Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
When will the Lunar landings be accepted?
Options
Comments
-
Apologies, I mistakely thought you were using that article to show that the Russians suspected fakery.
Yes they did. They didn't have access to the original footage, but as I have pointed out several times they have many many other sources of information.ShowMeTheCash wrote: »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.
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.
And either way, they certainly have access to the same information that conspiracy theorists have.
I'm not saying it's because of a lack of technology, I'm saying it's impossible to do it and not be caught.ShowMeTheCash wrote: »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?
The Russians would have more than enough know how to spot the fakery and the information to find out something is amiss.
Especially if the conspiracy theorists can spot the mistakes.
But you have yet to show they felt they could not achieve it.ShowMeTheCash wrote: »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...
You have failed to explain why they would bother risking it when it wouldn't have convinced the Russians and experts and any exposure would result in the opposite of what motivates them.
Ok, what were these people basing this opinion on?ShowMeTheCash wrote: »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.
People voiced they did not think it was possible in 1968, I did not say it was impossible.
Insider information from NASA?
Some knowledge about physics or engineering that NASA wasn't able to over come?
Why would NASA share these people's opinions? Why would these people's opinions influence NASAs decision on whether or not to fake it?
Why would NASA fake anything when they were perfectly aware they could do it for real and were willing to do it for real?
My analogy is to illustrate why the argument put forward by conspiracy theorists is flawed.ShowMeTheCash wrote: »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?
Just because we haven't gone back to the moon doesn't mean we never did. Just because technology advances it doesn't mean it will advance in the same way.
Money and politics are the reason, just like with concorde.
It is an irrational reason to believe in the conspiracy theory.
It happened 5 more times after that...ShowMeTheCash wrote: »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.
But the notion that is real is the only sensible option. the notion that it was prerecorded is not worth seriously considering.ShowMeTheCash wrote: »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.
There's no reason to think that it was pre-recorded. There's no evidence that it was. And any concocted scenarios for why it might be are ridiculous.
It's possible, sure. But it's also possible that the whole affair is just a false memory implanted in the human race by aliens.
The only reason people believe one ridiculous idea over my one is that they are working off bad information and terrible biases.
You seem to be arguing that the conspiracy theory is on equal footing to the real story. I don't understand why.0 -
ShowMeTheCash wrote: »
They could of faked it, if they went to the moon they could easily of faked it
You sound fairly convinced they went up there0 -
Apologies, I mistakely thought you were using that article to show that the Russians suspected fakery.
Yes they did. They didn't have access to the original footage, but as I have pointed out several times they have many many other sources of information.
You say nothing, you say "other sources" what sources did Russia have that would confirm or deny Americans walked on the moon????I'm not saying it's because of a lack of technology, I'm saying it's impossible to do it and not be caught.
You think it impossible to do it and not get caught?
I really do not know what to say to that statement, I think most sensible people would say it would be easier to fake it than achieve it.The Russians would have more than enough know how to spot the fakery and the information to find out something is amiss.
Especially if the conspiracy theorists can spot the mistakes.
You keep saying this over and over.
If the Americans faked it what is it the Russians would need to prove the fake? Why are you so certain they would find out???
What specifically?
Russia never landed on the moon so they never really had the chance to examine the land site.But you have yet to show they felt they could not achieve it.
You have failed to explain why they would bother risking it when it wouldn't have convinced the Russians and experts and any exposure would result in the opposite of what motivates them.
I think you need to open you mind just a little.
You are making assertions like "they could not convince the Russians" says who? You...
Google it, a number of reservations from Russian scientists and government officials have been voiced as have other countries.Why would NASA share these people's opinions?
What are you on about? This was opinions voiced on the news at the time nothing to do with NASA.Why would these people's opinions influence NASAs decision on whether or not to fake it?
Again what are you on about???
Faking it would of been a decision made if they could not make it, nothing to do with what people thought.
JFK made his speech in 1961 that they would send a man to the moon.
They needed this to be a success.
This is going in circles, said who? NASA....Why would NASA fake anything when they were perfectly aware they could do it for real and were willing to do it for real?
Apology I meant happened since the last time all 6 happened in 2/3 year time period if I remember correctly.It happened 5 more times after that...But the notion that is real is the only sensible option. the notion that it was prerecorded is not worth seriously considering.
Why it would most definitely have been easier.There's no reason to think that it was pre-recorded. There's no evidence that it was.
And no evidence that it wasn't, you keep saying these statements as a matter of fact they are moot points.And any concocted scenarios for why it might be are ridiculous.
It's possible, sure. But it's also possible that the whole affair is just a false memory implanted in the human race by aliens.
I love how people jump to these crazy scenarios by ways of trying to rubbish a credible concern.The only reason people believe one ridiculous idea over my one is that they are working off bad information and terrible biases.
Through out the thread you say things like sources and evidence and technology but have not mentioned a single source a piece of evidence or mention specifically any technology but want to shut down a contention and use the word bias when you are presented nothing credible other than... "Oh that's rubbish the russians would of found out...."You seem to be arguing that the conspiracy theory is on equal footing to the real story. I don't understand why.
No I have said before I believe they went to the moon, I am saying however as someone who believes they went to the moon, I know even if I wanted to I could not prove beyond a doubt that they did.
I also concede that if America and NASA wanted to pull off a hokes they could.
You want to believe there is no way they could of and no way they would of got away it it.0 -
ShowMeTheCash wrote: »Dude take a breath....ShowMeTheCash wrote: »You need to untwist your thinking.I think most sensible people would sayI think you need to open you mind just a little.
Please drop antagonistic lines such as these, they do not add anything constructive to the topic.euroboom13 wrote: »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
I'm not sure, but imagine googling/researching around for the Engineering Details of the mission would get you those answers. Things like MPG and mass are straightforward, but as much propulsion was gravity driven as engine driven. Lunar rover tyres were provided by Goodyear I believe and they were not inflated. Construction to withstand speed(?) is a very vague query, are you asking about the craft's top speeds and G forces? The mission experienced up to 3 Gs.
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_11/overview/
http://www.history.com/topics/apollo-11
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_11
Here is the official mission report which unlike most modern technical reports I've bled my eyes reading, it appears to be a comprehensive document:
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/A11_MissionOpReport.pdf0 -
As I said before, they were tracking the capsules and monitoring the radio transmissions. They had spies who would have been able to find out this information. They had their own experts to analyse the video and photos and lunar samples.ShowMeTheCash wrote: »You say nothing, you say "other sources" what sources did Russia have that would confirm or deny Americans walked on the moon????
I am saying this because if conspiracy theorists are able to find flaws that you think have merit, then so can the Russians.ShowMeTheCash wrote: »You keep saying this over and over.
If the Americans faked it what is it the Russians would need to prove the fake? Why are you so certain they would find out???
What specifically?
I can't get more specific than that because you are not being specific about what was faked and how.
No they didn't. If they did then please point them out and where they said it.ShowMeTheCash wrote: »Google it, a number of reservations from Russian scientists and government officials have been voiced as have other countries.
So then if the people saying this had no influence on NASA's decision, why bring it up?ShowMeTheCash wrote: »What are you on about? This was opinions voiced on the news at the time nothing to do with NASA.
Again what are you on about???
Faking it would of been a decision made if they could not make it, nothing to do with what people thought.
JFK made his speech in 1961 that they would send a man to the moon.
They needed this to be a success.
This is going in circles, said who? NASA....
NASA fully believed they could land on the moon. The knew they wouldn't need to fake it.
People who believed it couldn't happen in the time it did happen weren't basing their opinion on good information.
No evidence that it isn't made by alien mind beams either.ShowMeTheCash wrote: »And no evidence that it wasn't, you keep saying these statements as a matter of fact they are moot points.
But that's not how it works. If there's no evidence that there is fakery, why would you think there is?
But it's not a credible concern. It's closer to alien mind beams than it is to reality. Just because something is technically possible, it doesn't mean that it's likely or rational.ShowMeTheCash wrote: »I love how people jump to these crazy scenarios by ways of trying to rubbish a credible concern.
Every argument you are making in support of the conspiracy theory can be used to support my ridiculous theory, yet you reject it out of hand.
I've explained very clearly why I think the Russians would have found out.ShowMeTheCash wrote: »Through out the thread you say things like sources and evidence and technology but have not mentioned a single source a piece of evidence or mention specifically any technology but want to shut down a contention and use the word bias when you are presented nothing credible other than... "Oh that's rubbish the russians would of found out...."
If you think I've made a claim I need to support with evidence, point it out.
Or maybe you can suggest a plausible scenario by which the Americans could have faked something, how they could have done it undetectably, and give a good reason for why they would do so.
Otherwise, you're just saying it's possible without actually giving a good reason to think it might be.
I don't think you can do this.
None of the conspiracy theorists have been able to do so in over 40 years...
So why do you believe that we went to the Moon?ShowMeTheCash wrote: »No I have said before I believe they went to the moon, I am saying however as someone who believes they went to the moon, I know even if I wanted to I could not prove beyond a doubt that they did.
I also concede that if America and NASA wanted to pull off a hokes they could.
Why do you not believe the conspiracy if it's so plausible and rational?0 -
Advertisement
-
As I said before, they were tracking the capsules and monitoring the radio transmissions. They had spies who would have been able to find out this information. They had their own experts to analyse the video and photos and lunar samples.
This break this down.
They where tracking the capsules, what does this prove? Absolutely nothing!
They where monitoring radio transmission, what does this prove? Again nothing....
In fact there is one CT around the radio transmission that it was allegedly over heard that someone from NASA tells the crew to leave a 4 second interval before answering any question to give the illusion they where further away.
They had spies who would have been able to find out this information, this is just vague and not a credible argument.
They had their own experts to analyse the video and photos and lunar samples. What experts and what samples?
The article I posted earlier says and I quote:
"According to a translation by the Moscow Times, Markin would support an inquiry into the disappearance of original footage from the first moon landing in 1969 and the whereabouts of lunar rock, which was brought back to Earth during several missions."
So lost footage and no one seems to know where the samples are.....I am saying this because if conspiracy theorists are able to find flaws that you think have merit, then so can the Russians.
30% of Russians do not believe America landed on the moon.
You seem to think even if Russia knew the USA did not land on the moon that they would simply publish this information to the world...I can't get more specific than that because you are not being specific about what was faked and how.
When I say specific you are just saying "It was not a fake, if it was people would know...." this is not a specific argument.
You are saying things with certainty.... "It could not of been faked" OK provide specific evidence or reason why someone could not fake it...
To give an example, I have never argued they could not go to the moon, I have outlined reasons why they could or would lie about it.
I have said if they have the technology to make it then they certainly have the technology to fake it.
You want to refute this statement by saying "they could not fake it" OK why you are saying nothing of substance that shows me they could not fake it and get away with it?No they didn't. If they did then please point them out and where they said it.
What do you think this probe into the moon landings is about?
But going back to the time frame some of the main Russians that voiced their concern
Yury Ignatyevich Mukhin (Politician)
Hey says the moon landing where fake and was a gimmick set up by the american government to essentially pocket the cash from the American tax payers.
Stanislav Pokrovsky (Russian and General Director of a scientific manufacturing) You can google his reasons.
These are but only a few.So then if the people saying this had no influence on NASA's decision, why bring it up?
NASA fully believed they could land on the moon. The knew they wouldn't need to fake it.
People who believed it couldn't happen in the time it did happen weren't basing their opinion on good information.
This is a completely empty statement... NASA believed they could do it... What does that have to do with anything? Maybe I believe I can fly, but if I jump out the window two things could happen, I could fly or I could fall.
NASA knew they would not need to fake it? Again why do you think this?
Let me put this into perspective.
America spent 8 years putting a man on the moon.
China is probably one of the most technologically advanced nations in the world right now, we are using technology 5 generations more sophisticated than the technology from the 60s and 70s.
China is spending a lot on their space program and are too looking to put a man on the moon.
Despite all these advancements in technology it is going to take the Chinese longer to achieve this than it did the Americans and this is 40 years after.No evidence that it isn't made by alien mind beams either.
But that's not how it works. If there's no evidence that there is fakery, why would you think there is?
But it's not a credible concern. It's closer to alien mind beams than it is to reality. Just because something is technically possible, it doesn't mean that it's likely or rational.
Every argument you are making in support of the conspiracy theory can be used to support my ridiculous theory, yet you reject it out of hand.
I've explained very clearly why I think the Russians would have found out.
If you think I've made a claim I need to support with evidence, point it out.
Or maybe you can suggest a plausible scenario by which the Americans could have faked something, how they could have done it undetectably, and give a good reason for why they would do so.
Otherwise, you're just saying it's possible without actually giving a good reason to think it might be.
I don't think you can do this.
None of the conspiracy theorists have been able to do so in over 40 years...
So why do you believe that we went to the Moon?
Why do you not believe the conspiracy if it's so plausible and rational?
I find the rest of this just remarkable.
You have shown no evidence to anything, quoted no one, made reference to no material and shown no one real definitive thing that could show beyond any doubt the Americans landed on the moon.
You run in circles with the same argument that the Russians would find out, NASA knew they could do it and there is no reason to fake it so why lie, all of these are empty statements.
You say there is no evidence of fakery but actually ignore everything I am saying.
At this point in time people are having trouble finding the samples.
The report says
"Nasa itself admitted that it had erased the original video recordings of the first moon landing among 200,000 other tapes in order to save money"
You do not find this a little weird?
New tapes have appeared, how real they are I don't know showing deliberate manipulation of the view of the earth from the shuttle....
Questions have been raised about radiation and the van allen belt, I do not know enough about this but I do remember it being brought up around a manned mission to mars, I kind of thought it strange as why was this not a problem for the manned mission to the moon?
NASA seem to have lost or deleted a lot of the "evidence" for what would have been the most significant event probably in our history?
As for the footage, crosshairs, waving flags, falling astronauts, shadows, similar backdrops, similar stones yes these could be explained away they do not prove anything but they do not disprove anything either.
Given enough time you can probably explain just about anything.0 -
Ignoring the fact there's no evidence for fakery at the moment, from a purely hypothetical point of view I don't think it would have been very easy to fake
Hundreds if not thousands of people would have to had been telling perfectly consistent lies without a single leak for decades, the US doesn't exactly have the best track record of this, that's a lot of deathbed confessions
As pointed out earlier in the thread the video footage would have been next to impossible to fake from a technical perspective
The role of the Russians can't be diminished, watching every movement, they tracked the mission from earth to the moon and back again (not to mention the use of first set reflective mirrors that suddenly appeared on the moon on 21st July 1969)
There were dozens of missions to the moon by both sides; orbiters, impacters, fly-by's, landers. Before Apollo 11, there were two successful missions, one in May, and one in December the year before, which both went to the moon, orbited it, and returned safely to earth. The second successful mission to land on the moon took place just 4 months after Apollo 11. Apollo 14, 15, 16 and 17 also landed. That's a lot of successful missions. We do know someone landed on the moon because we have the tech to see it now.
What would have been the rush to fake the first mission? The Russians were relatively far behind in the moon-landing aspect of the space race at that point in time because they lacked the rocket strength to get both a lander + orbiter up
Simply put, why fake the first mission, risk the dignity and credibility of the space program and entire nation when they clearly had the tech to do it, and do it multiple times.
Doesn't seem "easy" to fake at all, in fact in retrospect it seems more complex, more risky and more nonsensical to fake it than to land a man on the moon in the first place0 -
If they were tracking the capsules they would have noticed something exactly like this and used it as evidence.ShowMeTheCash wrote: »This break this down.
They where tracking the capsules, what does this prove? Absolutely nothing!
They where monitoring radio transmission, what does this prove? Again nothing....
In fact there is one CT around the radio transmission that it was allegedly over heard that someone from NASA tells the crew to leave a 4 second interval before answering any question to give the illusion they where further away..
However it's totally made up...
I've been arguing that point in several ways.ShowMeTheCash wrote: »When I say specific you are just saying "It was not a fake, if it was people would know...." this is not a specific argument.
You are saying things with certainty.... "It could not of been faked" OK provide specific evidence or reason why someone could not fake it...
You want to refute this statement by saying "they could not fake it" OK why you are saying nothing of substance that shows me they could not fake it and get away with it?.
Maybe it would be easier if you could outline a plausible and specific idea of what was faked, how it was faked and why that specific thing was faked.
But I don't think you can do this. Conspiracy theorists have had 50 years and they can't do it.
I don't understand what point you are trying to make.ShowMeTheCash wrote: »This is a completely empty statement... NASA believed they could do it... What does that have to do with anything? Maybe I believe I can fly, but if I jump out the window two things could happen, I could fly or I could fall.
NASA knew they would not need to fake it? Again why do you think this?
Let me put this into perspective.
America spent 8 years putting a man on the moon.
China is probably one of the most technologically advanced nations in the world right now, we are using technology 5 generations more sophisticated than the technology from the 60s and 70s.
China is spending a lot on their space program and are too looking to put a man on the moon.
Despite all these advancements in technology it is going to take the Chinese longer to achieve this than it did the Americans and this is 40 years after. .
Why would NASA want to resort to faking the moon landings?
They didn't doubt they had the technical ability by the time they were testing the Apollo vehicles.
They weren't worried about the Russians beating them by that time, because they had pulled ahead of them by a fairly wide margin and had been ahead of them for a few years.
So why after building Apollo and flying around the moon years before the Russians would be able to get there did they decide they couldn't do it?
What questions?ShowMeTheCash wrote: »Questions have been raised about radiation and the van allen belt, I do not know enough about this but I do remember it being brought up around a manned mission to mars, I kind of thought it strange as why was this not a problem for the manned mission to the moon?.
They were an issue for the mission and NASA were quite concerned with their effects.
However while they would not be the healthiest thing, the ships would be passing through them so quick the radiation would not be a major issue.
(Though now most of the astronauts who passed through them have developed cataracts possibly due to the Van Allen belts.)
The radiation would not have stopped the missions or made them impossible.
Not really. NASA is very bureaucratic and underfunded as well as a huge organisation. Slip ups like that happen.ShowMeTheCash wrote: »NASA seem to have lost or deleted a lot of the "evidence" for what would have been the most significant event probably in our history?
.
However the alternative explanation, that it's part of some massive cover up for a giant, fantastical conspiracy is simply ridiculous on the face of it0 -
It wasn't so much a lack of rocket power, it was more that the Russian rockets weren't as reliable as the Saturn V.What would have been the rush to fake the first mission? The Russians were relatively far behind in the moon-landing aspect of the space race at that point in time because they lacked the rocket strength to get both a lander + orbiter up
They were as far as testing a mock up by the time Apollo 11 was launching.
But it blew up on the launch pad.
After that and the American landings, the funding started to dry up and they didn't get any closer for the 5 years before the program was canceled.0 -
If they were tracking the capsules they would have noticed something exactly like this and used it as evidence.
However it's totally made up...
Maybe maybe not but already stated tracking the transmission does not prove the put a man on the moon.
To go back to your earlier statement that the Russians would know, I will ask you again, how would the Russians know?I've been arguing that point in several ways.
You have not made any argument, you have stated an opinion nothing more.Why would NASA want to resort to faking the moon landings?
Is this a serious question? Because they realised they could not achieve it perhaps?? Maybe they never intended on landing on the moon in the first place but thought it was a good way to raised money?? Maybe they felt they needed to have something to show after blowing 23 billion dollars.
Take your pick.They didn't doubt they had the technical ability by the time they were testing the Apollo vehicles.
You work for NASA in 1960s? What do you know about the engineering doubt, I already posted on how after the failure of Apollo 1 and the death of astronauts that it was deemed unsafe and not fit for purpose.They weren't worried about the Russians beating them by that time, because they had pulled ahead of them by a fairly wide margin and had been ahead of them for a few years.
Really says who? You? They plowed 23 billion into something because they where not worried.... OKSo why after building Apollo and flying around the moon years before the Russians would be able to get there did they decide they couldn't do it?
Again is this a serious question?
Are you asking why they decided they could't do it?
Like saying Albert Einstein decided we cannot travel faster than the speed of light...
How many other nations have had a manned mission that has actually left the earths orbit?
Your argument makes no sense. This is not about making decisions, it is very possible it became apparent the logistics of landing on the moon and having a craft get off it again where beyond what they could achieve at that time. It perhaps was just a step too far.What questions?
They were an issue for the mission and NASA were quite concerned with their effects.
However while they would not be the healthiest thing, the ships would be passing through them so quick the radiation would not be a major issue.
(Though now most of the astronauts who passed through them have developed cataracts possibly due to the Van Allen belts.)
The radiation would not have stopped the missions or made them impossible.
Yeah I read this explanation also, there seems to be a bit of debate around how dangerous the Van Allen belts are.
I say you know about as much as me on this... Not a lot.
I've listen to scientists say it would be mild to moderate radiation and other say it could be or would deadly.
The mars mission Orion are to send a unmanned probe 36000 miles above earth to measure the level of radiation for two reasons.
1. To measure the amount of radiation and 2. To test the shielding in Orion.
I find it somewhat strange they are only looking at this now and still do not know if it is safe, if we went to the moon would be not know already?
Not really. NASA is very bureaucratic and underfunded as well as a huge organisation. Slip ups like that happen.
However the alternative explanation, that it's part of some massive cover up for a giant, fantastical conspiracy is simply ridiculous on the face of it
OK - Sure man on the moon 23 billion, Oh we lost the tapes!
There could be many reason, and yes losing over 200 tapes could of happened.
Or perhaps they just don't want anyone to look at them.
What i find funny is this.
I am not saying the moon landing was faked, I am saying it could be faked.
A hard core CT fanatic will flat out say it is a fake.
On the flip side of that coin you are saying there is no way it could of been faked.
I would consider that type of thinking the same.0 -
Advertisement
-
Hundreds if not thousands of people would have to had been telling perfectly consistent lies without a single leak for decades, the US doesn't exactly have the best track record of this, that's a lot of deathbed confessions
Not really - Technicians in NASA have said that simulations vrs the real thing are almost indistinguishable.
The number of people who would of known the truth could have been a lot less than you think.As pointed out earlier in the thread the video footage would have been next to impossible to fake from a technical perspective
From a technical perspective why would this of been near impossible to fake?
It was a transmission.The role of the Russians can't be diminished, watching every movement, they tracked the mission from earth to the moon and back again (not to mention the use of first set reflective mirrors that suddenly appeared on the moon on 21st July 1969)
We are talking about a manned mission, if we are talking about putting things on the moon the Russians managed that before the Americans albeit it was a crash.There were dozens of missions to the moon by both sides; orbiters, impacters, fly-by's, landers. Before Apollo 11, there were two successful missions, one in May, and one in December the year before, which both went to the moon, orbited it, and returned safely to earth. The second successful mission to land on the moon took place just 4 months after Apollo 11. Apollo 14, 15, 16 and 17 also landed. That's a lot of successful missions. We do know someone landed on the moon because we have the tech to see it now.
We do not have the tech to see anything on the moon where did you get that?0 -
ShowMeTheCash wrote: »
What i find funny is this.
I am not saying the moon landing was faked, I am saying it could be faked.
Which is arguing a hypothetical with no tangible evidence so it can be dismissed without evidence
The counter-argument is not hypothetical by nature and has a vast amount of evidence, therefore is far stronger0 -
Which is arguing a hypothetical with no tangible evidence so it can be dismissed without evidence
The counter-argument is not hypothetical by nature and has a vast amount of evidence, therefore is far stronger
And this is where you too are making the mistake.
My argument is not that it did not happen or we didn't land on the moon there appears to me a lot of information showing we did.
My argument is around could it be faked?
You have provided no argument around the idea that it would be impossible to fake.0 -
Actually my argument goes a little further.
I would go as far to say if they didn't make it they would of faked it..
I think they would have had too.0 -
ShowMeTheCash wrote: »Not really - Technicians in NASA have said that simulations vrs the real thing are almost indistinguishable.
The number of people who would of known the truth could have been a lot less than you think.
Are these the same technicians that could be lying about the moon landing?From a technical perspective why would this of been near impossible to fake?
It was a transmission.
The Americans knew that the forth N1 Russian rocket blew up before the Kremlin did, both sides kept very close taps on each other on many levelsWe are talking about a manned mission, if we are talking about putting things on the moon the Russians managed that before the Americans albeit it was a crash.
True, but we are discussing hypotheticals.
Hypothetically with no evidence, you are saying another unmanned mission could have planted that mirror
Hypothetically with evidence, the Apollo 11 mission placed that mirror
The latter is strongerWe do not have the tech to see anything on the moon where did you get that?
There are images of the landing sites taken from orbiters.0 -
ShowMeTheCash wrote: »
My argument is around could it be faked?
You are arguing a hypothetical.
If the event happened, then it wasn't faked. Likewise if it was faked, then it the event didn't happen. It's an either/or situation (unless you believe it could have happened AND been faked)
So all someone has to do is provide evidence that a) it happened. There's then no recourse for it being faked (unless stronger counter-evidence is provided) do you follow?
If that can't be countered, then there's no argument
It's logic more than anything
It's the same with any other argument of a similar nature, if I say that aliens could have built the pyramids, someone can counter that the Egyptians built them and provide evidence.. if I can't provide evidence to the contrary, then the argument is over0 -
Again amoung many other reasons, one way is that they were tracking the missions and listening in on the radio transmissions.ShowMeTheCash wrote: »Maybe maybe not but already stated tracking the transmission does not prove the put a man on the moon.
To go back to your earlier statement that the Russians would know, I will ask you again, how would the Russians know?
They would be able to hear things like that rumored instruction you pointed to.
But why would they not be able to achieve it?ShowMeTheCash wrote: »Is this a serious question? Because they realised they could not achieve it perhaps?? Maybe they never intended on landing on the moon in the first place but thought it was a good way to raised money?? Maybe they felt they needed to have something to show after blowing 23 billion dollars.
Take your pick.
Why if they were intending to fake it from the start for some reason, why develop all the technology to actually land on the moon, fly people out there, but then not do it?
Again, the people at NASA were working on the technology. They knew they were way ahead of the Russians.ShowMeTheCash wrote: »You work for NASA in 1960s? What do you know about the engineering doubt, I already posted on how after the failure of Apollo 1 and the death of astronauts that it was deemed unsafe and not fit for purpose.
And even then, they fixed the issues that lead to the Apollo 1 disaster.
There's no reason at all to think they had doubts.
So again, which parts of the logistics where beyond what they could achieve at the time specifically?ShowMeTheCash wrote: »How many other nations have had a manned mission that has actually left the earths orbit?
Your argument makes no sense. This is not about making decisions, it is very possible it became apparent the logistics of landing on the moon and having a craft get off it again where beyond what they could achieve at that time. It perhaps was just a step too far.
No, there is no debate. The level of radiation in the Van Allen belts was and is known and it's a non-issue for the time the Apollo astronaut were going to spend in them.ShowMeTheCash wrote: »Yeah I read this explanation also, there seems to be a bit of debate around how dangerous the Van Allen belts are.
I say you know about as much as me on this... Not a lot.
I've listen to scientists say it would be mild to moderate radiation and other say it could be or would deadly.
If this is not the case, then please give exact numbers for the level of radiation the Apollo astronauts would have experienced and the level of radiation that is a lethal dose.
Conspiracy theorists often claim this, but they can't ever produce any numbers or evidence for it.
Again, what's suspicious here?ShowMeTheCash wrote: »The mars mission Orion are to send a unmanned probe 36000 miles above earth to measure the level of radiation for two reasons.
1. To measure the amount of radiation and 2. To test the shielding in Orion.
I find it somewhat strange they are only looking at this now and still do not know if it is safe, if we went to the moon would be not know already?
They are measuring the amount of radiation in different orbits at different times over long periods. None of which were needed for the Apollo missions, but are needed for future missions which will be in different areas of space for much longer times in different levels of radiation.
And they are testing the radiation shielding on the new capsule, because that's what you should do with new space craft.
So lets think of the alternative here. That they don't know the levels of radiation in the van Allen belts or that they are covering up the fact they are lethal.
I guess that means that all physicists are in on it too now as well?
Keeping and storing thousands of reels of film for 50 years is expensive. They take a lot of space and resources to maintain. So it's likely that some higher up decided to get rid of them without thinking about how they were getting rid of the Apollo tapes along with the thousands of other, less exciting tapes.ShowMeTheCash wrote: »OK - Sure man on the moon 23 billion, Oh we lost the tapes!
There could be many reason, and yes losing over 200 tapes could of happened.
Or perhaps they just don't want anyone to look at them.
Is this possible or less likely than the ridiculous conspiracy that you would need to imagine? (A conspiracy that for some reason involves NASA themselves announcing that they got rid of the tapes...)
So why don't you believe the conspiracy when it's so possible and reasonable?ShowMeTheCash wrote: »What i find funny is this.
I am not saying the moon landing was faked, I am saying it could be faked.
A hard core CT fanatic will flat out say it is a fake.
On the flip side of that coin you are saying there is no way it could of been faked.
I would consider that type of thinking the same.0 -
Could be what difference does it make?Are these the same technicians that could be lying about the moon landing?
You made assertions 100s maybe 1000s of people would need be in on it with no foundation... Yet you want to question the validity of someone stating it difficult to distinguish between simulation and reality?The Americans knew that the forth N1 Russian rocket blew up before the Kremlin did, both sides kept very close taps on each other on many levels
And? I asked the question how would the Russians be able to tell that Apollo 11’s lunar lander hand anyone in it?True, but we are discussing hypotheticals.
Hypothetically with no evidence, you are saying another unmanned mission could have planted that mirror
Again people want to nullify the possibility of some truth and some miss-truth Apollo 11 could of planted the mirror does not necessarily prove it was a manned mission.Hypothetically with evidence, the Apollo 11 mission placed that mirror
Agreed but you are ruling out the possibility that Apollo 11 landed an unmanned lunar craftThere are images of the landing sites taken from orbiters.
Best phots taken I think it was Orion back in 2012 by NASA.
But let’s be clear on this, if NASA did fake it they are hardly going to release a photo showing nothing…..0 -
ShowMeTheCash wrote: »Could be what difference does it make?
You made assertions 100s maybe 1000s of people would need be in on it with no foundation
My foundation is that if the whole thing was faked, then the engineers/technicians and many of the workers on the program would have to be in on it, as well as all of those involved in the fakery, and would have had to keep complete silence all these years
That concerns the difficulty to fake such an enterprise
If you have a specific hypothetical situation, like everything was real, but at the last moment astronauts slid down a chute into a radio room and the rest was faked from a studio requiring less people, or something along those lines
Even then my point still stands even that would not be easy to fake due to the fact that the very least amount of people to pull that off is still a large amount.. and the US track record on keeping people quiet is not the bestAnd? I asked the question how would the Russians be able to tell that Apollo 11’s lunar lander hand anyone in it?
Because it would make it make the whole enterprise more difficult and more complex, not "easy" as you were pointing outAgain people want to nullify the possibility of some truth and some miss-truth Apollo 11 could of planted the mirror does not necessarily prove it was a manned mission.
It's another piece of evidence. Again, upping the difficulty of fakery when used in conjunction with further evidenceAgreed but you are ruling out the possibility that Apollo 11 landed an unmanned lunar craft
We are discussing the ease of fakery here. Not the impossibility of, which is a common debate trap along the lines of e.g. "you can't 100% prove that the aliens didn't build the pyramids"0 -
Again amoung many other reasons, one way is that they were tracking the missions and listening in on the radio transmissions.
They would be able to hear things like that rumored instruction you pointed to.
Among other reasons, you keep doing this, you intimate reasons and give none, all you have done is say "Ah well if there was some dodgy broadcast they would have picked up on it...." I will ask again... How would the Russians know??? If you don't know just say you don't know.But why would they not be able to achieve it?
Why if they were intending to fake it from the start for some reason, why develop all the technology to actually land on the moon, fly people out there, but then not do it?
Why would they not be able to achieve it?? Is this a real question? Maybe because it was difficult, it is so difficult no other nation has been able to do it, its been 40 years since America done it, fake or real this is a silly question.
I doubt they intended to fake it from the start but like any mission I am sure someone sat down and said, what if we cannot do it?
Lets be real here, landing on the moon has held no significance for our planet none whatsoever it was a thing to do just to say we done it. The moon does not hold any benefit for us.
Rockets and satellites however have a functional role on how our planet operates today.Again, the people at NASA were working on the technology. They knew they were way ahead of the Russians.
And even then, they fixed the issues that lead to the Apollo 1 disaster.
This makes no sense - putting a rocket into syncopation orbit with the earth was no easy task, blowing rockets up with people inside them I am sure was enough of an insensitive to create the "technology".There's no reason at all to think they had doubts.
Doubts is why people check, double check and check again, without doubts there would be no progress.No, there is no debate. The level of radiation in the Van Allen belts was and is known and it's a non-issue for the time the Apollo astronaut were going to spend in them.
If this is not the case, then please give exact numbers for the level of radiation the Apollo astronauts would have experienced and the level of radiation that is a lethal dose.
Again I have said there is no debate on this, but you appear to think you know it all so you tell me, how much radiation would an astronaut experience in the Van Allen belt? How much radiation could an astronaut withstand?
Oh if you don't know please just say you don't know, will save us sometime.Keeping and storing thousands of reels of film for 50 years is expensive. They take a lot of space and resources to maintain. So it's likely that some higher up decided to get rid of them without thinking about how they were getting rid of the Apollo tapes along with the thousands of other, less exciting tapes.
So someone higher up probably got rid of them.... I see.
Space and resources, it was 200 tapes not really that many.
I probably have more than 200 home moves of my family on my pc at home...So why don't you believe the conspiracy when it's so possible and reasonable?
Because I think it was achievable and I think they achieved it.
I think NASA and the US Government have been deliberately secretive around the moon landings, maybe there is some truth in some things like pocketing some of the 23 Billion who knows.0 -
Advertisement
-
My foundation is that if the whole thing was faked
My first post on this thread was exactly about this.
Someone asks the question could the moon landing of been fake, and they do what you are doing now.
How could the whole thing be a fake, people watched the rocket go up.....
Was any of it faked? Could any of it been faked?0 -
Because it would make it make the whole enterprise more difficult and more complex, not "easy" as you were pointing out
So this is how the Russians knew?
I am asking the question how would the Russians have known, I will say the same to you, if you don't know, just say you don't know.. I don't0 -
We are discussing the ease of fakery here. Not the impossibility of, which is a common debate trap along the lines of e.g. "you can't 100% prove that the aliens didn't build the pyramids"
True... And maybe not you, but another poster did say.
1. It would be impossible to fake.
2. There would be no motivation to fake it, if they did not make it.
I am contending more so with these ideas.0 -
I gave several methods as did DohnJoe.ShowMeTheCash wrote: »Among other reasons, you keep doing this, you intimate reasons and give none, all you have done is say "Ah well if there was some dodgy broadcast they would have picked up on it...." I will ask again... How would the Russians know??? If you don't know just say you don't know.
Them picking up on a dodgy broadcast is one method.
Would such transmissions not clue them in?
What's silly about it. I'm asking you what obstacle they could have run into when they had already developed all of the technology to get to and land on the moon and get back.ShowMeTheCash wrote: »Why would they not be able to achieve it?? Is this a real question? Maybe because it was difficult, it is so difficult no other nation has been able to do it, its been 40 years since America done it, fake or real this is a silly question.
Can you point to what they might have been missing?
No you said:ShowMeTheCash wrote: »Again I have said there is no debate on this,Yeah I read this explanation also, there seems to be a bit of debate around how dangerous the Van Allen belts are.
http://www.clavius.org/envrad.htmlShowMeTheCash wrote: »but you appear to think you know it all so you tell me, how much radiation would an astronaut experience in the Van Allen belt? How much radiation could an astronaut withstand?
Oh if you don't know please just say you don't know, will save us sometime.
http://www.clavius.org/envradintro.html
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/tnD7080RadProtect.pdf
The Apollo astronauts got around 2 rem per mission on average, which is much lower than the legal safe level for radiation workers per year. (5 rem)
A lethal dose is around 700 rem.
And for an extra bonus, here's what James van Allen had to say on this aspect on the conspiracy:"The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense."
They weren't tapes. they were film reels. And it wasn't just 200 from the Apollo missions, it was thousands from all other missions as well as tests flights etc..ShowMeTheCash wrote: »So someone higher up probably got rid of them.... I see.
Space and resources, it was 200 tapes not really that many.
I probably have more than 200 home moves of my family on my pc at home...
NASA still has all of the footage stored on other media and all of it is publicly available.
What they are referring to is the original film prints.
What have they been secretive about?ShowMeTheCash wrote: »Because I think it was achievable and I think they achieved it.
I think NASA and the US Government have been deliberately secretive around the moon landings, maybe there is some truth in some things like pocketing some of the 23 Billion who knows.0 -
ShowMeTheCash wrote: »True... And maybe not you, but another poster did say.
1. It would be impossible to fake.
2. There would be no motivation to fake it, if they did not make it.
I am contending more so with these ideas.
I noticed but you seemed to also contend it would have been relatively easy to fake (based on the fact that they got to the moon)
Without going into too much depth, I was showing that it would have been very complex and difficult to fake
It would have thrown up a different set of challenges, many of which wouldn't have been relevant to the technical capabilities of getting to the moon, e.g. keeping the requisite people silent/adhering to the lie for decades, through many different administrations and the end of the Cold War
The problem is that your side of the argument has the broadest possible goalposts, which can be shifted at any time to accommodate doubt, speculation, assumptions and so on, e.g. evidence and explanations have to be provided to you, and not vice-versa (a bit like a kid going "but why, but why, but why")
It's far easier to sit on the fence and cast doubt on something, than it is to constantly support something with substantiated evidence, proof and facts (especially when it's focused on one person who can subjective dismiss it all)
The best support of a hypothetical situation - is a theory. Your view (that it was possible to fake the moon landings) doesn't have this theory (a set of actions)
If it does, put it forward, we can see how it stands up0 -
I gave several methods as did DohnJoe.
Them picking up on a dodgy broadcast is one method.
Would such transmissions not clue them in?
Hmm no you didn't I gave the dodgy broadcast example as CT, you have and still have provided nothing other than they watched them closely hardly anything specific.
Also, again even if the Russians did pick up on America trying to falsify data or events why do you think we would find out?What's silly about it. I'm asking you what obstacle they could have run into when they had already developed all of the technology to get to and land on the moon and get back.
Can you point to what they might have been missing?
They developed all the technology, you keep saying this, they had never achieved it before so how can you say they developed all the technology.
I could go buy all the "technology" required to climb Everest does not mean I will achieve it.
That's why it is a silly statement... Unless you are an engineer that worked on the Apollo mission who from an educated perspective tell me something I cannot google then it is moot point.No you said:
That was a typo, I am saying there is some debate.
This is probably the first useful thing you have posted gives some good information around radiation and the Van Allen belts.
The Apollo astronauts got around 2 rem per mission on average, which is much lower than the legal safe level for radiation workers per year. (5 rem)
A lethal dose is around 700 rem.
This is where the debate comes in.
http://spacemath.gsfc.nasa.gov/Algebra1/3Page7.pdf
This documents says 300 Rads in hour would be a lethal dosage.
It calculates the dosage or radiation through different sections of the belts.
Blue: = 27.6 minutes x ( 60 sec/ 1 minute) x (0.0001 Rads/sec) = 0.17 Rads
Yellow = 6.1 minutes x 60 sec/minute x 0.005 rads/sec = 1.83 Rads
Orange = 15.3 minutes x (60 sec/minute) x 0.01 rads/sec = 9.18 Rads
Green = 3.8 minutes x (60 sec/minute) x 0.001 rads/sec = 0.23 Rads
Total 11.4 Rads per mission.
Granted not a lethal dosage but it seems to be a little inconsistent.
Almost 6 times the mount of radiation the other doc suggests and a lethal dosage being more than half the amount previously stated.
The inconsistency is what makes the debate.They weren't tapes. they were film reels. And it wasn't just 200 from the Apollo missions, it was thousands from all other missions as well as tests flights etc..
NASA still has all of the footage stored on other media and all of it is publicly available.
What they are referring to is the original film prints.
What have they been secretive about?
I am talking specifically about the 200 that where destroyed or lost you can go on whatever tangent you want.
Losing those reals/tapes is a massive loss, you can spin it whatever way you want, that data ultimately cost 23 billion US dollars losing it is nothing short of shocking...
That is of course if they have lost it. The US government and NASA even if the mission was 100% and they had nothing to hide as far as the moon landings go would still not hand those tapes over.... Understandably back in the 60s it may have given intel to Russian on America's capabilities with regards defense or a military attack but not so much now.
So are you suggesting NASA and the US government are not secretive?0 -
Yes, you gave the example, I explained how it would lead to the Russians finding out.ShowMeTheCash wrote: »Hmm no you didn't I gave the dodgy broadcast example as CT, you have and still have provided nothing other than they watched them closely hardly anything specific.
Also, again even if the Russians did pick up on America trying to falsify data or events why do you think we would find out?
And I can't give anything specific because you are remaining vague.
Please suggest what you think the Americans specifically might have faked and how they did so, then I might be able to explain in detail how the Russians would know.
Are you now saying it's not an issue of technology at all, but rather the skill and training of the astronauts?ShowMeTheCash wrote: »They developed all the technology, you keep saying this, they had never achieved it before so how can you say they developed all the technology.
I could go buy all the "technology" required to climb Everest does not mean I will achieve it.
Or was it the technology?
If they were worried about the astronauts not being good enough to land the craft, why couldn't they have just made the lander automatic?
Could you please be more specific about what the supposed failing was?
So the debate comes from a children's math problem?ShowMeTheCash wrote: »That was a typo, I am saying there is some debate.
This is where the debate comes in.
http://spacemath.gsfc.nasa.gov/Algebra1/3Page7.pdf
This documents says 300 Rads in hour would be a lethal dosage.
It calculates the dosage or radiation through different sections of the belts.
Granted not a lethal dosage but it seems to be a little inconsistent.
Almost 6 times the mount of radiation the other doc suggests and a lethal dosage being more than half the amount previously stated.
The inconsistency is what makes the debate.
One that says:Note: According to radiation dosimeters carried by Apollo astronauts, their total dosage for the entire trip to the moon and return
was not more than 2 Rads over 6 days.
The total dosage for the trip is only 11.4 Rads in 52.8 minutes. Because 52.8 minutes is equal to 0.88
hours, his is equal to a dosage of 11.4 Rads / 0.88 hours = 13 Rads in one hour, which is well below
the 300 Rads in one hour that is considered to be lethal.
Also, this radiation exposure would be for an astronaut outside the spacecraft during the transit through
the belts. The radiation shielding inside the spacecraft cuts down the 13 Rads/hour exposure so that it is
completely harmless.
Where is the debate exactly?
Why does this inconsistency exist in the contexts of a possible conspiracy?
But the data isn't lost. All of the information and footage is stored in other media. It's simply the originals that are gone.ShowMeTheCash wrote: »I am talking specifically about the 200 that where destroyed or lost you can go on whatever tangent you want.
Losing those reals/tapes is a massive loss, you can spin it whatever way you want, that data ultimately cost 23 billion US dollars losing it is nothing short of shocking...
It's not shocking that a bureaucrat would get rid of something like that unthinkingly in the effort to save money. Either the important tapes where simply lost and lumped in with the thousands of less exciting tapes, or they didn't think of trying to preserve them.
Nothing implausible about this, unlike the conspiracy explanation, which you have failed to provide.
Source for this? Who would they be handing it over to? It was freely available. All the footage still is on the NASA website...ShowMeTheCash wrote: »That is of course if they have lost it. The US government and NASA even if the mission was 100% and they had nothing to hide as far as the moon landings go would still not hand those tapes over.... Understandably back in the 60s it may have given intel to Russian on America's capabilities with regards defense or a military attack but not so much now.
Not NASA and not in this regard.ShowMeTheCash wrote: »So are you suggesting NASA and the US government are not secretive?0 -
Yes, you gave the example, I explained how it would lead to the Russians finding out.
And I can't give anything specific because you are remaining vague.
This is going in circles.
Point of fact.
What did the Russians find out? What do the Russians know?
We know neither... You keep saying the "Russians would find out..."
If the USA faked this, you are making the assumption that Russia would be able to tell without a shadow of a doubt. You then make the assumption if they had a doubt they could actually prove it, lastly you go further to suggest if they had compelling evidence they would go public with it.
What I am suggesting is a hypothetical, but your response to this hypothetical scenario is that you would be certain the Russians would find out and go public with this information. (Or would have went public)
If you are certain of this, the burden is on you to prove why you think this.Please suggest what you think the Americans specifically might have faked and how they did so, then I might be able to explain in detail how the Russians would know.
Again I am not suggesting they faked anything, I am suggesting they could fake something.
But let's go with the obvious one.
The actual footage of the moon walk....
Let me give a scenario, let's say NASA said listen guys we are going to send you to the moon, this mission needs to be a success but as a precaution we are going to manufacture some footage of a moon walk etc...
In the event we cannot land you on the moon we may make the decision to broadcast the manufactured footage.
Being I am sure the actual moon landing and launching from the moon surface would have posed a significant challenge.
So my question is this, how would the Russians know the footage from the manned landing was indeed authentic?Are you now saying it's not an issue of technology at all, but rather the skill and training of the astronauts?
Or was it the technology?
If they were worried about the astronauts not being good enough to land the craft, why couldn't they have just made the lander automatic?
Could you please be more specific about what the supposed failing was?
I am saying you do not know what you are talking about, you keep using the work technology in a very broad a term, saying we had the technology in 1969 is a completely empty statement.
Tell me about the Apollo guidance computer, how did the code work? How many lines of code did it take to complete, what language was it written in, how did it work?
Oh try and answer this without google, I can google it myself.
Point I am making, you are basing the idea of "technology" on what you can google, short of being a software engineer on guidance systems, a mechanical engineer on the mechanics of the craft, a rocket scientist on the physics of getting to the moon.
I try not get into the argument of "technology" in 1969 as:
1. I was not there.
2. Apart from the software engineer end, I could not tell you much on the others.
All I can comment on is the technology today, even today it appears to be so difficult no one has attempted it in 40 years.So the debate comes from a children's math problem?
Where is the debate exactly?
Why does this inconsistency exist in the contexts of a possible conspiracy?
Because it is inconstant.
As for the shielding on the Apollo 11, there is no significant shielding the only thing that shielded well against radiation was lead which is not the easiest thing to try and catapult into space again some debate around this. The main focus on the mission was to try and reduce the amount of time an Astronaut would be exposed that's they could do.
It was conceded with regards the shielding that any significant solar flare activity could be extremely dangerous to astronauts.
The mission was by no means safe with regards radiation as you are trying to make out, we didn't have the technology to really deal with it and we still kind of don't.
I think though I might be wrong, the biggest thing holding back a manned mission to mars in the length of time man would need to be in space exposed to different kinds of radiation with no real way to protect against it successfully.But the data isn't lost. All of the information and footage is stored in other media. It's simply the originals that are gone.
It's not shocking that a bureaucrat would get rid of something like that unthinkingly in the effort to save money. Either the important tapes where simply lost and lumped in with the thousands of less exciting tapes, or they didn't think of trying to preserve them.
Nothing implausible about this, unlike the conspiracy explanation, which you have failed to provide.
You seem to make excuses when met with a reasonable question.
I am not suggesting this quantifies every CT going about the moon landing.
I am saying it is strange almost hard to believe they would do this.... You make excuses about bureaucrat and saving money when you know nothing to what actually happened... Was it a mistake... was a decision actually made to get rid of them?? NASA never really explained it.
Again you say all the footage is on the website? How do you know it's all the footage?Source for this? Who would they be handing it over to? It was freely available. All the footage still is on the NASA website...
You are making a statement here you cannot prove.Not NASA and not in this regard.
OK if you say so :rolleyes:0 -
And I've explained this several times. I've given you several methods by which the Russians would have found out, including, but not limited to:ShowMeTheCash wrote: »What I am suggesting is a hypothetical, but your response to this hypothetical scenario is that you would be certain the Russians would find out and go public with this information. (Or would have went public)
If you are certain of this, the burden is on you to prove why you think this.- Spotting the mistakes in the footage.
- Spotting physical inconsistencies in the footage because they weren't filming on the Moon.
- Testing the samples returned by the mission
- Tracking the missions via radar and noticing that the craft aren't were they are supposed to be or not acting consistently with the reported mission.
- Monitoring the radio transmissions for clues of fakery or inconsistencies.
- Engineers being able to tell if the Apollo craft did something impossible for current technology.
- Experts in film and photography being able to notice tricks or edits in the released footage and pictures.
- Generally being able to notice when the US are launching secret missions to the moon they aren't telling others about (if they were sending unmanned missions to collect samples or plant retroreflectors.)
- And then lots and lots of spies.
For this specifically, they would have to transmit a message saying that they had made such a decision. As well as the astronauts reporting whatever problems they ran into that prevented them from landing.ShowMeTheCash wrote: »Let me give a scenario, let's say NASA said listen guys we are going to send you to the moon, this mission needs to be a success but as a precaution we are going to manufacture some footage of a moon walk etc...
In the event we cannot land you on the moon we may make the decision to broadcast the manufactured footage.
The Russians would have heard this.
Then NASA would have to somehow get a signal out to the craft and bounce it back or whatever they needed to do to make it seem like the transmission was coming from Apollo, all without the Russians noticing this.
And then during all of this, the real astronauts would have to remain totally radio silent so as not to interfere with the fake transmissions, which is very dangerous in space. (Especially if they are dealing with some problem that prevented them from attempting the landing.)
And then also act all the way back to Earth as if they did do the landing.
Then the footage would have had to be perfect, which is not likely since they would have had to have filmed it on Earth.
And then the Russian spies would have noticed the large filming and covering up of the filming.
Because there was no mistakes and it was all consistent with the other evidence and there's no plausible, sane alternative explanation.ShowMeTheCash wrote: »So my question is this, how would the Russians know the footage from the manned landing was indeed authentic?
You are misunderstanding my point, possibly because you have moved the goal posts so much at this stage.ShowMeTheCash wrote: »I am saying you do not know what you are talking about, you keep using the work technology in a very broad a term, saying we had the technology in 1969 is a completely empty statement.
I am pointing out how no conspiracy theorists have been able to point out what about the Apollo craft or their development is impossible.
None can. Hence people "feeling" it was too fast based on nothing but their gumption is not a good argument, never mine a reasonable basis for a conspiracy theorist.
So you are surprised by how fast they developed the technology. So what is your point?
Not really. First they explain it quite clearly. And second it's a child's math problem.ShowMeTheCash wrote: »Because it is inconstant.
Do you think that this is an authoritative thing? Do you really have nothing better?
The hull and internal components of Apollo acted as some shielding. The fuel and water tanks also offered a bit more shielding. Wasn't perfect, but it offered more protection than just being outside the ship with nothing.ShowMeTheCash wrote: »As for the shielding on the Apollo 11, there is no significant shielding the only thing that shielded well against radiation was lead which is not the easiest thing to try and catapult into space again some debate around this. The main focus on the mission was to try and reduce the amount of time an Astronaut would be exposed that's they could do.
And lead, even if you could get it up into space is a comparatively terrible material for a radiation shield. Unless it's very very thick, it can actually result in more radiation inside the vessel.
You say it's hard to believe, but I offer a reasonable explanation that doesn't result in a conspiracy and isn't impossible or unlikely.ShowMeTheCash wrote: »You seem to make excuses when met with a reasonable question.
I am not suggesting this quantifies every CT going about the moon landing.
I am saying it is strange almost hard to believe they would do this.... You make excuses about bureaucrat and saving money when you know nothing to what actually happened... Was it a mistake... was a decision actually made to get rid of them?? NASA never really explained it.
So please explain what is hard to believe about my explanation and what is the better alternative?
Edit: You can read NASA explanation here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_11_missing_tapes
Again, what specifically is NASA being secretive about?ShowMeTheCash wrote: »OK if you say so :rolleyes:
The missing film, which they announced they had lost to the public themselves?0 -
Advertisement
-
This whole lead mention sounds erroneous, as Gold was/is the primary shielding element on spacecraft, rolled into stupid-thin sheeting and at least 1 layer of the stuff is between each point of the cabin and exterior bar the windows, its dense material structure blocks out. And used tons of other places on the craft as well, including ICs which seems excessive to me but they can't tolerate failures up there (from static and corrosion apparently)
http://www.geek.com/science/geek-answers-why-does-nasa-use-so-much-gold-foil-1568610/0
Advertisement