Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Shotgun!

I think what was brought up about the massive amount of people who would have to be in on a moon landing hoax pretty much makes a moon landing hoax unlikely.

In fairness though, those pictures don't look like anything at all to me, except for two objects that look artificial. As a layman, it is lack of evidence for a cover up rather than any evidence of the moon landing that pretty much sinks the hoax arguments to me. These photos, while amazingly cool, are very low on the proof of a moon landing.


While I'm sure an expert could say more about them, the objects and marks on the photo could be almost anything to me, including crashed unmanned probes.

My stepmother's great-grandmother, who passed away about 15 years ago at the of 97, did not believe that man landed on the moon. Of course, she had been born in the 1890's and remembered when the big news event was the Wright Brothers flight. And, she refused to believe that in less than 60 years, man could go from first flight to a moon landing.

Did she also disbelieve in Sputnik, and Yuri Gagarin and so on?

I'm interested because these space events were fairly easily observable from the ground. if those can be believed it, it no longer seems such a stretch to get to the Moon.

I don't know if she did or not.

I think she was wrong, but I think it was actually some decent logic. Consider that her lifetime spanned riding in a horse and buggy (she predated autos) to man landing on the moon (and actually, the space shuttle too).

It could be worse. Some people don't even believe that Canada actually exists.

I am pretty sure that a lot of people independently tracked the radio signals from the lunar modules to the moon and back.

Either way, I think we landed.

And when I rule the world, I will fund a mission to go back there with a few of the more stupid disbelievers, land next to the original landing site and kick them out the airlock for a closer look.

SilverMK2 wrote:I am pretty sure that a lot of people independently tracked the radio signals from the lunar modules to the moon and back.

Either way, I think we landed.

And when I rule the world, I will fund a mission to go back there with a few of the more stupid disbelievers, land next to the original landing site and kick them out the airlock for a closer look.

Now now, just because they have a belief that most of us find goofy doesn't justify our vituperation.

For the sake of argument, you could fabricate radio transmissions.

Capricorn One! Capricorn One! http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077294/

Grignard wrote:Now now, just because they have a belief that most of us find goofy doesn't justify our vituperation.

For the sake of argument, you could fabricate radio transmissions.

I don't think there is anything particularly goofy about it to be honest. Beliefs such as this are dangerous in the same way that beliefs about scientists creating horrible evil mutant clones are dangerous... they slow or even halt the progress of science that could potentially help a lot of people.

And yes, you could fabricate radio signals.

SilverMK2 wrote:

Grignard wrote:Now now, just because they have a belief that most of us find goofy doesn't justify our vituperation.

For the sake of argument, you could fabricate radio transmissions.

I don't think there is anything particularly goofy about it to be honest. Beliefs such as this are dangerous in the same way that beliefs about scientists creating horrible evil mutant clones are dangerous... they slow or even halt the progress of science that could potentially help a lot of people.

And yes, you could fabricate radio signals.

I really don't think that it is that big of a deal as you think. Do you honestly think these people are going to keep, for instance, a pharmaceutical company from developing a better chemotherapy agent?

Ah, I remember when I was once idealistic and thought the way you do. There isn't really any point to having a "belief" in the "progress of science". We're all going to be just as dead in the end anyhow.

Grignard wrote:

SilverMK2 wrote:I am pretty sure that a lot of people independently tracked the radio signals from the lunar modules to the moon and back.

Either way, I think we landed.

And when I rule the world, I will fund a mission to go back there with a few of the more stupid disbelievers, land next to the original landing site and kick them out the airlock for a closer look.

Now now, just because they have a belief that most of us find goofy doesn't justify our vituperation.

For the sake of argument, you could fabricate radio transmissions.

You can't fabricate triangulation. It's basic geometry.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Grignard wrote:

SilverMK2 wrote:I am pretty sure that a lot of people independently tracked the radio signals from the lunar modules to the moon and back.

Either way, I think we landed.

And when I rule the world, I will fund a mission to go back there with a few of the more stupid disbelievers, land next to the original landing site and kick them out the airlock for a closer look.

Now now, just because they have a belief that most of us find goofy doesn't justify our vituperation.

For the sake of argument, you could fabricate radio transmissions.

You can't fabricate triangulation. It's basic geometry.

I actually thought of that. One could launch an unmanned probe then broadcast the signals from whatever location needed to be consistent with the story.

Kilkrazy wrote:You can't fabricate triangulation. It's basic geometry.

I was meaning more in terms of just sending up a transmitter, rather than the manned mission.

Although with directional broadcasting and messing around with signal strength, you can actually go some way to fooling someone triangulating a signal.

For example, you direct a strong signal in one direction and a weak signal in the other direction, and to anyone triangulating the signal with a reciever on the strong side and one in the weak side, it will look as though the point of origin is far closer to the strong reciever than the weak reciever (while the actual position can be right in the middle).

R-----T=====R

looks like

R--------T--R

That is one very simple way of fooling radio triangulation, although as I said, I was referring more to launching a relay to bounce signals back to earth.

If you can launch a relay into orbit you're in space. Once you're in space, the next step of putting a man in space seems more possible.

Kilkrazy wrote:If you can launch a relay into orbit you're in space. Once you're in space, the next step of putting a man in space seems more possible.

That is one of the reasons that I don't think the moon landings were faked. Why go so far and stop (and risk being uncovered) when with a little bit more effort, you can do it for real.

Kilkrazy wrote:If you can launch a relay into orbit you're in space. Once you're in space, the next step of putting a man in space seems more possible.

Oh, I agree with you, but I just like playing this little game. What I said IS theoretically possible though, no?

For what it is worth though, there is a big difference between crash landing a robot into the moon and putting men safely on the surface, then retrieving them.

Grignard wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:If you can launch a relay into orbit you're in space. Once you're in space, the next step of putting a man in space seems more possible.

Oh, I agree with you, but I just like playing this little game. What I said IS theoretically possible though, no?

For what it is worth though, there is a big difference between crash landing a robot into the moon and putting men safely on the surface, then retrieving them.

I think your idea would work using directional transmissions but not broadcast. It would need fairly accurate steering and compliant ground stations to receive the signals. I'm assuming you would use the recorded signal strength as proof that the craft was in orbit, or moving away from the Earth, instead of just using the 'Mikado Principle'.

All that fits nicely into a super-complex conspiracy theory.

The difference between sending a robot to the moon and a man is not that huge.

The problem is probably life support rather than engineering and orbital mechanics.

If you can get a robot into orbit, get it to the Moon and land it safely, you will have found out everything you need to know about getting a man there except for life support.

A lot of the life support problems can be worked out on Earth.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Grignard wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:If you can launch a relay into orbit you're in space. Once you're in space, the next step of putting a man in space seems more possible.

Oh, I agree with you, but I just like playing this little game. What I said IS theoretically possible though, no?

For what it is worth though, there is a big difference between crash landing a robot into the moon and putting men safely on the surface, then retrieving them.

I think your idea would work using directional transmissions but not broadcast. It would need fairly accurate steering and compliant ground stations to receive the signals. I'm assuming you would use the recorded signal strength as proof that the craft was in orbit, or moving away from the Earth, instead of just using the 'Mikado Principle'.

All that fits nicely into a super-complex conspiracy theory.

The difference between sending a robot to the moon and a man is not that huge.

The problem is probably life support rather than engineering and orbital mechanics.

If you can get a robot into orbit, get it to the Moon and land it safely, you will have found out everything you need to know about getting a man there except for life support.

A lot of the life support problems can be worked out on Earth.

Yah, x amount of mass behaves the same whether it is a man or a chunk of metal. I'm not an expert, but I imagine the life support is hardly trivial though. I mean, didn't the ground test that resulted in fatalities result from, or at least was made worse by, what was essentially a life support failure ( a higher than normal partial pressure of oxygen exacerbating a fire caused by something else, right?)?

For what it is worth, the scenario I'm suggesting would probably be more complex than actually sending someone to the moon.