|
Post by asdf on Mar 8, 2006 17:46:41 GMT -4
After reading a lot of this I believe they sent unmanned vehicles to collect rock samples and pictures and just kept mannned missions in low Earth orbit. The U.S. had one thing that the Soviets never had. One secret weapon. Hollywood! Sound stages out at Area 51. Possibly? They didn't land a live person on the moon. It was impossible and the Soviets new it. That's why the Soviets never made it. Isn't it odd that no other country in the world has even given it a try and that the Soviets after almost 40 years have never made it. Why would they just cry Uncle? Isn't it odd that Nasa never even suggested taking the shuttles to the moon. Even to stay in orbit for while, to raise public interest in NASA. Isn't it odd that not even the Hubble telescope or any other telescope or satellite ever made has the resolution to acquire images of the landing sites on the moon? Does smell fishy!
|
|
|
Post by ShowCon on Mar 8, 2006 17:49:55 GMT -4
Popcorn, anyone?
Doug
|
|
|
Post by brotherofthemoon on Mar 8, 2006 17:53:15 GMT -4
Man, there are so many cliches in this post, I'm amazed that asdf didn't drive his car through a fruit stand on the way to write it. Now ASDF, do you see my post a bit down the way, "32 questions hoax believer won't answer for you?" Why not take the time to reply to each one of my questions. I'd be fascinated to learn the truth.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Mar 8, 2006 18:04:28 GMT -4
That's why the Soviets never made it.
The Soviets didn’t make it because their moon rocket, the N-1, kept blowing up.
Isn't it odd that no other country in the world has even given it a try and that the Soviets after almost 40 years have never made it.
No it is not odd. Only the USA had the will and resources to do it. The Soviets tried but failed because of their N-1 rocket. And since that time the Soviets couldn’t keep their own country from disintegrating, much less sustain an expensive moon landing program.
Isn't it odd that Nasa never even suggested taking the shuttles to the moon.
No it is not odd. The Shuttle wasn’t made for going to the moon; it was made for low Earth orbit. If you want to go to the moon you do it in something built specifically for that purpose.
Isn't it odd that not even the Hubble telescope or any other telescope or satellite ever made has the resolution to acquire images of the landing sites on the moon?
No it is not odd. Telescopes and satellites are made to perform science on a budget. You don’t build them to do more than is required to obtain the desired science data. So far the science performed hasn’t required the resolution needed to image the Apollo artifacts.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Mar 8, 2006 18:13:43 GMT -4
After reading a lot of this I believe they sent unmanned vehicles to collect rock samples...
Who designed these spacecraft? Who built them? Where were they launched? Who operated them? Where did they land? How were they able to collect more than 800 pounds of samples in just under three years?
Do you have any evidence that this happened, or are you just thinking wishfully?
...and pictures
Including the pictures of spacecraft and astronauts on the lunar surface? There were some 6,000 photographs taken on the lunar surface.
...and just kept mannned missions in low Earth orbit.
Since a CSM in low Earth orbit can be spotted with the naked eye, how did NASA keep this from happening?
The U.S. had one thing that the Soviets never had. One secret weapon. Hollywood!
You're saying the Soviets didn't know how to make feature films? The Soviets, in fact, were masters at controlling information about their space program. Further, you neglect the likelihood that the Soviets infiltrated Apollo.
Sound stages out at Area 51. Possibly?
It's also "possible" that there is an invisible elf living in my backyard. We're interested in what you can prove, not what you can imagine. Vague, handwaving allusion to things involving secrecy does not make a case.
They didn't land a live person on the moon. It was impossible and the Soviets new it.
Then why haven't the Soviets said as much?
That's why the Soviets never made it.
But if they knew it was impossible, why did they even try? They had a robust moon-landing program going until it became apparent that the U.S. was going to win.
Isn't it odd that no other country in the world has even given it a try...
Few countries in the world have the resources.
...and that the Soviets after almost 40 years have never made it.
They stopped trying and concentrated on other things. It's not as if they've been trying to do it for 40 years. That's like asking why nobody is still trying to with the 1969 Boston Marathon.
Why would they just cry Uncle?
Yes. Their space program was based mostly on setting records. If they couldn't be first or best, they weren't necessarily interested in doing it. That's why, when Apollo looked ready to succeed, the Soviets switched to space stations -- a field in which they could set new records.
Isn't it odd that Nasa never even suggested taking the shuttles to the moon.
Not to anyone who knows anything about the space shuttle.
Isn't it odd that not even the Hubble telescope or any other telescope or satellite ever made has the resolution to acquire images of the landing sites on the moon?
No. That's like saying it's odd that we don't have automobiles that routinely get 300 miles to the gallon. There are limits to technology. When you can demonstrate what would be needed to image the Apollo landing sites at appropriate resolution, then you can discuss whether it's odd that we can't do it.
Does smell fishy!
If you rub fish all over your face, everything smells fishy.
|
|
|
Post by phunk on Mar 8, 2006 18:48:15 GMT -4
Here we go again....
|
|
|
Post by twinstead on Mar 8, 2006 18:51:39 GMT -4
It's like a broken record....a broken record...a broken record...a broken record...
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Mar 8, 2006 19:19:22 GMT -4
The U.S. had one thing that the Soviets never had. One secret weapon. Hollywood! I got one thing to say to that.... Sergei Eisenstein. Them Russkies were building entire fake villages. I'm sure they could hide a sound stage or two during the Cold War. And if all it took was a film crew and a hanger to fake a moon landing, why on Earth (or any other planet) didn't the Soviets run their own hoax landing? They had an early lead and impressive-looking rockets to make the world think they could do it, and do it first. They had an iron curtain of secrecy to work behind, and a history of doctoring photographs already. So why isn't it the Soviet Moon Hoax? Could it possibly be that "proof" rests on something other than good-looking pictures and casual opinion? Or for that matter, if Hollywood is the key, then India should be the manned space leader today -- Bollywood to the stars! I was about to say I thought I'd seen this "asdf" on other forums. Then I realized I have. He's sitting in front of my monitor now as well!
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Mar 8, 2006 23:27:49 GMT -4
But if they knew it was impossible, why did they even try? They had a robust moon-landing program going until it became apparent that the U.S. was going to win.
Here I disagree, the Soviet efforts lasted long after the time they knew they had lost, in fact thier program was not terminated until early 1974, over a year after the final Apollo flight. The three testing flights of the LK were in 1970 and 1971 and the final N-1/N-3 LOK launch was on the 23rd Nov, 1972, a mere two weeks prior to the final Apollo mission (17 on the 7th Dec, 1972), so it is obvious that the Soviets still believed they could indeed get there and were willing to fund it up until at least the end of Apollo and likely that belief carried on for at least a short time beyond as work still continued to fix the N-1 and training the Cosmonauts for a landing right up to the cancellation of the program and the sacking of Vasily Mishin in 1974.
|
|
|
Post by dwight on Mar 9, 2006 1:11:20 GMT -4
Methinks me smells a hit and run here.
What kind of a person posts something like the OP while 99% of this forum deals ad infinitum with those very points. I suggest we dont bite and let the OP revel in his/her own misguided importance. I am sure the lurkers who really sit on the fence are capable enough to read all the other thousands of posts without needing to see this newest soap opera unfold to the same conclusion as all the others.
It's very early, its cold, rainy, and I'm exhausted.
|
|
|
Post by jovianmoon on Mar 9, 2006 3:36:53 GMT -4
After reading a lot of this... A lot of what? A lot of this web site? If you'd bothered to take even a cursory glance at this site you would have seen that the pithy, ill-conceived arguments you have raised have been blown out of the water time and time again. More meat for the grinder...
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Mar 9, 2006 12:47:43 GMT -4
asdf,
why don't you read through some of the many threads here, where each and every one of your questions/assertions has been answered - in great detail.
|
|
|
Post by pzkpfw on Mar 9, 2006 20:37:09 GMT -4
This thread was worth it, if only for: If you rub fish all over your face, everything smells fishy.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Mar 10, 2006 12:50:29 GMT -4
Yep, I'm proud of that one.
|
|
|
Post by 3onthetree on Mar 11, 2006 2:40:32 GMT -4
Hi Asdf. Keep your chin up mate. They're a friendly bunch aren't they
|
|