• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Moon Landing: Hoaxed?

I find it curious that the moon and the sun are the same size when one is 93 million miles away. Now if the sun ☀️ is really 93 million miles away, and is the size that it is, if you were to put it say 186 million miles away, it would be half the size. Now keep doubting the distance until you reach 5 trillion miles away. Would the sun still be visible from earth ? 5 trillion miles is the distance to our nearest star. So all of the stars you see in the sky at night are further than 5 trillion miles away save one. The moon isn't even a planet. It's probably more like the lighted surface of a flashlight. In other words it's probably just a light. The sun is likely just a disc like the Pharaoh Aketnaton described it. So where does NASA go when they are stealing our money? I think that they are hanging from the dome.

:rofl:
 
Its the moon the second Death Star was being built in orbit of in Return of the Jedi. You need to brush up on the classics Andy.

In fact, Endor is the giant planet around which orbits the moon around which the second Death Star is built in The return of the Jedi. The body is called the Forest Moon of Endor. Similar to Yavin IV where are located the Rebellion headquarters in A new hope, also the satellite of a gas giant.

As for seeing the moon during the day, I frequently see it. And not at any particular time of the day, either in the morning or afternoon.

There, I have to agree 100%. I am surprised that for some seeing the Moon in full daylight, at any time of the day, is controversial.
 
I am surprised that for some seeing the Moon in full daylight, at any time of the day, is controversial.

Indeed - if the moon only rose when the sun set, and vice versa, that would surely mean it wasn't orbiting Earth at all.
 
Looks like fun. Surreal fun, too.
 
Looks like fun. Surreal fun, too.

I was pleasantly surprised, because I didn't think French directors did comedy very well, but Moonwalkers was laugh-out-loud funny on many an occasion. Everyone's favourite Neanderthal Ron Perlman played a blinder too.
You will never think about the Moon landing conspiracy the same way again!
 
Rented this at the weekend. I didn't really get on with it and didn't bother watching it to the end, still it's an addition to the Moon Hoax movie genre...I'll give it another try.

 
I've always thought the moon landing hoax theory is completely nuts...but just out of curiosity what is the one thing that makes the conspiracy people believe it's true. Or is there more than one major thing that makes them believe it?
And how do the non believers respond to those specific points?
 
There are a few things about the Moon landings that I don't understand (but then again there is lots that I don't understand about a great deal of things). I don't subscribe to the Moon landings being hoaxed but I wouldn't be surprised if certains images had been doctored or recreated.

Something that has always puzzled me is where did the probes/spikes on the bottom of the lunar modules feet go? The craft is light, descending at a slow pace. Would this have had enough force to drive the metal rods under the modules feet into the rock?
 
It's not rock, it's a thick layer of dust. I recall one of the astronauts comparing it to the high desert of the US.
 
People have wondered why the blast from the descending craft didn't blow all this 'dust' away.

INT21
 
I always thought the probes telescoped into the legs,
in I think 2 years or so a Japanese craft is due to
orbit the mood with very high res cameras that will
supposedly be able to photograph the equipment
left by the landings.
 
It's not rock, it's a thick layer of dust. I recall one of the astronauts comparing it to the high desert of the US.

I know there is dust on the lunar surface. But is it really 3 or 4 feet thick? Why didn't the astronauts sink deeper into it then? Maybe it has sand like qualities?

EDIT: i just watched them planting the flag and saw how they hammered the pole into the ground. The ground does look very soft - soft enough to be a thick layer of dust. I just didn't expect the layer to be so deep.
 
Why didn't they sink into it then?
It's made up of the detritus of meteor impacts, both the meteors themselves and the pulverised lunar surface that results and is extremely dense (i.e. larger fragments but still granular) and therefore load bearing beneath the top layer of much finer dust.
 
... Something that has always puzzled me is where did the probes/spikes on the bottom of the lunar modules feet go? The craft is light, descending at a slow pace. Would this have had enough force to drive the metal rods under the modules feet into the rock?

I always thought the probes telescoped into the legs, ...

Those rods are Lunar Surface Sensing Probes:

http://heroicrelics.org/info/lm/lunar-surface-probe.html

They're not structural components (e.g., spikes intended to be driven into the ground / soil). They didn't telescope into a leg strut - they were folded against it and deployed when the leg itself was unfolded.

They're simply contact / proximity probes (that, when activated, signal it's time to cut off the descent engine). When the LEM settles onto the surface the probes don't retract - they simply collapse.

Here's a photo of a post-touchdown collapsed probe ...

AS11-40-5917_600.jpg
 
Those rods are Lunar Surface Sensing Probes:

http://heroicrelics.org/info/lm/lunar-surface-probe.html

They're not structural components (e.g., spikes intended to be driven into the ground / soil). They didn't telescope into a leg strut - they were folded against it and deployed when the leg itself was unfolded.

They're simply contact / proximity probes (that, when activated, signal it's time to cut off the descent engine). When the LEM settles onto the surface the probes don't retract - they simply collapse.

Here's a photo of a post-touchdown collapsed probe ...

View attachment 7261

That what YOU and NASA want us to believe...
 
I know there is dust on the lunar surface. But is it really 3 or 4 feet thick? Why didn't the astronauts sink deeper into it then? Maybe it has sand like qualities? ...

The LEM wasn't the first object to soft-land on the moon. One of the prime objectives in prior unmanned soft landings (Soviet Luna 9; multiple NASA Surveyor landers) was to test lunar soil conditions. For example, see:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveyor_program
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luna_9

These results were analyzed and incorporated into the preparations and training for the manned missions. Astronauts were trained to look for certain features as indicators of soil density, stability, etc. A flat, relatively darker grey area with small craters was prescribed as the most likely-solid spot to aim for. The small craters were important clues to how deep and / or loose the surface dust might be.
 
Did they use a selfie stick to take the pic of the astronaut with surveyor 3?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jim
Back
Top