Hoaxesssss innnnn Spaaaaaace

mickdw

The greatest pattern I see across various threads is your arguing in favour of American government whatever the issue at hand.
I'm not a complete idiot. I'm a degree qualified Engineer so have a reasonable level of maths, physics and general understanding. I just don't like to accept everything we are told. I like to understand things from start to end.

Don't make me laugh re Apollo 1. Did they not burn up on the ground - like I mean on planet earth before they went anywhere at all.

namloc1980

mickdw wrote: »

The greatest pattern I see across various threads is your arguing in favour of American government whatever the issue at hand.
I'm not a complete idiot. I'm a degree qualified Engineer so have a reasonable level of maths, physics and general understanding. I just don't like to accept everything we are told. I like to understand things from start to end.

A degree qualified engineer who doesn't understand retroreflectors and believes 1960s film making techniques were better than today's. :pac:

mickdw

Wibbs wrote: »

mickdw wrote: »

They could easily have filmed the actual moon scenes in a top secret location.

Right, now let's look at this aspect - and this is usually overlooked in this conspiracy stuff.

Have you any idea what filmmaking and special effects techniques were like in the 1960's? How primitive they were when compared to today? The usual guff about Stanley Kubrick faking the whole thing is rolled out. OK look at 2001 a Space Odyssey. That was the high point in special effects and remained one for many years. Looks fantastic even today. However it still looks "fake" and looked it then, but the spectacle was and remains enough to suspend disbelief.

But take special effects tech today and CGI and all the advances that have come along. OK, show me one example of any Hollywood flic where men in spacesuits walking on another world doesn't look fake. Look at the recent First Man film about Armstrong and the moon landings. The moon bits still look "wrong" even today. The dust doesn't fall correctly, the faked movements in lower gravity don't look right. They look right in the flight sequences alright, because like in the 90's Apollo 13 flic they shot much of it in aircraft flying a parabola to mimic low gravity(so called Vomit Comets), but they couldn't do that with the walking on the moon stuff.

But OK, let's imagine they could have faked the grainy footage from Apollo 11(but even there and I'll outline why later). Cool. But with every successive mission the video footage got better, in colour and in much higher definition and was transmitted for longer. Never mind the reels of 16mm colour film and countless reels of still photography. Hours, days worth of the stuff. Oh and with sound and radio transmissions back and forth that anyone with a ham radio setup(which was a popular hobby back then) could listen in on(and yes there is a discernible delay because of the distances involved).

And that's the aspect I'll outline now. Let's imagine they were able to fake the film to a level we can't even do today. Great, now you have to transfer that to video and in real time. Film comes in reels of a finite length. In shooting the cameras run out around the 10 minute mark, maybe 20 with huge reels or lower FPS rates. After processing you of course have longer reels, but again of finite length. In the old days of cinema projectionists they'd have to swap out the reels while the film was running and if you're aware of it you can spot when they did it. So if you're transmitting a few hours of video footage from a film original you have to change the reels and do so bloody seamlessly for an audience of millions, even billions at times and your moon conspiracy types don't seem to mention how they made this possible with 1960's film and video technology. We couldn't do it today.

Do you not see the irony within all you have posted...... your argument boils down to it not being possible to fake the film today so therefore it must not be possible to fake the film in 69.
I little switch around and we could similarly argue we cannot land on the moon today, so how did they do it in 69.

skerry

mickdw wrote: »

Do you not see the irony within all you have posted...... your argument boils down to it not being possible to fake the film today so therefore it must not be possible to fake the film in 69.
I little switch around and we could similarly argue we cannot land on the moon today, so how did they do it in 69.

martingriff

mickdw wrote: »

Do you not see the irony within all you have posted...... your argument boils down to it not being possible to fake the film today so therefore it must not be possible to fake the film in 69.
I little switch around and we could similarly argue we cannot land on the moon today, so how did they do it in 69.

Who says we can't land on the moon today. It is expensive to do so do not do it. Bit like the Concorde too expensive so now not doing it

King Mob

mickdw wrote: »

Don't make me laugh re Apollo 1. Did they not burn up on the ground - like I mean on planet earth before they went anywhere at all.

You said that there was no accidents. There was. You are now moving the goalposts in a very pathetically obvious way.

If you are an engineer, which I dont believe for the record, then you should have no issue explaining the technical aspects of what you think made the missions impossible.
But you keep avoiding this point because you cannot address it.
Man up and just admit that.

Wibbs

mickdw wrote: »

Do you not see the irony within all you have posted...... your argument boils down to it not being possible to fake the film today so therefore it must not be possible to fake the film in 69.
I little switch around and we could similarly argue we cannot land on the moon today, so how did they do it in 69.

Jesus... We could go to the moon today and more easily with advances in engineering and IT, if we had the will and were willing to invest in the resources to do it. Currently we don't. Just like we could build Concorde today and more quickly, but we simply don't feel the need at the moment. So we don't. The Chinese have expressed an interest in going and have already landed probes. And guess what, their photos from the surface look exactly like those of the Apollo missions. Unless they aimed at and landed in a 50 year old film studio lot by mistake?

And as I pointed out humanity was able to regularly launch thousands of rockets into the upper atmosphere in the 1940's. No computers, no integrated circuits, just slide rules and engineering. To get into orbit and go to the moon was "simply" a case of increasing the massive resources to do so. Going bigger essentially. Engineers and scientists had described such an endeavour and some with surprising accuracy as far back as the 20's. At its heart it's relatively basic heavy engineering and Newtonian physics.

The greatest pattern I see across various threads is your arguing in favour of American government whatever the issue at hand.

Well that's most certainly not my thing. Indeed it's partly because I think the US government is regularly full of poo and invests for its own ends that they went for the space race because it was a giant willie waving exercise by the Americans in their need to trounce the "Reds under the bed" and after Sputnik over their heads. Sputnik really rattled them and when Gargarin went up... And one reason why they cut the funding and stopped was they won that willie waving competition. If they had lost a mission, which they fully expected to sooner or later that would have soured their victory lap.

mickdw

namloc1980 wrote: »

mickdw wrote: »

The greatest pattern I see across various threads is your arguing in favour of American government whatever the issue at hand.
I'm not a complete idiot. I'm a degree qualified Engineer so have a reasonable level of maths, physics and general understanding. I just don't like to accept everything we are told. I like to understand things from start to end.

A degree qualified engineer who doesn't understand retroreflectors and believes 1960s film making techniques were better than today's. :pac:

I've made no reference to retroreflectors whatsoever.
You believe the Americans could put a man on the moon but couldn't make a man appear to be in low gravity for the purposes of a film.
I believe it was easier to achieve the film than the moon landing and I don't think that is an unreasonable stance.

firemansam4

bfa1509 wrote:

I have an engineering background, and quite frankly, I can't believe any human ever got to space (or at least got to space and returned alive), let alone the moon landings. It breaks too many physical and thermodynamic laws, especially with the near perfect vacuum that is supposedly up there. (I can go at it with any opposers who are willing to spend the energy!!)

bfa1509 wrote:

I very subtly and carefully hinted my doubts to some, close, considerate people I know and the one argument they always come up with is that too many people would have to keep it secret, thousands of people. This simply isn't true, the whole space program contracts all the projects out to 3rd party contractors who fulfil a specific project. All of these then converge together to form the program. Very few people need to be "in on it". And even if they blew the whistle, nobody would believe them.

This is off the wall tin foil hat stuff, I mean I can understand why some people might question the moon landings (Not that I believe that conspiracy for one second)

But what you have posted is just ridiculous, over 5 decades of space travel between multiple nations and you think they are all keeping up this secret?

So When you say manned space flight breaks too many physical and thermodynamic laws, is this just your own opinion or do you have any links to any experts in the field explaining this?
Or are they all in on this conspiracy as well?

mickdw

King Mob wrote: »

mickdw wrote: »

Don't make me laugh re Apollo 1. Did they not burn up on the ground - like I mean on planet earth before they went anywhere at all.

You said that there was no accidents. There was. You are now moving the goalposts in a very pathetically obvious way.

If you are an engineer, which I dont believe for the record, then you should have no issue explaining the technical aspects of what you think made the missions impossible.
But you keep avoiding this point because you cannot address it.
Man up and just admit that.

I have not claimed to be an expert in Rocket Engineering but have an Engineering Degree and as such have a general understanding of Maths and Physics beyond what much of the population will have.

King Mob

mickdw wrote: »

I have not claimed to be an expert in Rocket Engineering but have an Engineering Degree and as such have a general understanding of Maths and Physics beyond what much of the population will have.

Cool.
So answer the question.

914

mickdw wrote: »

I didn't say impossible just not with 1960s tech.
Why completely stop going there if they could manage it so readily in the 1960s?
Surely we would have constructed a station on the moon if it is accessible like you believe.

Not with 1960's tech but yet the Vikings with no tech managed to cross the Atlantic and reach North America

The Egyptians had no tech but managed to build the pyrmaids.

The celts had no tech but managed to build Newgrange.

Humans are capable of some pretty amazing things.

In 1914 submarines were widely used during the first world war, how did we manage that with the tech available in 1914?

I would love you to explain as to why the tech in the 60's couldn't get us to the moon and back?

namloc1980

mickdw wrote: »

I've made no reference to retroreflectors whatsoever.
You believe the Americans could put a man on the moon but couldn't make a man appear to be in low gravity for the purposes of a film.
I believe it was easier to achieve the film than the moon landing and I don't think that is an unreasonable stance.

That's a ludicrous argument. "I believe it was easier to film it therefore that's my truth". Your telling us you are a degree qualified engineer but clearly one that doesn't believe in science. Can you explain rationally how it was impossible based on actual science and argument. This nonsense that you can't wrap your head around therefore it didn't happen, is frankly pathetic.

skerry

mickdw wrote: »

I have not claimed to be an expert in Rocket Engineering but have an Engineering Degree and as such have a general understanding of Maths and Physics beyond what much of the population will have.

But you have sufficient expertise to debunk the achievements of rocket engineers who I'm guessing are infinitely more qualified than you

Makes sense to me.

Timberrrrrrrr

mickdw wrote: »

I have not claimed to be an expert in Rocket Engineering but have an Engineering Degree and as such have a general understanding of Maths and Physics beyond what much of the population will have.

That's debatable.

Cork Boy 53

firemansam4 wrote: »

This is off the wall tin foil hat stuff, I mean I can understand why some people might question the moon landings (Not that I believe that conspiracy for one second)

But what you have posted is just ridiculous, over 5 decades of space travel between multiple nations and you think they are all keeping up this secret?

So When you say manned space flight breaks too many physical and thermodynamic laws, is this just your own opinion or do you have any links to any experts in the field explaining this?
Or are they all in on this conspiracy as well?

Indeed. I can`t decide whether this poster is just a troll/windup merchant or if he/she genuinely believes all the utter BS he/she is spouting.

914

mickdw wrote: »

I have not claimed to be an expert in Rocket Engineering but have an Engineering Degree and as such have a general understanding of Maths and Physics beyond what much of the population will have.

How exactely do you have a better understanding of Maths and Physics beyond what much of the population will have?

Having a degree just shows that you have the ability to learn.

I have a Masters in IT which involved a lot of mathematics but that doesn't not put me mathematically ahead of much of the population.

namloc1980

mickdw wrote: »

I have not claimed to be an expert in Rocket Engineering but have an Engineering Degree and as such have a general understanding of Maths and Physics beyond what much of the population will have.

Yet your calling into question the achievements of actual rocket and spaceflight engineers??? :pac:

So can you use your engineering understanding to explain how the moon landings were impossible. So far your argument has been based on your feelings and your inability to comprehend the moon landings.

Usually hoaxers make some effort with photos and shadows and what not. You're not even attempting ANY sort of argument, other than your feelings that it didn't happen.

SlowBlowin

mickdw wrote: »

I little switch around and we could similarly argue we cannot land on the moon today, so how did they do it in 69.

I don't know if you have a twitter account but if you do perhaps the right thing to do would be to send a tweet to Elon. He is being conned, put him right...

mickdw

King Mob wrote: »

mickdw wrote: »

Don't make me laugh re Apollo 1. Did they not burn up on the ground - like I mean on planet earth before they went anywhere at all.

You said that there was no accidents. There was. You are now moving the goalposts in a very pathetically obvious way.

If you are an engineer, which I dont believe for the record, then you should have no issue explaining the technical aspects of what you think made the missions impossible.
But you keep avoiding this point because you cannot address it.
Man up and just admit that.

Well at the most basic level, I don't believe they had the ability to accurately navigate the space craft to intercept the moon on it's own path at exactly the right position to then be pulled into moons orbit and land from there. There are just so many things that could go wrong with that. I'd expect much of what they would experience would be unknown / unexpected and it would not be at all strange for them to crash, get lost/not return at all, crash into the moon and be stuck there etc.
On top of all this, they claim a computer crash and that a manual landing was performed. It just doesn't add up.
Are people happy to believe that he could have any piloting experience of how the module would behave in those conditions? The test flight footage from earth is beyond stupid.
So in summary, too many unknowns, navigation difficult to achieve with the accuracy needed- how much ability had they to alter course, timing required to intercept moon in the manner they wanted to, with minimal computing ability.
I just don't see it happening, flawlessly

914

mickdw wrote: »

Well at the most basic level, I don't believe they had the ability to accurately navigate the space craft to intercept the moon on it's own path at exactly the right position to then be pulled into moons orbit and land from there. There are just so many things that could go wrong with that. I'd expect much of what they would experience would be unknown / unexpected and it would not be at all strange for them to crash, get lost/not return at all, crash into the moon and be stuck there etc.
On top of all this, they claim a computer crash and that a manual landing was performed. It just doesn't add up.
Are people happy to believe that he could have any piloting experience of how the module would behave in those conditions? The test flight footage from earth is beyond stupid.
So in summary, too many unknowns, navigation difficult to achieve with the accuracy needed- how much ability had they to alter course, timing required to intercept moon in the manner they wanted to, with minimal computing ability.
I just don't see it happening, flawlessly

So all this is based on your beliefs as oppossed to engineering and scientific facts?

You might want to revisit your career choice.

King Mob

mickdw wrote: »

Well at the most basic level, I don't believe they had the ability to accurately navigate the space craft to intercept the moon on it's own path at exactly the right position to then be pulled into moons orbit and land from there. There are just so many things that could go wrong with that. I'd expect much of what they would experience would be unknown / unexpected and it would not be at all strange for them to crash, get lost/not return at all, crash into the moon and be stuck there etc.
On top of all this, they claim a computer crash and that a manual landing was performed. It just doesn't add up.
Are people happy to believe that he could have any piloting experience of how the module would behave in those conditions? The test flight footage from earth is beyond stupid.
So in summary, too many unknowns, navigation difficult to achieve with the accuracy needed- how much ability had they to alter course, timing required to intercept moon in the manner they wanted to, with minimal computing ability.
I just don't see it happening, flawlessly

Ok, so what about the navigational systems were impossible?
What research have you done on them to make this judgement
Again I will need you to be actually specific.
Your post makes it sound like you don't know much about spaceflight at all...

Also lol at how you bring up the fact there was a technical problem, yet were maintaining there werent any a few posts ago.

Wibbs

mickdw wrote: »

You believe the Americans could put a man on the moon but couldn't make a man appear to be in low gravity for the purposes of a film.
I believe it was easier to achieve the film than the moon landing and I don't think that is an unreasonable stance.

It kinda is, because there is zero evidence for it and just as little scientific evidence either. In a century of film making and photography we couldn't and still can't do a great job of mimicking space and space travel, yet in a century of engineering we have thousands of rockets in flight, thousands of satellites in orbit, probes on other planets including a fair number on the moon, men and women in space, now living in same, yet that "one small step" is the problem? To get to the moon is essentially the same as getting into orbit, you just need more stuff to do it. More fuel, more supplies.

mickdw

914 wrote: »

mickdw wrote: »

I have not claimed to be an expert in Rocket Engineering but have an Engineering Degree and as such have a general understanding of Maths and Physics beyond what much of the population will have.

How exactely do you have a better understanding of Maths and Physics beyond what much of the population will have?

Having a degree just shows that you have the ability to learn.

I have a Masters in IT which involved a lot of mathematics but that doesn't not put me mathematically ahead of much of the population.

I don't think the maths involved in an IT qualification would be at the highest level but even so, if I wanted to employ someone to carry out a complex task, I'd hire you before the majority of the random population.
To take a simple example, prior to my Engineering Degree, I was 1 of 2 who took higher maths in a class of 60 at secondary school. That simple fact in itself strongly suggests that I would mathematically be ahead of a large portion of the population.

cdeb

mickdw wrote: »

Well at the most basic level, I don't believe they had the ability to accurately navigate the space craft to intercept the moon on it's own path at exactly the right position to then be pulled into moons orbit and land from there.

Evidently you're wrong. Exhibit 1 - the moon landing. (Is how an engineer would think)

I would have thought this is reasonably straightforward maths to be honest. Point ship in the right direction and slow down as you get there.

The tricky bit was Newton writing the sums in the first place. But maybe that didn't happen?

Timberrrrrrrr

mickdw wrote: »

I don't think the maths involved in an IT qualification would be at the highest level but even so, if I wanted to employ someone to carry out a complex task, I'd hire you before the majority of the random population.
To take a simple example, prior to my Engineering Degree, I was 1 of 2 who took higher maths in a class of 60 at secondary school. That simple fact in itself strongly suggests that I would mathematically be ahead of a large portion of the population.

So.why not use some of this superior mathematical knowledge and explain why you think landing on the moon was impossible.

All you have said so far is "i feel" or "i think" without giving reasons and backing them up with facts as to why the landing would be "impossible".

SlowBlowin

mickdw wrote: »

I believe it was easier to achieve the film than the moon landing and I don't think that is an unreasonable stance.

OK they have to film it, build the rocket, launch it, land the stuff on the moon (less the astronauts), spend countless 1000s of hours coordinating fake news and getting everyone's stories correct. Then they have to keep it up for 50 years, cooperate with the Russians and Japanese (I take it you have seen the images of the Apollo landing sites that the Japanese spacecraft took).

You believe that is easier or less risky ?

King Mob

SlowBlowin wrote: »

OK they have to film it, build the rocket, launch it, land the stuff on the moon (less the astronauts), spend countless 1000s of hours coordinating fake news and getting everyone's stories correct. Then they have to keep it up for 50 years, cooperate with the Russians and Japanese (I take it you have seen the images of the Apollo landing sites that the Japanese spacecraft took).

You believe that is easier or less risky ?

And dont forget how they got the moon rocks back.
It was once suggested here that they had a seperate secret space program to develop and launch unmanned rovers to collect samples and return to Earth.

Wibbs

mickdw wrote: »

Well at the most basic level, I don't believe they had the ability to accurately navigate the space craft to intercept the moon on it's own path at exactly the right position to then be pulled into moons orbit and land from there. There are just so many things that could go wrong with that.

Indeed, but again at a basic level it's well pretty basic and pretty basic maths with it. They had a number of systems on board and on the ground to do it. They had gyroscopes developed for autopilots in the 1950's, they had the computers on the ground and in the crafts(yep they were "dumb" by today's tech, but perfectly adequate for the tasks required) and they also had that most ancient of tech, a sextant setup where they would physically look out and match their course and speed to fixed point stars. And they had telemetry from the ground all the way there. That's a lot of navigation systems in play and they could lose a fair few of them and still get there and back. As one astronaut noted Isaac Newton could have done it with a pencil and paper.

On top of all this, they claim a computer crash and that a manual landing was performed. It just doesn't add up.

Nope. This again is down to your ignorance of how these things work. They didn't have a "computer crash", the LEM computer in many ways couldn't crash in the way we're used to with everyday IT. Instead what would happen in basic terms is the computer had routines it ran and if one went awry with data it would reset and go back to square one with a clean sheet and do so extremely rapidly. One major advantage of a small scale system. They got a program alarm, where the computer was being overloaded with radar data(because Aldrin left the docking radar on), so the computer reset that bit, the rest of the data and processes were still running. As for landing the LEM it was pretty much all automatic, save for the very last phase a few hundred meters from the surface where the pilot chooses program P66, which gives him more attitude and descent control while the computer works the throttle settings while he does so.

Are people happy to believe that he could have any piloting experience of how the module would behave in those conditions? The test flight footage from earth is beyond stupid.

1) the test bed, the flying bedstead contraption was a bit of a fudge to try to train pilots for such a landing using only thrust vectoring in that case jet as this was a very new thing to learn. 2) On previous missions they had already flown and manoeuvred the LEM in space both in earth orbit(Apollo 9) and on Apollo 10 in moon orbit and much of the descent and got a handle on how it flew(apparently very nicely as it turned out).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INqZxccp30I

Armstrong also manoeuvred it about after undocking from the command module to get a feel for it in manual mode.

914

mickdw wrote: »

I don't think the maths involved in an IT qualification would be at the highest level but even so,

Really??? Anyway I'll leave that go.

As someone previously said, I'll take it that you then have a great knowledge in mathematics and physics, so with this great knowledge could you provide some mathematical and scientific proof of how the moon landings were not possible.

To say "I just don't see it happening" is not a strong enough argument.

As an engineer, if you created something that worked and worked well, and my argument to you was "nah that doesn't work, I just don't see how" you wouldn't be best pleased.

Remember the crews of the Apollo missions were the best of the best from pilots, engineers etc, they were top of their game that trained for these missions for years prior to each mission.

We can also view moon rocks at several museums on earth, how did they make their way down to earth?