Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 fortran
Joined: 2/21/2004
Msg: 35
view profile
History
Do you believe we landed on the moon?Page 2 of 32    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32)
Slashdot (slashdot.org) is currently running a thread about the Saturn V design information. Apparently anything that was public domain is being removed. Paranoia is probably the actual reason. But the concensus as I see it, is that there is no longer the published knowledge (security clearance or not) available to rebuild a Saturn V. A lot of knowledge would need to be redeveloped. Of course, we might improve the odd thing here and there too.

As far as knowing what the Moon is made out of, there was a satellite sent to the moon to do a survey. It had all kinds of instrumentation on it, including neutron detectors I believe. It's name escapes me, but a search through things at Space.com or any of the Moon sites (such as moonsociety.org) should turn it up. But if we use the Sun and cosmic rays as the probes, we can get all kinds of gamma, x-ray and neutron information from the Moon. That includes composition information. How deep this information probes the moon depends on what kind of information we are talking about. Surface to tens of meters for sure. Analyzing the orbits of satellites orbiting the Moon will get gravitational information on the scale of 10,000 km for sure, possibly finer.

The premise of this thread sucks. We did visit the moon in the Apollo missions.
 fuelman10101
Joined: 10/25/2006
Msg: 36
Do you believe we landed on the moon?
Posted: 7/31/2007 1:42:11 AM
The premise of this thread "sucks"? I have read quite a bit of information on this, but probably not enough. What I have seen, for the most part, is some "crackpots" coming in with some very thought-provoking evidence that makes, at least, a solid case that we did not really go there. The first time I was exposed to this issue, I was very saddened. "Damn, at least we went to the moon! come on..." And after the crackpots had their say, I waited for NASA representatives to quite rightly ****slap the naysayers with the kind of evidence that you might gather quite easily, having "been there", after all. A point-by-point assessment followed by the deconstruction of each skeptic's assertions. What I heard was some seemingly intelligent representatives of NASA issuing blanket "assurances" that yes, we went to the moon, everybody knows we went to the moon, I can't imagine what kind of lunatic would even suggest that we somehow "faked" the entire thing, we've got records, public records- to say all that was fabricated, why that's just crazy, people: Capricorn 1 is just a movie, and a mediocre one at that, pull your heads out of your asses, people- what kind of disenchanted crackpot would one have to be to try and denigrate all these fine men & women who made America's greatest moment not only possible, but made it HAPPEN! I can't believe I'm even being called on to "defend" reality! We went to the moon, end of story, period, thank you..

Condescending marginalization of "conspiracy nuts" who have nothing better to do, naturally, than to try to tarnish America's image, at a time when we should all pull together.......Ok. Someone just prove we went there, please. I want to believe. Not circumstantial evidence of all the scientific and technological breakthroughs BECAUSE we went to the moon. SPACE, yes.. People say "There's no way they could keep a conspiracy like that secret!" Well, no one ( including me, and I'll bet a lot of the crackpots) wants to think it didn't happen, that it was all Mankind's triumph, not just the U.S.'s . Yet a lot of people seem to be questioning this. Have you ever known anyone who had high levels of clearance in the U.S. Govt.? I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that, like the man I once knew, they probably seemed very cynical and more burdened by their knowledge than anything else. The more the U.S. Govt. engages in the condescending, highly transparent ( Debate Class 101) blanket dismissals of some GOOD questions and encourages the marginalization of naysayers rather than even TOKEN acknowledgement that these people might have a point, the more it leads people like me to assume the government is essentially "LYING****UCKERS" (-Bill Hicks) and puts the burden of proof on the Govt. itself about matters ranging from Pearl Harbor, Vietnam, the OKC Murrah Building Bombing ( I was 2 miles away) , the 9/11 "attacks", and most sadly of all (to me) the moon landings. -- still wanting to believe that one at least.
 fuelman10101
Joined: 10/25/2006
Msg: 37
Do you believe we landed on the moon?
Posted: 7/31/2007 4:30:30 AM
Somebody got a camera into space? I don't know why I didn't see it before: the conspiracy thing is crap; the conspiracy thing is crap; the conspiracy........................
 fortran
Joined: 2/21/2004
Msg: 38
view profile
History
Do you believe we landed on the moon?
Posted: 7/31/2007 6:14:46 AM
I can't blame you for not visiting slashdot to read the thread, the noise there tends to be quite prevalent.

There were a lot of contractors involved in producing parts for the Saturn V. NASA asked for a certain minimal set of specifications of the part, and left its actual implementation up to the contractor. If you were lucky, all of the information on that part is published in the patent literature, but more often than not at least some of the information was kept as a trade secret. NASA never did have all the specs on all the parts involved. Do companies maintain the trade secret information on all their parts forever? Probably not, and certainly not if they cease to exist.
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 40
Do you believe we landed on the moon?
Posted: 7/31/2007 8:32:22 AM

U.S. Govt. engages in the condescending, highly transparent ( Debate Class 101) blanket dismissals of some GOOD questions

Well, bring up some of these "good" questions. I, for one, will attempt to address them. If you actually do want to believe, you might even be willing to listen to the answers.

The whole space program of the '60's (Mercury, Gemini, then Apollo) was a lead up to the moon landing. No one is denying those missions. What "wall" did we hit that kept us from finally landing on the moon? And why didn't the Soviets cry foul??

Those are just 2 of my "good" questions to the deniers.

I must have missed an important part in this story somewhere.

I would say you did. Most people now don't realize what a hurry we were in to get to the moon. Kennedy's timeline was very challenging. Engineers didn't have time to document everything really well. We would have to reinvent some parts of the wheel, so to speak, to get back to the moon at this point. The moonshot was a political pursuit more than a fact-finding mission. We can send unmanned probes to the moon and find out just as much for much less money. And, yes, money plays a big part in the equation, as it usually does.

If the naysayers really wanted to find out these things, one would think that they might actually crack open some books about this. Perhaps to some, denying is more entertaining than learning...
 2findU
Joined: 11/19/2005
Msg: 41
view profile
History
Do you believe we landed on the moon?
Posted: 7/31/2007 8:50:12 AM
I should also add, we don't need the plans for the Saturn IV, LEM, Apollo space capsule or any of the other equipment that got us to the moon in the first place. That stuff is 60's technology designed on old fashion drafting tables. Now we have 3D solid modeling and very sophisticated computers and software. This is the 21st century. We have newer technologies, more powerful more efficient rocket motors. The journey originally took 3 days to get to the moon. Now we will do it in less than a day.
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 42
Do you believe we landed on the moon?
Posted: 7/31/2007 9:07:15 AM

We have newer technologies, more powerful more efficient rocket motors.

Yes, but I think the over-engineered engines on the ole Saturn V have a reliability advantage over these highly-tuned, newer engines. Not a bad school of thought for what's at stake, I think.
 2findU
Joined: 11/19/2005
Msg: 43
view profile
History
Do you believe we landed on the moon?
Posted: 7/31/2007 9:36:07 AM
Yes, but I think the over-engineered engines on the ole Saturn V have a reliability advantage over these highly-tuned, newer engines. Not a bad school of thought for what's at stake, I think.


Well, they would have to (and probably are) design new rocket engines for this trip. The shuttle rockets are different for different parameters. They might be able to use existing rocket engines from other type rockets such as the models they launch planetary space probes with. Both Boeing and Lockheen Martin manufacture rockets. I don't know who will make the LEM. It would be nice if it was Northrop Grumman since Grumman Aerospace was the original builder of the original LEM. I used to work for them once, but I was in High School during that project. But I was in the very hangar it was built in. They had a big photograph of it on the wall there. I grew up 5 miles from there and used to see the Super Guppy cargo planes flying in and out of Grumman. The wings for the Space Shuttles were built in the very same hangar. I designed some tools for them. I'm sure they will be starting over again but unlike the original manned landing, now we know how to do it. But there will still be testing of new designs and equipment. You just don't design, build it and go.
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 44
Do you believe we landed on the moon?
Posted: 7/31/2007 6:10:30 PM

now we know how to do it.

Do you think they are going to do it the same way? Having a LEM was a stroke of genius, and it obviously (to the knowledgeable) worked, but everyone admits that the docking procedure was always a little tense and awkward.
 fuelman10101
Joined: 10/25/2006
Msg: 45
Do you believe we landed on the moon?
Posted: 8/1/2007 1:59:06 AM

The whole space program of the '60's (Mercury, Gemini, then Apollo) was a lead up to the moon landing. No one is denying those missions. What "wall" did we hit that kept us from finally landing on the moon? And why didn't the Soviets cry foul??

Those are just 2 of my "good" questions to the deniers.


Sir, I'm not a denier, I just remain unconvinced. I could ask a number of questions about shadows, stars, & bloopers, but you are probably more familiar with these than I am. And could very well have reasonable explanations. However, if the landings are indeed incontrovertible reality, why the .....


If the naysayers really wanted to find out these things, one would think that they might actually crack open some books about this. Perhaps to some, denying is more entertaining than learning...


..arrogance with which "deniers" are (PERHAPS) put in their place as entertainment seekers, too busy naysayin' to do any book learnin? If a denier is literally unable to face reality, then they must be mentally ill, and they aren't brought out of their hallucinatory refuge by airs of cheap superiority. And surely people that ask pertinent questions that resonate within the minds of many (this doesn't make them truth-revealing, just pertinent) should be welcomed into a friendly discourse that addresses their questions, not just having their questions answered with condescenscion & more questions. IF the facts are on one's side, this only creates the impression of stonewalling and obfuscation, and is counterproductive- marginalizing "deniers" for no good reason.

Your questions? well.. that wall would "seem" to be the Van Allen Radiation Belt, which is a "concern" for those who would journey outside of the Earth's orbit, starting with the Apollo program(?) .. And assuming, just for the sake of denial (sheer intoxication)- that's a very good question: Why WOULDN'T the Russians raise a stink? Well, that's one we may never know (assuming, still).. But, correct me if I'm wrong, but they never put up much effort to actually GO to the moon anyway, did they? Why not? Because of character defects exacerbated by Communism?
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 46
Do you believe we landed on the moon?
Posted: 8/1/2007 8:44:49 AM

IF the facts are on one's side, this only creates the impression of stonewalling and obfuscation, and is counterproductive- marginalizing "deniers" for no good reason.

Do you remain unconvinced by everything you've read and seen about this, or are you just turned off by the perceived antagonism of the "other side"? Is distaste really enough to make you disagree completely? Put yourself in the same position-- how sweet would you come off to a flat earth society member whose opinion is strong, whose argument is weak, and whose skin is thin, shall we say?

And there's no stonewalling or obfuscation on this thread. I'll address your points posthaste:

Your questions? well.. that wall would "seem" to be the Van Allen Radiation Belt, which is a "concern" for those who would journey outside of the Earth's orbit, starting with the Apollo program(?) .. And assuming, just for the sake of denial (sheer intoxication)- that's a very good question: Why WOULDN'T the Russians raise a stink? Well, that's one we may never know (assuming, still).. But, correct me if I'm wrong, but they never put up much effort to actually GO to the moon anyway, did they? Why not? Because of character defects exacerbated by Communism?

Yes, there is the deadly Van Allen Belt. However, it would only kill someone if they hung around in it for about a month or so. We just shoot through it, so it isn't even as bad as a day at the beach.

As for the Soviets not even trying, apparently you didn't read Msg #26. It was so well-informed that I already referred another poster to it. I really have to stand by my earlier statement that you found offensive. If you can't even be bothered to read this very thread, how can you feel justified in your indignation against my comment?
 2findU
Joined: 11/19/2005
Msg: 47
view profile
History
Do you believe we landed on the moon?
Posted: 8/1/2007 10:51:21 AM

As for the Soviets not even trying, apparently you didn't read Msg #26. It was so well-informed that I already referred another poster to it. I really have to stand by my earlier statement that you found offensive. If you can't even be bothered to read this very thread, how can you feel justified in your indignation against my comment?


And in fact the Soviets did sent robotic probes to the moon that brought back moon rocks. They just were beaten by us to put a man there first. But they could still have succeded in putting a man there. They just would be second, that's all.
 Thatguy67
Joined: 9/20/2006
Msg: 49
view profile
History
Do you believe we landed on the moon?
Posted: 8/2/2007 7:40:37 PM
The Soviets had been making landings (hard & soft) on the moon as early as 1959. For the longest time, the Russians were ahead in the space race. They proved you could do a soft landing and not sink into the sand of the moon as originally feared.
 1Canuck
Joined: 10/12/2005
Msg: 50
view profile
History
Do you believe we landed on the moon?
Posted: 8/2/2007 8:13:23 PM
Nope - they landed in Sudbury, Ontario and that is why NASA went back there in the mid 70's to plant all those trees - to cover up the evidence.

Those Lunar buggies were actually modified skidoo's.
 fuelman10101
Joined: 10/25/2006
Msg: 51
Do you believe we landed on the moon?
Posted: 8/3/2007 1:03:12 AM

Do you remain unconvinced by everything you've read and seen about this, or are you just turned off by the perceived antagonism of the "other side"? Is distaste really enough to make you disagree completely? Put yourself in the same position-- how sweet would you come off to a flat earth society member whose opinion is strong, whose argument is weak, and whose skin is thin, shall we say?


Hello. I didn't ask for antagonism, but for something resembling a "point-by-point assesment and deconstruction" of assertions coming from the DENIERS. I would prefer(!) to be convinced beyond reasonable doubt that we left orbit; unfortunately, it would require something more substantial than rote repetition of assertions that are trotted out as if they were facts...(It's been "suggested" that----Van Allen Radiation > day at beach----- ... is this a bald-faced lie hissed by thin-skinned, bitter flat-earth types, or a "possibility"?) And yeees I read msg. 26..... "Well-informed"? orrr, maybe "Junior-high book report- level dissertation of 'facts' unverifiable by the reporter"? Hmm... the Soviets wanted it so badly they could taste it, but then(!) tough times! & setbacks!...mistakes were made! OK, you guys have come close to convincing me. METHINKS "y'all" doth protest tooooo much.
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 52
Do you believe we landed on the moon?
Posted: 8/3/2007 4:54:04 PM
Fuelman, your last post has no real rebuttal, as in a valid argument. You're merely starting to appear as a person who plugs his ears and yells, "I can't hear you, la, la, la!" I cannot have a real discussion if you just want to say, "Yeah, right!" to every point brought up. It just seems like you have an axe to grind.

If you looked for evidence and found little that is credible (from an objective standpoint), then I would say you have a case. However, the evidence is out there in spades, and it's just glaringly obvious that you haven't looked very hard for it, which speaks much louder than your words of unfounded skepticism... gems like "we may never know why the Soviets didn't expose the fraud."

If you are not convinced that we landed on the moon (several times), then that must mean you are more convinced that it was all faked. Where are your verifiable facts that back up that belief? I don't just mean "evidence" that the landings didn't happen. No, I mean evidence that a massive fraud and hoax DID happen. That would have been more expensive and, in a twisted way, more impressive than us actually going to the moon.
 fortran
Joined: 2/21/2004
Msg: 54
view profile
History
Do you believe we landed on the moon?
Posted: 8/4/2007 9:07:17 AM
Although nothing will ever convince the conspiracy theorists, slashdot is currently running a thread that NASA and Arizona State University are about to put ALL of the NASA film footage online for free as TIFF, PNG or ISIS. Slashdot got the news from spaceref:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=23141
the archive is at:
http://apollo.sese.asu.edu/
If you haven't had enough noise in your intellectual diet, the slashdot thread is at:
http://science.slashdot.org/science/07/08/04/125207.shtml
 2findU
Joined: 11/19/2005
Msg: 55
view profile
History
Do you believe we landed on the moon?
Posted: 8/7/2007 11:39:36 AM

Just watch this video by Fox TV: Did We Land On The Moon
video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1138935117048624484

Do we have to believe a-ha and moby went on the Moon because we saw them doing in their music video's (with much better quality video than the Apollo Moon Hoax).


Fox also showed an alien autopsy. Do you believe that too? That was a hoax and so is the perpetuation of trying to say that a real event that happened is a hoax. The hoax is the belief that it is a hoax.
 2findU
Joined: 11/19/2005
Msg: 57
view profile
History
Do you believe we landed on the moon?
Posted: 8/8/2007 3:40:35 AM
the flag is very very convicing, how can a flag move when there is no air to move it, it would go stiff


You think if they were faking this they would do it outside with the wind blowing? They would do it indoors in a windless studio. DUH!
 2findU
Joined: 11/19/2005
Msg: 60
view profile
History
Do you believe we landed on the moon?
Posted: 8/8/2007 7:01:15 PM

well i just cant see that air on the moon can move it, nor would vibrations. Look how it moves in the video, also it would be frezzing cold.


Ther is no air on the moon. Its a complete vacuum up there.
 fun-in-the-sun64
Joined: 5/5/2007
Msg: 61
view profile
History
Do you believe we landed on the moon?
Posted: 8/9/2007 4:45:59 AM
Wow, people are really naive. There is no way to keep this kind of conspiracy under wraps involving so many people. People talk. They go home and tell their wives secrets they're not supposed to share, they become disgruntled later in life, it just doesn't work. A lot of military personel would have had to be included in this hoax. Keeping secrets when there's been a cover up in the military is really difficult, the more people involved the harder it becomes to hide the truth. Virtually impossible. There's also a financial incentive to blow the lid off the hoax. The soviet union is no longer a threat and the political advantage of being first to the moon has long since expired, what would stop an astronaut or a couple of engineers from cashing in with a multimillion dollar book deal?

I'm ex military and I was a witness to an incident that the command I was attached to would have dearly liked to cover up. In under 4 hours there were quotes from wives and military personel in the local papers and the details were being broadcast on local tv. The military just isn't that efficient at covering things up. Pat Tilman's death is a perfect example. Friendly fire casualties are a fact of life in the military. Some reports put the incidence as high as 10% of our casualties are the results of friendly fire but it's not a pretty statistic so it doesn't get a lot of press. My guess is it's about 2% but that's still 1 person in every 50 who is killed or wounded is injured by our own side. Only because Pat Tilman was previously famous and therefore seen as heroic is this a big issue. The point being, the army tried to cover something up that involved a relatively small number of people and they couldn't get a handle on it. That's reality.

The lunar lander burn was visible from earth on large telescopes, which means we must have sent a space craft to the proximity of the moon at the exact time we were "faking" being there?

there's a website that destroys the fox video point by point with hard science:
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

I've met two astronauts and built their personal websites, they think it's ridiculous to even pretend you could keep this kind of secret for so long. One of them was not an apollo astronaut but he was a veteran of 3-4 shuttle flights, and he had hard facts to dispute any of the silly claims being made on the fox show.

There's a lot of hard science to suggest the dose of radiation from the van ryan radiation belts is only a moderate dose especially when considering duration of exposure and the shielding the space craft and suits would provide.

My father has patents for some parts on the lunar lander. Very expensive parts that really wouldn't be neccessary if the lander wasn't actually landing on the moon. I guess that could be part of the conspiracy but a large waste of money when no one would really be able to discern if a certain part was never made because no one keeps records of what wasn't done.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xUGRngAhBI

I believe this speaks volumes about the integrity of the mission and those involved at the top.
this is just crazy fluff. at one point she(the narrator) suggests that turning off the lights in the spaceship in order to decrease reflected light on the window is a "conspiracy". LOL a conspiracy to get a better picture? She also points out there's a voice that says [talk] on the tape and then one of the astronauts suddenly responds. She blames the delay on the astronauts being so busy purpotrating the hoax they're not paying attention. Talk about creative imagination. The voice is one of the other astronauts saying [talk] because they were probably looking at each other trying to decide who should respond and the delay is the lag based upon the time it takes radio waves to travel half way to the moon and back.

There are laser reflectors on the moon that the military and scientists use in the Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment. How did they get there? They've been there suspiciously since the Apollo missions(11, 14, 15) were supposed to have reached the moon. There are 3 sets we put up there in three different locations, (not surprisingly those locations coincide with three different lunar landings) The soviets also placed arrays with their unamanned probes though one of theirs failed to be set properly and never returned a response. It's possible that the arrays were set by unmanned probes but since we're 3 for 3 with our arrays (they're all still returning signals) and the soviets were 1 for 2 with theirs it might lend some credibility to the fact we had people setting ours up. It's no small matter to set something up correctly on the moon using 1970 technology without human intervention.

It scares me to think people could so adamantly believe this is a hoax when so much credible information is available to dispute the psuedo facts the non believers cling to.
 lc44906
Joined: 7/30/2007
Msg: 65
Do you believe we landed on the moon?
Posted: 9/20/2007 8:34:32 AM

I'm not sure. There was a fox documentary many years ago that went over all the inconsistencies


That guy was Bill Kaysing. He used to write for Paladin Press and Loompanics Unlimited back in the 1980's. His biggest book was about how to get and keep privacy in our modern society and if memory serves me correctly, he had a book out on the fakery of the Apollo moon missions.

His theories have not met with any degree of significance in the scientific community. Personally I have more belief that the government is witholding evidence of alien ship wreckage from Roswell than some sort of conspiracy that the missions to the moon were faked at Area 51 and other places. Come on!
 2findU
Joined: 11/19/2005
Msg: 66
view profile
History
Do you believe we landed on the moon?
Posted: 9/20/2007 3:51:59 PM
In reply to mesage 121: Why is that people believe that an actual event was a hoax? The hoax is the belief that an actual event was a hoax.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >