the 1st landing was fake it's easy to tell
thers no air on the moon so why was the flag flickering on the video?
how come the shadow of the module is facing a different way to that of the astronauts?
how can a module that hadn't much stability make a huge journey and back again in one piece?
LET THE HAMMER FALL
you cannot see any stars at all why is that?
the alluminium pole needs gravity to vibrate no gravity so it couldn't vibrate
LET THE HAMMER FALL
Well if u take a flashlight even 1000 (75watt) flashlights and put them 1 mile away, then take the brightest light on the planet and put it 100 yards away you'll never see the lights behind it. Its the same effect the sun has on Earth, during the day.Originally Posted by Shoden
U dont need gravity to vibrate an object number 1, but the moon also has gravity which is why when the astronauts jump they dont fly off into space. An object thats stationary at 1 end can vibrate.
Besides are u suggesting that they faked the moon landing outside in the wind.Or werent smart enough to add stars into the picture, they may have lived in '69, but these people were rocket scientists, quite litteraly.
Yes, we did, and it's foolish to believe otherwise. Bad Astronomy is, as has been said, an excellent resource on this matter.
Furthermore, if you don't believe there's gravity on the moon, or you think that gravity is required for vibration, perhaps you should take a few physics classes before you attempt this arguement again.
Last edited by Doomgaze; 03-13-2005 at 06:32 PM. Reason: edited for clarity
man did land on the moon but the 1969 landng was a hoax
the moon hasnt enough gravity to carry out gravitational effects on objects so even if the moon had earth gravity the structure would mean the gravity density would be so small and different.
you can see stars from the moon as there is not much light to see the moon also has no atmosphere so you can see perfectly
LET THE HAMMER FALL
Yes, as far as I know, you can see the stars on the moon. Film at that exposure rate, however, cannot.
You don't seem to have the slightest idea as to how gravity works, so I'll just direct you here for a rebuttal .
They're absolutely right: vibration only requires motion that has not yet disipated. Gravity and air aren't needed to cause it, the force from being stuck into the ground should last it a couple hours. Also, the flag was tethered up, because there is no wind to lift it, and what's the point if the flag just sat there dangling?
As for the stars: it's possible for the moon's reflective surface to blur the stars, but, in the case of that FIRST landing, I highly doubt it. The first landing was done in the "dark side"- in a crater, too. Every lunar landing was planned so that the module and crew would not sit in direct sunlight during the time on the surface. It's pretty close to 50/50 that enough sunlight reflected to blur the stars. That's one of those maybe's that neither side could answer right now. And thus, it's one of those that neither side should try and argue.
I just want to point out the *issues* involved. They had everything to gain, and nothing to lose, from faking a landing. I doubt they really wanted to, I'm sure they were hoping for a legitimate landing... especially for all the scientific benefits. But, I'm just as sure that a "constingency plan" existed.
The important part was to out-do the Russians. Showboating, one superpower in direct conflict with the other, an extension of the cold war that was starting to get scary. America NEEDED a victory in the space race, they already lost the "first satalite" and "first manned", we needed the first landing. Heck, we were already taking an international blow due to Vietnam. People were becoming demoralized, loosing faith in the ability of the government. Not to mention the backlash of certain "social revolutions", those weren't doing the establishment any good. Like I said, everything to gain, nothing to lose.
P.S.- for those guys trying to argue on my side... please, PLEASE!, do your homework. Check with me on these things. The moon has gravity, it's just weaker. Vibrations cause flags to ripple. There is no way to distinguish if the flag motions are a result of air or vibration.
has anyone here heard the song 'We Went To The Moon In 1969' from Even Stevens, Influenza: The Musical! doesnt really prove anything, but its a funny song!
my real name begins with a"W"
Interesting, I hadn't thought of that. Yes, that film probably couldn't spot stars... which supports the possibility of the set being done at night in the middle of the desert. I always wondered about the set... it couldn't have been done indoors due to area and limits in editing tech, but it COULD be outside if the *film couldn't see the stars*. It effectively puts both arguments on the same footing they were before.
Another point... have you seen the the first and second filmings? The first has a bunch of funny walking and whatnot. If you speed up the film around 75%, it looks like a bizarre walk/hop thing. The SECOND, however, shows the astronaughts hopping around, doing things that are blatently impossible to do on earth. Hopping about 10 ft. into the "air" (or, hopping high enough to easily clear a standing person, even a tall man in a suit that adds half a foot). Holding themselves up with just one hand. You couldn't fake THAT in an underwater simulator. But the first landing had none of that stuff. You do that math.
the pole would vibrate but thatd doesnt mean the damn flag would move does it? no because sil requires air to move not vibration
i'm doing higher level GCSE science i know this stuff ppl who dont believe are cocked up retards and thats happened alot these days retards saying im full ofno matter wat i say
LET THE HAMMER FALL
Yes, I believe we have landed in the moon. On 1969? Maybe. Yet, was the video fake? I believe so, even if man got to the moon, it seems quite strange they could have the technology for recording all that and sending it to the TVs live, I mean, seems quite complicated. I am no expert, so I couldn't tell, but so many questions around that video rise, it's preety hard to believe. Oh, yes, I have read the famous refutations that state how the whole theory on the fake thing is false, but many things don't seem to make full sense. Why was it done in black and white, for example?
Some rumours actually say it was Stanley Kubrick who did the filming. Some say you can see his ID card somewhere in the video if you zoom in a certain frame, but I am not sure, just heard that, never seen any images.
But yes, I am closer to believing the video was fake. Maybe the landing too, who knows?
at that time the modules they had werent stable enough for transport so what do they do?
make a fake video just to have another reason to laugh at Russia
man did land on the moon theres golfballs on the moon about 12 i think
LET THE HAMMER FALL
It's probably, in part, due to your spelling. Proper english makes for a much better impression than netspeak jiberishthe pole would vibrate but thatd doesnt mean the damn flag would move does it? no because sil requires air to move not vibration
i'm doing higher level GCSE science i know this stuff ppl who dont believe are cocked up retards and thats happened alot these days retards saying im full ofQuite frankly, if it were YOU trying to convince me that the landing was faked, I wouldn't believe you, either.
Also, in this case, a vibrating pole is quite capable of causing the flag to shift and ripple. It's a simple transfer of energy from one medium to a connected medium. A tuning fork works by transfering that same type of energy into the air (as sound).
The lack of atmosphere reduces the inertial resistance of the flag considerably. Not to mention the VASTLY reduced gravity. I can't say it would do what it did, but it easily could have. Whether in space or on earth, there's no real way to distinguish unless they took a fan and waved it at the flag. The flag is not an effective argument for either side.
but think about it
that happens on earth because of it's properties vibration has something to do with magnetism but the moon doesn't have much of that maybe none
even if that did happen it wouldn't be flickering like that would it? no because the energy transfer would have been very small due to the moons properties and it wouldn't go really fast like that it would slowly flciker for about 20 seconds then stop as there is no air to carry the movement on you have to remember the moon has planetery properties very different to that of earth so things could work different there
LET THE HAMMER FALL
Those "OMG fake moon landing!" TV shows are pure infotainment crap.
Nothing they claim has any real scientific basis; they were conceived purely to spark this kind of debate among the gullible and uninformed. They selectively disregarded important scientific truths and failed to mention them, then selected about a dozen unusual or distorted photographs and pieces of film (out of 30,000 photos that were taken on the moon's surface) and used those as their 'evidence', along with a few quacks and conspiracy theorists with nothing better to do.[q=Shoden]that happens on earth because of it's properties vibration has something to do with magnetism but the moon doesn't have much of that maybe none
[/q]Anything resonates if you strike it. That has nothing to do with magnetism.Air resistance slows movement; vibrations would last longer in a vacuum.[q=Shoden]the moon hasnt enough gravity to carry out gravitational effects on objects so even if the moon had earth gravity the structure would mean the gravity density would be so small and different.[/q]The moon's gravity is roughly 10% of Earth's. Because of the moon, Earth's rotation is stabilised, giving us more consistent seasons. It also causes our oceans' tides. Your quote suggests that your scientific nous isn't as astute as you might claim.it wouldn't go really fast like that it would slowly flciker for about 20 seconds then stop as there is no air to carry the movement
Posting Permissions
