When I went to school (1949) the physics master (Bertie Roberts) taught us that it was impossible for man to leave the earth and used to quote the scientific facts that supported it.
He never lived long enough to see the space exploration start so probably died knowing he was right.
If he was still alive I would expect him to be a foremost moon landing conspiratist.
When I went to school (1949) the physics master (Bertie Roberts) taught us that it was impossible for man to leave the earth and used to quote the scientific facts that supported it.
He never lived long enough to see the space exploration start so probably died knowing he was right.
If he was still alive I would expect him to be a foremost anti moon landing sceptic.
Well here's another opportunity Bart Sibrel and Bill Kaysing (and others) to swallow their pride and finally apologise for "A funny thing happened on the way to the Moon" and creating/promoting the Moon Hoax theories and silly hooplah that goes with them. (I think a personal apology to Buzz Aldrin from Bart is called for too)
Bart has indicated in the past that if photographic proof has forthcoming he would withdraw his claims and apologise, so ... how about it Bart?
Even basic high school physics explains that it's possible to leave Earth and enter orbit given the correct horizontal vector. Tsiolkovsky had provided all that was necessary near the turn of the 20th century!
Even basic high school physics explains that it's possible to leave Earth and enter orbit given the correct horizontal vector. Tsiolkovsky had provided all that was necessary near the turn of the 20th century!
Bertie was probably well past his learning days at the turn of the 20th century. He was over 70 when he was my teacher.
Also, for clarification (@Mike ) by stating "debatable topics such as atmospheric processes" I infer "topics that must be left open to debate - such as, for example, determination of the actual level of our contribution to atmospheric processes".
I implore that you don't turn this into another bloody climate change post. It was not the intent of this original post. Keep to the subject - moon conspiracies.
Not wanting to do that at all Chris...only at the end of my post did I just use the strange but remaining dogged resistance to Climte Change evidence as a clear comparison with the equally strange remaining dogged resistance to moon landing evidence...given dogged resistance to clear evidence was at the heart of your post I thought, although a little cheeky ...this was quite on topic really .
But I agree, the moon landing deniers get on my goat too
I think the 'deniers' are just plain scared. It's all gotten way too big for them to comprehend it all so they deny it. .
The Flat Earth Society fit into that bill as well. Confess that as I get older I find it harder to adapt and learn clever new concepts and technologies so I tend to ignore them and I've been the instigator of several major technological shifts in the company I work for in the last 15 years or so. One of them has been so upgraded I hardly even recognise it but it still does the job it was designed for after 10 years now and nothing outside can come near it for efficiency.
Just shows ya ...
Ok where did all those men and rockets go once they were launched into space
Several days just orbiting good old earth
Moon conspirators should be taken out and shot IMO !!!
200 years into the future
Mildred and George out for a stroll along the rim of Theophilus Crater,
"Mildred isn't the earth rise lovely tonight"
"Yes dear"
George notices some colour under the dust bending over he unearths a flag,
"Well look at this Mildred an old American flag, how'd that get here"
"Must have been left here recently by those movie people you know those sci-fi ones doing that fictional movie on the early moon landings"
"Yeah but why have made in America 1969 in small print, printed on the tag, and property of NASA, you know nothing has been made in America for over 200 years and NASA has been defunct for 150"
Great Nasa image and that was the first thing I thought of as well. It would shut up the Moon conspiracy people but as pointed out it probably won't shut up the hard core ones.
Thanks for posting Chris,great to see-amazing stuff.
I do not have time to look around the web to find these,and other interesting
articles seen here in 'general discussions'.
Not matter how much verification a subject can have-there will still be non believers,(there are people that still believe that 'moon/plane' image I captured last year is a fake,and even more bizzare-a very few think its not an astro-photograph'),
Hope we get to see more of these amazing images that NASA has now made available.
These pics are great and this whole conspiracy theory should be put to rest cause there's no technical reason why we could not have landed on the moon.
but I keep getting asked the question "if this image was taken by a satellite from 14 miles above the moon, why isn't it as clear as say images in google maps where you can see cars easily and the scale is 10metres".
I'm not sure which satellite is used by google maps or what the altitude is, but is this to do with differences in cameras used and/or altitude?
I presume the apollo descent module is the same size as a car.
I have no doubts that we did go, but wanted to understand the imaging bit.
It could also be that in your example conventional aerial cameras are used.. mounted on the planes.
I am pretty sure nearmap.com doesn't use satellites for their maps.
Also, it's not the same thing to have 100kg camera on the satellite orbiting Earth, and the one orbiting Moon (the latter one requires much more effort to bring it to the destination .. and considering recent NASA cuts... you know what I mean)
Bah you think that 31km is low flying! I would have got better pictures in my Cesnna at 500ft!
There are no stars in the pictures.
The shadows are all wrong for that latitude.
Where are the footprints from the astronaut after he abandoned the LRV.
Makes you think does it not!
This is the sort of tripe the that the idiots will come up with.
) by stating "debatable topics such as atmospheric processes" I infer "topics that must be left open to debate - such as, for example, determination of the actual level of our contribution to atmospheric processes".
...this was quite on topic really 
. 
