Dear Folks,

Do you remember when the first man walked on the Moon?

How old were you then?

And, do you expect to live long enough to see a man (hopefully not a woman) walk on the Moon, once again, before you die and head to Saturn, like Vonnegut?

Here is an image of the Moon I captured just a moment ago.

Pretty thrilling, I would say.

Have you been out to look at the Moon, this morning?

What did you see?

Did it look like it did to me?

I don't know which is better, gazing at the Moon or the beauty of a banana leaf.

Both are beautiful.

So, do you think the next Man on the Moon will be a Chinese TAIKONAUT?

Or, an Indian, maybe?

And, will they, once again, return with rocks in their pockets?

When will it all happen?

Would you care to wager?

Best regards,

Gamma-Rays

Note: Will we need to be genetically manipulated in order to survive on the Moon, or reach the outer planets, for that matter....???

The film is here: https://ok.ru/video/4851295718040

But, you can easily find better copies, for free.

TITAN.....NEXT STOP......!!!!

Edited July 3Jul 3 by GammaGlobulin

I believe the moon is made of green cheese*

Why go back?

The cheese has spoiled. 😭

*If you believe something like Trump is the Greatest Confidence Man Ever to have walked the earth--it must be true!

I was 10 years old - watched the Moon landing 'live' on our old black and white TV. Fascinating stuff, especially future trips with the Moon buggy bouncing around - no film set there as some might claim...

NASA: ‘We’re working on propulsion systems.’

Gamma: ‘But have you considered banana leaves?

21 minutes ago, Nemises said:

NASA: ‘We’re working on propulsion systems.’

Gamma: ‘But have you considered banana leaves?

People might be surprised at just how much energy is contained in a banana leaf.

Please do not tell Elon.

Or.....

Yes, we will have no bananas.

Edited July 4Jul 4 by GammaGlobulin

If you believe there were men walking on the moon you in a world of hurt.

FAKERY

Can't land a mess of tent poles covered in shower curtains on a damn light in the firmament.

💯0%

3 minutes ago, Woke to Sounds said:

If you believe there were men walking on the moon you in a world of hurt.

FAKERY

Can't land a mess of tent poles covered in shower curtains on a damn light in the firmament.

💯0%

I always wondered why Buzz Aldrin's space suit had smooth soles, but the fortprints it left were ridged.

(where would they store overshoes, how would they get them on and off in such inflexable suits, were they stored inside the lander, didn't seem much room, did they bring the overshoes back? If so, why aren't they on display with the suit?)

Not to mention the multiple shadow angles and shiny lander feet which should have been covered in dust.

And the camera crosses behind and in front of rocks.

And the perfectly composted photos on cameras that didn't have viewfinders.

What about the camera film that worked in freezing vacuum, how could they even change film rolls?

Edited July 4Jul 4 by BritManToo

5 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

I always wondered why Buzz Aldrens space suit

Buzzy once punched a journalist for questioning the 'landing'.

I've seen photos where Buzzy does a strange hand signal over just one of his eyes.

Can't land on a light in the sky.

2 hours ago, GammaGlobulin said:

Dear Folks,

Do you remember when the first man walked on the Moon?

How old were you then?

And, do you expect to live long enough to see a man (hopefully not a woman) walk on the Moon, once again, before you die and head to Saturn, like Vonnegut?

Here is an image of the Moon I captured just a moment ago.

Pretty thrilling, I would say.

Have you been out to look at the Moon, this morning?

What did you see?

Did it look like it did to me?

I don't know which is better, gazing at the Moon or the beauty of a banana leaf.

Both are beautiful.

So, do you think the next Man on the Moon will be a Chinese TAIKONAUT?

Or, an Indian, maybe?

And, will they, once again, return with rocks in their pockets?

When will it all happen?

Would you care to wager?

Best regards,

Gamma-Rays

Note: Will we need to be genetically manipulated in order to survive on the Moon, or reach the outer planets, for that matter....???

The film is here: https://ok.ru/video/4851295718040

But, you can easily find better copies, for free.

TITAN.....NEXT STOP......!!!!

An Op from you without a silly music video ??

Can't believe you missed this one :

21 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

I always wondered why Buzz Aldrin's space suit had smooth soles, but the fortprints it left were ridged.

(where would they store overshoes, how would they get them on and off in such inflexable suits, were they stored inside the lander, didn't seem much room, did they bring the overshoes back? If so, why aren't they on display with the suit?)

Not to mention the multiple shadow angles and shiny lander feet which should have been covered in dust.

And the camera crosses behind and in front of rocks.

And the perfectly composted photos on cameras that didn't have viewfinders.

What about the camera film that worked in freezing vacuum, how could they even change film rolls?

I'm sure you wouldn't consider AI's answer as relevant, but others might.

My query: "analyze :I always wondered why Buzz Aldrin's space suit had smooth soles, but the fortprints it left were ridged."

Buzz Aldrin (and Neil Armstrong) wore removable lunar overshoes over their smooth-soled pressure suits. These outer boots featured distinct ridged soles for traction. The astronauts intentionally left these heavy overshoes on the Moon to save weight for their return journey to Earth, explaining why their preserved space suits appear smooth.

1. The Outer "Moon Boots": The integrated suit boots were smooth, pressurized pressure-garments that protected the astronauts from the vacuum of space. To handle the unknown, abrasive lunar dust, they wore specialized outer boots called Lunar Overshoes.

2. The Ridged Treads: The bottom of these overshoes were constructed from blue silicone rubber with horizontal rungs (like a ladder). These ridges were engineered to provide necessary traction in the lunar soil (regolith).

3. Weight Considerations: The lunar footprints people see in NASA photos actually belong to Buzz Aldrin, who stepped out shortly after Armstrong. Because NASA needed to maximize payload for rock samples, the astronauts jettisoned their bulky overshoes on the Moon's surface. The boots brought back inside the Lunar Module were the inner, smooth-soled ones.

4. Lunar Physics: The ridged treads left incredibly sharp footprints because the Moon's soil is exceptionally dry, jagged, and airless. When compressed, the fine dust particles lock together perfectly to preserve the ridge marks without wind or water to erode them.

36 minutes ago, Woke to Sounds said:

If you believe there were men walking on the moon you in a world of hurt.

FAKERY

Can't land a mess of tent poles covered in shower curtains on a damn light in the firmament.

💯0%

Ooooh. The Have nots (People who have no skills or intelligence or capability to put a man on the moon using MATHEMATICAL MODELS) sure are jealous of those who have.

Did that give you a feeling of power in your mother's basement? 😃

14 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

I'm sure you wouldn't consider AI's answer as relevant, but others might.

My query: "analyze :I always wondered why Buzz Aldrin's space suit had smooth soles, but the fortprints it left were ridged."

Buzz Aldrin (and Neil Armstrong) wore removable lunar overshoes over their smooth-soled pressure suits. These outer boots featured distinct ridged soles for traction. The astronauts intentionally left these heavy overshoes on the Moon to save weight for their return journey to Earth, explaining why their preserved space suits appear smooth.

1. The Outer "Moon Boots": The integrated suit boots were smooth, pressurized pressure-garments that protected the astronauts from the vacuum of space. To handle the unknown, abrasive lunar dust, they wore specialized outer boots called Lunar Overshoes.

2. The Ridged Treads: The bottom of these overshoes were constructed from blue silicone rubber with horizontal rungs (like a ladder). These ridges were engineered to provide necessary traction in the lunar soil (regolith).

3. Weight Considerations: The lunar footprints people see in NASA photos actually belong to Buzz Aldrin, who stepped out shortly after Armstrong. Because NASA needed to maximize payload for rock samples, the astronauts jettisoned their bulky overshoes on the Moon's surface. The boots brought back inside the Lunar Module were the inner, smooth-soled ones.

4. Lunar Physics: The ridged treads left incredibly sharp footprints because the Moon's soil is exceptionally dry, jagged, and airless. When compressed, the fine dust particles lock together perfectly to preserve the ridge marks without wind or water to erode them.

Where did they keep the boots, how did they put them on/off while wearing inflexible suits, why aren't they on display with Buzz Aldrin's suit?

AI useless for political questions, it just regurgitates woke western government policy.

Edited July 4Jul 4 by BritManToo

2 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Where did they keep the boots, how did they put them on/off while wearing inflexable suits, why aren't they on display with Buzz Aldrin's suit?

Why don't you ask Elon? He seems to have glib smartass responses to everything. He is the world's richest man, obviously the smartest. Why are you wasting your precious time here? 😃

1 minute ago, SiSePuede419 said:

Why don't you ask Elon? He seems to have glib smartass responses to everything. He is the world's richest man, obviously the smartest. Why are you wasting your precious time here? 😃

My time is no longer precious, I'm just another old guy waiting to die.

17 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

how did they put them on/off while wearing inflexible suits, why aren't they on display with Buzz Aldrin's suit?

You can't figure any of this out? You're not much of a problem solver, I guess.

30 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

My time is no longer precious, I'm just another old guy waiting to die.

So they lied for 40 years and never told the truth lol

Gamma is mooning us.

I always found the interviews with the crew after they got back as odd because they all looked uncomfortable, unexcited, hesitant to answer questions, and pretty dreary for 3 men who had just supposedly made such amazing history.

29 minutes ago, Sir Dude said:

I always found the interviews with the crew after they got back as odd because they all looked uncomfortable, unexcited, hesitant to answer questions, and pretty dreary for 3 men who had just supposedly made such amazing history.

Jet lag

Been watching all five seasons of For All Mankind. As if countries had pursued their space programmes.

Seems like nations would rather spend their money on blowing each other up.

As people must know, there's some question as to whether the moon landing really did happen in the summer of 1969. Back then, I was in University summer school to start my first year. I remember Baskin-Robbins had a special flavor of ice cream that summer: "Lunar Cheesecake." It was fairly tasty.

In any event, I remember my father telling me a story about talking to some guys in a Flagstaff, AZ bar about the time of the supposed moon landing. My father was in AZ that summer to teach at Northern Arizona University, which is in Flagstaff. Anyway, he said he ran across some people dressed in orange jumpsuits. Did NASA have those back then? Supposedly, those guys told my dad they were in the area filming a "moon landing" in case the real one didn't work out too well. My father always had a story to tell, so I didn't pay much attention. In retrospect, maybe it wasn't so far fetched. Some of the areas outside of Flagstaff look a lot like areas on the moon.

3 hours ago, Sir Dude said:

I always found the interviews with the crew after they got back as odd because they all looked uncomfortable, unexcited, hesitant to answer questions, and pretty dreary for 3 men who had just supposedly made such amazing history.

Earth's gravity is depressing

Reading some posts on here over a period of time I think many have gone to space, at the very least they are space cadets.

5 hours ago, BritManToo said:

I always wondered why Buzz Aldrin's space suit had smooth soles, but the fortprints it left were ridged.

(where would they store overshoes, how would they get them on and off in such inflexable suits, were they stored inside the lander, didn't seem much room, did they bring the overshoes back? If so, why aren't they on display with the suit?)

Not to mention the multiple shadow angles and shiny lander feet which should have been covered in dust.

And the camera crosses behind and in front of rocks.

And the perfectly composted photos on cameras that didn't have viewfinders.

What about the camera film that worked in freezing vacuum, how could they even change film rolls?

The amusing part isn't that people ask these questions. It's that every one of them has had a clearly documented and perfectly rational answer for over fifty years, yet they're still presented as if they've just been discovered in a Facebook comment section....

"Buzz Aldrin's suit had smooth soles, but the footprints were ridged"
No. The ridged prints came from the removable lunar overshoes worn over the pressure suit boots. NASA documented and photographed them extensively. They weren't some secret prop department invention.

"Where did they store the overshoes? How did they get them on in those inflexible suits?"
The same way they put on the rest of the EVA equipment, before depressurising the cabin. They weren't trying to wrestle Wellington boots on while standing on the Moon.

"There wasn't room in the LM"
Apparently there was room for two astronauts, life support systems, cameras, scientific experiments, sample boxes, food, water... but somehow a pair of lightweight overshoes is where the physics breaks down.

"Did they bring the overshoes back? Why aren't they on display?"
No. Like a lot of equipment, they were deliberately left on the Moon to save weight for the return trip. The ascent stage had strict mass limits. Museums don't display things that are still sitting on the lunar surface.

"The lander feet should be covered in dust"
Only if you assume lunar dust behaves like talcum powder in Earth's atmosphere. It doesn't. There's no air to keep dust suspended, and the descent engine shut down before touchdown, leaving surprisingly little dust on many surfaces.

"Multiple shadow angles!"
Perspective, not a second Sun. A camera flattens a 3D scene, so parallel shadows appear to point in different directions, especially over uneven ground. The LM, white suits, the lunar surface, and even Earth provided reflected fill light, softening shadows without creating new ones. It's photography, not a conspiracy.

"The camera crosshairs are behind rocks"
That's called overexposure. Bright white objects on film can "bleed" slightly, making the thin black reseau crosses appear interrupted. It's a well-understood photographic artefact, not evidence that NASA forgot how layers work.

"Perfectly composed photos with no viewfinder"

The cameras were chest-mounted with wide-angle lenses. Astronauts practised with them for months using mock-ups until framing became second nature. If you take 1,400 photos, some will also be exceptionally well composed.

"Film couldn't work in a freezing vacuum"
Good thing the cameras weren't ordinary holiday snaps then. They were specially modified for the lunar environment. Engineers do occasionally anticipate the conditions their equipment will be used in.

"How could they change film?"
With oversized controls specifically designed for gloved hands. Again, NASA didn't arrive at the Moon and suddenly realise they'd forgotten how cameras work.

I'm rarely astonished by the lengths Moon landing deniers will go to avoid facts. But the endless recycling of claims that were comprehensively debunked decades ago is so mind-numbingly stupid it borders on wilful illiteracy.

6 hours ago, Woke to Sounds said:

Can't land on a light in the sky.

The moon is an outpost that our alien overlord overseers use to observe us maybe?

Lot of strange theories about the moon.

4 hours ago, Sir Dude said:

I always found the interviews with the crew after they got back as odd because they all looked uncomfortable, unexcited, hesitant to answer questions, and pretty dreary for 3 men who had just supposedly made such amazing history.

This is another claim that sounds compelling until you consider the context.

"They looked uncomfortable, unexcited and hesitant"

They'd just completed an eight-day mission involving extreme physical stress, sleep deprivation, a high-risk re-entry, and were immediately placed into quarantine for weeks in case they brought back unknown lunar pathogens. They weren't on a victory tour, they were exhausted.

More importantly, it's pure confirmation bias. If they'd been grinning ear to ear, conspiracy theorists would simply claim they were "overacting." Calm = guilty. Excited = guilty. There's literally no demeanour that wouldn't be reinterpreted to fit the conclusion.

It's also worth remembering that Neil Armstrong, in particular, was famously reserved and uncomfortable with publicity long before Apollo 11. Reading deception into these interviews is not evidence, it's confirmation bias masquerading as analysis.

27 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

"Where did they store the overshoes? How did they get them on in those inflexible suits?"
The same way they put on the rest of the EVA equipment, before depressurising the cabin. They weren't trying to wrestle Wellington boots on while standing on the Moon.

"There wasn't room in the LM"
Apparently there was room for two astronauts, life support systems, cameras, scientific experiments, sample boxes, food, water... but somehow a pair of lightweight overshoes is where the physics breaks down.

So while wearing full suits, that couldn't bend, they took boots on and off.

this on/off, was it done while they couldn't bend inside the lander, or outside the lander?

Let's say one guy fully suited up and the other put his boots on him while unsuited (inside lander).

How did the second guy get his boots on/off after suiting up?

You ever worn a dry suit?

10x more flexable than a spacesuit, but still really hard to get your own fins on or off.

Edited July 4Jul 4 by BritManToo

29 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

The amusing part isn't that people ask these questions. It's that every one of them has had a clearly documented and perfectly rational answer for over fifty years, yet they're still presented as if they've just been discovered in a Facebook comment section....

"Buzz Aldrin's suit had smooth soles, but the footprints were ridged"
No. The ridged prints came from the removable lunar overshoes worn over the pressure suit boots. NASA documented and photographed them extensively. They weren't some secret prop department invention.

"Where did they store the overshoes? How did they get them on in those inflexible suits?"
The same way they put on the rest of the EVA equipment, before depressurising the cabin. They weren't trying to wrestle Wellington boots on while standing on the Moon.

"There wasn't room in the LM"
Apparently there was room for two astronauts, life support systems, cameras, scientific experiments, sample boxes, food, water... but somehow a pair of lightweight overshoes is where the physics breaks down.

"Did they bring the overshoes back? Why aren't they on display?"
No. Like a lot of equipment, they were deliberately left on the Moon to save weight for the return trip. The ascent stage had strict mass limits. Museums don't display things that are still sitting on the lunar surface.

"The lander feet should be covered in dust"
Only if you assume lunar dust behaves like talcum powder in Earth's atmosphere. It doesn't. There's no air to keep dust suspended, and the descent engine shut down before touchdown, leaving surprisingly little dust on many surfaces.

"Multiple shadow angles!"
Perspective, not a second Sun. A camera flattens a 3D scene, so parallel shadows appear to point in different directions, especially over uneven ground. The LM, white suits, the lunar surface, and even Earth provided reflected fill light, softening shadows without creating new ones. It's photography, not a conspiracy.

"The camera crosshairs are behind rocks"
That's called overexposure. Bright white objects on film can "bleed" slightly, making the thin black reseau crosses appear interrupted. It's a well-understood photographic artefact, not evidence that NASA forgot how layers work.

"Perfectly composed photos with no viewfinder"

The cameras were chest-mounted with wide-angle lenses. Astronauts practised with them for months using mock-ups until framing became second nature. If you take 1,400 photos, some will also be exceptionally well composed.

"Film couldn't work in a freezing vacuum"
Good thing the cameras weren't ordinary holiday snaps then. They were specially modified for the lunar environment. Engineers do occasionally anticipate the conditions their equipment will be used in.

"How could they change film?"
With oversized controls specifically designed for gloved hands. Again, NASA didn't arrive at the Moon and suddenly realise they'd forgotten how cameras work.

I'm rarely astonished by the lengths Moon landing deniers will go to avoid facts. But the endless recycling of claims that were comprehensively debunked decades ago is so mind-numbingly stupid it borders on wilful illiteracy.

Ai has also helped to uncover who operated the camera when the Apollo 11 Lanar Lander took off from the moon at 20,000 miles per hour.
It was a tricky shot to capture and some brave man had to stay behind to do it since NASA couldn't get around the signal delay from earth.

Though he wasn't first on the moon, and has largely been forgotten, for the sacrifice he made, Tyrone Shoelaces may just be the Greatest Astronaut Ever

As an aside, I also wonder why it seems so hard to now go back to the moon with a manned mission considering they made it so many times in the Apollo missions with less computing power that a modern calculator so long ago, and now it seems so complicated... and if you look at the proposals for doing it again, it is way more complicated than back in the late 60s. It should be a sinch or routine now to return considering the advancement between then and now.

Seems odd to me with the tech we have now that they are still making excuses for not returning. Yes, the recent Artemis mission worked but they just did a fly-by orbit of the moon and didn't land. I'm not a conspiracy theorist but it's a tough one to swallow that returning is so hard if it was done so well multiple times back in the day over 50 years ago.

Edit - You can't say there is nothing more to learn about the moon to justify not going back, as the moon contradicts so many things and the case for why the moon shouldn't exist is better for the one as to why it does exist.... it is an strange object that is mysterious and basically shouldn't be there, as there are no other examples of a moon like this we have found anyhwere.

Edited July 4Jul 4 by Sir Dude
Typos

4 minutes ago, Sir Dude said:

As an aside, I also wonder why it seems so hard to now go back to the moon with a manned mission considering they made it so many times in the Apollo missions with less computing power that a modern calculator so long ago, and now it seems so complicated... and if you look at the proposals for doing it again, it is way more complicated than back in the late 60s. It should be a sinch or routine now to return considering the advancement between then and now.

Seems odd to me with the tech we have now that they are still making excuses for not returning. Yes, the recent Artemus mission worked but they just did a fly-by orbit of the moon and didn't land. I'm not a conspiracy theorist but it's a tough one to swallow that returning is so hard if it was done so well multiple times back in the day over 50 years ago.

Mainly because the whole man on the moon stuff is a complete crock of <deleted>