The departure from Moon can be explained. The landing, not.
Just look how they land robots on Moon or Mars now (40 year after "moon landing"):
-the robots are covered in a big cocoon; rubber like material
-they just let them fall on the moon
-then it will bounce up and down for few hours
Why is that? Because there is no air on Moon. So parachute, or planing can not be used.
Just look how they land robots on Moon or Mars now (40 year after "moon landing"):
-the robots are covered in a big cocoon; rubber like material
-they just let them fall on the moon
-then it will bounce up and down for few hours
Why is that? Because there is no air on Moon. So parachute, or planing can not be used.
There is NO telescope that can look over the corner. They landed on the other side of the moon. Every time in exact the same place.
No denying they are there, but they could have been put there by an unmanned craft!😀
Suppose they did actually go there, and landed on the other side.... how did they then maintain constant radio communiation? (From the lander, not from the command module)
Homework: Get a lunar atlas (freely downloadable), look for names like Mare Tranquilitatis, Mare Imbrium, Fra Mauro, Taurus Littrow. Then go out tonight and compare your atlas pics to the REAL moon... you can see all those places right from where you stand.
I think Tpsorin is making a joke! The 'in the exact same place every time' gives it away.
Yes there is. You are forgetting the effect of gravitational lensing.
I think it's much more lkely they were built and put there by the native inhabitants.
Last edited:
one of you guys is talking bul....t!
cheers Uli
Speaking of which:
YouTube - Penn and Teller ******** - Moon conspiracy.mp4
But they supposedly didn't land all in the same location, see NASA - LRO Sees Apollo Landing Sites
there is a location map included
The interesting question, in my book (no one who is trained in the field that I have ever spoken to in person has been willing to discuss with me anyway...) is
- what about the radiation levels after one passes out of and through the Van Allen belts??
My personal pet theory on the "Alien" bit revolves around the idea of "normal" speed of light travel and time. Ok,"aliens" who perhaps live lifespans similar to perhaps biblically reported ones (1-2k years) may have indeed developed the ability to travel at or near the speed of light. Perhaps these "aliens" were actually living on *our planet* or farther back maybe on *Mars*. One plausible concept is that they found that the level of the Sun's output was diminishing substantially, causing the inevitable decline and crash of their habitat, calculated the amount of time required for Earth to "cool down" to living temperature. That left the only final piece to the puzzle to fit - how to survive all that time to make the bridge? The answer appears to be in the idea that if one could travel at the speed of light a large amount of time could pass in the planetary system, but a relatively small amount in the traveling ship. Or perhaps there are more than one traveling ships, for redundancy.
So, they set up an orbit for their path. The orbit is/was set in order to revisit Earth on intervals sufficiently large to permit time to pass, but sufficiently short in order to monitor developments. Thus they are not "around" all the time... we are, so we don't "see them" very often.
Just an idea that has perhaps some element of logic to it.
(this has been a copywrited concept (c)2010 bear)
_-_-bear
- what about the radiation levels after one passes out of and through the Van Allen belts??
My personal pet theory on the "Alien" bit revolves around the idea of "normal" speed of light travel and time. Ok,"aliens" who perhaps live lifespans similar to perhaps biblically reported ones (1-2k years) may have indeed developed the ability to travel at or near the speed of light. Perhaps these "aliens" were actually living on *our planet* or farther back maybe on *Mars*. One plausible concept is that they found that the level of the Sun's output was diminishing substantially, causing the inevitable decline and crash of their habitat, calculated the amount of time required for Earth to "cool down" to living temperature. That left the only final piece to the puzzle to fit - how to survive all that time to make the bridge? The answer appears to be in the idea that if one could travel at the speed of light a large amount of time could pass in the planetary system, but a relatively small amount in the traveling ship. Or perhaps there are more than one traveling ships, for redundancy.
So, they set up an orbit for their path. The orbit is/was set in order to revisit Earth on intervals sufficiently large to permit time to pass, but sufficiently short in order to monitor developments. Thus they are not "around" all the time... we are, so we don't "see them" very often.
Just an idea that has perhaps some element of logic to it.
(this has been a copywrited concept (c)2010 bear)
_-_-bear
Is that picture of Buzz Aldrin on the Moon ( http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/369227main_aldrinLM_full.jpg ) ? If so the mud around the space craft ( close to it ) seems to be pretty undisturbed and there is lots of loose material around. They should have been blasted away when the landing engines fired when they landed. Additionally there should have been streaks away from it . Looks pretty undisturbed to me. This may have been a shot during a practice session back on Earth ?
Last edited:
I can never figure out how to quote....but ashok
There is a clear layer of blown away dust underneath the lander.....the dust layer looks like it was only about 1/4" to 1/2" of soft powder deep before a hard surface gets hit.
Also, without the dense air/atmosphere, the lander pads will not cause a lot of blow back (?, hope you get the idea) when they hit the surface, they will only move a small bit of dust. And any dust that was disturbed would not float and settle like on earth, which explains why everything is still nice and shined still....
There is a clear layer of blown away dust underneath the lander.....the dust layer looks like it was only about 1/4" to 1/2" of soft powder deep before a hard surface gets hit.
Also, without the dense air/atmosphere, the lander pads will not cause a lot of blow back (?, hope you get the idea) when they hit the surface, they will only move a small bit of dust. And any dust that was disturbed would not float and settle like on earth, which explains why everything is still nice and shined still....
Where are the stars in that photo?
You can see stars even from Earth trough atmosphere. Why, there are no star in that picture?
I am kind of curious now that you mention the stars......maybe there is someone out there with a little more specific knowledge in that area....
Yeah, wow, they forgot the stars.
Did you guys read even ONE of the astronomy site links in this thread? Sheesh.
It's always fun to read theese kind of threads, a little bit sad aswell.
Not definitive proof, but I think this site does a ok job of explaining most of the "issues" people trip over: Those Apollo hoax myths debunked | Science | The Guardian
Not definitive proof, but I think this site does a ok job of explaining most of the "issues" people trip over: Those Apollo hoax myths debunked | Science | The Guardian
I wasn't questioning that they went there, I admit, I didn't read all the links, but that is what I was hoping to understand. Will go and read now.
NASA planned the ascent so that the astronauts spent the minimum amount of time (one hour) passing through the Van Allen belts. The intensity of the radiation in the VA belts is exaggerated by the conspiracy boneheads - it would actually take about a month of exposure to cause harmful effects. You had to be really bright to work at the space agency in those days and it's a shame that anyone would ever lend any credence to this trailer trash.
The second part of your post - you were just being funny, right?
John
Yeah I saw that punch from Aldrin. I do believe that they went to the Moon. But I think ALL has not been revealed ! That reporter deserved that punch !
Look up this interview with Aldrin.
YouTube - aliens exist says buzz aldrin
Look up this interview with Aldrin.
YouTube - aliens exist says buzz aldrin
- Status
- Not open for further replies.