Americans on moon?

Post anything that doesn't belong in any other forum, including gaming and topics unrelated to motorsport. Site specific discussions should go in the site feedback forum.

Did Americans really land on moon?

Yes
33
70%
No
14
30%
 
Total votes: 47

Saribro
Saribro
6
Joined: 28 Jul 2006, 00:34

Post

manchild wrote:Well, think about this... Few years ago I've joined SETI at Home, downloaded one data pack and after a while hard disc on that PC died without analyzing all of the data. What if in that data pack was a message from a distant civilization?
No problem, if a packet remains unreturned within a certain timeframe (I think it was ~90 days), the server just re-issues it to someone else.
So, rest assured, if there was something in your packet, someone else already found it :).

Jersey Tom
Jersey Tom
166
Joined: 29 May 2006, 20:49
Location: Huntersville, NC

Post

You really gotta be nuts to think we didn't land on the moon.

- Just another engineer's perspective..
Grip is a four letter word. All opinions are my own and not those of current or previous employers.

segedunum
segedunum
0
Joined: 03 Apr 2007, 13:49

Post

Sorry, but Jodrell Bank tracked Apollo 11 all the way to the moon and all the way back - including Neil Armstrong's little wobble as he landed. There are also instruments on the moon that bounce lasers back to measure the distance between us and the moon. They're all there.

Let's just face it. The moon landings actually happened, and what those astronauts did with the technology they were using was bloody dangerous. I would hate to have been one of the technical guys back on Earth. I would have died of a heart attack.

Just think silently for a few seconds about the unbelievable logistics involved in faking the moon landings. You have hundreds of thousands of people involved in the project, and contractors, all building what they believe to be a totally believable spacecraft capable of landing on the moon. That's right - you'd have to actually build a whole spacecraft that would convince absolutely everybody, including the people who built it and the people at mission control, that it was capable of landing on the moon and that it actually was. It would be easier, cheaper and far, far, far, far, far less risky just to go there!

I do question some of NASA's moon photographs, and there's the possibility that some of them were embellished for PR reasons, but that doesn't mean the moon landings didn't happen.

segedunum
segedunum
0
Joined: 03 Apr 2007, 13:49

Post

joseff wrote:Sorry for hijacking the thread, but this is an excellent place to seed other conspiracy theories :twisted: Let's start with the
phantom cosmonauts.

More of the same: Lost Cosmonauts.
engin007 wrote:Do they have to be space themed?? If not I think this one is the most popular:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy_as ... n_theories
That's the problem with these things. You always get two groups of people - those who cover their ears and think that anything that might be sitting in front of them is ridiculous, and those that take some suspicious happenings from an event and then extrapolate them wildly into all sorts of things.

Take the phantom cosmonauts thing. I don't particularly see that as a conspiracy theory - apart from the fact there is no official confirmation. The Soviet space program was so secret, even from people who were supposedly intimately involved, that this is perfectly possible. The fact that they have the names of real cosmonauts in their training programs, and those names match up to their recorded broadcasts, is pretty important evidence. This is more than possible, and it's quite important for history that this is investigated really. Some of their evidence and descriptions were quite interesting, I thought.

As for the Kennedy assassinations. I think any impartial observer can agree that there are an awful lot of things wrong with the Lee Harvey Oswald lone killer official story. However, people then extrapolate that out into things that could possibly be true, and write stupid books about it, but that there is not a shred of evidence for anywhere and which leads to nothing. Most people just don't know how to take one step at a time. If you want to find anything out, I would advise any investigator to look at Lee Harvey Oswald's supposed brother, and the husband and wife who befriended him and took that convenient picture of him with the rifle, and find out just who they really are ;-).

It's rather like the twin towers collapse. There is some pretty good evidence to suggest that the twin towers should never, ever have collapsed the way they did based on evidence of how all other buildings collapse, and just the calculated physical energy actually required. Unfortunately, people then jump straight from that into trying to imagine why the buildings were demolished and how much money certain people made, and any hope of finding out what might have happened is lost.

User avatar
joseff
11
Joined: 24 Sep 2002, 11:53

Post

segedunum wrote: That's the problem with these things. You always get two groups of people - those who cover their ears and think that anything that might be sitting in front of them is ridiculous, and those that take some suspicious happenings from an event and then extrapolate them wildly into all sorts of things.
Ummm... which group was I in again?

eidetic
eidetic
0
Joined: 07 Jun 2007, 13:25

Post

Tom wrote:Why is it impossible for a living creature to travel at the speed of light? Perhaps there are living creatures travelling faster than the speed of light, maybe even within teloscopic range, which would be a very good reason why we can't see them.
I'm no physicist, but I believe the faster you go, you gain in mass. To the point of it being near infinite, which requires that much more energy to propel you faster.

modbaraban
modbaraban
0
Joined: 05 Apr 2007, 17:44
Location: Kyiv, Ukraine

Post

eidetic wrote:I'm no physicist, but I believe the faster you go, you gain in mass. To the point of it being near infinite, which requires that much more energy to propel you faster.
You mean weight? I'm not a physicist either, but I always though mass is constant :-k

User avatar
flynfrog
Moderator
Joined: 23 Mar 2006, 22:31

Post

modbaraban wrote:
eidetic wrote:I'm no physicist, but I believe the faster you go, you gain in mass. To the point of it being near infinite, which requires that much more energy to propel you faster.
You mean weight? I'm not a physicist either, but I always though mass is constant :-k
no mass is the correct term

you are converting mass into energy

User avatar
Tom
0
Joined: 13 Jan 2006, 00:24
Location: Bicester

Post

So there is no possible way of producing enough energy to move an object at the speed of light? Is this a fact or a probability?
Murphy's 9th Law of Technology:
Tell a man there are 300 million stars in the universe and he'll believe you. Tell him a bench has wet paint on it and he'll have to touch to be sure.

allan
allan
0
Joined: 14 Jan 2006, 22:14
Location: Waterloo, Canada

Post

Tom wrote:So there is no possible way of producing enough energy to move an object at the speed of light? Is this a fact or a probability?
It's the same as evolution... u can't prove it, but u can be certain it occured.
You can keep increasing your velocity until u almost reach C, however as u increase ur velocity, u decrease in length, and increase in mass, and therefore more energy is needed to maintain that speed. With this relationship, mass and energy keep increasing to infiniti. I remember reading in my gr12 physics that this relationship has been proven for small values, i.e. the mass did increase by small fractions when traveling at relatively high speeds. The final reason for this assumption to stand is that the whole theory of relativity (both the general and the special) is based on that C is the ultimate speed, and is constant whether it was measured from a standing still or moving point of reference. And so far, all those theories seem to work well for us!

User avatar
joseff
11
Joined: 24 Sep 2002, 11:53

Post

allan wrote:...however as u increase ur velocity, u decrease in length, and increase in mass, and therefore more energy is needed to maintain that speed. With this relationship, mass and energy keep increasing to infiniti...
"...as seen by a stationary observer"

Don't forget your frame of reference! To the person being accelerated, everything stays the same.

bar555
bar555
10
Joined: 08 Aug 2007, 18:13
Location: Greece - Athens

Post

A spaceshuttle with men on board , mast pass through Van Allen zone ( a zone full of radiaton around earth ) to get to the moon . To block radiation penetrating into , the shuttle mast have a thick protective lead layer . This layer would make the shuttle to heavy to launch . On the other hand without the lead layer every man on board would die because of radiation . Now you can make your own conclusions........
Have ever a man escaped to space or only crewless shuttles did ?? :?:

User avatar
Scuderia_Russ
0
Joined: 17 Jan 2004, 22:24
Location: Motorsport Valley, England.

Post

DaveKillens wrote:So some advanced race with obviously superior technology takes the time and trouble to travel across parsecs to give some US citizen an anal probe?

:roll:
:lol: :lol: :lol:
"Whether you think you can or can't, either way you are right."
-Henry Ford-

User avatar
Scuderia_Russ
0
Joined: 17 Jan 2004, 22:24
Location: Motorsport Valley, England.

Post

Manchild wrote:
.....
pRo wrote:


Well that didn't last!
"Whether you think you can or can't, either way you are right."
-Henry Ford-

User avatar
Sawtooth-spike
0
Joined: 28 Jan 2005, 15:33
Location: Cambridge

Post

Scuderia_Russ wrote:
Manchild wrote:
.....
pRo wrote:


Well that didn't last!
i think they are old post mate
I believe in the chain of command, Its the chain I use to beat you till you do what i want!!!