Space 1999 Eagle Transporter Forum


Go Back   Space 1999 Eagle Transporter Forum > Deep Space Tracking Station > Ring Around the Moon

Notices

SPONSORED BY
&

Reply Bookmark and Share
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 21-11-2007, 09:23 PM   #1
Scrimber
Medical Technician
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 155
Default China: Satellite enters moon's orbit

Hi with this new news happening do you think NASA might have. A problem with them taking high resoulution images of the Lunar surface.Just a thought I doubt the fact that they may have landed man on the moon but they may have landed something.Even just a probe to gather information.

Any thoughts ??????????
Scrimber is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 21-11-2007, 11:50 PM   #2
AceMartini
Communications Officer
 
AceMartini's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,056
Default

There is plenty of evidence that man has in fact landed on the moon, not the least of which is 800+ pounds of rocks from the lunar surface that were returned to the Earth. Geologists all across the globe have examined these rocks and not one has ever claimed that they are fake. Radiometric dating has shown the moon rocks to be older than any rocks on the Earth. They are distinct from meteorites, also. The moon rocks could not have been faked and they could not have been returned by unmanned probes.

Thousands of photographs and hours of film and video also confirm that man has landed on the moon. Laser reflectors left by the Apollo astronauts continue to reflect pulses of light back from the moon.

There are many videos on YouTube that question whether or not man has landed on the moon, but the videos are invariably made by people who have no idea what they are talking about.

If you would like to share some particular piece of "evidence" that you believe proves the Apollo program to have been a hoax, I will be more than happy to show you why the "evidence" is incorrect.

I am quite sure that NASA will welcome any country's efforts to photograph the Apollo landing sites.
AceMartini is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 21-11-2007, 11:57 PM   #3
Northerner
Communications Officer
 
Northerner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Vermillion, South Dakota - USA
Posts: 989
Default

didnt you ever see Capricorn One? that should prove everything right there! LOL
Northerner is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 22-11-2007, 12:01 AM   #4
AceMartini
Communications Officer
 
AceMartini's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,056
Default

There was an Apollo hoax show on Fox that wondered why the Lunar Module looked so much like the Mars lander in Capricorn One and why Neil Armstrong said almost exactly the same words as James Brolin when he stepped onto the surface.
AceMartini is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 22-11-2007, 12:10 AM   #5
DX-SFX
Chief Medical Officer
 
DX-SFX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 9,094
Default

Quote:
I doubt the fact that they may have landed man on the moon but they may have landed something.

Any thoughts ??????????
Why are you wearing that stupid man suit?
DX-SFX is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote

Old 22-11-2007, 12:19 AM   #6
Bishop
Chief Science Officer
 
Bishop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: South Australia
Posts: 11,796
Default

Taking photos of the moon landing sites would simply prove that the Chinese were in on it.... Mind you if China lands people on the moon that would make it a communist plot...

What I'm really not sure about is how they're going to hide those nuke waste areas and how Shado is going to keep things quiet?

Hopefully they will also find where the guy from Space Cowboys landed and they'll be able to give him a proper funeral....

They may even find Kirk's body.... reburied by the aliens who wanted it off their planet after they left the Federation....

It would actually be cool to see what some of the landing sites are like now and what the rovers are like now days. It would be good to go back. Just as long as they call the first station Alpha. The ultimate accolade for Gerry and Silvia... it certainly wouldn't be called DS 9
Bishop is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 22-11-2007, 12:20 AM   #7
Mola Rob
Computer Technician
 
Mola Rob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: New England
Posts: 205
Default

Well duh we did land on the moon. Unfortunately General Zod, Ursa, and Non killed everyone and destroyed the lander.
Mola Rob is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 22-11-2007, 12:23 AM   #8
Bishop
Chief Science Officer
 
Bishop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: South Australia
Posts: 11,796
Default

That's right... I forgot all about that. (fun flick.. they got really silly after that)
Bishop is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 22-11-2007, 01:12 AM   #9
Scrimber
Medical Technician
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 155
Default

Ok I agree that theres a lot of for and against factors and the lunar samples are here and whos to say how they where collected.But where is the Lander pictures to show where they are.Yes the discs that reflect the lasers are in position they could have just been landed there.

As soon as I fined the artical again I will post a link about NASA saying that they did not have a sateillite.That could take pictures of the moon surface because the argument being. They could not get the resolution sharp enough to take pictures detailed enough to show the lander sites.Remember this is the agency that has the power to pick a number plate out from orbit.

If they did they did but pictures would be nice.
Scrimber is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 22-11-2007, 01:47 AM   #10
DSJ
Computer Technician
 
DSJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Edmonton, Alberta. Canada.
Posts: 213
Default

Oh yeah, the moon landing. Enjoy!

Man lands on the Moon... almost

Proof of moon hoax!

Warning: Contains Language.

BREAKING: New Video Footage of Moon Landing!
DSJ is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote

Old 22-11-2007, 02:10 AM   #11
AceMartini
Communications Officer
 
AceMartini's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,056
Default

Quote:
Ok I agree that theres a lot of for and against factors
Well, there is a lot for, but the against is all ignorant conjecture.


Quote:
and the lunar samples are here and whos to say how they where collected.
There is no way NASA could have hidden a robotic program to return 800+ pounds of moon rocks. And if they could do that, one might assume they could have landed a man or twelve on the moon.

Quote:
But where is the Lander pictures to show where they are.
There are thousands of pictures of the Apollo landing sites. It is ridiculous to dismiss those pictures.

Quote:
Yes the discs that reflect the lasers are in position they could have just been landed there.
They were landed there by the Apollo astronauts. There are photos of them being set up. There is no reason to dismiss the photos or the fact that those reflectors still function.

Quote:
As soon as I fined the artical again I will post a link about NASA saying that they did not have a sateillite.That could take pictures of the moon surface because the argument being. They could not get the resolution sharp enough to take pictures detailed enough to show the lander sites.Remember this is the agency that has the power to pick a number plate out from orbit.
No, that is incorrect. NASA does not have a satellite or telescope (no, not even Hubble) that can resolve the Apollo landing sites. Nobody has that capability.

Quote:
If they did they did but pictures would be nice.
There are thousands of pictures taken from the surface of the moon. No credible argument has been made that even begins to show those photographs to be fake. Again, if you have a particular piece of evidence you'd like to discuss, I am all for it.
AceMartini is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 22-11-2007, 03:00 AM   #12
CR
Science Officer
 
CR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: wandering the universe
Posts: 5,472
Default

AceMartini is off to a very good start trying to enlighten not just the question asker, but anyone else reading this thread.
I, on the other hand, am less charitable than AceMartini. Over the years, my patience has worn thin trying to explain to people how & why we actually landed on the moon, only to be rebuffed with "yeah, but they could have faked it" or some other shallow point. Nevertheless, I still try to educate and inform to the best of my ability, but it's getting harder, especially when people choose to remain ignorant. In this day and age where critical thinking is no longer taught in schools (at least in the US), where infotainment has replaced news and where religious dogma has been forced down our throats to justify anything, including war, I can't stand when people willfully stay ignorant.
Asking questions is an admirable thing (which I encourage, actually), but not if one is just going to ignore the answers to those questions if they don't fit one's predetermined viewpoint.
By the way, conspiracism absolutely does not equal critical thinking. Exactly the opposite, in fact.
Also, Fox 'documentaries,' YouTube conspiracy videos, and The X-Files are not reality.
Oh, and just to head off the inevitable question, no, I don't work for NASA, or any government agency. I've studied astronomy and space travel since I was a child, and encourage others to do so. You might learn a thing or two about history, the way the world works, and the universe you are a tiny part of.
CR is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 22-11-2007, 03:21 AM   #13
CR
Science Officer
 
CR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: wandering the universe
Posts: 5,472
Default

By the way, everyone might want to check out the Japanese HD pics & video from lunar orbit. No, I don't think they've resolved the landing sites (yet), but they still are some awesome pics!
Oh, and the US is planning to launch an orbiter, like the one currently orbiting Mars that was able to pick out the Mars rovers on the surface. So we'll soon get lunar landing site pics. I hope nobody says "but those are faked too" or something. Hard to accept proof if one is never willing to accept proof.

To anyone who doesn't want to believe actual proof, why don't they pony up the resources and prove it for themselves? If they're so certain they're right, then they can prove it.
CR is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 22-11-2007, 03:25 AM   #14
AceMartini
Communications Officer
 
AceMartini's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,056
Default

Yeah, right there with you. I guess I could just jump the gun and go ahead and refute all the arguments right now.

Claim 1. There are no stars in the pictures from the moon's surface.
Answer: Stars will not show up on film under those conditions. Try it - take a camera out in the afternoon, set the exposure, then go out and take a picture of the sky with those settings at night. Guess what -- no stars. In fact, try taking pictures of stars with a hand-held camera (as were those on Apollo) under any conditions.

Claim 2. The flags seem to be waving in a breeze, but there should be no breeze on the moon.
Answer: In most cases, an astronaut is handling the flag pole, imparting motion to the flag. In at least one case, it seems that a static charge is responsible for attracting the flag to an astronaut- but I've only seen one case.

Claim 3: The Van Allen radiation belts would have killed the astronauts as they passed through them on the way to the moon.
Answer: No. Even Dr. Van Allen has said this is not true. While the astronauts did get a decent dose of radiation, they passed through the belts fairly quickly and were given no more radiation than one would get with several dental X-rays.

Claim 4: There is a reflection of a giant spotlight in the visors of the astronauts on the moon.
Answer: The "giant spotlight" is actually an effect called "blooming," and is caused by the pickup tube of a video camera being saturated by an overexposed image - in this case, it was the reflection of the sun. On many of these images, the artifact can be seen to extend well outside the area of the visor; a reflection can't do this, but blooming can. Pictures on film from the moon do not show this artifact.

Claim 5: There is no time delay between mission control asking a question and the astronauts answering.
Answer: The recordings of the astronauts were taken from the return signal, which recorded mission control and the astronauts as both signals returned from the moon.

Claim 6: The shadows on the moon should be parallel, but aren't.
Answer: This is a matter of perspective and also a matter of the moon not being smooth like a beach ball. Standing between two parallel shadows will create two very divergent lines for the observer. Parallel shadows on uneven ground will also not appear to have the same characteristics.

I could go on...
AceMartini is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 22-11-2007, 04:21 AM   #15
CR
Science Officer
 
CR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: wandering the universe
Posts: 5,472
Default

Just to add to AceMartini's points about photography, I'll add something to the supposed 'photographic anomolies' CTs bring up all the time. Take a camera and try photographing things yourself. If you have time, talk to real photographers, too. Take a course in photography, or even general art that teaches perspective and how to draw what you see, rather than what you know. (Or what you think you know.)
You'd be surprised at how wrong the things you thought you knew were, and how the real world actually works.
CR is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote

Old 22-11-2007, 05:56 AM   #16
Bishop
Chief Science Officer
 
Bishop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: South Australia
Posts: 11,796
Default

Just send them here. I still love visiting to look through things; thanks for the heads up on it CR. http://www.clavius.org/
Bishop is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 22-11-2007, 04:54 PM   #17
Garuda
Eagle Pilot
 
Garuda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sweden
Posts: 681
Default

Ace & CR - you are doing a fine job here.

I just want to add that when I studied geology at university, I was able to examine finely sliced moon rock firsthand with a polarizing microscope. Ace is absolutely correct in his description of moon rock above.
Garuda is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 22-11-2007, 05:00 PM   #18
Dr Kane
Communications Officer
 
Dr Kane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 1,458
Default

Let's also remember that the Soviet Union ran a sizeable intelligence collection effort against the US space programme (see, for example, Chris Kraft's book). If the Soviet spooks had found the slightest hint that it was a hoax, I'm sure they would have taken considerable pleasure in exposing it.

'Ah, but they were in on it too!'
Dr Kane is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 22-11-2007, 06:25 PM   #19
uncle bill
Astrophysics Technician
 
uncle bill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: SWINDON UK
Posts: 273
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AceMartini View Post
Claim 1. There are no stars in the pictures from the moon's surface.
Answer: Stars will not show up on film under those conditions. Try it - take a camera out in the afternoon, set the exposure, then go out and take a picture of the sky with those settings at night. Guess what -- no stars. In fact, try taking pictures of stars with a hand-held camera (as were those on Apollo) under any conditions.
Although I can't argue with Acemartini's point, it is my understanding that without the light scattering effect of an atmosphere stars are very small points of light and are very difficult to see with the eye let alone a camera.
uncle bill is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 22-11-2007, 07:29 PM   #20
DX-SFX
Chief Medical Officer
 
DX-SFX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 9,094
Default

I can't be bothered.

Quote:
AceMartini is off to a very good start trying to enlighten not just the question asker, but anyone else reading this thread.
I, on the other hand, am less charitable than AceMartini. Over the years, my patience has worn thin trying to explain to people how & why we actually landed on the moon, only to be rebuffed with "yeah, but they could have faked it" or some other shallow point.
Less than shallow. Dumb! It shows a swaggering disregard for all the "proof" in favour of a unsubstantiated belief. No doubt the holocaust never happened for the same reason. All those photos from Auschwitz and Belsen could've been faked. I can't imagine that horror therefore I don't believe it could've happened.

Apart from the swaggering and soul destroying piss poor lack of clear analytical thought (obviously landing a robotic rock collecting machine on the moon is believable but heaven forbid you could do the same with the extra two hundred pounds of a man on board), it's a huge insulting smack in the face for all the hundreds of thousands that took part, who gave up marriages and in some case lives. It also belittles one of mankind's truly great achievements. As one of those who showed "the right stuff" and put his life on the line for that dream, I can't imagine why Buzz laid one on that reporter guy.
DX-SFX is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote

Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:52 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
This site and contents are copyright Bernard Walsh 2010 all rights reserved, no reproduction of material in any form without written permission email: Bernie.walsh@mac.com