|
Post by Grand Lunar on Sept 21, 2008 14:14:41 GMT -4
So David Milne just puts that stuff up for the heck of it?
I've experienced this same spewing of insults on YouTube by Peoplesasylum.
And of course, DavidC gives his usual "you would be laughed out of the debate hall" line to me as well.
|
|
|
Post by fiveonit on Sept 21, 2008 14:27:41 GMT -4
JFK promised to land a man on the moon and return him safely before the end of the 60's, funny how it happened in the year 1969. JFK said "We should dedicate ourselves, before this decade is out..." The end of the decade is 1970, not 1969. So we were actually a year early.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Sept 21, 2008 14:28:38 GMT -4
So David Milne just puts that stuff up for the heck of it?
Not really. Here's how he explained it to me. Where he lives in Scotland there is published a tabloid newspaper that is put out by the homeless. It's operated as a charity, where the homeless can have a job, learn a skill, and build respect. Milne and other local authors provide articles to it, that are sometimes whimsical, tabloid-ish, or otherwise of questionable reliability. They are indeed being sensational, but for a cause I consider worthy enough to mitigate my ordinary skepticism. They want to increase the circulation of the newspaper for charitable reasons. The circulation is small enough that none of the articles gets noticed much beyond Milne's city.
Milne simply summarized something he had read about Ralph Rene, not believing it but recognizing that it would be an eye-catching story. That's the extent of his involvement. The publication of his story beyond its intended boundaries has been the product of the fervent rumor-mongering of the conspiracy theorists. They didn't check their source. I did.
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Sept 21, 2008 14:35:03 GMT -4
So, it was a sort of a sataire? And to think of the HBs that fell for it.
|
|
|
Post by fiveonit on Sept 21, 2008 15:10:46 GMT -4
JFK promised to land a man on the moon and return him safely before the end of the 60's, funny how it happened in the year 1969. See my previous post. Distraction from the Vietnam war. Regardless of the Apollo missions, is would have been pretty difficult to distract from the Vietnam conflict considering it was the news every night during the dinner hours. Space race against the Soviet Union. Yes... that was a leading cause to start the program. It is not in itself a piece of evidence that the moon landings were *faked*. Many would say that it is one of the main reasons why it couldn't be faked. The best way to beat the Soviets in the space race was to Fake it??? You're contridicting yourself! If they wanted to make history why would they fake it? And if it is indeed a *fake*, is it really history? To encourage new technology. Again, another contradiction! How does faking a moon landing encourage new technologies? To encourage new ideas for further future missions. Another contradiction for the very same reasons. To intimidate the Soviet Union. To increase aviation technology. To encourage more scientists. To encourage more scientists in Astronomy. More of the same! You're not making any sense. America was losing the space race involving the following, First man/woman in space. First animal in space. First three person mission in space. Yes, they did beat us on those points. All the more reason to actually go to the Moon! First space station in orbit. I don't think anyone had a space station in operation in 1969, so the point is irrelevant. If we sent 6 manned spacecraft to the moon in ten years, then why in 30 years with so many technological advances haven’t we been back once? NASA says that there was a budget cut and this can be explained for the first 10 years after the Apollo missions, because of the build up of nuclear weapons (due to the cold war) would have cost money that could have been taken away from NASA. Didn't you just answer your own question?? Let me continue with the list. To encourage better film and camera technology. To create a sense of actual achievement. More contradictions! Again I'll ask, how would *faking* a moon landing accomplish this? Notice you said "actual achievement." Not "Fake achievement." To Intimidate the world, if US could get to the moon they could bomb any part of the planet. Another irrelevant argument. Both the US and the Soviets could already do that and had that threat since the mid 50's. How could landing on the moon further the threat or intimidate people? To increase scientific development in telescopes and satellites. Yet - Another contradiction. Russia firing Yuri Gagarin into space. And - Your point is... what??? By contrast, the still photos were stunning. Yet that's just the problem. The astronauts took thousands of pictures, each one perfectly exposed and sharply focused. Not one was badly composed or even blurred. This inspired more photography experts and photographic technology. So *FAKING* photographs inspired Photographers?? How? And saying that each photograph was "Stunning... Perfectly Exposed... Sharply Focused.." is just an opinion. To create and buy time for radiation technology to be developed. Radiation technology for space flights that you seem to think never took place. Again - Another contradiction in your argument. What number are we on now? Cancer research in relation to radiation so they could actually get a man to the moon. To further understand the psychology of manipulation and proper gander. For missions that never took place?? Several years after NASA claimed its first Moon landing, Buzz Aldrin "the second man on the Moon" was asked at a banquet what it felt like to step on to the lunar surface. Aldrin staggered to his feet and left the room crying uncontrollably. It would not be the last time he did this. "It strikes me he's suffering from trying to live out a very big lie," Aldrin may also fear for his life. I've heard this old, tired story time and time again. DO you have proof of this? When it happened? Who was there? Scientists couldn't believe NASA's carelessness - even a chemistry students in high school know high pressure oxygen is extremely explosive. Oxygen is not explosive... it's an oxidizer! In fact, before the first manned Apollo fight even cleared the launch pad, a total of 11 would be astronauts were dead. Apart from the three who were incinerated, seven died in plane crashes and one in a car smash. Now this is a spectacular accident rate. There is NO EVIDENCE that these men were killed! And if they were... Why? Another theory I have heard time and time again from hoax pushers and you never seem to offer up any evidence of this. Where is it? Yeah we really landed on the moon. Ha! The only real thing about the whole moon landings were the take off and the dead astronauts when a accident occurred. In your opinion only. I would also add, it's just that, an opinion, not PROOF! NASA is planning another giant step - Project Outreach, a 1 trillion dollar manned mission to Mars. Think what they'll be able to mock up with today's computer graphics, special effects was in its infancy in the 60s. This time round will have no way of determining the truth. There is always a way to determine the truth. On the other hand... if a theory of massive deception and cover-up has little to no evidence, just one ridiculous theory after another with no proof, maybe the story NASA offers is the truth??
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Sept 21, 2008 15:25:30 GMT -4
the Concorde "DID" exist and there are blueprints and the craft actually was available for 20-30 years approx not sure exactly. Show me a craft or a blueprint of the lander or any of the so called technology used to land on the moon. You can't because it does not exist it never did exist and it never will exist. I can remember when the Concorde stop commercial flight it was in 2002 or 2003. Interesting. I dropped Concorde in for a reasonable analogy to your claim over technology. Like others I would like to know if you have seen the blueprints? I am guessing no. From your original post Technology is so advanced in the year 2008, yet we still cannot land a man on the moon, why? Well we are using the same technology we were using in 1969, space technology has not changed in over 35 years because of many reasons, but all other technology has increased substantially if not completely revolutionized the genre of the original tech itself. Why would it prevent us then? Problem is I think people are so wrapped up in achievements of today the forget about yesterday and what was really possible. Can you make a fire without a lighter or matches? I bet many in this day and age cannot. Also I would like to hear form other members of this site and the opinion they have based on technological development from when the first manned mission was supposed to of happened, we have high tech lasers and we can transfer information wireless, aircraft can move at super sonic speed smashing the sound barrier and don't forget the nuclear weapons we have today in comparison to the atomic bomb we had in the 60's 70's and 80's is amazing.
It may surprise you that we could transfer information then by magic as well. Hydrogen bombs were around before then and we have no supersonic airliners now. We still have military jets that can, as we did then. What about the lasers?
|
|
|
Post by archer17 on Sept 21, 2008 15:52:24 GMT -4
The gist of the OP seems to be that if we can't just up and go to the moon today, how could we have pulled it off back in 1969 with that era's technology. The posters here answered that quite effectively IMO - the Concorde analogy is a new one on me (probably a reflection of my non-participation in lunar HB debates), but apt. Another thing to consider, and I have no doubt it's already been brought up by one or more of you here and there ----> the U.S.S.R. would have called our bluff if we were faking the Apollo lunar-landing missions. Heck, it would have given them the ultimate propaganda coup back in those Cold War days. Actually the Unites States of America supplies The Soviet Union with millions of ton of grain to keep the conspiracy quiet, not to forget millions in US currency to pay off people and keep them quiet. It appears you didn't put a lot of thought into this post. As another poster already pointed out, you cited "intimidation" of the USSR as one of the motivations for faking the moon landing even before posting this. You also seem to be unaware of things like the grain embargo which was used in an attempt to modify Soviet Cold War behavior. How does that fit in with the "wheat-gag" you allege? Seriously, if the Soviet Union actually had us over a barrel to this degree do you really expect us to believe they'd settle for wheat? C'mon, you can do better than that. The "millions" of dollars doled out to keep people from talking must not have worked if the secret still got out anyway right? I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for evidence for this "hush-money," after all we know how efficient the Nixon administration was in guarding it's secrets, don't we?
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Sept 21, 2008 16:19:18 GMT -4
It has to be an incredible claim that the US paid USSR in some way to keep quiet. Given the way the wall came down it is very far fetched. Both sides kept each other on the brink of MAD for years. The USSR infiltrated the west and stole secrets as well as we did them. Outing the US would have been a major coup. A lot of the cold war was also about the leaders. For the landings it was Brezhnev era. Now would he have relished the thought that announcing to the world that it was a fake? Take it a tad further, would the US have tried to bluff them knowing the consequences even IF they could bribe the USSR? Somewhere along the line you have an organisation that is not under your control with the info. Change of leadership in the USSR? Someone who will not honor the previous commitment (if the previous scenario was remotely possible) and the secret is out.
It really is a non starter.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Sept 21, 2008 16:42:12 GMT -4
The big problem with bribes is that they're no good unless you can spend them. Where's all the former Apollo technicians, managers, and engineers living in Malibu beach houses, driving Lamborghinis, and wearing this year's Prada? Where are the otherwise unexplained indicators of ill-gotten wealth?
The bigger problem, of course, is that the people who built Apollo were men and women with established reputations. They had nothing to gain and much to lose by knowingly participating in a hoax. These are not generally coin-operated people.
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Sept 21, 2008 17:03:00 GMT -4
Sort of guessed they were above board etc but know what you mean. Not having met them them but certainly the type that are motivated like this. I think there would have been more whistle blowers then (as in the 60's) if it were attempted. Being a civilian operation as well, the hemorrhage of talent would have been obvious I would have thought. The trickle of claimants who say nay today is rather telling in the grand scheme of Apollo.
Here is a bribe. You are going to fake it but you cannot spend the bribe until after you die.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Sept 21, 2008 17:08:32 GMT -4
The USSR infiltrated the west and stole secrets as well as we did them.
That's the thing. Our poster is a college student. To him the Cold War is just a bunch of dry words on a page, the same as the Great Depression, the Battle of Hastings, and the Cambrian Explosion. Academic knowledge of history is far removed from the experience of those who endured it.
A lot of the cold war was also about the leaders. For the landings it was Brezhnev era.
It was also the Nixon era. Nixon had no love for L.B. Johnson and J.F. Kennedy. The Kennedy-Nixon rivalry was as fierce as any. Today we have political partisans trying to put their rivals in jail over some rather insignificant influence peddling. Imagine the political coup for the Nixon machine if they could convict high-ranking Kennedy and Johnson appointees of misappropriating tens of billions of dollars, lying to Congress, and wholesale international fraud.
|
|
|
Post by cos on Sept 21, 2008 18:20:19 GMT -4
The HB’s just get weirder. This reminds me of a line from Cartman in Southpark; ‘ If dolphins are sooo clever how come they live in igloos?’ It is just so non sequitur that you struggle to know where to begin. I salute you for trying!
|
|
|
Post by smlbstcbr on Sept 21, 2008 19:59:12 GMT -4
Is 1969 tech better than 2008's? The answer: Depends on the context.
The tech used in 1969 worked very well back then. However, 2008 tech has evolved from older technologies (new technologies have emerged as well), however the problem is the same: to put a man on the moon. NASA is making an extensive research to know exactly how the technologies available nowadays will solve the problem, the same way they did in 1969.
However, you came here posting very long statements and you often make circular references to your claims without even considering that you may be wrong. If that is the case, why are you here if there is no way to make you change your mind? You are so convinced (as we are convinced about the Apollo reality) about your ideas, that there is no point in trying to make a healthy conversation with you.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Sept 21, 2008 23:03:43 GMT -4
The big problem with bribes is that they're no good unless you can spend them. Where's all the former Apollo technicians, managers, and engineers living in Malibu beach houses, driving Lamborghinis, and wearing this year's Prada? Where are the otherwise unexplained indicators of ill-gotten wealth?
I used to work for Max Faget and Caldwell Johnson (well after Apollo, mind you). No bling.
The bigger problem, of course, is that the people who built Apollo were men and women with established reputations. They had nothing to gain and much to lose by knowingly participating in a hoax. These are not generally coin-operated people.
Not only that, but these guys generally weren't shy about their opinions of your work. In very blunt language. It's amusing to hear ignorant people try to paint them into a hoax. By implication, mind you; it's not like the HBs even know who they are. Heh.
Anyway, I read this thread after a busy* weekend. Was there a point to it?
For scubadude's potential interest , it started with my Friday night standby - four or five calls on the engine and one on the ambulance. In between calls, we got to play with our hydraulic toys on a couple of donated cars. The joys of breaking stuff are many, but the busy weekend always starts with a sleep deficit...
|
|
|
Post by trevor on Sept 22, 2008 4:03:38 GMT -4
I don't know why you guys bother arguing with this idiot. He is using every lame bit of CT rubbish that has been used for ages. It's as if he's only just discovered it and gone "hey guess what, it was all faked".
Well Mr 3rdrock,
I suggest, as others have done, that you carry out some real research. Stop trying to push your moronic excuse for evidence, stop insulting every one who disagrees with you and actually study the Apollo missions carefully. Come back in a month or two and then provide clear arguments, with evidence and without insult, of proof of the Apollo missions being faked. And don't use the "If you can't see it was faked you're an idiot" line or "any body with common sense can see it was faked" Because, guess what, THAT is not evidence, that's more of the same rubbish you are trying to push now.
|
|