Did we actually really land on moon?

[Krsps]

Ok, don't throw me into the same basket for the believers of conspiracy theories.

I believe Earth is NOT flat. I don't believe there are aliens in Area 51.

But this question is factually not very convincing and it is, did we actually land on moon in 1969.

There are many compelling evidences, facts etc that proves that indeed we landed on moon.

But even in 21st century where there an accident with Kalpana Chawla who merely went to space and came back, it sounds too good to be true that in 1969, we landed on the moon which is around 300000 kms or 186000 miles from the Earth with those time of technologies and successfully came back. Remember, the first apple computer was launched in 1976.

I'm not saying we didn't, I'm just saying that it's not really a question that can be debunked like other theories which says Earth is flat.

Yes, I think we did land on the moon. But I also think it is a possibility, that some of what we saw, might have been produced. But not because they didn't do it, but because they didn't want to show us everything they really saw up there, and all the things that were really going on.

Once we got up there it seemed like everything changed. The Nation's attitude changed from, " Let's race!. The space race!.".to "Let's back off."
"Let's go back to just orbiting and make an international space station."  Why?

Maybe something up there said, "Back off. Go and tell your people you did it, and don't say a word about anything that is going on up here. Go back to your own neighborhood, orbiting and doing space experiments on your space station and we will help you here and there, but don't come back here...too often...or for a long time.

Also the stories of the moon ringing like a bell, and being hollow sound reasonable to me. Another whole thread.

Our earth was in chaos before the moon was in place. According to some theories the moon stabilized our earth made it habitable and keeps it from wobbling to much.

[Spendulus]

....

Yes, I think we did land on the moon. But I also think it is a possibility, that some of what we saw, might have been produced. But not because they didn't do it, but because they didn't want to show us everything they really saw up there, and all the things that were really going on.

Once we got up there it seemed like everything changed. The Nation's attitude changed from, " Let's race!. The space race!.".to "Let's back off."
"Let's go back to just orbiting and make an international space station."  Why?

Politics. Democrats kill space programs. Time after time.

....
Maybe something up there said, "Back off. Go and tell your people you did it, and don't say a word about anything that is going on up here. Go back to your own neighborhood, orbiting and doing space experiments on your space station and we will help you here and there, but don't come back here...too often...or for a long time.

Maybe. Impossible to disprove. But we have gone back, again and agin, although with robots. We've mapped the entire moon's surface down to everything the size of a football.

....
.....
Our earth was in chaos before the moon was in place. According to some theories the moon stabilized our earth made it habitable and keeps it from wobbling too much.

The moon does act sort of like an outrigger on a canoe. Otherwise, like Uranus, a planet could rotate 90 degrees to the plane of the solar system.

[af_newbie]

....

Yes, I think we did land on the moon. But I also think it is a possibility, that some of what we saw, might have been produced. But not because they didn't do it, but because they didn't want to show us everything they really saw up there, and all the things that were really going on.

Once we got up there it seemed like everything changed. The Nation's attitude changed from, " Let's race!. The space race!.".to "Let's back off."
"Let's go back to just orbiting and make an international space station."  Why?

Politics. Democrats kill space programs. Time after time.

If I were Trump, I would announce re-start of the Moon (and/or Mars) program on the 50th anniversary of the Moon landing.  

It would be a political jackpot.  He can even plagiarize Kennedy's speech, nobody will care.  He will go in history as the greatest president of all time.  I think he is going to do it.

[BADecker]

^^^ Right! If nothing else, the money borrowed from the banking system will help keep the fiat money Ponzi going for a while yet, so that those of us who are not prepared for the BIG crash still have time.

[notbatman]

....How accurate are you when you eyeball the distance across your room in the funny farm? If you are anywhere close to the sun, you should have your room down to the thousandth of an inch.

The famous aviator Wiley Post, 1920ish, had lost one eye when young. He trained to estimate distances very accurately with one eye. Hence, with no triangulation. He would often win wagers in bars this way. It enabled him to pass the Airman's exam, which required good vision.

So I'll let that issue pass.

However, you are correct in that NotBat has not shown the total of the triangulation issue. There are several issues.

(A) How much does the Moon change in diameter, from the Supermoon to the minima, and why?

I'll need to read up on supermoons; I'm sure somebody has documented and published those values. As for the why I'll say it's atmospheric refraction unless there's other greater factors I'm not considering.

What does it mean, if an object in the sky periodically, and predictably, changes in diameter?

I'd say it means it has a cycle.

(B) From where might we stand, say in a couple of places, to measure the Sun and Moon over the course of a year?

This would be to find their distance from the Earth.

Anywhere they're visible in your field of view, preferably with a high angle to minimize atmospheric refraction.

(C) We commonly measure the height of mountains on the Moon, and the depth of craters, using a form of simple triangulation. Measuring the spreading of the shadows as the Moon moves to a crescent.

Notbat, care to comment?

Who is "we"? Your "team" (an anagram for meat) is probably making assumptions about the distances involved.

(D) Given that the terminator line moves precisely across the lunar surface over the course of a lunar day (27+ Earth days) and we measure heights on the Moon of objects as they approach that terminator, geometrically this is only possible if the Moon is a sphere like object.

NotBat claims the Moon is just a bright light?

... projected off of a concave mirror.

(E) A lunar eclipse is when the Earth occludes the Sun, as viewed from the Moon.

You're making an assumption, what if the eclipse is a filter passing in between the Moon's projection?

We will consider the trig involved in this, along with a quite interesting topic, after NotBat answers the above questions and issues. This topic is how we can predict lunar eclipses.

I'll have to check and confirm this but I've read that modern astronomers still use the old geocentric flat earth equations to make lunar eclipse predictions; it aint broke so they never fixed it.

Any scientific theory is affirmed if it predicts correctly. We have a model of elliptical orbiting masses in space, which we can use to accurately predict many things. All on the basis of a synergistic development of math, and orbital mechanics, over three thousand years. But you reject all of that.

No problem. We can step through the fundamentals.

There are no heavy balls floating above us being held up by a magical force a butterfly can overcome by flapping its wings. The lights in the sky are just that, lights in sky.

[BADecker]

....How accurate are you when you eyeball the distance across your room in the funny farm? If you are anywhere close to the sun, you should have your room down to the thousandth of an inch.

The famous aviator Wiley Post, 1920ish, had lost one eye when young. He trained to estimate distances very accurately with one eye. Hence, with no triangulation. He would often win wagers in bars this way. It enabled him to pass the Airman's exam, which required good vision.

So I'll let that issue pass.

However, you are correct in that NotBat has not shown the total of the triangulation issue. There are several issues.

(A) How much does the Moon change in diameter, from the Supermoon to the minima, and why?

I'll need to read up on supermoons; I'm sure somebody has documented and published those values. As for the why I'll say it's atmospheric refraction unless there's other greater factors I'm not considering.
Supermoon is simply a full moon at the moon’s “perihelion” with the earth.

What does it mean, if an object in the sky periodically, and predictably, changes in diameter?

I'd say it means it has a cycle.
But what is that cycle? It’s the cycle of the orbit of “perihelion” and “aphelion” with relation to the object it revolves around.

(B) From where might we stand, say in a couple of places, to measure the Sun and Moon over the course of a year?

This would be to find their distance from the Earth.

Anywhere they're visible in your field of view, preferably with a high angle to minimize atmospheric refraction.
The sun: directly under it at opposite times of the year.
The moon: Same spot when the moon is on opposite horizons.

(C) We commonly measure the height of mountains on the Moon, and the depth of craters, using a form of simple triangulation. Measuring the spreading of the shadows as the Moon moves to a crescent.

Notbat, care to comment?

Who is "we"? Your "team" (an anagram for meat) is probably making assumptions about the distances involved.
The community of professional astronomers, although amateurs can do it, as well.

(D) Given that the terminator line moves precisely across the lunar surface over the course of a lunar day (27+ Earth days) and we measure heights on the Moon of objects as they approach that terminator, geometrically this is only possible if the Moon is a sphere like object.

NotBat claims the Moon is just a bright light?

... projected off of a concave mirror.
Impossible, because, even though the moon has phases that might correspond with seeing a mirror from its edge, we can often see the full circle of the moon, dimly, during its phases. This being the case, the full circle of the moon is always there. But we would see it as a “cat-eye” if we were looking at a mirror on edge.

(E) A lunar eclipse is when the Earth occludes the Sun, as viewed from the Moon.

You're making an assumption, what if the eclipse is a filter passing in between the Moon's projection?
Inventing more stuff, eh? If there were a filter, it would be visible at other times. I mean, maybe there is a glass dome between the earth and the steel dome, and the glass gets heavy cataracts exactly at the eclipse times.

We will consider the trig involved in this, along with a quite interesting topic, after NotBat answers the above questions and issues. This topic is how we can predict lunar eclipses.

I'll have to check and confirm this but I've read that modern astronomers still use the old geocentric flat earth equations to make lunar eclipse predictions; it aint broke so they never fixed it.
It’s called confirmation of correct methods and figures.

Any scientific theory is affirmed if it predicts correctly. We have a model of elliptical orbiting masses in space, which we can use to accurately predict many things. All on the basis of a synergistic development of math, and orbital mechanics, over three thousand years. But you reject all of that.

No problem. We can step through the fundamentals.

There are no heavy balls floating above us being held up by a magical force a butterfly can overcome by flapping its wings. The lights in the sky are just that, lights in sky.
That’s because the biggest looking ball is below our feet. It looks the biggest, because of how far away the others are from us. However, not all asteroids are balls. A combination of gravity and centrifugal force holds it all up there... not magic.

[Spendulus]

...
If I were Trump, I would announce re-start of the Moon (and/or Mars) program on the 50th anniversary of the Moon landing.  

It would be a political jackpot.  He can even plagiarize Kennedy's speech, nobody will care.  He will go in history as the greatest president of all time.  I think he is going to do it.

Trump has already done this. He's directed NASA to go back to the Moon. It is ONLY because the hate the media has for him that they do not / have not reported this.

But he is more of a doer than a talker, so let's see them minimize the issue when our men are boots on the ground.

Much easier though, and essentially the same, would be an Apollo 8 - Apollo 10 style mission, circle the Moon and return home. AFAIK all the parts and pieces are available for this, but we don't have a modern LEM built and ready to fly (or men trained to use it).

[BADecker]

If there's this, then there is gold and platinum and whatever other metals we need.


Two Quintillion Tons of Metal or Dense Oxides Found on the Moon

If this is a massive metal resource then it would make lunar colonization and the industrial development of space far easier.

It could be a pile of metal five times larger than the Big Island of Hawaii.

It was found by analyzing measurements of subtle changes in the strength of gravity around the Moon, researchers analyzed data from spacecrafts used for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Gravity Recovery and Interior Laboratory (GRAIL) mission.

Computer simulations of large asteroid impacts suggest that, under the right conditions, an iron-nickel core of an asteroid may be dispersed into the upper mantle (the layer between the Moon's crust and core) during an impact.

"We did the math and showed that a sufficiently dispersed core of the asteroid that made the impact could remain suspended in the Moon's mantle until the present day, rather than sinking to the Moon's core," James said.

Another possibility is that the large mass might be a concentration of dense oxides associated with the last stage of lunar magma ocean solidification.

And once we get the metals mined, we will be able to build this (below) to go to the stars.


Game Changing Direct Drive Fusion Propulsion Progress

The truly game-changing levels of thrust and power in a modestly sized package could integrate with our current launch infrastructure while radically expanding the science capability of these missions. NIAC grants require that a technology be studied in the context of a specific mission. The mission context is the delivery of a Pluto orbiter with a lander, which cannot be done with any other technology. Direct Fusion Drive (DFD) provides moderate thrust to allow for reasonable transit times to Pluto while delivering substantial mass to orbit: 1000 kg delivered in four years using 5 N constant thrust.

Since DFD provides power as well as propulsion in one integrated device, it will also provide as much as 1 MW of useful electrical power to the payloads upon arrival. This enables high-bandwidth optical communication, powering of the lander from orbit, and radically expanded options for instrument design.

The Princeton Field-Reversed Configuration (PFRC), which is a steady-state fusion reactor concept with heating via rotating magnetic fields. A thrust model of the reactor is presented that is based on a fluid code modeling the exchange of energy in the plasma surrounding the reactor.

[Spendulus]

....How accurate are you when you eyeball the distance across your room in the funny farm? If you are anywhere close to the sun, you should have your room down to the thousandth of an inch.

.....you are correct in that NotBat has not shown the total of the triangulation issue. There are several issues.

(A) How much does the Moon change in diameter, from the Supermoon to the minima, and why?

I'll need to read up on supermoons; I'm sure somebody has documented and published those values. As for the why I'll say it's atmospheric refraction unless there's other greater factors I'm not considering.

What does it mean, if an object in the sky periodically, and predictably, changes in diameter?

I'd say it means it has a cycle.

....There are no heavy balls floating above us being held up by a magical force a butterfly can overcome by flapping its wings. The lights in the sky are just that, lights in sky.[/color]

Oh, don't worry about refraction. We're way past that sort of thing.

But the Moon does change in diameter, and we know that because we can measure the distance between two large craters, and they change proportionally.

Using your triangulation method, this would mean simply that the distance to the Moon is varying.

As you say, it has a cycle. Of course, the Moon has numerous cycles, and that is one of them.

But there's a problem. Over the course of a month, there is the phenomena of LIBRATION. This basically means that at one part of the month, we see more of the left side, and at another, more of the right hand side. In all, we see 59% of the surface of the moon over the course of a month. That's not possible with a flat plate. In fact, the geometry pretty much dictates that is what happens with a sphere.

So it's no longer just a light in the sky. It's a light in the sky that's describing cyclic paths, moving closer and further away, and there's a special robot plane flying between us and the Moon, creating the look of a blood moon during eclipse. And LIBRATION demands that this light in the sky be spherical because we see 59% of it.

And there's another robot plane that moves the light in the sky that's the Moon around on it's path and up and down, right? It's, you say, a 32 mile wide thing so that's a pretty big plane. Maybe a wingspan of 60 miles?

Leave that for now and let's go back to the changes in diameter.

http://www.fourmilab.ch/earthview/moon_ap_per.html

Your triangulation requires, in a flat Earth model, the plane to carry this 32 mile moon closer and then farther away. How much further? How is that done?

Can I get a couple of these planes that will carry 32 mile wide big lights or whatever they are? Wait, where would I land them and gas them up? Can I pay in bitcoin?

[exemplaar]

A video how they did it. Staged moon landing in remote hollywood studio proof for blind deluded "nasa fans" like spentulus and co.

CIA Top Secret Stanley Kubrick Moon Landing Apollo 10/11 (1969):
https://www.facebook.com/hakansanil/videos/2528667880500695/

+bonus:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frQmlLy241c

[Spendulus]

A video how they did it. Staged moon landing in remote hollywood studio proof for blind deluded "nasa fans" like spentulus and co.

CIA Top Secret Stanley Kubrick Moon Landing Apollo 10/11 (1969):
https://www.facebook.com/hakansanil/videos/2528667880500695/

+bonus:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frQmlLy241c

Please explain exactly what a "bonus" is, since you don't explain it except that it is a "bonus." Is it another extra special treat from the All Wise Masters of NoMoon?

At least NoBat tried to prove his case with trig. That certainly beats someone trying to prove something with youtube.

You've posted a video full of lies, with a guy in it that doesn't even look like Kubrick. Let's check snopes.com.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/false-stanley-kubrick-faked-moon-landings/

Yep. Fake is your story.

[Astargath]

A video how they did it. Staged moon landing in remote hollywood studio proof for blind deluded "nasa fans" like spentulus and co.

CIA Top Secret Stanley Kubrick Moon Landing Apollo 10/11 (1969):
https://www.facebook.com/hakansanil/videos/2528667880500695/

+bonus:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frQmlLy241c

You are a proven troll, please dont post anything else, your posts consist of 99% photoshopped fake pics as already proven in the other posts.

[BADecker]

A video how they did it. Staged moon landing in remote hollywood studio proof for blind deluded "nasa fans" like spentulus and co.

CIA Top Secret Stanley Kubrick Moon Landing Apollo 10/11 (1969):
https://www.facebook.com/hakansanil/videos/2528667880500695/

+bonus:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frQmlLy241c

You are a proven troll, please dont post anything else, your posts consist of 99% photoshopped fake pics as already proven in the other posts.

Besides, NASA and the government aren't going to post top secret videos and films of what they did. NASA fake stuff is merely the way they are protecting their top secret, and yet giving the people the sensationalism they need to remain peaceful.

So, it seems that exemplaar and his group are out to destroy the nation by destroying national security. They are the enemy.

[Spendulus]

...

Besides, NASA and the government aren't going to post top secret videos and films of what they did. NASA fake stuff is merely the way they are protecting their top secret, and yet giving the people the sensationalism they need to remain peaceful.

So, it seems that exemplaar and his group are out to destroy the nation by destroying national security. They are the enemy.

AFAIK everything about the Apollo program is declassified.

It's all on line, one of the largest scientific repositories.

[BADecker]

...

Besides, NASA and the government aren't going to post top secret videos and films of what they did. NASA fake stuff is merely the way they are protecting their top secret, and yet giving the people the sensationalism they need to remain peaceful.

So, it seems that exemplaar and his group are out to destroy the nation by destroying national security. They are the enemy.

AFAIK everything about the Apollo program is declassified.

It's all on line, one of the largest scientific repositories.

Have they put anyone who knows for sure, on the stand under oath or affirmation and got him/her to testify that it's all declassified? Have they done it under penalty of death?

[Spendulus]

...

Besides, NASA and the government aren't going to post top secret videos and films of what they did. NASA fake stuff is merely the way they are protecting their top secret, and yet giving the people the sensationalism they need to remain peaceful.

So, it seems that exemplaar and his group are out to destroy the nation by destroying national security. They are the enemy.

AFAIK everything about the Apollo program is declassified.

It's all on line, one of the largest scientific repositories.

Have they put anyone who knows for sure, on the stand under oath or affirmation and got him/her to testify that it's all declassified? Have they done it under penalty of death?

Penalty of death, huh.

I don't know. I guess what I was saying is that all the findings of Apollo are right out in the open.

It's not unusual, though for rocket motor designs to be classified. Not the general schematics and operating manuals, but the specific shop drawings that a hostile country might use to build them.

Motors used for space are very different than those used for military, but there is a bit of overlap.

[BADecker]

...

Besides, NASA and the government aren't going to post top secret videos and films of what they did. NASA fake stuff is merely the way they are protecting their top secret, and yet giving the people the sensationalism they need to remain peaceful.

So, it seems that exemplaar and his group are out to destroy the nation by destroying national security. They are the enemy.

AFAIK everything about the Apollo program is declassified.

It's all on line, one of the largest scientific repositories.

Have they put anyone who knows for sure, on the stand under oath or affirmation and got him/her to testify that it's all declassified? Have they done it under penalty of death?

Penalty of death, huh.

I don't know. I guess what I was saying is that all the findings of Apollo are right out in the open.

It's not unusual, though for rocket motor designs to be classified. Not the general schematics and operating manuals, but the specific shop drawings that a hostile country might use to build them.

Motors used for space are very different than those used for military, but there is a bit of overlap.

Many others acknowledge that the findings are right out in the open. When you can produce out-in-the-open- findings without having done the actual thing that the findings suggest, that's when we need proof. People are willing to lie about all kinds of things. But they are kinda reluctant to lie when their life is in the balance.

[Astargath]

As i said in the first post, it would have been extremely difficult for the US to fake such thing and fool every other government. These idiots have to invent an even bigger conspiracy and say all governments are working together to fake such thing, why would do they it? Well, they write ab even bigger conspiracy theory to explain it, its never ending

[Spendulus]

As i said in the first post, it would have been extremely difficult for the US to fake such thing and fool every other government. These idiots have to invent an even bigger conspiracy and say all governments are working together to fake such thing, why would do they it? Well, they write ab even bigger conspiracy theory to explain it, its never ending

As i said in the first post, it would have been extremely difficult for the US to fake such thing and fool every other government. These idiots have to invent an even bigger conspiracy and say all governments are working together to fake such thing, why would do they it? Well, they write ab even bigger conspiracy theory to explain it, its never ending...

 We're now into Notbat arguing two mile high Titans that build the dome over the earth, and I'm fixing to ask where do they go to take a shit.

There's just no polite way to ask...

Humans produce about 1 oz of feces per 12 lb of body weight per day, and weight increases as a weak geometric function of height increases.

A quick look at the size and proportions of two mile height Titans shows they weigh about 5262 tons, and each time they excrete feces its about 52,815 pounds. In ten years the two Titans would excrete 21,000,000 pounds.

At this point, I have to comment that Notbat is full of shit.

[exemplaar]

Just comfort yourself moon landing zombie fans...

Who has eyes to see, let him see:





bonus:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hg_u_dXsQjY&