[The Big Picture] Neil Armstrong, 1930 – 2012

Giờ em mới thấy mấy tấm ảnh màu nét thế này, trước giờ toàn trắng đen...

Em có bảo Thánh gióng lên mặt trăng đâu bác =)))
Chém vui thế ấy mà..

chỉ những thứ người tiểu nhân ngu si mới hùa theo lũ tiểu nhân châm biếm đả kích thành quả của người khác 1 cách vô ý thức, trước khi nói điều gì đụng chạm đến người khác thì hãy tìm hiểu cho kĩ, nếu không chỉ là đồ tiểu nhân bỉ ổi mà thôi.
Đọc đi rồi hãy phát biểu nhé, idiot
When the astronauts are assembling the American flag, the flag waves. Kaysing says this must have been from an errant breeze on the set. A flag wouldn't wave in a vacuum.
Good: Of course a flag can wave in a vacuum. In the shot of the astronaut and the flag, the astronaut is rotating the pole on which the flag is mounted, trying to get it to stay up. The flag is mounted on one side on the pole, and along the top by another pole that sticks out to the side. In a vacuum or not, when you whip around the vertical pole, the flag will ``wave'', since it is attached at the top. The top will move first, then the cloth will follow along in a wave that moves down. This isn't air that is moving the flag, it's the cloth itself.
New stuff added March 1, 2001: Many HBs show a picture of an astronaut standing to one side of the flag, which still has a ripple in it (for example, see this famous image). The astronaut is not touching the flag, so how can it wave?
The answer is, it isn't waving. It looks like that because of the way the flag was deployed. The flag hangs from a horizontal rod which telescopes out from the vertical one. In Apollo 11, they couldn't get the rod to extend completely, so the flag didn't get stretched fully. It has a ripple in it, like a curtain that is not fully closed. In later flights, the astronauts didn't fully deploy it on purpose because they liked the way it looked. In other words, the flag looks like it is waving because the astronauts wanted it to look that way. Ironically, they did their job too well. It appears to have fooled a lot of people into thinking it waved.
This explanation comes from NASA's wonderful spaceflight web page. For those of you who are conspiracy minded, of course, this doesn't help because it comes from a NASA site. But it does explain why the flag looks as it does, and you will be hard pressed to find a video of the flag waving. And if it was a mistake caused by a breeze on the set where they faked this whole thing, don't you think the director would have tried for a second take? With all the money going to the hoax, they could afford the film!
about the shadow
Another argument by the HBs deals with shadows. Several photos from the Moon are shown where objects on the lunar landscape have long shadows. If the Sun were the only light source, the program claims, the shadows should be parallel. The shadows are not parallel, and therefore the images are fake.
Good: This is an interesting claim on the part of the HBs, because on the surface (haha) it seems to make sense. However, let's assume the shadows are not parallel. One explanation is that there are (at least) two light sources, and that is certainly what many HBs are trying to imply. So if there are multiple light sources, where are the multiple shadows? Each object casts one shadow, so there can only be one light source.
Another explanation is that the light source is close to the objects; then it would also cast non-parallel shadows. However, a distant source can as well! In this case, the Sun really is the only source of light. The shadows are not parallel in the images because of perspective. Remember, you are looking at a three-dimensional scene, projected on a two-dimensional photograph. That causes distortions. When the Sun is low and shadows are long, objects at different distance do indeed appear to cast non-parallel shadows, even here on Earth. An example of that can be found at another debunking site. The scene (near the bottom of the above-linked page) shows objects with non-parallel shadows, distorted by perspective. If seen from above, all the shadows in the Apollo images would indeed look parallel. You can experience this for yourself; go outside on a clear day when the Sun is low in the sky and compare the direction of the shadows of near and far objects. You'll see that they appear to diverge. Here is a major claim of the HBs that you can disprove all by yourself! Don't take my word for it, go out and try!
Incidentally, the bright Earth in the sky will also cast shadows, but those would be very faint compared to the ones made by the Sun. So in a sense there are multiple shadows, but like not being able to see stars, the shadows are too faint to be seen against the very bright lunar surface. Again, you can test this yourself: go outside during full Moon and you'll see your shadow. Then walk over to a streetlamp. The light from the streetlamp will wash out the shadow cast by the Moon. You might still be able to see it faintly, but it would difficult against the much brighter landscape.

Lạy chúa tôi, cái lá cờ bay phàn phật như đang bị gió quật thế kia mà có thể giải thích
"In Apollo 11, they couldn't get the rod to extend completely, so the flag didn't get stretched fully. It has a ripple in it, like a curtain that is not fully closed. In later flights, the astronauts didn't fully deploy it on purpose because they liked the way it looked. In other words, the flag looks like it is waving because the astronauts wanted it to look that way."
=)) kiếm cái nguồn nào phản biện tốt hơn xem, đọc mà đau hết cả bụng =))
Tặng bạn trang này xem rõ hơn nè =]] tự nhận diện nha idiot
http://stuffucanuse.com/fake_moon_landings/moon_landings.htm
Nếu nhiêu đó chưa đủ thông cống thì đọc cái này, đọc k nổi thì xài google dịch nhé =))

1. "Apollo 14 astronaut Allen Shepard played golf on the Moon. In front of a worldwide TV audience, Mission Control teased him about slicing the ball to the right. Yet a slice is caused by uneven air flow over the ball. The Moon has no atmosphere and no air." The functional word here is "teased". Mission control was, as you said, merely teasing him. There is no way for anyone to be able to tell exactly which way the ball went. And even if you could, maybe he wasn't
holding the club straight, so the head hit the ball on an angle.

2. "A camera panned upwards to catch Apollo 16's Lunar Landerlifting off the Moon. Who did the filming?"
Mission Control. If you watched the miniseries "From the Earth to the Moon", you would know that there was a guy in mission control, controlling the pan/tilt functions on the tv camera tripod. If you want to bring up the 7 second radio delay due to distance, he actually sent the command to tilt up with the ascending lander 7 seconds before it happened, and it all worked out.

3. "One NASA picture from Apollo 11 is looking up at Neil Armstrong about to take his giant step for mankind. The photographer must have been lying on the planet surface. If Armstrong was the first man on the Moon, then who took the shot?" You really ought to learn more about the missions before you start attacking them like this. There was an arm attached to the lander that was deployed just before Neil Armstrong opened the hatch. This arm had a television and a still camera mounted to it.

4. "The pressure inside a space suit was greater than inside a football. The astronauts should have been puffed out like the Michelin Man, but were seen freely bending their joints." Did you really think that they just sent them up there in an airtight jumper? OK. I'm gonna make this real easy for you. Here is a quote from the NASA KIDS website. so you should be able to understand it. "The space suit is made of hard materials with jointed sections to allow movement. The upper and lower torso sections are put on separately. The two pieces are connected at the waist to allow the flow of water and gas
lines. Gloves and helmet create a sealed protection against meteoroids and radiation. On Earth, the space suit weighs about 100 pounds. In space, the suit weighs much less. Under normal conditions, a space suit should last about 8 years." So. assuming you can read. you have just learnt about an American space suit. There is a hard layer of plastic, among many other things, protecting the astronauts from the vacuum of space.

5. "The Moon landings took place during the Cold War. Why didn't America make a signal on the moon that could be seen from earth? The PR would have been phenomenal and it could have been easily done with magnesium flares." That's like saying 'Why don't the ISS astronauts light up the sky with millions and millions of flares?' CAUSE THERE'S NO POINT!!! What you're saying is. because they didn't put a massive flare on the moon. they never actually went. (Oh.. and by the way. have fun igniting a magnesium flare without oxygen).

6. "Text from pictures in the article said that only two men walked on the Moon during the Apollo 12 mission. Yet the astronaut reflected in the visor has no camera. Who took the shot?:

As you can see from this photo of Pete Conrad on Apollo 12, astronauts didn't hold cameras like you do when you're taking a picture of your grandmother, the camera was attached to their suit at the chest. Most small tools used by astronauts were attached to their suits, so they would not be lost.

7&8. "The flags shadow goes behind the rock so doesn't match the dark line in the foreground, which looks like a line cord. So the shadow to the lower right of the spaceman must be the flag. Where is his shadow? And why is the flag fluttering if there is no air or wind on the moon? & How can the flag be brightly lit when its side is to the light? And where, in all of these shots, are the stars?"


Do you honestly mean to tell me that you believe that this photo hasn't been played with? Somebody (no.. NOT NASA) has doctored this photo really badly to make people like YOU think that you have a stronger case against NASA. That astronaut was copied and pasted into that photo. And as for the flag.. that shadow goes to the side with the face clearly lit because it's not exactly parallel to the sun's rays! It's on a bit of an angle, which anybody will tell you, is enough to clearly light the flag. And as for the fluttering.. less drugs for you, man. it's not moving at all. Do you know what happens when a flag is stowed for several weeks, all folded up? You guessed it.. It gets wrinkled! Look at getting some better glasses. As for the stars. in photography, to prevent an over-exposure (phonetically: Ovur-ekspojur) you must close the iris a bit, or in this case, a lot. The sun is much brighter here than the brightest day on earth. With the iris down far enough to prevent over-exposure, there is no way you would ever, EVER see ANYTHING in the sky other than the sun and the earth.

9. "The Lander weighed 17 tons yet the astronauts feet seem to have made a bigger dent in the dust. The powerful booster rocket at the base of the Lunar Lander was fired to slow descent to the moons service. Yet it has left no traces of blasting on the dust underneath. It should have created a small crater, yet the booster looks like it's never been fired." A few things you're forgetting.. It's mass was 17 tons, yes, however since weight is relative to gravity, and the moon has 1/6th the earth's gravity, the WEIGHT of the lunar lander was only 17/6 tons (2.833 tonnes). Now I'm not saying that this is light, there was dust stirred up when it landed, but no more that when a chopper lands here on earth.

Bà em kể chú Cuội lên cung trăng trước mà.
Chú Phạm Tuân lên vũ trụ sau
em tự hào người lên trước thôi.
Vui..

bạn tự cười mình ngu xuẩn hay sao vậy hả?...lol...vân 0 hieu ah...đồ ngu lại còn ra vẻ ta đây...vây đọc tiếp cái này đi, không biết có hiểu hay 0, nếu không thì mình translate lại dùm cho nhé, what an idiotic fag....lol

Where No Flag Has Gone Before:
Political and Technical Aspects of Placing a Flag on the Moon



Anne M. Platoff
Hernandez Engineering Inc.
Houston, Texas

Awarded the Driver Award for the Best Paper Presented to the 26th Meeting
of the North American Vexillological Association
October 11, 1992 -- San Antonio, Texas

Prepared for
Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center
under contract NAS9-18263

August 1993


Abstract

The flag on the moon represents an important event in vexillological history. This paper examines the political and technical aspects of placing a flag on the moon, focusing on the first moon landing. During their historic extravehicular activity (EVA), the Apollo 11 crew planted the flag of the United States on the lunar surface. This flag-raising was strictly a symbolic activity, as the United Nations Treaty on Outer Space precluded any territorial claim. Nevertheless, there were domestic and international debates over the appropriateness of the event. Congress amended the agency's appropriations bill to prevent the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) from placing flags of other nations, or those of international associations, on the moon during missions funded solely by the United States. Like any activity in space exploration, the Apollo flag-raising also provided NASA engineers with an interesting technical challenge. They designed a flagpole with a horizontal bar allowing the flag to "fly" without the benefit of wind to overcome the effects of the moon's lack of an atmosphere. Other factors considered in the design were weight, heat resistance, and ease of assembly by astronauts whose space suits restricted their range of movement and ability to grasp items. As NASA plans a return to the moon and an expedition to Mars, we will likely see flags continue to go "where no flag has gone before."
Introduction

President John F. Kennedy, in his historic speech of September 1962, expressed his vision of space exploration for an audience assembled in the stadium Rice University. Earlier that year he had challenged the United States to go to the moon within the decade. The space race was well underway and Kennedy, in foreseeing the role his country was to play in space exploration, also alluded to a role for flags. "We mean to lead [the exploration of space], for the eyes of the world now look into space, to the moon and to the planets beyond, and we have vowed that we shall not see it governed by a hostile flag of conquest, but by a banner of freedom and peace." (footnote 1) Thirty years later, as we prepare to return to the moon and continue on to Mars, it is time to reconsider the political and technical aspects of placing a flag on the lunar surface.
Political Aspects

Domestic Considerations

The political aspects of the first lunar flag-raising were twofold -- both domestic and international. NASA relies upon Congress for its funding and therefore has always been very cognizant of the need for good public relations. Astronauts were considered national heroes, and the flag of the United States has been a common symbol used in all aspects of the manned space program. NASA's spacecraft and launch vehicles have always been decorated with flags. Edward H. White II became the first American astronaut to "walk in space" on 4 June 1965 (Fig. 1), and his space suit was one of the first to be adorned with a flag patch. (footnote 2) Following this tradition, flags have been used on the suits of astronauts from many countries. Use of flags in the space program created controversy, however, only when it became apparent that a flag would be planted on the moon.
Fig. 1. - Edward H. White II displays the U.S. flag on his space suit during his historic spacewalk, or EVA (NASA JSC Photograph S65-30431).

International Considerations

Prior to the Apollo 11 moon landing, the United Nations (U.N.) adopted the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies of 27 January 1967 (commonly known as the Outer Space Treaty). Article II of the treaty clearly states that "outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of occupation, or by any other means."(footnote 3) The United States, signatory to the treaty, could not claim the moon. Therefore, raising a flag on the lunar surface would merely be a symbolic gesture -- an expression of triumph similar to the planting of a flag on Mount Everest or at the North and South Poles. The legal status of the moon clearly would not be affected by the presence of a U.S. flag on the surface, but NASA was aware of the international controversy that might occur as a result. (footnote 4)

In January of 1969, President Richard M. Nixon's inaugural address stressed the international flavor of the Apollo program. "As we explore the reaches of space, let us go to the new worlds together -- not as new worlds to be conquered, but as a new adventure to be shared." NASA officials noted the tone of the speech, and there was some discussion within the agency that a United Nations flag could be used for the flight. (footnote 5) This was one of the possibilities considered by the Committee on Symbolic Activities for the First Lunar Landing, which was appointed by Thomas O. Paine, NASA Acting Administrator, on February 25 of that year. The committee was instructed to select symbolic activities that would not jeopardize crew safety or interfere with mission objectives; that would "signalize the first lunar landing as an historic forward step of all mankind that has been accomplished by the United States" and that would not give the impression that the United States was "taking possession of the moon" in violation of the Outer Space Treaty. The committee considered several options including the possibilities of leaving a United States flag or an adaptation of the solar wind experiment in the form of a flag, leaving a set of miniature flags of all nations, and leaving a commemorative marker on the surface.(footnote 6)

The committee's report recommended using only the flag of the United States during the lunar extravehicular activity (EVA). In addition, the committee suggested that a plaque bearing an inscription ("Here men from the planet Earth first set foot upon the moon July 1969, A.D. We came in peace for all mankind") be mounted on the lunar module to emphasize that the purpose of the mission was one of exploration and not conquest. The original plaque design featured a U.S. flag, but the graphic was changed to pictures of the eastern and western hemispheres of the Earth to symbolize the crew's point of origin. It was decided that, in addition to the large flag, 4 x 6 inch flags of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, the U.S. territories, and flags for all member countries of the United Nations and several other nations, would be carried in the lunar module and returned for presentation to governors and heads of state after the flight. (footnote 7)
Technical Aspects

Design and Engineering Constraints

Work on the lunar flag assembly began about three months prior to the Apollo 11 mission. Robert Gilruth, Director of the Manned Spacecraft Center (MSC) (footnote 8) and a member of the Committee on Symbolic Activities, asked Jack Kinzler, Chief of Technical Services Division at MSC, for ideas regarding the EVA. Kinzler suggested that a full-size U.S. flag could be deployed using a specially designed flagpole. He drew up a preliminary sketch (Fig. 2) and the idea was presented to the committee. Working with Deputy Division Chief Dave McCraw, he worked out the details of the lunar flag assembly over several days. The design was based on a number of engineering constraints. For example, to compensate for the lack of an atmosphere on the lunar surface, the flag assembly included a horizontal crossbar to give the illusion of a flag flying in the breeze. (footnote 9)

Fig. 2. - Lunar Flag Assembly -- Kinzler's preliminary sketch.

Two other major constraints were the weight of the assembly and the stowage space required. The team designed the entire assembly to be as lightweight as possible -- when completed it weighed only 9 pounds and 7 ounces. They reduced the size of the package by developing a two-part telescoping pole apparatus with a telescoping crossbar. It was also necessary to design a flagpole that could be easily assembled and deployed by astronauts wearing space suits. Space suits used for the lunar surface EVA were pressurized to approximately 3.7 pounds per square inch and, as a result, the amount of force that the astronauts could apply with their gloved hands was limited and their range of movement was restricted (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3. - Astronaut Reach Constraints. (NASA Press Release 69-83K, p. 122)

A 3 x 5 ft. nylon flag, obtained through the government supply catalog, (footnote 10) was altered by sewing a hem along the top. The crossbar, hinged to the pole, went through this hem, and a loop sewn around the bottom of the flag secured it to the pole. An astronaut would unfurl the flag by extending the telescoping crossbar and by raising it first to a position just above 90 degrees. He then lowered it to a position perpendicular to the pole where a catch prevented the hinge from moving. The upper portion then slipped into the base portion of the flagpole, which had been driven into the ground using a lunar geological hammer. A red ring was painted around the base of the assembly 18 inches from the bottom to aid the astronauts in judging the distance that the pole had penetrated the surface. (footnote 11)
Finally, it was necessary to protect the flag during the descent portion of the lunar landing. To make the flag easily accessible during the EVA, it was mounted on the left-hand side of the ladder on the Lunar Module (LM) (fig. 4).

Fig. 4. - Dave McCraw, NASA Manned Spacecraft Center Technical Services Deputy Division Chief, demonstrates the removal of the flag shroud from the Lunar Module ladder. He holds the "pip" pin in his right hand. (NASA JSC Photograph S69-38755)

This also reduced the amount of equipment that had to carried inside the already crowded vehicle. It was estimated, however, that the LM ladder would be heated to 250 degrees Farenheit by the descent engines as they fired during the descent staging phase of the landing. The ladder would experience temperatures up to 2,000 degrees Farenheit during the 13 seconds of the touchdown phase. Tests run on the flag determined that it would withstand temperatures of only up to 300 degrees Farenheit . These conditions made it necessary to design a protective shroud for the flagassembly. The shroud design (Fig. 5) was the work of the Structures and Mechanics Division of the Manned Spacecraft Center. It consisted of a stainless steel outer case separated from an aluminum layer by Thermoflex insulation. Several layers of thermal blanketing material were placed between the shroud and the flag assembly, limiting the temperature experienced by the flag to 180 degrees Farenheit . (footnote 12)

Fig. 5. - Flag assembly and shroud (NASA photograph S69-38748).

Construction and Testing

All of the work on the flag assembly and on the flag shroud was performed in the workshops at the Manned Spacecraft Center. Alterations to the flag were done in the fabrics shop, the sheet metals shop constructed the flagpole, and another shop anodized the flagpole -- electrolytically coating the aluminum to give it a gold color and a stiff protective surface. Tubing used in the construction of the pole was about an inch in diameter with a wall approximately 1/32 of an inch thick. The telescoping feature of the pole was created by using different sizes of tubing that slid neatly into each other. A capped bottom allowed the upper portion of the pole to slide easily into the lower portion. The base of the lower section was designed with a hardened steel point to make it easier to drive into the lunar soil.

Cost of materials was relatively low -- the flag was purchased for $5.50 and the tubing cost approximately $75. The cost of the shroud has been estimated at several hundred dollars due to the materials involved. Construction of the prototypes was achieved in several days, and after a week the team had made a few backup assemblies, and some to be used for crew training purposes. Demonstration tests were performed where the flag assembly was folded, packed, unpacked, erected and deployed to assure that it would operate properly. Kinzler flew to Kennedy Space Center in Florida to participate in a mockup review of the lunar flag assembly on 25 June 1969. The astronauts were included in several of these tests as part of their EVA training so that they would be familiar with deployment procedures. (footnote 13)
Preflight Preparation

Packing of the flag assembly followed a written 12-step procedure which required up to 5 people to ensure that it was tightly packed. Wooden blocks and plastic ties were used by the team to keep the packed flag together as they progressed through the steps. These packing aids were removed when the flag was placed into the thermal package. After the flag was rolled into the thermal package a thermal rip strip made with Velcro was used to close the package. The strip had a pull-tab at the top to make it easier for the astronauts to open the package once they were on the lunar surface. This thermal package was then installed into the metal shroud following a 4-step procedure. A small block of Thermaflex insulation was placed around the bottom and top ends of the pole to protect the flag ends from hot brackets. The flag packing for the Apollo 11 flight was performed in Jack Kinzler's office and was approved by the Chief of Quality Assurance who was present during the procedure. Once the flag thermal package was properly stowed inside the shroud, it was taken to the launch site at KSC to be mounted on the ladder of the LM. (footnote 14)

Because the final decision to fly the flag and attach the plaque was made so close to the launch date, a Lear jet was chartered to fly Kinzler, George Low (Manager of the Apollo Spacecraft Program), Low's secretary, the flag assembly, and the commemorative plaque to KSC before the launch. The flag and plaque were installed on the LM of Apollo 11 at 4:00 in the morning as the spacecraft sat atop its Saturn V rocket ready for launch. Kinzler had written an 11-step procedure for mounting the assembly on the ladder and personally supervised the installation.

Proper installation was vital if the astronauts were to be able to deploy the flag on the lunar surface. An astronaut first released the shroud "pip" pin by squeezing it and then pulling it out, and then released the main flag assembly "pip" pin. A spring tension against the flag poles was released when the pins were pulled allowing easy removal of the shroud. The astronaut then pulled the Velcro strip off the insulation package and discarded the wrapping materials.
Deployment and Performance

The first U.S. flag on the moon was deployed by Neil Armstrong and Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin during their historic EVA on 20 July 1969 (at 4 days, 14 hours and 9 minutes mission-elapsed time). The flag was seen worldwide on live television (Fig. 6). At their technical crew debriefing, Armstrong and Aldrin reported few problems with the deployment. They had trouble extending the horizontal telescoping rod and could not pull it all the way out. This gave the flag a bit of a "ripple effect," and later crews intentionally left the rod partially retracted. The Apollo 11 astronauts also noted that they could drive the lower portion of the pole only about 6 to 9 inches into the surface. It is uncertain if the flag remained standing or was blown over by the engine blast when the ascent module took off.

Fig. 6. - Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin deploy the first U.S. flag on the moon. (NASA JSC Photograph S69-40308)

The only design change made as the result of performance on the lunar surface was in the catching mechanism of the horizontal crossbar's hinge. The Apollo 12 crew could not get the catch to latch properly and, as a result, the flag drooped slightly. Later models of the flag assembly had a double-action latch that would work even if the horizontal bar was not raised above a 90 degree angle. (footnote 15)
Reactions to the Flag Deployment

Even though the event took only 10 minutes of the 2 1/2 hour EVA, for many people around the world the flag-raising was one of the most memorable parts of the Apollo 11 lunar landing. There were no formal protests from other nations that the flag-raising constituted an illegal attempt to claim the moon. Buzz Aldrin, in an article written for Life magazine, stated that as he looked at the flag he sensed an "almost mystical unification of all people in the world at that moment." A few published articles expressed regret that NASA had chosen not to plant a U.N. flag, either in addition to or alongside that of the United States.

Prior to the mission, several members of Congress relayed letters from their constituents to NASA which recommended (or in some cases opposed) the use of specific flags. Flags mentioned in these letters included the U.S. flag, the U.N. flag, and the Christian flag. (footnote 16) The congressional debate heated up in the House of Representatives as the body considered NASA's appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 1970. On 10 June, NASA formally notified members of Congress that a decision had been made to raise the U.S. flag on the lunar surface. The House approved the appropriations bill on that same day after amending it to include a flag provision. This measure did not actually affect the Apollo 11 mission, but did make it clear to NASA where many members of Congress stood on the flag issue.

A House and Senate conference committee agreed on the final version of the bill on 4 November 1969 which included a provision that "the flag of the United States, and no other flag, shall be implanted or otherwise placed on the surface of the moon, or on the surface of any planet, by members of the crew of any spacecraft ... as part of any mission ... the funds for which are provided entirely by the Government of the United States." The amendment, in deference to the Outer Space Treaty, concluded with the statement "this act is intended as a symbolic gesture of national pride in achievement and is not to be construed as a declaration of national appropriation by claim of sovereignty." (footnote 17)

Although the amendment was passed and became law, technically NASA was not required to deploy a U.S. flag on each of the following Apollo missions. Spencer M. Beresford, NASA's General Counsel, noted in a report to the Associate Deputy Administrator that "the managers on the part of the House further clarified the intent of the provision during the conference by stipulating that this section should not be construed to mean that the American flag must necessarily be implanted or otherwise placed on the surface of the moon or the surface of any planet on each and every landing subsequent to an initial landing." Regardless of this interpretation, the Apollo flights could have been considered exempt since, as pointed out by a member of the House of Representatives, several international partners had contributed to portions of the Apollo Program. (footnote 18) This is also likely to be the case if and when NASA sends astronauts back to the moon or on to Mars.
The Future

President George Bush, speaking on the steps of the National Air and Space Museum on the 20th anniversary of the Apollo 11 moon landing, proposed that lunar/Mars exploration should be the nation's long-term objective in space exploration. "The Apollo astronauts left more than flags and footprints on the Moon. They also left some unfinished business. For, even 20 years ago, we recognized that America's ultimate goal was not simply to go there and go back -- but to go there and go on." (footnote 19)

Although Bush did not include the concept of international cooperation in his vision of the space exploration initiative, there are many who recognize that the political climate has changed since the days of Apollo. Space exploration and space projects have become internationalized and missions on the scale of a lunar base or a Mars mission will probably require international funding to make them feasible. It will be interesting to see which flags join that of the United States on the lunar surface and which will be the first flags on Mars. (fig. 7) One thing is clear -- as humans explore the solar system we will likely see flags continue to go "where no flag has gone before."

Fig. 7. - "Return to Utopia," by Pat Rawlings, shows the arrival of humans at the Viking 2 landing site. Flags will most likely accompany humans as they explore the planets (NASA photograph S91-52337).

lẹ thế, mới vừa edit bài trên xong =]] mấy cái ý mình trích ra toàn trên cái bài bạn gửi mà =]] nó nhảm nhí cũng là nguồn của bạn ra =]] con lừa bị dắt mũi, tội nghiệp
1. "Apollo 14 astronaut Allen Shepard played golf on the Moon. In front of a worldwide TV audience, Mission Control teased him about slicing the ball to the right. Yet a slice is caused by uneven air flow over the ball. The Moon has no atmosphere and no air." The functional word here is "teased". Mission control was, as you said, merely teasing him. There is no way for anyone to be able to tell exactly which way the ball went. And even if you could, maybe he wasn't
holding the club straight, so the head hit the ball on an angle.

2. "A camera panned upwards to catch Apollo 16's Lunar Landerlifting off the Moon. Who did the filming?"
Mission Control. If you watched the miniseries "From the Earth to the Moon", you would know that there was a guy in mission control, controlling the pan/tilt functions on the tv camera tripod. If you want to bring up the 7 second radio delay due to distance, he actually sent the command to tilt up with the ascending lander 7 seconds before it happened, and it all worked out.

3. "One NASA picture from Apollo 11 is looking up at Neil Armstrong about to take his giant step for mankind. The photographer must have been lying on the planet surface. If Armstrong was the first man on the Moon, then who took the shot?" You really ought to learn more about the missions before you start attacking them like this. There was an arm attached to the lander that was deployed just before Neil Armstrong opened the hatch. This arm had a television and a still camera mounted to it.

4. "The pressure inside a space suit was greater than inside a football. The astronauts should have been puffed out like the Michelin Man, but were seen freely bending their joints." Did you really think that they just sent them up there in an airtight jumper? OK. I'm gonna make this real easy for you. Here is a quote from the NASA KIDS website. so you should be able to understand it. "The space suit is made of hard materials with jointed sections to allow movement. The upper and lower torso sections are put on separately. The two pieces are connected at the waist to allow the flow of water and gas
lines. Gloves and helmet create a sealed protection against meteoroids and radiation. On Earth, the space suit weighs about 100 pounds. In space, the suit weighs much less. Under normal conditions, a space suit should last about 8 years." So. assuming you can read. you have just learnt about an American space suit. There is a hard layer of plastic, among many other things, protecting the astronauts from the vacuum of space.

5. "The Moon landings took place during the Cold War. Why didn't America make a signal on the moon that could be seen from earth? The PR would have been phenomenal and it could have been easily done with magnesium flares." That's like saying 'Why don't the ISS astronauts light up the sky with millions and millions of flares?' CAUSE THERE'S NO POINT!!! What you're saying is. because they didn't put a massive flare on the moon. they never actually went. (Oh.. and by the way. have fun igniting a magnesium flare without oxygen).

6. "Text from pictures in the article said that only two men walked on the Moon during the Apollo 12 mission. Yet the astronaut reflected in the visor has no camera. Who took the shot?:

As you can see from this photo of Pete Conrad on Apollo 12, astronauts didn't hold cameras like you do when you're taking a picture of your grandmother, the camera was attached to their suit at the chest. Most small tools used by astronauts were attached to their suits, so they would not be lost.

7&8. "The flags shadow goes behind the rock so doesn't match the dark line in the foreground, which looks like a line cord. So the shadow to the lower right of the spaceman must be the flag. Where is his shadow? And why is the flag fluttering if there is no air or wind on the moon? & How can the flag be brightly lit when its side is to the light? And where, in all of these shots, are the stars?"


Do you honestly mean to tell me that you believe that this photo hasn't been played with? Somebody (no.. NOT NASA) has doctored this photo really badly to make people like YOU think that you have a stronger case against NASA. That astronaut was copied and pasted into that photo. And as for the flag.. that shadow goes to the side with the face clearly lit because it's not exactly parallel to the sun's rays! It's on a bit of an angle, which anybody will tell you, is enough to clearly light the flag. And as for the fluttering.. less drugs for you, man. it's not moving at all. Do you know what happens when a flag is stowed for several weeks, all folded up? You guessed it.. It gets wrinkled! Look at getting some better glasses. As for the stars. in photography, to prevent an over-exposure (phonetically: Ovur-ekspojur) you must close the iris a bit, or in this case, a lot. The sun is much brighter here than the brightest day on earth. With the iris down far enough to prevent over-exposure, there is no way you would ever, EVER see ANYTHING in the sky other than the sun and the earth.

9. "The Lander weighed 17 tons yet the astronauts feet seem to have made a bigger dent in the dust. The powerful booster rocket at the base of the Lunar Lander was fired to slow descent to the moons service. Yet it has left no traces of blasting on the dust underneath. It should have created a small crater, yet the booster looks like it's never been fired." A few things you're forgetting.. It's mass was 17 tons, yes, however since weight is relative to gravity, and the moon has 1/6th the earth's gravity, the WEIGHT of the lunar lander was only 17/6 tons (2.833 tonnes). Now I'm not saying that this is light, there was dust stirred up when it landed, but no more that when a chopper lands here on earth.

Đấy, trả lời hết 9 luận điểm đấy đi nhé thằng idiot =]] h mình cbi đi học, mình học bk q10, nếu bạn thích có thể qua đó đối chất tay đôi =]] àh àh, search tên những người tham gia vào dự án apollo 11 đi, có vài thông tin thú vị đấy )

bạn nầy vừa nói sai vừa nói bậy nè
chuyện khoa học vũ trụ ra được ngoài không gian
đâu phải đi ké đi lơ mà được
làm như ở diễn đàn tt này vậy có người ko được bình thường
cũng có thể cm nói nhảm nói cuội
như chuyện chú cuội lên cung trăng vậy.

it's callled internet meme.
now you can stfu.

Hay là đọc hết bài này đi, người ta giải thích cho hết đó,không hiểu tiếng Anh thì IM cho mình nhé, mình giải thích thêm cho...lol

Fox TV and the Apollo Moon Hoax

(February 13, 2001)


On Thursday, February 15th 2001 (and replayed on March 19), the Fox TV network aired a program called ``Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?'', hosted by X-Files actor Mitch Pileggi. The program was an hour long, and featured interviews with a series of people who believe that NASA faked the Apollo Moon landings in the 1960s and 1970s. The biggest voice in this is Bill Kaysing, who claims to have all sorts of hoax evidence, including pictures taken by the astronauts, engineering details, discussions of physics and even some testimony by astronauts themselves. The program's conclusion was that the whole thing was faked in the Nevada desert (in Area 51, of course!). According to them, NASA did not have the technical capability of going to the Moon, but pressure due to the Cold War with the Soviet Union forced them to fake it.
Sound ridiculous? Of course it does! It is. So let me get this straight right from the start: this program is an hour long piece of junk.
From the very first moment to the very last, the program is loaded with bad thinking, ridiculous suppositions and utterly wrong science. I was able to get a copy of the show in advance, and although I was expecting it to be bad, I was still surprised and how awful it was. I took four pages of notes. I won't subject you to all of that here; it would take hours to write. I'll only go over some of the major points of the show, and explain briefly why they are wrong. In the near future, hopefully by the end of the summer, I will have a much more detailed series of pages taking on each of the points made by the Hoax Believers (whom I will call HBs).
So let's take a look at the ``evidence'' brought out by the show. To make this easier, below is a table with links to the specific arguments.


Disclaimer 20% believe in the hoax? The Capricorn 1 tie-in
No stars in pictures No blast crater Dust around the lander
Deep, dark shadows Non-parallel shadows Identical backgrounds
More identical backgrounds Lander unable to balance itself No flames from lunar launch
Astronauts footage shot in slow-motion The waving flag Why was every picture perfect?
Missing crosshairs in photos The deadly radiation of space Did NASA murder its astronauts?
CONCLUSION LINKS FALLOUT


Bad: Right at the beginning, they have a disclaimer:

The following program deals with a controversial subject. The theories expressed are not the only possible explanation. Viewers are invited to make a judgment based on all available information.

Good: The last thing the writers of this program want the viewers to do is make an informed decision. If they did, they would have given equal time to both sides of this controversy. Instead, the vast majority of the time is given to the HBs, with only scattered (and very vague) dismissive statements by skeptics. So the available information is really only what they tell you. Of course, there are a lot of websites talking about this. I have a list of them on my own site.

Bad: The show claims that 20% of Americans have doubts that we went to the Moon.
Good: That number is a bit misleading. A 1999 Gallup poll showed it was more like 6%, a number which agrees with a poll taken in 1995 by Time/CNN. The Gallup website [note added Feb. 19, 2007: The Gallup site has been rearranged, and though I can no longer find this quotation, it still jibes with what is on the site now] also says:

Although, if taken literally, 6% translates into millions of individuals, it is not unusual to find about that many people in the typical poll agreeing with almost any question that is asked of them -- so the best interpretation is that this particular conspiracy theory is not widespread.

It also depends on what you mean by ``doubts''. Does that mean someone who truly doesn't believe man ever went to the Moon, or just that it's remotely possible that NASA faked it? Those are very different things. Not only does the program not say, but they don't say where they found the statistic they quote either.

Bad: The program talks about the movie ``Capricorn 1'', an entertaining if ultimately silly movie about how NASA must fake a manned Mars expedition. The program says ``The Apollo footage [from the surface of the Moon] is strikingly similar to the scenes in ``Capricorn 1''.
Good: Is it just an amazing coincidence that the actual Moon images look like the movie, or is it evidence of conspiracy? Neither! The movie was filmed in 1978, many years after the last man walked on the Moon. The movie was made to look like the real thing! This statement by the program is particularly ludicrous, and indicates just how far the producers were willing to go to make a sensational program.

Bad: The first bit of actual evidence brought up is the lack of stars in the pictures taken by the Apollo astronauts from the surface of the Moon. Without air, the sky is black, so where are the stars?
Good: The stars are there! They're just too faint to be seen.
This is usually the first thing HBs talk about when discussing the Hoax. That amazes me, as it's the silliest assertion they make. However, it appeals to our common sense: when the sky is black here on Earth, we see stars. Therefore we should see them from the Moon as well.
I'll say this here now, and return to it many times: the Moon is not the Earth. Conditions there are weird, and our common sense is likely to fail us.
The Moon's surface is airless. On Earth, our thick atmosphere scatters sunlight, spreading it out over the whole sky. That's why the sky is bright during the day. Without sunlight, the air is dark at night, allowing us to see stars.
On the Moon, the lack of air means that the sky is dark. Even when the Sun is high off the horizon during full day, the sky near it will be black. If you were standing on the Moon, you would indeed see stars, even during the day.
So why aren't they in the Apollo pictures? Pretend for a moment you are an astronaut on the surface of the Moon. You want to take a picture of your fellow space traveler. The Sun is low off the horizon, since all the lunar landings were done at local morning. How do you set your camera? The lunar landscape is brightly lit by the Sun, of course, and your friend is wearing a white spacesuit also brilliantly lit by the Sun. To take a picture of a bright object with a bright background, you need to set the exposure time to be fast, and close down the aperture setting too; that's like the pupil in your eye constricting to let less light in when you walk outside on a sunny day.
So the picture you take is set for bright objects. Stars are faint objects! In the fast exposure, they simply do not have time to register on the film. It has nothing to do with the sky being black or the lack of air, it's just a matter of exposure time. If you were to go outside here on Earth on the darkest night imaginable and take a picture with the exact same camera settings the astronauts used, you won't see any stars!
It's that simple. Remember, this the usually the first and strongest argument the HBs use, and it was that easy to show wrong. Their arguments get worse from here.

Bad: In the pictures taken of the lunar lander by the astronauts, the TV show continues, there is no blast crater. A rocket capable of landing on the Moon should have burned out a huge crater on the surface, yet there is nothing there.
Good: When someone driving a car pulls into a parking spot, do they do it at 100 kilometers per hour? Of course not. They slow down first, easing off the accelerator. The astronauts did the same thing. Sure, the rocket on the lander was capable of 10,000 pounds of thrust, but they had a throttle. They fired the rocket hard to deorbit and slow enough to land on the Moon, but they didn't need to thrust that hard as they approached the lunar surface; they throttled down to about 3000 pounds of thrust.
Now here comes a little bit of math: the engine nozzle was about 54 inches across (from the Encyclopaedia Astronautica), which means it had an area of 2300 square inches. That in turn means that the thrust generated a pressure of only about 1.5 pounds per square inch! That's not a lot of pressure. Moreover, in a vacuum, the exhaust from a rocket spreads out very rapidly. On Earth, the air in our atmosphere constrains the thrust of a rocket into a narrow column, which is why you get long flames and columns of smoke from the back of a rocket. In a vacuum, no air means the exhaust spreads out even more, lowering the pressure. That's why there's no blast crater! Three thousand pounds of thrust sounds like a lot, but it was so spread out it was actually rather gentle.
[Note added December 6, 2001: Originally in this section I said that the engines also cut off early, before the moment of touchdown, to prevent dust from getting blown around and disturbing the astronauts' view of the surface. This was an incorrect assertion; it was known that dust would blow around before the missions were launched, and steps were taken to make sure the astronauts knew their height above the surface. Anyway, the incorrect section has been removed.]

Bad: The next argument presented on the show deals with the lunar dust. As the lander descended, we clearly see dust getting blown away by the rocket. The exhaust should have blown all the dust away, yet we can clearly see the astronauts' footprints in the dust mere meters from the lander. Obviously, when NASA faked this they messed it up.
Good: Once again, the weird alien environment of the Moon comes to play. Imagine taking a bag of flour and dumping it onto your kitchen floor (kids: ask your folks first!). Now bend over the pile, take a deep breath, and blow into it as hard as you can. Poof! Flour goes everywhere. Why? Because the momentum of your breath goes into the flour, which makes it move. But note that the flour goes up, and sideways, and aloft into the air. If you blow hard enough, you might see little curlicues of air lifting the flour farther than your breath alone could have, and doing so to dust well outside of where your breath actually blew.
That's the heart of this problem. We are used to air helping us blow things around. The air itself is displaced by your breath, which pushed on more air, and so on. On the Earth, your breath might blow flour that was dozens of centimeters away, even though your actual breath didn't reach that far. On the Moon, there is no air. The only dust that gets blown around by the exhaust of the rocket (which, remember, isn't nearly as strong as the HBs claim) is the dustphysically touched by the exhaust, or dust hit by other bits of flying dust. In the end, only the dust directly under or a bit around the rocket was blown out by the exhaust. The rest was left where it was. Ironically, the dust around the landing site was probably a bit thicker than before, since the dust blown out would have piled up there.
I can't resist: another Hoax Believer argument bites the dust.

Bad: The next evidence also involves pictures. In all the pictures taken by the astronauts, the shadows are not black. Objects in shadow can be seen, sometimes fairly clearly, including a plaque on the side of the lander that can be read easily. If the Sun is the only source of light on the Moon, the HBs say, and there is no air to scatter that light, shadows should be utterly black.
Good: This is one of my favorite HB claims. They give you the answer in the claim itself: "...if the Sun is the only source of light..." It isn't. Initially, I thought the Earth was bright enough to fill in the shadows, but subsequently realized that cannot be the case. The Earth is a fraction of the brightness of the Sun, not nearly enough to fill in the shadows. So then what is that other light source?
The answer is: The Moon itself. Surprise! The lunar dust has a peculiar property: it tends to reflect light back in the direction from where it came. So if you were to stand on the Moon and shine a flashlight at the surface, you would see a very bright spot where the light hits the ground, but, oddly, someone standing a bit to the side would hardly see it at all. The light is preferentially reflected back toward the flashlight (and therefore you), and not the person on the side.
Now think about the sunlight. Let's say the sun is off to the right in a picture. It is illuminating the right side of the lander, and the left is in shadow. However, the sunlight falling beyond the lander on the left is being reflected back toward the Sun. That light hits the surface and reflects to the right and up, directly onto the shadowed part of the lander. In other words, the lunar surface is so bright that it easily lights up the shadows of vertical surfaces.
This effect is called heiligenschein (the German word for halo). You can find some neat images of it at here, for example. This also explains another HB claim, that many times the astronauts appear to be standing in a spotlight. This is a natural effect of heiligenschein. You can reproduce this effect yourself; wet grass on a cool morning will do it. Face away from the Sun and look at the shadow of your head. There will be a halo around it. The effect is also very strong in fine, disturbed dust like that in a baseball diamond infield. Or, of course, on the Moon.
[Note added June 29, 2001: A nifty demonstration of the shadow filling was done by Ian Goddard and can be found here. His demos are great, and really drive the point home.

Bad: Another argument by the HBs deals with shadows. Several photos from the Moon are shown where objects on the lunar landscape have long shadows. If the Sun were the only light source, the program claims, the shadows should be parallel. The shadows are not parallel, and therefore the images are fake.
Good: This is an interesting claim on the part of the HBs, because on the surface (haha) it seems to make sense. However, let's assume the shadows are not parallel. One explanation is that there are (at least) two light sources, and that is certainly what many HBs are trying to imply. So if there are multiple light sources, where are the multiple shadows? Each object casts one shadow, so there can only be one light source.
Another explanation is that the light source is close to the objects; then it would also cast non-parallel shadows. However, a distant source can as well! In this case, the Sun really is the only source of light. The shadows are not parallel in the images because of perspective. Remember, you are looking at a three-dimensional scene, projected on a two-dimensional photograph. That causes distortions. When the Sun is low and shadows are long, objects at different distance do indeed appear to cast non-parallel shadows, even here on Earth. An example of that can be found at another debunking site. The scene (near the bottom of the above-linked page) shows objects with non-parallel shadows, distorted by perspective. If seen from above, all the shadows in the Apollo images would indeed look parallel. You can experience this for yourself; go outside on a clear day when the Sun is low in the sky and compare the direction of the shadows of near and far objects. You'll see that they appear to diverge. Here is a major claim of the HBs that you can disprove all by yourself! Don't take my word for it, go out and try!
Incidentally, the bright Earth in the sky will also cast shadows, but those would be very faint compared to the ones made by the Sun. So in a sense there are multiple shadows, but like not being able to see stars, the shadows are too faint to be seen against the very bright lunar surface. Again, you can test this yourself: go outside during full Moon and you'll see your shadow. Then walk over to a streetlamp. The light from the streetlamp will wash out the shadow cast by the Moon. You might still be able to see it faintly, but it would difficult against the much brighter landscape.
[Note added June 29, 2001: Again, check out Ian Goddard's work for more about this.

Bad: The program has two segments dealing with what they call ``identical backgrounds''. In one, they show the lunar lander with a mountain in the background. They then show another picture of the same mountain, but no lander in the foreground at all. The astronauts could not have taken either picture before landing, of course, and after it lifts off the lander leaves the bottom section behind. Therefore, there would have been something in the second image no matter what, and the foreground could not be empty. Obviously, the mountain background is a fake set, and was reused by NASA for another shot.
Good: Actually, the pictures are real, of course. As always, repeat after me: the Moon is not the Earth. On the Earth, distant objects are obscured a bit by haze in the air, and we use that to mentally gauge distances. However, with no air, an object can be very far away on the Moon and still be crisp and sharp to the eye. You can't tell if a boulder is a meter across and 100 meters away, or 100 meters across and 10 kilometers away!
That's what's going on here. The lander is close to the astronaut in the first picture, perhaps a 20 or 30 meters away. The mountain is kilometers away. For the second picture, the astronaut merely moved a few hundred meters to the side. The lander was then out of the picture, but the mountain hardly moved at all! If you look at the scene carefully, you'll see that all the rocks and craters in the foreground changes between the two pictures, just as you'd expect if the astronaut had moved to the side a ways between the two shots. It's not fraud, it's parallax!
Another example of the difficulty in estimating distance is due to the shapes of the rocks on the Moon. A rock small enough to sit down on doesn't look fundamentally different from one bigger than your house. Humans also judge distance by using the relative sizes of objects. We know how big a person is, or a tree, so the apparent size of the object can be used to estimate the distance. If we don't know how big the object is, we can be fooled about its distance.
For an outstanding example of this, take a look at video taken during Apollo 16. There is a boulder in the background that looks to be about 3 or 4 meters (10-13 feet) high. About 3/4 of the way through the segment the astronauts walk over to it. Amazingly, that boulder is the size of a large house! Without knowing how big the rock was when we first see it, we have no way to judge distances. That huge rock looks like a medium sized one until we have some way to directly judge its size; in this case, by looking at the tiny astronauts next to it. [My thanks to Bad Reader Martin Michalak for bringing this video to my attention. My very special thanks goes to Charlie Duke (yes, the Charlie Duke, Apollo astronaut and lunar lander pilot) who emailed me (!) about the difficulty in judging distances due to not knowing the sizes of rocks.]
I will admit the Fox program had me for a while on this one; I couldn't figure it out. But then I got a note from Bad Reader David Bailey, who set me straight. However, the producers of the show should have talked to some realexperts before saying such a silly thing as this. If they had checked with the folks who run the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal, for example, they would have been set straight too.
NEW! (February 19, 2001): I found a site that has an animation where the two images of the mountain are superimposed. You need Flash for it, but it's a great animation. The beauty of it is that you can see changes in the mountain range due to parallax!. In other words, this animation is support that the images are real and are not using a fake backdrop. The real beauty of this animation is that the person who put it together is an HB. I like the irony of linking to that animation and using it to show that it is indeed evidence that Apollo did go to the Moon. I love the web!

Bad: The other ``identical background'' segment shows an astronaut on a hilltop. A second video shows two astronauts on the same hill (and this time it really is the same hill), and claims that NASA itself says these two videos were taken on two different hills separated by many kilometers. How can this be? They are obviously the same hill, so NASA must be lying!
Good: Never attribute to malice what you can attribute to a mistake. A videotape about Apollo 16 ironically titled ``Nothing So Hidden...'' released by NASA does indeed make that claim, but in this case it looks to me to be a simple error. I asked Eric Jones, who is the editor of the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal, and he told me those two clips were taken about three minutes apart. Eric's assistant, Ken Glover, uncovered this problem. He sent me this transcript (which I edited a bit to make links to the video clips) of the Fox show with his comments, which I will highlight in red:

Narrator: Background discrepancies are also apparent in the lunar video.
[...]
[Video showing John Young at Station 4 on EVA-2, with Fox caption "Day One". Click here for the transcript and here for the RealVideo clip.]
Narrator: This shot was taped in what was purported to be the first of Apollo 16's lunar excursions.
[Audio of John Young dubbed over clip: "Well, I couldn't pick a better spot", actual MET of 123:58:46]
[Next, video of John Young and Charlie Duke at Station 4, EVA-2. In reality, about three minutes after the first clip. Fox caption "Day Two". Click here for the transcript and here for the RealVideo clip.]
Narrator: And this video was from the next day, at a different location.
[Audio of Charlie Duke dubbed over clip: "That is the most beautiful sight!", actual MET of 124:03:01]
Narrator: NASA claims the second location was two-and-a-half miles away, but when one video was superimposed over the other the locations appear identical.
[Audio of John Young dubbed over "Day Two" video: " It's absolutely unreal!", actual MET 144:16:30]
Narrator: Conspiracy theorists claim that even closer examination of the photos suggest evidence of doctoring.

That last line is pretty funny. The audio you hear of the astronauts in those clips was actually all from different times than the video!
So that's why the hill looks the same. It's the same hill, and the two clips were not taken a day apart, but from three minutes apart or so. Again, had the program producers bothered to check their sources, they would have received a prompt answer. That's all I did: I emailed the editor of the ALSJ. It was pretty easy to do, and he answered me in minutes.

Bad: Ralph Rene, a self-proclaimed physicist, claims that the astronauts shifting in the cabin would change the center of mass, throwing the lunar lander off balance. They couldn't compensate for this, which would have crashed the lander. Thus, the landing was faked.
Good: Rene is wrong. Evidently he doesn't know how the internet works either, because there is a website which describes how the attitude control was maintained on the lander during descent and ascent; it's the Apollo Saturn Reference page. There was a feedback control system on board the lander which determined if the axis were shifting. During descent, the engine nozzle could shift direction slightly to compensate for changes in the center of gravity of the lander (the technical term for this is gimbaling the nozzle). During ascent, the engine nozzle was fixed in position, so there was a series of smaller rockets which was used to maintain the proper attitude. Incidentally, every rocket needs to do this since fuel shifts the center of gravity as it is burned up by the rocket, yet Rene and the other HBs don't seem to doubt that rockets themselves work! So we have a case of selective thinking on the part of the HBs.
[Note (July 20, 2001): My thanks again to Apollo astronaut Charlie Duke for correcting a technical error in a previous version of this section. After describing the above scenario to me, he said the ascent stage of the lander was "a sporty ride".]

Bad: The program claims that when the top half of the lander took off from the Moon to bring the astronauts back into orbit, there was no flame from the rocket. Obviously, every rocket has a visible flame, so the takeoff was faked.
Good: There is actually a simple reason why you cannot see the flame from the lander when it took off. The fuels they used produced no visible flame! The lander used a mix of hydrazine and dinitrogen tetroxide (an oxidizer). These two chemicals ignite upon contact and produce a product that is transparent. That's why you cannot see the flame. We expect to see a flame because of the usual drama of liftoff from the Earth; the flame and smoke we see from the Shuttle, for example, is because the solid rocket boosters do actually produce them, while the lunar lander did not.Here is a brief webpage describing this. Note too that fuels like this are still used today, and indeed rockets in space produce little or no visible flame.
I heard an account (sorry, no citation; the link has since gone dead) that the cameras used for the ascent of the lander were fairly primitive, even for that era (this is usually the case in space travel, where it takes extensive testing to make sure things work properly; during that time the state of the art advances). Even if it were visible, the flash of the exhaust may have easily been missed by those cameras.
[Note added April 9, 2001: My original assertion about not seeing the flame was because the Moon has no air, and we see flame from rockets on Earth because we have an atmosphere. This does have some effect (the pressure of air constrains the rocket exhaust and helps produce the effect we see) but the larger reason the flame is invisible is due to the fuel used. I gratefully thank the dozens of people who sent me email about this.]

Bad: When the movies of the astronauts walking and driving the lunar rover are doubled in speed, they look just like they were filmed on Earth and slowed down. This is clearly how the movies were faked.
Good: This was the first new bit I have seen from the HBs, and it's funny. To me even when sped up, the images didn't look like they were filmed in Earth's gravity. The astronauts were sidling down a slope, and they looked weird to me, not at all like they would on Earth. I will admit that if wires were used, the astronauts' gait could be simulated.
However, not the rover! If you watch the clip, you will see dust thrown up by the wheels of the rover. The dust goes up in a perfect parabolic arc and falls back down to the surface. Again, the Moon isn't the Earth! If this were filmed on the Earth, which has air, the dust would have billowed up around the wheel and floated over the surface. This clearly does not happen in the video clips; the dust goes up and right back down. It's actually a beautiful demonstration of ballistic flight in a vacuum. Had NASA faked this shot, they would have had to have a whole set (which would have been very large) with all the air removed. We don't have this technology today!
This is another case of selective vision on the part of the HBs.

Bad: When the astronauts are assembling the American flag, the flag waves. Kaysing says this must have been from an errant breeze on the set. A flag wouldn't wave in a vacuum.
Good: Of course a flag can wave in a vacuum. In the shot of the astronaut and the flag, the astronaut is rotating the pole on which the flag is mounted, trying to get it to stay up. The flag is mounted on one side on the pole, and along the top by another pole that sticks out to the side. In a vacuum or not, when you whip around the vertical pole, the flag will ``wave'', since it is attached at the top. The top will move first, then the cloth will follow along in a wave that moves down. This isn't air that is moving the flag, it's the cloth itself.
New stuff added March 1, 2001: Many HBs show a picture of an astronaut standing to one side of the flag, which still has a ripple in it (for example, see this famous image). The astronaut is not touching the flag, so how can it wave?
The answer is, it isn't waving. It looks like that because of the way the flag was deployed. The flag hangs from a horizontal rod which telescopes out from the vertical one. In Apollo 11, they couldn't get the rod to extend completely, so the flag didn't get stretched fully. It has a ripple in it, like a curtain that is not fully closed. In later flights, the astronauts didn't fully deploy it on purpose because they liked the way it looked. In other words, the flag looks like it is waving because the astronauts wanted it to look that way. Ironically, they did their job too well. It appears to have fooled a lot of people into thinking it waved.
This explanation comes from NASA's wonderful spaceflight web page. For those of you who are conspiracy minded, of course, this doesn't help because it comes from a NASA site. But it does explain why the flag looks as it does, and you will be hard pressed to find a video of the flag waving. And if it was a mistake caused by a breeze on the set where they faked this whole thing, don't you think the director would have tried for a second take? With all the money going to the hoax, they could afford the film!
Note added March 28, 2001: One more thing. Several readers have pointed out that if the flag is blowing in a breeze, why don't we see dust blowing around too? Somehow, the HBs' argument gets weaker the more you think about it.

Bad: The program makes a big deal out of how well the pictures taken from the Moon were exposed and set. Every picture we see is just right, with the scene always centered perfectly. However, the cameras were mounted on the front of the astronauts' spacesuit, and there was no finder. They couldn't have taken perfect pictures every time!
Good ... and of course, no one claims they did. Thousands of pictures were taken on the Moon, and the ones you see will tend to be the good ones. If Buzz Aldrin accidentally cut off Neil Armstrong's head, you probably won't see that image in a magazine. Also, everything done on the Moon was practiced endlessly by the astronauts. The people working on the mission knew that these pictures would be some of the most important images ever taken, so they would have taken particular care in making sure the astronauts could do it cold. When fabled astronaut Story Musgrave replaced a camera on board the Hubble Space Telescope in 1993, someone commented that he made it look easy. "Sure," he replied, "I had practiced it thousands of times!"
The program goes farther than this, though: they actually contacted the man who designed the cameras for the astronauts. When they asked him why the pictures were always perfect, he hemmed and hawed, and finally admitted he had no answer for that. This is hardly evidence that NASA must have faked the missions. All it means is that he couldn't think of anything while sitting on camera! I think this is pretty evil of the program producers to do this; a bit of editing on their part makes it looks like they completely baffled an expert.

Bad: Crosshairs were etched in the astronauts' cameras to better help measure objects in the pictures. However, in several images, it looks like the objects are actually in front of the crosshairs, which is impossible if the crosshairs were inside the camera! Therefore, the images were faked.
Good: This argument is pretty silly. Do the HBs think that NASA had painted crosshairs on the set behind the astronauts? I heard one HB claim the crosshairs were added later on, and NASA had messed up some of the imaging. That's ridiculous! Why add in crosshairs later? Cameras equipped with crosshairs have been used for a long time, and it would have been easy to simply use some to take pictures on the faked set. Clearly, the HBs are wrong here, but the images do look funny. What happened?
What happened becomes clearer when you look more closely at the images. The times it looks like an object is in front of the crosshair (because the crosshair looks blocked by the object) is when the object photographed is white. The crosshair is black. Have you ever taken an image that is overexposed? White parts bleed into the film around them, making them look white too. That's all that happened here; the white object in the image ``fills in'' the black crosshair. It's a matter of contrast: the crosshair becomes invisible because the white part overwhelms the film. This is basic photography.
[Note (added February 18, 2001): I have been informed by David Percy, a photographer quoted in the Fox show, that he does indeed believe that man went to the Moon, but he believes there are anomalies in the imagery taken which ``put into question many aspects of the missions'', which is a different matter. While I disagree that there are anomalies, I have edited out what is essentially a personal attack on Mr. Percy that I had here originally. It is an easy matter to let one's emotions get carried away when writing these essays, and I apologize to him and my readers for letting that get in. I make it a policy to correct Bad Astronomy based on facts, not personalities.]
[Note added June 29, 2001: Again, Ian Goddard's work has more about this, including images that show how crosshairs can fade out in a bright background.

Bad: A big staple of the HBs is the claim that radiation in the van Allen Belts and in deep space would have killed the astronauts in minutes. They interview a Russian cosmonaut involved in the USSR Moon program, who says that they were worried about going in to the unknowns of space, and suspected that radiation would have penetrated the hull of the spacecraft.
Good: Kaysing's exact words in the program are ``Any human being traveling through the van Allen belt would have been rendered either extremely ill or actually killed by the radiation within a short time thereof.''
This is complete and utter nonsense. The van Allen belts are regions above the Earth's surface where the Earth's magnetic field has trapped particles of the solar wind. An unprotected man would indeed get a lethal dose of radiation,if he stayed there long enough. Actually, the spaceship traveled through the belts pretty quickly, getting past them in an hour or so. There simply wasn't enough time to get a lethal dose, and, as a matter of fact, the metal hull of the spaceship did indeed block most of the radiation. For a detailed explanation of all this, my fellow Mad ScientistWilliam Wheaton has a page with the technical data about the doses received by the astronauts. Another excellent page about this, that also gives a history of NASA radiation testing, is from the Biomedical Results of Apollo site. An interesting read!
It was also disingenuous of the program to quote the Russian cosmonaut as well. Of course they were worried about radiation before men had gone into the van Allen belts! But tests done by NASA showed that it was possible to not only survive such a passage, but to not even get harmed much by it. It looks to me like another case of convenient editing by the producers of the program.

Very, very Bad: Kaysing says that the Apollo 1 fire that killed Roger Chaffee, Ed White and Gus Grissom was no accident. Grissom was ready to talk to the press about the Moon hoax, so NASA killed him. Kaysing says NASA also killed other people who were about to blow the whistle as well.
This is so disgusting I have a hard time writing a coherent reply. Kaysing has no grasp of basic physics, photography or even common sense, but he accuses NASA of killing people to shut them up. That is a particularly loathsome accusation.

The utter bilge pumped out in this program goes on and on, and indeed, if you go to the HBs websites you can read more than any brain can handle. I have read literally dozens of things that ``prove'' the landings were faked, and each one is rather easily shown to be wrong by anyone with experience in such things. I think the problem here is twofold: we tend to want to believe (or at least listen to) conspiracy theories, and this one is a whopper. Also, the evidence is presented in such a way that, if you are unfamiliar with the odd nature of the vacuum of space and of space travel, it sounds reasonable.
But it isn't reasonable. Their evidence is actually as tenuous as the vacuum of space itself. I find it amazing that they are so willing to scrutinize every available frame of data from the astronauts, yet miss the most obvious thing right in front of them. Fox television and the producers of this program should be ashamed of themselves. Even worse, the Fox Family Channel broadcast a show just last year that was skeptical and even handed about the Moon Hoax! Amazingly, Mitch Pileggi hosted that program as well.
I'll end this on one more bit the HBs don't talk about. When Jim Lovell, two time Apollo astronaut and commander of the ill-fated Apollo 13 mission, was told about Kaysing's claims, Lovell called him a kook. Kaysing, ever the rational thinker, sued Lovell for slander. Imagine: Kaysing, who says that NASA murdered three men outright and arranged for the murders of others, sued Commander James Lovell for slander! After some time, a judge wisely threw the case out of court.
There's still hope.

bullsh*t =))

source: http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

search cũng khổ nhờ =)) toàn quote trước khi mình edit lại, h mình cbi lên trường, có gì bạn cứ trả lời theo 9 luận điểm của mình đi, trả lời vào trọng tâm giống mình lọc từng ý nhé, chứ đừng có post nguyên bài doạ ma về tiếng anh, nhớ lời mình dặn là viết vào trọng tâm, 1 khối lượng bài văn lớn như thế này thì chỉ có những thằng rảnh rỗi ngồi đọc thôi, or bạn chỉ đọc lướt qua thấy ý rồi cop và paste nhỉ =]] hay là tí bạn qua trường bk, mình ở phòng thí nghiệm khoa khoa học ứng dụng toà nhà B4 rồi nc tay đôi vào cổng nhớ mang thẻ trước ngục nha k là bảo vệ k cho vào đó

Stver Job chắc đang mời Neil Armstrong quay trở lại mặt trăng tìm vật liệu mới cho iPhone

Ôi người Mỹ!

chú cuội là người đầu tiên trên hành tinh lên mặt trăng không cần đồ bảo hộ. => người Việt thật vỹ đại và ghê gớm )

không đọc nổi hả, moron?...vậy thì thôi đi nhé...lol.
Không biết bạn 0 hiểu nổi hay bạn 0 muốn hiểu, nhưng tuỳ bạn thôi...người ta đã giải thích cặn kẽ tất cả những nghi vấn rồi mà bạn vẫn 0 muốn tin thì mình cũng 0 còn gì để nói....rất nhiều người VN thấy rõ ràng CNcs đã sụp đổ tan tành và cnxh chỉ là hoang đường nhưng họ vẫn 0 muốn tin đó là sự thật, cũng 0 có cách nào làm cho họ tin vì 1 điều rất đơn giản là vì họ 0 muốn tin...thì thôi bạn 0 tin những gì là sự thật đó là tuỳ ở bạn, mình 0 muốn sa đà vào những cuộc tranh cãi mà 1 bên 0 hiểu hoặc 0 muốn hiểu sự thật. bye nhé, chúc bạn luôn vui.

Cả thế giới sẽ mãi mãi ghi nhớ ông vì những đóng góp cho ngành hàng không, vũ trụ!

Gửi lời chia buồn cùng Neil Armstrong

bạn có làm đc như ông ấy ko mà ngồi đó chém bão