The Moon Mission
Discussion
I see now where this Jim character gets it from …
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
I have found this thread quite interesting, but also quite disappointing. I think we could do better than the name calling (on both sides) as it is not convincing.
My view is that to believe the moon landings are not real or the earth is flat is not a lack of intelligence at all, but more a sign of mistrust of authority, which is probably why most that believe one conspiracy hypothesis believe multiple. Equally, those that do know the earth is a sphere or that the moon landings did happen, could very well be low intelligence, but have placed their confidence is the right sources. I would therefore suggest that we stop the name calling, it simply isn't persuasive.
I am no expert in these matters, but I am trusting enough of the multiple sources who are to have formed a firm view that the moon landings did indeed happen. That is not indoctrination, however I can say have considered the possibility that they are faked and reasonably discounted it. To answer the earlier question, if I were to learn they had been faked, then I would be utterly astonished by this, as it is extremely unlikely. It is far more likely that the moon landings happened than that they didn't. Put simply, I do not think the governments of the time (or now) are capable of such near complete deception, and I certainly do not think they would take the more difficult route of faking it.
None of the suggested 'evidence' put forward to show it was faked have stood up to scrutiny thus far, so it takes a commited belief (in spite of evidence) to maintain the view it didn't happen. We should be careful when dealing with such faith, as insulting it doesn't change minds, it entrenches, as faith is part of a person's identity. You cannot easily persuade someone to review their own identity.
To answer the initial question of how 1960's technology got us to the moon (drunken musings or not), I think this has been answered already, but is Newtonian physics that got us there using technology that has been developed over decades and using a huge amount of funding. I don't see this as implausible.
The earth is a spheroid, not flat, as it is an object of large mass. Therefore gravity is applied in all directions on it, and if you apply equal force of someone from every angle you end up with a sphere. It's why every large object (planets, stars, black holes etc) with sufficient mass is a spheroid.
My view is that to believe the moon landings are not real or the earth is flat is not a lack of intelligence at all, but more a sign of mistrust of authority, which is probably why most that believe one conspiracy hypothesis believe multiple. Equally, those that do know the earth is a sphere or that the moon landings did happen, could very well be low intelligence, but have placed their confidence is the right sources. I would therefore suggest that we stop the name calling, it simply isn't persuasive.
I am no expert in these matters, but I am trusting enough of the multiple sources who are to have formed a firm view that the moon landings did indeed happen. That is not indoctrination, however I can say have considered the possibility that they are faked and reasonably discounted it. To answer the earlier question, if I were to learn they had been faked, then I would be utterly astonished by this, as it is extremely unlikely. It is far more likely that the moon landings happened than that they didn't. Put simply, I do not think the governments of the time (or now) are capable of such near complete deception, and I certainly do not think they would take the more difficult route of faking it.
None of the suggested 'evidence' put forward to show it was faked have stood up to scrutiny thus far, so it takes a commited belief (in spite of evidence) to maintain the view it didn't happen. We should be careful when dealing with such faith, as insulting it doesn't change minds, it entrenches, as faith is part of a person's identity. You cannot easily persuade someone to review their own identity.
To answer the initial question of how 1960's technology got us to the moon (drunken musings or not), I think this has been answered already, but is Newtonian physics that got us there using technology that has been developed over decades and using a huge amount of funding. I don't see this as implausible.
The earth is a spheroid, not flat, as it is an object of large mass. Therefore gravity is applied in all directions on it, and if you apply equal force of someone from every angle you end up with a sphere. It's why every large object (planets, stars, black holes etc) with sufficient mass is a spheroid.
MikeM6 said:
I have found this thread quite interesting, but also quite disappointing. I think we could do better than the name calling (on both sides) as it is not convincing.
...
...
I'm with you.
I am open to a good faith discussion about what is or it not true on these things.
The never happens because these threads are always swamped by midwits trying to elevate themselves by calling someone else a "conspiracy theorist".
It is a testament to the power of propaganda - the phrase was literally coined and weaponized by the CIA to marginalize and shame people revealing the truth about their covert ops. It works. People love to feel smarter than someone else. Anyone else.
Now I don't know that we put men on the Moon. I can't prove it either way. Things, sure. We still do that, and sometime they crash on landing even now. Yet 50 years ago we put men there, and we brought them back? With a little car? And since then we have "lost" that technology? Have you seen "that technology"? I think TVR could have built one.
Certainly I don't think believing everything the government says is the Gold Standard proof of high intelligence that some seem to think it is.
These threads would be much more interesting without the condescension and the name calling. It isn't elevating anyone.
grumbledoak said:
<snip>
Now I don't know that we put men on the Moon. I can't prove it either way. Things, sure. We still do that, and sometime they crash on landing even now. Yet 50 years ago we put men there, and we brought them back? With a little car? And since then we have "lost" that technology? Have you seen "that technology"? I think TVR could have built one.
<snip>
Could you answer a couple of questions to clarify some points in your answer please?Now I don't know that we put men on the Moon. I can't prove it either way. Things, sure. We still do that, and sometime they crash on landing even now. Yet 50 years ago we put men there, and we brought them back? With a little car? And since then we have "lost" that technology? Have you seen "that technology"? I think TVR could have built one.
<snip>
You say you’re sure we put things on the moon but don’t know and can’t prove we put men on the moon. What proof is it that you believe that we put things on the moon and how does that proof differ in any material way of the proof offered that we put men on the moon?
You state or question that “since then we have ‘lost’ that technology”. What makes you think the technology is lost? Do you also believe that we have lost the technology to fly passengers at supersonic speed or perhaps even explode nuclear or hydrogen bombs? I draw the comparison as neither have of those things have happened in years yet most people believe the technology still exists; put more simply, do you believe the technology is ‘lost’ simply because something hasn’t been done for a while?
For yourself and others on the thread who disbelieve in the moon landings, where do your beliefs sit with regard to the mars lander, the Saturn probe and perhaps even the Voyager missions? Do you believe the ‘Pale blue dot’ image is real? Do you believe the images from the Hubble and James Webb telescopes are real?
McGee_22 said:
Could you answer a couple of questions to clarify some points in your answer please?
You say you’re sure we put things on the moon but don’t know and can’t prove we put men on the moon. What proof is it that you believe that we put things on the moon and how does that proof differ in any material way of the proof offered that we put men on the moon?
You state or question that “since then we have ‘lost’ that technology”. What makes you think the technology is lost? Do you also believe that we have lost the technology to fly passengers at supersonic speed or perhaps even explode nuclear or hydrogen bombs? I draw the comparison as neither have of those things have happened in years yet most people believe the technology still exists; put more simply, do you believe the technology is ‘lost’ simply because something hasn’t been done for a while?
For yourself and others on the thread who disbelieve in the moon landings, where do your beliefs sit with regard to the mars lander, the Saturn probe and perhaps even the Voyager missions? Do you believe the ‘Pale blue dot’ image is real? Do you believe the images from the Hubble and James Webb telescopes are real?
There is third party evidence of the Apollo landing sites. We placed reflectors on the Moon and people can and do bounce lasers off them to measure distance, images from Chandrayaan show the Apollo site, etcYou say you’re sure we put things on the moon but don’t know and can’t prove we put men on the moon. What proof is it that you believe that we put things on the moon and how does that proof differ in any material way of the proof offered that we put men on the moon?
You state or question that “since then we have ‘lost’ that technology”. What makes you think the technology is lost? Do you also believe that we have lost the technology to fly passengers at supersonic speed or perhaps even explode nuclear or hydrogen bombs? I draw the comparison as neither have of those things have happened in years yet most people believe the technology still exists; put more simply, do you believe the technology is ‘lost’ simply because something hasn’t been done for a while?
For yourself and others on the thread who disbelieve in the moon landings, where do your beliefs sit with regard to the mars lander, the Saturn probe and perhaps even the Voyager missions? Do you believe the ‘Pale blue dot’ image is real? Do you believe the images from the Hubble and James Webb telescopes are real?
I am quite sure that we can put things in orbit, or fling them further.
I do understand why we don't send men now - with no fuel or air there it is a pointless and expensive picnic. It would not be a useful stepping stone to Mars.
But I think there is room for discussion on us putting men there for a pointless little joyride and then taking off again to bring them home fifty years ago.
Time will tell.
grumbledoak said:
There is third party evidence of the Apollo landing sites. We placed reflectors on the Moon and people can and do bounce lasers off them to measure distance, images from Chandrayaan show the Apollo site, etc
I am quite sure that we can put things in orbit, or fling them further.
I do understand why we don't send men now - with no fuel or air there it is a pointless and expensive picnic. It would not be a useful stepping stone to Mars.
But I think there is room for discussion on us putting men there for a pointless little joyride and then taking off again to bring them home fifty years ago.
Time will tell.
I’m a little confused by your two posts - you stated you didn’t know if we put men on the moon but now state there is evidence of the Apollo missions on the moon; so do you or don’t you believe we put men on the moon? I am quite sure that we can put things in orbit, or fling them further.
I do understand why we don't send men now - with no fuel or air there it is a pointless and expensive picnic. It would not be a useful stepping stone to Mars.
But I think there is room for discussion on us putting men there for a pointless little joyride and then taking off again to bring them home fifty years ago.
Time will tell.
What about your statement about the technology being lost? Do you believe the technology to land on the moon is lost? Or not?
grumbledoak said:
There is third party evidence of the Apollo landing sites. We placed reflectors on the Moon and people can and do bounce lasers off them to measure distance, images from Chandrayaan show the Apollo site, etc
I am quite sure that we can put things in orbit, or fling them further.
I do understand why we don't send men now - with no fuel or air there it is a pointless and expensive picnic. It would not be a useful stepping stone to Mars.
But I think there is room for discussion on us putting men there for a pointless little joyride and then taking off again to bring them home fifty years ago.
Time will tell.
So you’re fine with the fact that we’ve landed unmanned probes on the moon and orbited it. What about humans in space- do you acknowledge they’ve been put in orbit (some are there currently)?I am quite sure that we can put things in orbit, or fling them further.
I do understand why we don't send men now - with no fuel or air there it is a pointless and expensive picnic. It would not be a useful stepping stone to Mars.
But I think there is room for discussion on us putting men there for a pointless little joyride and then taking off again to bring them home fifty years ago.
Time will tell.
How about men orbiting the moon, which happened before the landings?
Just interested where your line of skepticism is.
Jim H said:
This thread just keeps giving
I’m still laughing like hell at it.
What started out as a bit of pissed up musing
It’s pulled all and sundry out !
Pistonheads keeps providing
Night gentlemen.
The last resort of someone who's been made to look foolish.I’m still laughing like hell at it.
What started out as a bit of pissed up musing
It’s pulled all and sundry out !
Pistonheads keeps providing
Night gentlemen.
Pretend it was all jolly japes and bantz and those that answered in good faith are the foolish ones.
No-one believes you.
Fusion777 said:
So you’re fine with the fact that we’ve landed unmanned probes on the moon and orbited it. What about humans in space- do you acknowledge they’ve been put in orbit (some are there currently)?
How about men orbiting the moon, which happened before the landings?
Just interested where your line of skepticism is.
Yes, sure, there are people in the ISS.How about men orbiting the moon, which happened before the landings?
Just interested where your line of skepticism is.
My "line of skepticism" is somewhere around the Van Allen belts
grumbledoak said:
Yes, sure, there are people in the ISS.
My "line of skepticism" is somewhere around the Van Allen belts
So which aspect of a manned lunar orbit is hard to believe? You’re happy with unmanned lunar orbits, happy with manned long duration earth orbits…see where I’m going?My "line of skepticism" is somewhere around the Van Allen belts
There were, altogether, 11 manned Apollo missions within the lunar landing programme -
Apollos 7, 8, 9, 10, 11,12,13,14,15,16 and 17.
Of these, Apollos 7 and 9 orbited the earth only. The other 9 missions orbited the moon. Of those, Apollos 11,12,14,15,16 and 17 landed putting 12 men on the surface.
The final three landings allowed the astronauts to stay on the lunar surface for three days.
The missions brought back over 800 pounds of moon rock which has been made available to the scientific community to study - so apart from the 400,000 who worked directly on the programme in period, thousands more from scientific institutions all over the world have had access to the moon rocks brought back by Apollo. These rocks are being studied to this very day and new discoveries are still being made from them.
In addition to the lunar missions, four more manned Apollo flights were made between 1973 and 1975 - three being ferry missions to the Skylab space station and the final Apollo flight being the joint Soviet/American Apollo Soyuz Test Project (ASTP).
Some of the artifacts used by the Apollo lunar missions are still sitting on the surface of the moon and have been observed and photographed by more recent space missions - operated by both NASA and other, non-American space agencies. Some of the Apollo hardware is still in space and has been observed from earth, such as the SIVB upper stage from the Apollo 12 mission which is still orbiting the sun.
The evidence for the missions is absolutely overwhelming and anyone who chooses to doubt them needs to assess their own mental state of mind and not that of the thousands, if not millions, who rightly acknowledge the astounding success of Apollo and what a great achievement it was for mankind.
I agree with space historian James E Oberg who describes those who chose to disbelieve the moon landings as "cultural vandals" - akin to those who take a hammer to a Michelangelo statue or who throws paint over a Rembrandt.
Apollos 7, 8, 9, 10, 11,12,13,14,15,16 and 17.
Of these, Apollos 7 and 9 orbited the earth only. The other 9 missions orbited the moon. Of those, Apollos 11,12,14,15,16 and 17 landed putting 12 men on the surface.
The final three landings allowed the astronauts to stay on the lunar surface for three days.
The missions brought back over 800 pounds of moon rock which has been made available to the scientific community to study - so apart from the 400,000 who worked directly on the programme in period, thousands more from scientific institutions all over the world have had access to the moon rocks brought back by Apollo. These rocks are being studied to this very day and new discoveries are still being made from them.
In addition to the lunar missions, four more manned Apollo flights were made between 1973 and 1975 - three being ferry missions to the Skylab space station and the final Apollo flight being the joint Soviet/American Apollo Soyuz Test Project (ASTP).
Some of the artifacts used by the Apollo lunar missions are still sitting on the surface of the moon and have been observed and photographed by more recent space missions - operated by both NASA and other, non-American space agencies. Some of the Apollo hardware is still in space and has been observed from earth, such as the SIVB upper stage from the Apollo 12 mission which is still orbiting the sun.
The evidence for the missions is absolutely overwhelming and anyone who chooses to doubt them needs to assess their own mental state of mind and not that of the thousands, if not millions, who rightly acknowledge the astounding success of Apollo and what a great achievement it was for mankind.
I agree with space historian James E Oberg who describes those who chose to disbelieve the moon landings as "cultural vandals" - akin to those who take a hammer to a Michelangelo statue or who throws paint over a Rembrandt.
JuanCarlosFandango said:
Eric Mc said:
It was extremely politically INCONVENIENT as even by 1966 the US realised it was costing a huge amount of money and even by then the desire to beat the Soviets in space was far less pressing than it had been in 1961.
And faking any of what was done on these missions at that time would not only have been even more expensive, it would not have been possible.
Anybody who really thinks the Apollo programme was faked is not only an idiot, they are a deluded idiot who doesn’t realise how much of an idiot they really are.
Spoken like a religious zealot. And faking any of what was done on these missions at that time would not only have been even more expensive, it would not have been possible.
Anybody who really thinks the Apollo programme was faked is not only an idiot, they are a deluded idiot who doesn’t realise how much of an idiot they really are.
Look, it happened, there are multiple proofs and if you don't believe it, then to be honest, thats your deluded call and all I can do is pity you.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff