.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png.8488ab72b8bb2e508209bfe3211b6e08.png)
-
Recently Browsing 0 members
- No registered users viewing this page.
Announcements
-
Topics
-
-
Popular Contributors
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
-
-
Latest posts...
-
151
Did We Really Land on the Moon?
There is substantial evidence of objects left on the Moon by astronauts during the Apollo missions and robotic landers. Here are key examples: Apollo Equipment: The Apollo missions (1969–1972) left behind a range of equipment, including: Lunar Module Descent Stages: These served as landing platforms for the ascent modules. Scientific Instruments: Seismometers, retroreflectors, and other experiments (e.g., the Lunar Laser Ranging Retroreflectors) that still reflect lasers sent from Earth. Astronaut Tools and Personal Items: Cameras, tools, and even a family photo left by astronaut Charles Duke. Lunar Rover Tracks: The Lunar Roving Vehicles (used in Apollo 15, 16, and 17) left tire tracks across the Moon’s surface, visible in high-resolution satellite imagery. Robotic Landers: Various countries' space programmes (e.g., the Soviet Luna missions, China's Chang'e landers) have left rovers and instruments on the Moon. Images from Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO): NASA's LRO has captured high-resolution images of Apollo landing sites, showing leftover hardware like the descent stages, rover tracks, and astronaut footprints. (The quality doesn't really matter because you'll refute it anyway)... SO... on to the real point of my response: Are there any photos of your intelligence - as given this discussion, the greatest doubt that exists in this thread is the ability for your brain to function in any meaningful manner beyond basic life support and questionable communication.... -
5
Most affordable place to get Lipoma removed in Bangkok?
Extremely unadvisable (if they'd even do it). -
4
-
26
Man High on Cannabis Goes on Rampage, Claims He Wasn’t Hallucinating
Smoke cannabis just once and you'll realize that none of these stories are caused by cannabis. Cannabis makes you feel the opposite. -
57
Trump’s Executive Order Sparks Fear Among Transgender Inmates as Prison Transfers Loom
GITMO has plenty of room - what could be better than life at the beach? -
151
Did We Really Land on the Moon?
I wanted to deal with your comments... gave up thinking an single word response surfaces.... I then I realised you have gone into a lot of effort to write your post, so I I'll responding, highlighting why the comments are not very intelligent rather than using a single word to describe the comments in aggregate. Simply answered - the flag appeared to flutter as if in the wind due to the movement and vibrations caused by the astronauts handling it, along with the flexible metal rod holding it upright. The lack of atmospheric resistance on the Moon allowed these motions to continue longer than they would on Earth. Focal length - something anyone with the most basic knowledge of photography understands. I can make a moon look larger or smaller in any photo depending upon how I shoot it. When accounting for zoom, the apparent size of Earth in photos taken from the Moon, and the Moon in photos taken from Earth, depends on the focal length of the camera lens used. A camera with a higher zoom (longer focal length) can make either object appear larger than it would to the naked eye. However, if similar zoom levels are used, the Earth and Moon appear roughly the same size in their respective photos because the larger size of Earth is offset by its greater distance from the Moon. The balance between actual size and distance creates a comparable apparent size in both cases. Focal length is defined as the distance from the principal plane of the lens system to the focal point on the sensor, where collimated light rays converge after refraction. It directly affects the field of view and angular magnification, with longer focal lengths yielding narrower fields of view and higher spatial resolution, thereby amplifying the apparent size of distant celestial bodies like the Moon or Earth in photographic imaging. If thats too much... here, in simpler terms: Imagine you have a magical telescope that can zoom in or out. If you zoom in a lot, faraway things like the Moon or Earth look bigger in pictures. If you don’t zoom, they look smaller, just like toys do when you see them from far away! No... because of that 'magical telescope' (focal length) - images of the moon from the earth and of the earth from the moon are not taken with the same cameras.... Image (#2) - too far away from the moon - its synthesised. So it should - you were reading a load of rubbish, you should have remained laying down so you could have a better nights sleep and assimilate information more accurately. Artemis 1 mission completed in late 2022, was an un-crewed test flight, which orbited and flew beyond the Moon, its purpose to test rockets, heat shields and was a test bed for engineering. Artemis 2 will be a crewed flight beyond the Moon which will take humans the farthest they’ve ever been in space. Artemis 3 will be the first crewed Moon landing mission since Apollo 17 in 1972. NASA aims to land the first female astronaut and first astronaut of colour on the lunar surface. They will spend a week on the Moon performing scientific studies, before returning to Earth. Artemis 4 will deliver a core part of a new lunar space station (named 'Gateway') into orbit around the Moon, and land another two astronauts on the Moon's surface. Artemis 5 will add another important module to Gateway and involve a third crewed lunar landing to undertake further surface science. There is nothing odd about any of that. They didn't loose any information - the Artemis missions are laying the ground work for missions to Mars. No information lost, more information needed - basis processes of science and engineering. True - but whats your point ? you expected to be on Marx on 1975 ??... tech has to develop. There also needs to be economic viability - do we need to go back to the moon at all, or Mars ??? Scientific advancement by all means - will we find a cure for cancer on Mars ??? Perhaps at the very least a cure for stupidity, but I doubt that. Ah... they used the Bond set, brilliant - I think I already 'go out ahead of this level of stupidity' in my earlier comment (abou the "fly me to the moon" 'documentary' !!!) I know right... How did George Lucas know about Light Sabres and Star Destroyers ??? No, its not funny - a 5 year old can understand why that is... Try it on your next Grindr photo... take a nutsac photo and from the ground up and your plumbs in all their glory will look larger than your head !!!... No... you don't understand the laws of Physics an are mistaking them for simple perspective in photography - back to the Grindr example !! I saw that series of documentary about men who handle this stuff... they have a stick thingy... its easy to make people forget.... lets face it, half the people on this thread forgot their education if they had one, and they certainly forgot they are halfwits !!!. Valid points... On the first: Economic viability - Whats the point in going back to the moon unless we are going to use it as an more economically viable option to 'step' elsewhere - such as Mars. Nope.. they were one stop drops.... the 'energy' needed for return of such mass made the outward journey impossible without greater technological advancement and efficiencies... Escaping the earths gravity is a collossal exercises... Launching an energy source in to Orbit, transiting it en-masse to the moon (very slowly), then slowing it to a stable lunar orbit... Using the moon as a 'starting point' has potentail.... at least for a black man or a woman... or preferably a paraplegic black, lesbian with dyslexia who identifies as a cucumber.... No... completely separate missions - one the sole aim of a human to the moon... the second, the sole aim of payload delivery (i.e. building the ISS)... in the Apollo missions, the 'human' was the payload... 1/6th Gravity, is still a lot of gravity.... use the moon as storage, a stepping stone... But really (*IMO) an orbital 'storage' system is far more mathematical - the issue is space debris. Even if they did - place value means its worthless... kind of like finding two tonnes of gold on the top of Everest. Yes... like a 'dog pisshing up a tree'.... just to say we've been there.... Maybe LBJ thought it was a huge waste too !!!! Already explained.... that stuff is just noise in a more interesting debate which you touched on.... Travelling further faster... Yes.. interesting. Gravity experiments - massively important IMO... one of the most important things to come out of the cold war is the ISS and the developments they have made there..... But back to the original discussion - Moon landings ???... the who discussion is a waste... We were there, there is so much evidence the conspiracy not go to is so much larger than just going !!!!! ... But the crux for me... Any time I speak to someone who suspects 'humankind' never stepped foot on the moon I'm never surprised by their sheer absense of true intelligence.... just like flat earthes.
-
-
Popular in The Pub
-
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now