New_scooby_04

iTrader: (4)

It wasn't faked!

Not so sure about Star wars though! ;-)

NS04

TelBoy

Something unbiased and independently verifiable. Shouldn't be difficult. Although why anyone would spend the money to get close enough to the Moon again just to see it i have no idea.

In my eyes, the Cold War was the single biggest reason why this might not have ever actually happened. The Americans were promised it by the end of the sixties. You could argue that by 1969 they were getting a bit nervous, and were willing to do *anything* not to appear foolish in front of the Russians. No other country has come close to doing it, and if you look back with the benefit of hindsight at the technology available over 35 years ago, it can raise serious doubts about whether they really DID have what it took to land the spacecraft. Launching rockets was the easy bit.

But, on the flip side, i too cannot believe that *someone* wouldn't have sold out and made their fortune by now if it really was a hoax. At this stage of the astronauts' lives, any threat to their security they might have been blackmailed with will have long passed. But i guess you never really know.

lightning101

Come on then - why wasn't it watched by worldwide observatories ?

Surely they can get in close enough to see craters and mountains etc, so why cant they see the rocket ?

TelBoy

Not even Hubble is powerful enough to see that small, 101. Which is a shame, as that would have put the debate to rest once and for all.

OllyK

however

lightning101

It could have tracked it almost all of the way. The moon on that day was 384,400 kilometers away, the hubble telescope is 375 miles above earth and is capable of tracking a target for 24 hours at a time.

Hubble can see details as small as 10 miles (16 km) across on mars.

OllyK

Sadly hubble wasn't there in 1972
Read the link I posted above for more details

lightning101

Oh and for the mathematicians, mars is The average smallest distance between Mars and the Earth is 78 million kilometers or 48 million miles away.I realise that Olly - I was just proving a point, I got my data from the nasa website


Cool Olly .

OllyK

Sure but its a resolution issue, it can "see" stuff across the galaxy, just not in great detail or if it is very small: http://hubblesite.org/reference_desk...=77&cat=topten

It is now

lightning101

OK, so say they faked it all in a hanger studio. Where the hell did the real rocket go with all the astronauts ? Thousands of people were watching the take off.

TelBoy

Around the moon and back again. It's only the very final stages, ie the lunar module and landing bit, which is in any doubt. The lunar modules were too small for any tracking equipment on Earth at that time.

lightning101

And everyone on the FOX network was in on it right ?

TelBoy

No, they wouldn't have needed to be. Thay saw what you and i saw. What *nobody* can prove, is whether Neil Armstrong (or, if you sign up for the conspiracy - an actor) stepped onto the Moon or a huge moonscape in Roswell...

lightning101

Correction old man, I wasn't alive

So at mission control (where hundreds were watching and montoring), they were linked to a studio the whole time. Oh and where did the minerals come from that they brought back ?

TelBoy

That's what the conspirasists claim, yes. Fanciful maybe, but by no means impossible.

The moon rock one does stretch credibility. On the one hand you could argue that since the majority of the moon rock is in "safe storage", it wouldn't need to be anything other than Arizona's finest.

On the other, the moon rock that HAS been released is apparently different from anything found so far on Earth. The conspirasists argue that NASA could get their hands on meteor material easily enough and pass it off as moon rock.

There is, you'll find, an answer for everything in this enigma. It just comes down to what you want to believe in the end, young man.

Geezer

That may well be true, but there is substantial evidence saying they went, and only theory that they didn't.

The evidence offered by NASA would be accetpable in a court of law to prove something, yet the conspiracy would be laughed out of court in seconds. It beggars belief that people completely ignore the type of evidence they wish to find in most parts of their life in favour of badly founded paranoia when it comes to something like this!

Much like religion really!!!!

Geezer

Angry

Thought not, just like when the theorists are asked about this in documentaries and interviews, no answer.

Dead giveaway that the conspiracy is a theory, when the people plugging it wont respond to straight scientifiic proof.

OllyK

I wouldn't italic theory, you make it seem like it means something that doesn't have scientific evidence to back it up. That is not true. A scientific fact is merely a theory that we have a lot of confidence in!

jasey

I reckon the conspiracy theory is a conspiracy started by the Russians.

Angry

:blink:

Olly, a theory is just that, a supposition based on thought and logic, yet to be proven by fact.

I was simply trying to put across the fact that Consparicy Theorists tend to shy away from debating areas of a conspiracy they cant rationalise, as in this case with the Lunar Reflectors.

New_scooby_04

iTrader: (4)

Good ole Karl Popper, the litmus test for any scientific knowledge is refutability.

That's the problem with conspiricy therories: they are self perpetuating regardless of the evidence. If you produce evidence to refute them, you're automatically part of the conspiracy, which actually constitutes support for the theory!

NS04

Jap2Scrap

The thing is with the lunar reflectors, for me they're one of the weakest parts of the evidence to say they landed there. Why could the reflectors not have been landed using a remote module, a la Mars probes?

Angry

Feasibly yes. Long way to go to propogate a lie though, dont you think?

Why do people find it so hard to believe in one of the greatest achievements in human history??

With regards to Telboys point about having the technology to do it, the american military and technological establishments are some 30-50 years ahead of public technology, look at the amount(trillions of dollars) they pump into Military research.

Jap2Scrap

Don't get me wrong. I said in my first post that I loved the idea of a hoax, it's pretty 'out there' but I believe the evidence I've seen. My point regarding the reflectors is that believers (for want of a better word) often tout this as their trump card, yet I personally see it as one of the weakest.

Angry

Think about the logistics of landing an unmanned probe on the moon to drop off mirrors, while they may have had advanced technologies enabling space travel in the 1960s, I doubt they had the technology necessary to create a probe which could:-

a) land itself accurately in a programmed position
b) place mirrors in a programmed position

Automated and accurate guidance systems were something that came along later, it would have required human intervention to place the mirrors accurately, IMO the idea of a probe doing it doesnt hold water.

davegtt

Surely thats just like saying though it'd be easier to get a machine to land on the moon than a human. Imagine the implications and risks of sending a human so far away from earth not knowing what to expect, to land on the moon, to walk on the moon and fly back again? Surely it must have been easier to land a machine on the moon before a man.....

thats what I believe anyhow. as much as I would love for us to have been to the moon and back I just dont buy it. how convienient it was left til late 69 before it was done when it was promised they'd do it before 1970.... and bea tthe russians too....

we all believe what we want but to be honest, if any other country pulled it off then Id probably buy it. but it was America.... gotta start alarm bells ringing if nothing else does

Angry

Dont get me wrong, I'm the last person who would be singing the praises of the most corrupt governmental power in the western world.

Dracoro

Aha! This is the key to many people who think it's a hoax. You seem to imply that the evidence is sufficient for you to believe that man has landed on the the moon. However, as it's the americans, you refuse to believe it? All this proves is that you dis-trust the americans for whatever reason. So whatever they say/claim/prove etc. you still wouldn't believe them no matter what due to your own predjudices against them? Hardly rational thought. Kinda like all those that don't rate Michael Schumacher coz they 'don't like him'. You can have any reasons not to like him but you can't take away the fact that he's the best F1 driver there's been for the past x number of years.

OllyK

Look at just about any device you like; car, boat, plane etc etc, how many were computer / remote controlled before they were human insitue controlled?

jasey

I dont believe planes fly.

I reckon it's all a big con.

You get to the airport (Studio) and they load you up. When you get in the plane (cinema) they start playing videos in each of the windows. They then shake the plane about for 8 hours and turn the heating down so you think you're flying and unload you at the other end of the airport (Studio lot).

During your flight (show) they re-decorate the airport and you think you've arrived.

It's all a big con so Boeing can sell more cinemas