Do You Believe Man Has Really Landed On The Moon?

1) There are mirrors that were planted on surface in those missions that are used today as targets for lasers to track the recession of the moon from Earth.

2) The Japanese are -not- more intelligent than us. That's a ludicrous assertion.

3) The resolution of our telescopes may be good, but even the Mars Recon. probe's scopes, orbiting Mars closer than the lunar distance can only resolve objects of roughtly 1m in size. That's much larger than any flag that was planted. We have, in fact, resolved things like the bases of the landing vehicles that were left behind.

4) "Ease of movement"? Have these people actually looked at these videos?

5) The landing vehicles left no craters, either at landing or launch. Does a space shuttle launch today leave a crater on the launch field? No, so why would a much smaller rocket do so on the moon? The notion is again absurd.

6) A "shuttle" has never been to the moon. A shuttle is a LEO (low Earth orbit) vehicle and can't get much past the ionosphere of Earth, much less to the moon.

7) There is film of the Apollo capsule coming down.

8) The heat shielding used on the Apollo capsules is identical to that used on the modern space shuttles. Anyone saying otherwise is woefully ignorant of the design of these vehicles.

The real point is that I keep hearing about this crap, and all of the "evidence" is always rather selectively amnesic of counter evidence that does exist.

Now, was the voyage there in 1969 made on a shoestring and a prayer? Absolutely. That does not change the fact that the voyage was made.

Well the flag waving in the breeze theory has been refuted....This is from wikipedia :

The flag placed on the surface by the astronauts flapped despite there being no wind on the Moon [69]. Sibrel said "The wind was probably caused by intense air-conditioning used to cool the astronauts in their lightened, uncirculated space suits. The cooling systems in the backpacks would have been removed to lighten the load not designed for Earth’s six times heavier gravity, otherwise they might have fallen over".
The astronauts were moving the flag into position. Without air drag, these movements caused the free corner of the flag to swing like a pendulum for some time. A horizontal rod, visible in many photographs, extended from the top of the flagpole to hold the flag out for proper display. The flag's rippled appearance was from folding during storage, and it could be mistaken for motion in a still photograph. The top support rod telescoped and the crew of Apollo 11 could not fully extend it. Later crews preferred to only partially extend the rod. Videotapes shows that when the flag stops after the astronauts let it go, it remains motionless. At one point the flag remains completely motionless for well over thirty minutes. (See inertia.) See the photographs below.




The flag is not waving, but is swinging as a pendulum after being touched by the astronauts. Here is a three-minute video from Apollo 15 showing that the flag does not move except when the astronauts move it. Here is a thirty-minute Apollo 11 video showing that the flag does not move.





Your claim that there are no stars in any of the photos. The sun was shining. Cameras were set for daylight exposure, and could not detect the faint points of light. Some stars are visible in some photographs, depending on the exposure.

And I believe StarrGazerr did an excellent job refutting your other claim.

Uh, what does color have to do with an atmosphere? The differing wavelengths of light are still present, with or without an atmosphere, and your eyes - or a camera - will still detect them and thus see in color.

Transformers as large as a bus were not needed to make video images then, and a huge satellite, called the command module, -was- in orbit around the moon at the time.

As for the flag planted "waving in the breeze," I've never seen video that showed it waving. Crinkled up to be furled like it was? Yes, but the images show it holding that position as would be expected if there were no wind. People expect to see a waving flag, as per the national anthem, and so a flag was specifically made to give that appearance.

An antenna dish the size you're proposing is required if the broadcast signal is weak or if it is omni-directional. If it is a directed beam transmission there's no need for such a large transmitter antenna. Even the Galileo probe sent to Saturn only had a main dish antenna of 1m across and it was broadcasting at milliwatt power from over 1,000 times the distance between Earth and Moon and was clearly perceived.

Re-check when the transistor and other "modern" electronics were invented. Not when they came into popular use, but when they were invented. The technology was there, if just barely, so I hate to tell you this, but your arguments -have- been refuted. It's just that whole "selective memory" issue at work again.

Ok, I’m a little rusty on planetary physics but I will try to explain how our atmosphere works in breaking up pure sunlight into color fragments. The image of a diamond shown above is an example how our atmosphere breaks up the sunrays into color-rays. Pure sunlight hits our atmosphere like a diamond and disburses the light into a rainbow of colors. Without an atmosphere there would be nothing to breakup unfilter sunrays and color couldn’t be seen by anyone. Now 2 the second part of the ?...To have a LIVE broadcast shown around the entire world, you would have to have a huge amount of hardware, manpower, and electricity. If in fact, it was recorded with a camcorder to view latter, you wouldn’t need any of this hardware (As you have previously stated). Visit you local television station and witness the enormous amount of manpower and equipment that is required to deliver your evening news live, now multiply it by a thousand. With that in mind, now it will be possible to witness a live broadcast on a dead moon.I don’t mean to insult anyone’s intelligents, but I’m tired of closed minded individuals who can’t see beyond their own front door.Oh ya…the Galileo probe was essentially a satellite with a camera hooked up to it. The Galileo probe could never deliver ground communications even if it could land on Saturn.

I enjoy talking about physics and austronomy. This is a subject I really enjoy debating on and worth while. (so long as it's in good humor). The colors that are appearing on our moon of the American Flag is scientifically and virtually impossible and this is why….. The scientific answer is very long which involves dipole scattering, charged particles vector potential and much more. In 1665, Isaac Newton beamed sunlight through a prism and found the presence of the seven basic colors. Thereafter the law follows: n2 - 1 = aL2(L2 - A2)-l bL2(L2 - B2)-l . . .
There is a simple answer though. Think of how prism works. When a light hits the prism, what happens?


The answer is the prism breaks the white light into visible color, red, orange, yellow, green, blue, and violet (these are the rainbow color). Our atmosphere is filled with dust particles. So when sun ray hits the particles in the atmosphere, it breaks the white light like the prism. The color blue has the strongest wavelength out the rainbow colors. Therefore, it effects more than the red and green wavelength, causing the surrounding air to appear blue. But during the sunset, the sun light passes farther through the atmosphere causing them to deflect and decrease the blue color. So sunset appear to be red. Now, in a vacuum there is no absorption therefore there can't be any dispersion. Simply put: If the moon can’t do the simple task of dispersing sunrays, it can’t absorb and retract the colors of the American Flag on the moon. Furthermore, I believe that you are talking about human biology and the chemical reactions of color pigments that are perceived and picked up through the eye retina. Indeed vision has something to do with it, but not entirely.
(less)
(less)
(less)
(less)

Again, your mind is made up. Our being able to see color is not requisite on the light already being scattered into individual colors. The pigments in the materials do that quite well on their own, with or without atmosphere. Color can still be perceived in a vacuum because light is still scattered off of the material it is incident upon and that will scatter it. Add that different materials absorb and reflect different wavelengths and you get different intensities of scattering for each wavelength and viola! You will see color. Will it be the same color? Nope. It will be muted from what we experience in atmosphere. Those colors, except for the flag look aweful muted in those films. Wait, if I were going to retouch and make something stick out for political -flag- waving purposes, what would I retouch and add more color to in final processing?

Wait, I just read something...no light absorption in a vacuum? Where are you getting this nonsense? That's why we can't observe most of the universe in gamma rays! Anything over roughly 13MeV (hard UV) is absorbed due to ionizing hydrogen, and everything else it hits. Light is most certainly absorbed by materials outside of vacuum and different wavelengths by different amounts. And no, I wasn't speaking of the physiology of seeing color, I was speaking of chemical pigmentation in the cloth or whatever that flag was made of. As I just said, each material will definitely absorb and reflect different colors of light in differing manners. That's how we're able to get different intensities off of them to be picked up by our eyes as different intensities and thus allow us to see color in the first place.

I'd ask where you get this sort of idiotic nonsense, but I'm pretty much done here. Again, your mind is made up. Have a nice life.

I -am- an astronomer. Already tried pointing that out to you. My undergrad degree is in physics, and so I'm more than familiar with Newton's principle you mention, and are misapplying.

The moon actually is -not- white, it does have color: a nice bluish grey. You see it as white due to how much of the light of the sun it does reflect...because it has a rather high albedo. For the same reason, Jupiter looks white in the night sky until you look at it through a telescope with at least a 60mm aperture, and then you can start seeing its blues, reds, and browns. The moon even starts looking more blue when you use a polarizing filter to get rid of the glare.

So finally, here we go. A leaf is green due to the pigment chlorophyll. This pigment actually has several forms, but all absorb a high percentage of the wavelengths of light that we see as red, yellow, and orange. Green and blue wavelengths, however, it does not absorb well and so those wavelengths are -reflected- by the pigment, reach our eyes, and so we see the chlorophyll, and hence the leaf, as being -green-. This will occur whether the leaf is in atmosphere or out. Thus even in space the leaf will appear green, because that color is a property of chlorophyll itself and the wavelengths of light that it absorbs and reflects and has absolutely -NOTHING- to do with atmosphere. If someone has told you otherwise, they are ignorant and have no clue what they're talking about. None.

I have also recently been watching the films of the moon landing. The flag was crinkled, but -not- waving. The colors are present, but are muted as I suggested they would be. They even mentioned that the sound tracks on the film had been edited once back on Earth so that the static was gone and the astronauts were intelligible, pretty much as is done to live film today and as anyone with any sense at all would have done since that whole mission was as much political propaganda as science, more so in fact since the time, weight, and number of missions were extremely limited for doing too much science.

So in short, your science is faulty in application or outright wrong. This is not just me saying this, but my colleagues in the university physics department I work for. Your point that the technology didn't exist to do these things as far as the filming, is incorrect. The technology has been around for some time, just not generally available to the public.

For example, were you aware that there was a prototype heavy bomber in the 1950's that could fly at Mach 3 at high altitudes (not in a dive, it's a heavy bomber) and had a low radar profile, i.e. stealth capability? It's called the XB-70 Valkyrie. So supersonic heavy bombers with stealth capability are not something from the 1980's and 1990's...but the 1950's.

I can’t accept that as a logical explanation simply because the moon is colorless! The moon is gray not blue/gray! The reason the moon is gray is because gray is a nutral color. You believe that the moon has a blue tint, that is because you are looking through the Earth’s atmosphere to observe the moon, silly willy. At times the moon might look red, orange or even blue. The moon appears to be certain colors during different times of the year because of the seasons in which we observe the moon. For instance, the Harvest moon during the fall appears very large and orange. There are two reasons for this, the moon's path across the sky, and the climate of earth. During certain times of the year, the moon will rise and set at different angles. Sometimes the moon stays really low in the sky and never reaches an overhead position. The earth's atmosphere also goes through certain changes at certain times of the year. In some months, the our atmosphere has more dust particles than usual; in other months, the our atmosphere contains a lot more cloud particles than usual. Extra particles in the atmosphere mean more scattering of light. This occurs when there's a lot of dust, smoke, or pollution in the atmosphere. The size of those particles will determine the type of color you will see. In the fall, many farmers are harvesting their crops. Lots of dust from the soil of the crops gets disturbed. The dust floats into the atmosphere. At the same time, the moon is lower in the sky during the fall season. So if there's more dust in the sky and the moon is closer to the horizon, then what color will the moon be? Orange! That's where "Harvest Moon" gets its name. I can’t concentrate right now, but I will continue this frame of logic latter. BTW...your tution $$$ went to wast because you are learning more about true physics from me then your professors!