   Moon landing a hoax?
http://216.26.168.193/moonmovie/default.asp?ID=7And from the commentary page:Quote:The Space Shuttle, so far, has killed fourteen people, merely trying to attain an orbit about two hundred fifty miles above the Earth. How is it then, that a third of a century ago, with less computing power in the entire rocket than in a present day twenty dollar Wal-Mart watch, NASA claims to have gone 100,000% farther, six different times between 1969 and 1972, landing on another celestial body and then returning, without ever killing anyone? How could they have powered air conditioning in two hundred fifty degree heat for three days with batteries? Why is the "second round" of "returning" to the moon estimated to be no earlier than half a century after the first? (Would there be a fifty-year span between the first and second trips across the Atlantic in an airplane?)Can anyone refute this?   
Quote:Original post by Elected Sainthttp://216.26.168.193/moonmovie/default.asp?ID=7And from the commentary page:Quote:The Space Shuttle, so far, has killed fourteen people, merely trying to attain an orbit about two hundred fifty miles above the Earth. How is it then, that a third of a century ago, with less computing power in the entire rocket than in a present day twenty dollar Wal-Mart watch, NASA claims to have gone 100,000% farther, six different times between 1969 and 1972, landing on another celestial body and then returning, without ever killing anyone? How could they have powered air conditioning in two hundred fifty degree heat for three days with batteries? Why is the "second round" of "returning" to the moon estimated to be no earlier than half a century after the first? (Would there be a fifty-year span between the first and second trips across the Atlantic in an airplane?)Can anyone refute this?1. The space shuttle is a very complicated, and therefor DANGEROUS machine. Theres no wonder why its more dangerous. Not only that, but there were plent of pre-apollo and apollo disasters.2. The reason we stopped going to the moon was most likely a budget thing. Lunar landings require a lot of fuel and therefor resources.Also, going to the moon isnt like crossing the atlantic. Its far more expensive and dangerous, for one.Mithrandir must be spinning in his grave.   ;  Yes but can you refute the claims contained in the link, such as non-parellel shadows and such?   ;  ah, its that time of the year again is it?"Moon landing is fake" season seems to come around more and more often...   ;Here's a pretty good treatment of the hoax claims. I seem to recall a better page, but I can't find it now.   ;  dude, we never landed on the moon. period. end of story. move on. merry christmas.   ;Quote:Original post by Elected SaintYes but can you refute the claims contained in the link, such as non-parellel shadows and such?Quote:Bad: Another argument by the HBs deals with shadows. Several photos from the Moon are shown where objects on the lunar landscape have long shadows. If the Sun were the only light source, the program claims, the shadows should be parallel. The shadows are not parallel, and therefore the images are fake. Good: This is an interesting claim on the part of the HBs, because on the surface (haha) it seems to make sense. However, let's assume the shadows are not parallel. One explanation is that there are (at least) two light sources, and that is certainly what many HBs are trying to imply. So if there are multiple light sources, where are the multiple shadows? Each object casts one shadow, so there can only be one light source. Another explanation is that the light source is close to the objects; then it would also cast non-parallel shadows. However, a distant source can as well! In this case, the Sun really is the only source of light. The shadows are not parallel in the images because of perspective. Remember, you are looking at a three-dimensional scene, projected on a two-dimensional photograph. That causes distortions. When the Sun is low and shadows are long, objects at different distance do indeed appear to cast non-parallel shadows, even here on Earth. An example of that can be found at another debunking site. The scene (near the bottom of the above-linked page) shows objects with non-parallel shadows, distorted by perspective. If seen from above, all the shadows in the Apollo images would indeed look parallel. You can experience this for yourself; go outside on a clear day when the Sun is low in the sky and compare the direction of the shadows of near and far objects. You'll see that they appear to diverge. Here is a major claim of the HBs that you can disprove all by yourself! Don't take my word for it, go out and try! Incidentally, the bright Earth in the sky will also cast shadows, but those would be very faint compared to the ones made by the Sun. So in a sense there are multiple shadows, but like not being able to see stars, the shadows are too faint to be seen against the very bright lunar surface. Again, you can test this yourself: go outside during full Moon and you'll see your shadow. Then walk over to a streetlamp. The light from the streetlamp will wash out the shadow cast by the Moon. You might still be able to see it faintly, but it would difficult against the much brighter landscape.All from here;Quote:The Space Shuttle, so far, has killed fourteen people, merely trying to attain an orbit about two hundred fifty miles above the Earth. Every Saturn V was only used once, it disappeared entirely during the launch. The task of creating from scratch a perfect replica of the previous rocket is much less complex than maintaining a reusable space shuttle.Quote:How is it then, that a third of a century ago, with less computing power in the entire rocket than in a present day twenty dollar Wal-Mart watch, NASA claims to have gone 100,000% farther, six different times between 1969 and 1972, landing on another celestial body and then returning, without ever killing anyone?Irrelevant. The physics involved in getting a rocket on orbit are solvable with pen and paper. The moon landers also did not need robotic arms, hundreds of electronic cameras, or similar gadgets to get on the moon - although they would have needed them if their job was to place satellites into orbit or repairing them on the spot.Quote:How could they have powered air conditioning in two hundred fifty degree heat for three days with batteries?I'm afraid I don't see where the two hundred fifty degree figure comes from. Even then, it is feasible to isolate the living quarters (and it was done) in the same way as an isotherm bottle, which, given the amounts of money involved, could have kept a constant temperature for a few hours without external power supply. Quote:Why is the "second round" of "returning" to the moon estimated to be no earlier than half a century after the first? (Would there be a fifty-year span between the first and second trips across the Atlantic in an airplane?)Yes, there would definitely be a fifty-year span between the first and second trips across the atlantic if:The first flight was motivated by international pressure, while the second wasn't.The plane was destroyed every flight, and cost insane amounts of money and time to build.Building the plane required an entire nation to focus, instead of a dozen individuals.Everyone decided for 25 years to stop flying across the Atlantic, thus making it necessary for an entire new chain of production to be set into place, and for the technology to be readapted, before flights could resume.There was no point in flying over the atlantic besides dreaming and idealism. ;Quote:Original post by AnonymousPosterChildAll from hereAhh, that's the link I was looking for.   ;yesand to end this thread before it even starts I'd like to point out that rock samples were taken from the moon to the Earth. These samples display unique spectrographical properties since the moon has no atmosphere and thus the sun has had a couple billion years to radiate them. Thus proving man did go to the moon.(can you tell I've done this whole "hoax thing" thread a couple of times before?)EDIT: dammit people, type slower will ya :p   