Recently I completed 'A Brief history of Time by Hawking'

Some where in the book I read a line which is puzzling me, for the last 2 Hrs I'm searching for that line. what he writes is

There are some groups of people who completely deny the landing of space shuttles on the surface of moon and it is completely impossible.

My question is
why they are denying it. ?
Is there any strong theory to support their claims. ?

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html
This rather rebuts specific claims from a certain documentary on the issue.
But it wasn't a space shuttle that landed on the moon. Is that a direct quote, because not only us it wrong, it is a rather odd wrong.
Here is another site, this one specifically devoted to debunking the claims we didn't go to the moon. http://www.clavius.org/

__________________

Just read this: I Will Prove The Moon Landings Were Hoaxed

It will give an insight into the Hoax Believer mind. (You are [edit: were] actually in the wrong sub-forum).



(For the record: just three of the reasons the current space shuttles can't be used to go to the moon in... they'd not survive re-entry at the speeds they'd come back from the moon at, they need lots of air to land with and they don't have the stores capacity. Apollo hardware was quite different.)

__________________
Reality moves at the speed of light.
If the text of this post is blue, it's a "Moderator comment".
[ The RULES of the Forum ] [ Forum FAQs ] [ Conspiracy Theory advice ] [ Alternate Theory Advice ]
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team - use the /!\ icon at the top-right of the post.

ahh.. my favorite thread on any subject on any website.. .ever...
so great it has been immortalized in my sig line..
me thinks that thread broke some internet records for not only the most posts by a single person over a single weekend, but also the most posts by more than one person in any single thread in the shortest amount of time..
and most bannings and reinstatements by a new person..

__________________
"blacker than the blackest black... times infinity."- Nathan Explosion
The.. Best.. Thread..Ever...

so what about NASA claiming moon rocks, carbon dating them
estimating moon's age I need to clarify it.

what about Mars rovers landing on its surface and sending us pictures


Is that also fake.?

No, neither were faked.



(To be honest, following your initial humble "who are these HB's?" post with these jarring bold demands for answers on specific but scattergun topics makes you look like a "stealth HB". That's one who comes on all "I don't think the Moon landings were faked, I just have some questions..." but who shortly reveals themselves to be a full-on HB who thought they'd sneak in their claims on "unsuspecting" people and somehow score points.

Just wait a bit, and someone will come along with the full facts on moon rocks and the dating thereof (for a start, I didn't it was "Carbon dating" as such). It might also help if you explain your speciifc problem with regards to the subject of moon rock dating.)

__________________
Reality moves at the speed of light.
If the text of this post is blue, it's a "Moderator comment".
[ The RULES of the Forum ] [ Forum FAQs ] [ Conspiracy Theory advice ] [ Alternate Theory Advice ]
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team - use the /!\ icon at the top-right of the post.

Mars Rovers on the Moon?

__________________
"Who does not know anything, must believe everything."
Baroness Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach 1830-1916
our animal welfare board and organisation

no mars rovers not on moon's surface

I'm asking Rovers landing on Mars surface and sending data about red planet

If you believe that, what is the problem in believing shuttles landing on the surface of moon.

__________________
Knowledge + Money + Fame + Security = Coward

The space shuttles need air for their wings to work (none on Moon) and nice long flat runways (none on the Moon).

The various equipment that has landed on the Moon and on Mars are quite different to the space shuttles (and from each other, as Mars does have an atmosphere - and that has allowed parachutes to be used in some cases, for parts of the landing process).

Space shuttle landing (manned Earth landing): http://images.google.co.nz/images?hl...+landing&gbv=2

Lunar lander (manned Moon landings): http://images.google.co.nz/images?gb...q=lunar+lander

Apollo "landing" (manned Earth "landing" on return from Moon): http://images.google.co.nz/images?gb...llo+splashdown

Phoenix (unmanned Mars landings): http://images.google.co.nz/images?gb...q=phoenix+mars

(Obviously these simple google-images links will give a mixed bag of results (e.g. the Lunar Lander link shows some planned future craft) - but should give you an idea of what's up (and how they come down).)


Wikipedia on:

Lunar lander: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Lunar_Module

Moon rocks: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_rocks

__________________
Reality moves at the speed of light.
If the text of this post is blue, it's a "Moderator comment".
[ The RULES of the Forum ] [ Forum FAQs ] [ Conspiracy Theory advice ] [ Alternate Theory Advice ]
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team - use the /!\ icon at the top-right of the post.

The Space shuttle is a LEO Craft. It is not designed to go there. Not enough fuel to leave Earth-Orbit. Not able to land on the moon. Not able to survive reentry when on a trajectory coming from the moon...

Concerning Mars Rovers...
Like to change thread tilte?

__________________
"Who does not know anything, must believe everything."
Baroness Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach 1830-1916
our animal welfare board and organisation

__________________
Knowledge + Money + Fame + Security = Coward

It was never and it is still not easy to land on the moon!
Or do we? It was possible, it is still possible.
BUT NOT WITH THE SHUTTLE!

__________________
"Who does not know anything, must believe everything."
Baroness Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach 1830-1916
our animal welfare board and organisation

you have problem with the Shuttle , not with the concept of man landing on the moon

Right.!

__________________
Knowledge + Money + Fame + Security = Coward

Correct. I have no problem with man landing on the moon.
It was done and, hopefully, it will be done again in a couple of years.

__________________
"Who does not know anything, must believe everything."
Baroness Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach 1830-1916
our animal welfare board and organisation

now it is clear

Happy
Thanking
@ all for replies

__________________
Knowledge + Money + Fame + Security = Coward

What we are saying is man went to the Moon aboard the Apollo missions, not aboard Space Shuttles, which are later and very much different craft.

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

I'm a little confused as to what Hawking has to do with this?

__________________
---"Why do things have to suck so bad?" a friend once asked me.
"Because space is a vacuum and that's a lot of suck." I replied.
(Actual quote)---

I think it would be more useful to discuss the context in which Hawking made that statement.

__________________
What brings us together is stronger than what pulls us apart

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

I barely even understand what the conspiracy is?

No one here has ever claimed that the shuttle landed on the moon. It's not designed for that, it's designed mainly for lifting satellites into orbit (I think)

Pete

__________________
PJE

There's so much I don't know about astrophysics. I wish I had read that book by that wheelchair guy.

sjunky,

There is no reference in 'A Brief History of Time' to either Space
Shuttles or Moon landings. Perhaps you read or heard it elsewhere,
and since you were reading the book at about the same time, later
thought that you had read it in the book?

About space shuttles and landing on the Moon:

"Space Shuttle" is the name used to refer to the reuseable orbital
spacecraft which began flying in April, 1981. Each spacecraft consists
of an orbiter, an external fuel tank, or "ET", and two solid rocket boosters,
or "SRBs". Five orbiters were built. Three are still in use. In addition,
a non-flying plywood full-size mockup and a drop-test vehicle were built
for testing the design before the first flight in Space. The orbiters have
large, heavy wings which enable them to glide to a landing on a runway
at the end of each flight. Those wings make them unsuitable for flight to
the Moon. We do not have rockets capable of sending such a large,
heavy vehicle to the Moon and stopping it once it gets there. And the
wings are useless dead weight for such a trip.

The Apollo program landed six spacecraft on the Moon between July, 1969
and December, 1972. The two-man vehicle which landed on the Moon was
called the "Lunar Module". It was small enough that it would almost fit
inside a Space Shuttle payload bay. It was designed specifically for the
task of carrying two men from lunar orbit down to the Moon's surface and
returning them to orbit. The astronauts spent most of the trip from Earth
to the Moon and back in the "Command Module", which was designed to
support three astronauts for about ten days. It carried the rocket engine
and fuel that returned the three astronauts to Earth, and the heat shield
they needed to prevent the spacecraft from burning up when it hit the
atmosphere.

They need to believe that the world conspires against them, and only does
evil, in order to explain why other people are more successful than they are.
They believe that any success anyone else has must be due to deceit, theft,
coercion, or just plain evil. Believing that makes them feel that they are
better than other people, which makes life tolerable for them.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

Thanks Jeff.

Love the last paragragh. That rings so true I'm contemplating adopting it as my new post election sig and give Jay a break.

__________________
In your rush to call everyone "entrenched" or closed-minded or "limited" you fail to note that the "limit" here has a very natural boundary: that point at which the evidence stops. - JayUtah

Science fiction was never meant to be an educational tool. - Editor Amazing Tales

I've noticed that a lot of people, especially children, refer to any rocket or spacecraft as a "space shuttle" out of habit/convenience. I've been trying to get my brothers to stop this, and reminding them that "Only the airplane-thing with the orange tank is a shuttle." (And then, only when it's a full stack.)

__________________
I want to go back to the moon.
I don't care which rocket you use, whichever one you pick, I'll like it, I swear.
"If you think the LHC will create black holes, you might as well believe Hobbits are at the bottom of your garden."- Dr. Mike Inglis
Rovers forever! - ToSeek

It's already been covered but no Space Shuttle has even gone to the moon let alone landed on it (unless you count the ones in Movies). And no moonrock has ever been carbon dated to determine it's age either.

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran

So you are saying that this isn't a space shuttle?

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran

Can you elaborate on that? I'm guessing that you mean specifically carbon dated, rather than just dated. Carbon dating only works with inanimate carbon rods (In Rod We Trust!).

I mean carbon dating only works up to about 6000 yrs or so?

Pete

__________________
PJE

There's so much I don't know about astrophysics. I wish I had read that book by that wheelchair guy.

Carbon dating only works 1) on previously living organic matter, and 2) because of the N -> C convertion in our upper atmosphere resulting in a known ratio of C12 to C14. Since moonrock is neither organic, nor in an atmosphere that contained carbon or a ratio of C12 to C14 that can't be used to determine age. There is no way to carbon date moonrocks, hence it would be illogical and a waste of time to do it, so and even if you did, it wouldn't give you any usable result.

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran

That's one of my pet peeves. The way I counter it is by saying that it's like calling all planes 747s, and then talking about the Wright Brothers piloting the first 747 in 1903.

Not quite true. Carbon dating (i.e. C14 dating) works on any carbon-bearing material.

You can date shell, coral, etc. (biogenic carbonate), speleothems, calcrete (inorganic carbonate), even carbon in groundwater (either dissolved organics or bicarbonate ions). You could date atmospheric CO2, provided you had a sample from a sealed container.

Jon

Edit: Provided it is young enough, of course! This means >40Ka in most cases.