Did we really land on the moon?!?!?
Discussion
I'm a long time browser of these forums but never actually started a thread so please go easy on me.
Anyway, a bit of background - I'm quite the science geek. I am always watching videos on you tube etc. about the universe, particle physics, dark matter, dark energy, black holes and anything else I can get my head around. (On a different note I would recommend anyone who's interested to watch Lawrence Krauss and A Universe from Nothing http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjaGktVQdNg)
When I was younger (I'm a child of the eighties) I was in no doubt at all that we put a man on the moon but it seems the older I get the more sceptical I have become.
Considering the technology that was available in the 60's I find it very hard to believe that we ever actually did land on the moon. Computers for an example were virtually non existent back then. This lack of technology, lack of research and development, the cold war and the astronomical costs just screams a cover up to me.
This of course and the fact that 50 years on and we still don’t have the capability to put a man up there.
I'd like to think we did but history has proven that Governments can easily create massive cover ups.
Over to you....
Anyway, a bit of background - I'm quite the science geek. I am always watching videos on you tube etc. about the universe, particle physics, dark matter, dark energy, black holes and anything else I can get my head around. (On a different note I would recommend anyone who's interested to watch Lawrence Krauss and A Universe from Nothing http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjaGktVQdNg)
When I was younger (I'm a child of the eighties) I was in no doubt at all that we put a man on the moon but it seems the older I get the more sceptical I have become.
Considering the technology that was available in the 60's I find it very hard to believe that we ever actually did land on the moon. Computers for an example were virtually non existent back then. This lack of technology, lack of research and development, the cold war and the astronomical costs just screams a cover up to me.
This of course and the fact that 50 years on and we still don’t have the capability to put a man up there.
I'd like to think we did but history has proven that Governments can easily create massive cover ups.
Over to you....
Yes we did. Going there would have been easier than pretending to go and convincing the mortal enemy (USSR) that you had done so. The USSR would have shouted about any hint of a hoax.
And now we do have the capability to put a man back there, just not the will or the need (it's expensive so needs justification!).
And now we do have the capability to put a man back there, just not the will or the need (it's expensive so needs justification!).
welshjon81 said:
but history has proven that Governments can easily create massive cover ups.
I'm not sure to exactly which history you are referring, but i would suggest that History has shown pretty much exactly the opposite. Lets face it, a government that can't cover up the fact it's president got a blowy from a aide hasn't got much chance of falseifying items on a project that employed hundreds of thousands of people.Anyway, the answer is YES. Plenty of evidence exists to scientifically prove the fact, if you wish to ignore it an believe in WOO WOO that is your choice.
(PS, don't let Eric see this thread, or there is going to be trouble ;-)
I did doubt it for a while, thinking "Well why didn't we just take up one of those three-way mirrors so we could shine a laser at it and prove it once and for all?" But we did, apparently, and universities use it daily to measure the distance. I've just got a blind spot for the correct term for the mirror and still couldn't find it on google if I tried.
Yes.
You can't believe it because all man's effort is now absorbed by smartphones that allow you to movies on a 2" screen whilst walking along the street, and other unproductive junk. You judge it from the position of 2013.
The horrifying thing is that you are probably not stupid, yet think it was probably faked. And so, in a generation or two's time, the proportions of pro-fake supporters will grow and anyone who thinks we did land on the moon in 1969-72 will be regarded as a nutter.
I think the second half of the 20th century was in some ways the pinnacle of man's achievements, and from now on it will be downhill.
You can't believe it because all man's effort is now absorbed by smartphones that allow you to movies on a 2" screen whilst walking along the street, and other unproductive junk. You judge it from the position of 2013.
The horrifying thing is that you are probably not stupid, yet think it was probably faked. And so, in a generation or two's time, the proportions of pro-fake supporters will grow and anyone who thinks we did land on the moon in 1969-72 will be regarded as a nutter.
I think the second half of the 20th century was in some ways the pinnacle of man's achievements, and from now on it will be downhill.
The Flat Earth Society were early nonbelievers, so it must be true. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspira...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspira...
welshjon81 said:
Considering the technology that was available in the 60's I find it very hard to believe that we ever actually did land on the moon. Computers for an example were virtually non existent back then. This lack of technology, lack of research and development, the cold war and the astronomical costs just screams a cover up to me.
Apply that thinking in the other direction; consider the technology that was available for special effects in the 60s.It took at least 40 years to get to the stage where special effects were at the level required to convincingly reproduce something like the moon landings. Even today's films that use wire work look ridiculous and obvious.
In the early days of the internet I found all this conspiracy stuff and it was really exciting but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny at all.
The people that advocate that it was faked, do they ever offer an explanation as to how it could have been so?
they say Armstrong's 'small step' was filmed in the US but then offer nothing more or an explanation, given that moment was only a small part of the whole space program and even the Apollo missions, what about the rest? Also as Armstrong's film was picked up in Aus and relayed to the US (no satellites in '69) due to the position of The Moon at the time, how would you get a television broadcast from New Mexico to appear like it's coming from the Moon for Australia to receive? There were several ground stations used by NASA during all the missions to relay comms and telemetry as they were out of range of the US, it was simple for anyone with a radio to tune in and listen, very difficult to achieve this now, never mind in the late 60's.
I think when you start writing the list of what you'd need, it quickly becomes obvious that it would have been far easier to have just gone exactly as they did.
they say Armstrong's 'small step' was filmed in the US but then offer nothing more or an explanation, given that moment was only a small part of the whole space program and even the Apollo missions, what about the rest? Also as Armstrong's film was picked up in Aus and relayed to the US (no satellites in '69) due to the position of The Moon at the time, how would you get a television broadcast from New Mexico to appear like it's coming from the Moon for Australia to receive? There were several ground stations used by NASA during all the missions to relay comms and telemetry as they were out of range of the US, it was simple for anyone with a radio to tune in and listen, very difficult to achieve this now, never mind in the late 60's.
I think when you start writing the list of what you'd need, it quickly becomes obvious that it would have been far easier to have just gone exactly as they did.
Eric Mc said:
OP - how can someone who claims to be a "science geek" hold such views?
Do you pick and chose which bits of science you want to be geeky about?
I never said that I "didn't believe" I merely stated that I was some what sceptical and found it hard to believe.Do you pick and chose which bits of science you want to be geeky about?
Some very good points from most comments. Mainly the mirror on the moon and the broadcast from Aus.
It seems there are more obvious points for the event taking place than there are for it not.
In light of that - what an amazing achievement it was! As previously stated especially due to the lack of technology and time constraints on research and development!
welshjon81 said:
In light of that - what an amazing achievement it was! As previously stated especially due to the lack of technology and time constraints on research and development!
It certainly was. It shows the incredible things man can achieve when there is competition and national pride at stake - and that is no doubt why those things are in our genes.Simpo Two said:
welshjon81 said:
In light of that - what an amazing achievement it was! As previously stated especially due to the lack of technology and time constraints on research and development!
It certainly was. It shows the incredible things man can achieve when there is competition and national pride at stake - and that is no doubt why those things are in our genes.To my mind we over complicate things sometimes to the point of a perceived benefit from available technology actually being a hindrance.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff