# Did we land on the moon or not?



## gtone (Nov 1, 2009)

It's been snowing a lot here on the prairies this winter and every time I go out to shovel/blow the stuff, my fingers freeze in the cold SK windchill. If we, in fact, did go to the moon, howzabout NASA sharing a little of that spacesuit technology they used to keep the astronauts warm in the -100C shade so we don't hafta freeze our butts off! Begs the question of how it's possible that the suits' heating/cooling units could change cycle so quickly so as to be able to handle the 200 degree temp swings on the moon's surface as the astronauts moved in/out of the sunlight and shade?

Makes one wonder, doesn't it?...


----------



## mrmatt1972 (Apr 3, 2008)

YouTube - Mythbusters Moon Landing Hoax 1 HQ

MythBusters Episode 104: NASA Moon Landing


----------



## shoretyus (Jan 6, 2007)

Canadian Tire lets you down again ...sigiifa


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

The conditions on the surface of the moon are one thing.

Moosejaw in January is another extreme altogether.


----------



## gtone (Nov 1, 2009)

Milkman said:


> The conditions on the surface of the moon are one thing.
> 
> Moosejaw in January is another extreme altogether.


Milkman, you said a mouthful!! Darn, it's snowing again...


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

> *Did we land on the moon or not? *


NO!
​

It were the Americans and NOT the Canadians that "did" it. 

Myth Busters being what it is, fun and narrow of focus, sure did prove both sides; it is equally feasible it was faked as not. What they (and no one yet) has done is shown any "moon things" that could only be done on Luna and not on Earth. While it was nice to watch guys bounce about, what they should have done is calculated dispersion patterns of the kicked up "dust" instead. Laser was neat but not anything that needed humans to set up, the Soviet Union did their laser bit with unmanned landings.


----------



## J S Moore (Feb 18, 2006)

NASA's LRO has photographed 5 of the 6 landing sites. You can check it out here: Link


----------



## gtone (Nov 1, 2009)

Sorry Jon - I'm still a little skeptical. It's kinda hard to tell exactly what you're looking at there in those photos, to be honest. Besides that, they're not necessarily from an independent source, so I'm a little wary of them to be truthful.

It'd be quite powerful supporting evidence IMO if they were able to focus one of the Hubble's 2 or 3 visible light gathering systems on the moon's surface to show some Apollo mission detritus in real time. It's a bit hard to swallow the argument that the Hubble is incapable of such a feat given its accomplishments to date.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)




----------



## gtone (Nov 1, 2009)

cheezyridr said:


>


Were you at my family reunion, too?!


----------



## J S Moore (Feb 18, 2006)

gtone said:


> Sorry Jon - I'm still a little skeptical. It's kinda hard to tell exactly what you're looking at there in those photos, to be honest. Besides that, they're not necessarily from an independent source, so I'm a little wary of them to be truthful.
> 
> It'd be quite powerful supporting evidence IMO if they were able to focus one of the Hubble's 2 or 3 visible light gathering systems on the moon's surface to show some Apollo mission detritus in real time. It's a bit hard to swallow the argument that the Hubble is incapable of such a feat given its accomplishments to date.


For $100,000 NASA will point the Hubble anywhere you want it. And the Hubble isn't real time either, it takes a while for the data to be processed. And the LRO has a higher resolution at that distance than the Hubble ( most of the good stuff from the Hubble isn't from visible light). And there's no independent source with the equipment capable of it.


----------



## xuthal (May 15, 2007)

What say we all chip in and get a couple TO area members to build one of these and check out the landing sites? Only way to be sure....largetongue


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

xuthal said:


> What say we all chip in and get a couple TO area members to build one of these and check out the landing sites? Only way to be sure....largetongue


 Hey man, im in cause obviously there is no intelligent life down here!!!!!


----------



## zurn (Oct 21, 2009)

gtone said:


> Sorry Jon - I'm still a little skeptical. It's kinda hard to tell exactly what you're looking at there in those photos, to be honest. Besides that, they're not necessarily from an independent source, so I'm a little wary of them to be truthful.
> 
> It'd be quite powerful supporting evidence IMO if they were able to focus one of the Hubble's 2 or 3 visible light gathering systems on the moon's surface to show some Apollo mission detritus in real time. It's a bit hard to swallow the argument that the Hubble is incapable of such a feat given its accomplishments to date.


Indeed, I want a picture of that flag on the moon !


----------



## gtone (Nov 1, 2009)

Zurn's mention of the flags gave me pause - Given the political climate of the Cold War, one wonders why it wouldn't have been a fairly high priority to have some sort of visible signal sent from the Moon back to Earth rather than a bunch of tiny US flags planted across the various mission landing sites. Even dogs mark their territory and the US was gunning to be "top dog" in the space race as they were coming from well behind the Russians/Soviets with the success of the Apollo program. That sort of mission task completion would have yielded some real clout using the prevailing sentiment of the times, and for those of us left wondering some 40 yrs hence, some irrefutable proof of man's setting foot there.


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

I doubt that many of us could offer proof that the Earth is round, or that it goes around the sun either - let alone prove moon landings. 

In the end we choose to believe or to not believe based on some combination of common sense, trust, and faith. In the case of the moon landings I am blown away by the logistics of making such a trip. This is overshadowed by the unlikelihood that all the people involved in faking such an event could remain silent all these years. So I choose to believe ....... and if I'm wrong it doesn't really matter on a day-to-day basis.


----------



## Presto1202 (Dec 8, 2010)

Probably. I guess it's possible it was a hoax but I find that highly doubtful until someone can show convincing proof otherwise. You'd think, if the US never landed on the moon, the Soviets (now Russia) or Chinese would do what they reasonably could to prove it since that would be a huge source of embarrassment for the United States. But who knows.


----------



## gtone (Nov 1, 2009)

allthumbs56 - Well, we _can_ prove the Earth is round and that we're in orbit around the sun with today's technology, but neither of those are matters of dispute. I agree with your position however, especially about being blown away by the logistics involved. While I accepted all that was put in front of me when I in was in grade school science class, (still remember dad waking us kids up on that balmy summer's night in '69 to see Neil Armstrong's first steps), I have to admit that we were all pretty naive back in those days. We accepted as fact virtually all that was presented on TV and what our gov't and it's agencies told us - after all, there was still a prevailing conservatism and sense of respect for authority at the time, as the counter-culture was not fully rooted quite yet. Many of us through our life's experiences have since grown skeptical of what's been presented in the popular media and with good reason - it's been manipulated for political gain on many countless occasions.

While I'm not a conspiracy theorist (far from it...), I'm looking at this topic with a good, healthy dose of skepticism. Technology is a very interesting player in this topic, for it seems that even 40+ years hence, there still seems to be enormous technological challenges involved with manned ("peopled"?) lunar missions. Math and science suggest, for example, that the heat exchanger plates used in the astronaut's heating/cooling systems would have had to have had a surface closer to the size of a football field to be effective. Common sense suggests that we would've likely seen the very same super-efficient heat exchange systems trickle down to the aerospace and automotive fields by now had they have been as effective as they were reputed to be. Yet, even today, the way we heat/cool our bodies, cars and aircraft are not that far removed from the way they were in the '60's.

Technological advance also brings a conundrum - while it can provide a wonderful opportunity to view the remnants of the Apollo missions (NASA's LRO pics), at the same time, it also provides us the means to question their authenticity (PhotoShop). While I'm not saying the LRO pics are bogus, I'm also suggesting the jury's still out. After all, PS predated the LRO pics by quite some time, and yes, NASA as provider of these proferred bits o' evidence does have a potential supportive motive for providing them (numbers suggest skepticism on this topic is on the rise worldwide). Years ago, when the debate first arose, the most oft-cited _prima facie_ evidence of man's presence on the moon was the several hundred pounds of rocks/soil collected by the Apollo astronauts. Perhaps folks wanted more than that as skepticism continued to grow (after all, there's nothing that _special_ about 'em...).

Prior to my present career, I worked for the military for a decade during the Cold War years in the aerospace field, some of that in a Top Secret position. From this experience, I have a pretty fair appreciation of the how high the stakes were in the political poker game that was being played and also, got a pretty decent sniff of what various nations in the world were capable of in terms of "spin", trickery and even black ops. Perhaps a good deal of that forms my basic persona yet today and makes me as skeptical as I am...


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

Presto1202 said:


> Probably. I guess it's possible it was a hoax but I find that highly doubtful until someone can show convincing proof otherwise. You'd think, if the US never landed on the moon, the Soviets (now Russia) or Chinese would do what they reasonably could to prove it since that would be a huge source of embarrassment for the United States. But who knows.


And there you have kicked the knee caps. China "could do it"; they have the workforce, the face to save, and the affrontery to plain just do it. It really DOES beg the question: why have they not? Could the reason they have not simply be the impossibility? From a purely economic point of view, dropping 2 or 3 tonnes of Luna on the open market should more than pay the cost of the trip, so there is little in the way stopping them from taking advantage of all the modern tech, know how, and understanding.... unless what we know is still less than needed.


----------



## shoretyus (Jan 6, 2007)

keeperofthegood said:


> China "could do it"; they have the workforce,


They would just erect bamboo scafolding .....


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

Hahahaha

Another thought begs an answer. The Myth Busters showed some cameras. Nothing fancy really, Plain Jane cameras of the 1950's and 1960's tech. So, at -200 degrees, how did they heat them so that the film did not shatter? And the movie cameras too, they would have to have really good heating systems to work as well. That is, until they were baked in the light of the sun and then they would have had to have a lot of tech to keep them from melting. There were no CCD's in the 1960's and tubes used for video cameras in the 1960's were rather BIG and bulky and needed a lot of support equipment.


----------



## gtone (Nov 1, 2009)

keeperofthegood said:


> Hahahaha
> 
> Another thought begs an answer. The Myth Busters showed some cameras. Nothing fancy really, Plain Jane cameras of the 1950's and 1960's tech. So, at -200 degrees, how did they heat them so that the film did not shatter? And the movie cameras too, they would have to have really good heating systems to work as well. That is, until they were baked in the light of the sun and then they would have had to have a lot of tech to keep them from melting. There were no CCD's in the 1960's and tubes used for video cameras in the 1960's were rather BIG and bulky and needed a lot of support equipment.


Valid points. At temps in excess of -40C, most things mechanical cease to function in the absence of some kind of thermal support.


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

keeperofthegood said:


> Hahahaha
> 
> Another thought begs an answer. The Myth Busters showed some cameras. Nothing fancy really, Plain Jane cameras of the 1950's and 1960's tech. So, at -200 degrees, how did they heat them so that the film did not shatter? And the movie cameras too, they would have to have really good heating systems to work as well. That is, until they were baked in the light of the sun and then they would have had to have a lot of tech to keep them from melting. There were no CCD's in the 1960's and tubes used for video cameras in the 1960's were rather BIG and bulky and needed a lot of support equipment.


Ya Mythbusters is a good *entertainment TV show*, but there science isn't always 100% sound. You can find entire forums online dedicated to the errors they have made, or variables they don't take into account with their experiments. They are definitely not the 'final say' on most issues they tackle.

While I am not a conspiracy theroist I, I have seen and read enough over the years to make me question the moon landing. Most importantly, I have heard constant mention of that the fact that it would be extremely tough to even pull it off nowadays (maybe not even possible). Never mind with the technology they had then.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

I've never understood the fascination people have with conspiracies. If it's not some bizarre pursuit about the Vatican and Masons or Templars, it's the CIA and Kennedy, or NASA and whomever, or disproving the Holocaust. Why exactly do people not want to accept that some things happen as described? What sort of vindication are they seeking?

What I find quite perplexing is why, in an era when ANY sort of stupid secret to be revealed for money lures people out of the woodwork, not a one of the thousands connected with the project, or their family members, has come forward. The weak link is not the technology, but human greed, and apparently it isn't cracking.


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

Well.. not sure. The Vatican has kept secrets before, like the Pope that gave birth in the streets and all the little boys in closets (so many that even the Irish government has finally said HOW MANY? OMG WHAT!"). Masons are either 500ish years old OR they date to about 1500 BC, depends on which historian you listen to but there is no denying that many of the men of power and money have had connections to each other through that fellowship. The only Templars that I really know much of was the mass suicides a few years ago (or am I mixing metaphors there?) The CIA was created specifically to topple the democratically elected government of Iran and install in its place a puppet monarchial regime for oil rights (as the documented history shows of that organization) so from them ANYTHING is believable. Our own CSIS created many of the "threats" to public safety themselves just to have a reason for themselves to exist!!! I think they even did what a kidnapping and bombing to keep public support away from the FLQ. Kennedy was in bed as much with the mob as with Maralyn (also confirmed history) but as to what faction finally shot him dead its a good bet anyone from Jakie O on down did it (woman scorned). Not to mention that Hollywood is full of "good boys" like River Pheonix who never did ... oh wait no he died from his drug use. So, was OJ the killer of his ex wife or was his ex wife collateral damage from a hit on the Goldman boy? 

I wont even go to THE Holocaust, or any of the mass killings that have happened before or since. You know, human beings really suck. Unlike lemmings they have a long long long history of killing each other off in droves.

NASA on the other hand. NASA has done things such as spend 160 million on an internal study to see if they could save money by having employees provide their own pens and pencils for work. They spend another 300+ million on an internal review on why such a frivolous study was done. All the emails and memos and reports on these two activities are online on the NASA web site but do take some concerted work to find. 

Ultimately though. If I wanted to topple a government I could. If I wanted to open a closet on a faith I could. If I wanted to show there are bad man in the world I can easily buy up some bad men to prove that point. I can do all the things done.... except what NASA has claimed. No one can. No one has either. Many that have thought of doing so have now come out and said "it might be able to be done but it would be really really really really hard".

So, I think if anyone is finding themselves caught in a lie, it is NASA and for them this would be nothing special or unique or new.


----------



## Guest (Jan 24, 2011)

gtone said:


> It's been snowing a lot here on the prairies this winter and every time I go out to shovel/blow the stuff, my fingers freeze in the cold SK windchill. If we, in fact, did go to the moon, howzabout NASA sharing a little of that spacesuit technology they used to keep the astronauts warm in the -100C shade so we don't hafta freeze our butts off! Begs the question of how it's possible that the suits' heating/cooling units could change cycle so quickly so as to be able to handle the 200 degree temp swings on the moon's surface as the astronauts moved in/out of the sunlight and shade?
> 
> Makes one wonder, doesn't it?...


Does it? The suits they wore were so heavy, carrying their own generators, liquid cooling+ heating, pressurization, and multiple insulation layers, waste management, hydration systems, etc. that they are only practical in the low gravity environment on the moon.

You can sure try to use one to shovel your driveway. You'll definitely be working up a sweat though!

Why don't you try some down? A down parka and some long underwear are awesome in this weather.


----------



## gtone (Nov 1, 2009)

iaresee said:


> Does it? The suits they wore were so heavy, carrying their own generators, liquid cooling+ heating, pressurization, and multiple insulation layers, waste management, hydration systems, etc. that they are only practical in the low gravity environment on the moon.
> 
> You can sure try to use one to shovel your driveway. You'll definitely be working up a sweat though!
> 
> Why don't you try some down? A down parka and some long underwear are awesome in this weather.


Things like warm parkas, pants and boots are a given on the prairie where -40C or better is our reality at times. It's the fingers that painfully freeze within a few minutes, which is problematic since we're guitar players, after all. 

Don't want to get into a "pissing contest" with you arguing about the suit. Suffice it to say, I have a problem with this: While it's one thing to engineer a suit system that can handle extreme hot or cold external temps, it's another challenge altogether to engineer one that can handle both, especially when considering they occur one after the other in fairly quick succession (NASA video shows many instances where astronauts are moving in/out of the shadow of the LM). It is hard to imagine a more hostile environment than the surface of the moon with no atmosphere to regulate these massive swings in surface temp, filter out the many forms of radiation, erode meteorites of varying size and so on.

If in fact, NASA engineers did develop and use an effective system - my hat's off to 'em - FANTASTIC job, guys!!! Where's the trickle-down from this advanced technology in use today? If it's out there, I think there's an exploitable market for it various fields. 

Cheers mate!


----------



## Guest (Jan 24, 2011)

gtone said:


> Things like warm parkas, pants and boots are a given on the prairie where -40C or better is our reality at times. It's the fingers that painfully freeze within a few minutes, which is problematic since we're guitar players, after all.


Try mittens? The glove design in space suits are particularly troublesome. Very hard to do good insulation _and_ dexterity in a glove. Separating the fingers and keeping the warm is hard.



> Don't want to get into a "pissing contest" with you arguing about the suit.


I'm not sure who's pissing here? I'm not. I'm just pointing out that the tech in those suits doesn't translate well to a regular gravity environment. It's heavy and cumbersome and worked on the moon because 400 lbs here is only 100 lbs on the moon.



> Suffice it to say, I have a problem with this: While it's one thing to engineer a suit system that can handle extreme hot or cold external temps, it's another challenge altogether to engineer one that can handle both, especially when considering they occur one after the other in fairly quick succession (NASA video shows many instances where astronauts are moving in/out of the shadow of the LM).


Eh? I don't follow you. They solved the problem, but with tech that doesn't work well on Earth. Circulating water in the suit for example, was one part of the solution. You want to carry a reservoir, pump and heater on your back when you shovel the driveway? 



> It is hard to imagine a more hostile environment than the surface of the moon with no atmosphere to regulate these massive swings in surface temp, filter out the many forms of radiation, erode meteorites of varying size and so on.
> 
> If in fact, NASA engineers did develop and use an effective system - my hat's off to 'em - FANTASTIC job, guys!!!


Well, _fact_, they did: no one died while on the moon. So they built an effective system. But it was operating-environment specific. Here's a nice video that explains the design and construction of a space suit from NASA.



> Where's the trickle-down from this advanced technology in use today? If it's out there, I think there's an exploitable market for it various fields.


Here's a list of spin-offs that resulted from NASA-funded or NASA-based technology research that went it to space exploration: NASA spinoffs, space benefits, space history, NASA space spinoffs, NASA technology products. And the official NASA publication that deals with their technology spinoffs is here: http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/. If you have an Android-based phone you can use this app to find out what products contain NASA spinoff tech: What Products Were NASA Spinoffs? New Smartphone App Knows | Space Technology, Smartphones & Mobile Phone Technology, Android Apps | Space.com (that's pretty cool). 

This article mentions polymer fabrics. I have a North Face jacket that's lined with a reflective polymer, not unlike what you'd find in a fire fighter's suit, that's meant to trap and contain body heat. Works well.


----------



## gtone (Nov 1, 2009)

mhammer said:


> I've never understood the fascination people have with conspiracies. If it's not some bizarre pursuit about the Vatican and Masons or Templars, it's the CIA and Kennedy, or NASA and whomever, or disproving the Holocaust. Why exactly do people not want to accept that some things happen as described? What sort of vindication are they seeking?
> 
> What I find quite perplexing is why, in an era when ANY sort of stupid secret to be revealed for money lures people out of the woodwork, not a one of the thousands connected with the project, or their family members, has come forward. The weak link is not the technology, but human greed, and apparently it isn't cracking.



Mark,

With all due respect, it's a bit of a stretch to tar all moon-landing skeptics with the "conspiracy theorist" brush, although this seems to be a popular response (not unlike those against the war in Iraq being labelled as "unpatriotic", it should be noted). I'm a thinking man like you, nothing more, nothing less and there are plenty of well-respected folks in the fields of science and engineering that are also notable skeptics. 

While I'm not likely to sway anyone's opinion on the matter, yours especially, it's possible you may be grossly over-estimating how difficult any sort of hoax would have been to keep contained. The Apollo missions were run as military operations from stem to stern and with the utmost security measure practiced throughout. Extreme compartmentalization would have been the rule and informational exchanges would have been limited to a tight "need to know" operating standard. When tight security is married to a project with the requirement for extensive training under a wide variety of scenarios/objectives, there's potential for misdirection. It's entirely conceivable that very few people, in fact, may have been put in a position to ascertain whether or not those astronauts ever set foot on the surface of the moon.


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

mhammer said:


> I've never understood the fascination people have with conspiracies. If it's not some bizarre pursuit about the Vatican and Masons or Templars, it's the CIA and Kennedy, or NASA and whomever, or disproving the Holocaust. Why exactly do people not want to accept that some things happen as described? What sort of vindication are they seeking?
> 
> What I find quite perplexing is why, in an era when ANY sort of stupid secret to be revealed for money lures people out of the woodwork, not a one of the thousands connected with the project, or their family members, has come forward. The weak link is not the technology, but human greed, and apparently it isn't cracking.


Because humans by nature are curious. And we don't like being lied to. Add to that, that history has been made, and wars have been started based on lies. Some of the things referred to as 'conspiracy theories, (eg 'theories" involving the Viet Nam war, Cuba) were eventually proven/uncovered to be facts. And with all of these organizations, tax money funds or partially funds them. 

I don't believe in every single theory out there, but I definitely think some are interesting. And I personally don't think we should just accept everything we told because someone in power says we should. That is not doing anything to help improve things. We can't be all paranoid, but we can't be all sheep either.


----------



## J S Moore (Feb 18, 2006)

gtone said:


> Mark,
> 
> With all due respect, it's a bit of a stretch to tar all moon-landing skeptics with the "conspiracy theorist" brush, although this seems to be a popular response (not unlike those against the war in Iraq being labelled as "unpatriotic", it should be noted). I'm a thinking man like you, nothing more, nothing less and there are plenty of well-respected folks in the fields of science and engineering that are also notable skeptics.
> 
> While I'm not likely to sway anyone's opinion on the matter, yours especially, it's possible you may be grossly over-estimating how difficult any sort of hoax would have been to keep contained. The Apollo missions were run as military operations from stem to stern and with the utmost security measure practiced throughout. Extreme compartmentalization would have been the rule and informational exchanges would have been limited to a tight "need to know" operating standard. When tight security is married to a project with the requirement for extensive training under a wide variety of scenarios/objectives, there's potential for misdirection. It's entirely conceivable that very few people, in fact, may have been put in a position to ascertain whether or not those astronauts ever set foot on the surface of the moon.


But to fake a Moon landing requires more that two people making it a conspiracy. Anyone exploring the alleged conspiracy would therefore be a conspiracy theorist, QED.

There have been plenty of military leaks throughout history both by nationals and expatriates of hostile and allied countries with respect to US interests so I find that reasoning unsound.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Well, as someone who studies the phenomenon of trust, whether trust in government, or trust within or between organizations, as well as whistleblowing I view this whole thing with a certain degree of detached bemusement.

Obviously, there ARE things that get covered up, but big things, REALLY big things, are difficult to suppress. That doesn't mean that they won't be dismissed if they cause awkwardness for somebody, but the dismissal usually consists of devaluing evidence or devaluing the revealer, rather than presenting contrary evidence. And if evidence is presented, it is generally more substantive than "Well how do we REALLY know? They could've...".

Every day, I read employee comments in which they profess quasi-conspiracies about stuff they don't understand very well (which, in turn, has been *NOT* been communicated to them very well). I've also been privy to "backroom stuff" that prompted suspicions from underinformed people, who suspected far more than was really going on. Some folks are more trusting, some suspicious. I tend to be more trusting, and generally, I find that people don't let me down. Among those who are not that trusting, there is usually no evidence strong enough to allay their suspicions.

At this point, the narrative about "the moon landing being faked" is so deeply entrenched among some, that there is simply no empirical evidence, short of sticking them in a ship and sending them to the moon themselves, to persuade them. They can find a flaw in everything you put in front of them. Same way that despite case after case of some nutbar coming after a public figure with a gun, as we saw in Tuscon a few weeks ago, some folks still steadfastedly refuse to accept the possibility that Lee Harvey Oswald was a nutbar with a gun.

Once upon a time, western nations thought they had money for everything, and were willing to throw money at space travel. Those days are long behind us. Now, they throw it at health and the military. They sure as hell don't throw it at education, and aren't all that willing to throw it at space travel. The lesson that was learned by going to the moon was that sending people on a spacecraft ups the cost by several orders of magnitude, partly because you have to bring them back, and partly because they take up room and the extra things required to have a human on board increase the fuel requirements (and associated risk) as well as the launch-facility requirements, immensely and prohibitively. That's why we haven't seen any manned flights beyond the Space Station since.


----------



## J S Moore (Feb 18, 2006)

That's pretty much the reason we haven't been back to the moon: lack of money, loss of technology and lack of direction. Those are great points mhammer. I realized long ago that some people really want to believe what they want to believe regardless of proof to the contrary. 

I'll throw a couple more things out there in response to previous posts, just because I went to all the trouble of thinking of them rather than believing I'll change anyone's mind.

Who said there was film in the cameras? The majority of the cameras were "live" sending the signal back to earth to be recorded at NASA. There were still cameras though. I remember seeing footage of them being used. When cameras were first invented they used a light sensitive coating on glass plates. My thought is that it was something along those lines and probably wouldn't be recognizable as film to us consumers.

Who said they used tubes? Solid state technology was well established by that time. In the early 70's you could buy kits for personal computers. You had to know enough to assemble it all yourself though.


----------



## shoretyus (Jan 6, 2007)

J S Moore said:


> That's pretty much the reason we haven't been back to the moon: lack of money, loss of technology and lack of direction.


I thought it was 'cause the resort sucked and there was no pool. .. Sorry I had a kind of crappy day and need to in ject some humour somewhere


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

HAHA Jon. Easy answers on both cases; NASA said so. They claim that the temps were Earth normal to a little on the cool side and had battery operated internal heaters to keep the film soft..... and that begins to sound like the Kirby Vacuum cleaner pitch to me. I mean, think of how many batteries it took to keep that camp lantern going during camping season and how little heat that bulb gave off when trying to warm up before taking a middle of the night pee and how halfway back to the tent the bulb dimmed and died. 


I dunno, and I say I dunno. I am a skeptic and with reason: Everything that was claimed to be "Lunar" has been shown to be doable (and easily doable) here on Earth. Nothing fancy has been needed either in doing so. With an agency with free access to tax dollars and no restrictions who knows what they did.

Space rocks, not damaged by solar heating or radiation, taken clean from the celestial bodies are worth a thousand times their weight in gold. There is nothing but money to be made in going to the moon, doing a few tonnes of core samples and other rock samples will float a government for years on their open market sales ( in the region of 1000 to 5000 dollars per gram). Sure, we can do an unmanned lander, so can most other governments, and half a dozen have done so (love the little toaster NASA sent to Mars, and yes that was about how big the rover was .... toaster sized). When the batteries work, they don't fall over on their side, get gummed up in dirt, or get landed a few hundred feet lower than the land itself the unmanned projects have been very successful for all governments. The well shot, well documented, well experience Shuttle though, it goes no farther into space than the satellites it delivers or services and cannot go farther into space than that (not sure where that memory is from but I recall it on a NASA educational thing).

So, to me, the proof will be when something is shown "Lunar" that cannot at all be done "Earth", or done by being simply dropped by remote lander. Sure, nice clean long distance photos of the landing sites would be cute to see. The ones pointed at earlier all looked like the grade school joke where you put a black dot on a white sheet of paper with the Q: what's that? and the A: a polar bear in a snow storm.


----------



## J S Moore (Feb 18, 2006)

The space shuttle was never designed to do anything more than that, though. And I don't believe they used tube technology for the Lunar modules. Way too much space and power needed. As for the film, I'll buy that explanation. It's simpler than what I was thinking of. If the camera was airtight, had an atmosphere and good insulation there wouldn't have been much of a temperature swing.

Why can't NASA build a lunar vehicle anymore? They trashed the technology and the machines to make it. We do it as a culture all the time. Tube radios for instance. The only reason tubes exist is because of audiophiles and musicians, but the radios are long gone. Horse drawn carriages are a good example as well. Imagine the learning curve for someone to make one of those from scratch and yet only 100 years ago that was the main form of transportation.

Why would there be that much difference between the moon and the earth? With respect to physical laws I mean. It's the same physics here as it is there. I don't get the argument that because it can be replicated here means we didn't go.

On the LRO website you can click for a larger image. The descent stage is 12 feet in diameter and takes up 9 pixels on the camera, which is orbiting about 50 km above the surface. I doubt you'll get better resolution anytime soon. And if you're going to say that military satellites can read a book over your shoulder, I'll call bullshit before you do. If there is any actual conspiracy on this planet it's the military and the government making themselves look better and more capable than they actually are.

EDIT: And to the OP; if you're fingers are getting cold it's because of the gloves and the finger separation. Wear mitts, they'll keep your hands warmer. I have a pair of leather ones I bought at Marks' Work Warehouse about 30 years ago that are still going strong. I get pointed and laughed at but my hands are never cold.

Further edit: The more I think about it there wouldn't be any difference to the technology needed to survive in orbit as there would be to survive on the moon. Same stresses of extreme temperatures and what have you. They did space walks to test the suits before the made the lunar trip. As a matter of fact they tested the majority of the equipment in orbit before they went.


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

LOL Jon, the first fully solid state TV came out in 1971. And into the '70s there were many that stayed tube and that was because of the limits of solid state parts, they could not handle the power requirements or frequencies (lots of nuvistors in tuners as well as damper diodes in the flyback through the 1970's). It was only in the 1990's that transmitter tubes began to be replaced by solid state and the solid state versions do not have as long a lifespan so tubes are still preferred over silicon there (with the added benefit that those transmitter tubes are able to be re-built and put back into service). In 1969 small radios were made with transistors yes (lots of collectors feel 1961 was the end of tube radio), but nothing that required significant amounts of power were using transistors at that time. By 1971 yes the technology took some leaps, but it was still mostly germanium (1971 is also when the retro-reflector tech took off and that was also when usable laser was developed for use against things like retro-reflectors). People that build pedals always talk about how much a PITA germanium is because it is so inconsistent and easily damaged by temperatures and by vibrations. At the time, the most stable and well understood and already made to withstand large values of acceleration and vibration were tubes (they were used into the 1990's in weapons systems in both the USA and USSR). So, yea, I would LOVE to see the inner wirings of the Apollo units.  I don't know if NASA ever published pictures or had that open for public viewing, they did with the Shuttle as well as the long explanations of their 5 computers etc etc

LOL Military Intelligence. I know that mil sats have been used in court cases, but to what weighting the courts gave that information no idea. Isn't GPS accurate to 3 meters? Not bad when viewed against the scope of the planet, but 3 meters is the width of a house in Toronto.

You are right, the physics are the same. All the physics are the same. The variables are different though. The moon is 1/6th the mass of Earth. Gravity is 1/6th as well. So is acceleration due to gravity. Inertia would be 6 times stronger, and there would be no atmospheric friction as there is no atmosphere. Which is why I said in my first post, much more interesting to study the dispersion of the Lunar Dust. The question is "_did men do this or not?_" can better be answered by removing the men and ignore any of the obvious man made artifacts or objects. Any man made anything can be faked and looking at them even in hand there veracity can be teetertottered easily. That leaves only the dirt and dust underfoot and the question becomes is that also a man made artifact or not. While it is an obvious thing to say the dust isn't being worked by a guy with a rope, it is being worked by physics; inertia, friction, and gravity. These are known, understood, unique to the body of mass you are referencing and unless you used CGI not something whose behavior you could fake up very easily. Lunar dirt would travel farther (no atmospheric friction so less to counter inertia) and have a lower acceleration back to the surface on Luna (0.17m/s/s) than on Earth (1m/s/s) and that curve is predictable (did that one enough times in high school physics class). What Mythbusters (or anyone trying to prove or disprove this) should have done is filmed their fake Lunar dust being kicked up by the guy running in the suit, and done the comparison math in how the dust behaved. We do know without having to go there what the general composition of the Lunar surface is (light spectroscopy) and we know how much Buzz weighed and how much his suit weighed. We also can work out his personal velocity from the footage so it can be worked out what the motivating mass was working on that dust to liberate it was. From there it is protractors, compasses and math to work out how the dust "should look" on the moon and compare that to how it looks on the film. This is not far fetched at all too, CSI people do this all the time. They see a body on the ground, blood on the wall and don't know the weapon. They can still reasonably work out the mass and velocity the weapon needed to have been to leave the characteristic blood splatter and they can just as easily go through that the other way around. Buzz is the weapon, Luna is the body, the dust is the blood spatter the math is the same 



EDIT: Jon, I have a Q about your pickups at http://www.guitarscanada.com/guitar...9074-j-s-moore-hybrid-pickups.html#post332965


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

gtone said:


> It's been snowing a lot here on the prairies this winter and every time I go out to shovel/blow the stuff, my fingers freeze in the cold SK windchill. If we, in fact, did go to the moon, howzabout NASA sharing a little of that spacesuit technology they used to keep the astronauts warm in the -100C shade so we don't hafta freeze our butts off! Begs the question of how it's possible that the suits' heating/cooling units could change cycle so quickly so as to be able to handle the 200 degree temp swings on the moon's surface as the astronauts moved in/out of the sunlight and shade?
> 
> Makes one wonder, doesn't it?...


Moon landing hoax theories are created by people who have no understanding of space travel, or science in general. Each space suit actually costs $10M each, they are pressurized and maintain their own atmosphere. Its like being in a self contained submarine. Unless you use a screen door you can take extreme temperatures and atmospheres. This is why they jump around rather than walk as the suit is very stiff, and doesnt take kindly to mass movements.............


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

gtone said:


> Zurn's mention of the flags gave me pause - Given the political climate of the Cold War, one wonders why it wouldn't have been a fairly high priority to have some sort of visible signal sent from the Moon back to Earth rather than a bunch of tiny US flags planted across the various mission landing sites. Even dogs mark their territory and the US was gunning to be "top dog" in the space race as they were coming from well behind the Russians/Soviets with the success of the Apollo program. That sort of mission task completion would have yielded some real clout using the prevailing sentiment of the times, and for those of us left wondering some 40 yrs hence, some irrefutable proof of man's setting foot there.


The moon rock samples are proof enough. They contain Helium 3 brought to the moon from solar winds.............


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

gtone said:


> allthumbs56 - Well, we _can_ prove the Earth is round and that we're in orbit around the sun with today's technology, but neither of those are matters of dispute. I agree with your position however, especially about being blown away by the logistics involved. While I accepted all that was put in front of me when I in was in grade school science class, (still remember dad waking us kids up on that balmy summer's night in '69 to see Neil Armstrong's first steps), I have to admit that we were all pretty naive back in those days. We accepted as fact virtually all that was presented on TV and what our gov't and it's agencies told us - after all, there was still a prevailing conservatism and sense of respect for authority at the time, as the counter-culture was not fully rooted quite yet. Many of us through our life's experiences have since grown skeptical of what's been presented in the popular media and with good reason - it's been manipulated for political gain on many countless occasions.
> 
> While I'm not a conspiracy theorist (far from it...), I'm looking at this topic with a good, healthy dose of skepticism. Technology is a very interesting player in this topic, for it seems that even 40+ years hence, there still seems to be enormous technological challenges involved with manned ("peopled"?) lunar missions. Math and science suggest, for example, that the heat exchanger plates used in the astronaut's heating/cooling systems would have had to have had a surface closer to the size of a football field to be effective. Common sense suggests that we would've likely seen the very same super-efficient heat exchange systems trickle down to the aerospace and automotive fields by now had they have been as effective as they were reputed to be. Yet, even today, the way we heat/cool our bodies, cars and aircraft are not that far removed from the way they were in the '60's.
> 
> ...


Was it Plato who used the words "No one can convince me," or was that the beret dude? NASA never was a military unit, and is a civilian organization. If NASA were military, it would still be trying to tie shoelaces. All military technology comes from the private sector in R&D programs. Some are funded by DARPA, but the technology is from people outside the military. In the end to pull off a hoax would need not only the military to keep a secret but the private sector as well. Like that could actually happen...........


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

There is far too much misinformation here to go thru. The Apollos and their equipment can be viewed at NASA, I suggest that some of you visit there and see for yourself. You can talk to the various people involved as they probobly have nothing better to do. Just dont ever ask Buzz.........


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Yes, we landed on the moon, there is no Santa Clause, and you can't get pregnant from a toilette seat.

I have quite a few other revelations and interesting facts I can share if anyone's interested.

(if you jump in the air seconds before your elevator crashes to the ground from the twentieth floor, you still die)


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

Accept2 said:


> There is far too much misinformation here to go thru. The Apollos and their equipment can be viewed at NASA, I suggest that some of you visit there and see for yourself. You can talk to the various people involved as they probably have nothing better to do. Just dont ever ask Buzz.........


I have been to the cape and the space center there. In fact, the day we were there Columbia was sitting on the pad awaiting launch in a few days. Little did we know it was never coming back. But there is too much technology, too much history and money sitting around there for anything to be a hoax. They have a Saturn V rocket that sits on its side in an indoor structure. That was a site to see. To stand there and think that human beings actually sat on the top of that thing while it was lit will give you shivers. Those people had balls. Big ones.










Throughout history there has been many conspiracy theories launched. The one thing I always come back to is "how". There is absolutely no way you could pull off operations the size of moon landings, 9/11, and all the rest without the involvement of literally hundreds of people, organizations and logistics. In all of these cases every single individual was sworn to absolute secrecy and have never leaked an ounce of information? Or did the government silence them all? Impossible.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

I've been to the Smithsonian in Washington.

The Apollo stuff sure looked real to me.


----------



## Sneaky (Feb 14, 2006)

Forget NASA. The inuit have had it figured out for hundreds of years. Moosehide and beaver. Toasty warm, even at -40C.










There is an insulating material in use today called Aerogel that I think has been used by NASA. It mostly has industrial applications (we use it to insulate steam piping and vessels in Ft. MacMurray), but it is also starting to be used for outdoor apparel for mountain climbing, etc.

ASPEN AEROGELS | OUTDOOR GEAR, APPAREL, AND FOOTWEAR 


Oh, and yes to your question. Is this a Poll?


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

Actually, I have not said we have not gone into orbit. What would be needed in high Earth orbit would be similarly needed ex-Earth too so there is no reason not expect to see such equipment and industry. What is questioned is the physical part "landing on the moon".

I am going to stay a skeptic. Not to offend anyone's sense that the US government is absolutely right and has never lied to the masses of humans on the planet ever....


----------



## bluesmostly (Feb 10, 2006)

gtone, you should just move to the southern part of BC and be done with those nasty winters. 

As for the moon landing debate or any other issue, I don't know why anyone 'chooses' to believe anything on faith, or because someone says it is so. esp if it is told to them by those with a historical track record of misleading people, and esp if it involves a massive threat to human life ("lets invade ' '), or lots of taxpayers $ . Proof of anything is hard to come by, there can be alot of evidence pointing to certain probabilities, but that ain't proof. 

I don't _choose _to believe in the moon landing or not, what is the point of that? I haven't looked at the evidence on both sides of the debate either, even then I don't have to choose to believe, but I might have enough evidence to make an informed decision as to where I would put my money... I am a practical man who has no interest in blind faith.

BTW, I think it is relatively easy to hide evidence and cover up really big stuff if you control all the media outlets that feed the masses info. It happens all the time, and there is a long history of leaders, nations and empires doing it, it ain't that hard. There are plenty of 'whistlerblowers' and witnesses out there going on about all kinds of stuff but just because you don't read about it in the Globe and Mail and hear on the National, that don't mean it ain't out there.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

ALthough I fully acknowledge that governments lie to us on a regular basis, the idea that so many people could keep a secret such as several faked lunar landings is just too hard to swallow. The evidence is there to prove man walked on the moon and has been demonstrated on numerous occasions.


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

Google Earth has a nice Moon setting that shows the locations of landings and various Moon junk left behind. Lots of photos. 

Peace, Mooh.


----------



## bluesmostly (Feb 10, 2006)

Milkman said:


> ALthough I fully acknowledge that governments lie to us on a regular basis, the idea that so many people could keep a secret such as several faked lunar landings is just too hard to swallow. The evidence is there to prove man walked on the moon and has been demonstrated a numerous occasions.


I don't know very much about the moon landing controversy and don't really care to look into it but who are these "so many people" keeping secrets that you refer to Milkman? 

All of the pyramid style, heirachical social structures like government, corporations, and the military have compartmentalization and 'need to know' systems of operation and only a very small handful at the top ever know the whole truth of anything that goes on. The teller at the bank doesn't have a clue what the CEO and his cohorts are planning for the bank any more than the mechanic working on a jet engine for NASA or a private in the army being told to go fight over here or there knows about how, or to what end, their actions are really contributing. 

Besides, even if there were 10 thousand 'whistleblowers' out there going on about a faked moon landing, what makes you think you would hear about it on CBC or ABC? 

My point is, if the moon landing was a fake, it would not be so hard to sell it to the masses. Big lies never have been. 

_*Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it. *_Adolf Hitler 


_*How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think for themselves. *_Adolf Hitler


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

I used to get mad at the moon landing conspiracies but now I realize that its based on background. If you dont see this stuff everyday its like a caveman seeing a car. Some of us get to see stuff that other people dont realize exist, or have no idea how things are being done. For me, spending alot of time in research and development and experimental design, the moon landings are like the earth being round. The technology is basic, and forms the basis of the technologies we have now. Most people see technology as their home computer, but the reality is that high technology doesnt get seen by the general public unless its used in everyday life. Until ion thrust is propelling your vacation to Mars, you wont really know about its history, how it works, or its current evolution to what is being tested today. Even understanding the space suit is beyond most people because they usually just wear jeans and a T shirt..........


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

keeperofthegood said:


> Not to offend anyone's sense that the US government is absolutely right and has never lied to the masses of humans on the planet ever....


Is there a husband alive who *hasn't* told his wife that those jeans do NOT make her ass look fat? Does that mean that when she asks if you've paid the phone bill, you're lying when you say you did?

Have doubts my friend. Have* lots *of doubts. But have properly placed doubts.


----------



## bluesmostly (Feb 10, 2006)

mhammer said:


> Is there a husband alive who *hasn't* told his wife that those jeans do NOT make her ass look fat? Does that mean that when she asks if you've paid the phone bill, you're lying when you say you did?
> 
> Have doubts my friend. Have* lots *of doubts. But have properly placed doubts.


my point exactly, and for me 'properly placed doubts' go straight to the evidence of the person's, or institution's, possible motives, and track record for honesty and integrity. Historically governments, large corps, and the military are not in the same league as the husband wanting his wife to feel good about herself.


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

Mark hahaha Yes  though with the US government, they do have a very long record of very big lies. Got to give credit where it is due on that. There are a few that have stood a large portion of time. Took until DNA testing was invented to prove that George Washington didn't keep it in his slacks  and a whole family of black decedents have become recognized as a result.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

You guys are throwing everything into one big bowl and calling it "the U.S. government". There is a tremendous amount of independence between all those agencies. Some of it (e.g., DOD) effectively supercedes any given administration (one of the reasons why Gitmo can't seem to get closed), and some of it rises and falls with administrations. Some nasty things ARE done at the behest of the admnistration (Watergate, bombing of Cambodia), some things are loosely connected to an administration but take on a bizarre life of their own when no one is watching (Iran-Contra affair), and some things are simply some weasly bureaucrat's attempt to look good or escape censure, without any direction "from above". You can't attribute the actions and motives of one kind of situation to that of another, or link them back to anything in common.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

mhammer said:


> Is there a husband alive who *hasn't* told his wife that those jeans do NOT make her ass look fat? Does that mean that when she asks if you've paid the phone bill, you're lying when you say you did?
> 
> Have doubts my friend. Have* lots *of doubts. But have properly placed doubts.


yeah, but what if you like 'em to be fat? what then? i'm sensing that there are alot possible scenarios that could result from just that one part.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Not touching that. I'm not even gonna use a 10-foot pole to touch *another* 10-foot pole.


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

Yea.... that's a whole other kind a lunar landing that is @[email protected]


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

keeperofthegood said:


> LOL Jon, the first fully solid state TV came out in 1971. And into the '70s there were many that stayed tube and that was because of the limits of solid state parts, they could not handle the power requirements or frequencies (lots of nuvistors in tuners as well as damper diodes in the flyback through the 1970's). It was only in the 1990's that transmitter tubes began to be replaced by solid state and the solid state versions do not have as long a lifespan so tubes are still preferred over silicon there (with the added benefit that those transmitter tubes are able to be re-built and put back into service). In 1969 small radios were made with transistors yes (lots of collectors feel 1961 was the end of tube radio), but nothing that required significant amounts of power were using transistors at that time. By 1971 yes the technology took some leaps, but it was still mostly germanium (1971 is also when the retro-reflector tech took off and that was also when usable laser was developed for use against things like retro-reflectors). People that build pedals always talk about how much a PITA germanium is because it is so inconsistent and easily damaged by temperatures and by vibrations. At the time, the most stable and well understood and already made to withstand large values of acceleration and vibration were tubes (they were used into the 1990's in weapons systems in both the USA and USSR). So, yea, I would LOVE to see the inner wirings of the Apollo units.  I don't know if NASA ever published pictures or had that open for public viewing, they did with the Shuttle as well as the long explanations of their 5 computers etc etc
> 
> LOL Military Intelligence. I know that mil sats have been used in court cases, but to what weighting the courts gave that information no idea. Isn't GPS accurate to 3 meters? Not bad when viewed against the scope of the planet, but 3 meters is the width of a house in Toronto.
> 
> ...


Actually, Keep, the first solid-state tv appeared in 1959. I don't know your age, but I lived through all this stuff, including watching the moon-landing on a solid-state 13 incher in my parents house trailer in Orillia. FYI, the first commercial all-transistor calculator - the IBM 508 appeared in 1957. I had a math professor in the 70's that was involved in some of the computations used in the first lunar shot. He was very proud of his involvement.

It was a long time ago - but it's not like we were living in caves.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

News flash.

Commercial aviation is a giant hoax perpetrated on us by the government. We don't really get on planes. We just walk into aluminum tubes with clever projection devices instead of windows. Even the terminal windows are projection screens that show images of these imaginary devices we call airplanes. All of the airline employees are in on it (or equally fooled by the powers that be).

Crap, here I thought I was going to Guadalajara this morning and all I'm doing is getting into a Disney ride. Oh well, ignorance is bliss and I'm feeling blissful today.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Well, there are some flights where you spend enough time on the runway that it may as well be like that, eh?


----------



## bluesmostly (Feb 10, 2006)

I remember hearing something about the Hollywood director Henry Kubrick, the "2000 space odessy" guy, being hired to film the 'fake' moon landing in arizona or something. 

maybe they used him to set up our fake flight simulation program too! I like that they put personal screens in front of each seat now, it works on me, one and a half Tom Cruise movies and I'm there, or am I... 

have fun on your Mexico sim-trip Milkman.


----------



## Guest (Jan 27, 2011)

bluesmostly said:


> I remember hearing something about the Hollywood director Henry Kubrick, the "2000 space odessy" guy, being hired to film the 'fake' moon landing in arizona or something.


That was part of a mockumentary called Dark Side of the Moon. Not a stitch of truth to that. It was made up for the purposes of that film.


----------



## Sneaky (Feb 14, 2006)

iaresee said:


> That was part of a mockumentary called Dark Side of the Moon. Not a stitch of truth to that. It was made up for the purposes of that film.


Not really... there have been people making that claim for many years. (Stanley) Kubrick's the Shining is supposedly full of all kinds of clues:


----------



## NB_Terry (Feb 2, 2006)

Sneaky said:


> Not really... there have been people making that claim for many years. (Stanley) Kubrick's the Shining is supposedly full of all kinds of clues:


I googled this and found this article. Pretty entertaining reading

Shining Secrets


----------



## Guest (Jan 27, 2011)

Sneaky said:


> Not really... there have been people making that claim for many years. (Stanley) Kubrick's the Shining is supposedly full of all kinds of clues:


Oh well. I'm convinced. A boy in an Apollo 11 sweater.

Look hard enough at any work of art and you'll see what you want. I spent an entire semester in university examining Bible allegories in films like Natural Born Killers and Full Metal Jacket.

Wake me up when there's hard facts.


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

iaresee said:


> Oh well. I'm convinced. A boy in an Apollo 11 sweater.
> 
> Look hard enough at any work of art and you'll see what you want. I spent an entire semester in university examining Bible allegories in films like Natural Born Killers and Full Metal Jacket.
> 
> Wake me up when there's hard facts.


Don't forget the Indian rug ......pretty conclusive.


----------



## Guest (Jan 28, 2011)

allthumbs56 said:


> Don't forget the Indian rug ......pretty conclusive.


Doh! The rug! How could I forget the rug.

You guys crack me up. Really. You do.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

The moon itself was faked.


by THIS GUY

ok, I'm a little drunk


----------



## NB_Terry (Feb 2, 2006)

Milkman said:


> The moon itself was faked.
> 
> 
> by THIS GUY
> ...


Is that Pierre McGuire with Carey Price?


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

bluesmostly said:


> I don't know very much about the moon landing controversy and don't really care to look into it but who are these "so many people" keeping secrets that you refer to Milkman?
> 
> All of the pyramid style, heirachical social structures like government, corporations, and the military have compartmentalization and 'need to know' systems of operation and only a very small handful at the top ever know the whole truth of anything that goes on. The teller at the bank doesn't have a clue what the CEO and his cohorts are planning for the bank any more than the mechanic working on a jet engine for NASA or a private in the army being told to go fight over here or there knows about how, or to what end, their actions are really contributing.
> 
> ...


At the height of the program, over 400,000 people were employed directly and indirectly by NASA. That's a lot of people to keep in the dark.


----------



## bluesmostly (Feb 10, 2006)

That is right on according to some people who declare the moon may be a fake! Not a planetary body but an artificially created, hollow satelite. placed in orbit, for some nefarious reason no doubt, by other beings...:banana:

you guys have to check this out:

Who Parked Our Moon? | Disinformation


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

A lot of the "fake moon landing" suspiciousness was really prompted by this sci-fi-politico thriller from 1977, starring James Brolin and Elliot Gould: Capricorn One (1977) - IMDb

One more in a long line of films that play upon public mistrust of government, and at the same time further entrench it by blurring the lines. Pretty good thriller, though if you ask me, they opted out what would have been THE most interesting aspect: explaining things* after *the secret is found out. Still, worth watching if it shows up on TV or in the dark recesses of your video outlet. By now I imagine you can find it through BitTorrent.

But it raises the pressing question: Was the "fake moon landing" movement itself....faked?

Whoops, forgot to add the dramatic music: DA-da-da-DAAAAHHH


----------



## bluesmostly (Feb 10, 2006)

mhammer said:


> But it raises the pressing question: Was the "fake moon landing" movement itself....faked?


That really is a good question, esp when you consider the further questions and implications _that _raises.


----------



## bluesmostly (Feb 10, 2006)

allthumbs56 said:


> At the height of the program, over 400,000 people were employed directly and indirectly by NASA. That's a lot of people to keep in the dark.


compartementalization. Only a small handful at the top of the pyramid, no matter how big the pyramid is, know the whole story of any large scale operation. Whether it be military operation, government or corporate. 

Each department is full of workers who do their job. They are not necesarily aware of what their colleagues are up to, esp in other departments. Each department has a 'manager' who oversees that department and knows more than any one person they manage but very little about other managers positions, and is in turn managed by a higher level controller who knows more about how it all fits together and on up it goes to the top. 

Everyone that I know who works for the government, military, or a large corporation fits into this paradigm. Not too hard to control I don't imagine. 

was the moon landing faked? beats me.


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

bluesmostly said:


> compartementalization. Only a small handful at the top of the pyramid, no matter how big the pyramid is, know the whole story of any large scale operation. Whether it be military operation, government or corporate.
> 
> Each department is full of workers who do their job. They are not necesarily aware of what their colleagues are up to, esp in other departments. Each department has a 'manager' who oversees that department and knows more than any one person they manage but very little about other managers positions, and is in turn managed by a higher level controller who knows more about how it all fits together and on up it goes to the top.
> 
> ...


Can't buy it in this case. Thousands were on hand to watch a rocket go up in the air, and a landing module crashed in the ocean some days later. Maybe they rode around in orbit all that time but don't you think the Soviets would have called them on it?

And who faked the samples and millions of reams of data that was analysed for years afterward by thousands of scientists. And don't you think one of the astronauts involved would have cracked after spending a life visiting schools telling such unheroic lies to little children?

Far harder to fake than accomplish.


----------



## bluesmostly (Feb 10, 2006)

allthumbs56 said:


> Can't buy it in this case. Thousands were on hand to watch a rocket go up in the air, and a landing module crashed in the ocean some days later. Maybe they rode around in orbit all that time but don't you think the Soviets would have called them on it?
> 
> And who faked the samples and millions of reams of data that was analysed for years afterward by thousands of scientists. And don't you think one of the astronauts involved would have cracked after spending a life visiting schools telling such unheroic lies to little children?
> 
> Far harder to fake than accomplish.


You are probably right about all that, I don't know, that was not my point.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

allthumbs56 said:


> Far harder to fake than accomplish.


Man, I wish I had said that! :bow:


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

bluesmostly said:


> compartementalization. Only a small handful at the top of the pyramid, no matter how big the pyramid is, know the whole story of any large scale operation. Whether it be military operation, government or corporate.
> 
> Each department is full of workers who do their job. They are not necesarily aware of what their colleagues are up to, esp in other departments. Each department has a 'manager' who oversees that department and knows more than any one person they manage but very little about other managers positions, and is in turn managed by a higher level controller who knows more about how it all fits together and on up it goes to the top.
> 
> ...


That maybe how government or bureaucratic business works, but not research and development where everyone in the project HAS to know all the particulars of everything and what everyone else is working on. The Moon landing was a research and design project, not a CSIS project........


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

mhammer said:


> Man, I wish I had said that! :bow:


You're welcome to it. Perhaps it'll surface in a Federal speech sometime?


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

I'll park it beside another one I heard two months ago. Speaking at a retirement party for a buddy, one of his long-time colleagues said that the honoree "was a strong advocate for evidence-based decision-making, as opposed to decision-based evidence-making".

That one was even better than today's colour Doonesbury where Sarah Palin got compared to one of those people they have on at the start of each American Idol that has this deep-seated belief in their own talent, and has none (self-esteem-enhanced and talent-deprived).


----------



## grumpyoldman (Jan 31, 2010)

Milkman said:


> The moon itself was faked.
> 
> 
> by THIS GUY
> ...





NB_Terry said:


> Is that Pierre McGuire with Carey Price?


Yes, and yes. They both are. Is everyone convinced of that?


----------



## grumpyoldman (Jan 31, 2010)

If the "_we_" in "did _we_ land on the moon or not?" includes all of _us_ in this forum, then I can categorically deny ever having been on the moon. I have been to several places, including Golden Lake (not to say that was odd, or even moon like, and dammitall, it wasn't a large lake of Molson Golden, but I was there. I have also been in Winnipeg in February, and Regina in December, so I know what the winter experience for you is like....brrrrr.), and even Kenora, but I have never been to the moon. So, have "we" been there? No. 

Has mankind been to the moon? Well, maybe. Who _really_ can say for sure? I can't. I have several scrap-books from the late 60's of all the space and moon missions, which admittedly would have been very tough to fake 50 years ago (remember the campy special effects back then), but_ I_ really don't even know for sure. I stayed up late to see that sketchy coverage in 1969 and at the time I was too innocent to question the legitimacy of it - I had just graduated from believing in Rusty and Jerome and the Friendly Giant back then, and was still convinced that the Leafs would regain their championship form following the expansion fiasco of '67.....Forget the Mythbusters show, check out Capricorn One from the 70's - less than a decade removed and already starting to nudge the skeptics into the 'disbelievers' category. May not have been the moon, but who cares? If you can fake a 'space landing', does it really matter where the landing target was?

And, for the record, I have no strong beliefs other than the MAIN one - if I do not take my next breath, I am in trouble.....

I love forums.


----------



## bluesmostly (Feb 10, 2006)

grumpyoldman said:


> If the "_we_" in "did _we_ land on the moon or not?" includes all of _us_ in this forum, then I can categorically deny ever having been on the moon. I have been to several places, including Golden Lake (not to say that was odd, or even moon like, and dammitall, it wasn't a large lake of Molson Golden, but I was there. I have also been in Winnipeg in February, and Regina in December, so I know what the winter experience for you is like....brrrrr.), and even Kenora, but I have never been to the moon. So, have "we" been there? No.
> 
> Has mankind been to the moon? Well, maybe. Who _really_ can say for sure? I can't. I have several scrap-books from the late 60's of all the space and moon missions, which admittedly would have been very tough to fake 50 years ago (remember the campy special effects back then), but_ I_ really don't even know for sure. I stayed up late to see that sketchy coverage in 1969 and at the time I was too innocent to question the legitimacy of it - I had just graduated from believing in Rusty and Jerome and the Friendly Giant back then, and was still convinced that the Leafs would regain their championship form following the expansion fiasco of '67.....Forget the Mythbusters show, check out Capricorn One from the 70's - less than a decade removed and already starting to nudge the skeptics into the 'disbelievers' category. May not have been the moon, but who cares? If you can fake a 'space landing', does it really matter where the landing target was?
> 
> ...


that was good gumpy. I like the last quote. pretty much sums it up for me too.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Rusty and Jerome were gods among hand puppets. I loved the recorder playing and the music in general. Rusty had surprisingly good accordian chops for a rooster.

Also noteable were Casey and Finnegen from Mr Dressup. 

I never did like pokaroo though.

I also have never been on the moon. I sometimes look at it through binoculars and I'm pretty sure it's real, but I can be fooled.


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

grumpyoldman said:


> and was still convinced that the Leafs would regain their championship form following the expansion fiasco of '67.....


I too have never been to the moon, though I was "over the moon" once when it seemed like the Leafs were going to make the playoffs...*that* feeling didn't last.

I wonder if there's any correlation, belief in the moon landing and belief in a higher power...that is, a higher power than the forum administrator.

Peace, Mooh.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Milkman said:


> Rusty and Jerome were gods among hand puppets. I loved the recorder playing and the music in general. Rusty had surprisingly good accordian chops for a rooster.
> 
> Also noteable were Casey and Finnegen from Mr Dressup.
> 
> ...


 There was an exhibit at the Museum of Civilization about 15 years ago that was about puppets. Included in the exhibit were many of the aforementioned puppets, including Polkaroo, and my personal favourite: Uncle Chichemus and Hollyhock. VERY weird to be face to face with something you had only seen on tv in black and white, and learn that they a) actually existed, and b) had colours.

As for Rusty's chops, he was okay, I guess. The ones who* really* rocked out were those two kittens ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDigdsYNA1E&feature=related ). Lemme tell you, a band with those two, Handyman Negri and Johnny Costa from Mister Rogers' Neighbourhood would have rocked supreme.


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

Milkman said:


> .
> 
> I also have never been on the moon. I sometimes look at it through binoculars and I'm pretty sure it's real, but I can be fooled.


When I was a little feller my chum and I made a rocket out of cardboard boxes and flew it to the moon. It didn't take long before the girl across the street proved it was faked. We had to be home by supper anyway..........


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

Friendly in colour! Holy crap!

Peace, Mooh.


----------



## grumpyoldman (Jan 31, 2010)

....but we digress....;-)


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

_Every_ tie I read in this thread, I think of this.[video=youtube;cFBiN9y_bRM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFBiN9y_bRM[/video]


----------

