40th Anniversary of the Moonlanding but was it a hoax?

24

Comments

  • BikeNewby
    BikeNewby Posts: 13
    Porgy wrote:
    But the only thing stopping us doing it now really is our increased sense of the risk. Maybe cost and the sheer poinltessness of revisiting past glories have something to do with it as well.

    When we revisit the moon - there'll be a lot less risk-taking and it'll be vastly more expensive as a resutl.

    Given the amount of paperwork and hassle it takes to get anything done in industry nowadays I'm amazed the HSE would even let them light the engines - 'Hmm, do you have a Risk Assessment and Method Statement for your re-entry?'
  • FPM
    FPM Posts: 1
    I just found this video about all the technology in the moonlanding 40 years ago.
    Check it out. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdaBwh20nIk
  • fungus_the_muffin_man
    fungus_the_muffin_man Posts: 1,608
    Crapaud wrote:
    Stewie Griffin wrote:
    ... The mythbusters episode where they "prove" the photos taken on the moon werent fake is a good one.
    They also made the very good point that the Russians would have been tracking them and would've never shut up about it if it had never happened - remember, this was at the height of the cold war.

    Unless of course the Russians didn't have the capability to track them and not wanting to seem scientifically and technically inferior said they had monitored it even though they hadn't.
    Remenber the cold war was fought on deception, lies, bluff and counter bluff throughout its 40-50 years.
    Bianchi. There are no alternatives only compromises!
    I RIDE A KONA CADABRA -would you like to come and have a play with my magic link?
  • biondino
    biondino Posts: 5,990
    Robmanic1 wrote:
    Perhaps our very existance is a hoax, perhaps we really only exist in a ravaged wasteland where most of humanity have been captured by a race of machines which live off of our body heat and imprison our minds within an artificial reality known as the Matr.......oh, hang on

    You might not be too far off:

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2 ... tml?page=1
    My Focus / My Bob Jackson
    Blog (incl. bikes)
  • robmanic1
    robmanic1 Posts: 2,150
    Fungus The Muffin Man wrote:
    Crapaud wrote:
    Unless of course the Russians didn't have the capability to track them and not wanting to seem scientifically and technically inferior said they had monitored it even though they hadn't.
    Remenber the cold war was fought on deception, lies, bluff and counter bluff throughout its 40-50 years.

    ..... or maybe that's just what they WANTED them to think, eh, eh?
    Pictures are better than words because some words are big and hard to understand.

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/34335188@N07/3336802663/
  • DavidBelcher
    DavidBelcher Posts: 2,684
    softlad wrote:
    Channel 5 wouldn't know the truth if it shagged them up the ar5e....

    ....That's C5's latest reality TV project rumbled, then. :wink:

    Actually, they do seem to go to the trouble of screening some half-decent shows these days and appear to have 'sexed-down' their programming. Whereas Channel 4 seems to be the new Channel 5.

    David
    "It is not enough merely to win; others must lose." - Gore Vidal
  • Porgy
    Porgy Posts: 4,525
    biondino wrote:
    Robmanic1 wrote:
    Perhaps our very existance is a hoax, perhaps we really only exist in a ravaged wasteland where most of humanity have been captured by a race of machines which live off of our body heat and imprison our minds within an artificial reality known as the Matr.......oh, hang on

    You might not be too far off:

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2 ... tml?page=1

    I read that article. It really blew my mind. I haven't been quite the same since.
  • Crapaud
    Crapaud Posts: 2,483
    Fungus The Muffin Man wrote:
    Crapaud wrote:
    Stewie Griffin wrote:
    ... The mythbusters episode where they "prove" the photos taken on the moon werent fake is a good one.
    They also made the very good point that the Russians would have been tracking them and would've never shut up about it if it had never happened - remember, this was at the height of the cold war.

    Unless of course the Russians didn't have the capability to track them and not wanting to seem scientifically and technically inferior said they had monitored it even though they hadn't.
    Remenber the cold war was fought on deception, lies, bluff and counter bluff throughout its 40-50 years.
    Except that some English schoolchildren built their own equipment and found, tracked and worked out, correctly, the launch site of unannounced Russian satellites. If schoolchildren can do it...
    A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject - Churchill
  • Porgy
    Porgy Posts: 4,525
    Crapaud wrote:
    Fungus The Muffin Man wrote:
    Crapaud wrote:
    Stewie Griffin wrote:
    ... The mythbusters episode where they "prove" the photos taken on the moon werent fake is a good one.
    They also made the very good point that the Russians would have been tracking them and would've never shut up about it if it had never happened - remember, this was at the height of the cold war.

    Unless of course the Russians didn't have the capability to track them and not wanting to seem scientifically and technically inferior said they had monitored it even though they hadn't.
    Remenber the cold war was fought on deception, lies, bluff and counter bluff throughout its 40-50 years.
    Except that some English schoolchildren built their own equipment and found, tracked and worked out, correctly, the launch site of unannounced Russian satellites. If schoolchildren can do it...
    are you thinking of this lot?
    http://www.forteantimes.com/features/articles/1302/lost_in_space.html
  • Crapaud
    Crapaud Posts: 2,483
    Porgy wrote:
    Crapaud wrote:
    Fungus The Muffin Man wrote:
    Crapaud wrote:
    Stewie Griffin wrote:
    ... The mythbusters episode where they "prove" the photos taken on the moon werent fake is a good one.
    They also made the very good point that the Russians would have been tracking them and would've never shut up about it if it had never happened - remember, this was at the height of the cold war.

    Unless of course the Russians didn't have the capability to track them and not wanting to seem scientifically and technically inferior said they had monitored it even though they hadn't.
    Remenber the cold war was fought on deception, lies, bluff and counter bluff throughout its 40-50 years.
    Except that some English schoolchildren built their own equipment and found, tracked and worked out, correctly, the launch site of unannounced Russian satellites. If schoolchildren can do it...
    are you thinking of this lot?
    http://www.forteantimes.com/features/articles/1302/lost_in_space.html
    I haven't heard of that particular conspiracy theory, and I'm not sure how much I'd trust a Fortean Times article.

    I was thinking of a BBC documentary from a few years back - I haven't found anything on You Tube, or anything else,yet, to back me up. :(
    A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject - Churchill
  • DavidBelcher
    DavidBelcher Posts: 2,684
    edited July 2009
    Crapaud wrote:
    Except that some English schoolchildren built their own equipment and found, tracked and worked out, correctly, the launch site of unannounced Russian satellites. If schoolchildren can do it...

    This is quite a well-known one, isn't it? A grammar school in Kettering, Northants., I believe.

    Edit: Here you go - an excerpt from a history of the school;

    http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/trackind/get ... ldcyts.htm

    David
    "It is not enough merely to win; others must lose." - Gore Vidal
  • Porgy
    Porgy Posts: 4,525
    edited July 2009
    Crapaud wrote:
    Porgy wrote:
    Crapaud wrote:
    Fungus The Muffin Man wrote:
    Crapaud wrote:
    Stewie Griffin wrote:
    ... The mythbusters episode where they "prove" the photos taken on the moon werent fake is a good one.
    They also made the very good point that the Russians would have been tracking them and would've never shut up about it if it had never happened - remember, this was at the height of the cold war.

    Unless of course the Russians didn't have the capability to track them and not wanting to seem scientifically and technically inferior said they had monitored it even though they hadn't.
    Remenber the cold war was fought on deception, lies, bluff and counter bluff throughout its 40-50 years.
    Except that some English schoolchildren built their own equipment and found, tracked and worked out, correctly, the launch site of unannounced Russian satellites. If schoolchildren can do it...
    are you thinking of this lot?
    http://www.forteantimes.com/features/articles/1302/lost_in_space.html
    I haven't heard of that particular conspiracy theory, and I'm not sure how much I'd trust a Fortean Times article.

    I was thinking of a BBC documentary from a few years back - I haven't found anything on You Tube, or anything else,yet, to back me up. :(

    I don't know why you wouldn't trust a FT article - it being Britain's premier sceptic's magazine and uncoverer of looney conspiracy theories generally. It was FT's refutation of the loony lunar conspiracy theories that convinced me that all talk of Moon landing hoaxes were complete hogwash.

    I think people get the wrong idea of what the FT does. Becasue it covers weirdness people think it's content is suspect, but in fact, it takes a rationalist approach and is ultimately sceptical - more sceptical than nearly any other periodical I can think of.

    Wikipedia
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judica-Cordiglia_brothers

    The brothers' own site
    http://www.lostcosmonauts.com/default.htm

    For balance - a refutation site - haven't read this yet.
    http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/trackind/Torre/TorreB.html
  • Porgy
    Porgy Posts: 4,525
    DavidBelcher wrote:
    Crapaud wrote:
    Except that some English schoolchildren built their own equipment and found, tracked and worked out, correctly, the launch site of unannounced Russian satellites. If schoolchildren can do it...

    This is quite a well-known one, isn't it? A grammar school in Kettering, Northants., I believe.

    Edit: Here you go - an excerpt from a history of the school;

    http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/trackind/get ... ldcyts.htm

    David

    Excellent - I'll read that later
  • Crapaud
    Crapaud Posts: 2,483
    DavidBelcher wrote:
    Crapaud wrote:
    Except that some English schoolchildren built their own equipment and found, tracked and worked out, correctly, the launch site of unannounced Russian satellites. If schoolchildren can do it...

    This is quite a well-known one, isn't it? A grammar school in Kettering, Northants., I believe.

    Edit: Here you go - an excerpt from a history of the school;

    http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/trackind/get ... ldcyts.htm

    David
    Cheers David, that's the one. I couldn't remember sufficient details to have any meaningful keywords to search with.

    Porgy, ISTR buying a copy of the Fortean Times many years ago. I don't remember the details, but it got mentally pidgeonholed as just above Old Moores Almanack as anything serious. I've really no idea how credible, or otherwise, it is.
    A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject - Churchill
  • Porgy
    Porgy Posts: 4,525
    Crapaud wrote:
    DavidBelcher wrote:
    Crapaud wrote:
    Except that some English schoolchildren built their own equipment and found, tracked and worked out, correctly, the launch site of unannounced Russian satellites. If schoolchildren can do it...

    This is quite a well-known one, isn't it? A grammar school in Kettering, Northants., I believe.

    Edit: Here you go - an excerpt from a history of the school;

    http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/trackind/get ... ldcyts.htm

    David
    Cheers David, that's the one. I couldn't remember sufficient details to have any meaningful keywords to search with.

    Porgy, ISTR buying a copy of the Fortean Times many years ago. I don't remember the details, but it got mentally pidgeonholed as just above Old Moores Almanack as anything serious. I've really no idea how credible, or otherwise, it is.

    I'd put it around New Scientist and Independent / Guardian level for seriousness.

    It supports the fight for rationalism - takes on the Creationists/ Intelligent Design advocates - debunks conspiracy theories - and reports weird stuff that is not necessarily paranormal (coincidences, new scientific theories, strange deaths, darwin awards, etc).
  • Cleat Eastwood
    Cleat Eastwood Posts: 7,508
    Whats weird is as the lander takes off the camera tilts up in prfect harmony with it. How was this achieved and why.
    The dissenter is every human being at those moments of his life when he resigns
    momentarily from the herd and thinks for himself.
  • softlad
    softlad Posts: 3,513
    Cleat Eastwood wrote:
    Whats weird is as the lander takes off the camera tilts up in prfect harmony with it. How was this achieved and why.

    simple - NASA had contracted the outside broadcast provision to the alien race which had already colonised the moon some years earlier....

    you think I'm joking, don't you... ;)
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    Cleat Eastwood wrote:
    Whats weird is as the lander takes off the camera tilts up in prfect harmony with it. How was this achieved and why.

    Lots of string. A whole lot.
  • Crapaud
    Crapaud Posts: 2,483
    softlad wrote:
    Cleat Eastwood wrote:
    Whats weird is as the lander takes off the camera tilts up in prfect harmony with it. How was this achieved and why.

    simple - NASA had contracted the outside broadcast provision to the alien race which had already colonised the moon some years earlier....

    you think I'm joking, don't you... ;)
    Of course you are - everyone knows it was Gromit operating the camera.
    A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject - Churchill
  • Fastlad
    Fastlad Posts: 908
    How the hell do people swallow the notion that 40 years ago, given the lack of technology.....they sent a "lunar module" to the moon? Oh, it not only went to the moon, some 250,000 miles away, it actually landed and then took off again!!!! ha ha ha!! Total bunkum! FFS they hadn't even invented the stealth bomber, a "state of the art" warplane!!! My biggest gripe is, given the rate at which technology has grown and we've (allegedly) been to the moon 40 years ago.........Shouldn't we already be colonising other planets by now??? Moon landings? my a$se!!!!! :lol:
  • JC.152
    JC.152 Posts: 645
    Cleat Eastwood wrote:
    Whats weird is as the lander takes off the camera tilts up in prfect harmony with it. How was this achieved and why.

    yeh i hadnt seen that until the other day when they doing all the moonlanding news stories but they would have been a lot better just showing a second of film as the lander went in to the air instead of it following it as though someone was controlling it :oops:
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    JC.152 wrote:
    Cleat Eastwood wrote:
    Whats weird is as the lander takes off the camera tilts up in prfect harmony with it. How was this achieved and why.

    yeh i hadnt seen that until the other day when they doing all the moonlanding news stories but they would have been a lot better just showing a second of film as the lander went in to the air instead of it following it as though someone was controlling it :oops:

    If you can go to the moon you can certainly make a camera that can be remotely controlled or set up to follow the ascent.
  • softlad
    softlad Posts: 3,513
    dennisn wrote:

    If you can go to the moon you can certainly make a camera that can be remotely controlled or set up to follow the ascent.

    so that's a 'no' then.. ;)
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    softlad wrote:
    dennisn wrote:

    If you can go to the moon you can certainly make a camera that can be remotely controlled or set up to follow the ascent.

    so that's a 'no' then.. ;)


    ....... it is???
  • Mettan
    Mettan Posts: 2,103
    No.
  • Jez mon
    Jez mon Posts: 3,809
    Why would they bother faking it 7 times. Involving more people would just make it much more difficult to cover up. Plus how much better has technology got in the last 40 years wrt space travel, for the most part the biggest developments have been in the reduction of space computers take up and whilst this would have been nice for NASA, the calculations you need to make to aim etc probably aren't going to need the power of a modern PC.
    You live and learn. At any rate, you live
  • shockedsoshocked
    shockedsoshocked Posts: 4,021
    BikeNewby wrote:
    Robmanic1 wrote:
    Perhaps our very existance is a hoax, perhaps we really only exist in a ravaged wasteland where most of humanity have been captured by a race of machines which live off of our body heat and imprison our minds within an artificial reality known as the Matr.......oh, hang on

    Yeah, but they would release that film wouldn't they? I mean just look at Basic Instinct (the bits no-one actually watches) - she gives herself an alibi by writing a book then the guy is killed in exactly the same way! Its all there!

    Obviously OJ Simpson must have taken inspiration from that film.
    "A cyclist has nothing to lose but his chain"

    PTP Runner Up 2015
  • MrChuck
    MrChuck Posts: 1,663
    Most/all of the 'evidence' against it just shows how little the doubters know/have thought about what they're talking about. So since there's no proof that we didn't go to the moon, I guess all the deniers are left with is an argument that there's no proof that we did go.

    Thing is once you go down that route it quickly becomes absurd- from the enormous scale of the conspiracy that would be needed and the sheer improbability of keeping it quiet, to arguments about what we really "know" about anything and what you have to accept as fact within the framework of things that you do know, are reasonably certain about, or that you find it easier to take as fact in order to function in the world. You're well on your way to the Matrix.

    Phew! I'm not going to read that back in case it's bo11ox :D
  • Porgy
    Porgy Posts: 4,525
    Fastlad wrote:
    How the hell do people swallow the notion that 40 years ago, given the lack of technology.....they sent a "lunar module" to the moon? Oh, it not only went to the moon, some 250,000 miles away, it actually landed and then took off again!!!! ha ha ha!! Total bunkum! FFS they hadn't even invented the stealth bomber, a "state of the art" warplane!!! My biggest gripe is, given the rate at which technology has grown and we've (allegedly) been to the moon 40 years ago.........Shouldn't we already be colonising other planets by now??? Moon landings? my a$se!!!!! :lol:

    I think people look at the evidence and weigh up the pros and cons. As you haven't presented any, I think your post will be generally disregarded.

    I'm not sure why the stealth bomber is relevant.

    Rocket technolgy was already quite sophisticated in the 1940s - surely that's more relevant.

    You have to cinsider what would be needed to get to the moon. A massive f*cking rocket, some complicated mathematics, simple computers to control and monitor the whole process, an air tight module, and three blokes brave or idiotic enough to sit on top of the whole lot.

    Also I'm not sure why taking off from the moon is such an issue for you - very low gravity and no atmosphere, a doddle compared to taking off from earth...or mars.

    As for colonising planets, well talking about a journey that took days becoming one that takes months/ years....and with that extra fuel, food, water, etc. you'd need to carry, a much bigger risk, a more difficult landing and take-off, and with no obvious benefit when you can more easily send robots...which is now routine.

    Vietnam, recession and apathy put paid to the moon landings in the 70s...it would now be politically very hard to justify something like the Apollo programme.

    I don't think you've really thought this through properly.
  • Fastlad
    Fastlad Posts: 908
    You don't think i've thought this through properly??? :lol: Look, i just don't believe it. You believe what you like. How do you know there's little gravity or no atmosphere on the moon?? :lol:

Categories