Chris Bergin - 16/4/2008 10:21 AM
Specific to the thread title, I think Buzz Aldrin "said" it best:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOo6aHSY8hU
Gene DiGennaro - 16/4/2008 10:04 AM
Is it that it was so long in the past? Or is it that today's public is accustomed to hearing the mainstream media constant negativity regarding human spaceflight which leads them to believe that NASA couldn't do it, but had to fake it?
iamlucky13 - 16/4/2008 12:43 PM
The funny thing is, the number of people out there who deny the lunar landings seems to be roughly equal to the number of people who think NASA is hiding images of the alien bases on the far side of the moon. We should get those two groups in a room sometime and see what happens.
iamlucky13 - 16/4/2008 9:43 AM
The funny thing is, the number of people out there who deny the lunar landings seems to be roughly equal to the number of people who think NASA is hiding images of the alien bases on the far side of the moon. We should get those two groups in a room sometime and see what happens.
PhalanxTX - 16/4/2008 2:57 PM
People like conspiracy theories because they like certainty and they like the notion that they've figured something out that the "others" just don't get. I just think they're amusing.
mojo - 16/4/2008 5:07 PM
So Patchouli, how many dinosaurs can you fit in a CEV? If you're selling space exploration as a means to saving the human population, you better make that a pretty big lifeboat.
Seriously, the "we must populate space in order for the human race to survive" crowd sounds a lot to me like the UFO/moon landing hoax bunch.
Patchouli - 16/4/2008 3:41 PM
Also the movie Capricorn One didn't help and I think is the origin of the urban legend that Apollo was faked
brahmanknight - 16/4/2008 10:27 AM
This is funny. I asked a similar question on a sports website lately ( How do you feel about human spaceflight ). But someone broached the "Moon landing was a hoax" question as a joke. One guy did say he thought it was a hoax seriously. When asked why, he said he didn't think we had the technology then. He said we have problems with the technology we have now, so how could we have possibly gotten to the moon? So I guess that is one reason people think that way.
Link....http://ucf.rivals.com/showmsg.asp?fid=1549&tid=112358529&mid=112358529&sid=908&style=2
Dana - 17/4/2008 7:30 PMQuotebrahmanknight - 16/4/2008 10:27 AM
This is funny. I asked a similar question on a sports website lately ( How do you feel about human spaceflight ). But someone broached the "Moon landing was a hoax" question as a joke. One guy did say he thought it was a hoax seriously. When asked why, he said he didn't think we had the technology then. He said we have problems with the technology we have now, so how could we have possibly gotten to the moon? So I guess that is one reason people think that way.
Link....http://ucf.rivals.com/showmsg.asp?fid=1549&tid=112358529&mid=112358529&sid=908&style=2
They usually bring up the computer-memory thing. Nobody has ever been able to explain to me why such a high level of technology would have been needed when you had two-way communication with Mission Control and three experienced pilots aboard.
The fact is most of these conspiracy theorists just aren't the brightest crayons in the box.
Granted, Apollo's computers were *really* memory-limited. The AGC had 36K 15-bit words of fixed memory, 2K of erasable memory while the AEA had 2K 18-bit words of fixed memory, 2K erasable. But the software was written *really* tightly, mostly in assembly language, and MIT and TRW threw a *lot* of clever people at it. You can really accomplish a lot with a little memory if you make every bit count.
Vacuum.Head - 17/4/2008 6:23 PM
No need to wait for LRO
http://wms.selene.jaxa.jp/index_e.html
take a look at the Apollo 11 site (click image to enlarge)
disturbed regolith?
Andrewwski - 16/4/2008 11:49 AM
How many people actually believe this? I'd guess very few. Because for all they know, the CIA killed JFK, the White House was behind 9/11, Elvis is alive, and Paul McCartney is dead.
j2_ - 17/4/2008 10:23 PMQuoteAndrewwski - 16/4/2008 11:49 AM
How many people actually believe this? I'd guess very few. Because for all they know, the CIA killed JFK, the White House was behind 9/11, Elvis is alive, and Paul McCartney is dead.
There is scientific proof that Elvis is dead, Paul McCartney is still alive, and that NASA did indeed land on the moon 9 times...
Jorge - 17/4/2008 6:09 PM
Being experienced pilots didn't help the Apollo crews with the computers - they needed a lot of training to operate the primitive user interfaces of the AGC and AEA. (The AEA in particular - the user interface was a keypad with two numerical LED displays to allow the crew to "peek" and "poke" memory locations directly.)
j2_ - 17/4/2008 11:23 PMQuoteAndrewwski - 16/4/2008 11:49 AM
How many people actually believe this? I'd guess very few. Because for all they know, the CIA killed JFK, the White House was behind 9/11, Elvis is alive, and Paul McCartney is dead.
There is scientific proof that Elvis is dead, Paul McCartney is still alive, and that NASA did indeed land on the moon 9 times...
It is a belief in some religions that man can't leave the Earth
Jorge - 18/4/2008 3:09 AM
Granted, Apollo's computers were *really* memory-limited. The AGC had 36K 15-bit words of fixed memory, 2K of erasable memory while the AEA had 2K 18-bit words of fixed memory, 2K erasable. But the software was written *really* tightly, mostly in assembly language, and MIT and TRW threw a *lot* of clever people at it. You can really accomplish a lot with a little memory if you make every bit count.
HIPAR - 17/4/2008 5:51 PM
Why did the Russians go along with the scam?
--- CHAS
Vacuum.Head - 17/4/2008 7:37 PM
(Warning Wikifact) 4.2 m Decent stage LM
Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera
0.5 metres/pixel
http://www.msss.com/lro/lroc/index.html
so ~ 8x8 pixels Hmmm!
and the flag's gonna be tricky...
Gene DiGennaro - 18/4/2008 3:16 PM
The response I have gotten from some young people is that large government agencies can never do anything right.
rsp1202 - 18/4/2008 3:40 PMQuoteVacuum.Head - 17/4/2008 7:37 PM
(Warning Wikifact) 4.2 m Decent stage LM
Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera
0.5 metres/pixel
http://www.msss.com/lro/lroc/index.html
so ~ 8x8 pixels Hmmm!
and the flag's gonna be tricky...
LRO should resolve somewhat better than MRO due to lower orbit and no atmosphere, and MRO can see:
http://www.planetary.org/news/2006/1205_Mars_Reconnaissance_Orbiters_HiRISE.html
Svetoslav - 18/4/2008 10:17 AM
I have several of the articles of Phil Plait translated into Bulgarian. Actually, when you give them all that proof they just say: "Probably the LM was flown unmanned", "The rocks have been brought back in a similar way the Russian did".
Chris Bergin - 16/4/2008 11:21 AM
It's the dark and dumb side of human nature, with a large dose of ignorance and lack of intelligence.
Same as those idiots that can't comprehend that 9/11 was as it happened, so fabricate a conspiracy as a form of self delusion, without realizing how incredibly insulting it is to the brave men and women that had to deal with the consequences of the tragedy, and those lost as a result.
Specific to the thread title, I think Buzz Aldrin "said" it best:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOo6aHSY8hU
cpcjr - 18/4/2008 5:53 PMQuoteSvetoslav - 18/4/2008 10:17 AMIf that's the case then why could they not just send the guys along with it and do it for real?
I have several of the articles of Phil Plait translated into Bulgarian. Actually, when you give them all that proof they just say: "Probably the LM was flown unmanned", "The rocks have been brought back in a similar way the Russian did".
Svetoslav - 18/4/2008 10:05 AM
Because nobody has been there since 1972. The big question should be: "Why don't we visit the Moon today?"
haywoodfloyd - 19/4/2008 3:39 AM Actually I don't believe that Apollo Moon Landing hoaxers (a real word?) actually exist. I think it's a hoax. They cannot prove to me that they actually exist. They try but I don't believe them.
You may be kidding right now, but they exist. Trust me on this. Even here in New Zealand I get them all the time when I do public lectures on Space current affairs or history. On two occasions I have nearly come to blows with people. Now, I'm trying to explain calmly and rationally that they are wrong, but the agitators just get angrier and angrier. There was a reasonably famous case here in 2007 of a high-school teacher being fired for constantly barraging her students with conspiracy theories -- she was a Holocaust Denier, Moonlanding Hoaxer, 911 denier etc and was ranting on about how the invasion of Iraq would be stitched up with 'planted' WMDs by those 'evil Americans'. Of course, that didn't happen...
Link(s) to story about her: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/topic/story.cfm?c_id=337&objectid=10424528
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2007/02/teaching_conspiracies.html
One of this nut's poor students approached my wife and I at a public event for help. I provided him with my standard 'Moon Hoax' debunking fact sheets -- some of the info culled from Phil Plait's 'Bad Astronomy' -- and my wife's school e-mail address (she's a school librarian) and told him to extend my offer of a lecture and/or debate to this lady. Days later, he e-mailed us about how she'd literally thrown the material back in his face and hissed at him to sit down!!
One of these days, I really hope I don't lose it with these baboons and hit them. If I ever meet the idiots who produced that Fox Documentary, I'll punch them in the gut for the inconvenience and stress they've caused me. I've resisted talking about until now, because it's quite stressful to me. People aren't being taught history or science, anymore. They think science is now all about home computers and Global Warming.
However, I'm learning to deal with it and let it go... A little. No, really I am... ;)
Orbiter - 19/4/2008 9:41 AMI suspect the majority of people who say they think it might be faked haven't actually thought about it much. They just saw some video or book that strung together some plausible sounding (if you don't know the details) objections to the official story, and some supposed experts backing them up. Combine that with an existing disposition to reject the establishment, and it's not hard to think "wow there's something really fishy there, maybe they are fake"
Few Reasons why they think its fake.
1) They have no scientific background at all, so they belive its fake without knowing the facts.
2) They don't ever listen to reason
3) If its a Historical thing (9/11, Holocost, ect) They belive its fake.
4) They have nothing better to do.
Oersted - 19/4/2008 7:38 PM
What nobody in this thread has mentioned is, I think, the most important factor in the perpetuation of the moon hoax theories. It simply is economically advantageous to some people.
Very few things happen in this world without making economical sense, one way or the other. The moon hoax theories definitely make sense. Economic sense, that is. Lots of people stake out a career on continuing the myth, retelling it, selling books about it, appearing in dubious revelatory TV documentaries about it, etc, etc. There is a whole sub-economy involved in the moon hoax industry which tricks money out of gullible people.
The moon hoax perpetuation is part of a sorry industry that earns LOTS of money for some people who couldn't care less about the veracity of their products, just like the good old snake-oil salesmen of the past. The hoax makes economic sense, and that's the main reason why it will continue forever.
Rusty_Barton - 16/4/2008 11:40 AM
Just watch Jay Leno's "Jaywalking", where he asks simple questions of the man on the street. The answers are embarrassing. It's scary that people like this are allowed to drive, vote and reproduce.
Chris_Bergman - 16/4/2008 11:21 AM
Specific to the thread title, I think Buzz Aldrin "said" it best
Rusty_Barton - 16/4/2008 5:40 PM
Just watch Jay Leno's "Jaywalking", where he asks simple questions of the man on the street. The answers are embarrassing. It's scary that people like this are allowed to drive, vote and reproduce.
William Barton - 16/4/2008 6:17 PM
I'll say what I always say in these matters: We live in a world where the majority of human beings believe the universe was built and is operated by one or more supernatural beings.
janmb - 25/4/2008 10:57 AMQuoteWilliam Barton - 16/4/2008 6:17 PM
I'll say what I always say in these matters: We live in a world where the majority of human beings believe the universe was built and is operated by one or more supernatural beings.
Fortunately, I doubt this is really the case.
A majority may be registered as religious, but a lot less actually believe.
Jorge - 18/4/2008 2:09 AM
Granted, Apollo's computers were *really* memory-limited. The AGC had 36K 15-bit words of fixed memory, 2K of erasable memory while the AEA had 2K 18-bit words of fixed memory, 2K erasable. But the software was written *really* tightly, mostly in assembly language, and MIT and TRW threw a *lot* of clever people at it. You can really accomplish a lot with a little memory if you make every bit count.
janmb - 25/4/2008 2:27 AMQuoteJorge - 18/4/2008 2:09 AM
Granted, Apollo's computers were *really* memory-limited. The AGC had 36K 15-bit words of fixed memory, 2K of erasable memory while the AEA had 2K 18-bit words of fixed memory, 2K erasable. But the software was written *really* tightly, mostly in assembly language, and MIT and TRW threw a *lot* of clever people at it. You can really accomplish a lot with a little memory if you make every bit count.
True.
In addition to this, most people have a very inflated idea of the complexity of the tasks handled by the apollo computers.
Navigating in space, which may sound like a huge, impressive task to a layman, isn't necessarily a very computer heavy problem. While the calculations may be heavy, the data you are working on are very definite indeed. There are only so many positions and kinetics that apply to this problem.
Analyst - 25/4/2008 5:03 AMQuotejanmb - 25/4/2008 10:57 AMQuoteWilliam Barton - 16/4/2008 6:17 PM
I'll say what I always say in these matters: We live in a world where the majority of human beings believe the universe was built and is operated by one or more supernatural beings.
Fortunately, I doubt this is really the case.
A majority may be registered as religious, but a lot less actually believe.
We shouldn't start talking about religion. Always gets muddy pretty fast.
Analyst
Analyst - 25/4/2008 5:03 AMQuotejanmb - 25/4/2008 10:57 AMQuoteWilliam Barton - 16/4/2008 6:17 PM
I'll say what I always say in these matters: We live in a world where the majority of human beings believe the universe was built and is operated by one or more supernatural beings.
Fortunately, I doubt this is really the case.
A majority may be registered as religious, but a lot less actually believe.
We shouldn't start talking about religion. Always gets muddy pretty fast.
Analyst
Hoonte - 20/5/2008 5:46 AMThere's no point in trying to sway the hardcore kooks. However, I don't think the average hoax believer is a hardcore kook. Most of them are just people who saw a "documentary" or website, were predisposed to accept it by their personal beliefs, and didn't bother looking at other sources of evidence.
I really don't see why to convince the hoax believers. I think the average hoax believer will not change their minds what ever I say. And does it really matter.. I know wat is true, trying to convince somebody doesn't make it any more true. So if somebody believes it is fake. fine.. If he wants to 'spread the word', fine..
Jorge - 18/4/2008 1:09 AM
Granted, Apollo's computers were *really* memory-limited. The AGC had 36K 15-bit words of fixed memory, 2K of erasable memory while the AEA had 2K 18-bit words of fixed memory, 2K erasable. But the software was written *really* tightly, mostly in assembly language, and MIT and TRW threw a *lot* of clever people at it. You can really accomplish a lot with a little memory if you make every bit count.
Being experienced pilots didn't help the Apollo crews with the computers - they needed a lot of training to operate the primitive user interfaces of the AGC and AEA. (The AEA in particular - the user interface was a keypad with two numerical LED displays to allow the crew to "peek" and "poke" memory locations directly.)
And as you say, MCC played a big role. Due to those same memory limitations, the AGC had no capability for targeting translunar midcourse burns, the LOI burn, or the TEI burn - those were all computed on the ground.
So like you, I really can't see how they can claim it couldn't have been done - especially when the software design documents and the actual source code are all out there on the web so people can see how it *was* done.
kneecaps - 21/5/2008 2:39 PMQuoteJorge - 18/4/2008 1:09 AM
Granted, Apollo's computers were *really* memory-limited. The AGC had 36K 15-bit words of fixed memory, 2K of erasable memory while the AEA had 2K 18-bit words of fixed memory, 2K erasable. But the software was written *really* tightly, mostly in assembly language, and MIT and TRW threw a *lot* of clever people at it. You can really accomplish a lot with a little memory if you make every bit count.
The flight software was in my opinion almost a work of art. The depth and breath of function that was implemented in the programs is fantastic. The 'Art' of programming has been lost in today's age of inexpensive storage.
My summary is this. It would have been more difficult to fake the landings that it was to actually make the landings.
The 'Art' of programming has been lost in today's age of inexpensive storage.
My summary is this. It would have been more difficult to fake the landings that it was to actually make the landings.
I think this is the most important point that is missed by the hoaxers.
I think this video of Apollo 11s reentry also is good proof that it wasn't faked.
esp compare it to a Gemini 9a and space shuttle LEO reentry.
Also remember the shuttle is 20x heavier then the Apollo command module.
You can see the plasma trail is a lot brighter in the lunar reentry showing they are coming in faster.
My summary is this. It would have been more difficult to fake the landings that it was to actually make the landings.
I think this is the most important point that is missed by the hoaxers.
That and the Fact the Other player, the USSR did not call foul..
But we forget that whole conspiracy theory, has mad a lot of money for some.. and we know that money drives a lot of things in our society..
Gene
About half way between Buzz and the flag look a little above half way from the horizon to the edge of the frame. There's a fairly bright point of light there. The streak goes up and to the left from that point. It's not very visible but I can see it with both of my computers. I don't think it's a star or a reflection in the camera optics .. almost looks like a comet. ;D
There might be several stars in the photo. One is quite visible above the flag staff and another at the extreme upper right almost off the frame.
--- CHAS
"The Marshall Space Flight Center hosted the Mythbusters television show. The Mythbusters chose Marshall as one of several NASA locations for an episode to debunk the notion that NASA never landed on the moon. The cast conducted tests involving a feather, a weight, a lunar soil boot print, and a flag in a vacuum. A team of Marshall scientists helped with the tests."According to the Mythbusters' wikipedia page the episode will air in august 2008
I didn't see it mentioned on this thread, apparently the Mythbusters are going to debunk this...
http://youtube.com/watch?v=9wfE6k-35s8
"This Week at NASA", NASA TV, February 8, 2008Quote"The Marshall Space Flight Center hosted the Mythbusters television show. The Mythbusters chose Marshall as one of several NASA locations for an episode to debunk the notion that NASA never landed on the moon. The cast conducted tests involving a feather, a weight, a lunar soil boot print, and a flag in a vacuum. A team of Marshall scientists helped with the tests."According to the Mythbusters' wikipedia page the episode will air in august 2008
I have a feeling the feather has something to do in reference to Apollo 15.
I have a feeling the feather has something to do in reference to Apollo 15.
Whenever I'm confronted with a hoaxer I make them watch Dave Scott's experiment and challenge them to replicate it on Earth.
Of course they always babble on about "special effects" or "the feather was weighted with lead" or "it was on strings" or some other bunk just so they can continue their lives in the blissful ignorance that they're "smarter" than everyone else.
But it did change the mind of one hoaxer who believed the silly "documentaries" because they're all she'd ever really seen. Once she saw this video she started borrowing all my books and videos and is now just as much of a space geek as I am.
Whenever I'm confronted with a hoaxer I make them watch Dave Scott's experiment and challenge them to replicate it on Earth.
...
Whenever I'm confronted with a hoaxer I make them watch Dave Scott's experiment and challenge them to replicate it on Earth.
...
I do recall one time seeing an attempt to duplicate it on Earth.
They did get the feather and hamer to fall at about the same rate but there was trick to it. They held the feather perpendicular to the ground, which naturaly reduces its air resitence.
However if you look closly at Dave Scott's experiment he held the feather parallel to the ground which would have maximized its air resitence on Earth.
Some one not whatching closely may not have seen the difference. This is known as a bait and switch tactic.
One could conceivably replicate this effect in the Space Environmental Simulation Laboratory, or similar facility, eliminating any significant air resistance, combined with a 1/6g slow-motion effect. Not that I believe it was done, but just to be prepared for the argument. Of course, if it was done, someone would have proof and would have talked by now.
Nowhere have I ever seen that they claim that the lift-off was faked...i mean, how can you ignore something that big and that loud?
So the lift-off was real.
I have never heard any of them say that the orbit and rendezvous of all the Gemini missions were faked...
And I've never heard any of them say that sitting in an Apollo Capsule for 3 days on the way to the Moon was more difficult than sitting in a Gemini or Apollo capsule orbiting the Earth.
One good question for the hoax crowd would be to ask: What kind of evidence they would consider proof that the Moon landings were real?
I have never heard any of them say that the orbit and rendezvous of all the Gemini missions were faked...
This I see quite oftenly, a lot of conspiracy nuts don't believe we went to space at all. A smaller fraction of that don't believe that there's space at all. ... or a Moon...
One good question for the hoax crowd would be to ask: What kind of evidence they would consider proof that the Moon landings were real?
That's the real problem here, the answer would be that there is no such evidence, of course, because the moon landings are fake obviously... You can't argue with someone who doesn't know how arguing works...
Then what exactly is it that we see in the sky? The existance of the Moon is real easy to prove, just look up in the sky on most clear nights and there it is.
Which would only prove that there is no evidence that would change their mind and thus make any descussion a waste of time.
(...) To the arrogant cynics of today, to the nihilistic young of today, to those who prefer conspiracy theories to history, to those who hate science and math or learning in general, to those of a liberal bent who reject the stunning achievement of the most visionary of goals ever set by a democratic President, to those who simply hate anyone and anything older than them, to those secretly envious because it did not happen in their world, on their watch, in their generation -- perhaps no proof, no words, no evidence is sufficient. (...)
Why did we collectively fail to follow on it? Why, after Apollo, does US manned spaceflight seem to be stagnating? Didn't we give "them" a weapon by failing to establish a Moon base for so many years? By failing to build a sustainable manned spaceflight infrastructure? Isn't $17 billion per year enough?
Apollo was a great success, so naturally, as the next step, we should be able to improve on it. To push the envelope. To go to the next level. But the sad truth is, as a nation, we have failed to out do ourselves. We can't, so far, in principle, improve on the incredible achievement of Apollo. So what do we do? We go back to Apollo.
But how did this happen? I believe that the problem was obviously partly political, partly technical, and partly economic.
First to the economic question, I'm not so sure NASA has received at least $17 billion (in 2008 dollars?) since 1969. I don't have that information and conversion factors. But I suspect there were more than a few lean years. Maybe we need at least that much and maybe a lot more. I think it's worth it.
Politically, JFK got us up to top speed with his Bold Directive, defined as a Space Race as a centerpiece for the Cold War. Then LBJ kept it going, but then there was Richard Milhous Nixon.
Then, within two years, Nixon and a democratic Congress let the ax fall. First, Apollo 18 was cancelled. Then Apollo 19 and 20 were gone. And all that magnificent Apollo momentum was totally gone.
The plan at that time was for Apollo to evolve into a Space-Tug for translunar operations and a Lunar-Shuttle for landings, while nearer to Earth, Skylab was to become the prototype for a Space-Station, to be serviced by a Space Shuttle. Skylab was well along the road and thus survived budget cuts. Of the rest of the bold plan, only some early developmental funding for the Shuttle survived.
Then the technical problems began, as it proved very difficult to develop and maintain a fully re-useable space vehicle. First off came major compromises in the design, cost over-runs and more, delays and more delays.
Then what exactly is it that we see in the sky? The existance of the Moon is real easy to prove, just look up in the sky on most clear nights and there it is.
Yet another alien or governmental (or both) device to fool the public. Of course this is a very extreme form of conspiracy stuff I find really rarely (thank god :)).
Then what exactly is it that we see in the sky? The existance of the Moon is real easy to prove, just look up in the sky on most clear nights and there it is.
Yet another alien or governmental (or both) device to fool the public. Of course this is a very extreme form of conspiracy stuff I find really rarely (thank god :)).
This gives conspiracy nuts a bad name. Its a total denial of reality.
Human nature, do NOT let it get to you.There is always a segment of society that believes strange things because they *want* to believe them, and of course plenty of people happy to exploit that. Simply provide the facts and oppose the nonsense in a calm way. It can get old, but view it as a chance to educate about science and skeptical thinking.
That thought bewilders me because if NASA did fake the moon landings, I am sure the Russians would have loved to provide proof the US never landed on the moon.