Discussion in 'The Cesspool' started by webprodesign, Jan 6, 2005.
Thats A Fact. Or We Would Be There Now.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
I went to Hawaii once, but I'm not there now.
I went to North Dakota once, but decided that there wasn’t really anything useful or exciting there, and so I haven’t bothered going back.
Yeah, but if you didn't go to the "dark side" of North Dakota, how would you know :bugeyePlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Actually I went in the winter, so it was dark pretty much all the time.
Not even bothering to put this in Pseudoscience, since you don't even bother with a discussion.
Actually, by "dark side" I was thinking more like under Cleetus' porch when he's drunk.
I went to mars once and I am still there.
An antagonistic title such as "We never went to the moon and you know it", followed by a terse post - "That's a Fact. Or we would be there now." - hardly merits a lengthy riposte.
I could take umbrage at your claim (but I wont) that we haven't even bothered with discussion. I think my brief response was well considered and apposite. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I went to Hawaii once, but I'm not there now.
This demonstrated the logical fallacy in webprodesign's argument.
This, matching terseness with brevity, asked for evidence, logic and manners.
To adapt Mark Twain (?), I could have made the reply longer, but I had time to condense it.
Stick to web design
or web 'PRO' design
Since webpro does not want to defend his position I shall. The conventional arguments against a lunar landing revolve, primarily, around inconsistencies in the photographs taken on the lunar surface. These arguments are badly flawed and may be discarded. Far more substantive are political and technical issues, which are consistently overlooked.
These fall into three areas:
Costs were mounting throughout the project. Repeated attempts were made to rein these in, with little success. NASA wished to proceed, at every stage, in a very measured way.
Originally, the Mercury Seven, the first batch of astronauts, were each to make sub-orbital fights atop Redstone rockets. This was reduced to two. Several short, three orbit flights were planned for Mercury.Instead this was rapidly increased to seven orbits, then twenty two. In that last flight the astronaut, Gordon Cooper, basically had to sit doing nothing. There was neither the power nor the propellant to engage in some of the earlier intense experimentation. If he had he would have been unable to orient his craft for re-entry.
The same thing happened with Gemini. The number of flights was reduced. Success was claimed, even when there was near fatal failure. In this regard Gemini VIII is especially instructive. We shall return to it later.
Costs continued to spiral. The government demanded results, but constrained the budget. NASA was forced to cut flights and corners, in an effort to meet those demands.
The consequences of this are seen with the disastrous fire in spacecraft twelve that claimed the lives of three astronauts. The lessons were not learnt: the plan to make a lunar landing on the fifteenth launch of a Saturn V was steadily reduced.
Almost conflicting goals had been set by Kennedy in 1961, “ to land a man on the moon and return him safely to the Earth before the end of the decade..”
To do this safely NASA needed much more development time, many more development flights. They could not do it on the money available. Select, but powerful voices within NASA began to say this in private to those at the top of government.
And government listened. The Vietnam war was escalating. Here was a political option. Defeat communism, symbolically in the space race, or for real in the paddy fields of South East Asia. The country could not afford to do both. It was clear which was more important.
Added to that, this was Kennedy’s program, not Johnson’s. It was true that Johnson had done the leg work that produced a lunar landing as the goal with which too beat the Soviets, but he public saw it as Kennedy’s. Johnson had got what he wanted: an illogically sited MSC in Houston, providing employment for his fellow Texans. He would not be hugely disappointed if the moon had to be abandoned.
Costs and politics, both saying, this cannot be done. Yet there was a third, fatal, problem: other than non-stick frying pans, the oft quoted everyday-benefit of the space race, “we did not have the technology.”
Specifically, (yet only the highlights)
a) Battery reliability problems on the CSM
b) Inadequate fuel load for the LM
c) Stability/control problems with the LM
d) Reservations over the adequacy of the ablative heat shield to withstand the high end temperatures associated with the high velocity return from lunar orbit.
So, by the time the summer of 1967 rolled round NASA had a craft that wouldn’t work; and insufficient time or money to put it right. The President was focused on Vietnam, and had no great love for the project anyway. The Soviets were known to be well behind, with bitter in-fighting between rival groups. But eventually they would get there…… unless: analysis strongly suggested that if the Americans landed first, then the Soviets would simply abandon the attempt.
The faked landings became the obvious solution:
1. The goal is achieved, apparently.
2. Costs are held down.
3. There is little risk of deaths
All circumstantial, but this cover up was meticulously planned and skilfully executed.
Except that if you watch the videos, the dust on the ground, which is kicked up by both the astronauts and their vehicles, does not fall as it would in an atmosphere, nor as it would were they at 1G. Unless the entire film studio was an airtight vacuum with some sort of gravity-reduction system, then the film was taken on another celestial body; most likely the moon, given the color of the dust and the difficulty in going anywhere else.
Not to mentioned Armstrong's reaction to the guy who claimed that the landing was fake. If you are afraid of being caught in a lie by some random guy, you don't knock him out in public, making the scene a national news story.
The Moon Hoax hoax puts forth the following premise: We have traveled in space. Just not to the moon. NASA’s scientists allegedly discovered by 1967 that the meager shielding onboard the Apollo spacecraft would not protect the crews from the “dangerous” radiation of the Van Allen Radiation Belt. As a result Apollo would have to be cancelled and humans in turn would be confined to near earth space for a long time to come. This prompted the boys at NASA to consider faking the lunar flight. All that would be needed would be to launch the crews into earth orbit and keep them there for a few days. Upon their return NASA releases a few doctored pictures, some fuzzy television and movie sequences all in an effort to scam a gullible public and to gain the United States the ultimate in prestige against the Soviet Union.
And the reason I didnt defend myself is:
Some people are programmed like drones, they get violent or they get stupid when they hear something that is against the grain. this is sad, these are the ones who cannot see between the lines and prob never will, these are very closed minded ones.
I have had people get down right pissed off, when they here this idea of not going to the moon. remember getting pissed is another sign of ignorance.
and think of this: If the moon is always in a orbit in whcih we always see the same side, why did we waste so much time and money with a space station in which a man cannot even stand upright due to no gravity?
wouldnt it be smarter to be on the moon - so that we can monitor earth as it spins? and use the moon for other experiments? BUT WE DONT.
Because we never went there! (period)
But such is life... the ones that make jokes are the same ones who trust the media and tv news too..
Thank you Ophiolite -
No, actually it would be more of a sign of frustration.
A good sign of ignorance is making oulandish claims of wide conspriacies based on unsupported hearsay, and unproven claims made by people who perform half-assed assesments.
What I never understood was how so many people will quickly say things such as NASA, the governemnt, the scientists, the thousands of people involved... are all lying and you are a fool to believe them.
Yet will lurch at the opportunity to take the word of any local Yahoo making claims that are spurious at best and offer no real science to back them up.
It will always astound me.
It doesn't matter if there is mounds of solid, supported and corroborated evidence AGAINST the conspiracy, and the Yahoo is going on little more than gut instinct and claims that almost always fall under the slightest bit of scrutiny. The Yahoo must be right!
"LOOKIE THERE! THE FLAG IS WAVING IN THE BREEZE!! HYUH, I TELLED YA!"
And I don't even TRUST the US government!
Questioning everything is a sign of intelligence and an open mind, you are right.
But looking at valid evidence and ignoring it in favor of a wild conspiracy theory or ridiculous supernatural explanation based on the least insignificant thread that was woven, without any real facts, into a tapestry of wonderment...
That mind is not only closed, ignorant and weak, it is bordering on psychotic.
Some of these people really need to get a grip on reality.
I don't blame him one bit.
The son of a bitch told him that this whole career was a farce and a sham.
He accused him of being a liar and swindler.
He accused him of taking advantage of, and essentially stealing from the very people that held him up as a hero.
He outright and openly slandered someone that he didn't know and had no cause for disrespecting.
Someone who led, by most standards, an impeccable and respectful life.
If I was there I would have hit the disrespectful bastard for him.
He deserved it.
He also deserved a slander lawsuit slapped agaisnt him.
if they faked the first landing I wonder why they bothered to send more missions. To be able to fake more landings? So even more people would know about the alledged secret of a fake landing? So that it would be even more impossible to keep it a secret? Or was it because they had paid rent for the studio anyway and they had build the decor. So why not use it?
I know which explanation I would go for.
And riverwind, they should release the antigravity machine they invented to the industry. Imagine what cool rides they could have in Disney world!
[insert sarcasm everywhere]
I saw Uranus and haven't left it yet.
Separate names with a comma.