The man step on the Moon Period.....!










and if any of you will ask why there aren't stars on the photo ,its because to take a shot in environment without atmosphere in an ultra white enviroment you need at least to close the diaphragm to less that 2mm other wise you would be burn the film tape ,Is the same reason you can't see the face of the astronauts for the special Kevlar filter
If you see with your naked eye the surface of the moon with the sun above you ,you would instantly get blind.

Quote:



If ?  

Hagar wrote on Aug 6^th, 2008 at 7:51am:



Well.. yeah.. it is important. It's history... pretty significant history. When we start thinking history is not important... we all know where that ends up.

There was definately a political statement, but there are 1,000 ways to make those. The political gain was more a productive by-product of learning, and puting into practice, getting big things off of this planet.. in/out of the gravitational field; in/out of another field; extra-vehicular activity, and then back down on terra-firma (with people on board no less).  

HUGE learning curves conquered.. from physics to propulsion to life-support.

Quote:



I'm a 49 year old, aviation oriented American, with an engineering background..  I've  beat this horse many-a-time, over many-a-year. I normally stay out of discussions like this..  I had a lapse this morning  

Alejandro Rhodes wrote on Aug 6^th, 2008 at 7:07am:



I think we should all chip in and buy Alrot a passport a moving van and a nice apartment her ein the US 
glad to see you think the moon landing and 911 consprices are crap, some people just have to complicate things  *cough* Fozzer *cough*   

This has been locked before, got to like 24 pages... (I know I started it  )

Im with Hagar on this, I dont think this needs to be gone over again

Hagar wrote on Aug 6^th, 2008 at 7:41am:


I normally steer clear of this topic, but i'm bored, so i'll drop a thought in here regarding the possibility that all of the successful Apollo missions were faked to avoid the political effects of failure:

When the Apollo I crew was roasted alive on the pad during a pad-test accident, not only did NASA reveal this information to the world press the following day, Grissom, White and Chaffee made the cover of the next issue of Life, which featured a full story on the accident. The official report was released about a year later, only because every tiny detail had to be covered. there was never any attempt to cover up the tragedy or the shortcomings of the program.

Even if all NASA cared about was "claiming" the Moon before the soviets did, it was actually a more useful  propoganda move to make martyrs of these three astronauts, and harden the resolve of evryone involved to try harder. Covering it up would have been far more difficult, and it wouldn't have produced the galvanizing effect that the truth did.

When Apollo 13 was in trouble, the world was allowed to know almost immediately. NASA did not wait until they were either home safe or lost- keeping the entire world on tenterhooks was actually a brilliant publicity move; much smarter than the smothering secrecy of the Soviet space program. Had the crew of Apollo 13 died out there, there would not have been a fake landing broadcast; I'm pretty convinced of that.

As it turned out, despite the ridiculous cause of 13's problems, the recovery of that flight was probably the most brilliant space enterprise ever; more amazing, in a way, than landing on the moon and returning safely. Flight Director Gene Kranz once said that he was most proud of that mission, problems and all.


Of course, the conspiracy buffs might very well claim that Apollo I was sacrificed intentionally for propoganda purposes, and the Apollo 13 near-disaster was also a hoax... this refusal to accept any evidence of the veracity of the mission reports is like a sort of cult mythology; reason cannot prevail against it.   

The Mythbusters are going to be tackling this disscusion soon. I can't wait for it.