Conspiracy Theory The Moon landing - 40 years on

[XFactor1979]

i wasnt born for this so-called "historic event"

but i remain a sceptic of whether or not it happened or not

the moon landing is one of the top conspiracies in the history of the world: rivalling the events at roswell and area 51. and the kennedy assassination

i remain sceptical because :

a. why havent we done it since?

b. the fact there is a "cold side" or dark side of the moon, how on earth did the technology of spacesuits of neil armstrong and buzz aldrin manage to survive the "dark side of the moon"? - ie when it got dark? im pretty sure scientists didnt know what the surface temperature of the moon is when the sun shines on its surface, and vice versa.

c. it was part of the space race between the westernised world of the USA and the communist USSR during the Cold war, after world war 2.

does anyone here have a recording of this event on their video recorder? is it youtube-able???

 

[Spikey]

a. why havent we done it since?

They have. But they haven't done it since '72.

 

[XFactor1979]

They have. But they haven't done it since '72.

people have ignored the other landings

i guess there really isnt much point to going to the moon time and time again...

 

[placebo]

Yeah, we landed there. It was an amazing achievement.

 

[jumpinjimmy]

Yeah, we landed there. It was an amazing achievement.

Even more 'amazing' that it was done with less than the computing power of a '386'. 'Fantastic', more like it

 

[Dry Rot]

I remember watching it at school. Pretty cool at the time.

 

[bit_pattern]

but i remain a sceptic of whether or not it happened or not

Ah, "sceptics", what a fine breed

 

[Ripper]

I remember watching it at school. Pretty cool at the time.

Me too , snowy black & white picture and all.

 

[Dont be a lemon]

a. why havent we done it since?

No public or political will to do it again - it's rather costly.

b. the fact there is a "cold side" or dark side of the moon, how on earth did the technology of spacesuits of neil armstrong and buzz aldrin manage to survive the "dark side of the moon"? - ie when it got dark? im pretty sure scientists didnt know what the surface temperature of the moon is when the sun shines on its surface, and vice versa

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/the-apollo-hoax-theories-1730408.html?action=Popup&ino=5

c. it was part of the space race between the westernised world of the USA and the communist USSR during the Cold war, after world war 2.

Your point being?

There's mountains of evidence humans went to the moon. People who think otherwise are either frauds (i.e. the people who sell all the hoax s**t) or ignorant/deluded.

 

[FIGJAM]

The parabolic arc of the dust from the boots and moon buggy clearly indicate that there was no air, otherwise there would have been clouding.

Try getting some talcom powder or dust to mimick that shape. Film it.

[/thread]

 

[campbell]

I remember watching it at school. Pretty cool at the time.

me too, it was my birthday, best one at school. in front of the tv all day with munchies.

and it was the 20th in america , 21st here.

 

[Wallaby]

i wasnt born for this so-called "historic event"

but i remain a sceptic of whether or not it happened or not

the moon landing is one of the top conspiracies in the history of the world: rivalling the events at roswell and area 51. and the kennedy assassination

i remain sceptical because :
a. why havent we done it since?
b. the fact there is a "cold side" or dark side of the moon, how on earth did the technology of spacesuits of neil armstrong and buzz aldrin manage to survive the "dark side of the moon"? - ie when it got dark? im pretty sure scientists didnt know what the surface temperature of the moon is when the sun shines on its surface, and vice versa.
c. it was part of the space race between the westernised world of the USA and the communist USSR during the Cold war, after world war 2.

Sorry - this sort of 'reasoning' is why we get conspiracy theories and the perpetuation of ignorance in our society. People read some drivel on the internet and don't bother to follow it up or question it. Do a bit of basic research first. I'll summarise...


1. As several have since pointed out, we went back 5 times afterwards (Apollo 12-17, except 13). Since then we have concentrated on further exploration, Mars, Venus, other planets. Any reason why we should go back to the moon, particularly as robot probes can do as good a job for about 1/10th the price?

2. There is no 'dark' or 'cold' side of the moon - both sides of the moon get the same amount of sunlight. The scientists knew exactly what the temperature was by a) analysing spectral lines from the moon and b) data from the dozen or so unmanned probes that had landed on the moon before. Plus they landed on the moon in the 'afternoon' - not too hot, not too cold - and it stayed 'afternoon' for a few earth days. No point being on the moon in the dark. Can't see anything.

3. The space race after about 1962 had little to do with the Cold War - by then it was apparent there was very little further military advantage in outer space (and virtually none in getting to the moon first). Plus, the second most advanced country in lunar/space research at the time was the Russians - don't you think that if the USA had faked it, the Russians might have pointed it out? They monitored the Appollo program all the way.

For god sake, the yanks can't keep a presidential blow job a secret -= how the hell are they going to pull off a fake involving several thousand people over several years?

 

[skilts]

I still don't understand this obsession with increments of 364/365 days, especially those increments which end in the digit '0'. No accounting for taste I suppose.

I've posted this story on this forum previously, a couple of years ago.

On the evening of the landing, I left Patterson Station, in Melbourne's south-east. Being the manically fit bloke I was in those days, I set off at a clip along the road home, well ahead of all others who'd alighted from the train. As I did so, I looked to the sky and noticed the moon in all its glory, straight above my head. I walked for a while, continuing to look upwards. Eventually, I looked behind me, and there were about fifty people following me, also walking home. All of them were looking upwards too.

I can only assume that they, like me, were thinking, "There's one of us up there." At the time, I was impressed by the achievement. Subsequently, it's really amounted to nothing much at all, other than as a news story of monumental interest at the time.

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

I was 13 months old at the time and to this day I think it is close to being, if not, the most astonishing scientific/engineering feat when you think of the technology of the time that was available and the fact that they could control things from 250,000 miles away using that technology.

 

[Contra Mundum]

I still don't understand this obsession with increments of 364/365 days, especially those increments which end in the digit '0'. No accounting for taste I suppose.

I've posted this story on this forum previously, a couple of years ago.

On the evening of the landing, I left Patterson Station, in Melbourne's south-east. Being the manically fit bloke I was in those days, I set off at a clip along the road home, well ahead of all others who'd alighted from the train. As I did so, I looked to the sky and noticed the moon in all its glory, straight above my head. I walked for a while, continuing to look upwards. Eventually, I looked behind me, and there were about fifty people following me, also walking home. All of them were looking upwards too.

I can only assume that they, like me, were thinking, "There's one of us up there." At the time, I was impressed by the achievement. Subsequently, it's really amounted to nothing much at all, other than as a news story of monumental interest at the time.

Come on Skilts your too hard core. We are animals with ten fingers and ten toes - we are naturally attracted to groups of ten. So forty years is OK to recognise. The thing about the space program during the fifties and sixties was it was the ultimate meritorcracy. Tom Wolfe got it right when he said they had the "right stuff".

I mean how many fighter pilots with doctoral degrees in astrophysics are there in the world. Neal Armstrong shunning riches and the pull of celebrity is so perverse to the current pointesss cult of celebrity as to be prophetic. The reason he did this - he reckons it took a group effort to get them up there and bring them back. I mean you cannot make up this stuff. Honest, brave and honourable - he is like the perfect antithesis of Paris Hilton

Give us Space over military keynesianism any time - it might be the technological equivalent of digging holes and filling them up but there is something poetic about a noble quest

 

[evo]

Meh. This is more impressive in my view:

http://www.theage.com.au/national/consumers-asked-to-name-new-vegemite-experience-20090614-c787.html

Vegimite And Cheese!!!!!! Man's ingenuity knows no bound!

 

[FIGJAM]

Meh. This is more impressive in my view:

http://www.theage.com.au/national/consumers-asked-to-name-new-vegemite-experience-20090614-c787.html

Vegimite And Cheese!!!!!! Man's ingenuity knows no bound!

I would like to name that The Heartburn.

 

[evo]

Too late, my home brewed beer is already called that. (patent pending)

 

[TheBloods]

Sorry - this sort of 'reasoning' is why we get conspiracy theories and the perpetuation of ignorance in our society. People read some drivel on the internet and don't bother to follow it up or question it. Do a bit of basic research first. I'll summarise...


1. As several have since pointed out, we went back 5 times afterwards (Apollo 12-17, except 13). Since then we have concentrated on further exploration, Mars, Venus, other planets. Any reason why we should go back to the moon, particularly as robot probes can do as good a job for about 1/10th the price?

2. There is no 'dark' or 'cold' side of the moon - both sides of the moon get the same amount of sunlight. The scientists knew exactly what the temperature was by a) analysing spectral lines from the moon and b) data from the dozen or so unmanned probes that had landed on the moon before. Plus they landed on the moon in the 'afternoon' - not too hot, not too cold - and it stayed 'afternoon' for a few earth days. No point being on the moon in the dark. Can't see anything.

3. The space race after about 1962 had little to do with the Cold War - by then it was apparent there was very little further military advantage in outer space (and virtually none in getting to the moon first). Plus, the second most advanced country in lunar/space research at the time was the Russians - don't you think that if the USA had faked it, the Russians might have pointed it out? They monitored the Appollo program all the way.

For god sake, the yanks can't keep a presidential blow job a secret -= how the hell are they going to pull off a fake involving several thousand people over several years?

Spot on!

 

[TheBloods]

Meh. This is more impressive in my view:

http://www.theage.com.au/national/consumers-asked-to-name-new-vegemite-experience-20090614-c787.html

Vegimite And Cheese!!!!!! Man's ingenuity knows no bound!

Meh - I've been doing that for years!

 

[evo]

You Krafty devil.

 

[TheBloods]

You Krafty devil.

 

[Dont be a lemon]

I wish I could walk on the moon

[YOUTUBE]n_3v-_p3ESo[/YOUTUBE]

 

[HolyWars]

Should be fun to see all those w***er skeptics (that includes probably about 3/4 of my friends) going on about how its fake with thier 'blah blah lighting and blah blah flag' rubbish. All you need to respond with is:
'Topography distorting shadows, Reflective surface (regolith) causing high lighting , no dust clouding due to no air as its a vaccum, so thier is no friction which is why the flag takes a while to become still again. Idiots.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

The only plausible hoax story I give credence to is the U.S 'faked it' at the time so the Soviets would give up on their own plans to put a cosmonaut on the moon. Remember there was a Space Race between the two superpowers - basically a dick-measuring contest. The wily Ruskies launched Sputnik I as the first man-made satelite, they launched the first living thing (a dog, dunno if it's still circling around up there) and the first man.

They were teabagging the Yanks with their space balls.

Why not fake it so the Ruskies would quit trying to be first in landing on the moon as well? I've no doubt the U.S made it to the moon, but it's at least plausible that the U.S faked it. Just to stick it up the Reds.