The Moon Landings Were A Hoax!!:

What? There are plenty of pictures of the various spacecraft around, as even a casual Google search would show.

Yes, many of them ARE in B/W, however. As with much technical/documantary photography TO THIS DAY, color was passed over in favor of the superior resolution of B/W film. And there are many shots from Apollo in full color, as well. Most of the "boring" technical shots of the hardware are in B/W, as they were intended for internal NASA/Contractor use, and not intended for general public release. If you really want to see all this stuff, check the National Archives.

 

From: http://www.lunaranomalies.com/fake-moon.htm

 

another word a color film for a cheap movie was ok but not for a lunar landing? even world war 2 color film exist today but very little on moon hardware and etc

 

1. The truth here is once again very straightforward. At all of the landing sites, the astronauts found that the Lunar surface had about a two inch layer of dust. Below that was pretty much hard pan. As you can see from the image below from Apollo 11, not only is the upper layer of dust blown away in a radial pattern (as if from a thruster?) there is also a small depression below the nozzle. Since the LM descent engine only made about 3,000 pounds of thrust (compared to a modern jet fighter which makes between 18,000 and 22,000 pounds of thrust), this is pretty much as any engineer or geologist would expect things to look = "IM NOT BUYING THAT ONE THE LUNAR ROVER SHOW LOTS OF SOFT DIRT BEING SWUNG BY THE BUGGY TIRES".

 

SECOND QUESTION all lunar modules are the same were the hell the lunar buggy was transport? how was the lunar buggy lower to the moon surface from the lunar module by 2 imbecils who can bearly walk around?

 

no pictures of the lunar module with buggy on exist. the module does not even show a sort of a small crane or boon to be used to lower the lunar buggie

 

i just read this entire thread..and as i'm no scientist i cant comment on the technicalities of what was or wasnt possible at the time.. i just dont understand how we have never been able to achieve anything like it since.. technology has taken a massive step backwards has it not?.. we cant even get the space shuttle journeys to go glitch free with the technology we possess today so how in gods name a moon landing and safe return was engineered is beyond me... somehow i'm just not gullible enough to believe everything i'm told... and i guess all the tax payers money that NASA was given was wisely spent on the technological cover-up of all time.. after all...here we are still debating this subject all these years later..

 

there is just one more question..considering the state of our planets resources..and the instability of the worlds nucleur powers..the benefits of lunar colonization would be massive... why then has NASA not continued with this amazing lunar project?..could it be that no one could ever survive the van halen belt.. strange how monkeys and the first dog in space could not survive it but astronauts could?....oooh i know what side of this debate i'm on

 

See previous answer re: comparative resolution of color vs. B/W film. Even today, the most exacting photographic applications use B/W film.

Completely consistent with a 1-2" thick layer of dry, loose soil over a base of hardpan, no?

Not all lunar modules were the same. For the later "J" missions (Apollo 15-17), the descent stage was modified to hold more scientific gear, including the Lunar Rover.

The Rover was carried in a folded condition, stowed inside the descent stage of the LEM.

IIRC, a cable winch arrangement was used...

As the rover fit substantially INSIDE the descent stage, I don't think the LEM would look much different from an exterior photo anyway. There is a COLOR photograph showing a test of rover deployment here:

http://www.nasm.si.edu/exhibitions/attm/atmimages/S71-31409.f.jpg

You can see how the rover was folded up into one of the equipment bays on the LEM descent stage.....

 

erm..having looked at the plans of the LEM there is no provision for a buggy even in a folded state?

 

again to imbecils who can bearly walk straight are going to lower a buggie or and unfold the buggie. the buggie was still quite rather large to be store inside the module lower part when space was a premium for fuel storage and others .

 

They are having a bitch of a time trying to repair the shuttle tiles in space in 2005. but yet 2 idiots in full 1960s space suits on the moon can lower and unfold a lunar buggie on the moon?

 

As they gained experience with lunar landings, less descent fuel was carried on later missions, allowing more room for science equipment and the rover.

Maybe because the rover was DESIGNED for deployment in low-G by 2 guys in pressure suits, while the shuttle TPS tiles were never designed to be repairable in space?

 

From what i read they bearly had enoug fuel to land the first time.

 

you must be kiiding me a tv comercial in 1969 would show more details about a product than the crap feed to us by NASA.

 

The unofficial motto of the Apollo program was "Waste Anything but Time". The goal was to land men on the Moon by the end of the decade, and price was no object.

Quite a different situation to the Shuttle program, which was a hodgepodge of different ideas from the beginning, attempting to do many things well, and falling well shoirt of the goals in many cases. This is a political/economic problem, not a technical one.

Lack of public interest, lack of visionary NASA leadership, no easily exploitable lunar resources, too much money pissed away on the military, take your pick....

Van Halen Belt? I assume that would be the haze of cigarette and reefer smoke surrounding the upper seats in the arena where the band was playing?

The Russian dog Laika died because NO PROVISION WAS MADE FOR HER RETURN. It was a one-way flight into history, unfortunately for her.

The 2 US chimpanzees, Ham and Enos, BOTH returned safely to earth as part of the early tests of the Mercury program.

 

Yep, about 20 seconds remaining, IIRC.

Armstrong found a lot of obstacles at his intended landing site, and burned a LOT of fuel trying to dodge boulders and craters looking for a flat place to land. Later missions had better landing targets, and were able to land without "searching around for a parking spot" burning a lot of extra fuel.

On the very next mission, Pete Conrad managed to put the LEM down within 200 yards of their target, an unmanned probe that landed several years earlier.

 

well.. all will be revealed one way or the other next year when the chinese launch a satelite to photograph the surface of the moon.... remind me to see if this threads still going then just so i can have the last laugh...

 

I wouldn't get your hopes up - China claim to have put a man into space so I guess they are in on the conspiracy too.

 

look up your history books and you will read about something called "the space race"... you will have to look up "the cold war" as well though... there was huge sums of money spent at the time, NASA's budget by comparison today is tiny... it is said that if the amount of money spent on the space programme up to apollo was spent on developing the automobile, you would be able to travel in a car capable of the speed of sound and consuming only a gallon of fuel a year (personally i think that's crap, but it's a nice idea!)

monkeys and dogs did and have survived, some of the early experiments were less successfull however and many of them did not include recovery of the animals - the russians came in for plenty of criticism from animal rights groups for sending the first dog into space with no intention to get her back down again

full story and picture here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2367681.stm

my brother works for ESA and works with astronauts but mostly unmanned satellites... as far as i am aware i'm pretty sure he does not lead a double life as a government agent!