[Closed] Have we REALLY been to the moon?

Regarding the radiation,the 5 minute thing was a sign that was up on the wall when I went for an xray. An xray only takes 1 minute off your life. Not sure if there is higher cancer among pilots , just letting you know what the sign said.
The space station is in a low orbit inside the van Allen belt ( I think!) which shields a lot of radiation.
Don't forget I am pro moon landing.

I think its a damn site easier to go to the moon than it is to keep the mouths shut of all those NASA employees that would be involved in faking it!

I don't think it's stupid to be sceptical of something claimed to have been done in a time of far lower technology which is not being done in a time of superior technology.
Personally, I'm not even convinced of my own physical existence let alone any of you delusions. However; things, largely, behave consistantly when I think I am awake. So this is the best I have to go on.
proof for getting to the moon surely must be based on the extensive varity of cheeses available. That cheese has been available for some number of years is also proof that if this is reality, then aliens have visited (via the moon)

Just as a slight aside, have a ponder on the comments about modern computing power versus the 60's and 70's.

Voyager 2, currently the fastest machine man has ever built, apparently has [url= http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/faq.html ]68Kb of storage[/url].

Key considerations are reliability, efficient code, power consumption and obviously strong enough kit to survive the rigours of space travel.

I cba to work out how much power a contemporary PC draws but it's probably safe to say you wouldn't want to design a battery/power system that would run one for 30 years! Plus how long do you think a modern PC would work if you strapped all the individual component parts to a car and drove it in all weathers? - 10 minutes?

Yes computing tech has come on hugely but a lot of (software) products are very bloated. - I'm fairly sure Microsoft don't provide flight control software to the space agencies!!

Ah but, microprocessor computing has come on a long way too. Clever tricks like sleep modes and dynamic clock speeds as well as huge improvements in chip manufacturing mean we can build much more energy efficient embedded systems these days.

Thats all well and good but it still seems to me that anyone who thinks man didn't land on the moon is a bit of a flyd.

I wonder if in the 1800s the eminent members of a Gentleman's Velocipede Club were discussing the whether the Montgolfier brothers really had managed the frankly improbable feat of floating through the air suspended beneath a balloon, or if the whole thing was simply a hoax perpetrated by the French government?

don't think it's stupid to be sceptical of something claimed to have been done in a time of far lower technology which is not being done in a time of superior technology.

Concorde was faked as well, well there is no supersonic passenger travel now in the 21st Century 🙄

Personally, I'm not even convinced of my own physical existence

have you thought about banging your head against a wall and seeing if the pain persuades you that you are both real?

seems to me that anyone who thinks man didn't land on the moon is a bit of a flyd.

I'd say that's about right, yes......

"The best evidence I've seen against the moon landing is from a photographer who notices photos taken on the moon that are incompatible with the list of photographic equipment taken."
That was the head technician at Hasselblad at the time of the moon landings - he couldn't understand how the crosshairs present at the corners of each frame could have been obscured by the flag and rocky outcrops, in the negatives from the moon. In fact, even with no understanding of camera view-finders, it's patently impossible.
But I've been here before and had the same argument, and there are those on the forum who apparently have a better understanding of the way light refracts than the man responsible for designing and building cameras to take into space.
EDIT: that's not to say I don't believe there have been men on the moon, but those negs were doctored IMO. Perhaps they were damaged and they felt the need to prove their attendance on the moon by faking the photos?

I recall seeing a program that set out to debunk all these myths, using technology and sophisticated studio setups and lighting. The grid marks that show up on all NASA photos aren't on the viewfinder, they are on a clear substrate behind the shutter, IIRC, to make it easier to map photo sequences together for panoramas without distortion, as they would be done in a darkroom, no Photoshop available then, let's not forget. And 'doctoring' would have had to have been done by hand, with an airbrush. To do that and maintain film grain under enlargement would be impossible. I used to retouch photos with a DeVillbiss airbrush, and believe me, it's impossible to do without it showing under enlargement. The grid marks are actually there, it's just that where they should appear on white areas, those areas are somewhat overexposed, being burned out to pure white because of the harsh lighting, with no atmospheric scatter, and so the grid lines just disappear. Modern digital cameras do the same thing, clouds often go pure white, with no subtle shadings of white and grey. I can only speak as someone who has been taking photos for over thirty years, and retouching photos by hand and computer for around the same length of time, so I might actually have a bit of a clue. I'm no expert, mind.

Isn't the "computing power" thing an obsession of our age?

Thinking of a comparable 20th Century military industrial project...

... how much "computing power" (as in digtal processing) did the Manhattan Project have access to?? A large number of brilliant minds, many talented engineers and the political, financial and material back-up needed to make it happen -much like the Apollo programme

And that worked - undeniably...

Bletchley Park's Ultra decrypts probably deployed vastly more data processing than either of the above....

Did we fake the Mars landing(s) too?

I just know someone will post the transformers trailer... 🙂

I'm convinced. Serious looking photographs with intelligent white lines and good, clear annotation does it for me every time

It's the whacking great footpath across the middle of the image that I am talking about. It looks exactly like some vague paths I've seen on satellite pics when scouting bike routes. Very convincing.

This thread just reminded me of this classic!

[img] [/img]

Look what's just been released.... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14813043

NASA have obviously been looking at this website and know they have been rumbled.
The fakery continues.............!

[img] [/img]

Argument closed.

Right, now thats sorted can we please start looking for Lord Lucan 😛

BTW, if I was an astronaut on the moon, before leaving I would have at least had the good sense to write "Hello Mum :)" or better "disprove THIS!" on the ground in very big letters using the lunar rover...

why does the LM look like the Ascent stage is still in place ? 😯 😕

Wunundred!

Even on holiday! 😀

More to the point, If the Lunar landings were faked and filmed in a studio in 1969, why did "Battle Beyond The Stars", done in 1980, look so utterly cr@p?

"BTW, if I was an astronaut on the moon, before leaving I would have at least had the good sense to write "Hello Mum :)" or better "disprove THIS!" on the ground in very big letters using the lunar rover..."

I like your thinking I'd have made a giant cock myself.

I've just found these images from the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO)
[url= http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/main/index.html ]http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/main/index.html[/url]

[img] [/img]
Apollo 12 landing side BTW.

Amazing photos. Love the idea of the astronauts making giant drawings with the rover without telling anyone what they're up to. Just imagine a giant hand with upraised middle digit... 😈
Sort of takes us to the Nazca figures.

more photos

[img] [/img]

Of course.. the photos we are all posting are from guess who... NASA!

Got to say google earth are pretty thorough.

More to the point, If the Lunar landings were faked and filmed in a studio in 1969, why did "Battle Beyond The Stars", done in 1980, look so utterly cr@p?

+1

Thats all well and good but it still seems to me that anyone who thinks man didn't land on the moon is a bit of a [b]flyd[/b].

Are you six years old?

Offensive and infantile. Nice one.

Are you six years old?

Offensive and infantile. Nice one.

And in the case of the man on the moon skeptics, entirely appropriate.

Meh.

[i]Just remember that over 400,000 US people worked on the Apollo/Gemini programme for over 10 years to get man to the moon.[/i]

Exactly. How do you keep all those people to stop blurting out it never happened?

Of course, the OP's girlfriend could have an amazing rack in which case it's entirely understandable. He has to agree with her.

^^ Busted 😆

Tell your GF to apply Occam's Razor to the problem.

If you start to think about how many people would have had to have kept quiet about the deception and for how long and how carefully ALL the evidence would have had to have been covered up (for example, where were the astronauts hiding whilst they were missing from the earth for a few days?), and indeed what purpose would have actually been being served if the moonlandings were being faked, then actually putting someone on the moon starts to look like a simpler (and therefore more likely) explanation of what happened.

Might require a whole bottle of Bailey's though.

P.S. Has you GF got any other whacko theories?

P.S. Has you GF got any other whacko theories?

Immediately after watching this thread unfold she wanted to start a thread relating to the common cold and "of course we have a cure but the pharma companies make too much money for an antidote to be launched" blah blah. At which point I swiftly removed the laptop.

It's not easy being me as you have probably guessed 😉

Of course, the OP's girlfriend could have an amazing rack in which case it's entirely understandable.

pics?

I'll be seeing her tomorrow eveining rocketman so I'll get some for you then...Sadly I only have pics of her 'front bottom' on my machine 😉

I went to the moon once.....

Didn't stay very long.....

There was no atmosphere......

Couldn't resist. Sorry. 😀