The sad thing is people who believe in the Moon Landing being faked are allowed to drive, own guns and breed.
Printable View
The sad thing is people who believe in the Moon Landing being faked are allowed to drive, own guns and breed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
Dont see why that was necessary, or how me asking NASA to provide more info makes me a "cheese brain" lol. (thought this thread was dead) But i dont have an opinion or weather it was a fake or not, just simply stating, there have been no official rebuttals made from NASA to counter some of the claims by prominent scientist. Any body have any info on the next "maned" trip to the moon?
Who is the "prominent scientist"? Name this person if he or she exists, but I bet the person is not a prominent scientist, but instead just another whackjob.Quote:
Originally Posted by deee757
Doesn't NASA have better things to do than to issue "official rebuttals" against every paranoid conspiracy theorist out there?
Come on deee! Your link is to a CNN interview with NASA. Because CNN didn't ask enough questions you blame NASA for not providing the public with enough information about the Apollo11 mission. In fact all the scientific data NASA has is available to the public. Here's just a few links:
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/ap...llo_tapes.html
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary...llo11info.html
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/maste...59A&ex=01&ds=*
http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/miss...s/apollo11.htm
If you want more, go to NASA and search the archives yourself. What better refutation of the conspiracy accusations can there be then full access to the mission records and the mission data sets?
Quote:
Originally Posted by deee757
a link just for you
If people claim this is staged, and its a fake, how would reviewing data provided by the people that are accused of being frauds clear up anything? The only reason the conspiracy theories exist because NASA is so quiet on the subject. Plus if you have looked at the pages of the links you posted, its just narratives from pre-publoished information.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
Here are some scientists and people of other professions (whack jobs) that have composed theoriesQuote:
Originally Posted by phobun
# Bill Kaysing (1922-2005) an ex-employee of Rocketdyne,[87] (the company which built the F-1 engines used on the Saturn V rocket). Kaysing was not technically qualified, and worked at Rocketdyne as a librarian. Kaysing's self published book, We Never Went to the Moon: America's Thirty Billion Dollar Swindle[9][44], p. 157, made many allegations, effectively beginning the discussion of the Moon landings possibly being hoaxed. NASA, and others, have debunked the claims made in the book.
# Bart Sibrel, a filmmaker, produced and directed four films for his company AFTH,[88] including a film in 2001 called A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon,[89] examining the evidence of a hoax. Again, the arguments put forward therein have been debunked by numerous sources, including svector's video series Lunar Legacy[90] which attempts to disprove the documentary's primary argument that the Apollo crew faked their distance from the Earth command module, while in low orbit. Sibrel believes that the effect on the shot covered in his film was produced through the use of a transparency of the Earth. Sibrel was also famously punched in the face by Buzz Aldrin while accusing the former astronaut of being "a coward, and a liar, and a thief." Sibrel attempted to press charges against Aldrin but the case was thrown out of court when the judge ruled that Aldrin was within his rights given Sibrel's invasive and aggressive behavior.[91]
# William L. Brian, a nuclear engineer who self-published a book in 1982 called "Moongate: Suppressed Findings of the U.S. Space Program," in which he disputes the Moon's surface gravity.
# David Percy, TV producer and expert in audiovisual technologies and member of the Royal Photographic Society, is co-author, along with Mary Bennett of Dark Moon: Apollo and the Whistle-Blowers (ISBN 1-898541-10-8) and co-producer of What Happened On the Moon?. He is the main proponent of the "whistle-blower" accusation, arguing that the errors in the NASA photos in particular are so obvious that they are evidence that insiders are trying to 'blow the whistle' on the hoax by deliberately inserting errors that they know will be seen.[92]
# Ralph Rene - An inventor and 'self taught' engineering buff. Author of NASA Mooned America (second edition OCLC 36317224).
# Charles T. Hawkins - Author of How America Faked the Moon Landings,
# Philippe Lheureux - French author of Moon Landings: Did NASA Lie?, and Lumières sur la Lune (Lights on the Moon): La NASA a-t-elle menti?.
# James M. Collier (d. 1998) - American journalist and author, producer of the video Was It Only a Paper Moon? in 1997.
# Jack White - American photo historian known for his attempt to prove forgery in photos related to the assassination of U.S. President John F. Kennedy.
# Marcus Allen (publisher) - British publisher of Nexus magazine said that photographs of the lander would not prove that the US put men on the Moon. "Getting to the Moon really isn't much of a problem - the Russians did that in 1959 - the big problem is getting people there."[93]
# Aron Ranen - Directed Did We Go? (co-produced with Benjamin Britton and selected for the 2000 "New Documentary Series" Museum of Modern Art, NYC, the 2000 Dallas Video Festival Awards and the 2001 Digital Video Underground Festival in San Francisco). He received a Golden Cine Eagle and two fellowships from the National Endowment for Arts. Ranen states in Did We Go? that the chances that America landed men on the moon is about 75% certain.
# Clyde Lewis - Radio talk show host.[94]
# Dr. David Groves - Works for Quantech Image Processing and worked on some of the NASA photos. Notably he has examined the photo of Aldrin emerging from the LM. He said he can pinpoint the exact point at which an artificial light was used. Using the focal length of the camera's lens and an actual boot, he has calculated (using ray-tracing) that the artificial light source is between 24 and 36 cm to the right of the camera.[95][96] His calculation may be correct because in this location there is a plausible light source: the brightly sunlit part of Armstrong's white spacesuit.
Doesn't NASA have better things to do than to issue "official rebuttals" against every paranoid conspiracy theorist out there?[/quote]
better things like what?
Quote:
…if you have looked at the pages of the links you posted, its just narratives from pre-publoished information.
Of course it’s pre-published. It was published and made available decades ago when the mission was taking place. Look for the data packages. They are available to anyone, some for a small fee.
What can the data establish you ask? Use your imagination. It can show you the exact lunar coordinates of the placement of mirrors on the Moon off which independent researchers can bounce laser beams confirming their location. The real purpose of the mirrors is to make continuous and accurate measurements of the distance to the Moon. If one is interested in confirming the existence of the mission, however, the telemetry can be checked by any independent person against the mathematical laws of celestial mechanics. There are so many variables that have to match here, there is simply no way of faking it. Moreover the telemetry data was collected not only by NASA but from scores of independent sources around the world (so you don't have to get your data sets entirely from NASA) including by observatories behind the iron curtain. The geological data can and is continually being checked against new and ever evolving theories of lunar geology. The surveyed measurements of mountain heights from the perspective of the Lander’s position can and are being matched against more modern measurements. Etc. etc.Quote:
If people claim this is staged, and its a fake, how would reviewing data provided by the people that are accused of being frauds clear up anything?
Which all can be achieved by unmanned missions, but this point has already been made. Russia has extensive unmanned missions that uncovered the bulk of the information that we have today regarding the moon. China is predicting that it will take them until the year 2020 to land a man on the moon. As far ahead of the US as China is in technology, its hard to believe that it takes 50 years to duplicate 1969 US technology. And the project costs 170 million US dollars.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
The US supposedly cut the Apollo programs because of budget cuts. The Russians have already conceded that landing a man on the moon is nearly impossible.
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches...on_040322.html
Certainly a lot of science can be done by unmanned missions. Indeed I prefer we slow down on the plans for manned missions to the Moon and Mars and milk more from robotic missions. But that is not the issue here. You asked how can we confirm the legitimacy of the mission from the data of the mission provided by NASA. The above post is a reply to that question. I’m not suggesting the data from Apollo 11 is necessary for understanding the laws of celestial mechanics, the geology or geography of the Moon, but the reverse. What we know now of those sciences can reveal inconsistencies in the Apollo 11 data if there are any. So far none have been found.
nope
Pretty clever reply by Trish, but I suppose the Apollo telemetry data could be faked (generated by computer) from the known sciences. But I don't think anything was faked. I think it would be difficult to hide a conspiracy in such a large organization as NASA, so any information about that would have leaked out via a large number of reliable sources, more credible than those claiming a fake moon landing.
So on the flip side, you also agree that we would still have all that information if the various Apollo's never made a manned tripped. Not to mention various forms of raw video (pre-scanned and before reproduction) exists of all of the Apollo missions with the exception of the manned mission. In addition, the blueprints and schematics of the machines and designs used on the Manned Apollo do not exist. They have been conveniently misplaced.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
I agree, that's why Im not completely sold that it is a hoax. However since the reproduced telemetry data that Houston received was retrieved from Australia, after receiving the original data from the Apollo, than you could minimize the amount of people that would have to be involved in the conspiracy. I do agree that someone in on the conspiracy would have come forth by now if it was indeed a hoax.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrF
In the case of the telemetry data, no. Telemetry is the data collected from observations around the world by independent sources of the flight path of the mission. If Apollo 11 never made the trip, this data would have to be invented and the independent observers would have to vouch for the invention, the conspirators would have to also include those who observed from behind the iron curtain. The data would have to comply with the known laws of celestial mechanics.Quote:
So on the flip side, you also agree that we would still have all that information if the various Apollo's never made a manned tripped.
In the case of raw video footage of the landing sight the answer is also no. We would have no detailed knowledge of that. Though our knowledge of the sight, had Apollo never been there, would improve with the passing of time. Indeed our knowledge independent of the Apollo 11 footage remains consistent with the footage with the passage of time.
I haven’t confirmed this story, but if you’re truly impartial, as you claim you are, shouldn’t you delete the word “conveniently”. If the story’s true, I’m sure there are plenty of people at NASA who think the plans have been inconveniently misplaced.Quote:
In addition, the blueprints and schematics of the machines and designs used on the Manned Apollo do not exist. They have been conveniently misplaced.
We have original telemetry data from all of the Apollo missions before reproduction, with the exception of the manned mission. With the manned mission, we only have the reproduced version, which could have been produced in Australia where the scnned versions originated
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_...ax_accusations (not a big wikepedia fan, but alot of this information is scattered)
There is no raw unedited footage of the space walk.
Point taken, "conveniently" meaning that the availability this information would dissolve any possible hoax theories. So I agree that if this were not a hoax, it would be inconvenient for NASA
Okay, you got me. It seems NASA lost not only the original telemetry tapes for Apollo 11, but data itself (i.e. they lost or never made backups)!
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...1972013191.pdf
(page 17)
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/ap...llo_tapes.html
Un-fucking-believable.
But at least I demonstrated that the data would be useful in verifying the flight actually took place, had we access to the data!
There must be partial data sets out there collected and archived by those who relayed the telemetry to NASA. Then again, it was an analog age and backup was expensive and time consuming. I’ll try to check.
Still the laser echo experiments do confirm that the mirrors were placed in their specific orientation at the specified time and coordinates on the lunar surface.
Yea, but the only reason im not ready to give my one hundred percent agreement with conspiracy, is because back up data was not viewed as important as it is now, i mean even the back up data they do have was on reels, and vhs tapes. That would be back up blasphemy in 2009Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
Well that's not the only reason against conspiracy. E.g. you have yet to refute the laser echo experiments.
Jesus, not again! This fairy-tale has already been dealt with at least once in this thread. Probably better to do some reading before you shoot your mouth off. And yeah I did think about it--you didn't come off well.Quote:
Originally Posted by superjoe2
:banghead
Thank you,Trish. Thank you thank you thank you.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
You know where we're going next, don't you?
Not sure if this has already gone up, it's only tangentially related to the topic, but I think it's funny.
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/youtube.png
This topic is simply silly.
The people who promote these views are just looking for their 15 minutes, money or both. The simple fact that a credible independent news source (e.g. The New York Times, CBS News, anything on PBS, etc.) hasn't broken this "story" in 40 years is reason enough to disprove it. It would literally be the story of the century! If it were out there, they would have found and published it.
There have been a total of six successful, manned lunar landings by the US spanning from July 1969 through December 1972. In addition, there have been twelve unmanned landings by the US (eight), the Soviet Union (three) and India.
As far as the comparison's between the complexity of lunar landings and terrestrial landing on Mars, there really is no comparison. Mars has a thin atmosphere which complicates things enormously (e.g. friction, wind) and a gravitational pull of roughly twice our moon (or 38% of Earth's).
P.S. The reason the flag is "waving" is due to Newton's First Law of Physics i.e. The Law of Inertia.
Since I saw this thread continuing to get bumped up I decided to read the entire thing. Entertaining stuff! Conspiracy theorists are always good for a laugh or two.
Another thing that makes no sense to me is why would we spent all that money to fake a moon landing? Just to have bragging rights? Even though I don't agree with the JFK assassination and 9/ll conspiracy nuts, at least there's plausible reasons for certain groups to pull off those acts.
Then there's the dueling wikipedia page about independent evidence of Apollo Moon landings:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indepen..._Moon_landings
which, of course, by the nature of Wikipedia, could also be an elaborate hoax. :)
"the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world that he did not exist" I don't buy into conspiracy theories, but I don't ignore facts. If the facts outweigh the opinions than....... u know the rest
More grist for the mill: http://www.geschichteinchronologie.c...ions-ENGL.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by thx1138
lol, like i said before, im not ready to conclude it was an all out hoax, but Im simply saying im not ignoring all of this shotty information
Doesn't this example kind of defeat your point. There is no devil.Quote:
"the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world that he did not exist"
Naw, just meaning the easiest way to resolve a problem is to convince people that there is no problem. If this can be done than you would not have to actually solve the problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
this thread is an example of creating a problem when there is no problem actualy .Quote:
Originally Posted by deee757
That is not grist for the mill, it is complete, unadulterated crap. It is bullshit from the first sentence, and trust me, THC, that is the last time I will ever take the trouble to actually read a site you refer me to.Quote:
Originally Posted by thx1138
I could go through it point by point and refute every single one, but the fact is, it would make no difference because
a) the people who believe this conspiracy bullshit are utter morons devoid of the slightest capacity for intelligent or logical thought, as has been demonstrated more than adequately by the moron-in-chief, you, and many many others in this thread alone
and
b) the conspiracy theories themselves are promulgated by self-publicising disinformation merchants who know perfectly well that the the aforesaid dunderheads will not only believe any old codswallop that is fed to them, they'll pay to be told it. From Erich von Danichen onwards, these people have been making fortunes from idiots like you.
There is no Bermuda Triangle, spacemen did not build the pyramids, there are no aliens hidden at Area 51, and the Apollo astronauts did go to the moon.
Case closed.
:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
I'm glad you didn't mention chem trails. They are quite real.
Nasa launching an unmanned mission to the moon for data. First in 10 years.
http://www.wric.com/global/story.asp?s=10558478
Lol, i thought we already had the data
So what's your complaint? The Moon's a large place and data on its geography, surface geology and interior structure will never be complete as long as there are completing theories and hypothesis to test and weed.
What's laughable is that someone thinks one mission a decade ago could provide all the data that we ever need; the implication being that if we still need data that mission must not have ever taken place. lol
The new orbiting probe has as one of it's missions, to photograph the old Apollo landing sites. At first, I thought that would settle the issue once and for all, but I'm sure that there are plenty of "sceptics" who will just claim that those photos were faked, as well.
trish ,a conspiracy is not something you can contradict by small un-important details known as FACTS :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
Yea, i got u, and while we are at it, why doesn't Spain send another ship around the world in search for more land. Lol, and the article says NASA wants to return a man to the moon by 2020, 50 years after the first landing. Also ironic that China says it would take them until 2020 to develop the technology to make it possible for them to send a man to the moon.