The Moon Landing

Let's try a new argument! Is the moon landing a hoax or not? What do you think? I've been neutral to this for a long time, but my scales have recently been tipped in the favour of 'hoax'.

Take a look at what this guy has to say on the matter. I'm not saying this information can't be explained, but he does have a quite interesting case.

http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html

(don't get intimidated by the sites silly name, it gets interesting when you've read it for a bit).

 

OT:

Also, look at the bottom of the page, at the pictures on the left and right side.

 

Of course it's not a hoax. People are so used to seeing CGI effects in movies these days that they take it for granted that all this stuff could be faked. It was 1969. Frankly, it was easier for them to send men to the moon than it would have been for them to simulate it that convincingly on film.

 

Want to know if it is a hoax or not? Grab a powerful telescope, point it at the moon and look for the evidence that they left behind.

 

I vote for hoax.

Apart from any other reason, the goal of the moon landing was to be seen to get there first.

I can think of several reasons why humans would not be able to make it for six days outside the magnetosphere, and I'm suspicious that we don't now have better radiation suits by now, if those spacesuits were so effective. And why did George W. say he was going to go to the moon again, but the tech had been 'lost'?

No, the simpler explanation with the fewer unknowns is that the propaganda war was won with propaganda. I don't care how tricky the video production may have been, it was certainly a cheaper and easier way to win the race than, you know, actually winning.

 

Eh...never got too excited about it in the first place. I'd say no, though. If we did it before, why don't we go back? Aren't we supposed to be trying to establish moon colonies and all that? And then eventually colonize Mars?

I'm pretty sure if space tech has advanced at all, it'd be easy enough to make something to get to the moon. Graphene was just invented - the lightest and strongest man-made material ever, and it's impermeable to all liquids and gasses. Make a graphene lunar lander, and insulate it with as much radiation blocking material as can be put into the space before there's not enough air to breathe and it can still be reasonably launched into space. The graphene can absorb about 2.3% of all of the photons hitting it, but that small amount would actually go towards making ambient energy for the lander as it's in space due to the radiation.

 

The reason we don't go back to the moon is because there is nothing there. The point of going there was to be first, but other than that there is nothing of interest. Several ton of "Moon" was brought back and no more is needed. It's not a place we wanna colonize.

As for Mars we are working on our way there. We have already have satellitts in orbit around Mars and unmanned droid are exploring the surface.

 

Psssht. That's what everybody said about Krakatoa, and that turned out fine.

 

Banelings banelings banelings ohhhh

 

Did you read anything on the website?

And this about not going back: there are projects right now where people are investigating the possibility of going "back" to the moon to colonize it. They have developed a certain kind of robot which will measure the radiation before actually sending people there (because it might be fucking dangerous). But... why would they need to do that if we've already been there? Also, why would NASA switch to the inferior Shuttle (which cannot go to the moon) when they already had the Saturn 5 engine (which could). The official explanation is that the schematics of both the S5 and the moon buggy were lost. I call bullshit on that. They fooled the Ruskies with their videos, and the Ruskies folded.

Personally, I think the entire space-race was a facade for developing long distance rockets. Both the USSR and USA discovered Hitlers plans for the V2 and knew that was the future. But how to justify it? Hmmm...

Machines might have been to the moon, but men? I'm not so sure.

 

Yeah, it mostly seemed be along the lines of "omfg nasa touched up some fotos so the hole thing must have been fake!!!!11!!1"

I don't find that line of argument very convincing.

 

What's the official counter argument from NASA?

"Only crackpots don't believe the moon landing."

Now that's convincing. Oh wait, no it's not.

The only real proof is that there is a reflector on the moon, we can test for it. This does not prove that americans are immune to cosmic radiation, only that there is a reflector on the moon.

Why doesn't the US government in the cold war get subjected to skepticism and Occam's razor? Because that's commie talk, of course.

 

Yep.

 

Nope.

 

Seriously? Fooling the Russians and the entire rest of the world using 1969 media manipulation and broadcasting technology would have been easier than going to the moon? I think not.

 

Frankly and seriously, I think so.

Let's see: Shifting humans off the planet, out of the magnetosphere, into another gravity field, back into orbital velocity and crashing down safely, OR, Using the money to make a film, manipulating a few relay stations and putting the excess into more nuclear proliferation.

I'm not saying that I can disprove it, I'm only saying that it fits the motives and character of the governments at the time to have taken the realpolitik choice. After all, the lie does the same job as the truth but with more ICBMs left over.

 

Then you didn't read all of it.

And yes, it would've been easier to manipulate the broadcast than to put people on the moon. Why? Because we can't go to the moon - not even today.

 

No, see, the technology didn't exist to manipulate media in that way. It barely exists today - the trained eye can always spot CGI effects in movies, even though they now have a billion times the computing power and decades of experience doing it. If you check movies from that period, the effects are easy to spot even to the untrained eye - the art was so much more primitive in those days they just couldn't have pulled off a convincing fake.

However, the technology to blast humans into space and out to the moon did exist. The reason we aren't still doing it now is that it is not cost effective, and modern safety requirements are much higher.