Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length.

[malcolmfrary]

If they can send these probes to the far reach of the solar system, why cant we stick a few guys on the moon.

I guess we will never know the answer.

As the great Derek Warwick said after bouncing his Arrows 300 yards upside down at the end of practice for a German GP many years ago when he clambered out of the remains "Its just a question of time and money".
The US financial centres have been siphoning money out of the system for the last forty years at an ever increasing rate.  You cannot have both incredibly rich bankers and a space program at the same time.

[HawkEye]

Did they go ? - I'm still on the fence leaning towards no.

China has completed the highest resolution map of the moon to date but to my knowledge there are no realeased photo's of any NASA ( never a straight answer ) landing sites from them.

As a brief example of fake? pictures have a look at this website, scroll down the page ( or watch the film if you wish ) to the moon type pictures.

http://www.theorionconspiracy.com/


Part 2 of an old 5 part documentary, A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YA0D6vZuQ6Y&feature=related


Some dubious moon images from NASA can be found here ( if interested )

http://www.marsanomalyresearch.com/evidence-directories/7-moon/moon-directory.htm

The only way to know for sure is to hop on the next moon bus and see for yourself, unfortunately nothing can be proven either way with images or video these days.

I remember reading somewhere that the Science museum has an exhibition of the lunar lander and an astronaut but the astronaut could not fit through the door of the lander with his back pack on !.

HawkEye

[justboatonic]

Did they go ? - I'm still on the fence leaning towards no.

China has completed the highest resolution map of the moon to date but to my knowledge there are no realeased photo's of any NASA ( never a straight answer ) landing sites from them.

As a brief example of fake? pictures have a look at this website, scroll down the page ( or watch the film if you wish ) to the moon type pictures.

http://www.theorionconspiracy.com/


Part 2 of an old 5 part documentary, A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YA0D6vZuQ6Y&feature=related


Some dubious moon images from NASA can be found here ( if interested )

http://www.marsanomalyresearch.com/evidence-directories/7-moon/moon-directory.htm

The only way to know for sure is to hop on the next moon bus and see for yourself, unfortunately nothing can be proven either way with images or video these days.

HawkEye

Sorry but are you serious?

I mean, so China (that bastion of truth and freedom of expression) hasnt said anything about the US landings so that's an indication that the landings didnt happen? And then some crackpot conspiracy web sites say it aint so, so, that must be the truth (and remember what these kooks say about the twin towers!).

I saw one old guy say the US didnt go to the moon because you couldnt operate a gloved hand pressurised to 14 psi, the air pressure here at ground level. he then proceeded to demonstrate with one of those gloves you get from a diy store than has a red rubber finish on the outside, put it in a self made vacuum chamber and pump out all the air. He then put his hand in the glove and said 'look, see? I cant bend my fingers in the glove in a vacuum and they tell us the astronauts picked up bolders and used hand operated cameras. Course it was faked!'

Trouble was, he didnt or couldnt be arsed to check his facts. If he had, he would have discovered the US pressurises space suits to about 6psi, less than half what he used in his experiment!

There are no dubious pictures of the moon landings. People who claim there were two light sources indicated by the pictures dont know what they are taking about. Even myth busters proved the conspiracy theories about two light sources as false, that you shouldnt be able to see astronauts in shadow clearly  as false and that the same location was used as the back drop of many shots was false.

To say nothing can be proved is frankly ludicrous. Now if you had said some people wont believe anything even when all the facts are systematically proved, now that I can believe.

[Colin Bishop]

remember reading somewhere that the Science museum has an exhibition of the lunar lander and an astronaut but the astronaut could not fit through the door of the lander with his back pack on !.

 Typical hearsay, that's how these things spread. Someone said that.... and so it must be true. Have you been to the Science Museum and looked at the hatch? No, I thought not!

I remember it well enough at the time, the science was entirely credible, a conspiracy suggesting otherwise simply doesn't make sense, except to those who still believe that Elvis is is still alive and well.

People who suggest otherwise are basically just ignorant - sorry!

Colin

[fatcat123]

I must admit, at first i didn't believe it. Ive seen programmes on TV, but these things are never neutral and fail to mention the proof.

Ive changed my opinion to believe that we went, however my mind remains open.

I also firmly believe some of the photographs were faked - why, well maybe camera failure and nasa felt they had to prove it...

[justboatonic]

Yeah anything's possible with photoshop, just look at some glamour mags.

I honestly don't know what to believe. I find it hard to believe that this was achieved with the technology at the time, but then again id like to think that they did do it.

What technology dont you think existed in the late 1969 and early 70's to send man to the moon? Space flight? Well that was well practiced by both the US and USSR. Computers? Conspiracy theorist always says the computers wouldnt fit in Apollo. They were correct. The computers (large ones) were on the ground.

Some observatory shines a laser up to one of the apollo sites where a mirror of some kind was left, in order for distance calculations to be done. That didn't get up there by itself.

On another note, why havnt the russians been up there? or atleast made it public if they had?

The early 60's was a space race to the moon. When the Us got there first and won, what was the point of the USSR going when they would be second? The USSR concentrated on extended missions in low earth orbit after the Apollo landings. They had considered sending a single man on a non return mission but then decided against it.

I dont see the logic in the argument that because the russians didnt go to the moon, for whatever reason, indicates the US didnt either!

Along the same topic of technology, look at voyager 1, some 16 light hours away from earth which equates to something like 10 billion miles. Launched in the 70's and still going strong and its expected to last for another 14 years or so based on its power supply. The point im trying to make is that we've sent hundreds of probes out, a lot of which in the moon landings period, so obviously there was a certain level of technology in which to completely automate or atleast put in place a method of computer radio control, so why couldnt two guys land something with their bare hands?

Armstrong did land 'with his bare hands' as you put it. He clearly took control of the last 5 minutes of the landing. I'd imagine all the lunar landings were actually done by the lander pilot rather than computers. Voyager and Pioneer probes arent manned. So, while intricate machines, they dont need to be pressuried to support life. also, as you point out, these probes are one way missions. You'd hardly expect that for manned missions although the russians did at one point.

Another point of mine which i made to an astronomer at my local flying club is how are things kept on trajectory. i.e new horizons probe currently going to pluto. The answer is by using the stars. If they can send these probes to the far reach of the solar system, why cant we stick a few guys on the moon.

I guess we will never know the answer.

Probes and manned craft arent kept on course by the stars, they only navigate by them. They have inertial guidance systems ie gyros and thrusters to keep them on course although sometimes, they do use the gravity of planets to speed a probe up and change its course. However, you are still ignoring basic facts. These probes are unmanned. They are one way missions. They dont have to sustain life and carry food, oxygen and living quarters.

[Colin Bishop]

It's not impossible that some of the photos may have been retouched but the facilities to do that sort of thing that we now take for granted (Photoshop) didn't exist in those days.

These latest hi res photos from the Moon would seem to prove the reality once and for all. The idea that some sort of conspiracy should have continued from 1969 to the present really does defy credibility. What would be the point and why would two generations maintain the pretext? Just doesn't make sense. After all it's not as if there was anything vital at stake. It's just that some people like to see mysteries where none exist.

Colin

[justboatonic]

It's not impossible that some of the photos may have been retouched but the facilities to do that sort of thing that we now take for granted (Photoshop) didn't exist in those days.

These latest hi res photos from the Moon would seem to prove the reality once and for all. The idea that some sort of conspiracy should have continued from 1969 to the present really does defy credibility. What would be the point and why would two generations maintain the pretext? Just doesn't make sense. After all it's not as if there was anything vital at stake. It's just that some people like to see mysteries where none exist.

Colin

Colin, you may be aware that people refer to the 'C' rock when they talk about the landings conspiracy. They say this photo proves the landing site was a stage because 'props' are itemised etc. in this example, the conspiracy goes, a rock marked 'C' is clearly visible in one of the moon photos and indicates it is a prop someone forgot to remove before the pic was taken.

However, the 'C' in question is a tiny hair which go on the negative when it was developed. but NASA would say that, wouldnt they 

[HawkEye]

Typical hearsay, that's how these things spread. Someone said that.... and so it must be true. Have you been to the Science Museum and looked at the hatch? No, I thought not!

I remember it well enough at the time, the science was entirely credible, a conspiracy suggesting otherwise simply doesn't make sense, except to those who still believe that Elvis is is still alive and well.

People who suggest otherwise are basically just ignorant - sorry!

Colin

Ignorant !- Oh dear !  , this is only a friendly chat, I'm not trying to prove anything one way or another, just offering information that those that may be interested can research and make up their own minds.It is not up to me  (or anyone else) to force one's opinions on other people.
This subject along with many others will continue to cause controversy due to discrepancies in the information supplied to the public over the years.

Have a nice day

HawkEye

[justboatonic]

Ignorant !- Oh dear !   , this is only a friendly chat, I'm not trying to prove anything one way or another, just offering information that those that may be interested can research and make up their own minds.It is not up to me  (or anyone else) to force one's opinions on other people.
This subject along with many others will continue to cause controversy due to discrepancies in the information supplied to the public over the years.

Have a nice day

HawkEye

The only discrepancies are those offered by the conspiracy theorists. And all those have been soundly disproved if people bothered to investigate. I have yet to see any discrepancies in the information NASA or other agencies supplied to the public over the years.

[Colin Bishop]

Splitting hairs!  

When you visit the Science Museum you can't fail to be impressed with the progress Britain made towards space exploration. You can visit the Isle of Wight, as I did the other day, and see where the rocket engines were tested. None of this was faked although the Government subsequently cancelled the programme . It is quite clear that the technology existed to put men on the Moon in the late 1960s and it was only for political reasons that further progress was curtailed. The trouble is that people prefer to credit conspiracy or even alien activity instead of the far more plausible mundane reasons for not continuing with the lunar exploration programme which was that the US beat the Russians to it and there was no compelling reason to continue after that on cost grounds. The future lay in near space orbit for both military and commercial reasons and that is what happened.

Colin

[Colin Bishop]

Ignorant !- Oh dear !  , this is only a friendly chat, I'm not trying to prove anything one way or another, just offering information that those that may be interested can research and make up their own minds.It is not up to me  (or anyone else) to force one's opinions on other people.

Maybe, but you are simply peddling hearsay rather than making a considered judgement and that adds nothing to the argument. No offence meant.

Colin

[RaaArtyGunner]

The only discrepancies are those offered by the conspiracy theorists. And all those have been soundly disproved if people bothered to investigate. I have yet to see any discrepancies in the information NASA or other agencies supplied to the public over the years.

Well you, NASA and others haven't convinced me.

You have to think for yourself and not blindly accept all that is put before you.

There are many examples of the "public", which includes you, being misinformed for a variety of reasons, eg National security.

Even though Russia was not first to the "moon'????????, Do you really believe, that their idealogy would permit the US to be one up and that they wouldn't give it a shot.

As they say, until it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, then it is all hearsay.
 

[derekwarner]

Hi ....RaaArtyGunner .....do you think that our Andy would tell porkers?  ....he knows the truth......... .....................Derek


Andrew "Andy" Sydney Withiel Thomas (born 18 December 1951 in Adelaide, South Australia) is an Australian-born American aerospace engineer and a NASA astronaut. He became a U.S. citizen in December 1986, hoping to gain entry to NASA's astronaut program.[1] He is married to fellow NASA astronaut Shannon Walker.

[Colin Bishop]

Well obviously governments and others try to hoodwink the general public on a regular basis, usually to try and conceal something they’ve done which they shouldn’t have. Usually the truth will come out eventually.

The problem with conspiracy proponents, whether it is moon landings, the sinking of the Titanic, 9/11 or even the various crackpot theories surrounding the Pyramids, is that they seize upon certain apparent anomalies or inconsistencies in their chosen subject and then extrapolate a huge edifice of supposition on a very narrow base. Occam’s Razor goes out of the window. If you tell me that NASA faked some photos because some of the the ones taken by the astronauts didn’t come out then I might be inclined to believe you but to suggest that this means they never went to the moon at all just doesn’t cut it when you step back and look at the bigger picture.

I think most reasonable people would accept that there was indeed a space race going on in the 1950s and 1960s and that lots of rockets were shot into the sky. The conspiracy people seem to be suggesting that at some point the top guy at NASA called his staff together and said ‘Now look lads, this Moonshot business just ain’t gonna work so we are going to have to fake it to fool the Russians (despite the US Government being riddled with Russian spies at the time!) and keep the public off our backs for wasting all those tax dollars.’ And so they enlisted hundreds, if not thousands of people into setting up an elaborate fake landing, not one of whom has admitted to it 40 years later.

Not content with this, they then faked another five landings plus a heroic disaster scenario thrown in as well.

And then, just  last week, NASA presumably faked yet another set of photos showing the  (non existent) landing sites despite the fact that very few of the original staff working on the Apollo programme would still be in post 40 years later so the secret must have been passed down within the organisation, again without anyone coming clean.

And the Russians, who had everything to gain from exposing any coverup and who were best placed through their own technology and spies inside the US administration to detect it, never said a word.

Sorry, pull the other one!

Colin

[justboatonic]

Well you, NASA and others haven't convinced me.

You have to think for yourself and not blindly accept all that is put before you.

There are many examples of the "public", which includes you, being misinformed for a variety of reasons, eg National security.

Even though Russia was not first to the "moon'????????, Do you really believe, that their idealogy would permit the US to be one up and that they wouldn't give it a shot.

As they say, until it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, then it is all hearsay.
 

LOL! 'You have to think for yourself and not blindly accept all that is put before you.' seriously, you couldnt make a statement like that up!

Have to say, I sat through all that era so I dont 'blindly' accept all that is put before me. I examine the information presented to me. I listen to the theories then investigate if they stack up. As I said in a previous post, no one mentioned fake landing until Capricorn One some ten years later. If there was all this information available immediately after the landings ie two light sources in the pictures, flag 'waving' in a vacuum etc, why were these 'clear' indications of fake mentioned in 69, 70, 72 and 74 and not more than 10 years later?

Did the conspiracy theorist just decide to keep quiet for 10 plus years and not look at the information?

You talk about blindly accepting what is put before you yet you do exactly the same only your \ the theorists version doesnt stack up.

Seriously, have you investigated the effects of sun light on the moons surface regarding the two light sources claim? Have you investigated the mechanism of the flag equipment? Do you not question why there was no fake landing theories for over 10 years then started to surface only after Capricorn One? Do you not question the co incidence in that fact?

Your statement about russia frankly amazes me. Have you heard of the russian space shuttle? They lost that race too yet did they continue with their shuttle programme because according to your logic, they should have due to their 'ideology would (not) permit the US to be one up'?

Im not bothered about convincing you or other fake landing theorist because clearly, you wont recognise substantiated facts when put in front of you. In fact I think an aged Aldrin had the best answer to a fake landing theorist when he laid him out with a right hook  

What I want to see proved by fake landing theorist is actual substance to these claims. A good start would be evidence for the existence of and location of the supposed film set where the landings 'happened,' signed affidavits from people who built, maintained and eventually dismantled the studio and who took part in the fakes.

There must have been undreds of people involved in this but where are they? Where is one person who can produce the slimest of evidence for this?

By your own statement of not blinding accepting, where is your evidence to support this?

BTW, an Aussie radio telescope was instrumental in securing tv transmissions from the Eagle and apollo 11 (having first lost contact with them for over 24 hours!). Are you saying your fellow aussies were complicite in the fakes as well?

[derekwarner]

Sorry Colin......the Yanks don't say....or phrase...... ‘Now look lads, .... ....so who are you attempting to confuse?.........Derek

& thanks  justboatonic for your note 

BTW, an Aussie radio telescope was instrumental in securing tv transmissions from the Eagle and apollo 11 (having first lost contact with them for over 24 hours!). Are you saying your fellow aussies were complicite in the fakes as well?

[nhp651]

what i want to know.....as with any conspiracy, unless it actually harms national security...........

DOES IT REALLY MATTER to the ordinary man in the street.

i couldn't care less whether they landed on the mood, whether elvis is alive and well and living in down town Knott End on Seqa, or who shot JFK/JR EWING..........so long as i can live in my own little world and beleive what i want to without people continually pontificating and telling me what i do believe is wrong and incorrect.
a tunneled vision, it may be....but i couldn't care less.

[Dekan]

The Chinese have already started planning the construction of the first hotel and shopping mall.

The Americans have put in a bid for a car factory.

The British won't go yet as they don't expect to have finished the risk analysis before 2027, and that is just the risk analysis for the QUANGO that Mandelson will be in charge of.

I dont know... but some days I get tired of the English being considered the laughing stock of the world   mostly by expats, who should now better than run down their birth place

In any case by then the population of this "fair Isle" will be about 80million at the current rate of growth... so by then the thought of doing anything will be academic
I wonder how long it will be before we get out first Muslim prime minster  

[Colin Bishop]

Sorry Colin......the Yanks don't say....or phrase...... ‘Now look lads, .

Irony is clearly wasted on you then...  

[ACTion]

i couldn't care less whether they landed on the mood, whether elvis is alive and well and living in down town Knott End on Seqa, or who shot JFK/JR EWING..........so long as i can live in my own little world and beleive what i want to without people continually pontificating and telling me what i do believe is wrong and incorrect.
a tunneled vision, it may be....but i couldn't care less.

Bravo and well said, Mr H-P!! I too don't give a flying fairy's -  but it was  damned good TV for that time in the morning, wasn't it?
DM

[nhp651]

 but it was  damned good TV for that time in the morning, wasn't it?
DM

yer right dave it was.you do mean Dynasty don't you!!!   
neil.

[The long Build]

Sorry Colin......the Yanks don't say....or phrase...... ‘Now look lads, .... ....so who are you attempting to confuse?.........Derek

BTW, an Aussie radio telescope was instrumental in securing tv transmissions from the Eagle and apollo 11 (having first lost contact with them for over 24 hours!). Are you saying your fellow aussies were complicite in the fakes as well?

Well I do...

And Yes most Probably..


oh And NHP I'm with you on that 2 different sets of views and when those who think they did land realise it was all a lie we will all be better off..

[justboatonic]

Hmmmm. This thread needs locking 

[The long Build]

Why ??
Just because there are 2 groups..

Those who say they did visit the moon .
and those who say they did not..

There has been no flaming and in my opionon as the Titanic thread is a bit of banter, this will die down over time until more pictures or a new set of evidence is presented, also it is the chit chat section. if anybody does not like the thread then move on..