Big Bad Bob Posted 12 December, 2012 Share Posted 12 December, 2012 Lol you don't actually think there was people in them space suits? Why do you think they made them air tight? So the spider monkeys and helium can't escape! Edit: Sorry for disrupting! Ah, so Ben 10 is real then Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 12 December, 2012 Share Posted 12 December, 2012 Channel 5, 8 o'clock tonight: 'Did We Land on the Moon?' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 12 December, 2012 Author Share Posted 12 December, 2012 Pap: out of interest, is it just the moon landings that you think NASA (might) have faked? Or does the conspiracy run deeper? Were the Pioneer and Voyage projects a hoax also, and the pictures of Jupiter and Saturn an elaborate computer generated ruse? The International Space Station, well that was visible from earth at times so a bit tough to fake that one. How about the Mars rover; there's no evidence that actually landed, is there? 'Tis a fair question, The Kraken. I hope I shall approach it with honour and dignity. My interest is in the moon landings. I'm happy enough with the concept of manned space-flight. You bringing up the ISS is quite apt, because it's almost the complete opposite to the situation with Apollo. It is an international effort in every sense. It's not just the cohort of international astronauts; different countries have built different parts of the space craft. The list of experiments is public, they have a live feed of everything that is going on and as you rightly point out, you can see the bugger from Earth. The evidence in verifiable in ways that Apollo is not. Contrast that with Apollo. Original footage gone. Leaving aside anything else, how the f**k does that happen? I'd bet the vast majority of happily married people on here still have their wedding negatives or digital equivalent. Yet we're supposed to believe that original footage of man's greatest achievement has been lost in a box? C'mon. It stretches credulity. I think someone correctly pulled up the definitions of primary and secondary evidence earlier on. It's history 101. I find it amazing that as budding young history students, we can all get on board with the idea that Stalin doctored himself into the photography of the Bolshevik revolution. The evidence for the Apollo landings is second-hand by default. In practical terms, it's little better than the evidence that Stalin had when he was revising himself as an early Bolshevik leader. I'll concede that the Americans had video, but then they also had Hollywood. Consider the times. The Apollo landings were book-ended with wars, crises, conspiracies, assassinations and civil strife. The Bay of Pigs, the Cuban missile crisis, the JFK assassination, the Gulf of Tonkin incident, Martin Luther King, Vietnam, the Six Day War and Watergate following shortly afterward - all within the framework of the Cold War. These were not geopolitically stable times - pretty much the closest humanity has ever come to extinction. And if you accept that the murder of JFK was likely orchestrated and assassinated as a result of a conspiracy, and consider all the other crap that was going on at the time, it's not a stretch to suggest that some conspiratorial elements were present in the late 60s/early 70s US administrations. So in conclusion; I don't think that the entire space program is a load of crap - I'm pretty much happy with anything orbiting around Earth; from LEO to geostationary. They're constantly verifiable. If we'd got our expected 1980s moonbases, they'd be constantly verifiable. If enough people tell you they've been to a moonbase, or live on a moonbase, or you go there yourself - you can be pretty sure that we got to the moon. I can definitely see compelling reasons for wanting to fake the landings. From the get-go, Lyndon Johnson's goal was to achieve world leadership through propaganda. Did he actually need to put people on the moon to achieve that goal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andysstuff Posted 12 December, 2012 Share Posted 12 December, 2012 Brian Cox @ProfBrianCox Oh for gods sake why have channel 5 conspired to fill my timeline with nob ends. #yeswelandedonthemoonyou****wits Collapse Reply Retweet Favorite Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 12 December, 2012 Share Posted 12 December, 2012 Well that's a great answer. For me; I am and always have been 99% sure that the moon landings actually happened. But of course 1% of me is a cynic. As you rightly point out though; there is no evidence that can put to bed the argument forever. And there are enough people who were associated with the project in the first place that don't believe to add fuel to the fire. Space and stuff is great, isn't it??!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 12 December, 2012 Author Share Posted 12 December, 2012 Brian Cox @ProfBrianCox Oh for gods sake why have channel 5 conspired to fill my timeline with nob ends. #yeswelandedonthemoonyou****wits Collapse Reply Retweet Favorite Can I just ask? Who would take being called a nob end by Brian Cox seriously? Have you seen his shows? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 12 December, 2012 Share Posted 12 December, 2012 Can I just ask? Who would take being called a nob end by Brian Cox seriously? And who would take being called a liar by the likes of you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 12 December, 2012 Share Posted 12 December, 2012 Just watching the programme on C5+1. It got to the bit about the crosshairs in photos (and I'd seen this issue before) whereby the astronauts are supposed to be behind the crosshairs which are there to line up the cameras; but in 4 or 5 shots there is obvious photo manipulation and the crosshairs appear (in places) behind certain images and astronauts. What's the answer to that one? There's no way those photos could have been taken as they appear without photographic manipulation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 12 December, 2012 Share Posted 12 December, 2012 Just watching the programme on C5+1. It got to the bit about the crosshairs in photos (and I'd seen this issue before) whereby the astronauts are supposed to be behind the crosshairs which are there to line up the cameras; but in 4 or 5 shots there is obvious photo manipulation and the crosshairs appear (in places) behind certain images and astronauts. What's the answer to that one? There's no way those photos could have been taken as they appear without photographic manipulation. The 'crosshair' images used in this programme are poor quality copied or scanned reproductions. On the original prints the (intentionally faint) crosshairs are clearly present. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 12 December, 2012 Share Posted 12 December, 2012 The 'crosshair' images used in this programme are poor quality copied or scanned reproductions. On the original prints the (intentionally faint) crosshairs are clearly present. Ah ok. Is there a link for that, Charlie? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 12 December, 2012 Share Posted 12 December, 2012 Ah ok. Is there a link for that, Charlie? Only Wiki I'm afraid, but still much better than that crap programme: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Examination_of_Apollo_Moon_photographs#Issues_with_crosshairs_in_photos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 12 December, 2012 Author Share Posted 12 December, 2012 (edited) Open mind ... 'Empty' seems a better description. Leaving the obvious weakness of your argument to one side for now, the level of hypocrisy you are spouting on here is in danger of achieving Saturn V proportions itself. To have the gall to accuse me of "smearing" you when the entire argument you are promoting is nothing but a huge smear on the character of the men who did take Humanity to the Moon and back is quite staggering. When you promote this intellectual garbage what you are in fact doing is calling better men than you liars. Now I say if you are going to call any man a liar then you better be damn sure you can prove it, or keep your mouth shut. Brave men sacrificed their lives for the Apollo programme, while countless others gave the best years of their careers to it. These people have been described justifiably as the 'best and the brightest' of their generation. To stoop so low as to insult their memories I find truly contemptible - akin to insulting the pilots of Fighter Command during 1940 almost. Re your - evidence free - notion of the Lunar reflectors being dropped into place from orbit. Which space vehicle was employed to deliver this payload? When and where was it launched from? What technique was employed to ensure the payload was adequately retarded during the descent phase? How EXACTLY did the conspirators ensure the mirror landed the right way up, on the precisely correct alignment, and on a suitably level section of the Lunar surface - all done without any Human assistance you say ..... perhaps Laika was there to help out. While we are on technical questions, the well known film that exists of the Apollo Astronauts playfully enjoying the Moons low gravity conditions. As this must have been filmed back on Earth of course (with its unavoidable 1G gravity) how was this 'special effect' achieved? No sophisticated CGI back in the 1960's of course, so presumably you think that the old 'wire' method long employed in Hollywood movies must have been used. But I've looked closely at the film (I have it on DVD) and I just can't see a shred of evidence of any wires - and you can nearly always see them if you look hard enough. For that matter a large sound stage must have been constructed to support the wires/specialist lighting and protect this remarkable 'set' from Planet Earth's all too pervasive weather - but your 'Set' appears to be a vast completely open space without any roof or side structure being present. This too needs to be explained. I await your reply with interest. Judging from your tone, and your subsequent post, I fear that this will only be treated on a grade between contempt and condemnation. In your barnstorming opening post, you conclude:- The truth (well my truth anyway) is that the Apollo programme is perhaps the finest bloody effort Mankind has ever managed. When we stoop so low as to question the magnificent group of people who made this possible, then not only do we insult them, we also damage ourselves. You dress it up in the Chapel End Charlie style, but you're essentially calling me a lowlife for even to suggest the question, or some variant thereof. I'd invite readers to reread post #67 in full. In the same post, Charlie (the scamp!) equates anyone placing any stock in any conspiracy theory as some kind of religious zealot. So yep, you do smear. You generalise; keep it vague but it's not the Mona Lisa, mate. People aren't going to spend centuries theorising over what you really meant. It's just not that abstract. You're doing the same thing in this very post, using the same blooming words, and further on down this finely woven tapestry of opinion, you've taken the hump to me allegedly calling you a liar. First, that was a multiple choice accusation. I said that your statement was either untrue or indicative of someone who doesn't read any of the forum's posts. Take your pick; you've either seen a less reasonable position on here or you don't read the posts. Subjective I know, but I've seen plenty of posts on here that are far less reasonable than that. Perhaps more objective, I'm currently one of the biggest losers in the bad boy charts; rocking a massive nil infraction points. So what, untrue statement or not seen a lot of posts? Take your pick. What a gauntlet you've laid down there as well. Unless I can conjure precise details of the specific technical details, my point is null and invalid. That's not really debate; it's an attempt at a smackdown by asking me for something I cannot possibly deliver. I don't think my burden of proof is unreasonable. Physical evidence and independent verification decide other cases where matters are in dispute, such as in the justice system. This is mankind's greatest achievement; it can withstand a bit of scrutiny. If you are correct, repeating the Apollo missions should be a cinch. We managed this all 40 years ago. Why aren't we doing this now? You mention cost as a major problem, but generally things get cheaper when the refinement cycle kicks in, as we see all the time in other areas of technology. The argument may well be academic; 50th anniversary of the original mission coming up soon. Get back to me on that multiple choice liar/don't read the posts conundrum. Edited 12 December, 2012 by pap spelling! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horley CTFC Saint Posted 13 December, 2012 Share Posted 13 December, 2012 Approaching this in reverse order; soz. Saw this last. I don't want to leave your points unremarked. Regarding photography; a lot of the anomalies have been explained by edge cases in photography. Not all of them. Regarding radiation; I've seen numerous, conflicting accounts of what Van Allen should do to spacecraft. I'm fine to concede that the risk may be lower than instant death, and that the time spent travelling through the field may have limited exposure. The point about renewed interest in the moon makes little sense though. We suddenly want to go there because they have water? Don't we already have a load of that here? Finally, I'm not convinced by any of the lunar photography. Hand on heart, can anyone honestly say it's definitive? Some responses to your various posts from late last night....man this has been a busy thread since I was last here Firstly I don't believe you should pay to use the internet and nor does Tim Berners Lee - can you dig it, man?! Water on the moon is very important - without it there's really not a lot you can do of much use there longer term. The moon has only a negligible atmosphere and a fraction of the gravity of earth - this makes it a much better base to launch rockets from - with water you can do many things including grow a sustainable food supply and crucially manufacture rocket propellant. Compare this video of the LEM taking off with any rocket launched from earth and you'll see the difference so little fuel so much thrust I mentioned yesterday about the blatent lie that the conspiracists perpetrated to try and demonstrate that the moon photos were faked - google Jumping on the Moon and you'll find the photo concerned with the disconnected shadow - here's a video showing the event from another angle: So why do the conspiracists need to lie to try and get their theory recognised? Still whats it matter eh, another 1,000 people ahve just brought the book so who cares k'ching k'ching Re the Van Allen Belts there is documentary proof that the discoverer Dr Van Allen himself doesn't consider it overly problematic to navigate through them safely - last time I looked the general scientific consensus was that the astronauts were subjected to roughly the same doseage of radiation as a nucleur industry worker would receive over the period of about a year - certainly not lethal amount unless it was a Fukushima employee. I would suggest by far the bigger risk would be once your through earth's gravity and subject to the whims of the Sun and its solar flares and mass coronal ejections (and then less so for a trip to the moon as there would normally be sufficient time to do something about it than on a trip to Mars) I see little wrong with the Moon images if you let me know which ones in particular you have a problem with I will endeavour to debunk them for you. Turning to the events themselves I would contest that if the landings had been faked then the TV pictures would have been significantly better than they actually were - now I remember the "one giant leap moment" well as I watched it live albeit somewhat early in the morning and yes I was a little bleary eyed but man those pictures were poor quality. A question - as far as I know the Soviets never disputed the Moon landings despite being in the midst of a space race and the Cold War - if anyone was going to dispute the landings then surely it would have been the USSR whereas infact there is stong evidence to show that they were planning their own manned moonshot as late as Apollo 8? I would also urge you to take a look at the CVs of the various leading conspiray theorists it makes fun reading. After reading a little bit about these authors I know who's side I would be on in a life or death argument Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horley CTFC Saint Posted 13 December, 2012 Share Posted 13 December, 2012 Just watching the programme on C5+1. It got to the bit about the crosshairs in photos (and I'd seen this issue before) whereby the astronauts are supposed to be behind the crosshairs which are there to line up the cameras; but in 4 or 5 shots there is obvious photo manipulation and the crosshairs appear (in places) behind certain images and astronauts. What's the answer to that one? There's no way those photos could have been taken as they appear without photographic manipulation. I thought it had been generally accepted at the time that there had been a degree of touching up - a great deal of money was made out of selling the rights to these pictures its pretty well always been an established fact that photo editors will touch up and crop pictures for the purposes of publication this is not to manipulate the truth merely to make a photo suitable for publication? Am I wrong about this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horley CTFC Saint Posted 13 December, 2012 Share Posted 13 December, 2012 .....eg we had this photo of Buzz Aldrin at the top of our stairs for many years and if memory serves it was always understood to have had a bit of work done on it: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A4%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BB:Aldrin_Apollo_11_(jha).jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 13 December, 2012 Author Share Posted 13 December, 2012 Horley. Good post. Will look your links up in the morning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 13 December, 2012 Author Share Posted 13 December, 2012 I thought it had been generally accepted at the time that there had been a degree of touching up - a great deal of money was made out of selling the rights to these pictures its pretty well always been an established fact that photo editors will touch up and crop pictures for the purposes of publication this is not to manipulate the truth merely to make a photo suitable for publication? Am I wrong about this? This is a fairly easy one for them to nix, then. Couldn't they just release the original photos? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 13 December, 2012 Share Posted 13 December, 2012 I see the originator of the semi amusing diversion for the horrors of the working day is now complaining that it is grossly unfair that I ask him to provide detailed evidence to support the case he has chosen to make. I must reject this complaint on the grounds that - again - extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to support them. Furthermore it seems to me quite clear that only in the examination of the fine detail of the matter will the truth be unearthed. One can easily understand however why too close an examination of the facts may not be a welcome development for some - because the closer you look the more ridiculous and unfounded the lunar conspiracy theory becomes. I also see that for some reason he now considers that I have called him a liar. The record shows there is no truth in this allegation. It is unarguably true however that the theory he proposes on here must mean that men of the caliber of Neil Armstrong and Gene Kranz (and a great many others) are indeed liars of the most serious nature. If he takes the Lunar conspiracy theory to its full loony extent, then he presumably believes that as NASA apparently murdered Gus Grissom and his crew to cover up their dasterdly plot, that not only are these brave and talented men liars, but they must also be murderers too. Ultimately if he possess no respect for the decency, hard evidence, and historical fact then that is a matter for him. Some of us however find this nonsense both insulting and irritating. As long as he continues to promote it, he can rest assured I shall continue to refute it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Bad Bob Posted 13 December, 2012 Share Posted 13 December, 2012 So, what about the Camera from Surveyor 3 that was brought back to Earth by the Apollo 12 mission (the 2nd fake lunar landing mission!) And Apollo 13, that had to slingshot around the moon to get back home? Or Shephard hitting golf balls on the moon during the Apollo 14 mission? And what about their splashdowns that were filmed by TV crews all over the world? Or were Surveyor 1-3 faked too, which means that the US had been perpetrating this skulduggery for, what, 15 years?? Also, one thing Pap, you're assigning today's technology to faking things in the 60s, yes we can do things with photoshop now that make things seem not as they are but, back then, was it really *THAT* easy to fake 100s of photos and videos (or is that why there are so many errors?). *AND* surely if you were faking something you wouldn't make such a shoddy job of it, surely you'd get your camera angles and shadows correct? (OK, so ILM ****ed up a few times with Episode 4!!) Basically, Pap, you don't want to believe that the Lunar landings happened so you won't listen to any counter argument... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 13 December, 2012 Share Posted 13 December, 2012 (edited) So, what about the Camera from Surveyor 3 that was brought back to Earth by the Apollo 12 mission (the 2nd fake lunar landing mission!) And Apollo 13, that had to slingshot around the moon to get back home? Or Shephard hitting golf balls on the moon during the Apollo 14 mission? And what about their splashdowns that were filmed by TV crews all over the world? Or were Surveyor 1-3 faked too, which means that the US had been perpetrating this skulduggery for, what, 15 years?? Also, one thing Pap, you're assigning today's technology to faking things in the 60s, yes we can do things with photoshop now that make things seem not as they are but, back then, was it really *THAT* easy to fake 100s of photos and videos (or is that why there are so many errors?). *AND* surely if you were faking something you wouldn't make such a shoddy job of it, surely you'd get your camera angles and shadows correct? (OK, so ILM ****ed up a few times with Episode 4!!) Basically, Pap, you don't want to believe that the Lunar landings happened so you won't listen to any counter argument... All very good points. And what about the 381 Kg of moon rock that has been brought back, of which 19.3Kg has been used for scientific study? This can be compared with the 130g returned by the Russian Luna missions. Edited 13 December, 2012 by Whitey Grandad msitypnig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 13 December, 2012 Share Posted 13 December, 2012 Did anybody see that other space documentary the other week ? I think it was called Capricorn One. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Bad Bob Posted 13 December, 2012 Share Posted 13 December, 2012 (edited) Did anybody see that other space documentary the other week ? I think it was called Capricorn One. I saw it not long after it first came out, shocked me to be honest.. Oh, and Pap, http://www.clavius.org/index.html This is probably the most pertinent bit that applys to Pap (from what little I've been able to glean from his online persona) from http://www.clavius.org/why.html CONSPIRACY : why a conspiracy To express distrust for authority. Americans especially take delight in distrusting authority, particularly governments. Edited 13 December, 2012 by Big Bad Bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 13 December, 2012 Author Share Posted 13 December, 2012 I see the originator of the semi amusing diversion for the horrors of the working day is now complaining that it is grossly unfair that I ask him to provide detailed evidence to support the case he has chosen to make. I must reject this complaint on the grounds that - again - extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to support them. Furthermore it seems to me quite clear that only in the examination of the fine detail of the matter will the truth be unearthed. One can easily understand however why too close an examination of the facts may not be a welcome development for some - because the closer you look the more ridiculous and unfounded the lunar conspiracy theory becomes. I also see that for some reason he now considers that I have called him a liar. The record shows there is no truth in this allegation. It is unarguably true however that the theory he proposes on here must mean that men of the caliber of Neil Armstrong and Gene Kranz (and a great many others) are indeed liars of the most serious nature. If he takes the Lunar conspiracy theory to its full loony extent, then he presumably believes that as NASA apparently murdered Gus Grissom and his crew to cover up their dasterdly plot, that not only are these brave and talented men liars, but they must also be murderers too. Ultimately if he possess no respect for the decency, hard evidence, and historical fact then that is a matter for him. Some of us however find this nonsense both insulting and irritating. As long as he continues to promote it, he can rest assured I shall continue to refute it. You should really check out the Surveyor missions, Charlie. You keep asking for proof that the Americans were able to put something on the moon. Official records indicated that they succeeded at least a couple of times in the years building up to Apollo. Still need that proof? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 13 December, 2012 Author Share Posted 13 December, 2012 And FFS Charlie, the indirect boll0cks again... "I see the originator of this thread..." It's like being in a room with someone who is pretending another person isn't there. What next? You going to start getting other people to be go betweens? "tell pap...", etc, etc. I don't think you called me a liar, btw. I was perfectly clear. You made an untrue statement or you don't read the posts. I don't think it's that difficult to understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Bad Bob Posted 13 December, 2012 Share Posted 13 December, 2012 You should really check out the Surveyor missions, Charlie. You keep asking for proof that the Americans were able to put something on the moon. Official records indicated that they succeeded at least a couple of times in the years building up to Apollo. Still need that proof? And I contend that you're still thinking of robotics and automation in today's terms. Back then there really wasn't the computing and automation technology for an unmanned probe to place an object in a perfect position and adjust it accordingly. Also the Surveyor missions had nothing more than trowels to dig with on them but of course the Americans, those sneaky buggers, sent up another probe *WHEN NO-ONE, NOT EVEN THE RUSSIANS, WAS LOOKING* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 13 December, 2012 Author Share Posted 13 December, 2012 And I contend that you're still thinking of robotics and automation in today's terms. Back then there really wasn't the computing and automation technology for an unmanned probe to place an object in a perfect position and adjust it accordingly. Also the Surveyor missions had nothing more than trowels to dig with on them but of course the Americans, those sneaky buggers, sent up another probe *WHEN NO-ONE, NOT EVEN THE RUSSIANS, WAS LOOKING* Seriously, how much robotics do you need to get a mirror safely delivered and pointing upward? Especially if they did the same thing with the Surveyor craft? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecuk268 Posted 13 December, 2012 Share Posted 13 December, 2012 .....eg we had this photo of Buzz Aldrin at the top of our stairs for many years and if memory serves it was always understood to have had a bit of work done on it: What was Buzz Aldrin doing at the top of your stairs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Bad Bob Posted 13 December, 2012 Share Posted 13 December, 2012 Seriously, how much robotics do you need to get a mirror safely delivered and pointing upward? Especially if they did the same thing with the Surveyor craft? Seriously, I didn't want to do this but Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 13 December, 2012 Share Posted 13 December, 2012 Ah! We might be getting somewhere at long last. So I take it then your hypothesis is that a Surveyor probe might have been modified to carry a heavy Reflector payload to the Moon somehow, and then further modified so that it might be able to place the reflector into its correct position on the Lunar surface. This is a vaguely interesting idea, the problems being that I see no evidence to support it and the fact that Surveyor was a very simple probe that couldn't preform such a complex task anyway - that of course is why it was necessary we sent men to the Moon in the first place. I also see no evidence of the Atlas Rocket launch that would have been required to launch said probe. But keep digging, you never know what you might find .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 13 December, 2012 Author Share Posted 13 December, 2012 Charlie, your magic bullet as far as physical proof goes are the retroreflectors. From your opening post, you've insisted that they can only be delivered by human hand. I do not believe that to be the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 13 December, 2012 Share Posted 13 December, 2012 (edited) Again, it is not merely a question of dropping the reflectors haphazardly onto the Lunar surface - with Surveyor's primitive degree of accuracy - and hoping for the best. They have to placed into the correct position and then aligned precisely of both azimuth and elevation. A job for Human beings. Edited 13 December, 2012 by CHAPEL END CHARLIE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilippineSaint Posted 13 December, 2012 Share Posted 13 December, 2012 Again, it is not merely a question of dropping the reflectors haphazardly onto the Lunar surface with Surveyor's primitive degree of accuracy and hopping for the best. They have to placed into the correct position and then aligned precisely of both azimuth and elevation. A job for Human beings. Or Aliens Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Bad Bob Posted 13 December, 2012 Share Posted 13 December, 2012 Or Aliens Or spider-monkies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 13 December, 2012 Author Share Posted 13 December, 2012 (edited) Again, it is not merely a question of dropping the reflectors haphazardly onto the Lunar surface with Surveyor's primitive degree of accuracy and hopping for the best. They have to placed into the correct position and then aligned precisely of both azimuth and elevation. A job for Human beings. Or Russian unmanned vehicles, which managed the precise feat which you say is impossible. http://physics.ucsd.edu/~tmurphy/apollo/lrrr.html This was in 1970 and 1973. Edited 13 December, 2012 by pap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Bad Bob Posted 13 December, 2012 Share Posted 13 December, 2012 Or Russians, who managed the precise feat which you say is impossible. http://physics.ucsd.edu/~tmurphy/apollo/lrrr.html This was in 1970 and 1973. If you can't see the difference between the Luna solar arrays (actually, physically on the rovers) compared to the Apollo ones (a separate array placed on the Lunar surface) then I must assume you are arguing for arguing sakes..... Also I see that your not debating the veracity of the photos of the Apollo reflectors and the fact that their are footprints around where they were placed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 13 December, 2012 Share Posted 13 December, 2012 If you can't see the difference between the Luna solar arrays (actually, physically on the rovers) compared to the Apollo ones (a separate array placed on the Lunar surface) then I must assume you are arguing for arguing sakes..... Also I see that your not debating the veracity of the photos of the Apollo reflectors and the fact that their are footprints around where they were placed. Easily explained. One of the robots had a pair of nike airs on a stick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 13 December, 2012 Share Posted 13 December, 2012 So you consider that because the Soviets (always pioneers in space flight) had the capability to do this years later - employing an entirely different and purpose built lander - this then proves that the Yanks must have been able to cobble something together too? Of course this proves no such thing, but please carry on as you are entertaining me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 13 December, 2012 Author Share Posted 13 December, 2012 That's because you're making the assumption that the retroreflectors look like the ones in the pictures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 13 December, 2012 Share Posted 13 December, 2012 Ok then, while we are waiting for proof of the heavily adapted Surveyor probe, can you please provide your evidence of a alternate reflector design. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 13 December, 2012 Author Share Posted 13 December, 2012 So you consider that because the Soviets (always pioneers in space flight) had the capability to do this years later - employing an entirely different and purpose built lander - this then proves that the Yanks must have been able to cobble something together too? Of course this proves no such thing, but please carry on as you are entertaining me. It proves that the technical capability to do what you said was impossible, a "job for humans", existed around the time of the Apollo programs. Still, I'm not expecting you to concede the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Bad Bob Posted 13 December, 2012 Share Posted 13 December, 2012 Easily explained. One of the robots had a pair of nike airs on a stick. I've just had a PTS tea over keyboard moment with that mental imagery Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Bad Bob Posted 13 December, 2012 Share Posted 13 December, 2012 It proves that the technical capability to do what you said was impossible, a "job for humans", existed around the time of the Apollo programs. Still, I'm not expecting you to concede the point. No it doesn't, not at all, the Luna reflectors are anchored firmly to the rovers, the Apollo reflectors are placed on the Moon's surface. Different methods of doing it. And don't you think that, even with a soft landing, the Apollo reflectors might be jarred out of place slightly so would need to be placed more gently. ie not dropped from Orbit even with the Moon's diminished gravity!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 13 December, 2012 Author Share Posted 13 December, 2012 No it doesn't, not at all, the Luna reflectors are anchored firmly to the rovers, the Apollo reflectors are placed on the Moon's surface. Different methods of doing it. And don't you think that, even with a soft landing, the Apollo reflectors might be jarred out of place slightly so would need to be placed more gently. ie not dropped from Orbit even with the Moon's diminished gravity!! Respectfully, you don't know that. You are relying on the second-hand evidence of a single government agency to make your assertions. You have no clue what those retroreflectors really look like, or how they were placed on the ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deano6 Posted 13 December, 2012 Share Posted 13 December, 2012 It proves that the technical capability to do what you said was impossible, a "job for humans", existed around the time of the Apollo programs. Still, I'm not expecting you to concede the point. pap, I'm enjoying reading this thread, but the one thing that keeps eating away at me is this: if you are prepared to concede the US has the capability of sending people into space, and also that reflectors were put on the moon, why do you find it so hard to believe humans may have been on the moon when you are prepared to believe some incredibly sophisticated robot would have been been able to be manipulated to position the mirror into place. Wouldn't it have been easier to just send a person? You have already accepted that the technology is there to land a craft on the moon - why not pop a human in it? Is your argument now one solely of "the radiation would have got them", as I can't see what else is causing you doubts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Bad Bob Posted 13 December, 2012 Share Posted 13 December, 2012 Respectfully, you don't know that. You are relying on the second-hand evidence of a single government agency to make your assertions. You have no clue what those retroreflectors really look like, or how they were placed on the ground. FFS it's like juggling sand. So, it's a multi-national PROVEN FACT, that there are reflectors on the moon, Russian and American!! Yet somehow we're to believe the photos of the Russian Lunar one but not the American Static ones... It's like juggling sand, honestly it is... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 13 December, 2012 Share Posted 13 December, 2012 I don't hold with the conspiracy theory in the slightest, but aren't the reflectors designed to reflect light back the way from which it came, a bit like the three-cornered mirrors or indeed a bicycle reflector? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 13 December, 2012 Author Share Posted 13 December, 2012 pap, I'm enjoying reading this thread, but the one thing that keeps eating away at me is this: if you are prepared to concede the US has the capability of sending people into space, and also that reflectors were put on the moon, why do you find it so hard to believe humans may have been on the moon when you are prepared to believe some incredibly sophisticated robot would have been been able to be manipulated to position the mirror into place. Wouldn't it have been easier to just send a person? You have already accepted that the technology is there to land a craft on the moon - why not pop a human in it? Is your argument now one solely of "the radiation would have got them", as I can't see what else is causing you doubts? I do have a post ready to go for Horley here, but yep, I do think radiation is a huge issue. The Soviets did too. Their attitude to putting a man on the moon involved waiting until it was safe to do so. Horley mentions Van Allen himself saying that the belts are not that dangerous. That's very nice, but a bit of scientific analysis would be preferable. Move past the contested Van Allen belt, and you get to the moon itself. No magnetic field and no atmosphere, the two things that keep Earth from being an irradiated dustbowl. This bloke, Jarrah White, lists three smoking guns, of which the radiation is one. Well worth a read. http://moonfaker.com/faqs.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 13 December, 2012 Author Share Posted 13 December, 2012 I should qualify that link by saying he uses the word propagandists a lot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 13 December, 2012 Share Posted 13 December, 2012 Pap do you genuinely believe there was a conspiracy or are you just playing Devils advocate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 13 December, 2012 Author Share Posted 13 December, 2012 FFS it's like juggling sand. So, it's a multi-national PROVEN FACT, that there are reflectors on the moon, Russian and American!! Yet somehow we're to believe the photos of the Russian Lunar one but not the American Static ones... It's like juggling sand, honestly it is... No it's not. If we had to use a building material analogy, I'd say one of the planks has fallen from your edifice. You too insisted this could not be done without a man. The moment you are proved wrong, you constrain your set of conditions. "You can't get a retroreflector on the moon without a human. I don't think you understand the robotics of the time. Oh, what I meant to say was you can't get a certain type of reflector onto the moon without a human" I paraphrase, but that's a decent enough summary of your behaviour on this matter. Juggling sand? FFS, mate - you can't even keep your mockery to one thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now