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Sept 3, 2006 20:52:06 GMT -4
1. Why has no one gone to the moon and back since Apollo? Or even just at the orbit of the moon for that matter?
It's really expensive, and not easy to do.
2. If the answer is that there is nothing there for anyone to go after then why where there so many trips done by the USA in such a short time?
Since that was not my answer I guess I have no response for this one. There are plenty of reasons to go back to the moon, in my opinion, but then again I'm not the one who has to pay for it.
3. Has China made plans for Lunar landing 2011?
I'm pretty sure the Chinese would like to go to the moon... I doubt they will do it in 2011 though.
4. If so, what are the chances they will land close to where USA landed so they might actually proof once and for all if Man has actually gone to the moon or not?
I'm sure they'd try to land near Apollo sites... and if they do they will find all the proof they need. Whether hoax believers will accept that proof is doubtful.
5. The rocks and samples gathered there and brought back 800+ KG(?) can only be from the Lunar surface?
Yes.
6. I read on these boards that the rocks from the moon are the same as from comets and rocks that have fallen to the earth, is it possible that the samples are actually not from the moon but rather just peices gathered over the years before and possibly after the Apollo missions? (Thus only what 1100 samples are handed out to inspect yearly?)
Moon rocks that fall through Earth's atmosphere are be scorched or melted, and are also far too rare to be able to collect over 800lbs. worth.
7. What are the chances that a tape and foils will stand against a launch and landing when today we have peices of spacecrafts falling of at takeoff? (Given that the tape and foils are exposed and not in a sealed compartment)
I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean the tape and foil found on the outside of the Lunar Module? If so, then the LM was inside the Saturn rocket during launch from Earth and therefore wasn't exposed to the aerodynamic forces that knock foam off the Space Shuttle's external tank. And since there is no air in space there would be no aerodynamic forces at all to do that kind of damage.
If that is not what you mean then please clarify your question.
8. Is it possible that finding a tangible proof for a hoax is so hard because everything people have to work with has actually been screened and sensored over and over again?
Is it also not possible that it's hard to find tangible proof of a hoax because there wasn't one?
The kind of things that hoax believers do present as proof are usually so laughable (ie. waving flags) that you have to wonder why if people on the internet can see that then how did it get past the government censors?
9. When an astronaut said that the dust even got in the pours on the skin and all joints of the suit, if dust got to the skin through the spacesuit shouldnt he be dead? (Or was he referring to the dust coming off the suit inside the LM after he tok it off?)
I think he was referring to the dust that he was exposed to by handling his suit after he took it off. There is no way the dust could have gotten into the suit when it was sealed.
10. The craters in the so called Area 51 shown in the FOX documentary are simular, is it possible it actually happaned there? (Thus no artificial background but in fact real scenario)
I once saw a Porche drive past that looks similar to the one that Brad Pitt drives. Is it possible it was him?
11. When Armstrong? jumped approx 5 feet up the ladder (not seen that footage btw) what would be the needed force to do so, and was such a jump ever made again? (From what I have seen the jumps were just about the same as we would do on earth when in an uncomfortable suit)
12. When watching the takeoff in one of the missions has anyone done calculations on the speed incresment of the LM, i.e. it should start slowly and then cradually pick up speed shouldnt it? (I know the gravity is less on the moon than on earth)
I'm sure these calculations have been done by people in this forum.
13. Is it possible that the death of Baron and his family was in fact done by some goverment agency or individuals?
Is it possible that their deaths were NOT the result of government agents? Don't ask us for speculation.
14. What did the USA stand to lose if they had failed to go to the moon in that decade?
Bragging rights. What would they have to lose if a hoax was discovered?
15. What did the USA stand to win by going to the moon in that decade?
Bragging rights.
So for the hard believers of the Lunar landings, have you looked at the matter from the other point of view? Have you tried to see possibility of a hoax.
I think you will find the Apollo supporters in this forum know more about the hoax theory than the hoax believers do. We have looked at the possibility of a hoax and we find it ridiculous.
Now go ask hoax believers if they have seen all of the Apollo photographs and video. Ask them if they can even name all of the astronauts who walked on the moon. Do you think they have seriously looked at the possibility that the moon landings really happened?
But if I would manipulate the data given out,
It would be impossible to manipulate all data for the rest of time (which would be necessary). NASA can't lie about the Van Allen radiation because it is out of their control.
have endless money and seemingly endless resources
That would be a nice start, but...
I think it would be possible to make such a hoax.
I do not think such a large hoax would be possible to pull off successfully, and failing would be so embarrassing to the USA that it would be ridiculous to even try. It would be less embarrassing to just come right out and admit that going to the moon is impossible, if that were the case, than to try to fake it and fail.
|
|
|
Post by hplasm on Sept 3, 2006 20:55:42 GMT -4
Hello Omni and welcome to the board. So many questions, perhaps whilst the more knowlegable (and patient...) members compose their replies, perhaps I might direct you to the sister site... www.clavius.org/which should answer a lot of the more technical questions right off, as a starting point, then follow the links however, let me set the ball off with Q1- why did we not go back to the Moon? The quick answer here is Money, or rather the lack of it. The longer answer involves the politics of the Space Race, and how NASA is funded with US Taxpayers money. There is now, as the Cash Spout swings toward space slightly again, the Orion Moon Landing project; but even that needed the added bait of a Mars mission to make it viable- even though many other valuable NASA projects have been scrapped or placed on indefinite hold to fund it.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Sept 3, 2006 21:06:11 GMT -4
Hello, I am just wondering about several things I am hoping someone in here can help me with. I'm no expert, so there's a lot I can't answer, here, but I'll do what I can. Money. Well, and Nixon didn't like Apollo much because it was a Kennedy/Johnson project, not one of his own, so he cut funding after we'd gone a few times. The thing is, the American public--the one paying for Apollo--lost interest pretty quickly. After two missions that landed humans on the Moon, it was considered routine and kind of boring. No one was eaten by monsters; there were no lush lunar jungles or whatever. To the general public, it was exciting once, but the repeats became less and less interesting, even though a ton of scientific questions were left to be answered. But, really, it's that no one wanted to pay for more missions. Well, again, this isn't the answer, but the fact is, there's still lots of exploring to do, but no one wants to pay for it in the US, at least. Yes. Or 2020. Or 2017. Or 2024. The first three Google results for "China moon landing" give different dates. But they are planning a Moon launch, yes. There's a slight misunderstanding here. I can't answer about the planned landing site, as I don't know, but I can assure you that quite a lot of people will assume that the Chinese landing is a hoax, though I'm most curious as to the logical tangles they'll get themselves in explaining it. Yes. Geologists around the world agree. (It's 850 lbs.) No. It certainly doesn't explain the soil samples, for one, and the pictures taken of the rocks in situ before they were knocked off with hammers. Not sure what you mean here. Oh, yes. For one, there would have had to have been literally thousands of people in on it. Related to that, people like souvenirs. Thus, it's possible that even so little as 1% kept things from their work on the hoax, meaning that they'd have physical evidence--not to mention their own testimony. No deathbed confessions, no conspiracy. Not given the thousands of people involved. I don't know, but I do know they did get a lot of dust on the suits. Presumably, that's where it came from, but I don't recognize the reference. No. Area 51 is a testing base for US military craft; they don't have a room big enough, and certainly not a room big enough that can be put to 1/6 gravity and no atmosphere. [snip because I don't know] Do you have a source for this? PR. PR. I'm not good at math, either. I can't see it, whether I try or not. For one, evidence shows us that large conspiracies get uncovered quickly, and that simply hasn't happened here. What's more, we aren't believers; "belief" implies no evidence. We have tons of it. Literally. It's not guesses and speculations. It's based on, again, tons of hard evidence, including the personal experiences of tens of thousands of people. By your reasoning, we can't prove anything, which while scientifically true is no way to live. Name one conspiracy as complex as an Apollo hoax would have to be that was kept secret for any length of time; name five that were substantially less complex that became clear within five years. Think about human nature for a while. The urge is to talk to people about the cool thing you know. No one who had anything to do with Apollo has done this, not even on their deathbed. The hoax theory just isn't logical.
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Sept 3, 2006 21:10:59 GMT -4
Welcome to the board, omni! Thank you for laying out your questions and defining where you stand on this matter from the outset. Many of your questions have been answered elsewhere on this board. Though some helpful people may post them again, I strongly urge you to read other threads because there is much educational information in them. I would like to address a few of your final thoughts: Remember that a good scientist tries to break down his own theories, so no one else can,. So for the hard believers of the Lunar landings, have you looked at the matter from the other point of view? Have you tried to see possibility of a hoax. Yes. To falsify the existing historical record would have been far more difficult than actually going to the Moon. Building spacecraft and flying to the Moon are engineering problems. Complex problems that were expensive to solve, but but nevertheless not unsolvable. To perpetuate a more durable hoax, the Apollo missions would have looked very different: There would be far fewer missions (each mission is another opportunity to get caught), fewer photographs & surface samples, and little or no video. I now find it likely that we did go, I mean the evidence is rather impressive isnt it. Yes, it isBut if I would manipulate the data given out, A big "IF". ...have endless money and seemingly endless resources I think it would be possible to make such a hoax. It would also be possible to carry out actual Moon landings. Keep it mind it wasnt needed to be bulletproof because we cant proof one way or the other, its just guesses and speculations from both sides, given that one side is at an advantage because the data avalible supports them doesnt make them right. But it does very strongly indicate that they are. Also keep in mind that everything all goverments have done is forgiven more or less after a certain period of time, look at history and see the plots, assasinations, wars and sabotages. We also see good roads, safer transportation, sanitation, education, police & fire protection . . . I could go on. For me it is easy to think that it is possible to make such a hoax, It's not. See above. but I believe neither side, I take both as possibilities but I lean more on the hoax theories to be honest. If all of the evidence favors the historical record, and the conspiracy theorists claims are routinely shown to be wrong (and even in some cases to be deliberately falsified), how does this make supporting the Hoax Hypothesis "honest"?
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Sept 3, 2006 21:39:47 GMT -4
I know these have likely been answered, but why not? (and more will come I'm sure)
1. Why has no one gone to the moon and back since Apollo? Or even just at the orbit of the moon for that matter?
No one has been willing to fund it.
2. If the answer is that there is nothing there for anyone to go after then why where there so many trips done by the USA in such a short time?
Well the answer wasn't, thereis still lots more we could probably learn, hence why we're finally going back. (and because someone finally has the kanonies to fund the thing.)
3. Has China made plans for Lunar landing 2011?
Yes and no. They are making plans, but it'll be more likely 2025-2030.
4. If so, what are the chances they will land close to where USA landed so they might actually proof once and for all if Man has actually gone to the moon or not?
I don't know that they have any landing sites selected. NASA is planning to photograph the old equipment with the new Lunar Orbiter to see how well it has stood up in 2008.
5. The rocks and samples gathered there and brought back 800+ KG(?) can only be from the Lunar surface?
Yes.
6. I read on these boards that the rocks from the moon are the same as from comets and rocks that have fallen to the earth, is it possible that the samples are actually not from the moon but rather just peices gathered over the years before and possibly after the Apollo missions? (Thus only what 1100 samples are handed out to inspect yearly?)
I think you are meaning Lunarites, moon rocks blown off the moon during impacts that then land in Earth. No, they can't be mistaken, or used as the Apollo samples. They are two small, have obvious characteristics such as fussion crusting and weathering, and the Apollo samples include soil samples and rock chips as well as entire rocks.
7. What are the chances that a tape and foils will stand against a launch and landing when today we have peices of spacecrafts falling of at takeoff? (Given that the tape and foils are exposed and not in a sealed compartment)
Well the only time any tape was exposed was on launch and landing on the moon, which has no atmosphere to cause trouble. The foam falls off the ET of the shuttle because of air tearing at it and the fact it's not glued on well. The "Tape" was industry grade kapton tape, very tought stuff.
8. Is it possible that finding a tangible proof for a hoax is so hard because everything people have to work with has actually been screened and sensored over and over again?
this really falls into the evidence of lack of evidence catagory. Besides, all the HP's claim that there is plenty of evidence.
9. When an astronaut said that the dust even got in the pours on the skin and all joints of the suit, if dust got to the skin through the spacesuit shouldnt he be dead? (Or was he referring to the dust coming off the suit inside the LM after he tok it off?)
No and yes.
10. The craters in the so called Area 51 shown in the FOX documentary are simular, is it possible it actually happaned there? (Thus no artificial background but in fact real scenario)
The craters aren't actually in Area 51, and they were made for training purposes, the astronuats did fly overs to familierise themselves with navigation by crater.
11. When Armstrong? jumped approx 5 feet up the ladder (not seen that footage btw) what would be the needed force to do so, and was such a jump ever made again? (From what I have seen the jumps were just about the same as we would do on earth when in an uncomfortable suit)
Both Buzz and Neil did big jumps up onto the LM ladder (near the end of the Apollo 11 footage.) The astronauts have stated that jumping was off-putting and they felt like they were toppling backwards, so avoided it as much as possible.
12. When watching the takeoff in one of the missions has anyone done calculations on the speed incresment of the LM, i.e. it should start slowly and then cradually pick up speed shouldnt it? (I know the gravity is less on the moon than on earth)
Not that I know of. Not sure it's entire possible due to the pan and zoom functions of the camera.
13. Is it possible that the death of Baron and his family was in fact done by some goverment agency or individuals? Given that his report also went AWOL week(?) afterwards could be taken as a possibility of foul play. Keep in mind that there were many who would stand to lose a lot of money if that program were to stop, it is known his report showed the program in a very bad light. It should also be easy for someone with authority to manipulate the investigation of his death, I mean, suicide, he was in the end of his biggest project in his career and wham he kills him self and his family.
I'll let someone else answer this as I'm not totally familiar of the event and perfer not to speculate.
14. What did the USA stand to lose if they had failed to go to the moon in that decade?
Not a lot. Some people might have been disappointed. NASA considered Dec 1970 to the end of the Decade though so they still had 17 months as of July 1969.
15. What did the USA stand to win by going to the moon in that decade?
Not really a lot. One upmanship on the Soviets. National Pride.
*edit* 16. If the gravity on the moon is one sixth of that on earth why dont we see the astronauts taking longer steps/jumps? I am not good at math so I cant calculate it, but I find it likely that a 2+ meter jump between steps would be far from impossible, specially when moving down a hill. I saw this footage where 2 astronauts were going rather fast down a hill but they were going about the same as we would here on earth, how is that possible that they didnt in fact go further in each jump?
See the answer to 11.
|
|
|
Post by omni on Sept 3, 2006 22:43:15 GMT -4
Thanks for the quick responds. 1. Now for the reason of not going again being money, www.themoneymasters.com/ , then it is a fact that when needed then more money is simply printed so that is hardly a reason. 2. 3. It may have been bad info but it came in a national newspaper here in iceland last winter that China had plans to go to the moon 2011, I dont sell it more expencive than I bought it. 4. No one knows but them really. 5. A simple yes is insufficiant i think, if there is no data to support that then it is possible that rocks that came from comets and such, melted and scorched, are broken down in smaller peices to remove the molten and scorched outer layer which might give us rocks that are possibly from the lunar surface. 6. They are not as rare as one would think, in the summer when the top most layers melt in the polar zones there is a lot of rocks to be found in various sizes, now given that a major program was launched decades ago to go and collect those samples then 850lb isnt all that much. In 1999 i recall i was at sea near Svalbard and the night sky became bright as a day because of falling stones, doesnt happen very often I know, but how many times has it happaned in the last centuries. 7. I think LunarOrbit answered that one. 8. Here in this thread apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=1156641668 it says that the pictures we have access to are in fact non consistent with one and another and if they are manipulated to give prettier results, then whats to say that everything/ a lot has not as well, which essentially makes a lot of that data unreliable to use as facts for either side. 9. Clearly no one but he knows what he was referring to, at least no one here does know for a fact if it went inside the spacesuit or it happaned after he took it off. May even be something he said to give some spice to the story. 10. "I once saw a Porche drive past that looks similar to the one that Brad Pitt drives. Is it possible it was him?" That is really a bad answer and an answer one would result to when his believes are questioned, to ridicule the other person. Are the pictures in the FOX documentary from that so called Area 51 false ?? Then why not just say so. If it isnt false then why are they there ?? We know that Area 51 is a testing site for US military craft why? Becasue someone told us? 1/6 gravity in the videos has yet to be proven, see questions 11. 12 and 16, when those are answered we can talk about if it was indeed 1/6 gravity. 11. Why does noe one touch this question ? 12. I am not highly learned but I just started school again after 15 years away and in nature science, there was something about how an item starts to move how it starts slowly and then if enough force is applied then it gradually picks up speed, even bullets from a gun starts slowly (not at full speed) and picks up speed until it leaves the barrrel where it starts to slow down again becouse of air resistance and gravity. 13. Personal oppinion. 14. 15. 16. This one is actually quite important i think, it is possible it could be used to kill either argument!!!!! "Name one conspiracy as complex as an Apollo hoax would have to be that was kept secret for any length of time; name five that were substantially less complex that became clear within five years" Echelon project. Nazy war criminals working for and with the USA after WWII. CIA's LSD program. CIA managing to replace the power in Congo with Mabutu. USA sponsoring a revolution in Kuba which failed. CIA sponcored revolt in Indonesia in 1965. Laos 1965, Air America, Heroin. Killing of Che Guevera. Augosto Pinochet put to power by the USA. Cambodia 1970. Angola 1975. Nigaragua. Afghanistan 1979. All that and a lot more most likely was done without the public knowing in the beginning, note, if this is what we know then what about things that are still hidden from us? Almost everything is possible if there is the will to do it, people are tricked with money, religion and idioligy every single day. The events above were on a need to know basis and were found out by the public many years later. What we think to be truth now may be revealed a lie tomorrow, keep that in mind. Dont discard an idea as rubbish because you have "proof" when that "proof" comes from someone know for lying and falsifying and decieting.
|
|
|
Post by omni on Sept 3, 2006 22:49:20 GMT -4
"Both Buzz and Neil did big jumps up onto the LM ladder (near the end of the Apollo 11 footage.) The astronauts have stated that jumping was off-putting and they felt like they were toppling backwards, so avoided it as much as possible"
Ok, now its all clear to me, they said it so it must be true, is that right ?
What I am talking about is them actually running down a hill but in their steps they dont go further than if i were to run down hill in an uncomfortible suit.
Thats the whole point here, they are in ONE SIXTH gravity of what we have here on earth, I am sure as hell that any athletic human in ONE SIXTH gravity would at least try to jump ahead few meters several times. But becasue they felt it was uncofortable they didnt? Rubbish I say.
|
|
|
Post by grashtel on Sept 3, 2006 23:15:07 GMT -4
1. Now for the reason of not going again being money, www.themoneymasters.com/ , then it is a fact that when needed then more money is simply printed so that is hardly a reason. I would suggest learning more about economics before you make that kind of statement. In particular the term " Hyperinflation" to see what tends to happen to a national economy when a goverment tries what you suggested.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Sept 3, 2006 23:17:39 GMT -4
it is a fact that when needed then more money is simply printed Sure, if you want to completely devalue your currency and destroy the economy. But the outter surfaces of Apollo return samples show evidence of long-term direct exposure to a lunar surface environment, which they wouldn't if they had been broken out of the center of lunites. But how many of those are meteorites, much less lunites? As pointed out in that thread, those who study Apollo photographs professionally do not use convenience JPEG-compressed images from the web, they get photographic copies from the original transparencies. As was already answered above, the craters in question were produced intentionally to aid astronauts in training. Is it your claim that Apollo footage was faked outdoors?. And of your examples, how much evidence was presented at the time that those events were not happening? You're trying to compare programs carried out in secrecy from the public with one which was (purportedly) outright deception. The two are not easily comperable. Including going to the moon. Such as Apollo hoax proponents.
|
|
|
Post by jones on Sept 3, 2006 23:20:09 GMT -4
Omni,
About the money, you seem to forget that NASA's budget has to be approved by Congress and the Senate. All of which of course are republicans and democrats of varying beliefs who are elected to serve by the good ol' american people. The Apollo program, even in it's heyday, recieved plenty of criticism. In a roundabout way, if the American People don't want to fund more missions to the moon, they are most likely going to get scrapped. Which is EXACTLY what happened to the apollo program. We moved on, because after apollo 11, people got bored. They simply didn't see the value in returning once we had been there. So apollo's 18-21 or 24 or something like that got cancelled.
There is no single entity labeled "The Government" that just decides to go and start printing more money to hand out to contractors to build new spaceships. We are talking about a lot of individuals who are constantly in disagreement over so many issues and the cost of space travel is definately one of them!
Maybe I'm naive, but here in America. We have the power to create change. Most people just don't excerisize that......
Sorry for the rant!!!
|
|
|
Post by grashtel on Sept 3, 2006 23:30:43 GMT -4
"Both Buzz and Neil did big jumps up onto the LM ladder (near the end of the Apollo 11 footage.) The astronauts have stated that jumping was off-putting and they felt like they were toppling backwards, so avoided it as much as possible" Ok, now its all clear to me, they said it so it must be true, is that right ? Are you saying that its not true? If so I expect you to provide evidence that you know more about moving in a space suit in one sixth gravity than the people who have actually done it. If trying to jump a long way made them feel uncomfortable why would they do it? Especially considering the consiquences of falling over backwards, to me it looks like it would be quite easy to end up stuck on your back while wearing one of the Apollo suits which would be seriously embaressing and if their backpack or suit was damaged quite possibly fatal. The fact that if the suit gets peirced, the helmet cracked, or the backpack breaks you die would tend to put more than just a slight damper on jumping around for the sake of jumping around. Finally how much of the Apollo videos have you seen? It is quite possible that they did bigger jumps at some point you haven't seen but realised that it wasn't such a good idea so didn't do it again.
|
|
|
Post by jones on Sept 3, 2006 23:32:35 GMT -4
PS... If you are really interested in learning more about the apollo program, check out www.spacecraftfilms.com. If you don't feel like spending any money just go and check out the apollo lunar surface journal. There is enough information, photos, video clips, and things like that to keep you busy for hours. There are even a few clips of astronauts losing balance on the surface of the moon and tripping or falling. Maybe if you saw some of those clips you would realize why they dont' just carelessly try to run and jump as far or high as they can. It's also clips like that which really demonstrate the motion of objects in a vacuum at 1/6th G. You usually don't get to see the really good clips on the pro-hoax based sites! Check it out...You wont' regret it. The worst that could happen is that you abandon your beliefe that it is a hoax, or you find more that strengthens your beliefs. www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/frame.html
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Sept 3, 2006 23:37:13 GMT -4
I am sure as hell that any athletic human in ONE SIXTH gravity would at least try to jump ahead few meters several times. Apollo EVA suits were very stiff and did not afford nearly the range of motion which an unsuited individual enjoys. Simply walking in the conventional sense wasn't typically feasable, hence the tendancy to hop or lope instead. Also consider that they had a massive life-support system strapped to their backs. Even though it and the astronaut weigh less in lunar gravity, they have the same mass as on Earth, hence the same inertia, but only about 1/6 as much traction with the surface in order to start or stop. It's not a matter of comfort, it's one of self preservation. Again, massive life-support system on their back, so their center-of-mass was still considerably further back than a person not so burdoned, hence the necessity for them to lean forward when standing. Making great leaps, potentially landing on that backpack and dammaging the systems would be unwise.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Sept 4, 2006 0:03:04 GMT -4
1. Now for the reason of not going again being money, www.themoneymasters.com/ , then it is a fact that when needed then more money is simply printed so that is hardly a reason.A government can't just print more money whenever it needs it. Money has value only because it's quantity is controlled. It would be no different than citizens printing their own money whenever they need it. 10. "I once saw a Porche drive past that looks similar to the one that Brad Pitt drives. Is it possible it was him?" That is really a bad answer and an answer one would result to when his believes are questioned, to ridicule the other person.You're missing my point. I'm not trying to ridicule you, I'm only saying that just because something looks similar doesn't mean it's the same. If you can show me pictures of crators at Area 51 that look identical to crators on the moon I will give it more consideration.
|
|