| | | Page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144 | APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!??
| IDW
User ID: 312020
10/14/2007 10:29 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Why didnt NASA use a powered descent on Mars so material could be returned?
WHat was the logic of a powered descent with Viking?
Mars has an atmosphere, after all.
Cognitive...dissonance...hurting...brain... Quoting: Barls Knarkley 177477
Viking comes from the same story teller as Apollo. Its not evidence.
I don't see how you would assume I would accept as evidence information originating from the same witness as I am attempting to discredit. Now that would be cognitive dissonance |
| Barls Knarkley
User ID: 177477
10/14/2007 10:30 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Sorry, IDW, I didn't quite hear you - are you acknowledging that Apollo 11 was not the first powered descent?
Can you also explain how you thought a powered descent Mars lander would have enough fuel for a return journey? |
| IDW
User ID: 312020
10/14/2007 10:46 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Sorry, IDW, I didn't quite hear you - are you acknowledging that Apollo 11 was not the first powered descent? Quoting: Barls Knarkley 177477
I said Viking was a totally different design that was inherently stable. The vehicle had large landing legs that extended way out and down from the center of gravity.
The engine was located near the actual center of gravity. Looking at the two, it is easy to tell at a glance why the viking would be stable and easier to control, not that it is evidence I will accept.
Can you also explain how you thought a powered descent Mars lander would have enough fuel for a return journey? Quoting: Barls
I know why it wasnt done, thats the whole point of asking you the question.
Overcoming the gravity of mars and reaching orbit would be a challenger, returning to Earth almost impossible.
You do make an interesting point though, landing with enough fuel to return to earth is a challenge. With Apollo the lander was incapable of doing so, I understand that. It used the service module engine for that task, aupposedly, SO here we see it is an entirely different situation. With a probe, the payload would need to be lifted from the surface to orbit and then powered back to earth, no easy challenge.. |
| nomuse (NLI)
User ID: 312419
10/14/2007 10:48 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
What I'd like to know, is if IDW thinks Viking, the rovers, et al, is another "small, limited" conspiracy. As in, a handful of people know the truth and everyone else is at the other end of a faked data stream and doesn't realize it.
Or does IDW include all the organizations and companies working in a Mars mission as part of the hoax? From JPL to Rocketdyne, from NASA to General Electric, from Goldstone to Stanford? I'd be interested just how far he thinks the hoax is spread. |
| IDW
User ID: 312020
10/14/2007 10:52 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
What I'd like to know, is if IDW thinks Viking, the rovers, et al, is another "small, limited" conspiracy. As in, a handful of people know the truth and everyone else is at the other end of a faked data stream and doesn't realize it.
Or does IDW include all the organizations and companies working in a Mars mission as part of the hoax? From JPL to Rocketdyne, from NASA to General Electric, from Goldstone to Stanford? I'd be interested just how far he thinks the hoax is spread. Quoting: nomuse (NLI) 312419
As far as the butter needs to be spread. Its about money, isnt it?
Maybe thats why were having this discussion? |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 177477
10/14/2007 10:53 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
I said Viking was a totally different design that was inherently stable. The vehicle had large landing legs that extended way out and down from the center of gravity.
The engine was located near the actual center of gravity. Looking at the two, it is easy to tell at a glance why the viking would be stable and easier to control, not that it is evidence I will accept. Quoting: IDW 312020
That's all well and good, IDW, but of course Viking didn't happen until four years after the end of the Moon landings. You have once again ignored the existence of the Surveyor program. Are you prepared to admit that, contrary to your claim, Apollo 11 was not the first powered descent? |
| nomuse (NLI)
User ID: 312419
10/14/2007 11:01 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Why not? He ignored the Bell jet pack. Which used hydrogen peroxide rockets, by the by. Not a turbo fan. (Although there have been projects since which use turbofans. Lot more range that way). |
| Barls Knarkley
User ID: 177477
10/14/2007 11:13 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Why not? He ignored the Bell jet pack. Which used hydrogen peroxide rockets, by the by. Not a turbo fan. (Although there have been projects since which use turbofans. Lot more range that way). Quoting: nomuse (NLI) 312419
I had heard of the existence of proper jet packs as opposed the the still very cool H2O2 ones, but I had never seen any pictures until you inspired me to google for it.
[link to www.jet-pack.co.uk]
So very, very, cool. The addition of a rocket powered parachute would have been quite welcomed by the pilot, I would guess.
I wonder why nobody flies this model any more? There are several people around the world with H2O2 packs, you'd think audiences would love the higher powered version. It must be a) way too dangerous, or b) very, very expensive. Probably both. |
| IDW
User ID: 312020
10/15/2007 12:48 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
That's all well and good, IDW, but of course Viking didn't happen until four years after the end of the Moon landings. You have once again ignored the existence of the Surveyor program. Are you prepared to admit that, contrary to your claim, Apollo 11 was not the first powered descent? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 177477
No, what I am not ignoring anything, I clearly stated that I cannot accept evidence that has never been substantiated by independant analysis. Data from all of these probes is filtered through the same government agency, and honesty can never be assumed.
One of the things we always need to keep in mind is that NASA has made alot of claims, and not all of them are true.
There is no one here who will deny that to accept Surveyor as evidence that a powered landing with the LEM was possible is illogical and unsound reasoning,and since the Surveyor program information comes from the same source whom I'm doubting the integrity of, it would be totally rediculous to accept it as evidence, wouldnt you agree?
I am assuming nothing NASA claims is true at this point, operating under the assumption that a liar does not just tell one lie and stop there. I am well aware of how far NASA is willing to go, and how dishonest they are willing to be. DOnt forget who youre talking to. |
| Barls Knarkley
User ID: 177477
10/15/2007 12:50 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Here's an interesting inconsistency. The lunar meteorite from Antarctica is considered much more valuable than all the alleged Apollo moon rocks because it came from the lunar maria ("seas"):
[ link to www.cosmosmagazine.com]
---
The meteorite, known as MIL 05035, is similar in bulk and composition to basaltic lavas that fill the lunar maria, an expansive part of the Moon's surface not sampled by the U.S. Apollo program.
---
But according to this pro-NASA web site, the Apollo moon rocks did come from the maria:
[ link to www.permanent.com]
---
All samples come from the lunar nearside, in and around the mares...
---
For those of you who don't know Latin, the plural of mare ("sea") is maria. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 308933
[link to www.spaceref.com]
The new specimen is a very coarse-grained gabbro, similar in bulk composition to the basaltic lavas that fill the lunar maria, but its very large crystals suggest slow cooling deep within the Moon's crust. In addition, the plagioclase feldspar has been completely converted to glass, or maskelynite, by extreme shock (presumably impact events). Quoting: SpaceRef article
The bolded bit above gives one possible reason that the sample is different.
When an article says something silly like "the maria were not sampled", consider looking for additional sources, as perhaps the initial source has misunderstood the press release. |
| SpaceCadet
User ID: 16644
10/15/2007 1:38 AM
 | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
What I'd like to know, is if IDW thinks Viking, the rovers, et al, is another "small, limited" conspiracy. As in, a handful of people know the truth and everyone else is at the other end of a faked data stream and doesn't realize it. Quoting: nomuse (NLI) 312419
You just never do know what else has been hoaxed and misrepresented by NASA, I have seen it suggested that the Mars rovers are actually only here on Earth somewhere in a secluded desert location. It has also been suggested that this is why NASA changed the colour to a reddish tint in the TV pics from the rovers of the supposed Mars ground and sky. |
| nomuse (NLI)
User ID: 312419
10/15/2007 2:24 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
And Canada could be a big hoax put on by the French. All the people who think they are going there are secretly gassed at the border, then sent to a series of mock cities in the Breton. The reason Canadians speak such strange English is that the French actors never could get the hang of the real thing. |
| IDW
User ID: 312020
10/15/2007 3:01 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
And Canada could be a big hoax put on by the French. All the people who think they are going there are secretly gassed at the border, then sent to a series of mock cities in the Breton. The reason Canadians speak such strange English is that the French actors never could get the hang of the real thing. Quoting: nomuse (NLI) 312419
Harde har har.
That was so funny= I forgot to laugh.
Nomuse, this is not the same thing is some rediculous Dale Gribble fictional conspiracy theory, serious questions are being dodged, lies are being told, stories are continuously morphing and changing to fit the situation, and people are being personally attacked.
No one has a need to put this much effort into protecting the truth from deniers. It must be a lie they are defending.
My experience in life tells me the probability is nearly a certainty that this is so. Thats what made me suspicious in the first place, the activity of an organized propaganda campaign. If it hadnt been for Phil and Jay i would still believe to this day Apollo was real. I just got angry when I realized how they were treating people questioning the saga. |
| IDW
User ID: 312020
10/15/2007 3:16 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
It is said that Einsteins IQ was never measured, Nomuse.
How convienient that was.
What would you say if I told you Einstien was a man of lower than average iq, a mathematical savant, and that this fact was concieled from history? His aberant behavior was attributed to his eccentiricty. Things like sloven personal hygiene and sticking your tounge out at photographers are not the acts of a genius, but of an idiot. What If your god is an idiot?
To explain why Mercury doesnt appear where it should he says space is warped by gravity and light follows this warp, all to explain why light which can by his estimation possess no mass is bent by gravity, in essence. I say that is nonsense, since "space" is actually just an abscence of mass between masses. What if the answer is much simpler than a complex explaination that defies logic, common sense and conventional wisdom? What if light coming from Mercury is simply pulled toward the Suns gravity because it DOES have mass and a strong gravity field bends it on its journey to earth, when it rounds the suns limb? Isnt that a more 'elegant' explaination? Genius comes in many forms, but it is never refered to as the ability to confound and create oxymoronic paradoxical nonsense that totally stymies advancement..
Your perception of reality is bound by what you believe is true, and that happens to be false. |
| nomuse (NLI)
User ID: 312419
10/15/2007 3:39 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Oh, I fully believe you are serious, IDW. There are a few posters on this thread, however, who are apparently using their brain cells for something else when they post. |
| nomuse (NLI)
User ID: 312419
10/15/2007 3:46 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
By the way, my voltage divider is working fine. Just finished breadboarding that part of the circuit. Leaving it running tonight; I want to run down the battery some and get an idea of both the total current draw of the project and the range of output numbers from the A/D conversion. |
| HAZZARD
User ID: 308422
10/15/2007 6:05 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Barls, I just loved the phenomenal appearance at the 1984 LA Olympics. I think the main reason for the "death" of the jetpacks was the very limited flight time. 40 seconds is not that much.
And IDW, I should point out that this is not a thrirty year old argument. In actuallity, the argument, as you put it, is about 10 years old. Prior to that time, the idea of Apollo being faked was not really entertained by anyone, for somewhat logical reasons.
However, as Ive pointed out, there was the impetus put forth for this by a select few people, with very precise motives.
That initial lunacy has spawned doubt in a portion of the generation that has come of age since Apollo, and given that impetus, I quite frankly understand where some people question these things...after all, it is a complex topic, filled with things that the general public does not understand.
MISSING TAPES...
All telemetry was analyzed to death after each flight. Voluminous analysis is available on this telemetry...which was of course used for engineeering analysis. If the tapes no longer exist, whats the big deal?
Their content is well-documented in technical analyses and reports that the general public would have no interest in, and would likely have no understanding of anyway.
Whats the big deal?
Apollo is the most documented technical and scientific accomplishment in human history.
The bizarre part of this is that the vast majority of information, including the boring and excruciatingly detailed technical stuff is available for public consumption.
Most all of it can be found on the Web.
Why hasnt these HBs used their brains and done so?
Then again...if one doesnt read the relatively simple information presented here, why should anyone assume that a link to a technical article on S-IC-6s (or any other of the S-I-Cs) performance would be read either? |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 308933
10/15/2007 6:29 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
after all, it is a complex topic, filled with things that the general public does not understand.
...
If the tapes no longer exist, whats the big deal?
...
Apollo is the most documented technical and scientific accomplishment in human history. Quoting: HAZZARD 308422
On the contrary, deception is a topic that the public understands all too well. The Kennedy assassination, and then 9/11, have made clear that our regime is quite willing and able to create Big Lies to fooll the constituency it is supposed to serve. We have no reason to believe anything the regime tells us without independent verification.
If original data or video is destroyed or "missing," the regime's claims cannot be verified independently, and are hence scientifically meaningless.
Any movie studio can produce reams of documentation, grainy video, fishy photos, and suspicious rocks. The scientific standard of evidence is independent verification, and the alleged moon walks utterly fail that test. It is scientifically classifiable as an anecdotal legend.
The legal standard of evidence is sworn testimony with skeptical cross-examination. NASA's astronauts and other personnel are notoriously unwilling to supply that evidence either, so all their claims are hearsay. |
| Barls Knarkley
User ID: 28648
10/15/2007 7:20 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
If original data or video is destroyed or "missing," the regime's claims cannot be verified independently, and are hence scientifically meaningless. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 308933
Original data is not missing, it is overwhelmingly available. Independent verification is possible through many means, without any need to refer to the missing tapes.
Your argument seems to be that if I lose the negatives from my wedding, then the existence of secondary prints, marriage certificate and testimony of eye witnesses count for nothing - one missing piece of documentation trumps any additional information that is freely available.
Any movie studio can produce reams of documentation, grainy video, fishy photos, and suspicious rocks. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 308933
Any pundit on a conspiracy site can produce a list of things that 'anybody' can do without ever bothering to explain how. On closer examination, their handwaving is revealed to be exactly that. "Suspicious" rocks created by a movie studio, for instance. I would be interested to know what movie studio employs people capable of hoodwinking the entire international geological community.
The scientific standard of evidence is independent verification, and the alleged moon walks utterly fail that test. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 308933
Again, you declaring this does not make it so. International verification abounds, from tracking of the spacecraft by national and amateur groups, examination of the returned samples, the photographic and video evidence (I know, you think it's faked, but can you explain why?) and the testimony of hundreds of thousands of people make the programs very well verified indeed.
The legal standard of evidence is sworn testimony with skeptical cross-examination. NASA's astronauts and other personnel are notoriously unwilling to supply that evidence either, so all their claims are hearsay. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 308933
You keep repeating this one, and it just baffles me. If NASA and the US government were willing to carry off such a huge fraud, and were even prepared to kill astronauts to keep it secret, why do you think sworn testimony would be worth anything? Why wouldn't they just perjure themselves?
Again, you can claim that astronauts are 'notoriously' unwilling to attest to their role, but that does not make it so. Bart Sibrel stalking them and thrusting bibles into their faces while calling them liars does not count for much as far as testimony goes. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 287096
10/15/2007 7:31 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
after all, it is a complex topic, filled with things that the general public does not understand.
...
If the tapes no longer exist, whats the big deal?
...
Apollo is the most documented technical and scientific accomplishment in human history.
On the contrary, deception is a topic that the public understands all too well. The Kennedy assassination, and then 9/11, have made clear that our regime is quite willing and able to create Big Lies to fooll the constituency it is supposed to serve. We have no reason to believe anything the regime tells us without independent verification.
If original data or video is destroyed or "missing," the regime's claims cannot be verified independently, and are hence scientifically meaningless.
Any movie studio can produce reams of documentation, grainy video, fishy photos, and suspicious rocks. The scientific standard of evidence is independent verification, and the alleged moon walks utterly fail that test. It is scientifically classifiable as an anecdotal legend.
The legal standard of evidence is sworn testimony with skeptical cross-examination. NASA's astronauts and other personnel are notoriously unwilling to supply that evidence either, so all their claims are hearsay. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 308933
Excellent points, which need to be repeated, often.
Well said! |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 312577
10/15/2007 8:55 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
"Bart Sibrel stalking them and thrusting bibles into their faces while calling them liars does not count for much as far as testimony goes."
So it's stalking when someone questions them about aspects of the moon missions? Should they only get groundball interview questions?
It's just an interview, big guy. These were the military's top pilots. They had The Right Stuff!!
They cant handle someone interviewing them and asking them to swear they actually were on the moon?
Why do most of them get either violent or close to violent when asked to swear about the alleged event they supposedly took part in? Makes one wonder.
If someone interviews me about, say, my vacation in Key West, I wouldnt flip out if they asked me to swear on a bible that I went there. I might think its a bit odd, but I'd certainly swear to it. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 308933
10/15/2007 9:43 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Original data is not missing, it is overwhelmingly available. Quoting: Barls Knarkley 28648
Baloney. The original high-resolution video is "missing," and there is no similar-quality copy:
[link to www.washingtonpost.com]
Independent verification is possible through many means, without any need to refer to the missing tapes. Quoting: Barls Knarkley 28648
Baloney. Try telling a judge in court that you mysterious "lost" an original document, but that the jury should believe your blurry "copy" anyway.
Your argument seems to be that if I lose the negatives from my wedding, then the existence of secondary prints, marriage certificate and testimony of eye witnesses count for nothing - one missing piece of documentation trumps any additional information that is freely available. Quoting: Barls Knarkley 28648
An excellent example. If you mysteriously "lose" the original negatives from your wedding, but you have a blurry and suspicious-looking "copy," a certificate made out by the justice-of-the-peace who happens to be your brother, and a few chummy witnesses who refuse to swear to anything, you have no evidence worthy of presentation.
My goodness. If you don't understand the principles of evidence, you will be blown away in the courtroom.
"Suspicious" rocks created by a movie studio, for instance. I would be interested to know what movie studio employs people capable of hoodwinking the entire international geological community. Quoting: Barls Knarkley 28648
The alleged moon rocks fooled geologists--who didn't know any better--only until they could examine real moon rocks. This article politely debunks the alleged Apollo moon rocks. It doesn't come right out and say they're fake, it simply says they are "unrepresentative" (and therefore unverifiable and scientifically worthless):
[link to www.cosmosmagazine.com]
---
A rare, golf-ball-sized lunar meteorite recently discovered in the snow fields of Antarctica can tell us more about the Moon than samples taken directly from the lunar surface, according to researchers.
...
Lunar meteorites found on the Earth seem to be more representative of the Moon as a whole, he said.
---
International verification abounds, from tracking of the spacecraft by national and amateur groups, examination of the returned samples, the photographic and video evidence (I know, you think it's faked, but can you explain why?) and the testimony of hundreds of thousands of people make the programs very well verified indeed. Quoting: Barls Knarkley 28648
Cite evidence for independent tracking of the Apollo spacecraft all the way to the moon. I know of none.
The samples are now known to be worthless ("unrepresentative").
The fishy photos and grainy video are also worthless, because no one is willing to testify under oath and cross-examination to their creation and provenance.
I know of zero sworn testimony, with cross-examination, of NASA astronauts or other in-the-know personnel. Anything else is worthless hearsay.
If NASA and the US government were willing to carry off such a huge fraud, and were even prepared to kill astronauts to keep it secret, why do you think sworn testimony would be worth anything? Why wouldn't they just perjure themselves? Quoting: Barls Knarkley 28648
You are suggesting that NASA might be more like the Mafia than we care to admit. That is possible, but...
Our entire legal system is based on the premise that if enough ordinary citizens testify under oath and cross-examination, some of them will be reluctant to offend God and fry in Hell, and will therefore tell the truth rather than commit perjury. The few who tell the truth will eventually cause the entire web of lies to unravel.
You are right that this requires a leap of faith in human nature--that not everyone is a perjurer who deserves the fires of Gehenna--but I see no alternative if we are to function as a society at all. If every American is a perjurer, then the Lord may as well just deal with our country as He did with Sodom and Gomorrah.
Again, you can claim that astronauts are 'notoriously' unwilling to attest to their role, but that does not make it so. Quoting: Barls Knarkley 28648
If you have evidence to the contrary--of astronauts who have testified under oath and cross-examination about their alleged moon landing--please let us know. I have seen no report of any. |
| HAZZARD
User ID: 308422
10/15/2007 10:02 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
In deference to Barls, who has already commented on these questions I should like to interject a few comments here, perhaps to clarify and maybe simplify a bit.
Understanding is the key to this silly business.
If one has no particular background in the area, and wasnt around when these things actually took place, it is understandable that such a person could watch Fox TV, see something like that lunar landing "special" they put on some years ago, and actually sit there saying, "Wow, hey...maybe they did fake it!"
To those of us who are knowledgable, that show was typical of alot of Fox TV. It made me laugh.
That some people actually buy into the incredibly silly notions presented there is somewhat disturbing, and sad, especially given the fact that Apollo is, as Ive probably stated before, the most documented project in human history.
-Why would it be so hard to return there today?
It would be as hard today as it was in the 1960s. Flying to the Moon was not an easy thing, and it will not be easy when we attempt to do it again. However, it is not, nor has it ever been impossible to return to the Moon, or for that matter, to go to Mars. I think your question should rather be, "why haven't we gone back?"
Many a former astronaut asks the same question, as do many other people who were involved in the Apollo Program.
The Saturn V "blueprints" exist, but all the tooling and manufacturing hardware were scrapped decades ago.
The Saturn V, and the Apollo spacecraft have long since been obsolete technology. Other technology, more advanced currently exists, if NASA again has another plan to put it to use...time will tell.
However, even if the US or someother country landed on the moon again, or the new Chinese lunar orbiter took pictures of the Apollo harweare at the landsites, it wouldnt put a stop to the HBs claims.
They would just scream -Its impossible! -Its fake! Bla,Bla,Bla... |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 312577
10/15/2007 10:15 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
.
However, even if the US or someother country landed on the moon again, or the new Chinese lunar orbiter took pictures of the Apollo harweare at the landsites, it wouldnt put a stop to the HBs claims.
They would just scream -Its impossible! -Its fake! Bla,Bla,Bla... Quoting: HAZZARD 308422
Now that is pure speculation. You, nor anyone else knows what anyones reaction would be to live moon landing.
Many of us would love to see that.
Your excuses for not going back to the moon are simply juvenile and ludicrous.
Your explanation is sort of akin to explorers finding north america, and then returning, and telling people, "well, we went there, there was lots of trees and stuff, but there just isnt any reason to go back there. Ya know, it costs a lot and all. "
People wouldnt buy that explanation. Nor would anyone buy your explanation.
Normal progress would demand an advance by now in space travel, to the point that a moon mission would be an everyday occurrence.
The very fact that you are on this thread smacks of desperation. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 312577
10/15/2007 10:19 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
The Saturn V "blueprints" exist, but all the tooling and manufacturing hardware were scrapped decades ago. Quoting: HAZZARD 308422
Sure. All the tooling and manufacturing hardware were scrapped. Decades ago.
Makes no sense. Unless you have new technology that can land people on the moon that is better.
We didnt scrap bi-plane manufacturing until we developed better airplanes. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 312581
10/15/2007 11:13 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
After I found out about 911, that the buildings were rigged beforehand and demolished, that rocked my world.
From then on, EVERYTHING the government said or will say falls into a shadow of doubt and it is up to them to prove the truth of their claims.
The evidence is either there, or not, sitting on the moon, or nothing at all, just a bare dusty plain.
Why are the people saying it was real arguing against getting some damn pictures? Why are they saying Hubble cannot see it?
Show me what Hubble CAN see. Use the dang thing to photograph the site on maximum.
Only one side is saying they want to see it.
Even if it WAS real, would you not want to see a couple pictures of it?
At least try, for God´s sake.
I know Hubble could show that if they were there. It shows galaxies from the other side of the universe. Honestly. In pretty good detail, the arms and everything.
The lander is very very close. No way could Hubble miss it. No way. |
| Barls Knarkley
User ID: 28648
10/15/2007 11:36 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Why are the people saying it was real arguing against getting some damn pictures? Why are they saying Hubble cannot see it? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 312581
The laws of physics say it can't be seen. The maximum resolution of a telescope is a function of the wavelength of light you are observing and the size of your optics. Look up Rayleigh Criterion on Wikipedia to get an explanation.
If you plug the numbers for Hubble into the equation, you find that the best possible resolution it can get on the Moon is about 100 meters across. About two orders of magnitude too low to see the Apollo remains.
Note that this limit is one imposed by physics, it is due to the way light refracts. There is no way at all to make Hubble more precise than this. No matter how much you want it to. The only way to get better resolution is to move the telescope closer (not going to happen with Hubble) or build a bigger telescope - one the size of a football field if you want to see the Apollo remains from the ground or near Earth orbit.
Show me what Hubble CAN see. Use the dang thing to photograph the site on maximum. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 312581
Hubble has imaged the Moon, to map minerals. Have you ever gone looking for it?
I know Hubble could show that if they were there. It shows galaxies from the other side of the universe. Honestly. In pretty good detail, the arms and everything. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 312581
Yep. And galaxies are really, really big. The Apollo remains are much closer, but they are really, really small. The example I often use to illustrate this is to point out that you can see the Moon with your naked eyes, but you can't see geostationary communications satellites that are ten times closer. Because they are much, much smaller than the Moon.
The lander is very very close. No way could Hubble miss it. No way. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 312581
No matter how many times you tell yourself that, it won't change the laws of physics. Hubble does not have the resolution to see things on the Moon. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 98001
10/15/2007 11:40 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
The Saturn V "blueprints" exist, but all the tooling and manufacturing hardware were scrapped decades ago.
Sure. All the tooling and manufacturing hardware were scrapped. Decades ago.
Makes no sense. Unless you have new technology that can land people on the moon that is better.
We didnt scrap bi-plane manufacturing until we developed better airplanes. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 312577
When Congress defunded the Apollo program, even before the planned missions were completed, where was the impetus of the private companies who produced the Saturn 5 to keep the tooling in place? After all, NASA didn't build these devices...private contractors that are beholding to their stockholders did. When the funding to pay them was cut, who was to foot the bill to maintain the ability to build a monsterous rocket for which there is no use? |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 308933
10/15/2007 11:44 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Your explanation is sort of akin to explorers finding north america, and then returning, and telling people, "well, we went there, there was lots of trees and stuff, but there just isnt any reason to go back there. Ya know, it costs a lot and all. " Quoting: Anonymous Coward 312577
An excellent analogy.
The bottom line is that the standard of proof in science is independent reproducibility, and the standard of proof in exploration is independent returnability. Without those, you have merely an anecdote and a legend.
Here are a couple of concrete examples:
The Catholic Church encounters genuine, well-documented miracles from time to time. Doctors give sworn testimony, the cured person is made available for independent examination, etc. This is a lot more than we've ever gotten from NASA. Yet, mainstream medicine essentially ignores Catholic miracles. Why? Because they are not independently reproducible.
Throughout the 20th century, we have had reports of Neanderthal-like humanoids in various parts of the world, especially central Asia. The reports have come from both ordinary villagers and experienced anthropologists:
[link to en.wikipedia.org]
Nevertheless, mainstream science considers them merely a quaint legend. Why? Because they are not independently re-visitable. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 312577
10/15/2007 11:44 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Why are the people saying it was real arguing against getting some damn pictures? Why are they saying Hubble cannot see it?
The laws of physics say it can't be seen. The maximum resolution of a telescope is a function of the wavelength of light you are observing and the size of your optics. Look up Rayleigh Criterion on Wikipedia to get an explanation.
If you plug the numbers for Hubble into the equation, you find that the best possible resolution it can get on the Moon is about 100 meters across. About two orders of magnitude too low to see the Apollo remains.
Note that this limit is one imposed by physics, it is due to the way light refracts. There is no way at all to make Hubble more precise than this. No matter how much you want it to. The only way to get better resolution is to move the telescope closer (not going to happen with Hubble) or build a bigger telescope - one the size of a football field if you want to see the Apollo remains from the ground or near Earth orbit.
Show me what Hubble CAN see. Use the dang thing to photograph the site on maximum.
Hubble has imaged the Moon, to map minerals. Have you ever gone looking for it?
I know Hubble could show that if they were there. It shows galaxies from the other side of the universe. Honestly. In pretty good detail, the arms and everything.
Yep. And galaxies are really, really big. The Apollo remains are much closer, but they are really, really small. The example I often use to illustrate this is to point out that you can see the Moon with your naked eyes, but you can't see geostationary communications satellites that are ten times closer. Because they are much, much smaller than the Moon.
The lander is very very close. No way could Hubble miss it. No way.
No matter how many times you tell yourself that, it won't change the laws of physics. Hubble does not have the resolution to see things on the Moon. Quoting: Barls Knarkley 28648
Sounds like BS to me. Your telling us Hubble cannot see the moon?? I dont know whether to laugh or just shake my head.
You are saying we have no technology to take pictures, good pictures, zooming in on a spot on the moon?? I dont buy that.
So we could go to the moon and return, 40 years ago, but in 2007, we cannot take pictures of what was left on the moon?
Barls, I have to say my gut just tells me you are trying to bamboozle everyone. Baffling with BS. |
| | Page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144 | |
|
