Did we land on the moon? [Archive]

Deviant Esq

11th January 2007, 06:44

Have a read: http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

The gist:

In 2001, Fox TV made a TV show called "Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?"
Now, I don't know about any of you, but I didn't see this program. I have heard about it though, and remember people saying vague things a while ago about the theory that the original moon landings were faked. I remember thinking around the time "What utter bullshit. People will come up with a conspiracy theory for anything". Well, I found an article that not only agrees with what I thought, it sets out to disprove the claims made that the whole thing was a hoax. Oh, and by the way, I wasn't actually looking for one, I stumbled across it looking for scenery photography with the moon in it. I love that stuff.

Anyway, the article is quite long, so maybe save it for later if you don't have time, or hey, there's even 'don't bother' if you can't be arsed. But it's a pretty darned good read, and worth a look if you've heard about the theory. It seems even more crazy after reading the article.

Kendog

11th January 2007, 06:57

I will believe it happened when they land there (again?) and show us the flag , lander thingy and the footprints.

It seems amazing they haven't landed again, surely they have the technology now to do it if they were able to that long ago.

Also, why don't they just take some pictures of the moon surface with the flag on it. They can take amazing pictures of further away places than the moon. Not sure if the flag is on the other side and can't be seen from earth, but even so they take photos from rockets in space as well.

elle-f

11th January 2007, 07:00

It seems though that everything these days is a conspiracy theory. I saw the documentary about 9/11 being a conpiracy as well.......i wonder if MacDonalds is just to get people fat!

What?

11th January 2007, 07:06

Actually landing men on the moon was a conspiracy. Most of the theorists would be better diverting their attention to learning the English language.

RantyDave

11th January 2007, 07:22

It seems amazing they haven't landed again, surely they have the technology now to do it if they were able to that long ago.
Because NASA used to be a well funded organisation of only the best and the brightest with a very singular goal. Now it's a well funded organisation completely stifled with beauracracy, internal politics and with the best interests of it's vendors at heart.

Also, why don't they just take some pictures of the moon surface with the flag on it.
For the same reason they didn't take pictures of flags in people's back gardens from the moon - it's too far. Also you can't just point the hubble telescope at the moon because it's too bright.

they take photos from rockets in space as well.
Nobody actually goes into space, as such any more. They generally pop up to a low earth orbit (a few hundred K) or a geostationary orbit (35,000K) at most ... drop off a satellite or two and come back. It's all very boring.

Anyway, you don't need to see the flag - they placed a mirror on the surface of the moon and people bounce lasers off it (to measure the distance from here to the moon).

The other conspiracy that's fun concerns the van allen belts - strips of intensely nasty radiation that you'd need to pass through in order to go to the moon. Theory is that someone passing through would be exposed to this radiation unless they wore a lead lined suit (too heavy to take up with you), leading to health problems and quite probably cancer in later life. So, conspiracy theorists, tell me this - when's the last time you saw Neil Armstrong?

Dave

Deviant Esq

11th January 2007, 07:23

What: Did you actually bother to read the article? It was the whole point of this thread, so if you haven't bothered to read it, why bother posting? If you had read the article, you wouldn't be in the group of people still saying the whole thing was a hoax" unless you weren't entering the thing willing to listen to reason.

RantyDave: The article does cover the Van Allen belts aspect of it too. Really is quite a good read, really does cover all the bases quite nicely and shows how willing people generally are to believe in conspiricy rubbish.

Squeak the Rat

11th January 2007, 07:36

If it was the TV show I'm thinking about they debunked a lot of the myths. One of the funny ones was the plan to turn the lander on it's side and hide underneath it in the event of a solar flare.

The one thing that did not get answered on the show to my satisfaction is the travel through the Van Allen belts. The article says that the ship would shield them, and it would be travelling too fast anyway.

So why is the travel through the Van Allen belt something that needs to be resovled before space elevators can be build???? The metal of a spaceship shields you - simple!

Any one can debunk a conspiracy theory. Doesn't mean they're right either...

SimJen

11th January 2007, 07:48

Noone ever seems to ask conspiracy theorists to prove the conspiracy, they always put it in the hands of the people that did it to prove they actually did it.
Who gives a fuck I say, all the supposed experts who argue against the moon landing, are mostly struck off scientists with either inadequate qualifications or some agenda against either the US or the NASA space program.
I especially like the one about the photos of the astronauts on the moons surface, where they say that no stars are visible in the shot. Anyone with an interest in photography knows that the metering of the shot is set to the brightest foreground objects eg the astronaut and moon surface, stars as we all know are quite dim in the night sky and take a few moments for the eye to pick up, so consequently will not show in a photo unless the astronaut etc is extremely over exposed (rendering the photo unusable).
Conspiracy theories are a heap of over publicised media bollocks......and the way for simple people (who don't know shit) to explain away otherwise complex situations.

Ronin

11th January 2007, 07:53

It seems though that everything these days is a conspiracy theory. I saw the documentary about 9/11 being a conpiracy as well.......i wonder if MacDonalds is just to get people fat!

9 out of 10. Spelling is getting better :)

Ronin

11th January 2007, 07:55

So, conspiracy theorists, tell me this - when's the last time you saw Neil Armstrong?

Dave

Last I heard he was beating the snot out of a Japanese reporter who claimed the moon landing was a hoax. :rockon:

Hitcher

11th January 2007, 08:00

1. Is this a troll thread? If yes, "Must try harder".

2. It's a repost.

3. Any further discussion worthy of being relegated to "Religious Ravings" in the Pointless Drivel forum.

Deviant Esq

11th January 2007, 08:13

Hitcher: Is the stupid arguements part a repost, or is the actual article I linked to discussing why the moon landing wasn't a hoax a repost?

If the link to the article discussing it is a repost, then I apologise unreservedly. I did do a search, and found a thread here (http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?t=4069&highlight=Moon+landing) started by Skyrider opening it (the conspiricy theory) for discussion, but I didn't spot a link anywhere to this article. Have you seen the article before?

And no, it's not a troll thread, or wasn't meant to be. I just thought the article would help dispell a few myths. *Shrug* Didn't know it was such a sensitive issue! :eek:

Kendog

11th January 2007, 08:29

Kendog and What: Did you actually bother to read the article? It was the whole point of this thread, so if you haven't bothered to read it, why bother posting? If you had read the article, you wouldn't be in the group of people still saying the whole thing was a hoax" unless you weren't entering the thing willing to listen to reason.

RantyDave: The article does cover the Van Allen belts aspect of it too. Really is quite a good read, really does cover all the bases quite nicely and shows how willing people generally are to believe in conspiricy rubbish.

Why do you think I did not read the article?

My comments were not covered in the article or the TV show, just want to see evidence today that it actually happened.

RantyDave gave some constructive answers to my questions.

For the same reason they didn't take pictures of flags in people's back gardens from the moon - it's too far. Also you can't just point the hubble telescope at the moon because it's too bright.
But satellites can read newspapers on earth from space. Even the free Goggle earth can see peoples back yards.

I am skeptical because I can't believe that in over 30 years we haven't advanced enough to prove without doubt they landed on the moon.

Does America need to prove it actually happened? Probably not, but like I said I will believe it when I see it.

Deviant Esq

11th January 2007, 08:33

I will believe it happened when they land there (again?) and show us the flag , lander thingy and the footprints.

This was the bit that made me think you hadn't read the article. But I didn't read it quite right, sorry about that, edited your name out of my earlier post. Must admit I was a bit surprised, you've always come across as thoughtful and logical in the past, and did this time as well, I just didn't interpret it the way you meant it. Still, the article doesn't convince you?

Another reason it'd be really tough to view the flag from earth, is looking out through the earth's atmosphere causes major problems with being able to see anything very well in space, which is why the Hubble Space Telescope came about, and the other reason is looking from the earth the flag wouldn't be side on, in profile, but end on and with a very small cross section, against a really bright background.

ManDownUnder

11th January 2007, 08:36

1. Is this a troll thread? If yes, "Must try harder".

2. It's a repost.

3. Any further discussion worthy of being relegated to "Religious Ravings" in the Pointless Drivel forum.

Someone get hit with the grumpy stick this morning?

ManDownUnder

11th January 2007, 08:39

I think it's all a double play by NASA.

NASA started the conspiracy and have let it fester for a good while, then in one definitive master stroke they'll suddenly declassify information proving they DID land on the moon.

This will relegate conspiracy theorists to the realms of implausibility forever and NASA can then claim all sorts of shit after that.

Anyone questioning it will simply be tarred a conspiracy theorist (complete with lack of credibility).

Brilliant job I reckon.

Deviant Esq

11th January 2007, 08:41

Personnally I was sure I wasn't reposting, I'd done my search and everything. I've edited the initial post for clarification, because I'll admit it did look like just another debate thread, but if it's a repost I'd like to see the original link to that article. Just so you can say to me "I told you so."

BarBender

11th January 2007, 09:18

Did we land on the moon? - No.
Why? - Esse est percipi :dodge:

NighthawkNZ

11th January 2007, 09:47

Must have been real hard to keep the Russians quiet especially in the height of the cold war. The Russians knew and were watching every move the yanks made, they would have known and spilt the beans if they thought otherwise, or did the yanks bring them in on the conspiracy too???...

Every single point the conspiracy theorists made were and have been proven to be bad science and or only half truths not showing the whole science behind it or not know the full specs of the equipment used...

The photos on the moon, different shadows, no stars etc... any photographer with half a wit could answer those...

There is a mirror on the moon that had to be placed so the can bounce a laser off it to measure the distance... how come the conspiracy theorists never approach this… too difficult to make it fit there conspiracy model so we just don’t approach it.

Actual moon rock… again to difficult to made it fit the model so lets not talk about it.

Why has NASA gone back… well there has been nothing there to be gained. They cancelled the last missions because both political and the missions were becoming a regular thing so the public lost interest and well there was also a war on at the time, so funding was slashed.

NASA do have plans to go back to the moon as part of the build up for the Mars Expedition.

NighthawkNZ

11th January 2007, 09:50

But satellites can read newspapers on earth from space.

Thats a hollywood myth... maybe in a few more years

jrandom

11th January 2007, 10:11

They're going back, you know. Shuttle is being scaled down and funds are being diverted to another moon landing project. I think the idea is to lift off around 2020, or thereabouts. 2025, maybe? I can't remember.

I wouldn't mind going to the moon. It'd be, like, way awesome. And by awesome, I mean totally sweet.

Sniper

11th January 2007, 10:12

I heard that inmates land on the moon everynight, does that count?

NighthawkNZ

11th January 2007, 10:13

I wouldn't mind going to the moon. It'd be, like, way awesome. And by awesome, I mean totally sweet.

hell I would go at the drop of a dime...

RantyDave

11th January 2007, 11:13

But satellites can read newspapers on earth from space.
Satellites aren't very high up. Spy satellites are in low earth orbit, so about 200km up - and whizzing along at a fair old pace, but I digress. The moon is 384000km up, so a completely different problem.

If it helps, visualise the difference between taking a picture of something 200m away and something else 384km away. Clearly you could get a long shot with a digital camera and get an acceptable picture over 200m - but standing in Wellington and taking a picture of something in Taupo? I don't think so.

Dave

RantyDave

11th January 2007, 11:16

Last I heard he was beating the snot out of a Japanese reporter who claimed the moon landing was a hoax.
Nah, that was Buzz Aldrin. Got him a good'un too:

http://www.ifilm.com/video/2744522

Dave

Hitcher

11th January 2007, 11:18

If it helps, visualise the difference between taking a picture of something 200m away and something else 384km away. Clearly you could get a long shot with a digital camera and get an acceptable picture over 200m - but standing in Wellington and taking a picture of something in Taupo? I don't think so.

The curvature of the Earth doesn't help much either...

RantyDave

11th January 2007, 11:21

The curvature of the Earth doesn't help much either...
Yeah yeah yeah, I know. Jeez, can't even make an analogy these days :)

Dave

ManDownUnder

11th January 2007, 11:26

Nah, that was Buzz Aldrin. Got him a good'un too:

http://www.ifilm.com/video/2744522

Dave

HA HA HA!!!!! LOVED IT...... Hey Buzz - you're a liar you never landed on the ... ***WHACK***

Bloody good shot too!

Lteejay

11th January 2007, 12:17

In 2001, Fox TV made a TV show called "Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?"

Christ, if I was one of those people that didn't believe we landed on the moon or if I believed that Elvis was still alive. My mind would have changed after I had watched any program on Fox TV that tried to prove it. Get some decent journalists Fox and then you can call yourselves a news channel.

Matt Bleck

11th January 2007, 12:58

funny how when the yanks land on the moon it's "we" and when they invade Iraq it's "them"

ManDownUnder

11th January 2007, 13:10

funny how when the yanks land on the moon it's "we" and when they invade Iraq it's "them"

'tis a good observation from a keen eye

BarBender

11th January 2007, 13:13

:corn: :corn:

"There is a fifth dimension beyond that which is known to man. It is a dimension as vast as space and as timeless as infinity. It is the middle ground between light and shadow, between science and superstition, and it lies between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge. This is the dimension of imagination. It is an area which we call the Twilight Zone." :shit:

Just as an aside there was a good movie from the late seventies that dwelved into the theory of a hoax landing on Mars called 'Capricorn One'. The hoax is carried out and then the powers at be attempt to kill everyone who knew what took place. A similar premise was used 20 years later in 'Wag the Dog' using a make believe war to cover up a White House sex scandal.

But of course thats Hollywood. Surely the moon landing took place because willful suspension of disbelief/belief is easy to produce for a film's sake, but not practical enough to replicate in real life...or is it....you be the judge...:yawn:

Isn't the first week back after a holiday just the worst time to be back at work...:crazy:

Jantar

11th January 2007, 13:18

...or if I believed that Elvis was still alive. ...
You don't believe that Elvis is still alive? :gob: Shame on you. I saw him only last week as I was leaving the pub.
:dodge:

Matt Bleck

11th January 2007, 13:48

'tis a good observation from a keen eye

it's only cause I'm bored shitless

Maha

11th January 2007, 14:28

The curvature of the Earth doesn't help much either...

The earth is round ?....:gob: suppose you are going to say that Mr Whippy is just a Franchise next?.....:angry:

NighthawkNZ

11th January 2007, 14:30

Mr Whippy is just a Franchise next?.....:angry:

ummm it is but the easter bunny is real...

ManDownUnder

11th January 2007, 17:02

The earth is round ?....:gob: suppose you are going to say that Mr Whippy is just a Franchise next?.....:angry:

LOL - hell no - we're a voluntary organisation!

The whipping is only part of making that delicious snack filling... there's the "creaming" as well - my personal favourite. :tugger:

The only reason it comes out of that machine is to stop the kids/health department officials from being frightened...!

Clivoris

11th January 2007, 17:31

Of course the landing was real:weird: . If we/they didn't land on the moon how could Pink Floyd have written "Dark side of the moon"?:wacko:

NighthawkNZ

11th January 2007, 17:41

Of course the landing was real:weird: . If we/they didn't land on the moon how could Pink Floyd have written "Dark side of the moon"?:wacko:

Well this is true... :scratch:

elle-f

11th January 2007, 18:37

9 out of 10. Spelling is getting better :)

BLAH :eek:

What?

12th January 2007, 06:16

What: Did you actually bother to read the article? It was the whole point of this thread, so if you haven't bothered to read it, why bother posting? If you had read the article, you wouldn't be in the group of people still saying the whole thing was a hoax" unless you weren't entering the thing willing to listen to reason..

Deviant - calm down and re-read my post laddy! I was taking a tongue-in-cheek swipe at the common mis-use of the word "conspiracy".
Personally, I think that the likelihood that America landed men on the moon is on a par with the likelihood that America dropped a couple of atomic bombs on Japan in 1945.