When will the Lunar landings be accepted?

endacl · 31-08-2015 2:37am

Bigus wrote: »

Myth busters did a good job on proving it very hard to re create the moon footage with gravity.

The U.S. Government had perfected digital cameras and CGI/green screen effects by the early 1940s. That's also how they faked the Hiroshima/Nagasaki 'atomic explosions'. Hollywood is waaaaaay behind the NWO.

Sonics2k · 02-09-2015 7:12pm

endacl wrote: »

The U.S. Government had perfected digital cameras and CGI/green screen effects by the early 1940s. That's also how they faked the Hiroshima/Nagasaki 'atomic explosions'. Hollywood is waaaaaay behind the NWO.

I'm sorry, but this is just so horribly wrong.

Faked Nagasaki and Hiroshima? Really? There's a few thousand people in Japan who are well into the act so. What with the faking cancer and all.

ancapailldorcha · 02-09-2015 7:28pm

Back on topic please.

Samaris · 09-09-2015 4:13am

pueblo wrote: »

The idea that there was a VIP paedophile sex ring involving high ranking politicians, entertainers and police officers was also labelled 'patently silly' until not too long ago, no doubt by people just like you (if not you?)

Today's 'patently silly' is tomorrow's fact.

Can do, but many others remain...patently silly.

ShowMeTheCash · 14-09-2015 1:19pm

The one thing that annoys me about CT is the black and white nature of an argument.

Just some things to consider.
Did they create fake footage? Possible
Did they actually land on the moon? Possible
Did they orbit the moon but fail to land a man on the moon? Possible

People try to argue what did or did not happen based on certain evidence, but this does not prove anything only that NSA or the government perhaps covered themselves for all eventualities...

If evidence came to light of footage that was fake this in turn does not prove the moon landing itself was fake, it only raised a question to why they created fake footage.

weisses · 14-09-2015 1:27pm

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

People try to argue what did or did not happen based on certain evidence, but this does not prove anything only that NSA or the government perhaps covered themselves for all eventualities...

A typo I hope

King Mob · 14-09-2015 2:51pm

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

The one thing that annoys me about CT is the black and white nature of an argument.

it might not be black and white and many things might be possible.

But not everything is equally likely or probably or rational or supported.

There is no evidence that any of the footage is faked or that any fake footage exists. So why believe it's even worth considering as a possibility?

ShowMeTheCash · 14-09-2015 3:16pm

weisses wrote: »

A typo I hope

Maybe NASA changed it to throw you off the scent, now blaming the NSA!

ShowMeTheCash · 14-09-2015 3:32pm

King Mob wrote: »

it might not be black and white and many things might be possible.

But not everything is equally likely or probably or rational or supported.

There is no evidence that any of the footage is faked or that any fake footage exists. So why believe it's even worth considering as a possibility?

There are a number of questions that where asked, that at very least are interesting.

Up until the moon landing the USA where on a number of occasions shown up by the Russians.

Russia with the first satellite followed by the first man in space.
Some could argue that the USA made a massive leap to send a man to the moon Yuri only traveled 200 miles up before coming back, Neil and Buzz traveled 240,000 miles.

Also the footage itself was pretty poor, questions had been asked why the footage was so bad, I think the explanation given was the higher quality camera was damaged and could not be used.

Among numerous questions around photos backgrounds and footage of the earth inside the shuttle that raised questions around the position of the camera with regards the window.

Does this mean they did not go? Of course not but it is completely valid to ask the questions around why footage was taken like this and perhaps to explain any anomalies that look at least somewhat strange.

King Mob · 14-09-2015 4:05pm

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

There are a number of questions that where asked, that at very least are interesting.

Not really. the questions, like the ones you justlisted are either based on a faulty assumption or a lack of knowledge.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Up until the moon landing the USA where on a number of occasions shown up by the Russians.

Not true.
The US were the first to:
Recover a space craft.
Fly a space craft that was controlled by the pilot in the capsule.
First rendezvous of two space craft in orbit.
First docking.
And of course, first fly by of the Moon.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Russia with the first satellite followed by the first man in space.
Some could argue that the USA made a massive leap to send a man to the moon Yuri only traveled 200 miles up before coming back, Neil and Buzz traveled 240,000 miles.

Not really the progression was fast, sure. But that was because they had bottomless funding and resources.
The technology was painstakingly developed and tested. There were 10 Apollo missions before the landing after all.

Can you point out which technology in particular was impossible to develop in that time period? Or if not are we just relying on your personal gut feeling that it was too fast?

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Also the footage itself was pretty poor, questions had been asked why the footage was so bad, I think the explanation given was the higher quality camera was damaged and could not be used.

No. No such explanation was given.
The footage was poor because cameras generally sucked back then. And for the actual broadcast, it was taken from a camera pointed at the video feed at NASA.

How good should the footage have been? And what is this assertion based on?

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Among numerous questions around photos backgrounds and footage of the earth inside the shuttle that raised questions around the position of the camera with regards the window.

Which questions regarding which footage?

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Does this mean they did not go? Of course not but it is completely valid to ask the questions around why footage was taken like this and perhaps to explain any anomalies that look at least somewhat strange.

But taking it at face value, why do these anomalies need to be explained exactly?
So far the only ones you've pointed out are only anomalies because conspiracy theorists state they are based on nothing but their own gut feeling.

All of them can be explained without resorting to a conspiracy and any conspiracy that would explain them wouldn't make sense.

ShowMeTheCash · 14-09-2015 5:10pm

King Mob wrote:

Not really. the questions, like the ones you justlisted are either based on a faulty assumption or a lack of knowledge.

Not true.
The US were the first to:
Recover a space craft.
Fly a space craft that was controlled by the pilot in the capsule.
First rendezvous of two space craft in orbit.
First docking.
And of course, first fly by of the Moon.

You are now getting into semantics the press and public opinion cared very little for the "first docking".

Also the Russians at least attempted a lunar flyby before the Americans and had some success in that Luna 1 did fly by the moon.

The race to the moon was primarily to save face, the Russians hand beat the USA to the more significant achievements or at very least the perceived achievements.

King Mob wrote:

Not really the progression was fast, sure. But that was because they had bottomless funding and resources.
The technology was painstakingly developed and tested. There were 10 Apollo missions before the landing after all.

Can you point out which technology in particular was impossible to develop in that time period? Or if not are we just relying on your personal gut feeling that it was too fast?

Only Apollo 1, 7, 8, 9 and 10 where to be manned 1 caught fire while still on the ground killing astronauts and destroying the module, I think the documentary on a few weeks ago with Brian Cox mentions that an inquiry at that time had shown an in-depth report of faults and substandard engineering. It is important to remember this was only in 1967 Apollo 11 came in 1969 and 10 was the only one that went as far at the moon before that.

King Mob wrote:

No. No such explanation was given.
The footage was poor because cameras generally sucked back then. And for the actual broadcast, it was taken from a camera pointed at the video feed at NASA.

How good should the footage have been? And what is this assertion based on?

I will need to look it out again I am nearly sure it was mentioned in a documentary that a better quality camera was damaged.

As for the quality of cameras in 1969 considering 2001 A Space Odyssey came out the year before I think camera quality could be fairly good.

King Mob wrote:

Which questions regarding which footage?

But taking it at face value, why do these anomalies need to be explained exactly?
So far the only ones you've pointed out are only anomalies because conspiracy theorists state they are based on nothing but their own gut feeling.

All of them can be explained without resorting to a conspiracy and any conspiracy that would explain them wouldn't make sense.

People can explain all sorts of things if they want.
Shadows, lighting, falls, faked tapes... I have seem them all and I can take the explanation at face value and do not have an issue with that... Some of them are at least interesting.

But would it be fair to say that America needed this win? I think so.
Would they have done anything underhanded to fabricate any of the success of the Apollo 11 mission?
I think they could and I think they would have had they needed too.

Overheal · 14-09-2015 5:20pm

That capsule exploded during a non-mission field test in which the cabin was originally pressurized with 100% Oxygen in order to maximize life support for the crew, while ironically causing the explosion that killed them. The electronics in the cabin were clearly not up to Class 1 Div 1 standards that exist today (explosion-proofing). At work we have a Class 1 Div 1 lab for working with compressed natural gas.

The test and resulting accident should be on youtube; slightly graphic if I recall

As for the quality of cameras in 1969 considering 2001 A Space Odyssey came out the year before I think camera quality could be fairly good.

Cinematography cameras are Huuuge. They needed to design a camera that would work in space, could be operated in an EVA suit, and did not add unnecessary payload weight. Getting cinema-quality imagery would have required a cinema camera which in general was something with a rather large and heavy profile - something which would have been wholly unsuitable for the lunar mission:

Modern IMAX camera (Spielberg not included)

Westinghouse provided the mission camera, I believe.

edit: more than 1 camera was used on the missions, which compounds the need for each camera to be functional and lightweight over conspiracy-bunking-4k-quality:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_TV_camera

ShowMeTheCash · 14-09-2015 5:34pm

Overheal wrote: »

Cinematography cameras are Huuuge. https://www.google.com/search?q=imax+camera&biw=1600&bih=919&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAmoVChMIlrH82Pf2xwIViaA-Ch0qigP0 there are some modern IMAX cameras for a visual. They needed to design a camera that would both work in space and did not add unnecessary payload weight. Getting cinema-quality imagery would have required a cinema camera which in general was something with a rather large and heavy profile:

Westinghouse provided the mission camera, I believe.

I understand the side of the camera and I did not expect a mounted cinematography camera to be fired into outer-space.
But the footage was not good I think to say it was worse than home video footage for that time would be fair. But perhaps that was as good as it was going to get it could be argued that it was convenient.

Overheal · 14-09-2015 5:40pm

Most home cameras aren't designed for the High G's (or sudden jerking/shearing forces) sustained during a rocket launch (Max experienced G's on the shuttle launch is 3.0) or being operated in a complete vacuum while being shielded from background radiation, etc. the wiki article I linked also discusses image quality issues and how they were addressed in subsequent missions to their first deployments.

ShowMeTheCash · 14-09-2015 5:43pm

Overheal wrote: »

Most home cameras aren't designed for the High G's (or sudden jerking/shearing forces) sustained during a rocket launch (Max experienced G's on the shuttle launch is 3.0) or being operated in a complete vacuum while being shielded from background radiation, etc. the wiki article I linked also discusses image quality issues and how they were addressed in subsequent missions to their first deployments.

Same could be said about humans.

Overheal · 14-09-2015 5:45pm

Which is why they're run through human-sized centrifuges to verify they can withstand the 2-3 G's experienced during 2 minutes of the launch and sub 2 Gs for the rest of the mission thereafter in varying degrees.

Point still stands.

King Mob · 15-09-2015 1:10am

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

You are now getting into semantics the press and public opinion cared very little for the "first docking".

Also the Russians at least attempted a lunar flyby before the Americans and had some success in that Luna 1 did fly by the moon.

The race to the moon was primarily to save face, the Russians hand beat the USA to the more significant achievements or at very least the perceived achievements.

Yes. To some of the perceived achievements at first. However things like "the first woman in space" didn't provide much in the way of advancing engineering or get them closer to the moon. The examples I pointed out did however.
And even then for every first the Russians had, the Americans were at most only a few months behind.

And this is leaving aside the failures in the Russian program including the fact that Gagarin had to bail out before landing.

So the Russians weren't further ahead of the Americas by all that much. And any gap between them was quickly closed and overtaken.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Only Apollo 1, 7, 8, 9 and 10 where to be manned 1 caught fire while still on the ground killing astronauts and destroying the module, I think the documentary on a few weeks ago with Brian Cox mentions that an inquiry at that time had shown an in-depth report of faults and substandard engineering. It is important to remember this was only in 1967 Apollo 11 came in 1969 and 10 was the only one that went as far at the moon before that.

So first: Apollos 8 and 10 were lunar orbit missions.
Second: Brian Cox has some very choice words about this conspiracy theory. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aXuQ9Dg2gE

And third, can you please point out which essential technology exactly was impossible by the time Apollo 11 was launched.
Or is it that you're relying on the unsupported opinion of conspiracy theorists?

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

People can explain all sorts of things if they want.
Shadows, lighting, falls, faked tapes... I have seem them all and I can take the explanation at face value and do not have an issue with that... Some of them are at least interesting.

So again, why give the conspiracy and stock when all of the "evidence" they supply is easily explained without a conspiracy?
Because it's more fun than reality?

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

But would it be fair to say that America needed this win? I think so.
Would they have done anything underhanded to fabricate any of the success of the Apollo 11 mission?
I think they could and I think they would have had they needed too.

No they wouldn't have done anything underhanded simply because they couldn't have gotten away with it.
If you are arguing that the evidence that conspiracy theorists are pointing to might indicate a conspiracy, then the Russians would be able to tell just as easily.
If some untrained, ill-educated guy on his couch with nothing more than an internet connection and publicly available information can figure out there's fakery, then the Russians with reams of experts in every relevant field, more than enough resources and even spies, would be able to tell as well.

And if it's all about saving face like you say, then the Russians would have called them out right away and been able to prove it.
Likewise the American would know this, and since they are doing the entire thing for bragging rights, they wouldn't bother to fake anything when it would end up with them losing face.

So there's no motivation and there's no evidence for fakery.
The only reason to believe in this conspiracy is that people simply want to believe it.

ShowMeTheCash · 15-09-2015 9:55am

King Mob wrote: »

So the Russians weren't further ahead of the Americas by all that much.

Would not have mattered if they where 10 mins behind the Russians, America and Americans where under the impression they where far superior and more technologically advanced than Russia, I think fear and propaganda from the cold war made Americans paranoid.
When Sputnik went up I think Americans basically had to draw a line in the sand we need to do something here to show we are number 1 so JFK made that speech, at too be honest I think they would have tried to achieve it at whatever cost.

King Mob wrote: »

And third, can you please point out which essential technology exactly was impossible by the time Apollo 11 was launched.

I was not an engineer on Apollo 11 but I know that the Chinese even today found it no easy feet to put a lander on the moon even though technology has grown at an exponentiation rate over the last 30 years.

Looking at news reals from the time a fairly large proportion of the world did not think it was possible.

King Mob wrote: »

If some untrained, ill-educated guy on his couch with nothing more than an internet connection and publicly available information can figure out there's fakery

You need to be careful with statements like this, some of these ill-educated guys sitting on the couch are much smarter than you or I and much better educated.

King Mob wrote: »

The Russians with reams of experts in every relevant field, more than enough resources and even spies, would be able to tell as well.

I think this is a pretty naive point of view.
America are the world leaders of spinning nonsense they have a history and a nack for it.

That might be a little unfair in that I think most nations spin nonsense, Russia, China, North Korea and I guess are no different but I think the difference is the rest of the world might sit back and laugh at these other nations, American seem to be better at convincing others.

King Mob wrote: »

And if it's all about saving face like you say, then the Russians would have called them out right away and been able to prove it.
Likewise the American would know this, and since they are doing the entire thing for bragging rights, they wouldn't bother to fake anything when it would end up with them losing face.

Again you arguing an un-winnable argument and bantering around the word proof.... What proof exactly would the USA need to convince the Russians?

From an engineering perspective I am pretty sure it would have been easier to fake it and get away with it than to actually achieve it.

King Mob wrote: »

So there's no motivation and there's no evidence for fakery.

You are most definitely wrong on the first point, there was a huge motivation to fake it.

As for the evidence of actual fakery... That part is a little more difficult.

King Mob · 15-09-2015 11:16am

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Would not have mattered if they where 10 mins behind the Russians, America and Americans where under the impression they where far superior and more technologically advanced than Russia, I think fear and propaganda from the cold war made Americans paranoid.
When Sputnik went up I think Americans basically had to draw a line in the sand we need to do something here to show we are number 1 so JFK made that speech, at too be honest I think they would have tried to achieve it at whatever cost.

What are you basing this supposition on exactly?
If the Americans were only months behind, at most, why would they
think the Russians were far superior?
Why would they think the Russians are superior when they started beating them to firsts?

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

I was not an engineer on Apollo 11 but I know that the Chinese even today found it no easy feet to put a lander on the moon even though technology has grown at an exponentiation rate over the last 30 years.

Looking at news reals from the time a fairly large proportion of the world did not think it was possible.

That's great, but can you show why it's impossible or improbable?

Cause since you can't actually explain why you think this, is seems like it's just your opinion based on a poor knowledge of the technology involved.
That's not a good reason to back the conspiracy.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

You need to be careful with statements like this, some of these ill-educated guys sitting on the couch are much smarter than you or I and much better educated.

Yup, but they aren't trained and they aren't working from secret knowledge.
If they could do it, then so could the Russians.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

I think this is a pretty naive point of view.
America are the world leaders of spinning nonsense they have a history and a nack for it.

That might be a little unfair in that I think most nations spin nonsense, Russia, China, North Korea and I guess are no different but I think the difference is the rest of the world might sit back and laugh at these other nations, American seem to be better at convincing others.

Again, if it's about saving face, then the Russians would have called them on it.
No reason they wouldn't have tried even if America could spin it like you say. And this is leaving aside that the Russians (and many other independent bodies) would have been able to actually back up their accusations.

So how come the Russians didn't fake a moon landing also?

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Again you arguing an un-winnable argument and bantering around the word proof.... What proof exactly would the USA need to convince the Russians?

I'm saying that had the Americans faked anything, the Russians would have the ability to prove that they faked it.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

From an engineering perspective I am pretty sure it would have been easier to fake it and get away with it than to actually achieve it.

No it wouldn't have. It would have been impossible to fake all of the evidence and get away with for 50 years, and yet still somehow have been dumb enough to leave breadcrumbs for amateur detectives.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

You are most definitely wrong on the first point, there was a huge motivation to fake it.

As for the evidence of actual fakery... That part is a little more difficult.

Nope. The motivation doesn't make any sense and there is exactly zero evidence of fakery.

Overheal · 15-09-2015 1:42pm

You need to be careful with statements like this, some of these ill-educated guys sitting on the couch are much smarter than you or I and much better educated.

At face value that doesn't even make any sense

I was not an engineer on Apollo 11 but I know that the Chinese even today found it no easy feet to put a lander on the moon even though technology has grown at an exponentiation rate over the last 30 years.

Looking at news reals from the time a fairly large proportion of the world did not think it was possible.

CLEP seems to be doing alright actually, China just never bothered with the Moon before the 2000s, they afaik invested heavily in manufacturing hence projects like Three Gorges and entire cities with nobody living in them; these were the ways China flexed itself.

http://www.space.com/27670-china-moon-missions-explained-infographic.html

From an engineering perspective I am pretty sure it would have been easier to fake it and get away with it than to actually achieve it.

Without any data about how things behave in space?

That brings up the next flaw in the lunar landing CT: if the lunar landing was faked, what must you assume is also fake? The ISS? Manned shuttle flights? Is GPS a myth? Are the people who go to Cape Canaveral to watch launches all paid actors? Are the rocket engines everyone can see for 200 miles around the Launchpad just holograms? Was Apollo 13 also faked and for what purpose? Why would the US intentionally fake it to look like we were incompetent; if NASA ratings were dropping why not fake a mission to Mars?

ShowMeTheCash · 15-09-2015 5:00pm

King Mob wrote: »

What are you basing this supposition on exactly?
If the Americans were only months behind, at most, why would they
think the Russians were far superior?
Why would they think the Russians are superior when they started beating them to firsts?

You are having difficulty with basic logic here, no one said the Russians are superior, no one said the Americans thought Russia was far superior either. Mod: no need for the personal jab.

I am saying America deemed themselves number 1 at this point in History.
Events in the space race had made them look foolish.

As for my supposition, just go back and look at the news reals, why do you think so much Money was being pumped into it?
Why do you think JFK came out and said "We will put a man on the moon!"

The space race was called a race for a reason!

King Mob wrote: »

That's great, but can you show why it's impossible or improbable?

Again you are failing to grasp what I am saying.
I am not saying it was impossible I am saying it was deemed impossible by many of that time...

I was not around in 1969.

I am explaining what could arguably be seen as a motive to fake it.

Need to run, will comment on this later.

ShowMeTheCash · 15-09-2015 5:34pm

King Mob wrote: »

Yup, but they aren't trained and they aren't working from secret knowledge.
If they could do it, then so could the Russians.

So you think the Russians didn't have their doubts?

NASA and the US government controlled all the data and ignore anything they don't want to answer.

So how come the Russians didn't fake a moon landing also?

Why would they fake it? The world stood and watched America land on the moon, Russia faking it after the fact would serve what purpose? Faking it first however makes more sense.

King Mob wrote: »

Nope. The motivation doesn't make any sense and there is exactly zero evidence of fakery.

No motivation? You don't think politics had anything to do with this??

King Mob · 16-09-2015 1:24am

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

So you think the Russians didn't have their doubts?

No they didn`t because unlike the people who believe the conspiracy, they knew what they were talking about and had access to good information.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

NASA and the US government controlled all the data and ignore anything they don't want to answer.

No they didn`t. The Russians had access to all of the information that conspiracy theorists do. They had access to a lot more too, including tracking data and intercepted radio transmissions as well as actual experts instead of armchair experts. And this is on top of the spies they most likely had.
Russia had more than enough information and proof to expose any fakery and more that enough motivation to expose it.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

So how come the Russians didn't fake a moon landing also?

Why would they fake it? The world stood and watched America land on the moon, Russia faking it after the fact would serve what purpose? Faking it first however makes more sense.

Because you`re saying that it`s all a show about face.
Faking it after the Americans would have saved them face. And they could have faked an even more impressive feat, like a moon base for instance.
They could have also faked going to Mars.

Even still, why didn`t the Russians fake it earlier, considering they were supposedly so far ahead of the Americans?

And if either side would have just given up at the arbitrary goal of the Moon, how come the Americans didn`t just give up after the Russians already beat them to satellites and into space?

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

No motivation? You don't think politics had anything to do with this??

No there was no motivation for it because it wouldn`t have worked.
If they faked it, they`d be called out by the Russians as well as many other independent organisations and they would lose face.
It would have the exact opposite outcome you claim they want, so they wouldn`t have the motivation.

If you`re going to argue that they could somehow control the spin on this (which they couldn`t) then they wouldn`t have been concerned with the Russians beating them at all. They could have just claimed that the Russians faked theirs then really gone there at their own pace, or not at all.

King Mob · 16-09-2015 1:48am

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

You are having difficulty with basic logic here, no one said the Russians are superior, no one said the Americans thought Russia was far superior either. Mod: no need for the personal jab.

I am saying America deemed themselves number 1 at this point in History.
Events in the space race had made them look foolish.

As for my supposition, just go back and look at the news reals, why do you think so much Money was being pumped into it?
Why do you think JFK came out and said "We will put a man on the moon!"

The space race was called a race for a reason!

So why would they be concerned about losing some of the early firsts when they knew they weren`t far behind the Russians and were quickly over taking them?
Why would this make them think that they need to fake it?

They had a working ship that would take them to moon before the Russians had theirs off the ground.
Why did they need to fake it at that point?

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Again you are failing to grasp what I am saying.
I am not saying it was impossible I am saying it was deemed impossible by many of that time...

I was not around in 1969.

I am explaining what could arguably be seen as a motive to fake it.

Need to run, will comment on this later.

And the people who thought it was impossible were wrong, then as they are now.
They are wrong because they couldn`t point out what technology was impossible.
The people working at NASA didn`t think it was impossible because they knew what they were talking about. So they wouldn`t think they needed to fake it.

euroboom13 · 16-09-2015 7:32am

Few questions

Distance of completed journey?(to the nearest 100,000km ok) and MPG?
Average speed?
Size of craft relevant to equipment and fuel?
Year of technology?
Accuracy of destination(and return)?
Construction to withstand speed?
Lunar craft inflatable/solid wheels?

Thanks

ShowMeTheCash · 16-09-2015 9:18am

Overheal wrote: »

That brings up the next flaw in the lunar landing CT: if the lunar landing was faked, what must you assume is also fake? The ISS? Manned shuttle flights? Is GPS a myth? Are the people who go to Cape Canaveral to watch launches all paid actors? Are the rocket engines everyone can see for 200 miles around the Launchpad just holograms? Was Apollo 13 also faked and for what purpose? Why would the US intentionally fake it to look like we were incompetent; if NASA ratings were dropping why not fake a mission to Mars?

We are talking about landing a man on the moon.
I see this all the time, people ask questions about the validity of something specific then people try and debunk by using crazy logic.

Someone could argue we sent a rocket into space, they could argue we sent a lunar lander to the moon and mars, they could argue we sent a manned voyage that orbitted the moon they could also argue we have 1000s of satellites orbiting the planet and still argue we did not put a man on moon in 1969.

One or all these achievements do not affirm or reject that the moon landing was fake.

ShowMeTheCash · 16-09-2015 9:21am

King Mob wrote: »

No they didn`t because unlike the people who believe the conspiracy, they knew what they were talking about and had access to good information.

No they didn`t. The Russians had access to all of the information that conspiracy theorists do. They had access to a lot more too, including tracking data and intercepted radio transmissions as well as actual experts instead of armchair experts. And this is on top of the spies they most likely had.
Russia had more than enough information and proof to expose any fakery and more that enough motivation to expose it.

Really???

Have a little read

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-calls-investigation-into-whether-us-moon-landings-happened-10327714.html

ShowMeTheCash · 16-09-2015 9:39am

King Mob wrote: »

So why would they be concerned about losing some of the early firsts when they knew they weren`t far behind the Russians and were quickly over taking them?
Why would this make them think that they need to fake it?

They had a working ship that would take them to moon before the Russians had theirs off the ground.
Why did they need to fake it at that point?

And the people who thought it was impossible were wrong, then as they are now.
They are wrong because they couldn`t point out what technology was impossible.
The people working at NASA didn`t think it was impossible because they knew what they were talking about. So they wouldn`t think they needed to fake it.

Dude take a breath....

My argument is not that they did fake it, personally I do not think they did fake it.

My argument is could that have faked it? And I argue yes they could of.
Did they have a motivation to fake it? Yes they did.
Did people have their reservations about it being fake? Yes they do and they still do.

I am more interested in the arguments put forward.

You keep saying "What technology specifically was not good enough" Let me ask are you an engineer? Do you know much about all the components on the apollo 11 mission?
This argument would just go around in circles.
The argument most people put forward is why have we not put men on the moon since? Why has other nations not attempted it?

Some CT believe they did send a ship to orbit the moon they took footage they even sent and landed a lunar lander on the moon but still have trouble believing they actually sent a manned vessel to the surface.

The footage of the moon walk could easily of been faked with everything being true, this idea if they fake 1 part of it then the whole mission was a fake is narrow mindedness.

And remember I am saying "could of been" not "was".

King Mob · 16-09-2015 10:07am

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Really???

Have a little read

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-calls-investigation-into-whether-us-moon-landings-happened-10327714.html

Yes really. They aren't expressing doubt or claiming any fakery.

“We are not contending that they did not fly [to the moon], and simply made a film about it. But all of these scientific — or perhaps cultural — artifacts are part of the legacy of humanity, and their disappearance without a trace is our common loss. An investigation will reveal what happened,” Markin wrote, according to the Moscow Times translation.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

My argument is could that have faked it? And I argue yes they could of.
Did they have a motivation to fake it? Yes they did.
Did people have their reservations about it being fake? Yes they do and they still do.

But so far you haven't been able to show they could fake it or explain away the problems involved in faking it.
The motivation you claim doesn't make sense.

And the people who have reservations have no rational reason to have them.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

I am more interested in the arguments put forward.

You keep saying "What technology specifically was not good enough" Let me ask are you an engineer? Do you know much about all the components on the apollo 11 mission?

This is to illustrate the flaw in the argument you are pointing to.
You claim that people believed that going to the moon or developing the technology in that short time was impossible.
If they aren't pointing out which technologies makes it impossible, how could they know it's impossible in the first place?
My point is that they don't know, so their position has no merit.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

This argument would just go around in circles.
The argument most people put forward is why have we not put men on the moon since? Why has other nations not attempted it?

Lack of funding and political will. It's not a big mystery.

We used to have Concorde since the seventies. Yet despite the 40 years of development we don't have a super-sonic jet liner.
So is it rational to argue that Concorde must have been fake?

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

And remember I am saying "could of been" not "was".

My issue is that you are presenting it as if it's a reasonable position to hold or that it's also a 50/50 thing.
It really isn't.

ShowMeTheCash · 16-09-2015 11:10am

King Mob wrote: »

Yes really. They aren't expressing doubt or claiming any fakery.

What makes your argument hold no water is how you try and cherry pick what is being said and how you try and flip the argument.

Earlier you said

King Mob wrote: »

The Russians had access to all of the information that conspiracy theorists do. They had access to a lot more too, including tracking data and intercepted radio transmissions as well as actual experts instead of armchair experts. And this is on top of the spies they most likely had.
Russia had more than enough information and proof to expose any fakery and more that enough motivation to expose it.

In short you make the assertion the Russians would know if America faked it...

The article highlights that albeit Russia is not saying it was faked but they would like access to all the footage and samples....

So Russia had enough information to expose any fakery did they? I think this shows they did not.

King Mob wrote: »

But so far you haven't been able to show they could fake it or explain away the problems involved in faking it.
The motivation you claim doesn't make sense.

I think you really need to look at what you are saying.
You are asking me to prove they faked it when the body of proof only lies with proving they actually achieved it.

They could of faked it, if they went to the moon they could easily of faked it... Are you contending they had the technology to go to the moon but not the ability to fake a moon landing?

Also the motivation to fake it is probably the only certainty about this entire argument.

The reasons to go to the moon are exactly the same reason to fake it, if they felt they could not achieve it...

Ready this:

http://news.discovery.com/space/private-spaceflight/why-did-we-go-to-the-moon.htm

In short

“The driving reason was Cold War competition with the Soviet Union,” Launius said. “Without that, it wouldn’t have happened.”

King Mob wrote: »

And the people who have reservations have no rational reason to have them.

This is to illustrate the flaw in the argument you are pointing to.
You claim that people believed that going to the moon or developing the technology in that short time was impossible.

I do not claim that, that's a fact, you can look at old footage of the period when BBC asked people if they thought it possible, many thought no.

King Mob wrote: »

If they aren't pointing out which technologies makes it impossible, how could they know it's impossible in the first place?
My point is that they don't know, so their position has no merit.

You need to untwist your thinking.

People voiced they did not think it was possible in 1968, I did not say it was impossible.

The speed of how fast this happened at best is remarkable.

King Mob wrote: »

We used to have Concorde since the seventies. Yet despite the 40 years of development we don't have a super-sonic jet liner.
So is it rational to argue that Concorde must have been fake?

Not that I want to get into the physics of this but do not mix up the advancements in technology with the physical constructs of speed, the ability of moving faster really has nothing to do with it...
I could fly a drone from anywhere on the planet with nothing more than my iPhone!

But Again your logic is flawed, we are not saying we have not developed rockets or saying the apollo 11 rocket was a fake, what is being contended is a single event, something that happened only one time, since the development of the Concorde or the jet engine how many people have been on flights?

I am not pretending anything, what I am saying is, if NASA and the US government wanted to fake the actual manned moon landing they could of, it happened one time and never since.

The enormity of just sending the rocket to the moon in itself meant there was no way to really know if what was being transmitted was real or per-recorded or faked.

When will the Lunar landings be accepted?

Comments