|
Post by Count Zero on Jan 10, 2006 2:12:54 GMT -4
Right. Nit-picking aside, the point still stands: We had effective ICBMs before the Moon Race began. The lunar program had no relevance to offensive missile development.
Politically, the Apollo program had the opposite purpose from what ivan proposed: It moved the space race away from military objectives and focused it on achievments in exploration. In the US, both of the Air Force's key manned space projects - The X-20 Dynasoar and the Manned Orbiting Lab (MOL) - were cancelled, while Apollo received the funding it needed to succeed.
|
|
|
Post by dlunanastra on Jan 14, 2006 14:43:41 GMT -4
I was asked by the President of ASTRA, the Scottish spaceflight society, to provide ammunition for the members to counter the 'Conspiracy Theory' programme when it began to gain ground. I worked through the programme on video and compiled an 18-page rebuttal which answered every point in it. If anyone needs a copy, let me know!
Duncan Lunan.
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Jan 15, 2006 7:07:18 GMT -4
Sounds great: is there an online version?
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Jan 15, 2006 8:28:13 GMT -4
American missile technology caught up with the Soviets by the early 1960s and nuclear deterrents were already in place.Well technically you could argument that they were already there in the 50's. The Soviet Nuke was a lot bigger then the American one, size-wise that it, not bang-wise, so to get the same bang, the US could have a smaller warhead, thus a smaller rocket to throw it. Hence why when it come to the space race, the Soviets started out with bigger rokects. Of course if ivan was being at all honest with himself, he'd realise that as of Explorer 1 the Soviets knew the US could put a nuke in orbit and have it re-enter above Moscow, so the idea of showing they hade bigger missiles by going to the moon is rather pointless. You don't have to go to the moon to prove that you can drp a nuke in the middle of the USSR, just as the USSR didn't have to get there to let the US know they could drop one in the middle of Nebraska. Besides, it's been shown well enough that the Soviets tracked the Apollo missions and intercepted their communications. They knew what was going on and a hoax would have not fooled them. So much so that most HB's claim that the US used wheat to bribe the USSR to keep quiet. Don't you just love consistancy? "The missile gap" was a myth, Ike knew this since 1956 but couldn't say so with out revealing U-2 flights over the USSR. JFK use it as an issue in the 1960 election but realyzed this soon after taking office. Robert McNamara said "So clearly my first responsibility as Secretary of Defense was to determine the degree of the gap and initiate action to close it. So my deputy Ros[well] Gilpatric and I immediately began to work on that, on January 21st, 1961. And it took us about three weeks to determine [that] yes, there was a gap. But the gap was in our favor. It was a totally erroneous charge that Eisenhower had allowed the Soviets to develop a missile force superior to the U.S." JFK admitted to this in (IIRC) 1962. Using a myth that was debunked between 1956 and 1962 as the rational for a hoax that supposedly took place 1968 -72 is absurd.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Feb 9, 2006 12:05:08 GMT -4
Dunno if anyone has raised this point before, but it's a neat counter to the HBs' "If we went to the moon, why can't we go to the moon?" argument.
The Amundsen and Scott expeditions reached the South Pole in 1911/1912. No-one else went there until 1956 when the US base was established.
So imagine a "South Pole Hoax" believer in 1950 saying "If we went to the pole, why can't we go to the pole? It's impossible, that's why. Proof that Amundsen and Scott faked it all".
|
|
|
Post by Mr Gorsky on Feb 9, 2006 12:11:54 GMT -4
Personally I love the Concorde analogy.
It's like saying that Concorde was a hoax because if we built a supersonic passenger aeroplane in the 1960s, how come we don't have one now?
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Feb 9, 2006 12:52:06 GMT -4
Dunno if anyone has raised this point before, but it's a neat counter to the HBs' "If we went to the moon, why can't we go to the moon?" argument. There are several good examples -- I've always liked the Trieste. On January 23, 1960 this vessel carried Jacques Piccard and Lieutenant Don Walsh to the bottom of the Challenger Deep -- a depth of 35,800 feet. No one has ever been back.
|
|
|
Post by sirpych on Feb 11, 2006 12:51:14 GMT -4
You've all forgot that every major Government in the world at the time of the launch had a radio telescope (INCLUDING RUSSIA) and that with their raio telescopes they could pick up that the apollo space shuttle was not in fact going to the moon. But this did not happen, all of the major govenments in the world (AGAIN INCLUDING RUSSIA) tracked the shuttle to the moon and back.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Feb 11, 2006 14:18:53 GMT -4
Welcome, sirpych.
Actually, we've repeatedly mentioned the multiple independent* tracking of Apollo missions to, from, around, and on the Moon, and the laser ranging and telemetry from lunar experiments after the manned missions had ended.
But it tends to bounce off the committed hoax believers.
*Not just by governments, but by individuals and private groups as well.
|
|
|
Post by dwight on Feb 14, 2006 11:47:09 GMT -4
I had a nice long chat with Mike Dinn and John Saxon while visiting Tidbinbilla and the former Honeysuckle Creek site. The CT argument about having tracking stations being fooled into thinking an Apollo spacecraft was was going to the moon came up. The absurdity of that claim totally ignores the most fundamental aspects of radio telescope/satellite tracking. If such telemetry trickery is possible, I am at a loss why not one single CT has come up with a way to point a dish at one point in the sky and receive all necessary signals from all the satellites in orbit. They would stand to make millions upon millions if such a technology were possible. Curiously this technological revolution has not been developed by any CT that claims to know better.
Imagine having a simple TV satellite receiver and being able to leave it pointing anywhere and pickup whatever satellite you want. My job would ceratinly be a whole lot easier that's for sure. Especially with 5 minutes till downlink and no signal lock.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Feb 21, 2006 8:45:36 GMT -4
Another "Out of Isolation" point.
Moon's surface should not have given sharp footprints, it must have been wetted to do so.
Sharp prints are visible in Surveyor unmanned probe pictures from 1966 - Surveyor bounced on landing so was able to image it's own footprints. Some Surveyors carried a digging tool which produced sharp-edged trenches.
The Soviet Lunokhod rover tracks are also sharp.
|
|
|
Post by iamspartacus on Feb 21, 2006 11:51:34 GMT -4
There are dry powders that take an imprint perfectly well like cement and talcum powder. Cement by its very nature is dry and has to be kept away from water and moisture. I suppose HBs tend to ignore these in their faked landing sound stages as they would create huge clouds of dust when kicked up by the "actors". They prefer the wet sand scenario but then ignore the very flat trajectories of soil actually kicked up consistent with 1/6th Earth gravity. How would they keep the sand wet? Sprinklers would leave telltale pitting. Would a misting system adequately moisten the sand enough before it was dried out by the studio light(s) by the end of the shot?
|
|
reynoldbot
Jupiter
A paper-white mask of evil.
Posts: 790
|
Post by reynoldbot on Feb 22, 2006 8:58:00 GMT -4
HBer's generally don't let two seperate (and contradicting) arguments comingle like that. The moondust was wet sand when it was being kicked up, but wasn't anytime footprints were being made. It has to be sand but couldn't be sand according to them. That's the only explanation.
By the way, this is my first post.
|
|
|
Post by iamspartacus on Feb 22, 2006 9:08:39 GMT -4
Welcome reynoldbot. Yes, the HBers have a wonderful ability to see what is not there but ignore what actually is.
|
|
|
Post by asdf on Apr 6, 2006 13:44:13 GMT -4
Maybe it wasn't rocket technology they were perfecting as the HBs are suggesting but may a reentry vehicle that would protect the weapons especially the biological.
|
|