Man and the Moon

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Shrey

Contributor
if its true, then sonia becomes something like a silent serial killer :P but its kind of hard to believe.. there are quite a lot of sonia haters and conspiracy theories will always pop up, hell people even said man never went to the moon :P
 
Shrey said:
hell people even said man never went to the moon
Click to expand...

Err..correction..Man never really went to the moon..you need to watch tht Fox news vdo..the theories given which prove tht man never went to the moon are so strong tht u are hard pressed to believe it..but why go far..we've got a thread here in TE itself..was just searchin somethin n came upon this one..interesting read..check it out..http://www.techenclave.com/forums/do-you-believe-apollo-moon-mission-67657.html
 
@ ryan

I've watched that Fox news video and also watched a very interesting show on discovery which disproved each and EVERY conspiracy theory... in fact all the claims are wrong...from the radiation , to the stars ,to the shadows to the lunar dust...everything has an explanation and were verified experimentally .... and the final crushing blow was when they showed an observatory which sends and receives signals to and from the moon, if man never went to the moon how would they get the signal back ? ... Conspiracy theorists are jobless people who cannot appreciate human endeavours :P

but i have to say for a couple of days i really thought Neil Armstrong was an actor :P it was one really convincing video. But i've watched that anti conspiracy theory show on discovery so many times i can disprove all those theories if u want me to :P
 
Shrey said:
But i've watched that anti conspiracy theory show on discovery so many times i can disprove all those theories if u want me to
Click to expand...

Okay, then why dont they just send someone back to moon after all these years..its as if they have abruptly terminated the moon program after they thought tht the bubble was about the burst..? If they had the technology then, why cant they do it now when the technology has leaped forward a hundred thousand times since then..?? Nasa guys reportedly said tht it'll take upto 2015 to go back to moon..why?? when they cud go there in the shoddy space shuttles in 1969?? and not only tht, they supposedly went there many times thru the 70s till the public lost interest..:no: Is it the fear of the media which has matured beyond control and its hard to hide facts nowadays from prying eyes of the world outside??

the fact tht they cant go there now, is itself proof tht they are not capable of going there..

As for the 'Signal' Gimmick, well, there have been several lunar missions including the supposed 'manned' missions.. and several unmanned probes have been sent to the moon's surface...they had radio incorporated for communication with earth.. isnt it possible tht the signal they are getting back is from an unmanned probe they sent to the lunar surface...tht alone cannot prove tht NASA sent a man to the moon...:no:
 
Okay, then why dont they just send someone back to moon after all these years..its as if they have abruptly terminated the moon program after they thought tht the bubble was about the burst..? If they had the technology then, why cant they do it now when the technology has leaped forward a hundred thousand times since then..?? Nasa guys reportedly said tht it'll take upto 2015 to go back to moon..why?? when they cud go there in the shoddy space shuttles in 1969?? and not only tht, they supposedly went there many times thru the 70s till the public lost interest.. Is it the fear of the media which has matured beyond control and its hard to hide facts nowadays from prying eyes of the world outside??
Click to expand...

Quiet simply 1 reason.....there is no use sending manned missions to the moon now.The moon landings were done in the heat of the cold war when there was break neck competetion with USSR.

Another reason for not sending manned missions is that the same objectives can be achieved by using robots.no use risking humans on relatively trivial missions.

the technology may have advanced hugely now but that may not necessaryly reflect in the amount of time/effort it takes to undertake a task of this proportion.
 
Kumar said:
Quiet simply 1 reason.....there is no use sending manned missions to the moon now.The moon landings were done in the heat of the cold war when there was break neck competetion with USSR.
Click to expand...

Yaar, dont u think its a very lame reason..to cover up incapabilities??;)

Kumar said:
Another reason for not sending manned missions is that the same objectives can be achieved by using robots.no use risking humans on relatively trivial missions.
Click to expand...

Was Human life not so important then as it is now?? n didnt they send unmanned probes then which were essentially robots..??

Kumar said:
the technology may have advanced hugely now but that may not necessaryly reflect in the amount of time/effort it takes to undertake a task of this proportion.
Click to expand...

Definitely yes..but this equation was there even then in 1969..infact with their limited technological prowess then, they were at a lot more risk to loose it all then..than now when the risks of technological failure are much less than it was in 69... And why does NASA say tht they cannot send a man 'back' to moon b4 2015 because of complexities..well, as if it were a cake walk in 70s? :P ;)
 
Yaar, dont u think its a very lame reason..to cover up incapabilities??
Click to expand...

i dont think its a lame reason

Was Human life not so important then as it is now?? n didnt they send unmanned probes then which were essentially robots
Click to expand...

it was but there was a solid reason to take the risk and the bots of that time are no match for what we have today.So what humans could do then can be done by bots today.

Definitely yes..but this equation was there even then in 1969..infact with their limited technological prowess then, they were at a lot more risk to loose it all then..than now when the risks of technological failure are much less than it was in 69... And why does NASA say tht they cannot send a man 'back' to moon b4 2015 because of complexities..well, as if it were a cake walk in 70s?
Click to expand...

even if the technology has advanced a lot now,there is a LOT of risk in space flight even now.As i said before,there was a clear motivation for undertaking such missions then.now when the field is a virtual monopoly why would NASA risk such missions?

another thing is that it was not exactly cakewalk then.

I think if you can find it,get this videos off the torrents.It really explains what lead to the Apollo program (PM me if u dont find the videos)

Failure Is Not an Option (2003) (TV)
 
Err..correction..Man never really went to the moon..you need to watch tht Fox news vdo..the theories given which prove tht man never went to the moon are so strong tht u are hard pressed to believe it..but why go far..we've got a thread here in TE itself..was just searchin somethin n came upon this one..interesting read..check it out..Do you believe that Apollo moon mission was a hoax ?
Click to expand...

Fox news...lolz

Anyway, NASA had redied a movie carefully refuting all claims made by the 'man never went to moon' party. I would suggest searching for that video and looking at it in an unbiased view ;)
 
I don't believe in politicians, they all have have their own agendas behind every word they say. that blog read like a great conspiracy theory to me, too imaginative but very well done. But I believe at least some part of it about Sonia's previous life is true, but she is more like an idiot trying to cash in on her current position in the country. She thinks she is clever, but she should watch out. one of these days some parties she is pissing off might just decide to take a hatchet to her. :rofl:

As for the moon landing conspiracy theory...

First of all, I always thought the moon landing was a hoax even before all these theories came around. I had always thought that are things fishy about those photos and other footage. They simply don't fit. Moon should have had massive amounts of fine dust on the surface and surrounding it and the definition of massive here is not a few inches. There were other similar features in those photos which will not fit ones imagination of the moon (derived from scientific facts). The astronauts suits is another example. What material was that made up of? With the modern day materials science advancements, the current days astro suits are composed of the lightest and strongest materials like carbon fiber and alloys and still those are really bulky even to look at. what should the the late 60's astro suit look like. The one in the moon landing photos does not fit ones imagination at all. :no:
Kumar said:
The moon landings were done in the heat of the cold war when there was break neck competetion with USSR.
Click to expand...

rather I believe that the hoax was done in the heat of the cold war with USSR. During that time USSR had a fairly successful space program and the US had to retaliate in order to keep the balance, what better way than claiming a moon landing. I would also say that the hoax was done in a rushed manner without very careful planning. US did the only thing that they can do best, hush up and cover up the entire affair in an efficient manner.
 
:P i'm no sonia lover and i'm no sonia hater :P

me would like to clarify my neutrality when it comes to the gandhi family and indian politics :P if investigations were to be done on each and every indian politician , startling stuff would pop up, so it doesn't really matter who comes to power all of em are filthy corrupt bas#$@s anyway :P

with regard to the moon landings (last post on it), if the USSR had even a shade of doubt that the landings were fake they would've exposed it to the whole world. like the KGB didn't have brains to figure out a fake landing :bleh: the fact that they didn't proves that man went to the moon :D ...
 
^ I've watched all the landing videos, including that Fox one alright, but for holy god's sake can somebody explain how the flag fluttered on the moon :O
 
^ ah well the flag never really fluttered because of 'the wind'....

Not every waving flag needs a breeze -- at least not in space. When astronauts were planting the flagpole they rotated it back and forth to better penetrate the lunar soil (anyone who's set a blunt tent-post will know how this works). So of course the flag waved! Unfurling a piece of rolled-up cloth with stored angular momentum will naturally result in waves and ripples -- no breeze required!
Click to expand...

from --> The Great Moon Hoax

and from where did this thread pop up :P ?
 
^ Ohh, okay missed that ;)

The other two points as well, why there weren't and stars in the sky and how come there was no landing crater.

But nevertheless, I guess those blokes must have landed on the moon :P
 
Anish said:
can somebody explain how the flag fluttered on the moon
Click to expand...

^^simply bcos they are not on the moon..lol..:P There have been numerous explanations given for the fluttering flag tht it is because the astronauts are trying to fix it to the surface..so it flutters..but in one pic, when no one is near, even then the flag flutters.. thts simply cos of a wind gust in area 51,Nevada desert whr the whole thing was shot.. :P

Look at this pic..no ones near..no one is trying to hold it...still it flutters..such creases are not possible without the effect of air..

raq27qh.jpg
 
^ Eggjhactly !

And how the hell wasn't there a blast off crater ?

Edit : Nice post-processing on the flag btw :rofl:
 
more proof..check this pic..

Untitled-1.jpg


according to nasa, these 2 pics are from 2 different apollo missions..which landed several hundred miles apart from each other. But take a look at the hills..they are exactly same...only the terrain is changed..there are rocks in one..and in the other one, the surface seems like an icefield.. some shoddy work by film set artists who simply forgot to change the background..:P

Also in the 2nd pic, the LEM appears...the LEM was immovable once it landed... however in the 1st pic, the LEM is not there...did it simply vanish into thin air?? the hills are the same...the camera distance from the hills is same too..how is this possible then tht NASA says tht these 2 pics are from 2 different locations and from 2 different missions, landing far apart from each other..well, we never knew moon has locations so starkly similar to one another...:P Simple coincidence..eh?? ;)
 
ok you guys should watch the anti conspiracy theory videos :P I'm tired of explaining :P the conspiracy theorists themselves are a bunch of blokes who live in trailers , all they are lookin for is some money and fame....

Until it is officially proven that man never went to the moon, there is just too much evidence to say that he did land there...and hopefully someone will develop a high res telescope so that people can see the remains of the voyage....

as for the blast crater thing

No crater should be expected. The Descent Propulsion System was throttled very far down during the final stages of landing. The Lunar Module was no longer rapidly decelerating, so the descent engine only had to support the module's own weight, which by then was greatly diminished by the near exhaustion of the descent propellants, and the Moon's lower gravity. At the time of landing, the engine's thrust divided by the cross-sectional area of the engine bell is only about 10 kilopascals (1.5 PSI)[11], p. 164, and that is reduced by the fact that the engine was in a vacuum, causing the exhaust to spread out. (By contrast, the thrust of the first stage of the Saturn V was 3.2 MPa (459 PSI), over the area of the engine bell.) Rocket exhaust gases expand much more rapidly after leaving the engine nozzle in a vacuum than in an atmosphere. The effect of an atmosphere on rocket plumes can be easily seen in launches from Earth; as the rocket rises through the thinning atmosphere, the exhaust plumes broaden very noticeably. Rocket engines designed for vacuum operation have longer bells than those designed for use at the Earth's surface, but they still cannot prevent this spreading. The Lunar Module's exhaust gases therefore expanded rapidly well beyond the landing site. Even if they hadn't, a simple calculation will show that the pressure at the end of the descent engine bell was much too low to carve out a crater. However, the descent engines did scatter a considerable amount of very fine surface dust as seen in 16mm movies of each landing, and as Neil Armstrong said as the landing neared ("...kicking up some dust..."). This significantly impaired visibility in the final stages of landing, and many mission commanders commented on it. Photographs do show slightly disturbed dust beneath the descent engine. And finally, the landers were generally moving horizontally as well as vertically until right before landing, so the exhaust would not be focused on any one surface spot for very long, and the compactness of the lunar soil below a thin surface layer of dust also make it virtually impossible for the descent engine to blast out a "crater"
Click to expand...

Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

the article also contains explanations for the supposed flag fluttering without the astronauts handling it and the terrain
 
THe question is shrey.. do YOU really exist?? :O

or are you a bot formed by the memory of Kurt Cobain?? :O
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom