Voting

[Alex]

wow, binTravkin, you don't believe astronauts landed on the moon? this is weird...

[binTravkin]

wow, binTravkin, you don't believe astronauts landed on the moon? this is weird...

No, anyone who believes in it, proves he is an astro-idiot to me.

1.Moon has no atmosphere - stars shine very bright.
Can you see it on pics/movies

2.one step is ~0.5-1.5 meters high on moon (6x less gravity).
Can you see it on that stupid movie? They just bouce around as babies in their babie-bouncer-seats.

3.Stars have some alignment in Universe
There are few pics from their landing, apparently made later, who contain stars, but just take starchart for moon and you'll see that the alignment is weird at least.

4.Shadows drop at matematically precise angles
If you look closely almost every picture "from Moon" contains strange-angled shadows.

5.Flag newer vawes or stands on moon - it slowly lies down..
See that picture of US flag standing as "P" letter!

etc, etc..

I cant give you a link right now, but you can do some search about this and you'll be surprised how you once believed in such a parade.

[Sebed]

well, well, well
here we are - real binTravkin in the flesh

[Chaos Theory]

Originally posted by binTravkin


No, anyone who believes in it, proves he is an astro-idiot to me.

1.Moon has no atmosphere - stars shine very bright.
Can you see it on pics/movies

They shine brighter than on Earth, but stars are still very dim. How good do you think cameras were in the 60s? Now deal with the difference in contrast between the sun or any illuminated part of the lunar surface, and the stars, and what sort of camera would capture both?

2.one step is ~0.5-1.5 meters high on moon (6x less gravity).
Can you see it on that stupid movie? They just bouce around as babies in their babie-bouncer-seats.

Just because the force of gravity is 1/6 normal doesn't mean steps are 6x higher. It just means you have 1/6 the friction with which to control your movement.

3.Stars have some alignment in Universe
There are few pics from their landing, apparently made later, who contain stars, but just take starchart for moon and you'll see that the alignment is weird at least.

Show me.

4.Shadows drop at matematically precise angles
If you look closely almost every picture "from Moon" contains strange-angled shadows.

The moon's surface is relatively reflective - astronauts could cast shadows with its light. Besides, show me.

5.Flag newer vawes or stands on moon - it slowly lies down..
See that picture of US flag standing as "P" letter!

The astronauts didn't slowly lie down either. Both they and the flags sent to the moon have rigidity. Flags on Earth don't stick out stationary either, with or without air. What are you trying to claim with this point, anyway?

etc, etc..

I cant give you a link right now, but you can do some search about this and you'll be surprised how you once believed in such a parade.

All of your points are garbage or unsubstantiated.

[binTravkin]

They shine brighter than on Earth, but stars are still very dim. How good do you think cameras were in the 60s? Now deal with the difference in contrast between the sun or any illuminated part of the lunar surface, and the stars, and what sort of camera would capture both?

See this pic - see the difference between the object (module) and background.

Do you see any signs of light coming from it.

Their cameras weren't so good to capture a reflecting object but not capture the background light.

Just because the force of gravity is 1/6 normal doesn't mean steps are 6x higher. It just means you have 1/6 the friction with which to control your movement.

Yes but gravity clearly makes up the amount of acceleration towards ground.
See the acceleration and make up a small simulator.
I have no link to the movie, but it's quite suspicious if they accelerate maybe 2 ir 3 times slower than on Earth..

Show me.

Well, if you give me a pic of a clearly recognisable star system captured from the surface of Moon, I will take my starchart to the scanner and make up a comparison for you.
I know I had some of them, but I've lost them.
I will do the search this week and see if I can give you comparison.

The moon's surface is relatively reflective - astronauts could cast shadows with its light. Besides, show me.

It is relatively reflective, but it's not made up from silver or aluminium or other shiny metal.
Given the amount of light which is "reflected", there should be no shadows at all - all the black area around the astronaut in attached picture should then be at least gray.
Otherwise it's strange why "reflecting" light can't be seen on such part of module as satellite antena for example and other seemingly "black" parts of module.

If the thing you say about the reflection is true, than the black spots should be much lighter because their angle to the sun is less than that of the astronaut standing in shadow.

Also I might mistake, but I haven't seen purely black parts on the module last time I viewed it.
Pure (say 95%+) black could be the only color which then gives so little reflection given the reflection amount you're talking about.

Also - please take a closer look to the astronaut himself.
At the amount of reflection you describe his color should be quite gradient - the head should be the brightest part and the legs - the darkest. And the difference should be quite big given the angle-to-the-surface difference between head and legs.
I see only minor ~10% difference.

And if you zoom in even more you can see that the astronauts back is shadowed slightly. Why the heck it should be shadowed with such a reflecting surface?

Also - see the most distant (3rd) leg of the module.
You can see it's shadowed very well and at the same time we know that modules legs weren't black coloured, but gray to white in overall.

The astronauts didn't slowly lie down either. Both they and the flags sent to the moon have rigidity. Flags on Earth don't stick out stationary either, with or without air. What are you trying to claim with this point, anyway?

I was trying to say that only thing affecting the flag is gravity.
It is logical that it would lie down in a matter of few seconds, not stand or wave.
Rigidity is one thing but if acceleration toward surface is ~1.65 m/s^s, then it means flag will fall in not less than 3 seconds giving it's lenght (< 1.5m)

3 seconds are not enough to make such a nice picture as I will be adding in my next post.

All of your points are garbage or unsubstantiated.

Thankyou for your opinion, frankly it disgusts me, as the same I did read on NASA site regarding this.
Please next time think a bit yourself and substantiate your points as well.
Why do you people believe so much in it?

I will not argue anymore...

[binTravkin]

The Waving (not standing still) flag:

You can see it's bee fixed to stand with a stick at the top of it, but it doesn't explain why does it wave

[binTravkin]

And look once more to previous picture - its qualitative enough to see the stars, but there are none.

Starlight without atmosphere is multiplied by the same amount that of sunlight.
Not the raw light matters.
Ratio matters.

See physics book if dont believe.

Another cool pic:

[binTravkin]

Notice that THIS time the astronaut is shadowed very well..

[binTravkin]

And finally a nice info b NASA:

Not every waving flag needs a breeze -- at least not in space. When astronauts were planting the flagpole they rotated it back and forth to better penetrate the lunar soil (anyone who's set a blunt tent-post will know how this works). So of course the flag waved! Unfurling a piece of rolled-up cloth with stored angular momentum will naturally result in waves and ripples -- no breeze required!

So, we can assume that the flag wawed for at least 5 minutes - it's the least time to take those 2 pics I presented from such a different angles..

I think everyone knows that rigidity even on Moon is not extended to such a silly amount to allow something to move for at least 5 minutes without any influence from gravity.

In other words - the flag would just stop waving in a minute at max whatever is it's rigidity.

[fender]

They shine brighter than on Earth, but stars are still very dim. How good do you think cameras were in the 60s? Now deal with the difference in contrast between the sun or any illuminated part of the lunar surface, and the stars, and what sort of camera would capture both?

I'm not really posting about the moon controversy, just about the camera. As a photographer I have to point out that Hasselblad cameras are the gold standard in the industry. The ones you can buy today are basically the same thing you got then.

It's also worth mentioning that the film used then and the present day film is really no different.

[binTravkin]

I'm not really posting about the moon controversy, just about the camera. As a photographer I have to point out that Hasselblad cameras are the gold standard in the industry. The ones you can buy today are basically the same thing you got then.

It's also worth mentioning that the film used then and the present day film is really no different.

Competent people speak..

We just need one physician and good astronomer (I used to be interested in astronomy, but cancelled the studies) who can do the maths and star-charting for us and everyone will see how clear the evidence is..

[Illuminatus]

Please BT, tell me you are not serious.

[binTravkin]

Please BT, tell me you are not serious.

I am and many astronomers I know in Latvia, physicians, mathematicians and other intelligent people laugh when you say them that Man has been on Moon.

The evidence is obvious - just see fenders post - he shows that stars should be seen on that type while there are none..

I used to believe in this Hollywood movie, called Great America.
But luckily my mind was flexible enough to accept and consider controversal thoughts..

[Sebed]

I think good psychologist is only specialist needed by binTravkin.

[binTravkin]

I think good psychologist is only specialist needed by binTravkin.

Whoemever had said this?