Poll
Question:
1969 Moon Landing
Option 1: Real
votes: 48
Option 2: Fake
votes: 6
Option 3: Real Fake
votes: 5
Option 4: Boobies
votes: 38
Option 5: Anal
votes: 7
So, wife was having a discussion with some friends given the recent shuttle launch and she is the only of her friends that thinks the original 1969 Moon Landing was faked. I agree, I think we've never been to the moon. What do you think?
REAL
Buzz Aldrin punch ( not-edited ) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ez-NpFVwQw#lq-hq-vhq)
I think it was real
if they faked it the astronauts would have had an unfortunate accident
clean up loose ends and such
Quote from: HobokenHooligan on July 19, 2009, 04:28:54 PM
REAL
Buzz Aldrin punch ( not-edited ) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ez-NpFVwQw#lq-hq-vhq)
I don't understand how that re-enforces your position?
Completely real. Let's face it, in 1969 we were competing with the Soviets on just about every front. The Soviets were monitoring all communications and everything America did and would have jumped at the chance to cry foul and discredit a "fake" moon landing.
I can't believe that people think it was faked. Unbelievable.
Quote from: NAKID on July 19, 2009, 04:34:14 PM
I don't understand how that re-enforces your position?
Someone that risked
everything to go to the moon would react that way to someone questioning their sacrifice. Someone who took part in a hoax probably wouldn't.
Nevermind that I have a hard time believeing that someone like Buzz Aldrin (3rd in his class at West Point, Air Force fighter pilot/instructor, etc) would knowingly lie to the American public. Same goes for all of the other Apollo astronauts.
BTW...that video is awesome! [thumbsup]
Or, you could argue that he reacted just like someone who was caught in one of the biggest lies of all time. Perspective....
Quote from: NAKID on July 19, 2009, 04:34:14 PM
I don't understand how that re-enforces your position?
I think it is a dare to say that to Buzz -- see if you suffer the same fate.
Which, btw, that just proves that the old school space men were bad mothermake the beast with two backsing ass.
Quote from: NAKID on July 19, 2009, 04:45:12 PM
Or, you could argue that he reacted just like someone who was caught in one of the biggest lies of all time. Perspective....
Right. [roll]
So what's your scientific evidence that we've never been there...other than you just don't think so?
You really have no proof either way. Seems sort of moot, no?
Besides, we all know a shuttle on a conveyor does not generate lift so....it doesn't take off.
Quote from: MrIncredible on July 19, 2009, 04:48:46 PM
You really have no proof either way. Seems sort of moot, no?
Photos and lunar samples would count as proof.
Quote from: MrIncredible on July 19, 2009, 04:48:46 PM
Besides, we all know a shuttle on a conveyor does not generate lift so....it doesn't take off.
Oh no...not again! [laugh]
Quote from: MrIncredible on July 19, 2009, 04:48:46 PM
Besides, we all know a shuttle on a conveyor does not generate lift so....it doesn't take off.
I hate you
Quote from: Triple J on July 19, 2009, 04:46:25 PM
So what's your scientific evidence that we've never been there...other than you just don't think so?
Quote from: MrIncredible on July 19, 2009, 04:48:46 PM
You really have no proof either way. Seems sort of moot, no?
Proof? Don't have any, but then again you don't have any either.
Quote from: Triple J on July 19, 2009, 04:52:36 PM
Photos and lunar samples would count as proof.
Photo's can be faked (hence the thread) and lunar rocks have been found on Earth...
Quote from: NAKID on July 19, 2009, 04:55:45 PM
Proof? Don't have any, but then again you don't have any either.
Photo's can be faked (hence the thread) and lunar rocks have been found on Earth...
How do you know they're lunar...
if we haven't been there?
wait...this thread is real? I read it and was sure it was done simply to sit back with [popcorn].
I know I can't participate in an appropriate way, so that's a good warning for me to simply say keep it civil everyone and have fun.
Quote from: NAKID on July 19, 2009, 04:55:45 PM
Proof? Don't have any, but then again you don't have any either.
I don't claim to be able to prove anything.
How do you know those submarines you go on are actually under water?
Quote from: MrIncredible on July 19, 2009, 05:00:33 PM
I don't claim to be able to prove anything.
How do you know those submarines you go on are actually under water?
[laugh] [laugh] [laugh] [laugh] [laugh] [laugh] [laugh] [laugh] [laugh]
Quote from: ducpainter on July 19, 2009, 04:57:30 PM
How do you know they're lunar...
if we haven't been there?
Because the Russian's landed unmanned crafts there as early as 1959...
Quote from: NAKID on July 19, 2009, 05:05:49 PM
Because the Russian's landed unmanned crafts there as early as 1959...
How do you know that was real?
Quote from: NAKID on July 19, 2009, 04:26:03 PM
So, wife was having a discussion with some friends given the recent shuttle launch and she is the only of her friends that thinks the original 1969 Moon Landing was faked. I agree, I think we've never been to the moon. What do you think?
C'mon, give me a break. [roll]
Quote from: MrIncredible on July 19, 2009, 05:00:33 PM
I don't claim to be able to prove anything.
How do you know those submarines you go on are actually under water?
I know you weren't. I was quoting you in response to JJJ.
I don't go on submarines yet, so your question is invalid ;D
Quote from: NAKID on July 19, 2009, 04:55:45 PM
Photo's can be faked (hence the thread) and lunar rocks have been found on Earth...
Lunar rocks found on earth have been subjected to the rigours of falling through the earth's atmosphere...and they show it, as does every other meteorite. Samples collected on the surface do not since they came back with the astronauts.
While photos can be faked...video cannot because of the way the soil reacts when disturbed, due to the vacuum of space. The video of the lunar rover, and how the soil reacts, is a perfect example of proof we were there.
I take it you watched the garbage FOX program on this?
Quote from: MrIncredible on July 19, 2009, 05:00:33 PM
How do you know those submarines you go on are actually under water?
Oh, because there have been quite a few found on the bottom of the ocean with their crew still aboard...
Quote from: ducpainter on July 19, 2009, 05:06:56 PM
How do you know that was real?
...and they brought back
extremely small samples. Samples brought back by the astronauts were to large for the Russians to bring back.
Quote from: NAKID on July 19, 2009, 05:10:18 PM
I know you weren't. I was quoting you in response to JJJ.
I don't go on submarines yet, so your question is invalid ;D
Quote from: NAKID on July 19, 2009, 05:11:51 PM
Oh, because there have been quite a few found on the bottom of the ocean with their crew still aboard...
Which is it?
Conspiracy theorists... What would be gained by faking it?
JFK vowed to beat the Russians in the space race. They were the first to make it to the moon, we were going to be the first manned mission to the moon. When it proved unfeasible, we did the only thing that was left without admitting defeat....
Quote from: NAKID on July 19, 2009, 05:23:46 PM
JFK vowed to beat the Russians in the space race. They were the first to make it to the moon, we were going to be the first manned mission to the moon. When it proved unfeasible, we did the only thing that was left without admitting defeat....
Can I have the phone number for your CO and the base hospital?
You're obviously under too much stress to continue as a sub doc.
Unmake the beast with two backsingbelievable. [roll]
A question was asked, I answered...
Quote from: NAKID on July 19, 2009, 05:31:10 PM
A question was asked, I answered...
So answer mine.
Quote from: NAKID on July 19, 2009, 05:23:46 PM
JFK vowed to beat the Russians in the space race. They were the first to make it to the moon, we were going to be the first manned mission to the moon. When it proved unfeasible, we did the only thing that was left without admitting defeat....
And you don't think the Soviets would have done anything to prove us wrong? If it was faked, you don't think the Soviets would be on the front page of every International paper the day after exposing the Americans? Not even in their own papers?
Quote from: ducpainter on July 19, 2009, 05:31:54 PM
So answer mine.
;D
Quote from: superjohn on July 19, 2009, 05:32:50 PM
And you don't think the Soviets would have done anything to prove us wrong? If it was faked, you don't think the Soviets would be on the front page of every International paper the day after exposing the Americans? Not even in their own papers?
I can't speak for the Russian's, but I have seen plenty of arguments for both sides, and I believe it was faked...
Saw on article on this the other day on cnn.com. Apparently, 6% of the public believes the landings were faked. [roll]
Wait...omg... how do we know they really did a poll? [laugh]
BTW, my dad was an engineer working at the Space Center in Houston in '69. Apparently the govt fooled the thousands of engineers as well, huh?
Quote from: swampduc on July 19, 2009, 05:38:43 PM
BTW, my dad was an engineer working at the Space Center in Houston in '69. Apparently the govt fooled the thousands of engineers as well, huh?
How do you know he was your dad?
Quote from: Mother on July 19, 2009, 05:40:20 PM
How do you know he was your dad?
That would explain a lot ;D
Quote from: NAKID on July 19, 2009, 05:35:33 PM
I can't speak for the Russian's, but I have seen plenty of arguments for both sides, and I believe it was faked...
I understand this thought process from a tree hugging, falafel eating, over educated misanthrope, but from a carrer Military (albeit Navy) man. I'm at a loss.
Challenge the status quo...
Quote from: NAKID on July 19, 2009, 05:35:33 PM
I can't speak for the Russian's, but I have seen plenty of arguments for both sides, and I believe it was faked...
Have you researched the conspiracy theorists arguments as to why they believe it was fake? They're all BS.
Quote from: Triple J on July 19, 2009, 05:51:28 PM
Have you researched the conspiracy theorists arguments as to why they believe it was fake? They're all BS.
but they say they are real and as a tree hugger I like to believe people
http://www.kokomotion.com/TWH/ (http://www.kokomotion.com/TWH/)
;D
Quote from: kopfjager on July 19, 2009, 05:43:33 PM
I understand this thought process from a tree hugging, falafel eating, over educated misanthrope, but from a carrer Military (albeit Navy) man. I'm at a loss.
You don't expect military men to think for themselves? ???
Quote from: MrIncredible on July 19, 2009, 05:59:17 PM
You don't expect military men to think for themselves? ???
Well, I do. ;)
I think there are some compelling arguments for the "faked" side. One in particular is radio conversations between ground control and the landed craft with no delay in the conversation...
Quote from: NAKID on July 19, 2009, 06:01:16 PM
I think there are some compelling arguments for the "faked" side. One in particular is radio conversations between ground control and the landed craft with no delay in the conversation...
They edited out the delay. It's in the actual archive recordings, but it's real boring to listen to in a broadcast.
Quote from: NAKID on July 19, 2009, 06:01:16 PM
I think there are some compelling arguments for the "faked" side. One in particular is radio conversations between ground control and the landed craft with no delay in the conversation...
Oh tell us about the lack of stars theory in the backround, Mr Wizard.
I didn't mention that. But it's easy to explain. Think of it as if you are trying to see the stars from the city, and then the country. The bright lights of the city mask the light from the stars. If we really did go to the moon, the lights from the cameras would have a similar effect. I don't agree with that particular argument...
Quote from: NAKID on July 19, 2009, 06:01:16 PM
I think there are some compelling arguments for the "faked" side. One in particular is radio conversations between ground control and the landed craft with no delay in the conversation...
Please buy and read the book "Bad Astronomy" by Philip Plait. It is actually a very interesting read if you're at all interested in physics (i.e it isn't written like a text book). It also has a good portion of it dedicated to the so-called moon landing hoax.
He also has a blog...and a part of it is dedicated to the moon landing. Also included are many links from other scientists (including a Russian). http://www.badastronomy.com/info/logo.html (http://www.badastronomy.com/info/logo.html)
I'm not beyond convincing, but based on what I have read, I believe we didn't do what we said we did...
Mythbusters Moon Landing photo hoax 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wym04J_3Ls0#lq-lq2-hq-vhq)
Japan and the NASA have recently photographed the site...
Not to open a can of worms here, but do you think 9/11 was a govt job too?
Those guys put their lives on the line for this country, the Apollo I crew even died lest we forget, albeit on the launchpad.
That guy slapped Buzz in the face and he reacted appropriately.
http://www.japantoday.com/category/world/view/new-nasa-photos-show-apollo-leftovers-on-the-moon (http://www.japantoday.com/category/world/view/new-nasa-photos-show-apollo-leftovers-on-the-moon)
http://www.space.com/news/090717-lro-apollo11-images.html (http://www.space.com/news/090717-lro-apollo11-images.html)
Quote from: NAKID on July 19, 2009, 05:23:46 PM
JFK vowed to beat the Russians in the space race. They were the first to make it to the moon, we were going to be the first manned mission to the moon. When it proved unfeasible, we did the only thing that was left without admitting defeat....
Ah, thank you. I don't know much about it. :P
Quote from: Triple J on July 19, 2009, 04:37:21 PM
I can't believe that people think it was faked. Unbelievable.
+11 tyb
I find it odd that a lot of people who profess to be scientific 'sceptics' become devout advocates when it suits them. For example, those same 'sceptics' will (without thinking) practice safe sex (re condoms & HIV), be careful in the sun (re skin cancer), will daub antiseptic on a child's cut finger (re disease causing bacteria) etc etc etc even though it is not difficult to find people who will argue that all of the above practices are NOT supported by 'science', and that therefor the is no consensus!!!
lol - 500 000 people were immediately involved in the moon shots - no one noticed anything odd. 1000s of papers have been publicly published in peer review journals based upon the moonshots (everything from material sciences, analyses of the moon samples, etc etc) - no one noticed anything odd. And yet 'sceptics' opinions are given weight eg "the sky in that moon photo is black, so it must be night... yet there aren't any stars!!!). ???
Quote from: NAKID on July 19, 2009, 06:01:16 PM
I think there are some compelling arguments for the "faked" side. One in particular is radio conversations between ground control and the landed craft with no delay in the conversation...
How much of a delay are you looking for?
I'm no expert, but some googling reveals that radio waves travel at essentially the speed of light through space (vacuum). 186,000 miles/sec.
The center to center distance from the earth to the moon is about 239,000 miles.
Therefore, neglecting the radius of the earth and moon, a radio transmission from the earth to the moon should take about 1.3 seconds. Not much of a delay.
Quote from: NAKID on July 19, 2009, 06:42:39 PM
I'm not beyond convincing, but based on what I have read, I believe we didn't do what we said we did...
I'm on the fence as well. I don't really want to get too far into everything, but I do feel we had way too much to loose to not have made it. If we had that much to loose, I could see the motivation for people to fake it. Just sayin......
We most certainly didn't land on the moon.
And I, for one, can no longer sit back and allow communist infiltration, communist indoctrination, communist subversion and the international communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.
Now, who wants a drink of rainwater, and grain alcohol?
that makes sense! Red blood....red flag.....commuism... holy crap.
Seriously. the Moon landings were real. no reason (real reason) to fake them. the idea of one uping the russians and faking it doesnt make sense, cause if the russians could do it, we could do it better... we put a man in orbit, not a chimp.
the other is that although the goverment has their lamebrain moments, when it puts its collective brain trust and unlimited money together... it does awesome things. problem is.. those great moments are few are far between.
I'm only the 5th person to vote that NAKID is on crack? WTF?
;D
NAKID isnt on crack is a conspiracy.
Quote from: NAKID on July 19, 2009, 05:50:36 PM
Challenge the status quo...
Challenging the status quo with an informed, researched opinion is one thing, challenging it with conjecture just because it
is the status quo is just argumentative.
Quote from: NAKID on July 19, 2009, 06:35:19 PM
I didn't mention that. But it's easy to explain. Think of it as if you are trying to see the stars from the city, and then the country. The bright lights of the city mask the light from the stars. If we really did go to the moon, the lights from the cameras would have a similar effect. I don't agree with that particular argument...
You are trying to equate the lights that were/weren't brought to the moon with the amount of stray light shed by a city? Put down the pipe.
[popcorn]
Quote from: Dan on July 20, 2009, 02:12:11 AM
Challenging the status quo with an informed, researched opinion is one thing, challenging it with conjecture just because it is the status quo is just argumentative.
You are trying to equate the lights that were/weren't brought to the moon with the amount of stray light shed by a city? Put down the pipe.
Number one, the "challenge the status quo" comment was directed toward kopfjager regarding me being in the military. Number two, the comment about the lights was actually arguing FOR landing on the moon. I guess I just can't win.
Here's another thought. Go out to the country at night where stars are clearly visible. Now turn on some flood lights and tell me how many stars you can still see...
Quote from: NAKID on July 20, 2009, 03:15:31 AM
Number one, the "challenge the status quo" comment was directed toward kopfjager regarding me being in the military. Number two, the comment about the lights was actually arguing FOR landing on the moon. I guess I just can't win.
Here's another thought. Go out to the country at night where stars are clearly visible. Now turn on some flood lights and tell me how many stars you can still see...
He'll have to do that the other way around....
can't get much farther in the country than Dan...
...and why'd you remove the correct poll option? ;D
Quote from: ducpainter on July 20, 2009, 03:39:07 AM
...and why'd you remove the correct poll option? ;D
What are you talking about? ;D
Quote from: NAKID on July 20, 2009, 03:45:20 AM
What are you talking about? ;D
Quote from: somegirl on July 19, 2009, 10:40:59 PM
I'm only the 5th person to vote that NAKID is on crack? WTF?
;D
That explain things for you? ;)
Maybe Paula was on crack and thought that was an option, who knows... ;D
Quote from: NAKID on July 20, 2009, 03:49:41 AM
Maybe Paula was on crack and thought that was an option, who knows... ;D
Nope...
it was there.
Just like we were on the moon. ;)
Quote from: ducpainter on July 20, 2009, 04:04:17 AM
Nope...
it was there.
Just like we were on the moon. ;)
WE WERE, where was I ;D
Do you think a 620 doing 140mph was staged?
Quote from: cyrus buelton on July 20, 2009, 04:58:14 AM
Do you think a 620 doing 140mph was staged?
Not so much staged as outright LIED about... ;D
dooood! remember when they thought the earth was flat?
<searching for tinfoil hat>
definitely on crack. or at lest too few boobies and not enough anal.
the fact that the KGB never uncovered this huge hoax, with their available resources is enough evidence for me. if the russians actually believed that we had faked it, there is no way we would have gotten away with it. plus, they would have then put some poor schmuck on a one way trip if necessary to be first.
Maybe I missed it, but what are the reasons NAKID thinks it was a fake?
Quote from: Raux on July 19, 2009, 10:21:06 PM
[snip]
we put a man in orbit, not a chimp.
I believe Russia put a man in orbit first, his name was Gagarin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuri_Gagarin)
The truth about the moon: http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Moon_Landing (http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Moon_Landing)
Quote from: Pakhan on July 20, 2009, 07:07:13 AM
Maybe I missed it, but what are the reasons NAKID thinks it was a fake?
Crack. ;D
Here are just some of the reasons. I don't believe all of them either, as some are way to easy to explain away.
Quote from: Pakhan on July 20, 2009, 07:07:13 AM
The truth about the moon: http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Moon_Landing (http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Moon_Landing)
Dude, that is a whacked out link!
Quote from: Triple J on July 20, 2009, 07:12:35 AM
Crack. ;D
I get drug tested regularly, must be something else ;D
Quote from: herm on July 20, 2009, 07:02:01 AM
the fact that the KGB never uncovered this huge hoax, with their available resources is enough evidence for me. if the russians actually believed that we had faked it, there is no way we would have gotten away with it. plus, they would have then put some poor schmuck on a one way trip if necessary to be first.
+11tyb
Conspiracies can only work involving as few people as possible.
The Apollo project had WAY too many people involved for a conspiracy to endure.
Or, put another way: The best kept secret between 3 people is when 2 of them are dead.
Quote from: NAKID on July 20, 2009, 07:14:29 AM
Here are just some of the reasons. I don't believe all of them either, as some are way to easy to explain away.
ok, which DO you believe?
I think the missing tapes are suspect, I think the lack of delay between the ground and craft is suspect (Someone mentioned they edited it out, I had never heard that before). I don't think we had the technology for a manned landing mission at the time. I think the "space race" motive is believable...
Quote from: NAKID on July 20, 2009, 07:35:59 AM
I think the missing tapes are suspect, I think the lack of delay between the ground and craft is suspect (Someone mentioned they edited it out, I had never heard that before). I don't think we had the technology for a manned landing mission at the time. I think the "space race" motive is believable...
Did you see my earlier post regarding the radio delay? 1.3 seconds is hardly a delay, and would allow for a live exchange on TV/radio without a noticeable delay.
You forgot to calculate the time it's passing through the air before it exits the atmosphere...
Wasn't another conspiracy that the flag was blowing in the wind?
but yet....
there is no wind in space?
Quote from: NAKID on July 20, 2009, 07:46:40 AM
You forgot to calculate the time it's passing through the air before it exits the atmosphere...
I'm guessing it would be miniscule, so I neglected it. The thinckness of our atmosphere is nothing compared to 186,000 miles. I also included the radii of the earth and moon in my calculation...increasing the overall distance...worst case they should balance out.
Quote from: cyrus buelton on July 20, 2009, 07:48:00 AM
Wasn't another conspiracy that the flag was blowing in the wind?
but yet....
there is no wind in space?
Yep. The flag isn't blowing though. It was positioned that way by the astronauts. Since there is no atmosphere...it stayed that way.
Quote from: NAKID on July 20, 2009, 07:35:59 AM
I think the missing tapes are suspect. ok but that's just speculation that can go either way depending what you want to believe.
I think the lack of delay between the ground and craft is suspect (Someone mentioned they edited it out, I had never heard that before). It is a plausible explanation, we have edited audio/ video in the past to cut out the boring bits so this argument really has nothing.
I don't think we had the technology for a manned landing mission at the time. Really? Why? Russians had dogs, people, and other animals orbiting Earth at least 5+ years before the moon landing. They also had unmanned satellites land on the moon 10 years before our moon landing. I find it hard to believe we didn't have the technology.
It's not necessarily the landing I have a problem with. It's the landing, getting out to walk, explore etc. then get back in the craft, re-launch it, and head back...
Quote from: Triple J on July 20, 2009, 07:50:11 AM
I'm guessing it would be miniscule, so I neglected it. The thinckness of our atmosphere is nothing compared to 186,000 miles. I also included the radii of the earth and moon in my calculation...increasing the overall distance...worst case they should balance out.
Too add to this:
http://www.tpub.com/neets/book10/40a.htm (http://www.tpub.com/neets/book10/40a.htm)
The velocity (or speed) of a radio wave radiated into free space by a transmitting antenna is equal to the speed of light - 186,000 miles per second or 300,000,000 meters per second.
Because of various factors, such as barometric pressure, humidity, molecular content, etc., radio waves travel inside the Earth's atmosphere at a speed slightly less than the speed of light. Normally, in discussions of the velocity of radio waves, the velocity referred to is the speed at which radio waves travel in free space.
---------
The earth's atmosphere is about 100 miles thick...or ~0.05% of the distance to the moon. Therefore, the atmosphere may
slightly slow down the radio wave...but the effect is essentially negligible because the distance is so small compared to the total distance to the moon.
There was no delay edited out...at least not when the moon landing was transmitted live. A delay of 1-2 seconds is well within what would sound normal.
This is why these hoax theories are BS.
Quote from: NAKID on July 20, 2009, 07:56:00 AM
It's not necessarily the landing I have a problem with. It's the landing, getting out to walk, explore etc. then get back in the craft, re-launch it, and head back...
Why?
The Russians had already walked in space before we landed on the moon, so technology to exit the spacecraft existed. We were also already capable of leaving the earth's atmosphere...a feat MUCH harder than taking off from the moon due to much stronger gravity and the atmosphere. While it is indeed technically diffcult, it isn't not feasible.
Quote from: NAKID on July 20, 2009, 07:56:00 AM
It's not necessarily the landing I have a problem with. It's the landing, getting out to walk, explore etc. then get back in the craft, re-launch it, and head back...
First of all, "It's not necessarily the landing I have a problem with.
It's the landing..." [laugh]
ok, well the Russians landed a couple of satellites on the moon and they returned with moon dust. (unless you believe this is a global hoax/ conspiracy against the common man perpetrated by the powers that be [roll]) So landing, relaunching, and heading back is feasable.
Getting out to walk, exploring, and getting back in? Again the Russians had the first space walk 4 years before our moon landing Leonov (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksei_Leonov). that's getting out, exploring, getting back in and returning. Again, unless of course you believe this is a global hoax/ conspiracy against the common man perpetrated by the powers that be....
Quote from: Triple J on July 20, 2009, 07:51:07 AM
Yep. The flag isn't blowing though. It was positioned that way by the astronauts. Since there is no atmosphere...it stayed that way.
That would make sense as the flag is positioned out in a "blowing" position.
Another issue..........
Isn't there some really thick layer of radiation one must pass through to get to the moon? I recall that being another "theory" from this show I watched on the History Channel about seven years ago.
Looking at it from taking off. How many delays due to mechanical issues have we had for launches from Earth? How could we even be certain we wouldn't have any of those issues while on the moon?
Quote from: cyrus buelton on July 20, 2009, 08:13:27 AM
Isn't there some really thick layer of radiation one must pass through to get to the moon? I recall that being another "theory" from this show I watched on the History Channel about seven years ago.
There is...the van Allen belt...a concern, but not as big of a deal as the FOX program you watched made it out to be.
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html#radiation (http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html#radiation)
You should pick up the book Bad Astronomy Jud...you'd probably like it.
Quote from: Triple J on July 20, 2009, 08:20:15 AM
There is...the van Allen belt...a concern, but not as big of a deal as the FOX program you watched made it out to be.
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html#radiation (http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html#radiation)
You should pick up the book Bad Astronomy Jud...you'd probably like it.
I didn't watch the fox show on it [thumbsup] (I can't stand Fox News and I am conservative....)
I watched one a long time ago on the History Channel, but probably similar content and studies.
I will check it out.
Did you finish SpyCraft yet?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5380672/?gt1=43001 (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5380672/?gt1=43001)
Quote from: NAKID on July 20, 2009, 08:15:45 AM
Looking at it from taking off. How many delays due to mechanical issues have we had for launches from Earth? How could we even be certain we wouldn't have any of those issues while on the moon?
They weren't certain...going to the moon was/is risky business, as Apollo 1 and Apollo 13 demonstrated. The engineers just do their best to design around issues. Many astronauts and cosmonauts have died throughout space exploration history.
Submarines have been lost at sea...how can you be certain there won't be anymore issues?
Quote from: cyrus buelton on July 20, 2009, 08:21:54 AM
I didn't watch the fox show on it [thumbsup] (I can't stand Fox News and I am conservative....)
I watched one a long time ago on the History Channel, but probably similar content and studies.
I will check it out.
Did you finish SpyCraft yet?
Yes you did...Fox produced it or something, it didn't air on Fox. I saw the same program on the History channel or Discovery or something.
Not done with Spycraft yet...I don't have a lot of time to read. It's really interesting though! [thumbsup]
Quote from: NAKID on July 20, 2009, 08:15:45 AM
Looking at it from taking off. How many delays due to mechanical issues have we had for launches from Earth? How could we even be certain we wouldn't have any of those issues while on the moon?
we weren't sure, that's why it was a huge risk and that's why space exploration is a monumental achievement. Look up the failures like Apollo 1, Apollo 13, also the 5+ Russian satellites to land on the moon that just crashed or the ones that didn't escape low earth orbit.
Quote from: Triple J on July 20, 2009, 08:24:36 AMSubmarines have been lost at sea...how can you be certain there won't be anymore issues?
Subs are a little less risky, mainly because there are measures in place for rescue attempts if issues arise...
Quote from: kopfjager on July 20, 2009, 08:24:27 AM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5380672/?gt1=43001 (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5380672/?gt1=43001)
[thumbsup]
Quote from: NAKID on July 20, 2009, 08:33:15 AM
Subs are a little less risky, mainly because there are measures in place for rescue attempts if issues arise...
You missed the point. Everything carries a certain level of risk, which can only be managed at best.
Quote from: Triple J on July 20, 2009, 08:36:10 AM
You missed the point. Everything carries a certain level of risk, which can only be managed at best.
No, I undertand your point, but I don't think it's a good analogy. There are measures in place for a sub mishap, NONE available for a lunar module mishap. The risk would be hundreds of times greater for that...
Quote from: NAKID on July 20, 2009, 08:38:15 AM
No, I undertand your point, but I don't think it's a good analogy. There are measures in place for a sub mishap, NONE available for a lunar module mishap. The risk would be hundreds of times greater for that...
And those risks were minimized as much as possible, and then accepted. Space travel is, and always has been, dangerous. Everyone involved knows that.
Besides, this is a non-argument for why we faked the moon landings.
I have yet to see any evidence that we weren't there like we claim...and there is plenty of evidence for our being there. Another example is the mirror array they left so the earth-moon distance can be measured down to the inch...by the US, Russians, various universities, etc.
high risk doesn't make anything impossible or untrue
www.clavius.org (//http://)
Quote from: NAKID on July 20, 2009, 08:15:45 AM
Looking at it from taking off. How many delays due to mechanical issues have we had for launches from Earth? How could we even be certain we wouldn't have any of those issues while on the moon?
But look at how many Shuttle flights, not to mention other rocket flights that go off completely without a hitch. The Shuttle flew 100+ times with a scant few being delayed, aborted, or otherwise. Yes, we've been MUCH more cautious lately with launches due to the Columbia re-entry explosion. The fleet is getting old and with no new Shuttles planned, NASA is taking every bit of caution it can.
As for the analogy to Sub missions, I would say it's pretty good. Especially if you look at the ballistic missile subs that sit under the ice cap or in enemy waters. If they go down, there is no getting those submariners back.
Quote from: NAKID on July 20, 2009, 08:15:45 AM
Looking at it from taking off. How many delays due to mechanical issues have we had for launches from Earth? How could we even be certain we wouldn't have any of those issues while on the moon?
Not as many as you would think. It's only newsworthy when it fails.
Rockets are very dependable these days-we launched two in the last two weeks. I believe something along the lines of 1 failure in fifty years has been the case for us.
I'm not talking about all out failures. I'm talking about "oops, this isn't working as we planned, shut down the launch til we fix it."
How does any of this matter in relation to whether we landed on the moon? ???
Just a theory as to motive for faking it...
That theory wouldn't happen to be one of the conspiratorial nature would it? ;D
Isn't that what we're talking about?
Your theory is based on the idea that it was too dangerous to do so we faked it?
Not so much too dangerous, but the technology at the time was too unreliable...
That argument has never stopped humans before from taking risks.
travel
exploring
boats
flight
submerged
tunneling/ mining
explosives
the list is extensive.
Quote from: NAKID on July 20, 2009, 10:53:24 AM
Not so much too dangerous, but the technology at the time was too unreliable...
So you ignore evidence that we were there? ???
will the plane take off?
Quote from: NAKID on July 20, 2009, 10:53:24 AM
Not so much too dangerous, but the technology at the time was too unreliable...
I take it you would never sail across the pacific then?
Part of the "it was faked" belief might have a tiny bit of truth to it. Training for the moon, the astronauts trained here in the USA walking around in their spacesuits in places near Mammoth Lakes, CA where there are pumice hills that are similar in appearance to the moon. So, someone seeing astronauts in space suits in a moonlike spot here on earth, then seeing very similar looking photo's from "the moon" might justifiable get suspicious.
The sad part is that although I believe we went to the moon, I've learned not to trust the federal government or anyone who has any involvement in it any further than I can throw them. I think the belief that we didn't go to the moon is just another manifestation of this basic mistrust of the gov't. Sad...
Quote from: Langanobob on July 20, 2009, 11:07:36 AM
The sad part is that although I believe we went to the moon, I've learned not to trust the federal government or anyone who has any involvement in it any further than I can throw them. I think the belief that we didn't go to the moon is just another manifestation of this basic mistrust of the gov't. Sad...
I think that has a lot to do with it. There's also a certain amount of misanthropy to these theories as people have such a dismal view of the nature of man that they find it impossible that as a species we could accomplish something so incredible.
Quote from: Langanobob on July 20, 2009, 11:07:36 AM
The sad part is that although I believe we went to the moon, I've learned not to trust the federal government or anyone who has any involvement in it any further than I can throw them. I think the belief that we didn't go to the moon is just another manifestation of this basic mistrust of the gov't. Sad...
Enjoy your stay.
Nothing to add, except not seeing stars doesn't have anything to do with a "floodlight effect". The astronauts (who were, without a shadow of a doubt, on the moon's surface) could see them, we just couldn't see them in photos.
http://www.skywise711.com/Skeptic/MoonPics/MoonPics.html (http://www.skywise711.com/Skeptic/MoonPics/MoonPics.html)
I don't think you can prove that something didn't happen by coming up with something else that may have happened and trying to prove the plausibility of one over the other, and in the process, placing the burden of proof that whatever crackpot idea someone floats is in fact crazier than a shithouse rat.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html)
In conclusion, boobies.
i believe the russians actually got men on the moon first.
the problem is, they landed way too hard and are now a permanent part of the moon.
the USA is the first country to SAFELY land men on the moon.
then again, that could be a load of bunk that i learned in school.
heres a quick reminder we actually made it to the moon ahead of schedule.
i think mythbusters did an outstanding job of debunking every argument the cospiracy theorists use.
so basically boobies n anal [thumbsup]
QuoteEnjoy your stay.
My sincere apologies if my government statement sounded like I was including the military or those involved in our national defense or security. It did not and I'm a vet myself. My comment was poorly worded.
There is no spmoon
Conspiracy theories are great fun...
I always revert to Billy-Boy Clinton; they couldn't keep it a secret that he got a BJ in the Oval Office
It makes me think that any hoax the size of the moon landing wouldn't have a chance.
Pre apology for possible thread jack---sorry
for great conspiracy fodder check out;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilderberg_Group (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilderberg_Group)
Quote from: NAKID on July 20, 2009, 07:14:29 AM
<snip>
I get drug tested regularly, must be something else ;D
There are no drugs in prisons either. [roll]
It's definitely crack.
Quote from: ducpainter on July 20, 2009, 03:54:21 PM
There are no drugs in prisons either. [roll]
It's definitely crack.
Our company does drug testing too
<looks for stoned smilie>
<and gummy bear smillie>
<and top Ramen smilie>
(http://www.r2clan.com/modules/Forums/images/smiles/nuts.gif)
Quote from: NAKID on July 20, 2009, 08:38:15 AM
No, I undertand your point, but I don't think it's a good analogy. There are measures in place for a sub mishap, NONE available for a lunar module mishap. The risk would be hundreds of times greater for that...
failed logic.
the first submarines had NO safety measures in place in case of mishap. they where "flying by the seat of their pants" so to speak. just like the first moon landings. thats why both were (are) all volunteer crew. only through years of sub operations has the technology for submarine rescue been advanced to where it is today.
if we had continued to go to the moon for the last 40 years, instead of waste money on the space greyhound, there would most likely have been advancements which would allow for a "lunar" rescue......probably with about the same chance of success.
Quote from: KnightofNi on July 20, 2009, 12:04:12 PM
i believe the russians actually got men on the moon first.
the problem is, they landed way too hard and are now a permanent part of the moon.
the USA is the first country to SAFELY land men on the moon.
then again, that could be a load of bunk that i learned in school.
now that is some alternate history that i can believe. wonder how many dead russian cosmonauts hit the moon before the USA got them there and back again?
Quote from: herm on July 20, 2009, 04:38:14 PM
now that is some alternate history that i can believe. wonder how many dead russian cosmonauts hit the moon before the USA got them there and back again?
Someday we'll find the remains of cobbled together knock offs of American space equipment with cheap bottles of vodka strewn about near the Sea of Tranquility [laugh]
I thought the moon was mad of cheese.
yeah, and it will be determined that the russians only supplied their guys with enough delta V to get there and land, no more. had to save weight somewhere for the vodka
Quote from: herm on July 20, 2009, 04:38:14 PM
now that is some alternate history that i can believe. wonder how many dead russian cosmonauts hit the moon before the USA got them there and back again?
i havne't done any research for this one since i posted, but if i remmber the story i was told correctly, they were rushing to beat the USA and only had 1 shot at it. so it's probably only 2 cosmonauts.
Quote from: KnightofNi on July 20, 2009, 05:10:55 PM
i havne't done any research for this one since i posted, but if i remmber the story i was told correctly, they were rushing to beat the USA and only had 1 shot at it. so it's probably only 2 cosmonauts.
http://www.fas.org/spp/eprint/lindroos_moon1.htm (http://www.fas.org/spp/eprint/lindroos_moon1.htm)
Quote from: Ducaholic on July 20, 2009, 05:04:28 PM
I thought the moon was mad of cheese.
I thought the cow jumped over it first.
im watching this on myth busters right now. not sure if its new, buts its new to me.
The Earth is flat.
More at 11.
[popcorn]
Quote from: x136 on July 20, 2009, 10:04:52 PM
The Earth is flat.
More at 11.
So the submarines don't sink, they just fall off?
Quote from: NAKID on July 20, 2009, 07:35:59 AM
I think the missing tapes are suspect, I think the lack of delay between the ground and craft is suspect (Someone mentioned they edited it out, I had never heard that before). I don't think we had the technology for a manned landing mission at the time. I think the "space race" motive is believable...
The people that designed the radios live in my city of Cedar Rapids - maybe I should look them up and get their experience, but that would probably be forged or fantasy too wouldn't it?
Actually, the local TV station did that for the news yesterday, but they failed to ask them if the years the spent working on the radios was real or not: http://www.kcrg.com/news/local/51255132.html (http://www.kcrg.com/news/local/51255132.html)
Like others have said, there were way too many contributors, from engineers to newsmen to technicians involved to pull off a cover up.
mitt
There was an interesting show on History Channel (maybe Discovery) last night about the Apollo 11 mission. It detailed all of the things that went wrong, and how close NASA actually was to losing Armstrong and Aldrin. Nixon even had a speech to the nation planned if they would have died.
Nakid's suspicions about technology are somewhat correct, even though the mission succeeded. For instance, the lunar lander on-board computer was overwhelmed by the incoming landing radar data during approach, so they had to shut it off and Armostrong had to land it manually...he went long, and had only 15 seconds of fuel remaining. They also had trouble communicating between Houston and the lunar lander during the descent, causing them to come very close to aborting the landing at one point.
It also detailed what they called radiation "Z Particles" which entered the module constantly during the trip to and from the moon...presumably from the van Allen belts. They caused flashes of light inside the cabin which the astronauts couldn't explain at the time, so they had to ignore it.
Great show! [thumbsup]
Quote from: Triple J on July 21, 2009, 07:13:57 AM
flashes of light inside the cabin which the astronauts couldn't explain at the time, so they had to ignore it.
Reason they couldnt explain it, no one would fess up to the LSD flashback. I KEED
Quote from: kopfjager on July 20, 2009, 05:16:02 PM
http://www.fas.org/spp/eprint/lindroos_moon1.htm (http://www.fas.org/spp/eprint/lindroos_moon1.htm)
thanks kop!
I once read that the Apollo Guidance Computer's computational power was only equivalent to a modern kitchen appliance
How'd you like to have your microwave navigating through outer-freaking-space for ya?
Quote from: hihhs on July 21, 2009, 01:02:38 PM
I once read that the Apollo Guidance Computer's computational power was only equivalent to a modern kitchen appliance
How'd you like to have your microwave navigating through outer-freaking-space for ya?
Well.....it's been flawless with my popcorn......
Quote from: MrIncredible on July 21, 2009, 01:48:15 PM
Well.....it's been flawless with my popcorn......
and notice the similarity to the lander and a jiffy pop container...
;D
R.E.M. Man On the Moon (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hKSYgOGtos#lq-lq2-hq-vhq)