Page 51 of 58 FirstFirst ... 414950515253 ... LastLast
Results 1,501 to 1,530 of 1726

Thread: I Will Prove The Moon Landings Were Hoaxed

  1. #1501
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    264
    Quote Originally Posted by Hugh Jass
    HUH?

    So... no other country on earth, who was watching the Apollo missions could by this same argument easily decipher a hoax. But, if another country tried to re-hoax we'd know in an instant?

    Am I not understanding what your saying?
    Well now your just being combative, I explained this , but i will add detail.
    Now I have been watching with curiosity the Mars Rover expiditions. The Rovers send information once a day as they store there camera footage , and system information in memory comsolidate it then transmit when battery power is up . This stream of information comes in at a particular frequency as coded information only deciphered by the recieving computer. It has a set of program rules beging and end , and a number that says how much information is being sent. This Data can not be changed using another program as the end result would show more data than was recieved. So it would be with a lunar probe . I realy dont understand why any of you are threatened with the possibility of concrete proof . As soon as the photos come in , ...Ill have my hat served with fries .Pass the salt

  2. #1502
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    17,148
    Quote Originally Posted by wayneee
    Independent verification by a photographic probe is what we want. Then we would know. Every time I tell you what I need, you skirt around and make excuses about how it too would be hoaxed or Hoaxers would be pig headed.
    Define "independent." What would that be to you?

    Anyway, you are missing the point. I certainly would like to see the landing sites again. But what would be the difference between that and the vast quantity of evidence and images we already have?

    That is the question we are asking you. We aren't making an excuse. We are asking you: Given how suspicious you are now, why should we expect you to react any differently if a probe is sent that sends backs still more images? Are you willing to swear that you would accept them as fact? Do you really think the hoax believers would accept them?

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  3. #1503
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    264
    Quote Originally Posted by Lonewulf
    I have a question:

    At what point did the scientists and the contractors and the engineers turn around and say, "Wait a minute. We don't have the technology to do this"?

    The main point that Hoax Believers give are that NASA did not have the technology, and a trip to the moon would have been impossible. Yet, someone should've told that to the tens of thousands of engineers, astronomers, engineers (especially those specializing with space technology), etc.

    Really, what is so hard to buy about the moon landings? We use submarines on a daily basis, and in the 1960's, we had them loaded with nuclear warheads capable of 5000 mile range. That's pretty impressive tech.
    You know something, Maybe it would have worked . Hell Im not a real Hoaxer after all, Im just a sceptic. Maybe we did land on the moon
    But, if the hoax did occur , it was not the scientists that decided to go for it.
    It would have been either a military move or political, prehaps even Secret Service. Scientists for the most part are terrible liars.

  4. #1504
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,428
    Quote Originally Posted by wayneee
    Well Gus Grisom did die along with his crew. and your loved ones live on, Im sure you dont want your daughter threatened even after your death
    What about people who died without any surviving family members?

    As for the realitively low number of people in on the Hoax . I have explained this already. All contrators and the majority of Nasa personel think the mission is going on. They are being Hoaxed as well. Information which is being shown on screens and instrument panels are being duplicated as if a simulation was occuring. There is a ship in space for the world to see , sending telemetry and Voice. I only assert we did not step on the moon.
    As I keep saying, this would have meant they would have had to have built a complete working Apollo program as well as all the additional technology and hardware needed for a hoax. This would have cost far more, required far more people (thousands more, all of whom were in on the hoax), required far more difficult technology, made the likely event of discovery an additional massive risk, and made the failure of the mission far more likely than just doing it for real. It would have required them to murder the apollo astronauts in the event of the mission failing (which would have been at least as likely as if the program was real considering there weren't humans to correct any problems, such as them picking an impossible primary landing site which they did), so they really had nothing at all to gain from doing a hoax. You say it couldn't have failed, but what percentage of probes that we send out fail on the way? A pretty large percentage, and this is with the far more advanced and reliable probes we have today as opposed to thirty years ago. How many manned missions have failed? Not that many. And if it had failed (which it would have when it tried to land a field full of boulders), then they would have had to murder the astronauts who were supposed to be on it. A failure on a probe with a 2-second response time is basically unrecoverable. But what if it had failed with the people on it? Then either thay would have died (which is no different than if the probe had failed, except it would have been an accident instead of cold-blooded murder), or they would have been able to fix the problem and return safely and no one would have died at all (like happened on Apollo 11). So there is either no difference in the chance of failure, or even a decrease in the chance of failure, if they had done it for real.

  5. #1505
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    264
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn
    Define "independent." What would that be to you?

    Anyway, you are missing the point. I certainly would like to see the landing sites again. But what would be the difference between that and the vast quantity of evidence and images we already have?

    That is the question we are asking you. We aren't making an excuse. We are asking you: Given how suspicious you are now, why should we expect you to react any differently if a probe is sent that sends backs still more images? Are you willing to swear that you would accept them as fact? Do you really think the hoax believers would accept them?
    I have always wondered about your Quote at the end of your posts it reminds me of a chapter in DEmon Haunted World by Carl Sagan. Have you read this book?
    Independent , you know I would trust and American Probe at this juncture. But Another Country would be better. Realy Trust me , your vindication is assured . I promise I am not a pig head .

  6. #1506
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,038
    Quote Originally Posted by wayneee
    As for the realitively low number of people in on the Hoax . I have explained this already. All contrators and the majority of Nasa personel think the mission is going on. They are being Hoaxed as well. Information which is being shown on screens and instrument panels are being duplicated as if a simulation was occuring. There is a ship in space for the world to see , sending telemetry and Voice. I only assert we did not step on the moon.
    Let me get this straight:
    The contractors aren't in on it, so they build hardware that can actually fly men to the Moon, land them, and bring them home.

    We have the capability to keep men in space for the duration of a lunar mission.

    We have the capability to fly spacecraft to the Moon and separate into separate orbiter and lander.

    We have the capability to put a lander on the Moon.

    And we don't send men to the Moon. . . Why?

    "Assured Success" is not an answer. Robotic probes (which, in your scenario are crucial to the hoax) are far more prone to failure than manned spacecraft. This is because men have the ability to fix or work around problems. They can take the controls and fly out of danger. This happened, repeatedly! In mechanical terms, robotic probes lower the chance of success.

    "Assured Success" is also preposterous because there is no assurance that the hoax will not be blown. If a manned mission fails, it could (but not necessarily) result in a set-back. At worst, astronauts get killed and it is a public tragedy, but we still keep trying. Since you bring up the subject of "death-threats" presumably your Evil ConspiratorsTM won't mind a few dead heroes. If the hoax gets blown, the nation is thoroughly disgraced, and Evil ConspiratorsTM go to jail.

    Under the conditions which you stipulate, it is cheaper, easier, less risky and more logical to actually attempt to land men on the Moon than to fake it.

    [Edited to add: I've been ToSeeked, er... Black Catted!]

  7. #1507
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,428
    Quote Originally Posted by wayneee
    I have always wondered about your Quote at the end of your posts it reminds me of a chapter in DEmon Haunted World by Carl Sagan. Have you read this book?
    Independent , you know I would trust and American Probe at this juncture. But Another Country would be better. Realy Trust me , your vindication is assured . I promise I am not a pig head .
    But you still have not answered why you would trust photos from a probe now when you do not trust photos from the missions then. There is as much of a motive now to preserve the hoax as there was then to commit it. Remember, the US government is still somehow supressing all the thousands of witnesses, so obviously they must still want to preserve the hoax.

  8. #1508
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    264
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBlackCat
    What about people who died without any surviving family members?


    As I keep saying, this would have meant they would have had to have built a complete working Apollo program as well as all the additional technology and hardware needed for a hoax. This would have cost far more, required far more people (thousands more, all of whom were in on the hoax), required far more difficult technology, made the likely event of discovery an additional massive risk, and made the failure of the mission far more likely than just doing it for real. It would have required them to murder the apollo astronauts in the event of the mission failing (which would have been at least as likely as if the program was real considering there weren't humans to correct any problems, such as them picking an impossible primary landing site which they did), so they really had nothing at all to gain from doing a hoax. I keep saying this but have yet to get a straight answer.
    Ahh welll I knew it was too good to last
    Ok back to your scenario of killing Astronauts because the mission failed. The Astronaughts were there in the launching Rocket , they did every thing the previous apollos did but step on the Moon. If the mission failed they would be killed in it. As for the detail of almost running out of fuel , well thats all drama.
    I thought I did answer you straight the last time I posted you . Assured Success.
    As for Apollo 13 and 1 maybe the hoax was compromised , maybe **** happens
    The Cost for the hoax, I cant see costing more than several million , cheap considering the prestige

  9. #1509
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    4,263
    Is there a reason you spell is Astronaughts instead of astronauts?

  10. #1510
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    1,133
    Quote Originally Posted by wayneee
    As for the realitively low number of people in on the Hoax . I have explained this already.
    You haven't explained anything. The contractors had prime responsibility for designing and building the flight components. How do you fool all the engineers who designed them? Do you really think that all the engineers at North American building the CM were fooled? What about the engineers at Grummen who built the LM. These guys designed and built these components to work in space and accomplish the task of landing on the Moon. Your idea that only a small cabal perpetrated the hoax is ludicrous.

    If you want to get some real education on how Apollo was accomplished, and not the baseless "what if" scenarios you keep positing, there are some very accessible books on the subject. Tom Kelly's book Moon Lander chronicles the development of the LM. Gene Kranz's book Failure is not an Option chronicles the development of Mission Control. Eldon C. Hall's book Journey to the Moon describes the development of the Apollo Guidance Computer.

    All contrators and the majority of Nasa personel think the mission is going on. They are being Hoaxed as well. Information which is being shown on screens and instrument panels are being duplicated as if a simulation was occuring. There is a ship in space for the world to see , sending telemetry and Voice.
    How do you fool the people who are pointing the antennae to receive data back on Earth. How do you fool all the systems engineers who are monitoring the spacecraft. They would know if the telemetry was fake. Even if you could fake the data, you would still need to do this for the multi-day nature of the voyage. Who created all of this simulated data? Was there a shadow organization of engineers creating fake data? Oh no, the conspiracy just got a whole lot bigger!

    I only assert we did not step on the moon.
    What is your basis for this assertion? What specifically prevented the U.S. from stepping foot on the Moon?

  11. #1511
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    264
    Quote Originally Posted by Hamlet
    You haven't explained anything. The contractors had prime responsibility for designing and building the flight components. How do you fool all the engineers who designed them? Do you really think that all the engineers at North American building the CM were fooled? What about the engineers at Grummen who built the LM. These guys designed and built these components to work in space and accomplish the task of landing on the Moon. Your idea that only a small cabal perpetrated the hoax is ludicrous.

    If you want to get some real education on how Apollo was accomplished, and not the baseless "what if" scenarios you keep positing, there are some very accessible books on the subject. Tom Kelly's book Moon Lander chronicles the development of the LM. Gene Kranz's book Failure is not an Option chronicles the development of Mission Control. Eldon C. Hall's book Journey to the Moon describes the development of the Apollo Guidance Computer.



    How do you fool the people who are pointing the antennae to receive data back on Earth. How do you fool all the systems engineers who are monitoring the spacecraft. They would know if the telemetry was fake. Even if you could fake the data, you would still need to do this for the multi-day nature of the voyage. Who created all of this simulated data? Was there a shadow organization of engineers creating fake data? Oh no, the conspiracy just got a whole lot bigger!



    What is your basis for this assertion? What specifically prevented the U.S. from stepping foot on the Moon?
    i have posted answers to all your questions previously. I assure you I know how Apollo occured. I watched it as a boy , and was forever facinated by it. Watching Armstrong set foot on the moon is one of my strongest childhood memories. When I first arrived to this Site It was controled by someone called Moon Man . I read through as much of his information and never agreed with his evidence of Hoax. For some reason Moon Man disappeared , leaving folks to consider That I am truly Moon Man.

    In my first Post in this board, I described myself as a sceptic, i would assume that quality is held in high regard in a Science web site. I always , in everything, ask if the information I recieve can be verified. I read News from other countries sometimes if I want to see differing slants. I distrust polls unless I can see that there is are not leading questions, or done for some politcal or product reason. I am Sceptical, I ask Why does that happen, and how can that be?

    I will gladly go back and repost my previous posts, as your questions have been asked already and I have answered them.

    I Think the most troubling question that you have asked is if a hoax is even possible given special effects needed. Let us prove that a hoax could not be done. To disprove the Hoax, you must pretend your tring to create it.
    What problems are you facing , what obstacles do you need to overcome. Pretend money is not an issue. How would you do it.

  12. #1512
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    6,743
    Quote Originally Posted by wayneee
    You know something, Maybe it would have worked . Hell Im not a real Hoaxer after all, Im just a sceptic. Maybe we did land on the moon
    Well, the evidence points to a moon landing.

    But, if the hoax did occur...
    If, if, if, what if, what if, what if.

    What if we're all living in a dream dreamed up by an alien named Elvis?

    What if UFOs visit us in the night, but wipe our memories of their visit?

    What if we're all invisible to every other alien, but don't know that until we meet them?

    All questions that are fun to stipulate. But none of them should be given any credence. The Moon Hoax theory is one of those types of questions (and isn't a theory anyways).

    ...it was not the scientists that decided to go for it.
    It would have been either a military move or political, prehaps even Secret Service. Scientists for the most part are terrible liars.
    Ugh. This is the logical error you make.

    Let's suppose it was a move made by politicians, and no scientists were involved in it. Why the HELL weren't the SCIENTISTS confused? If a man studies and knows what he's doing, and then the government tells him that something happened that he knows couldn't have happened, then the scientist wouldn't say, "oh, okay.". He'd give facts, figures, and say, "You're either lying or incorrect". If getting to the moon was undoable, scientists would have pointed it out. If we should have done it by remote, scientists would have known. They COULD NOT BE LIED TO, unless EVERYTHING THEY KNEW was ENTIRELY false.

    Now.

    According to you, it seems that we had all the capabilities to go to the moon. Yet you say we should've used a remote-controlled probe or something.

    So why aren't you trying to tell us that submarines are a hoax too? After all, the first submarine didn't use remotes.

  13. #1513
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    264
    Quote Originally Posted by wayneee
    yeah yeah you got me , Ive been reading some history about the Greman Pocket battleships , and the word Dreadnaught kept coming up , must have stuck to some sticky brain cell
    This is my post to Van Rijn who also corrected me you guys got to look at previus pages once and a while

  14. #1514
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    4,263
    Quote Originally Posted by Musashi
    Is there a reason you spell is Astronaughts instead of astronauts?

    No?

  15. #1515
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    6,743
    Quote Originally Posted by Wayneee
    In my first Post in this board, I described myself as a sceptic, i would assume that quality is held in high regard in a Science web site. I always , in everything, ask if the information I recieve can be verified.
    This is good, but there *are* extremes to everything.

    I read News from other countries sometimes if I want to see differing slants. I distrust polls unless I can see that there is are not leading questions, or done for some politcal or product reason. I am Sceptical, I ask Why does that happen, and how can that be?
    That's good. Just be sure to look at the answers too.

    I Think the most troubling question that you have asked is if a hoax is even possible given special effects needed.
    Someone more knowledgable than me will go into this. However, I will summarize:

    The ability to fake the moon landing would have been pretty hard to do. Everything from how the dust acts, to the movement to the astronauts, to the effects of Zero G, would've been difficult to do.

  16. #1516
    Quote Originally Posted by AGN Fuel
    These guys were fighter pilots and test pilots who faced death daily. Many of them were also men of extraordinary personal integrity who had no compunction about calling a spade a spade. Who is going to tell the deeply religious Frank Borman, for example, that he has to lie to the entire world and have his reputation forever blackened when that deceit is exposed (as it invariably must)?

    Why no deathbed confessions? Once out, any threats against other individuals become totally useless. Are you going to kill someone after a secret is exposed??
    In addition, if NASA (or Nixon, or whomever you think was calling the shots) was willing to kill their own people to keep this amazing secret, why didn't they take out Kaysing, Sibrel, et cetera when they started to become pests?

    Hey, this guy is actually looking at some of the 'records'. Go! And make sure it looks like an accident...

  17. #1517
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,428
    Quote Originally Posted by wayneee
    I thought I did answer you straight the last time I posted you . Assured Success.
    As we keep on saying, it DOES NOT HAVE ASSURED SUCCESS. Sending a probe has a much higher risk of failure than sending a manned mission, but does not have any less risk to the astronauts (assuming the government is willing to kill people to cover up the hoax, as you have said). Why go to all this extra trouble and expense when there is more risk of failure than to do it for real? Sending something to the moon has a significant risk of failure, whether it is manned or otherwise, but if there are problems on a manned mission they can be fixed. If there are problems on a probe the mission is over. You CANNOT do this mission without sending something to the moon, there must be something that can bounce radio signals back to Earth, land on the moon, collect massive amounts of moon rocks and core samples, place the reflector, and then get the rocks and core samples back. So there is not assured success by any stretch of the imagination.

  18. #1518
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    1,133
    Quote Originally Posted by wayneee
    I will gladly go back and repost my previous posts, as your questions have been asked already and I have answered them.
    I've read the entire thread. You haven't answered any of the questions except with "what if" scenarios. Where's the evidence?

    I Think the most troubling question that you have asked is if a hoax is even possible given special effects needed. Let us prove that a hoax could not be done.
    Why should we do that when there's plenty of evidence that the events in question really occurred? I'm about as skeptical as they come and I've never come across anything that led me to think Apollo was faked.

    To disprove the Hoax, you must pretend your tring to create it.
    What problems are you facing , what obstacles do you need to overcome. Pretend money is not an issue. How would you do it.
    So this is just as an academic exercise? Money is always an issue in the real world. Without real world constraints, what good are your conclusions?

  19. #1519
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    264
    Quote Originally Posted by Lonewulf
    Well, the evidence points to a moon landing.



    If, if, if, what if, what if, what if.

    What if we're all living in a dream dreamed up by an alien named Elvis?

    What if UFOs visit us in the night, but wipe our memories of their visit?

    What if we're all invisible to every other alien, but don't know that until we meet them?

    All questions that are fun to stipulate. But none of them should be given any credence. The Moon Hoax theory is one of those types of questions (and isn't a theory anyways).



    Ugh. This is the logical error you make.

    Let's suppose it was a move made by politicians, and no scientists were involved in it. Why the HELL weren't the SCIENTISTS confused? If a man studies and knows what he's doing, and then the government tells him that something happened that he knows couldn't have happened, then the scientist wouldn't say, "oh, okay.". He'd give facts, figures, and say, "You're either lying or incorrect". If getting to the moon was undoable, scientists would have pointed it out. If we should have done it by remote, scientists would have known. They COULD NOT BE LIED TO, unless EVERYTHING THEY KNEW was ENTIRELY false.

    Now.

    According to you, it seems that we had all the capabilities to go to the moon. Yet you say we should've used a remote-controlled probe or something.

    So why aren't you trying to tell us that submarines are a hoax too? After all, the first submarine didn't use remotes.
    Ok , I think this gets to the core of the problem with Moon Hoaxes and General conspiracy in general. Why do they exist, why do people distrust goverment programs. Here on this board I think the general feeling is that most people are ignorant of science. To that fact I can not argue yet I dont believe that this is the reason for distrust. We do know our Government is capable of deciet, scandal, misinforming, and Whole sale fabrications.

    I became suspect when such an enormous task is achieved in such a short time, when the reasons seem to be Military based. The space program was spurred by the Russians make no mistake. We were frightened by the possibility of Nuclear bombs raining down from the heavens as the Russians beat us in every space endevor. The Moon was a military objective, and it certainly was leaked that the moon could possibly be used as a missle site.
    We were at war in a sense with Russia, We met thier fighters in Korea, and in Nam. I Believe it was Kissenger(personel opinion) who advised Kennedy that a 'Space Race' would bankrupt Russia eventualy. I do believe the space Race did just that. Landing on the Moon was too important to our Military and national security to fail.
    Maybe your right, I realy hope so. I simply have those nagging questions is all.
    Why havent we returned with our improved technology
    When I was a kid , I used to tell people how we were all going to be living on the moon soon. 35 years later we havent even been back there.

  20. #1520
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    6,743
    Quote Originally Posted by wayneee
    Ok , I think this gets to the core of the problem with Moon Hoaxes and General conspiracy in general. Why do they exist, why do people distrust goverment programs. Here on this board I think the general feeling is that most people are ignorant of science. To that fact I can not argue yet I dont believe that this is the reason for distrust. We do know our Government is capable of deciet, scandal, misinforming, and Whole sale fabrications.
    Just because they are capable, does not automatically mean that they are always completely 100% corrupt, and always hoaxing people in general. You COULD be a troll, just trying to send us in circles. However, I am not going to make that assumption.

    I became suspect when such an enormous task is achieved in such a short time, when the reasons seem to be Military based. The space program was spurred by the Russians make no mistake.
    Right.

    We were frightened by the possibility of Nuclear bombs raining down from the heavens as the Russians beat us in every space endevor. The Moon was a military objective, and it certainly was leaked that the moon could possibly be used as a missle site.
    So wouldn't we want to be actually capable of going to the moon for real?

    We were at war in a sense with Russia, We met thier fighters in Korea, and in Nam. I Believe it was Kissenger(personel opinion) who advised Kennedy that a 'Space Race' would bankrupt Russia eventualy. I do believe the space Race did just that. Landing on the Moon was too important to our Military and national security to fail.
    Right. So we got together a bunch of engineers and contractors, and told them to do it right. However, what about the Apollo 1 failure? That gets rid of your theory right there -- that made NASA seem bad, and your point seems to be that they would want to seem to make NO mistakes.

    Maybe your right, I realy hope so.
    Everything points to me being right.

    I simply have those nagging questions is all. Why havent we returned with our improved technology
    Return to do what, exactly? Also, after the cold war, NASA funding was slashed. The idea of Moon Bases was scrapped as a result.

    When I was a kid , I used to tell people how we were all going to be living on the moon soon. 35 years later we havent even been back there.
    Funding issues.

  21. #1521
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    2,725
    Quote Originally Posted by wayneee
    Well there is also another alternative. The moon landing is pretaped.
    How do you pre-tape the results of that day's sporting contests?

    Better to have high orbit module mirroring unmanned capsule going towards moon transmitting data.
    Not just going toward the moon. It would have to travel to the moon, complete a burn to enter an orbit about it. Then part of that probe would then have to separate from the main craft, complete a de-orbit burn, and land. Then later, it would have to launch from the moon, rendezvous with the main craft and return to Earth. We know this must have happened, because the spacecraft were tracked by various parties (including the Soviets) and observed doing this very thing.

    SAY!! I just had a thought! Doesn't that sequence sort of describe exactly what happened on the Apollo missions???

  22. #1522
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    4,096
    This whole thread reminds me of something I read about back in 1988. A Soviet general (Russia was still Soviet Union back then, for all you young whippersnappers ) on a visit to Smithsonian stood before Apollo display and said in a wondering tone "So they really did land!"

    After his hosts' jaws separated from the floor, the general explained as follows: "We knew they reached the Moon. We tracked every flight on radar, not just followed telemetry. But LEM's were too small for our radars at that distance, so I always thought every mission just stayed in lunar orbit for several days each time. Even though Soviet government accepted the landings as real*, I never really believed it until today."

    My guess is that Comrade General's nineteen years of disbelief was based on the fact that launching from lunar surface and matching trajectories with an orbiter in one shot is indeed hard -- harder than landing alone, and MUCH harder than just etering lunar orbit. Without pre-positioned tracking stations on the Moon, it was very likely beyond Soviet technology of late 60's and early 70's. Comrade General simply did not want to believe that Americans were that far ahead in target tracking -- a very obvious military advantage.

    Of course, his higher-ups in Politbureau did believe -- and who knows, maybe if and when they were considering extending Soviet Empire to Western Europe, those six unerring rendezvous between LEM's and Apollo orbiters weighed on the "con" side.

    *And did its best to minimize their importance

  23. #1523
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,428
    Quote Originally Posted by wayneee
    For some reason Moon Man disappeared , leaving folks to consider That I am truly Moon Man.
    Moon Man did not "disappear". He was banned because he refused to answer questions that others gave to him, refused to acknowledge evidence that disproved his assertions, repeated the same disproven statements over and over again, and other such things.

    Quote Originally Posted by wayneee
    In my first Post in this board, I described myself as a sceptic, i would assume that quality is held in high regard in a Science web site. I always , in everything, ask if the information I recieve can be verified. I read News from other countries sometimes if I want to see differing slants. I distrust polls unless I can see that there is are not leading questions, or done for some politcal or product reason. I am Sceptical, I ask Why does that happen, and how can that be?
    Being a skeptic is generally a good thing. But in the end it comes down to the evidence. A reasonable skeptic ultimately bases his or her decision on what the evidence says. If the evidence show to a very strong degree that something occured, and there is no valid evidence to the contrary, then the skeptic tentatively accepts the truth of the assertion. Evidence is the key. A skeptic who refuses to accept something despite massive amounts of evidence supporting it, or who refuses to give up a belief despite massive amounts of evidence against it, it is no longer skepticism.

    Quote Originally Posted by wayneee
    What problems are you facing , what obstacles do you need to overcome. Pretend money is not an issue. How would you do it.
    Here are some problems:
    You must build a chamber that is several square miles in size, can be depressurized to a hard vacuum, and somehow has 1/6 the gravitational acceleration of Earth. The behavior of the dust kicked up by the astronauts, the rover, and the assent module of the lander could not be duplicated without there being a nearly perfect vacuum, and its trajectory based on the force involved could not be duplicated without reducing the force of gravity significantly (pardon the misnomer). Thin ropes and pulleys do not work on dust. There are continuous takes of the rover covering several miles of terrain, in a vacuum, and in 1/6 of Earth' gravity, so the chamber would have to have been large enough to allow it to do this. We do not have the technology to do any of this today, not to mention 30 years ago. Reducing the force of gravity is, as far as we know, not physically possible.

    You must have been able to eliminate gravity entirely for hours at a time for the scenes in the capsule on the way to the moon and back. You could not have it in Earth orbit because they would have been out of contact about half the time as they orbitted to the far side of the Earth. The "vomit comet" sort of sinusoidal aircraft maneuver can only work for about 30 seconds at a time, but they had hours of continuous footage. Once again, eliminating gravity hear on Earth is physically impossible to the best of our knowledge. There are scenes with liquid floating, this cannot be faked using ropes, pulleys, or air pressure.

    You must have a robot capable of over a significant range, collecti huge amounts of space rock over this wide range (orders of magnitude more than any probe has ever done), somehow be able to identify geologically interesting rocks with relatively low-resolution and slow cameras, somehow drill core samples 8 feet deep, somehow place a reflector as perfectly as a human and far better than any other robot, and do it all without any human input. Remember how quickly the mars rovers move? Not very fast, because human operators have to input the movement, wait for the signal to arrive, wait for the rover to carry out the movement, wait to get the response back, then look around and figure out the next movement. There simply would not have been enough time in the mission for the probe to do all the stuff it was supposed to do with humans guiding every tiny step. So it would have to have done it on its own. Modern robots cannot do this reliably. Remember how much trouble they had with the first DARPA robot desert race? With state-of-the-art modern technology, on Earth, with almost unlimited weight and size, no robot could get more than 7 miles in a well-known environment. And all they had to do was follow a road. But 30 years ago it was no problem for a completely automated robot to do tasks far more complicated with perfect reliability in a far more difficult environment and significant weight and size restrictions. We are dealing with something modern technology could never do. And they had to have designed, built, programmed, and paid for such a complicated and advanced robot without anybody finding out about it ever.

    They would have had to somehow send the probe back on the exact correct trajectory, then somehow magically made the probe disappear and a capsule with astronauts in it appear in the exact same place with the exact same trajectory, which would then splash down with the astronauts inside. The capsule with the astronauts would have needed the exact right trajectory and velocity, perfect enough to fool every scientists on Earthw who was monitoring the descent, and would have had to occupy the exact same place as the probe (probably withing a couple feet at most) at the exact same time (within a very small fraction of a second). Two objects of that size occuping places this close within such a small amount of time going at those speeds with those limitation on maneuverability is not possible without teleportation. The probe would also have to have had the exact same mass as the astronauts, its mass would have had to go down by the weight of two astronauts during the time the probe was on the Moon but gone up again by the weight of the astronauts and the rock when they got back in. Plus this second probe would have had to somehow completely change its trajectory with neither the fuel nor time to do so, completely missed all the people watching for the first probe, but somehow not changed its course enough to bounce off Earth's atmosphere or burn up, and splashed down without Russia or any other country's radar picking it up (note it also had to hide itself from US military intelligence looking for Russian missiles), and been recovered without anybody knowing it.

    I am sure there are other problems, but this is all from me for now.

  24. #1524
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    264
    The ability to fake the moon landing would have been pretty hard to do. Everything from how the dust acts, to the movement to the astronauts, to the effects of Zero G, would've been difficult to do.
    Van Rijn gave me that chore last night , how to simulate the Dust. I've been thinking about it all day.
    My criteria; must be capable given standard technology in late sixties early seventies. No CGI, must fit other visual effects
    My first thought was filming underwater, afterall People are in atmospheric suits , walking motion could be duplicated and I have observed ocean silt behave like the moon dust. I have seen films of Alvins deep Sea dives, Except for the stuff floating around the stark desolation of the Deep ocean bottom is very simular to the Moon. But the brightness of the moon poses a problem and visibility, and depth preception would be off. I have seen video of Astonauts traversing away from the camera , if underwater the astronaut would become blurry. So I threw that one out.

    I tell you what , you be devils advocate for once and you come up with an idea

  25. #1525
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    2,725
    Quote Originally Posted by wayneee
    Well Gus Grisom did die along with his crew. and your loved ones live on.
    Yeah...good point....let's silence the risk by killing three astronauts inside the spacecraft itself, leading to a hostile Congressional Enquiry, potential withdrawal of funding, massive public embarrassment to both NASA and the contractors North American and a near 2-year delay in the programme at a time when the end of the decade was looming.

    If this comment wasn't so distasteful, it would be ridiculous.

  26. #1526
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,004
    I'm not sure if this has been pointed out yet in this thread, but...

    Hoax believers will latch onto the outrageous possibility that the Moon landings were faked, but vehemently deny the outrageous possibility that it actually happened.

    Double standards are their best friend.

  27. #1527

    Lightbulb

    I Still Think, my Idea, Has The Highest Degree, of Success ...

    Pay Off, EVERYONE, Then All, you Have to Do, Is Put a Notice, in The Paper, that Says, "We did it!"

    Quick, Simple, and Dirty; Plus, No One, has To Die!


  28. #1528
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Clear Lake City, TX
    Posts
    9,042
    Just some idle thoughts on apparent contradictions...

    Quote Originally Posted by waynee
    According to the Hoaxers the Astronauts were in high Earth orbit, cruising around waiting to drop into the ocean.
    But,
    Quote Originally Posted by waynee
    Many unknowns, Van Allen Belt radiation untried ...
    A high earth orbit would place the astronauts in the Van Allen Belts for an extended time. Wouldn't they be Crispy Critters by the time they splashed down?

    They launch, yet as they circle they get a coded message 'Operation big expensive Hoax'
    They jetison there capsule and continue to circle Earth
    In what?

    Mean while their jetisoned ship continues to the moon
    'cause you just sent their capsule to the moon. The Apollo program used a Saturn SIVB, a CM, and a LM... all of which went to the moon.

    The unmanned ship arrive at the moon and launches the Lem(This could go two ways , either use the live feed from the Lem attempting to land Automaticly or by time delayed remote
    But one of the major tenets of HBers is that we didn't have the computer power to land the LM with a crew on board. How could we manage to land it remotely with that limited capability?

    voices are supper imposed by astronaughts still in orbit( hell for all we know thier capsule is docked with something else thats up there)
    How did that "something else" get there undetected? How did they manage to dock with it when - as HBers claim - docking was "impossible?"

    Astronaughts finaly break orbit and splash down in appropriate place and time
    But, they splashed down in the CM which you sent to the moon w/o them.
    Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
    Isaac Asimov

    Moderation will be in purple.
    Rules for Posting to This Board

  29. #1529
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,202
    Quote Originally Posted by wayneee
    Well Gus Grisom did die along with his crew. and your loved ones live on, Im sure you dont want your daughter threatened even after your death
    Exactly who would be doing the threatening in this conspiracy? With what method would they prove to not make it a bluff? When did NASA acquire the services of these jackbooted thugs?

    Do you realize that when you have to start making threats to loved ones in order to maintain the shroud of secrecy over a conspiracy, it becomes not just a lie, but a felony offense punishable by prison time? It expects us to believe in a whole new side of NASA for which we have no evidence.

  30. #1530
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,428
    Quote Originally Posted by wayneee
    My first thought was filming underwater, afterall People are in atmospheric suits , walking motion could be duplicated and I have observed ocean silt behave like the moon dust. I have seen films of Alvins deep Sea dives, Except for the stuff floating around the stark desolation of the Deep ocean bottom is very simular to the Moon. But the brightness of the moon poses a problem and visibility, and depth preception would be off. I have seen video of Astonauts traversing away from the camera , if underwater the astronaut would become blurry. So I threw that one out.
    It seem appear obvious that you have never been SCUBA diving. I have, pretty extensively over the last 7 years (I am advanced open water certified). The bottom of the ocean is nothing like the moon. Not only does dust not fly up in an arc and come right back down like you saw in the videos, but it billows up and forms clouds farm more readily than it does in the atmosphere, and the clouds often stay visible for significantly longer. It is also very difficult to leave footprints at all underwater, not to mention the extremely crips, easily identifiable footprints we see in the videos that last for hours. There is also the issue of viscosity, water is extremely viscuous. Ever tried running when you are waist deep in the water? It is practically impossible, the water is too viscous and retards your motion far too much. Add a much larger surface area for the suit, and have them completely submerged, and add all those folds that increase resistance, and it will be difficult to walk slowly for any length of time without wearing yourself down, not to mention jump around like they did on the moon. This would also effect the rover, and rocks and tools that the astronauts pick up and then drop. It would also be pretty much impossible to avoid eddies and currents in the water from the bulky suits moving, which would stir up large amounts of silt. There is also the optical issue, as you stated. Not only is the water darker, but it absorbs lower-frequency light much faster than higher-frequency, so you would see significant distortion of the the colors (i.e. everything white would appear blue or green and anything red would appear black or at least very dark red). And going deeper would not solve these problems, the increased pressure would make things more difficult and exacerbate many of the problems.

Similar Threads

  1. do you support a conference to PROVE the apollo landings were REAL
    By FinalFrontier500 in forum Space Exploration
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 2011-Jun-19, 03:16 AM
  2. I Will Prove The Mars Landings Were Hoaxed
    By Mars Man in forum Conspiracy Theories
    Replies: 110
    Last Post: 2007-Aug-17, 01:59 PM
  3. A way to prove or disprove lunar landings
    By Goody in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 2006-Oct-01, 08:56 PM
  4. Hoaxed Moon landings?
    By xXxDarkSkyNitexzxXx in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 2004-Aug-27, 09:15 AM
  5. Some small facts which help prove the moon landings.
    By jrkeller in forum Conspiracy Theories
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 2003-Oct-12, 11:11 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
here
The forum is sponsored in-part by: