July 20th 1969 Moon landing

[Slamz]

Proving that landing on the moon with a 40k lb thrust rocket would require going to the moon...which hasnt happened as of yet.

So, conveniently, you have a left field hoax claim which you can't actually back up in any way. You cannot demonstrate, apparently on any scale, what 40k lb of thrust would do to a lunar surface, yet you stand behind your claim that it proves it's a hoax?


I'd say you could prove it, it would just cost money and apparently nobody is confident enough that they are right to spend that kind of cash to find out.


Get a rocket capable of producing 40k lb of thrust - doable but expensive.
Replicate a lunar surface - doable, probably not that expensive.
Apply thrust to surface.
See what happens.


This is like the old "a jet didn't really hit the Pentagon" claims.


Get a jet - doable but expensive.
Build a replica of a side of the Pentagon, to specs - doable but expensive.
Slam the jet into the replica.
See what happens.


I guess it's easier to come up with nutty claims than it is to actually prove them.

[Dustie]

Not to turn this into a political discussion
...
Saying we should not have done it is on par with saying we should not have bought and mapped the Louisiana Purchase. You need to put your foot in the water.

Sometimes that government needs to take that leap in order to move progress forward.

Hoof, I do like your analogy related to Solar / Green technology. Until a market is created, private industries will not move into the space with the level of tenacity needed. Same goes for space. I see some distant future in which we using space in a productive manner. Talk about off shoring Factories!!. Minning, Energy creation, and off planet living. Further out, traveling to other solar systems, and teraforming planets for humanity.

I just want to point out that, as Niel Armstrong said today on CSPAN, it was the nuclear arms race that lead to the moon landing. It was the great advancement in intercontinental ballistic missiles that provided us with a high performance rocket capable of sending people to the moon. In other words, it was in our effort to be able to blow up the world, that lead to our ability to fly people to the moon. Sending a human to the moon certainly had it challenges, but it was just one of many "neat" things that became possible once we had the rocket technology that was developed with the express (initial) purpose of dropping nuclear payloads anywhere on earth.

If anyone is interested, CSPAN had a great hour of programming today with Armstrong, Mike Collins, the head of Goddard (can't remember her name) and others. It was neat because there was a little bit of a live tiff over whether we should go back to the Moon first or skip that and go strait to Mars.

[Thudz]

Stop deflecting and answer my simple question.

Could an unmanned mission place reflectors on the moon? Yes or No.

The curious thing is this:

Someone says they did X.
They post a video of them doing X.
There is evidence, outside of the video, that they really did X.

What basis is there to say, "Psshht, you didn't do X!"


Hoax claims require a basis or they quickly enter the realm of "insanity". Are you really Thudz? How do I know? Is that your computer? Did you steal it? I claim that Thudz posting on the internet is actually a hoax, perpetrated by an AI who is imitating Elvis who is actually on a supercomputer under Cheyenne Mountain, stolen for this purpose by a Chinese hacker! Prove me wrong!


Honestly, moon hoax claimers might as well be sitting there making duck noises for all the sense they're making. There's legitimate skepticism and then there's "quacks" and I'm afraid moon hoax claims are the latter.

You are the master deflector. I don't expect you to ever answer a simple Yes or No question. I've questioned the whole deal since the first time I learned of it. It simply doesn't look real to me. I haven't felt compelled to try and prove it wrong because it really doesn't matter if it was faked or not. We haven't been back and probably won't for a very long time. I wonder why that is.

Your mind tricks don't work on me. If you want to have a civil conversation you can start by answering Yes or No.

[Diggles]

Stop deflecting and answer my simple question.

Could an unmanned mission place reflectors on the moon? Yes or No.

The curious thing is this:

Someone says they did X.
They post a video of them doing X.
There is evidence, outside of the video, that they really did X.

What basis is there to say, "Psshht, you didn't do X!"


Hoax claims require a basis or they quickly enter the realm of "insanity". Are you really Thudz? How do I know? Is that your computer? Did you steal it? I claim that Thudz posting on the internet is actually a hoax, perpetrated by an AI who is imitating Elvis who is actually on a supercomputer under Cheyenne Mountain, stolen for this purpose by a Chinese hacker! Prove me wrong!


Honestly, moon hoax claimers might as well be sitting there making duck noises for all the sense they're making. There's legitimate skepticism and then there's "quacks" and I'm afraid moon hoax claims are the latter.

So based on your logic, you believe in UFO's (radar recordings) and Bigfoot is real (plaster cast of footprints).

Whats your verdict on the Loc Nes Monster, or does it have to be video only?

Who's the quack now

[Vllad]

Hoof,

Thudz and I had a conversation very similiar to the issues you raised last week. It was in regards to technological break threw's in the last 300 years vs the last 30.

In a nut shell it is very common to miss the importance of the break through until it is actually put to practical use.

For example:

Automobile:

We could build an automobile as early as the 1830's, decades before they started to be produced for practical reasons. Why?
The automobile didn't make any sense. It was expensive to build and their was no infrastructure in place to support them. IF you have no roads automobiles don't work as well as horses. Therefore the break threw of the automobile didn't catch on until years later.

Some of the most important discoveries of man kind turned out this way. Things are discovered but not refined for decades later.
Space travel will turn out the same way. One day when space travel becomes the norm they will look back on our moon program as the key component. You are to close to the history to still fairly judge the moon program.

Only nut-jobs need to read further:

For the idiots who think it was a hoax. Especially for those not alive when it happened, do you have any idea how dumb you have to be to believe it was a hoax?

We are talking Jessica Simpson dumb where you ignore all of the scientific facts, the 400,000 people that worked on it directly, another 200,000 people that worked on it indirectly, radio telemetry, all physical proof and the fact that the very people who would want to discredit it confirmed it, the USSR.

If you weren't alive at that time do you have any idea how public this program was? Every amature in the world was given direct information on how to catch radio feed back or given constant updates for astronomers to follow their progress.

God couldn't have pulled a lie like that off.




Vllad

[Diggles]

Proving that landing on the moon with a 40k lb thrust rocket would require going to the moon...which hasnt happened as of yet.

So, conveniently, you have a left field hoax claim which you can't actually back up in any way. You cannot demonstrate, apparently on any scale, what 40k lb of thrust would do to a lunar surface, yet you stand behind your claim that it proves it's a hoax?


I'd say you could prove it, it would just cost money and apparently nobody is confident enough that they are right to spend that kind of cash to find out.


Get a rocket capable of producing 40k lb of thrust - doable but expensive.
Replicate a lunar surface - doable, probably not that expensive.
Apply thrust to surface.
See what happens.



This is like the old "a jet didn't really hit the Pentagon" claims.


Get a jet - doable but expensive.
Build a replica of a side of the Pentagon, to specs - doable but expensive.
Slam the jet into the replica.
See what happens.


I guess it's easier to come up with nutty claims than it is to actually prove them.

Its kinda hard to replicate large scale low gravity when you're on earth and land a rocket while doing it. They've used small scale using sand/gravel and it left quite a huge hole.

[Diggles]

For the idiots who think it was a hoax. Especially for those not alive when it happened, do you have any idea how dumb you have to be to believe it was a hoax?

We are talking Jessica Simpson dumb where you ignore all of the scientific facts, the 400,000 people that worked on it directly, another 200,000 people that worked on it indirectly, radio telemetry, all physical proof and the fact that the very people who would want to discredit it confirmed it, the USSR.

If you weren't alive at that time do you have any idea how public this program was? Every amature in the world was given direct information on how to catch radio feed back or given constant updates for astronomers to follow their progress.

God couldn't have pulled a lie like that off.

Vllad

noone ever said the entire thing wasnt real. did they launch a ship into space, certainly. Did it get to the moon and land people there and get back off? no

There is video evidence of the astronauts using camera/visual illusions thru the porthole to simulate 'moving away from earth', which is pretty damning.

[Thudz]

Hoof,

Thudz and I had a conversation very similiar to the issues you raised last week. It was in regards to technological break threw's in the last 300 years vs the last 30.

In a nut shell it is very common to miss the importance of the break through until it is actually put to practical use.

For example:

Automobile:

We could build an automobile as early as the 1830's, decades before they started to be produced for practical reasons. Why?
The automobile didn't make any sense. It was expensive to build and their was no infrastructure in place to support them. IF you have no roads automobiles don't work as well as horses. Therefore the break threw of the automobile didn't catch on until years later.

Some of the most important discoveries of man kind turned out this way. Things are discovered but not refined for decades later.
Space travel will turn out the same way. One day when space travel becomes the norm they will look back on our moon program as the key component. You are to close to the history to still fairly judge the moon program.

Only nut-jobs need to read further:

For the idiots who think it was a hoax. Especially for those not alive when it happened, do you have any idea how dumb you have to be to believe it was a hoax?

We are talking Jessica Simpson dumb where you ignore all of the scientific facts, the 400,000 people that worked on it directly, another 200,000 people that worked on it indirectly, radio telemetry, all physical proof and the fact that the very people who would want to discredit it confirmed it, the USSR.

If you weren't alive at that time do you have any idea how public this program was? Every amature in the world was given direct information on how to catch radio feed back or given constant updates for astronomers to follow their progress.

God couldn't have pulled a lie like that off.




Vllad

Actively believing something was a hoax and trying to disprove it is one thing. Holding out on some real data that can't easily be written off is another. Again, I don't care if we did or didn't since like we've discussed, our space roads aren't paved yet. Consider me a skeptic that wants to believe but will need more then a fake looking video filmed in slow motion and reflectors that could be placed on an unmanned mission.

[Dustie]

To the Hoaxers,

Watch the CSPAN coverage today of the 40th anniversary. Listen to Mike Collins, Neil Armstrong, and others. If this was a hoax, do you really think we'd have all these guys giving public speeches, talking about the event, recounting details etc with no chinks in the armor? If Watergate couldn't be kept under wraps without dozens of participants giving public speeches, how could the "moon hoax" be kept under wraps for 40 years with people involved in the mission talking freely about it for decades?

Also, were the Australians in on the hoax? They were the ones that received a lot of the live video feed. They must be very loyal to us to keep our secrets all these decades as well.

[Slamz]

So based on your logic, you believe in UFO's (radar recordings) and Bigfoot is real (plaster cast of footprints).

So here's Part 1 of where your thinking is wrong: you're not adding up scientific evidence. If you think evidence for bigfoot is on par with evidence for landing on the moon then you're not seeing the difference between a molehill and Mt. Everest.

When there are miles of NASA videos of bigfoot walking around and lots of highly trained, scientific minds who were there, shot the video and personally poked bigfoot with their finger, I will believe in bigfoot.

Your thinking seems to be more along the lines of doubting the existence of gorillas. It's like there are mountains of evidence that gorillas are real and live in forests and enjoy the taste of bananas but for some reason you're claiming that gorillas are all a hoax perpetrated by Greenpeace for nefarious reasons. How much evidence do you require before you believe in gorillas?

Whats your verdict on the Loc Nes Monster, or does it have to be video only?

Here's part 2 of where your thinking is wrong: it is possible to approach a claim with a scientific method and demonstrate, beyond a reasonable doubt, that it is a hoax.

The biggest proof that the Loc Nes Monster is a hoax is the history of the Loc itself. I was watching a show on this a couple months back where they explained that Loc Nes doesn't even date back to the time of the dinosaurs. It was carved out by a glacier during some past ice age, long after all the dinos were already dead. Even if there was a dinosaur survivor somewhere on the earth, it would not be in Loc Nes. (They've also done exhaustive radar and sonar searches of Loc Nes and turned up nothing.)


That's how you make a proper hoax claim:
* Lack of solid evidence behind the original claim
* Ability to offer scientific proof of the contrary

Moon hoax claims fail at both of those. There is a mountain of solid evidence that it really happened and there is no scientific proof to the contrary.

[Thudz]

To the Hoaxers,

Watch the CSPAN coverage today of the 40th anniversary. Listen to Mike Collins, Neil Armstrong, and others. If this was a hoax, do you really think we'd have all these guys giving public speeches, talking about the event, recounting details etc with no chinks in the armor? If Watergate couldn't be kept under wraps without dozens of participants giving public speeches, how could the "moon hoax" be kept under wraps for 40 years with people involved in the mission talking freely about it for decades?

Also, were the Australians in on the hoax? They were the ones that received a lot of the live video feed. They must be very loyal to us to keep our secrets all these decades as well.

If the scenes were prerecorded and then broadcast from the Apollo while in space how would someone on Earth know the feed was live? Honest question.

[Dustie]

See Slamz thread for the same answer I would give to that. My quick answer is that that is on of a thousand things that might be technically possible, but highly improbable in conjunction with all the other events.

We need a separate thread for Hoax-talk vs talking about this topic for the "believers" since I'm not really interested in convincing anyone this event occurred.

I am interested in hearing back on the view that the moon landing was basically a result of the development of ballistic missiles.

[Thudz]

See Slamz thread for the same answer I would give to that. My quick answer is that that is on of a thousand things that might be technically possible, but highly improbable in conjunction with all the other events.

We need a separate thread for Hoax-talk vs talking about this topic for the "believers" since I'm not really interested in convincing anyone this event occurred.

I am interested in hearing back on the view that the moon landing was basically a result of the development of ballistic missiles.

I've stated that I'm a skeptic and I've been called uneducated, a hoaxer, idiot. Wow you are a stand up bunch of guys.
In between the name calling you presented what I guess are paramount items of proof that beyond any shadow of a doubt prove that I am uneducated, a hoaxer, an idiot etc and I asked two simple Yes or No questions and nobody that has called me names seems to care to answer.

Take your fucking thread and shove it up your asses.

[Ulfen]

The burden of proof should be with the hoaxers. It isn't anyone's responsibility to prove to you (the hoaxers) it did happen, as Slamz said spend the money and time to validate your skepticism.

[Thudz]

The burden of proof should be with the hoaxers. It isn't anyone's responsibility to prove to you (the hoaxers) it did happen, as Slamz said spend the money and time to validate your skepticism.

For the third time, I don't care if it happened or not. I thought we could have a civil discussion on some of the finer points but we clearly can't.

[Dustie]

The burden of proof should be with the hoaxers. It isn't anyone's responsibility to prove to you (the hoaxers) it did happen, as Slamz said spend the money and time to validate your skepticism.

I agree.

Thudz,
I'm sorry but I didn't call you any names in order to belittle you. I simply used the label "hoaxers" to differentiate between people that think it's a hoax vs "believers" who believe the event actually occurred.

Don't get ticked off at me for the "idiot" or "education" comments, that came from somewhere else. I'm simply one who doesn't want to argue the hoax angle.

[Vllad]

Actively believing something was a hoax and trying to disprove it is one thing. Holding out on some real data that can't easily be written off is another. Again, I don't care if we did or didn't since like we've discussed, our space roads aren't paved yet. Consider me a skeptic that wants to believe but will need more then a fake looking video filmed in slow motion and reflectors that could be placed on an unmanned mission.

Since Diggles is drinking cool-aid and I will just move to your question on this hoax.

Instead of looking at 40 year old video which can be deceptive as any football fan can tell you let me point you towards some evidence you can find yourself since the pure science isn't enough.

*Look up the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter or LRO. I believe it recently flew over a number of Apollo sites taking pictures of things like foot prints, lunar lander, lunar vehicle etc. They are still sitting on the moon.

*Their are a number of observatories across the US similiar to the Griffith in LA. They will do spectralgraphs of the moon. They know the exact location of every moon landing. They can fire a beam of light and get a spectral return that will tell you basic artificial make up of the man made items sitting on the moon. These are 100% accurate and do not lie. Every astronomy student in the last 40 years has done this at least once. The old spectralgraphs also show the ship emissions (especially used in take off) or in other words the smaug we left behind.

*Look up the radio telemetry tapes from Apollo 11 to 17 (including 13). The tape telemetry can not lie. They are proof of the exact fixed location of each transmission of every Apollo mission. These tapes prove what the exact original location of each transmission was. (this also proves the transmissions weren't bounced.) These tapes were recorded at Goldstone and Parkes and were confirmed by independant locations as back up.

*Look up the quarentine studies of all of the Apollo missions. You will find some compelling information that matches exactly what they say happened. Bone loss etc. Boring but the data can't be duplicated anywhere but another enviorment that has a 6th of the gravity of Earth.


Let me know if you aren't convinced after this.


Vllad

[Slamz]

If the scenes were prerecorded and then broadcast from the Apollo while in space how would someone on Earth know the feed was live? Honest question.

I dodge questions like this because they seem pointless. Why not ask, "Is it possible to create a studio recreation of Mars, plop a robot in it, drive it around, then beam the images to a satellite to be sent back down to earth as if it was coming from Mars?"

Well sure.

But what good does that answer actually do you? Would you use that as evidence that the Mars rovers are a hoax?


Nobody can tell you that "it's impossible to fake a moon landing" anymore than they can tell you that it's impossible to fake a Mars rover. Of course it's possible to fake it. But that's a far cry from actually claiming it's fake.

If someone doesn't believe we landed on the moon, what ELSE do they not believe in?

Do they believe we launched the Voyager space probes?
Do they believe in the close-up photos of Saturn taken by passing probes?
Do they believe we landed rovers on Mars?



The real argument here is probably a question of "reasonable doubt". Where does doubt cross over from reasonable to unreasonable? How much evidence is needed to claim "this is real, beyond a reasonable doubt".


Or maybe more to the point, if we launched a manned mission to Mars tomorrow, what would it take to convince you that it was real? If videos, documentaries, testimony and actually seeing the thing fly into space is not enough proof, what would be?

[amins]

lol, I guess I should tell my friend who helped build the ~Canadian~ Space Arm, who's a Professor of Robotic Engineering and also does contract work for NASA, she's a fake and her inspiration came from false realities! That otta go over well.

hahaha

Sorry

REally? Are we really having this government conspiracy theory about an event that took scientists from around the world to make happen?

And to say that it's the US that solely did this, is just straight up stupid. America foot the bill and created the concepts from which they built, not the knowledge by which it was built... that was not an ethnocentric idea.

Sheesh.

[Thudz]

lol, I guess I should tell my friend who helped build the ~Canadian~ Space Arm, who's a Professor of Robotic Engineering and also does contract work for NASA, she's a fake!

hahaha

Sorry

hahaha

What exactly does this have to do with the Moon landing in 1969?

[Thudz]

If the scenes were prerecorded and then broadcast from the Apollo while in space how would someone on Earth know the feed was live? Honest question.

I dodge questions like this because they seem pointless. Why not ask, "Is it possible to create a studio recreation of Mars, plop a robot in it, drive it around, then beam the images to a satellite to be sent back down to earth as if it was coming from Mars?"

Well sure.

But what good does that answer actually do you? Would you use that as evidence that the Mars rovers are a hoax?


Nobody can tell you that "it's impossible to fake a moon landing" anymore than they can tell you that it's impossible to fake a Mars rover. Of course it's possible to fake it. But that's a far cry from actually claiming it's fake.

If someone doesn't believe we landed on the moon, what ELSE do they not believe in?

Do they believe we launched the Voyager space probes?
Do they believe in the close-up photos of Saturn taken by passing probes?
Do they believe we landed rovers on Mars?



The real argument here is probably a question of "reasonable doubt". Where does doubt cross over from reasonable to unreasonable? How much evidence is needed to claim "this is real, beyond a reasonable doubt".


Or maybe more to the point, if we launched a manned mission to Mars tomorrow, what would it take to convince you that it was real? If videos, documentaries, testimony and actually seeing the thing fly into space is not enough proof, what would be?

Again you are trying to deflect. The conversation is about the Moon landing in 1969, not anything else. Why try an drag other events in?

[Vllad]

If the scenes were prerecorded and then broadcast from the Apollo while in space how would someone on Earth know the feed was live? Honest question.

Two ways.

1. You can measure the degradation based on maximum resolution. That is what brought about the advancements in higher resolution later on. Each piece of the equipment had a measurable amount of not only resolution (measurable information compressed in a radio wave) but the analog signal would be a certain size (frequency). In other words the square analog signal would round off. (This is what used to cause snow in your TV signal in the 70's) If it was a re-broadcast given video of the day that could be measured.

2. Since we know the exact location of the original signals we know for a fact the signal came from the moon. In order to bounce a signal off of the moon you would need to land amplifiers and receivers on the moon. In order to get them to work properly you are talking about a hell of a lot more work then landing men on the moon. Bouncing a signal in 1969 from the moon would also create signal degradation. Any astronomer worth his salt would have noticed eventually.


Didn't mean to upset you Thudz however I am not really sorry for finding people dumb who think the Apollo missions are hoaxes. This should be something that people on this board learned about in their basic studies in high school and college.

This goes back to Hoof's original point. The amount of pure science data we aquired by going to the moon is quite extensive. Every school in America since has been sharing that data.



Vllad

[amins]

Because Thudz, that event laid the foundation for everything NASA did afterwards in regards to space exploration, the space station, deep space photography (the concept of putting telescopes in space to negate atmospheric reflect/refracton), and humans ability to live in space (from effects of weightlessness on muscle tissue and bone, radiation, etc.).

[Slamz]

Again you are trying to deflect. The conversation is about the Moon landing in 1969, not anything else. Why try an drag other events in?

Because I'm trying to address the underlying issues.

If we launched a manned mission to Mars tomorrow, what would it take to convince you that it was real, beyond any reasonable doubt?


There may be nothing we can do to convince doubters that the moon landing was real. So going forward what would you like to see to demonstrate the future missions are real? What can they do which they didn't do for the moon landing?


I'd like Diggles to answer that as well.

[Thudz]

*Look up the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter or LRO. I believe it recently flew over a number of Apollo sites taking pictures of things like foot prints, lunar lander, lunar vehicle etc. They are still sitting on the moon.

Let me know if you aren't convinced after this.


Vllad

I saw these pictures but could real make anything out of them. There were arrows with labels pointing to things but I really didn't see anything. Perhaps there are higher res pictures?