Did we land on the moon?

I know I know... I'm on this conspiracy kick...

regardless.

It has been argued for a few years now that man has never stepped foot on the moon. That what was broadcasted that night on July 20, 1969 was a hoax combining a low level orbiting mission with studio footage in a effort to convince the international public that they had indeed visited the moon.

Fun stuff. I reviewed the evidence and have to say that there is a convincing side on the part of the conspiracy folk.

Here are some sites that state the evidence and another that refutes it.

http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html

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

 

I sure hope this is just a way-station on your beginning to think like an adult!

If not, I despair!

Here's a question that negates the need for me to waste my time:
"How many former Apollo crew and ground/mission control staff claim it was a hoax?"
- - - - --
On reading the debunking apollo site, I say "Hmmm!'

A lot of it makes sense... bu t brings MORe questions to bear.. like WHY the fire on Apollo one?


But I dislike when some one uses hyperbole to make a point:

- as are many of today's simple calculators

Maximum computer memory?!!!

Since i was alive and in the trade at the time... the 'maximum' was only that because of means of addressing memory.. and NCR sold 48 inch long memory cabinets that each held 256k. They were by no mean latest state of the art.

N/A.. the memory used would probably be 'delay-line' memory. The operating system would use purpose built command language... and coding one step above machine language.
In other words: Rich Logic where a math function was hard coded and needed only operands. If I could find a site that had the NCR 315 machine language instruction set, you would marvel at how much was hard-logic!

Not to mention that much of the 'computer control' back then was simply recalculating the signals from sensors, to signals usable by gates and valves... much unlike the way it's done today. In fact it wasnt unheard of for hard logic to be used to allow direct control with 'computing' simply doing monitor and fail-safe duties.

Thus "computing power' is not really convincing.

I'd be more swayed by thrust analysis... in concert with fuel capacity required for both the landing and takeoff ,, even given 1/6 gravity.

What always bothered me was the LEM acceleration on takeoff.. seemed to me to show much less mass accellerating than I would have expected.
"Flame" or lack of it, means nothing.. has nought to do with atmosphere or not... has to do with propellants and oxidants used.

- - -- - -
Bottom line; if not THAT , then perhaps NONE!

 

The people who say that we did not land on the moon are the same types of people who think that three Martians shot Kennedy, and that the earth is flat and is only 4,000 years old. Science has had to put up with idiots like that forever, and I'm sure as more science produces things that are not easily understood by people of below-average intellegence, we will have more of that. Guess what--the Moon is not the Earth and therefore everything on the Moon is not the same as on Earth. I can see if that basic concept is beyond the level of understanding of a mind that that mind must make up reason why what they are seeing is not true.

Look at it this way--it was impossible to keep events like Watergate, Contragate (or whatever we called it), Clinton's love life, or many other events secret. If this was a hoax, wouldn't we have lots of people telling us what really happened?

The sad part is that there are people who believe that bs. I hope they're too stupid to vote, too.

 

Re: RE: Did we land on the moon?

Uh... they are. They usually vote Green, when they bother.

- - - - - - -
Note: my other post where I said I believe there MIGHT be 'aliens among us'.. and be sure to note that my response to that is "So ....what difference does that make in how we do things!"
:banana:

 

RE: Re: RE: Did we land on the moon?

I hope I wasn't too strong in my above response. However, it's just frustrating to see what happened to science and society. When I was growing up in the '70s, people seemed to have a respect for science. Now, people seem to believe science when it doesn't get in the way of their preconceived perceptions.

 

RE: Re: RE: Did we land on the moon?

I do hope that both of you have reviewed the argument above and not just supporting the original truth (that we have been there and it was real) just because you were old enough to see it live.

I must be too stupid to vote.

I never heard that martians killed kennedy... I just think it was LBJ and his warmongering ways, the fake golf of tonkin, and the billions injected into the military to wage the war in vietnam that basically had no formal end.

i think I just had Deja vu.

 

RE: Re: RE: Did we land on the moon?

But the point I'm making DOESNT directly refute it... as I said.. makes me go "Hmmmm!"

What I disagree with is the overeaching need to prove WE are doing all the wrongs... this is nothing new. Read Machiavelli. Read about the Spanish american war... deceit and treacherery, with an overall positive result..COMPARED TO THE STATUS QUO!!!!!.

Read up on Benedict Arnold. Was he REALLY a traitor? Uh, not so much in the classical sense... but he WAS a soldier who depended too much on his own self-centered view of politics.

Assigning 'blame' is one thing.. it's all fair, if you can back it up. Ignoring the threat from the foe is dangerous.

And I feel that's what you're doing.