24 May '08 12:23>
Just wondered if their are any moon landing hoaxers lurking amongst us. If so, speak your piece, show your evidence.
Originally posted by shavixmirYou get that from the video? The problem with that analogy is the video does not go on very long, if it did, you would see the flapping die out because it had just been unfolded. besides, did you know that there are electrical discharge effects, for instance, when they tried to unfold a solar mirror, they found it impossible with present technology because of static electric charges held the thing together, a plus charge on one fold and because of that, a negative charge on the nearest flap, so they attracted to gether making unfolding difficult, so that kind of thing can happen to cloth in space too. But the main thing is they use a what, 10 second video of it flapping to make the point there was wind? Just doesn't fly. They would have a case if it were a one HOUR video. Get the differance?
Is there wind on the moon?
If not, how come the flag's waving?
Originally posted by shavixmirThis was expained by ITV news when they were covering the landing. People were wondering 'how can you put up a falg when there is no wind?'
Is there wind on the moon?
If not, how come the flag's waving?
Originally posted by znshoAh, yer full of crap, prove it🙂
This was expained by ITV news when they were covering the landing. People were wondering 'how can you put up a falg when there is no wind?'
The answer was to put a spring into the top edge of the flag! That's what you are observing as the flag is being placed into the Moon's ground - spring vibrations!
Originally posted by shavixmirQuite clearly, whatever is under the Moon's surface is resistant to rocket thrusters!
If a rocket lands with approximately 3000 pounds of thrust on a sandy surface, wouldn't there be a sizeable crater underneath it. Especially visible after the rocket departs again?
Originally posted by shavixmirIt sounds like you are thinking that '3000 pounds' is aimed at the ground like a laser beam, a millimeter wide. The reality is, the force is spread out over quite a few square meters, lets say 10 square meters for grins. That puts that force now at 300 pounds per square meter.
If a rocket lands with approximately 3000 pounds of thrust on a sandy surface, wouldn't there be a sizeable crater underneath it. Especially visible after the rocket departs again?
Originally posted by shavixmirAlso, only the top part of the lander launched back into orbit to rejoin the command module. So any (non-existant, as explaine above) crater would still be underneath the main part of the lander.
If a rocket lands with approximately 3000 pounds of thrust on a sandy surface, wouldn't there be a sizeable crater underneath it. Especially visible after the rocket departs again?
Originally posted by PenguinNot so fast!! What about that shot of Neil Armstrong driving up to a Starbucks for a Mocha in his land rover? If you ask me, there is something fishy going on here.
The following site has decent responses to most if not all of the denier's arguments.
http://www.clavius.org/
---Penguin.[/b]