Moon landing conspiracy theorists - lend me your ears.

[Soopy]

I reckon sheer terror alone might be enough to keep it secret, though there would be lots of rumour swirling around about it. The operation to try and bring it back might be more difficult to cover up!

God how shitfully awful was transformers 3. I actually saw a thread some fuckwit put up saying how it showed that you could fake video of people being on the moon hence the real landings were fake.

I've never seen transformers. I just guessed its like every other franchise movie.. ever.

How many maned missions into space have there been and how could we tell if we had been back to the moon?
I mean there is allot around about the moon landings being a hoax, is it just as ridiculous to think that they've been more times then they say?

[Billzilla]

I've never seen transformers. I just guessed its like every other franchise movie.. ever.

How many maned missions into space have there been and how could we tell if we had been back to the moon?
I mean there is allot around about the moon landings being a hoax, is it just as ridiculous to think that they've been more times then they say?

Again very difficult to hide as you need a seriously big rocket to do that. There's only ever been two built that can do the job - the Saturn V (all accounted for either by use or still sitting here on the ground) or the Russian N1 but every one of those that flew blew-up.
They are so big you just can't hide making them, transporting them, or launching them.

Okay Plan B would be to use smaller rockets and assemble something in orbit, say, launching from the ISS. Again tricky to hide as any bloke with a telescope can see it from the ground so you can't hide stuff like that.

[Soopy]

Again very difficult to hide as you need a seriously big rocket to do that. There's only ever been two built that can do the job - the Saturn V (all accounted for either by use or still sitting here on the ground) or the Russian N1 but every one of those that flew blew-up.
They are so big you just can't hide making them, transporting them, or launching them.

Okay Plan B would be to use smaller rockets and assemble something in orbit, say, launching from the ISS. Again tricky to hide as any bloke with a telescope can see it from the ground so you can't hide stuff like that.

This is true.
But then If I was a tin hat man. I guess I could argue, would they do it with by commonly understood, conventional means?
By which I mean, is it beyond the realms of modern science to make something like that very hard to see to the average punter on the ground?

[Rdyno]

I think there is enough 'WTF' stuff out there for people to feel the very first moon landing/walk was faked.

There was a 10 minute clip where they are orbiting earth discussing with Houston how to make the Earth look like it's miles away. Using cutouts over the window raises an eyebrow.

The fact that many test modules exploded either landing or taking off from the moon yet when a human was on board it went flawlessly including all camera/video footage perfected. If you watch the Tour De France live on tv you'll see it break up all the time 42yrs later and only 15,000kms away from Sydney.

Lets assume it's all true. You would have to recognise this to be the biggest 'lucky streak' in history to have not a single thing go wrong.





Besides, there are so many lies out there from the Govt, business and institutions, i don't think there is any reason why people should take things on face value. Hell, how long has the sunblock lie gone on for now and still people are oblivious and wonder why they get skin cancer.

the reason why the moon landing had good video is there would have been a pref link to earth plus it dident have to bend around the surface of a planet to get there

i bet you dident know the army can link to any network any where in the world at many times the speed you or i can connect at australia pays satilite fees to do this and only armed forces can acsess these links of course permission for the sign man to do so would have to come from higher up in the army

[poid]

This is true.
But then If I was a tin hat man. I guess I could argue, would they do it with by commonly understood, conventional means?
By which I mean, is it beyond the realms of modern science to make something like that very hard to see to the average punter on the ground?

i'm sure you can think of something. Actually lets have a bit of fun!

If you had a craft that was effectively a blackbody it would be very difficult to see from Earth, but even that would need to be assembled piecemeal (too heavy to launch in one piece) and away from the ISS (would be a bit sus if bits of the ISS were suddenly not visible cos the craft cast shadows over it, or came between the Earth and ISS).

There would be enough launches of military hardware (ie spy satellites) to hide the component bits being sent up.

The tricky bit would be assembling the thing. Its pretty hard; shuttle missions have lots of video and the payloads are usually not hidden that well. There havent been any other craft that could do assembly work up there (ie at least the shuttle has the robot arm). If i was a real tin-foiler i'd use the conspiracy that there is a secret space station of some such to explain assembly; thats pretty much the lengths you have to go to unless someone else has some other ideas?

[Soopy]

i'm sure you can think of something. Actually lets have a bit of fun!

If you had a craft that was effectively a blackbody it would be very difficult to see from Earth, but even that would need to be assembled piecemeal (too heavy to launch in one piece) and away from the ISS (would be a bit sus if bits of the ISS were suddenly not visible cos the craft cast shadows over it, or came between the Earth and ISS).

There would be enough launches of military hardware (ie spy satellites) to hide the component bits being sent up.

The tricky bit would be assembling the thing. Its pretty hard; shuttle missions have lots of video and the payloads are usually not hidden that well. There havent been any other craft that could do assembly work up there (ie at least the shuttle has the robot arm). If i was a real tin-foiler i'd use the conspiracy that there is a secret space station of some such to explain assembly; thats pretty much the lengths you have to go to unless someone else has some other ideas?

Wouldn't it be easier to dismiss a shadow over the ISS as a photographic abnormality or blame some space junk, rather then immediately jump to conclusions such as secret space craft?

[Sturmovik]

Overall there was as many as 300,000 people who worked directly and indirectly on the Apollo program, and never has anyone of those people come out with anything resembling talk of a conspiracy. Think about all the contractors who made parts for the spacecraft and associated systems.... NASA actually made very little.
Somewhere along the line someone would have come out an said something. Large percentage of them wernt Government employees, they were just regular blue collar people. Think about how hard it is to keep a secret at your work.

[Tirlista]

the reason why the moon landing had good video is there would have been a pref link to earth plus it dident have to bend around the surface of a planet to get there

i bet you dident know the army can link to any network any where in the world at many times the speed you or i can connect at australia pays satilite fees to do this and only armed forces can acsess these links of course permission for the sign man to do so would have to come from higher up in the army

I like stories. Please tell me more.

[Billzilla]

i bet you dident know the army can link to any network any where in the world at many times the speed you or i can connect at australia pays satilite fees to do this and only armed forces can acsess these links of course permission for the sign man to do so would have to come from higher up in the army

Bet they can't link to the Vodafone network.

[Soopy]

Bet they can't link to the Vodafone network.

Vodafone customers can't link to the fucking Vodafone network.

[Evil Roy Burton]

Getting back to the Moon landings...



Bullshit there was no problems. As soon as the Eagle un-docked from Columbia there was immediate transmisson problems. Misson Control was constantly getting Collins to rotate the C/SM to reposition the high-gain antenna to regain telemetry and comms.

As Armstrong and Aldrin got closer to the surface in the Eagle, the ground radar started to kick in and this sent the computer retarded. First it threw up a '1202' alarm and you can hear Guidance on the Misson Control Comms call this out. Their computer restarted and then they got another alarm. This time it was a '1201'.
Eventually it was figured that both alarms refer to when the computer (which had about the same computing power as a modern digital watch) has so many tasks lined up and it can't get through them all, it starts to dump the jobs with the lowest priorty.
This prompted another computer restart, but by this time Armstrong had already taken manual control. This is the infamous 'flying over a boulder field' part. The guidance computer had taken them to a terrible landing site covered in boulders and craters. With Armstrong guiding the Eagle under manual control, flying level over the surface of the moon, their fuel in the descent stage was rapidly running out. In the audio you can hear Cap-Com Charlie Duke call out "Eagle. 60 Seconds." This means they had 60 seconds worth of fuel remaining. Infact as the Eagle starts to kick up dust you hear Duke call out "30 Seconds." When the Eagle finally touched down, the descent stage had only 10 seconds worth of fuel left. The first manned moon landing was just 10 short seconds away from an abort.
I won't even start on how they couldn't get the door open after depressurising the Eagle or how Aldrin knocked out a circuit breaker climbing back in which was the circuit breaker associated with firing the ascent stage (he had to use a pen to fire the engine).

That's an excellent summary, but could I add my 2c worth?

The computer problems weren't caused by the landing radar, but the rendezvous radar. A late checklist change called for it to be switched on, ready in case of an abort, but it was overloading the computer.

Armstrong didn't land in manual mode; he landed in a semi-manual mode. Let me explain...

If you listen to the landing / read the transcripts, you'll hear them talking about going into "P" and some numbers (e.g. P63). That stands for Program and is designed to conduct a certain portion of the landing. On descent, the computer would switch from program to program automatically, unless it was told differently.

P64 was the final approach, after which it would go into the landing program. If the crew did nothing, the computer (called the Primary Guidance and Navigation System, or PGNS - pronounced 'pings') would switch to P65, a fully automatic landing of the LM.

No self-respecting pilot would ever let a computer land the LM for them though, and every single commander switched into P66: the semi-manual mode. In this mode there were four options:

• The computer controls both vertical speed as set by the crew and nulls the horizontal speed,
• The computer controls only vertical speed as set by the crew, while the crew selects the attitude with the hand controls, to null the horizontal speed,
• The crew controls the throttle of the engine to control the descent rate, while the computer nulls the horizontal speed,
• The crew controls both the engine throttling and the attitude, and thereby lands the LM themselves. This is only practical for the two crewmembers at the same time.

Everyone used the second option, where they "beeped" a switch to decrease or increase the rate of descent and used the hand controller to move forward (horizontal velocity). You can hear Aldrin telling Armstrong what's happening:

"Four (feet per second) forward, four forward, down two and a half (feet per second)..."

The last program they could use was from P64 to P67 - a full manual landing where the computer did nothing and they had total manual control. No-one ever did that.

Lastly, I'm glad you pointed out that the "seconds remaining" of fuel was to a mandatory abort, not to tank dry. In fact, post flight analysis showed they probably had about 30 more seconds of fuel than they thought.

Anyway, again: well done for an excellent summary.

[Billzilla]

Thanks ERB, glad to see you here.

Guys, ERB knows more stuff about the Apollo and other space missions than all of us put together. He's also a 9/11 expert.
He's also military, so don't give him too much shit or he'll call in an airstrike on your house.

[Evil Roy Burton]

here is a sequence of photos from NASA direct
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/ap.../?AS11-40-5897
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/ap.../?AS11-40-5898
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/ap.../?AS11-40-5899

See how it gets better and better? as he changes the settings obviously, this is a 3 sequence shot, artificial light is introduced as aperture is not changed and you'd need at least a second exposure to get that photo! go try and take a 1sec exposure and make it that sharp with no tripod.... fuck ... unless you're robocop or something it's impossible

also in the last photo on the left of the plaque an object (white) is removed completely....Just look, it's there in the first 2 photos and missing in the 3rd

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/ap...11/40/5873.jpg
watch it zoomed and have a look at his visor now you can see Neil and Buzz and 2 other people ... wait what?

Here is Aldrin getting out of the capsule .....
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/ap...11/40/5866.jpg

Now please keep in mind the colour of his boots they are blue and now look at the rest of the pictures with him
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/ap...11/40/5947.jpg The are grey now ... just look at more pic's of his boots during the Appolo 11 mission and see them changing colours.

Of course all this is due to NASA photochopping the photos so they look better to us right? and obviously Aldrin changed his space suit .... look at his visor and zoom in or should i say look at the full jpg .... in some it don't make sense, in some he has his hand fully extended yet in the visor he has his arm bent.... on the Moon light bends differently thou so it's all good, a straight stick looks like triangular stick, it's all because on the Moon everything is different....right!


The more you look at Appolo 11 photos the more you realise just how bad they were at faking stuff in the 60's

Apart from using low resolution images for your analysis, do you know what exposure settings were used? F stop and shutter? Can you tell me that? What was the film speed and type? Do you know that?

If you search for the answers to those questions, you'll get your answers regarding how they took such photos, and why they are NOT faked.

BTW - it seems like you've been looking at the Jack White claims regarding the photography. The guy is an idiot. His claims have been comprehensively demolished. The "boot colour change" is just one of his mistakes (there are mountains more).

[Evil Roy Burton]

Bill already said about the lunar rover being 'parked' a certain distance away to film the lift off. You think they didn't say to the astronauts "stay about 10 meters away from the other guy when taking photos".

Fark, it's not rocket science

Yep, not only did they practise for ages before the missions, but they had checklists to tell them settings for specific photography:

[Chong]

Apart from using low resolution images for your analysis, do you know what exposure settings were used? F stop and shutter? Can you tell me that? What was the film speed and type? Do you know that?

Yes he knows, F2.8 or something and 1 second exposures, apparently its really dark on the moon, makes sense with all that dark space ......how he knows? He wont explain