h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

This is not as straightforward as it sounds.

Apparently for simplicity they use UTC time on the International Space Station, so I assume that back in the late 60s they were either using GMT or whatever timezone Houston is on for the moon missions.

I think I've completely misread the question.

Croz, you've got to the crux of the issue. The date depends on which time zone you use.

So, does nobody remember the date? I want to know what date people have in their heads.

Heck, at a push I would only be able to guess at 1969. Probably not even got the right Earth year never mind the day!

Om

As grainy as it was, I watched Armstrong. Without research, I'll guess July 19th, 1969.

Black boy in Chicago
Playin' in the street
Not enough to wear
Not near enough to eat
But don't you know he saw it
On that July afternoon
Saw a man named Armstrong
Walk upon the moon

Young girl in Calcutta
Barely eight years old
The fly's that swarm the market place
Will see she don't grow old
But don't you know she heard it
On a July afternoon
Heard a man named Armstrong
Walk upon the moon

River's getting dirty
The wind in getting bad
War and hate are killing off
The only earth we have
But the whole world stopped to watch it
On that July afternoon
Watched a man named Armstrong
Walk upon the moon

And I wonder if a long time ago
Somewhere in the universe
They watched a man named Adam
Walk upon the earth

Not quite close enough ...

http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/whos_who_level2/armstrong.html

The actual time of the moon landing appears to have been:

21 July 1969 02:56 UTC.

Most websites seem to give the date as 20 July, because that was the date in America at the time.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/july/21/newsid_2635000/2635845.stm

Never! There was an excellent programme on Sci-Fi channel which clearly & concisely refuted the whole mission. The evidence was amazing!

If you can't make it .........fake it!

Regards.

No. There's more reason to believe they did land on the moon than that they didn't. For example, you can shine a laser at the moon and reflect it off one of the little special mirrors they left on the moon's surface. It's also the best explanation of the "moon rock" that they brought back.

In the documentary the US flag was flapping in the wind. We are told that there is no air there so how can that be explained?

The shadows cast by moon rock are not consistent with the sun. The light source had to be artificial!

There was no dust on the part of the rocket that "landed" on the moon's surface?

The space suits were too thin to block radiation.

Amazing Leroy:
the flag was attached to a cunning wire assembly that made the limp flag flap in the nonexistent breeze. At least that's the story if they gave us US schoolchildren...

Which moon rock shadow was inconsistent with the sunlight? are you saying that the sun was visible, and that some of the shadows didn't match up to it?

Wouldn't it be likely that the rocket blasted so much dust out of its way that no dust would have been available to settle on it? after all, in the absence of air, dust settles immediately without being suspended.

I'm assuming that, like myself, you are a scientific layman. What leads you to say that the space suits were too thin to block radiation?

Is there a web site detailing these charges, or a book that we might read? Disconnected from any expert opinion confirming them, your statements just sound insane or stupid.

This article nicely refutes the claim that we can't get to the moon because of too much radiation and lack of shielding.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Allen_radiation_belt

Basically Astronauts *do* get a higher dose than one on the Earth but it's not a lethal dose. The Apollo rockets also avoided the Van Allen belts as much as possible.

Shadowwise. Ever noticed that the moon casts shadows in the dark of night. Could it be possible that the Earth does the same on the Moon.

Amazingleroy, these people are sifting through loads of material and ignoring anything that doesn't fit their theory. If you want to believe something enough you'll find 'evidence' for it. Pleae don't fall for this tosh.

The evidence was put forward by scientists ,ex nasa personnel and the like. The title of the programme was "conspiracy theory".

I've seen it, it was tosh.

"The shadows cast by moon rock are not consistent with the sun...." ...ON EARTH!

"There was no dust on the part of the rocket that "landed" on the moon's surface?"

So they cleaned.

"The space suits were too thin to block radiation."

Complete and utter rubbish. A 1/2mm wafer of most metals will absorb all radiation up to and including X-Rays. The thickness has no bearing on a material's ability to absorb radiation; it is the electron configuration and distribution that counts.

B

See these two sites...

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast23feb_2.htm

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

and links therein for point by point refuting of *all* the so-called evidence for faked moon-landings.

Nuff said.

The bad astronomy site is particularly good. In fact, I was about to post a link.