Good thread,

There were emails floating about last year on this topic. If I find it I can foward it on. I remember similar topics on people trying to prove God existed.

 

Matt, you did use the word fact, after scientific, but hey, who's counting?

And yep, Kennedy made the promise. Couldn't be seen to fail, could they?

I know it's easy to dismiss crackpot theories like Vietnam, but what the hell do we know? Thirty two years of NASA-speak, that's what.

But, and i go right back to the original post, i do agree with Astraboy, in that i cannot believe that 12 men would or could remain silent for so long, not unless we get into "deep" conspiracy theory of brainwashing, and i don't buy that. I hope that human nature wins out here, and that we haven't been duped all this time.

The End?

 

This cannot be the end!

Nobody has asked a Clanger if they saw a spaceman tee-ing off over by the Soup Dragon's lair....surely the clincher.

If man had been to the moon, he woulda come back with a Moon Mouse. Do you think Moon Mice ask each other "Do you think the MM2 really went to earth and visited Noggin the Nog back in 834 AD, or were all those books just forged by some kind on sophisticated printing method?"

[Edited by D Brown - 8/13/2002 4:53:24 PM]

 

The Van Allen belts aren't out at the moon. When the astronauts passed through the Van Allen belts they were inside the CSM which is essentially a Faraday cage.
It flutters because it's made of fabric, the fabric gets wobbled a bit when the pole is stuck in the ground and there's no friction between the fabric and the air (because there's no air) to damp the vibrations.Because in the absence of air the efflux from the descent engine will cause all the dust particles underneath the lander to be ejected in parabolic flight. Have you ever seen an impact crater being made in dust in a vaccum? It has perfectly conical sides and forms a ring around the impact site (diameter dependent upon impact velocity) -- the dust doesn't float around like it does in the air.You have no understanding of how film works. Bright stuff overexposes the film and the emulsion spreads out, covering up the crosses. When you see astronomical pictures which appear to have 'big stars' and 'small stars', the stars are all the same size in the viewfinder (point sources) but the brighter ones spread the emulsion over a larger area.It's lunar day -- you wouldn't expect to see stars because the sun is so bright. Just because it's not Rayleigh-scattered by an atmosphere to make the sky blue, doesn't mean it's not bright.Light is also scattered by the surface of the moon in all directions, lighting up supposedly 'pitch black' shadows. Your argument would only hold if the moon's surface, LM and astronauts were all perfectly absorbent in the visible spectrum.No, that's Capricorn One Small one actually. Only had to cope with the paper-thin LM in 1/6th g. LM was incredibly lightweight because it didn't have to work in 1g. Someone during its development dropped a screwdriver in one and it went through the floor.But you would get engine noise inside the LM as the motor's attached to the 'chassis' and the cabin contains air.There is no 'weird' lunar atmosphere as there is no lunar atmosphere. Coming up with crap like "isn't it handy that it can be explained by physics in a vacuum" is pointless if you've never bothered to learn the physics behind it. FFS learn some science before trying to discredit it. [img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img]

 

Carl,

Don't be a smart ****, this thread didn't need that. I have A level physics, chemistry and maths, but please don't tell me you have the in-depth knowledge of astro-physics, radiation, space photography and so on necessary to lecture us all on this stuff - i certainly don't.

You're entitled to your opinions on this. You've obviously made your mind up that you believe that it did occur. Fine. Your rebuttals of the various doubts have all been heard before. But don't belittle those of us who choose to remain sceptical, it's a valid viewpoint and one you cannot prove to be wrong.

Terry

 

I wouldn't normally stoop to this level, but I actually have both a Bachelors and a Masters in astrophysics. I've also read quite a bit

Your scepticism can be proven wrong using the laws of physics. If you choose 'not to believe' those laws, that's up to you. I'm not saying they're entirely correct, as they're an approximation. But to suggest that fundamental laws of physics that were described hundreds (and in some cases thousands) of years ago are 'a bit convenient' for explaining something that happened in 1969 is ludicrous.

[Edited by carl - 8/13/2002 5:31:55 PM]

 

Carl, i don't want to get into an argument about this, just respect other people's opinion. Nobody likes being called a dumb-**** because you don't think they have the necessary intelligence to understand "reality".

Far more educated people than you or me doubt this stuff. and right now, nobody can say for sure who is right, that's all...



[Edited by TelBoy - 8/13/2002 5:39:44 PM]

 

Actually, it's because it pays better

There is nothing in the science of the Apollo lunar landings that cannot be explained by A-level physics. I have seen dust craters in a vacuum chamber (not as interesting as hypervelocity impact craters) and the paths of the particles using a slow motion camera.

This is your basic mistake. You are assuming that 'people more educated' are doubting it, therefore it's probable that they are correct. If you have A-level Chemistry, Physics and Maths (and not at Grade U ) then there's nothing in the facts that you can't understand. If you're really interested and not just trolling, take the time to find out the information yourself and then make up your own mind. Please don't use Channel 5 as a reference source though

If you read Feynman's autobiographies, he says he learnt at an early age not to believe someone just because they appeared to be cleverer than him. It's certainly a worthwhile philosophy.

 

Give that man a cigar !

<now reading rest of thread>

 

oooh somones quoted me
thanks evilbevel i'll have a nice monte christo Havanna please

thanks for taking up the sensible baton Carl i had just about had enough

 

Is this REALLY the end now, Clangers excepted? Everyone had their "we know better than you" shot??

Just wait till tomorrow, i can feel a whole new thread about ESP coming on, another pet interest. Although, dammit, i don't have a Phd in psychoanalysis, so i'd better be careful...

 

You can be as sarcastic as you like, TelBoy, but this isn't the first thread of this nature we've had on here. It pisses me off when these sort of programmes try to belittle the achievements of a few dozen men who had/have more ***** than you or I could ever dream of. Not forgetting the other people working in the back rooms who made it happen (like Kranz the flight director, and von Braun who designed the Saturn V).

Apply Occam's razor (the simplest theory is usually the right one) and you don't go far wrong

I personally think that the stuff that Isaac Newton wrote on the equations of motion and reflection of light was co-erced out of him by the CIA just so the TV pictures would look good on the moon landing 300 years later.

[Edited by carl - 8/13/2002 7:43:53 PM]

 

Why are you so upset that Carl destroyed the conspiracy theory with cold science and logic?

He did it politely and methodically, and did not insult anyone's intelligence. If you took it that way then it says more about your personal insecurities than anything else.

 

You people can't be serious.

If something like that were to be faked, I'm sure the Soviets could have thought of it first.

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

 

Seb, me upset? Er don't think so, biggest grin i've had in ages!

And if "coming out with crap like...." and "FFS learn some science..." isn't insulting someone's intelligence, i'd like to know what is..!! But i'm really not that bothered, this thread's past the point of meaningful discussion now. Let's leave it be.

Of course there are scientific answers to all the doubts, that's what science is supposed to do. Science is supposed to be able to explain away religion, but it hasn't succeeded there either.

Let's just leave it that you believe what you believe, and i'll remain sceptical until proven otherwise. No-one "wins" this debate, it isn't provable either way, for the time being at any rate. Signing off,

Terry

 

I have to say, that out of all the counter-arguments to the program, carl's was the most clear, accurate and lucid one on this thread. Every point he makes is extremely sensible and falls well within the A-level physics syllabus.

To take his explanations and then claim he's being elitist because he's got more astrophysics knowledge than you have just smacks of childish sulking. You made a claim, based on a shoddily-researched and program which was edited in a style which was completely biased and did not allow NASA (or anyone else) to defend the points that were made. Carl has come and blown the 'evidence' out of the water using secondary-school physics which is well-founded and proven.

If you have other 'evidence', then go ahead, submit it. But if not, then the scientific norm is to accept that your theory has been disproven by credible counter-claims.

This whole conspiracy-theory thread, as with Diana, JFK, religion etc., etc is all because people want to believe that there is something more 'out there', in order to justify their mundane existance.

Oh, and to correct a few people, Ch5 didn't commission or produce this program. Like most of their material, it was just an old documentary recycled from US TV. The link I gave in my 2nd post on the thread refers to this exact same program, but Nasa's response to it was published some time back. The original program was first aired on Fox TV in the US on Feb 15th 2001.

Here are some other links which slate the program and offer explanations to it's flawed theories:

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

http://www.thespacerace.com/foxtv.html

http://198.65.138.161/org/news/2001/010808-moon2.htm

www.aas.org/publications/baas/v34n2/aas200/346.htm

In particular, the last link hits the nail right on the head with the following quote:

A quick search on the web for the program's title found all this stuff, and should have been enough for anyone with an inquisitive mind to have caused sufficient doubt as to discredit the program.

[Edited by MarkO - 8/14/2002 7:34:42 AM]

 

Honestly MarkO you have your head in the clouds. We all know such elitist concepts as "logical thought" and "research" have no place on ScoobyNet

 

Well done to Carl and the sensible responses not jaundiced by the mad conspiracy theorists!

Now we've all agreed man did get to the moon, what about the real question - DOES GOD EXIST? Always amuses me when both sides going into battle have a good pray - the old white bearded one must have a real dilemma deciding which side should win! haha.

Gordo

 

I thought God was female. When did she grow the white beard then

 

She must've been Welsh.

 

I know for a fact she exixts I'm married to her
:

 

LOL!!!!!

 

Pavlo, me too. More so in fact. A network consulting astro-physicist, who'd have thought it..?!

 

I work with a C++ developer who's got a BSc in astrophysics. I don't see it's quite so funny.

Bear in mind there's less money in astrophysics than the IT sector, but the skills aren't a world apart.

 

Absolutely. It was just the ner ner ne ner ner factor which amused me.

I don't expect everybody to believe my views on world economics based on my qualifications in that subject, and i retain the right to remain sceptical on this subject even in light of the explanations so far given, whether presented by a school pupil or Einstein (even though he's dead!).

 

Telboy

"My what a low low wagon that is!".....Oops wrong thread )

think that this argument should be settled at the Paintball fields in Abridge! See make my day punk in events Southern. Settle it like men (Boys playing at soldiers!) grin.
Your Astro physicist friend can work out the exact angle and velocity of the ***** that you are shooting him with!

 

if you are a scientist you should know that trusting one source of information as the truth is a bogus way to conduct yourself.

i am not saying the US didnt get to the moon, i am saying as yet we dont have conclusive proof because the only "proof" we have has come from one source.

As to why did they go more than once, very good question. A business the size of NASA will try to carry a programme forward for as long as it is allowed to, it has no incentive to go once, it has every incentive to go multiple times.

As to the USA being more technically advanced in the space programme, that's entirely bogus. The USSR was far advanced in terms of space hardware. It had the most eficient rocket engines. Right now the USA is using rocket engines imported from Russia that were shelved 20 years ago because they are far more eficient than anything the US engineers have designed to date. These rocket motors were suposed to be destroyed when the USSR moon programme was shelved, but the project leader mothballed them and they were offered for sale a few years ago when the USSR colapsed.

I am totally open minded on this one, i dont hold an opinion either way, i want proof that is from an independant source.

As to JFK. Anyone who thinks he was shot by a single person has some strange beliefs when you study the evidence of the films available or listen to eye witness statements. JFK was a major threat to the military and arms industry in the USA.

 

JFK, and especially his brother RFK who was Attorney General (chief "law enforcer") were also in the middle of a major crackdown on organized crime, which could also explain the assasination of both of them.

 

Also, JFK was hardly a major threat to the arms industry. When he ran for president against Richard Nixon, his main issue was the so called "bomber gap." Basically, he accused Nixon and the Republicans of being soft on communism, because the US didn't have as many bombers and missiles as the communists. JFK urged a massive increase in military spending so that the military could close this gap as soon as possible. JFK failed to mention that this gap was entirely fictional.

 

Not true. We can infer it. It was possible at the time, using the then-current knowledge and technology. Therefore, IMHO, they did it. The simplest explanation is usually the correct one.

What I don't understand is that people who think it's a conspiracy: which bit of it do they think it was impossible for the Americans to achieve, such that they had to 'fake' it? The orbital dynamics was based on centuries-old principles. We didn't get to 1969 without knowing how to radiation-shield something. The landing was accomplished using radar which was developed in the second world war. The worlds first throttlable rocket engine was developed for the programme, as were miniaturized computers -- the evidence for which is the far smaller computers of the 1970s and 1980s.