Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
When will the Lunar landings be accepted?
Comments
-
Please try and keep up!So you are saying he is being cryptic now?
Hey is talking about the "truth" that part is not cryptic because he says "the truths protective layers...."
What is cryptic is what this is in reference too, what truth is he on about???
You get it yet? Take your time have a think!Yes I am asking you to give a clear example.
You tried to give one but it was shown to be impossible.
Any example you will give will run into the same problems because it is impossible for NASA to fake any part of the mission and get away with it.
If this isn't the case, put your money where your mouth is and give us an example of:
What they possibly could fake and why they possibly would need to.
How they possibly faked that.
How they possibly kept it secret from the Russians.
This is literally the the dumbest contention I have ever read on boards.
You are actually making the statement it is impossible to fake I doubt you even come close to holding the right credentials qualifications and education do even ponder this theory but yet you make it! This narrow mindedness is no different than hard core conspiricty theorist who claims it was impossible to go to the moon!
I am not a film expert nor am I an expert of radar and tracking rockets. I did not work for the intelligence agancy in 1969 so I don't know what they where doing or how they had been monitoring the apollo 11 moon landing.
I have no idea what efforts would have had to been made to fake the apollo moon landing... But I definately would not be stupid enough to say it was impossible!Again, I'm not seeing you point here.
You don't trust the government. Good for you.
Why does this mean that NASA is up to no good?
Can't you even speculate what they are being dishonest about or is it a completely vague, and ultimately meaningless suspicion and distrust?
Putting a man on the moon was less about space exploration and more to do with the cold war and missile capabilities....
But I bet you want to refute that also!0 -
To make a claim something is impossible you need to give a reason it is impossible, something scenitific and accurate.Care to elaborate?
To make a claim something is possible is different it becomes a hypothesis.
Hypothesis are rarely proven correct but are often proven to be wrong else they are still the leading hypothesis!
It stupid because the OP is saying it was impossible to fake but expects me to show how and why it was possible, this is not a valid argument!
Statements like "The Russians would know" would not wash!0 -
I answered this already. You rejected it out hand.ShowMeTheCash wrote: »What is cryptic is what this is in reference too, what truth is he on about???
So now please explain why the only possible explanation is that he's being cryptic?
But I detailed exactly why it would be impossible for the method you suggested. This applies to anything they might have faked.ShowMeTheCash wrote: »You are actually making the statement it is impossible to fake I doubt you even come close to holding the right credentials qualifications and education do even ponder this theory but yet you make it! This narrow mindedness is no different than hard core conspiricty theorist who claims it was impossible to go to the moon!
You have not actually addressed these or explained why you think they are wrong.
Maybe you can point out which of my points required me to have credentials and education beyond basic logic?
So then you agree that:ShowMeTheCash wrote: »I am not a film expert nor am I an expert of radar and tracking rockets. I did not work for the intelligence agancy in 1969 so I don't know what they where doing or how they had been monitoring the apollo 11 moon landing.
I have no idea what efforts would have had to been made to fake the apollo moon landing... But I definately would not be stupid enough to say it was impossible!
you cannot point to any possibility for what they have faked?
You can't suggest a possibility for why they would need to fake it?
You cannot explain how they they faked it?
And you cannot explain how they could have hidden it from Russian spies?
Correct?
Have any conspiracy theorists anywhere in the world ever been able to provide these things at any time in the last 40 years?
So then, what leads you to believe that it is any more possible than mind rays implanting the idea of the moon landings in people?
So then just meaningless suspicion with no basis, insight or baring on reality. Gotcha.ShowMeTheCash wrote: »Putting a man on the moon was less about space exploration and more to do with the cold war and missile capabilities....
Ah ok then. So the mind ray hypotheses is just as valid as the conspiracy.ShowMeTheCash wrote: »It stupid because the OP is saying it was impossible to fake but expects me to show how and why it was possible, this is not a valid argument!
Unless that mind rays are impossible somehow?0 -
You answered it?I answered this already. You rejected it out hand.
Giving your own half baked opinion on what you thought he could mean is not a resolution it's just an opinion.So now please explain why the only possible explanation is that he's being cryptic?
Does he say what these layers of truth are? Does he specifically say what he means by this?
Look up cryptic in the dictionary, it was an obscure thing to say I think anyone with an ounce of sense can agree it was a somewhat cryptic you literally want to argue white black for no reason...But I detailed exactly why it would be impossible for the method you suggested. This applies to anything they might have faked.
You have not actually addressed these or explained why you think they are wrong.
Maybe you can point out which of my points required me to have credentials and education beyond basic logic?
Because everything you said just sounds like uneducated waffle.
I asked you specifically what part of the manned moon landing could confirm without a shadow of a doubt that the Apollo 11 lander was manned.
You say things like:
"Radar" - Radar could not and would not be able to tell if the lander had anyone on it.
"Mirror and moon rock" - Again samples and the mirror could of been gathered and left without lander being manned.
"Radio" - You seem to think that the lack of evidence in this case if proof, it's not.
"Russian spies" - Vague and a laughable thing to say.
You then try and ramble on saying NASA had no motivating factors to fake it and it had nothing to do with the cold war.... NASA are transparent...
You have not shown it could not of been faked, all you have done is shown there is little evidence that it was faked.... And before you rattle on again just have a think about what I am saying.So then you agree that:
you cannot point to any possibility for what they have faked?
Stop using the word impossible or above "any possibility" it is literally a stupid thing to say!
There is little evidence it was faked... But this does not mean there is no possibility it could of been faked!You can't suggest a possibility for why they would need to fake it?
Is this a joke? It had never been done before there was a very good chance it would not be successful, even Neil Armstrong said the chances of getting on and off the moon was about 50/50 if they even made it.
Solar activity and radiation could of fried circuits and hinder crew not to mention things like debris hitting the module and causing damage alone with a multitude of other factors.
The catalyst for the race to the moon was on the back of the cold war an arms race with Russia, nuclear arms and becoming a space fairing nation.
They did not go to the moon just for the craic also they where under a lot of pressure for the mission to be successful, the entire world was watching!
I will ask again, is this a serious question?
You keep asking the same stuff over and over again
NoYou cannot explain how they they faked it?And you cannot explain how they could have hidden it from Russian spies?
Correct?
Again this is a stupid thing to say just comes across as something a child wold say, what spies? Do you have information on what the Russians knew or what access they had to information?
If not it's pointless!Have any conspiracy theorists anywhere in the world ever been able to provide these things at any time in the last 40 years?
No but you obviously are not a scientist.. 40 years is not a long time to disprove a theory.So then, what leads you to believe that it is any more possible than mind rays implanting the idea of the moon landings in people?
I do not know what a mind ray is, but it seems to be a focal point for tone of your arguments? Can I ask how old you are?So then just meaningless suspicion with no basis, insight or baring on reality. Gotcha.
Ah ok then. So the mind ray hypotheses is just as valid as the conspiracy.
Unless that mind rays are impossible somehow?
No that is a theory, you should talk to David Ike I think he has a lot to say about the subject.
There difference is this.
Up until the Apollo 11 moon landing, the political climate was very much a real thing, the cold war and Vietnam was happening they are real things.
And very much connected with the space program.
Albeit a CT the idea that the US government took some of the 25 billion to fund the vietnam war is not a suspicious without cause it's a reasonable suspicion to have. Some thought the space program was just a massive distraction while the US government sent men to die half way across the planet.
There are and where social, political and economical motives to the space program, you want to refute this, go read a book!
Now these factors a side.
Did they actually do it?
I say yes but I understand why some people are dubious.
You want to put your mind ray theory in the same category go ahead, you just come across as someone that has no actual education not on the science or technology but of the climate of the 1960s and their motivating factors!0 -
Sorry but you haven't actually answered the question. You only seem to be doing what you are accusing me of doing.ShowMeTheCash wrote: »Look up cryptic in the dictionary, it was an obscure thing to say I think anyone with an ounce of sense can agree it was a somewhat cryptic you literally want to argue white black for no reason...
Please explain why you think it's cryptic?
If it's because it's the only explanation, then what is exactly wrong with my explanation?
So again here are the explanations I gave and you are misrepresenting:ShowMeTheCash wrote: »I asked you specifically what part of the manned moon landing could confirm without a shadow of a doubt that the Apollo 11 lander was manned.
You say things like:
"Radar" - Radar could not and would not be able to tell if the lander had anyone on it.
An unmanned craft would behave and react differently than a manned craft both in terms of mass and in terms of how it maneuvers.
This would be apparent on radar to the Russians and many other observers.
No they could not have.ShowMeTheCash wrote: »"Mirror and moon rock" - Again samples and the mirror could of been gathered and left without lander being manned.
First the technology did not exist to have an unmanned vehicle collect and return that much sample material. It still does not.
If you are suggesting that they developed this in secret, then you require a large secret development program which is impossible and ridiculous.
Second, there is simply no room in the lander for any such equipment as well as the astronauts, so the scenario you have suggested is impossible.
As for the mirrors, they would have required a rover to get it away from the lander. There was no room for a rover.
Again my argument was that if something went wrong like you suggested, then that would have been apparent on the radio up until the point where they decided to fake the landing and switched over to the fake transmissions.ShowMeTheCash wrote: »"Radio" - You seem to think that the lack of evidence in this case if proof, it's not.
Also that during these fake transmissions, the real astronaut would have to maintain radio silence for the rest of the mission, lest someone overhear them and blow their cover. This would make the return of the ship insanely dangerous if not impossible especially if there was some sort of damage like you suggest in your scenario.
It is not vague. I gave you a detailed and very specific list of ways they would have been able to find out.ShowMeTheCash wrote: »"Russian spies" - Vague and a laughable thing to say.
Here:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=97151123&postcount=126
That is not what I said at any point. You are deliberately misrepresenting what I have been arguing.ShowMeTheCash wrote: »You then try and ramble on saying NASA had no motivating factors to fake it and it had nothing to do with the cold war....
I am saying:
That NASA would not have been able to fake the missions or hide it from the Russians.
That if Russia were able to catch them, then NASA would see no point in trying to fake the landings. This is because they would be exposed and they would lose the prestige that you are saying was motivating them.
In addition I argued that they were not desperate as you and others were making out, but rather they were quite a good deal ahead of the Russians, so they had plenty of time to land for real.
Even if Apollo 11 did not get to land because of some technical issue or whatever, they would simply try again seven months later with Apollo 12 and would still have been years ahead of the Russians. Hence they wouldn't need to prepare a risky, expense and impossible plan B
There is zero evidence.ShowMeTheCash wrote: »There is little evidence it was faked... But this does not mean there is no possibility it could of been faked!
But I am asking you to propose what you think they could have possibly faked. The whole landing?
Ok, I address the issues with this possibility above and in previous posts.ShowMeTheCash wrote: »Solar activity and radiation could of fried circuits and hinder crew not to mention things like debris hitting the module and causing damage alone with a multitude of other factors.
But if they were so paranoid about these issues, why would they not have been paranoid about something going wrong during the fakery that would have exposed them? Surely that would have been riskier?
They wouldn't risk astronauts not making it to the Moon, but they would risk the ship being damaged and exposing the entire conspiracy?
Because you haven't actually answered the questions beyond personal insults.ShowMeTheCash wrote: »I will ask again, is this a serious question?
You keep asking the same stuff over and over again
Are you suggesting that Russia had no spies in america?ShowMeTheCash wrote: »Again this is a stupid thing to say just comes across as something a child wold say, what spies? Do you have information on what the Russians knew or what access they had to information?
If not it's pointless!
But it's plenty of time to come up with plausible scenarios and find evidence for it. Yet no conspiracy theorists have been able to do either.ShowMeTheCash wrote: »No but you obviously are not a scientist.. 40 years is not a long time to disprove a theory.
The idea of a mind ray is a complete fabrication plucked out of my head. It's impossible and ridiculous.ShowMeTheCash wrote: »I do not know what a mind ray is, but it seems to be a focal point for tone of your arguments?
You want to put your mind ray theory in the same category go ahead, you just come across as someone that has no actual education not on the science or technology but of the climate of the 1960s and their motivating factors!
Yet every single argument you are using can be used to support the idea of the mind ray.
Can you show that a mind ray is impossible?
Do you not think that a mind ray could not be developed given NASA's budget?
Are you arguing that the US government would not be motivated and willing to use a mind ray?
Yet you clearly think that a mind ray is a ridiculous and impossible idea. So I'm asking what makes it different or less plausible or more impossible to the possibility you are suggesting.
Because I can't see a difference.0 -
Advertisement
-
ShowMeTheCash wrote: »Giving your own half baked opinion
Because everything you said just sounds like uneducated waffle.
Vague and a laughable thing to say.
You then try and ramble
And before you rattle on again
Stop using the word impossible or above "any possibility" it is literally a stupid thing to say!
Again this is a stupid thing to say just comes across as something a child wold say, what spies?
No but you obviously are not a scientist..
Can I ask how old you are?
you just come across as someone that has no actual education not on the science or technology but of the climate of the 1960s and their motivating factors!ShowMeTheCash wrote: »Please try and keep up!
You get it yet? Take your time have a think!
This is literally the the dumbest contention I have ever read on boards.
But I definately would not be stupid enough to say it was impossible!
Take a day off. If you keep disrespecting other posters like this, your next ban will not be as brief. Your posts do not require this [ironic] childish tone to convey your viewpoint. This is a fantastic discussion once you eliminate these needless personal injections.0 -
Right...ShowMeTheCash, I've deleted your last post (was #158) to give you a day to rethink how you want to word that.
Pueblo thread ban lifted.0 -
My thing is, are there other "cryptic" things he says, or has said, or is this just one really very cherry-picked statement? He could just as easily be talking about unfolding truths in science: we send satellites to other planets using gravity, a concept we don't even yet fully understand.ShowMeTheCash wrote: »
Does he say what these layers of truth are? Does he specifically say what he means by this?
So what's the alternative? Are you alleging the lander was unmanned, and robots placed those mirrors? The lander had less power than a Ti-83 calculator. The round-trip signal time between the earth and moon was around 2.6 light seconds, meaning it would have been extremely difficult for an operator to do all of that remotely. Even manned, landing is still quite challenging.I asked you specifically what part of the manned moon landing could confirm
without a shadow of a doubt that the Apollo 11 lander was manned.
You say things like:
"Radar" - Radar could not and would not be able to tell if the lander had
anyone on it.
"Mirror and moon rock" - Again samples and the mirror could of been gathered
and left without lander being manned.
"Radio" - You seem to think that the lack of evidence in this case if proof,
it's not.
"Russian spies" - Vague and a laughable thing to say.
Which doesn't mean they didn't take the chance and do it. Radiation wasn't ever a motivation before for the government to avoid doing something, after all. We continued nuclear testing long after Apollo 11 for example. Why would the government expend needless time and cost making an unmanned, remote controlled lander to spare the sperm count of 2 astronauts? You know what we [the US] did to soldiers in the first gulf war right? Or what we did to the people of Tuskagee?It had never been done before there was a very good chance it would not be successful, even Neil Armstrong said the chances of getting on and off the moon was about 50/50 if they even made it.
Solar activity and radiation could of fried circuits and hinder crew not to mention things like debris hitting the module and causing damage alone with a multitude of other factors.
Improbable, then.ShowMeTheCash wrote: »To make a claim something is impossible you need to give a reason it is impossible, something scenitific and accurate.
To make a claim something is possible is different it becomes a hypothesis.
Hypothesis are rarely proven correct but are often proven to be wrong else they are still the leading hypothesis!
It stupid because the OP is saying it was impossible to fake but expects me to show how and why it was possible, this is not a valid argument!
Statements like "The Russians would know" would not wash!
Either way, asking someone to prove something is impossible, I'm sure you understand, is illogical.
Frankly, it is up to you to back up your claim that it was faked, it is not up to others to disprove your claim. Despite what you may think, it is perfectly valid to ask you to show how it was possible, given that you argue it was possible.0 -
It was a good discussion King Mod.
We can agree to dissagree.
Albeit I can understand what you are saying I feel you lack the scientific knowlege to actually defend your position and are trying to pass off your opinion as some kind of fact or science, that being said I do not hold the all the acedemic know-how to attack the position either but I am not making statements of certainty.0 -
Nothing I've stated or argued needs all that much scientific knowledge.ShowMeTheCash wrote: »It was a good discussion King Mod.
We can agree to dissagree.
Albeit I can understand what you are saying I feel you lack the scientific knowlege to actually defend your position and are trying to pass off your opinion as some kind of fact or science, that being said I do not hold the all the acedemic know-how to attack the position either but I am not making statements of certainty.
All of my points are made with basic deduction and a hobbyist's knowledge of spaceflight.
Could you point out what I have said that requires me to support it with more evidence? Or maybe which parts are invalidated by my supposed lack of knowledge?
I not making statements of absolute certainty, just practical certainty.
You extend this as well to patently ridiculous ideas such as the mind ray or aliens etc.
What I don't understand is why you agree those things are for all intents and purposes are impossible, but believe the idea of NASA faking parts of the moon landing is not, given how it's just as wild and improbable as the others.0 -
Advertisement
-
Nothing I've stated or argued needs all that much scientific knowledge.
All of my points are made with basic deduction and a hobbyist's knowledge of spaceflight.
Could you point out what I have said that requires me to support it with more evidence? Or maybe which parts are invalidated by my supposed lack of knowledge?
I not making statements of absolute certainty, just practical certainty.
You extend this as well to patently ridiculous ideas such as the mind ray or aliens etc.
What I don't understand is why you agree those things are for all intents and purposes are impossible, but believe the idea of NASA faking parts of the moon landing is not, given how it's just as wild and improbable as the others.
I feel I cannot say too much else the Mod's head might explode!
A conspiracy theory albeit a conspiracy is still a theory and usually at best people can point out the theory has little to no merit and not worth considering which is really the route you should of taken but what you are trying to do is disprove a theory.
Disproving a theory is a complicated endeavor which requires hard and detailed facts. You do not provide this, you provide vague ideas which do not even come close to disapproving anything.
The minute you say something is impossible you are on a hiding to nothing even if the theory in question hold little merit to say it is impossible will only make you look foolish....0 -
This is what I have been doing. I have been showing just how impossible the conspiracy would have to actually be for it to exist, hence it's not worth considering.ShowMeTheCash wrote: »I conspiracy theory albeit a conspiracy is still a theory and usually at best people can point out the theory has little to no merit and not worth considering which is really the route you should of taken but what you are trying to do is disprove a theory.
Again, what facts would you like me to provide to any of my points? Which points were not valid and specific enough?ShowMeTheCash wrote: »Disproving a theory is a complicated endeavor which requires hard and detailed facts. You do not provide this, you provide vague ideas which do not even come close to disapproving anything.
For example on your insistence I gave you a long list of very specific and exact points about why Russian intelligence would have found out if NASA had made a fake broadcast as a back up plan like you suggested.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=97151123&postcount=126
Can you please detail what you disagree with here?
So then, mind rays implanting the idea of a moon landing in peoples head: possible or impossible?ShowMeTheCash wrote: »The minute you say something is impossible you are on a hiding to nothing even if the theory in question hold little merit to say it is impossible will only make you look foolish....
What makes that theory less likely or possible than the one you are suggesting?0 -
This is what I have been doing. I have been showing just how impossible the conspiracy would have to actually be for it to exist, hence it's not worth considering.
This comes down to language.
To say something is unlikely or improbable is one thing, to say it is impossible is en entirely different thing altogether.
I am taking this from an acedemic perspective if was to write "impossible" in any scientific paper I ever submitted I would need to back it up with nothing less than concrete 100% proof and even then saying impossible would be a dubious choice of words.
But you are saying impossible, you are not saying unlikly or the theory does not warrant credible consideration you are saying it is impossible.Again, what facts would you like me to provide to any of my points? Which points were not valid and specific enough?
For example on your insistence I gave you a long list of very specific and exact points about why Russian intelligence would have found out if NASA had made a fake broadcast as a back up plan like you suggested.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=97151123&postcount=126
Can you please detail what you disagree with here?
I think your efforts in disproving the theory has about asmuch crediblity as the theory itself, it does not warrant any in real consideration.
Again you are trying to disprove, you are not simply saying "here are a number of reasons that would make it very difficult", you are listing these reasons as facts to why it would be impossible.So then, mind rays implanting the idea of a moon landing in peoples head: possible or impossible?
What makes that theory less likely or possible than the one you are suggesting?
Well there are lot's of reasons someone to suggest a theory is more credible than another, people especially Scientists rarely use terminology like "it's impossible".
Mind ray, planting an idea into someones head, probably not as far fetched as you might think.....0 -
Again I have addressed this, and you are right, it's a point of language.ShowMeTheCash wrote: »This comes down to language.
To say something is unlikely or improbable is one thing, to say it is impossible is en entirely different thing altogether.
I am taking this from an acedemic perspective if was to write "impossible" in any scientific paper I ever submitted I would need to back it up with nothing less than concrete 100% proof and even then saying impossible would be a dubious choice of words.
But you are saying impossible, you are not saying unlikly or the theory does not warrant credible consideration you are saying it is impossible.
I have said several times that while nothing can be 100% impossible, it can be so improbable that it might as well be considered impossible for practical purposes.
So then leaving aside this, would you agree that the idea of the moon landing being faked is so unlikely it's not worth considering?
Ok, we've established that you don't think much my points.ShowMeTheCash wrote: »I think your efforts in disproving the theory has about asmuch crediblity as the theory itself, it does not warrant any in real consideration.
Please explain why.
Do you disagree with any of them? Do some require more support?
Again, "here are a number of reasons that make it difficult to the point that it's impossible for all practical purposes."ShowMeTheCash wrote: »Again you are trying to disprove, you are not simply saying "here are a number of reasons that would make it very difficult", you are listing these reasons as facts to why it would be impossible.
Ok, so you believe a mind ray is possible.ShowMeTheCash wrote: »Well there are lot's of reasons someone to suggest a theory is more credible than another, people especially Scientists rarely use terminology like "it's impossible".
Why is it not worthy of seriously considering even though it's possible?
What makes the conspiracy you are suggesting more credible?0 -
NASA have released 8500 photos from the Apollo missions.
The trolls that they are, NASA put the training photos on facebook.
The rest are on Flicker.0 -
I have said several times that while nothing can be 100% impossible, it can be so improbable that it might as well be considered impossible for practical purposes.
Every study quantum physics? A lot of quantum physics is theoretical the math adds up but why it works is a bit of a mystery.
A lot of things that were considered impossible are not so impossible after all and even when it comes down to a practical application we have many, clock accuracy, image processing, computer security is derived from the impossible!
You are fudging what you are saying..... It is very unlikely therefore I am saying it is impossible for practical purposes.... This is not a good argument.So then leaving aside this, would you agree that the idea of the moon landing being faked is so unlikely it's not worth considering?
I agree it being faked is unlikely, but I do not think it is not worth any consideration.
A lot was going on, cold war, Cuba missile crisis, Vietnam war... USA was in a state of crisis, was the moon landing simply a distraction?
Was it a ploy to dupe the tax payer into funding the war?
Even if the moon landings where 100% does that mean the reasons for going where the real reasons? Did the government skim the budget allocated to NASA? Was this more about furthering USA's nuclear program or it's space program?Ok, we've established that you don't think much my points.
Please explain why.
Do you disagree with any of them? Do some require more support?
You really only have two that you have put forward, the Russians would find out if the Americans had faked it and that somehow telemetry data would confirm that the lander was manned. Other things like the lander not fitting or not having the technology to do an unmanned landing is simply an opinion.
The above are examples of why it would be difficult to fake but do not demonstrate why it would be impossible.
You you yourself have admitted that it was not impossible to fake but you seem to want to keep using the "impossible" word albeit you are now saying for practical purposes.
Again, "here are a number of reasons that make it difficult to the point that it's impossible for all practical purposes."Ok, so you believe a mind ray is possible.
Why is it not worthy of seriously considering even though it's possible?
What makes the conspiracy you are suggesting more credible?
Look, this is the area that I find amazing and it is the same with any CT.
Some CT are more credible than others however, I see this kind of logic used all the time....
Someone comes up with a theory, some might dismiss the theory out hand some might think... wait a sec there could be something too this...
What I see is what happens in the counter argument I call this FOX news thinking!
Instead of taking a step back and saying, look this has no merit or x or y they come up with a completely ridiculous scenario or counter argument.
In your case you jump to mind rays as to try and diminish the CT. People who do this usually do not have a good counter argument they are just trying to make the CT sound more absurd.
I see this happen all the time, it get's so bad that even if you try and ask a question you are labelled "Oh you're one of these conspiracy nuts"...
For example let's say we find out that only half the funding for the space program actually went on the space program, you do some digging and ask where did the money go?
You will be met with someone who will retort too "Let me guess next you will be telling us we didn't go to the moon"...
I think your mind ray example is doing exactly this... Albeit I am not sure you are doing it deliberately.0 -
0 -
This is not true. I have put forward several points, not just two.ShowMeTheCash wrote: »You really only have two that you have put forward, the Russians would find out if the Americans had faked it and that somehow telemetry data would confirm that the lander was manned.
You have addressed precisely none of them.
Not it's not an opinion, it's a fact.ShowMeTheCash wrote: »Other things like the lander not fitting or not having the technology to do an unmanned landing is simply an opinion.
The technology to land an unmanned probe, collect that amount of material and return it to Earth did not exist in the 60s. It does not exist now.
If it does point it out.
Also, there is no way for them to fit this additional equipment in the lander for the scenario you suggested. There was simply no space or spare mass for them to carry it.
if there was, point out where.
This is what I have been arguing for several pages.ShowMeTheCash wrote: »You you yourself have admitted that it was not impossible to fake but you seem to want to keep using the "impossible" word albeit you are now saying for practical purposes.
I have admitted that mind rays are also not impossible.
You are misunderstanding my point completely.ShowMeTheCash wrote: »Some CT are more credible than others however, I see this kind of logic used all the time....
I am not using it to accuse you of being crazy or to invalidate the conspiracy.
I am using it to highlight the flaw in your logic that just because something is possible and you have a vague suspicion it makes a theory worthy of consideration.
You are stating that the moon landing conspiracy is possible even in the face of massive hurdles for it to overcome, but that there is no convincing evidence to support it.
The mind ray theory is also possible and there is also no convincing evidence to support it.
Your arguments if we are to apply them equally would mean that the mind ray theory is equally valid. Yet you do not treat it as valid.
I'm asking you to explain why you do not think it is a valid theory.0 -
Impossible is just a word, there have been enough back and forth posts about this. Everyone move on.0
-
This is not true. I have put forward several points, not just two.
You have addressed precisely none of them.
Look this is what frustrates me, you say things about these points, they hold no weight just things you think....Not it's not an opinion, it's a fact.
No it's not it's you opinion, what technology exists today?
It's a silly question as it has no precision it's a wide question, technology into what?? But you make these statements like "The technology didn't exist" is if that means anything..... Really it's just noise with no substance.The technology to land an unmanned probe, collect that amount of material and return it to Earth did not exist in the 60s. It does not exist now.
If it does point it out.
Why do you suppose you have the credentials to know this? Do you hold a Phd in engineering? Science? Aeronautical engineering perhaps?
1959 soviets put something on the moon unmanned
1959 soviets done the first flyby
After that there was a number of missions that were sent to the moon.
1966 the soviets landed the first lander on the moon.
after that the soviets and the USA landed a number of things on the moon.
1967 The US not only landed on the moon but they launched from the moon and landed a second time, unmanned.
So by 1967 they landed a number of landers and impacters on the moon and they had managed to take of albeit it briefly.
But after building a rocket to the moon and billions in funding engineers would of thought building a vehicle to collect samples would be too hard?
Or perhaps having a limb on the lander itself to collect samples too hard?Also, there is no way for them to fit this additional equipment in the lander for the scenario you suggested. There was simply no space or spare mass for them to carry it.
if there was, point out where.
This is what I have been arguing for several pages.
And I will say it again you just make a statement like "there was not enough room" as if this in anyway means anything.
Apollo 11 had the LEM the part that landed on the moon, the command module the service module, you you seem to think you know the craft well enough to suggest an engineering solution like some kind of rover to collect sample rocks could not of been developed? I say you give a toy company even back in the 60s 10 grand they would of whipped you up something pretty convincing!
As for now, they have a rover on mars taking photos and running tests it's clocked up I think around 20 miles which is over 100 times further away than the moon. Google have trucks and cars that drive themselves I am pretty sure the idea of a manned expedition to anywhere is technically now redundant, software is taking over and doing what man cannot, if technology cannot do it now then neither could a man.I have admitted that mind rays are also not impossible.
Well technically they are, it really depends on what you define as a mind ray?
The holographic universe theory is credible as a theory.You are misunderstanding my point completely.
I am not using it to accuse you of being crazy or to invalidate the conspiracy.
I am using it to highlight the flaw in your logic that just because something is possible and you have a vague suspicion it makes a theory worthy of consideration.
No, I spent a long time at university studying science and your assertions are logically not valid. A theory could be correct with no evidence and therefore not given much credibility, equally a theory could have a lot of evidence to support it and later found to be incorrect.
You are trying to make a leap that because it would be difficult to fake or that it is unlikely that you have all you need to prove a theory wrong, you don't! It just remains as unlikely as it always was.You are stating that the moon landing conspiracy is possible even in the face of massive hurdles for it to overcome, but that there is no convincing evidence to support it.
Correct.
I know this is a joke but you really need to define the nature of what this is before you dismiss it.The mind ray theory is also possible and there is also no convincing evidence to support it.Your arguments if we are to apply them equally would mean that the mind ray theory is equally valid. Yet you do not treat it as valid.
I'm asking you to explain why you do not think it is a valid theory.
Because I think faking it if it was planned would have been achievable, I am not up-to-speed with mind ray techniques or technology.0 -
Advertisement
-
In fairness I am seeing tit for tat here: you're also saying things about these things which are just opinion with as much supporting evidence, and sometimes less.ShowMeTheCash wrote:Look this is what frustrates me, you say things about these points, they hold no weight just things you think....
This is not a science forum, nor are posters required to validate their credentials in any way. Their posts can speak for themselves, dismissing their post because of a lack of a PhD or a professional engineer's stamp and a signature at the end of the post, is an Argumentum Ad Hominem. Read the charter.Why do you suppose you have the credentials to know this? Do you hold a Phd in engineering? Science? Aeronautical engineering perhaps?
For someone so upset about wording and vagueness, you say the soviets put "something" on the moon? Provide links for these points, which unmanned missions are we referring to here?1959 soviets put something on the moon unmanned
1959 soviets done the first flyby
After that there was a number of missions that were sent to the moon.
1966 the soviets landed the first lander on the moon.
after that the soviets and the USA landed a number of things on the moon.
1967 The US not only landed on the moon but they launched from the moon and landed a second time, unmanned.
Your self-described background seems somewhat perplexing given the basic lack of Scientific Method applied in your arguments.No, I spent a long time at university studying science and your assertions are logically not valid. A theory could be correct with no evidence and therefore not given much credibility, equally a theory could have a lot of evidence to support it and later found to be incorrect.
I'll let that speak for itself..ShowMeTheCash wrote:
Correct.King Mob wrote:You are stating that the moon landing conspiracy is possible even in the face of massive hurdles for it to overcome, but that there is no convincing evidence to support it.
This is also not a thread about Mind Rays, let's drop that as well.0 -
I was very specific. The technology to collect 20+ Kg of samples and return them to Earth does not and did not exist.ShowMeTheCash wrote: »No it's not it's you opinion, what technology exists today?
It's a silly question as it has no precision it's a wide question, technology into what?? But you make these statements like "The technology didn't exist" is if that means anything..... Really it's just noise with no substance.
It was never attempted before or since.
Yes. Having a limb on the lander would not have provided the samples they needed, nor would they have provided enough samples or gotten them into the ascent stage of the lander.ShowMeTheCash wrote: »So by 1967 they landed a number of landers and impacters on the moon and they had managed to take of albeit it briefly.
But after building a rocket to the moon and billions in funding engineers would of thought building a vehicle to collect samples would be too hard?
Or perhaps having a limb on the lander itself to collect samples too hard?
I don't even think they had autonomous robot arms that advanced on Earth yet.
A rover adds even more engineering issues that make it ridiculous on the face of it.- First of all it would need it's own heavy duty battery, which in the sixties would be massively heavy and wouldn't hold a charge for long. Solar panels weren't as viable back then and a rover capable of lift heavy samples would require a large amount of power.
- Next, assuming it was stowed somewhere in the descent stage, it would need a lift or something to lower it down to the surface. Which would require even more mass.
- Then it would need to ramble around to find a variety of different samples on the surface from at least as wide a range as the astronauts did. This would require a lot of driving and manoeuvring, which would have been impossible to do independently because the technology didn't exist. And it couldn't be driven from Earth or the Command Module because technology aside, the transmissions would have been detected.
- Next it would have to dig the samples off the surface after picking the right ones (the technology for this still doesn't exist). This would require a very heavy duty tool to simulate the astronaut's hammers as well as being able to grab random samples from the ground.
- Also bare in mind that this would all have to be in less that 20 hours, and rovers are not know for being quick.
- Next it would have to return the samples to the Ascent stage, which couldn't be done because the only entrance that would have given it access to it was up really high on top of a ladder. So unless NASA developed a robot that could climb a ladder or gave it Go-Go-Gadet legs, it wouldn't have been able to stow the samples.
- Then finally assuming that it had overcome all of these issues, it would independently have to trigger the ascent stage to take off exactly on time to rendezvous with the command module as well as to coincide with the script of the fake transmission.
- Also at some point it would have had to have covered it's own tracks (literally) and then fake the tracks left by the astronauts.
And it would have to do all of this flawlessly on the first time with no testing because they were worried that the lander they'd been testing extensively for years might fail?
Yes I am saying that there was no room or no free mass for them to have some rover that didn't exist as well as all of their equipment for the normal landing like you suggested in your scenario.ShowMeTheCash wrote: »And I will say it again you just make a statement like "there was not enough room" as if this in anyway means anything.
Apollo 11 had the LEM the part that landed on the moon, the command module the service module, you you seem to think you know the craft well enough to suggest an engineering solution like some kind of rover to collect sample rocks could not of been developed? I say you give a toy company even back in the 60s 10 grand they would of whipped you up something pretty convincing!
If there is, please point it out since the plans for the landers and the mission profiles are freely available.
Yup and even with all that modern technology, they can't get any of the rovers to collect large samples and return them to Earth.ShowMeTheCash wrote: »As for now, they have a rover on mars taking photos and running tests it's clocked up I think around 20 miles which is over 100 times further away than the moon. Google have trucks and cars that drive themselves I am pretty sure the idea of a manned expedition to anywhere is technically now redundant, software is taking over and doing what man cannot, if technology cannot do it now then neither could a man.
Yet you are suggesting that they were in the 1960s able to develop and build a miniature independent rover that was able to collect a huge amount of samples in a very short amount of time and would launch the LEM and return to the command module. Then they developed this rover in total secret with either top level experts in the field with an unlimited budget or a toy company for 10,000 dollars.
This is one of the points I am making.ShowMeTheCash wrote: »Well technically they are, it really depends on what you define as a mind ray?
Correct.
I know this is a joke but you really need to define the nature of what this is before you dismiss it.
Because I think faking it if it was planned would have been achievable, I am not up-to-speed with mind ray techniques or technology.
Yes my ridiculous theory is vague and ill-defined.
That's because what you are suggesting is vague and ill-defined.
You are claiming that there's some kind of suspicious thing at NASA.
But you can't say what or when or where.
It might be a faked Moon landing, it might not be, so if someone starts pointing out the flaws and ridiculousness of that, then you can simply move the goalposts to preserve the conspiracy theory.
The theory you are saying in possible and worthy of considering is just as vague and ridiculous as the mind ray theory or any other theory I can pluck out of my head. (I'd argue that the mind ray and other theories can be far more plausible).
The only reason I can think of that you make you reject the others, but still think yours is valid is simply that you prefer it and you are not applying your own arguments fairly.
If this isn't the case, then what makes one theory valid, but the other not?0 -
While it is true that for the most part we haven't been able to do this unmanned, that more or less applies to larger planetary bodies. Successful sample returns have happened from smaller bodies though, such as comets and asteroids, as well as captured particles from solar winds. Russia attempted a launch several years ago (establishing the technology exists, but the execution hasn't followed through) to collect samples from Mars' moon Phobos. China is planning to launch an unmanned lunar collection in 2017.The technology to collect 20+ Kg of samples and return them to Earth does not and did not exist.
It was never attempted before or since.
The ambition for NASA is to get mars samples back to earth, but the technical hurdles are quite numerous, including the return launch. The last 40 years of aerospace saw a couple rovers sent to Mars, not all of which made it successfully, which was both a setback in time and a gain in hard lessons. However, it is important to note that as early as the mid 70s we had unmanned vehicles on mars (Viking I and Viking II), so in development terms that was inside of 10 years from the Apollo program - quite close, technologically speaking. This would match some but hardly all of the criteria for an unmanned theory; 10 years is close, but not definitive. Also compelling is the fact that the time on the moon was so short (20 hours) and it still returned a significant amount of samples.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sample_return_mission#Sample_return_missions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploration_of_Mars#Mars_Pathfinder0 -
Did you know that one of the engineers who designed the recording equipment for the Apollo was from Co Mayo. When the spaceship came back he was the first man who went into the spaceship to take out his recording equipment. He was a very genuine, honest, straight type of person - very unlikely he was involved in any scams.0
-
Neat! Is he name-famous at all?0
-
There have been a few sample return missions, but they have been few and far between because it's almost always more efficient and safer to send the equipment to the planet rather than get the samples back to Earth.While it is true that for the most part we haven't been able to do this unmanned, that more or less applies to larger planetary bodies. Successful sample returns have happened from smaller bodies though, such as comets and asteroids, as well as captured particles from solar winds.
The problem is that these missions all have return minuscule amounts of material.
The Russian Luna probes only returned 326 grams of soil in total (101g, 55g and 170g each) and that was after the lunar landings.
And these were only coil samples taken by a stationary drill.
The only other successful sample return mission from a astronomical body was Hayabusa from an asteroid, and again it was a tiny amount, even less than what Luna returned.
And then the planned Russian Fobos-Grunt would have returned a whopping 200 grams.
At the very least to get the samples returned by Apollo you would require a rover that could autonomously get around without control from Earth or the command module. None of our most advanced rovers are capable of this yet. It's not possible they had the ability to do this in the 60s without assuming a giant leap in secret technology that's never used again.
In addition this rover would have to be able to identify, grab and stow large rock samples, not just soil scooped or drilled out and collected. And these samples would have to be hammered out of place like the astronauts needed to do. Advanced robotics today are only just barely getting to robots that could do this by themselves now.
Then the rover would have to do all of this in less than 20 hours. If you have seen actual modern robots that are independent, you can see how painfully slow they are.
Then this rover with all that technology would have to be small and light enough to fit into the LEM as extra baggage that wouldn't be noticed or affect the mission in anyway.
Just look at the size of Vikings 1 and 2. And they couldn't drive around!
The are probably engineers now who would kill to have a rover like this.
It's possible that something like this could have been developed back then given infinite money and expertise, but it would require such a level of funding and resources, it would have been impossible to miss.0 -
In fairness I am seeing tit for tat here: you're also saying things about these things which are just opinion with as much supporting evidence, and sometimes less.
A theory is just a guess the better the foundation for the guess the more probable and credible the guess is.
When making a guess you need to be careful with assumptions specifically assumptions around certainty.
My theory being if they had the ability to actually send a man to the moon, the expertise and money then they equally had the ability to fake it and make it convincing.
Mine is an opinion I've never tried to pass it off as fact, I've never pretended to be an expert in the fields necessary to confirm the theory or to rebuke it.
The other OP however tries to disprove it by saying it is impossible, well now not impossible but "impossible for practical purposes"...
To prove or disprove a theory requires actual hard knowledge in a sphere which I am pretty sure no one here really has.
I can state the theory, I am not trying to prove it simply that no one here can disprove it.
Does that make any sense to you?This is not a science forum, nor are posters required to validate their credentials in any way. Their posts can speak for themselves, dismissing their post because of a lack of a PhD or a professional engineer's stamp and a signature at the end of the post, is an Argumentum Ad Hominem. Read the charter.
The OP is making assertions about engineering capabilities that only a trained engineer could possible if he is not a trained engineer then as I already stated it is just an opinion, the OP is claiming he is posting "facts".For someone so upset about wording and vagueness, you say the soviets put "something" on the moon? Provide links for these points, which unmanned missions are we referring to here?
I made the assumption that we are talking about the apollo 11 landing people would have educated themselves in the missions running up to the apollo 11 but here is the wiki link.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_missions_to_the_Moon
It gives you all the dates and details of the failed missions and successful missionsYour self-described background seems somewhat perplexing given the basic lack of Scientific Method applied in your arguments.I'll let that speak for itself..
I see... :rolleyes:
I could argue that I annoy you and even though you are a mod your bias is more to try and score points because you find me objectionable.
Also your opinion which you are entitled too like the OP is just opinion but I need to question anyone who criticizes scientific method who show no aptitude to do any real research, providing the missions to the moon took me all of I dunno 3 seconds to google.0 -
I was very specific. The technology to collect 20+ Kg of samples and return them to Earth does not and did not exist.
It was never attempted before or since.
Yes. Having a limb on the lander would not have provided the samples they needed, nor would they have provided enough samples or gotten them into the ascent stage of the lander.
I don't even think they had autonomous robot arms that advanced on Earth yet.
A rover adds even more engineering issues that make it ridiculous on the face of it.- First of all it would need it's own heavy duty battery, which in the sixties would be massively heavy and wouldn't hold a charge for long. Solar panels weren't as viable back then and a rover capable of lift heavy samples would require a large amount of power.
- Next, assuming it was stowed somewhere in the descent stage, it would need a lift or something to lower it down to the surface. Which would require even more mass.
- Then it would need to ramble around to find a variety of different samples on the surface from at least as wide a range as the astronauts did. This would require a lot of driving and manoeuvring, which would have been impossible to do independently because the technology didn't exist. And it couldn't be driven from Earth or the Command Module because technology aside, the transmissions would have been detected.
- Next it would have to dig the samples off the surface after picking the right ones (the technology for this still doesn't exist). This would require a very heavy duty tool to simulate the astronaut's hammers as well as being able to grab random samples from the ground.
- Also bare in mind that this would all have to be in less that 20 hours, and rovers are not know for being quick.
- Next it would have to return the samples to the Ascent stage, which couldn't be done because the only entrance that would have given it access to it was up really high on top of a ladder. So unless NASA developed a robot that could climb a ladder or gave it Go-Go-Gadet legs, it wouldn't have been able to stow the samples.
- Then finally assuming that it had overcome all of these issues, it would independently have to trigger the ascent stage to take off exactly on time to rendezvous with the command module as well as to coincide with the script of the fake transmission.
- Also at some point it would have had to have covered it's own tracks (literally) and then fake the tracks left by the astronauts.
And it would have to do all of this flawlessly on the first time with no testing because they were worried that the lander they'd been testing extensively for years might fail?
Yes I am saying that there was no room or no free mass for them to have some rover that didn't exist as well as all of their equipment for the normal landing like you suggested in your scenario.
If there is, please point it out since the plans for the landers and the mission profiles are freely available.
Yup and even with all that modern technology, they can't get any of the rovers to collect large samples and return them to Earth.
Yet you are suggesting that they were in the 1960s able to develop and build a miniature independent rover that was able to collect a huge amount of samples in a very short amount of time and would launch the LEM and return to the command module. Then they developed this rover in total secret with either top level experts in the field with an unlimited budget or a toy company for 10,000 dollars.
This is one of the points I am making.
Yes my ridiculous theory is vague and ill-defined.
That's because what you are suggesting is vague and ill-defined.
You are claiming that there's some kind of suspicious thing at NASA.
But you can't say what or when or where.
It might be a faked Moon landing, it might not be, so if someone starts pointing out the flaws and ridiculousness of that, then you can simply move the goalposts to preserve the conspiracy theory.
The theory you are saying in possible and worthy of considering is just as vague and ridiculous as the mind ray theory or any other theory I can pluck out of my head. (I'd argue that the mind ray and other theories can be far more plausible).
The only reason I can think of that you make you reject the others, but still think yours is valid is simply that you prefer it and you are not applying your own arguments fairly.
If this isn't the case, then what makes one theory valid, but the other not?
I am not going to read all of this because I just want you to read this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_rock
The first paragraph
Moon rocks on Earth come from three sources: those collected by the US Apollo manned lunar landings from 1969 to 1972; samples returned by three Soviet Luna unmanned probes in the 1970s; and rocks that were ejected naturally from the lunar surface by cratering events and subsequently fell to Earth as lunar meteorites.
If this was so impossible how did the Russians do it?0 -
There have been a few sample return missions, but they have been few and far between because it's almost always more efficient and safer to send the equipment to the planet rather than get the samples back to Earth.
The problem is that these missions all have return minuscule amounts of material.
The Russian Luna probes only returned 326 grams of soil in total (101g, 55g and 170g each) and that was after the lunar landings.
And these were only coil samples taken by a stationary drill.
The only other successful sample return mission from a astronomical body was Hayabusa from an asteroid, and again it was a tiny amount, even less than what Luna returned.
And then the planned Russian Fobos-Grunt would have returned a whopping 200 grams.
At the very least to get the samples returned by Apollo you would require a rover that could autonomously get around without control from Earth or the command module. None of our most advanced rovers are capable of this yet. It's not possible they had the ability to do this in the 60s without assuming a giant leap in secret technology that's never used again.
In addition this rover would have to be able to identify, grab and stow large rock samples, not just soil scooped or drilled out and collected. And these samples would have to be hammered out of place like the astronauts needed to do. Advanced robotics today are only just barely getting to robots that could do this by themselves now.
Then the rover would have to do all of this in less than 20 hours. If you have seen actual modern robots that are independent, you can see how painfully slow they are.
Then this rover with all that technology would have to be small and light enough to fit into the LEM as extra baggage that wouldn't be noticed or affect the mission in anyway.
Just look at the size of Vikings 1 and 2. And they couldn't drive around!
The are probably engineers now who would kill to have a rover like this.
It's possible that something like this could have been developed back then given infinite money and expertise, but it would require such a level of funding and resources, it would have been impossible to miss.
It's worth noting of the 22 Kilos of moon rock there was 270 rocks.
180 are missing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_and_missing_moon_rocks
This was addressed earlier on the thread in the article where the Russians have ask NASA to share all the information and findings.
So as well as the original footage being destroyed two thirds of the rock from the Apollo 11 mission is also missing.0 -
Advertisement
-
ShowMeTheCash wrote: »It's worth noting of the 22 Kilos of moon rock there was 270 rocks.
180 are missing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_and_missing_moon_rocks
This was addressed earlier on the thread in the article where the Russians have ask NASA to share all the information and findings.
So as well as the original footage being destroyed two thirds of the rock from the Apollo 11 mission is also missing.
Just on the reverse of my own argument I do think the moon rocks are probably the best source to demonstrate the apollo 11 was genuine.
The 180 missing moon rocks however gives credence to conspiracy and with the NASA budget I do no think it impossible that apollo 11 could of taken back at least some moon rocks unmanned.
Whether or not we got a full 22KG is unfortunately now questionable!0 -
If you had read what I wrote, then you would see I addressed this.ShowMeTheCash wrote: »I am not going to read all of this because I just want you to read this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_rock
The first paragraph
Moon rocks on Earth come from three sources: those collected by the US Apollo manned lunar landings from 1969 to 1972; samples returned by three Soviet Luna unmanned probes in the 1970s; and rocks that were ejected naturally from the lunar surface by cratering events and subsequently fell to Earth as lunar meteorites.
If this was so impossible how did the Russians do it?
The Russian probes retrieved samples on the order of hundreds of grams.
Apollo 11 returned 22 Killgrams.
The Russian probes returned drilled out soil and dust samples.
Apollo 11 returned large, complete rocks chiseled from the surface of the Moon
A Probe like the russian ones would not be able to return samples like the ones returned by Apollo. I detail why in my posts you have not read.
No. Two Thirds of the rock from Apollo 11 are not missing. You have misunderstood the articles you have just posted.ShowMeTheCash wrote: »It's worth noting of the 22 Kilos of moon rock there was 270 rocks.
180 are missing.
So as well as the original footage being destroyed two thirds of the rock from the Apollo 11 mission is also missing.
What are missing are these:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_11_lunar_sample_display
These are dust particles front other rocks that had been already used in experiments and were contaminated.
180 x 50mg = 9 grams.The Apollo 11 lunar sample display is a commemorative podium style plaque display consisting of four rice-size dust particle specimens.
...
The rice-sized particles were four small pieces of Moon soil weighing about 50 mg total and were enveloped in a clear acrylic button about as big as a United States half dollar coin.
Not an expert, but 9 grams is not two thirds of 22 kilograms.
Fun fact: They sent one of these samples to the Soviet Union.
Double fun fact: Ireland had one from Apollo 11, but it got damaged in a fire and got tossed out. It's probably in a dump somewhere in Dublin still.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ireland_lunar_sample_displays0 -
If you had read what I wrote, then you would see I addressed this.
The Russian probes retrieved samples on the order of hundreds of grams.
Apollo 11 returned 22 Killgrams.
The Russian probes returned drilled out soil and dust samples.
Apollo 11 returned large, complete rocks chiseled from the surface of the Moon
A Probe like the russian ones would not be able to return samples like the ones returned by Apollo. I detail why in my posts you have not read.
No. Two Thirds of the rock from Apollo 11 are not missing. You have misunderstood the articles you have just posted.
What are missing are these:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_11_lunar_sample_display
These are dust particles front other rocks that had been already used in experiments and were contaminated.
180 x 50mg = 9 grams.
Not an expert, but 9 grams is not two thirds of 22 kilograms.
Fun fact: They sent one of these samples to the Soviet Union.
Double fun fact: Ireland had one from Apollo 11, but it got damaged in a fire and got tossed out. It's probably in a dump somewhere in Dublin still.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ireland_lunar_sample_displays
How much of the 22Kilo was rocks? How much of it was soil?
They did not return with 22Kilo of rocks they returned with 22Kilo of material.
I think on apollo 11 only 50 rocks where collected, I am not sure how the rocks where given out, did they break them up?
Where are all the samples now?
A lot of the gifts are unaccounted for and this year Russia has asked to get access to the rest.....
How much of the 22Kilo is left? Where is it?0 -
Here you go. All of your questions are answered here:ShowMeTheCash wrote: »How much of the 22Kilo was rocks? How much of it was soil?
They did not return with 22Kilo of rocks they returned with 22Kilo of material.
I think on apollo 11 only 50 rocks where collected, I am not sure how the rocks where given out, did they break them up?
Where are all the samples now?
A lot of the gifts are unaccounted for and this year Russia has asked to get access to the rest.....
How much of the 22Kilo is left? Where is it?
http://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/lunar/samplecatalog/index.cfm#view=missionsamples;mission=Apollo11
The gift rocks were from these rocks and were from samples that were used for experiments.
They were not the entirety of the samples, unlike you claimed and two thirds of the samples returned by Apollo missions are not missing, unlike you claimed.
Again. They returned with 22 kilos of samples. No unmanned probe past or present is capable of doing this.
They returned with large, intact rock samples. No unmanned probe past or present is capable of doing this.
Are you going to read my posts now?0 -
As I feel it's relevant, the sample weights returned on all missions
1969
Apollo 11
21.55 kg (47.51 lb)
1969
Apollo 12
34.30 kg (75.62 lb)
1969
Apollo 14
42.80 kg (94.35 lb)
1971
Apollo 15
76.70 kg (169.10 lb)
1971
Apollo 16
95.20 kg (209.89 lb)
1972
Apollo 17
110.40 kg (243.40 lb)0 -
Here you go. All of your questions are answered here:
http://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/lunar/samplecatalog/index.cfm#view=missionsamples;mission=Apollo11
The gift rocks were from these rocks and were from samples that were used for experiments.
They were not the entirety of the samples, unlike you claimed and two thirds of the samples returned by Apollo missions are not missing, unlike you claimed.
Again. They returned with 22 kilos of samples. No unmanned probe past or present is capable of doing this.
They returned with large, intact rock samples. No unmanned probe past or present is capable of doing this.
Are you going to read my posts now?
I read all of your previous post I just wasn't going to comment on the same thing over and over and over again.
The crux of your argument is not that samples could not be taken back but appears to be with the volume and size of material taken back.
Which was not really clear in your initial statement.
So it's not that they did not have the technology you think they did not have it on the scale required for the amount taken back and to collect the rocks.
I think you still fail understand that:No unmanned probe past or present is capable of doing this.
This just your opinion not a fact and albeit in the 1960s/ 1970s you may have a reasonable argument that yes it would of been difficult to do I would not go as far to say it was impossible.
I think the argument that even today they could not do it I would consider a lesser argument.0 -
Advertisement
-
Here you go. All of your questions are answered here:
http://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/lunar/samplecatalog/index.cfm#view=missionsamples;mission=Apollo11
This is a catalog of the samples, I asked where are they?0 -
This is not the crux of my argument and it's not a matter of scale. You are misrepresenting my position or you did not read my post.ShowMeTheCash wrote: »The crux of your argument is not that samples could not be taken back but appears to be with the volume and size of material taken back.
So it's not that they did not have the technology you think they did not have it on the scale required for the amount taken back and to collect the rocks.
As I detailed extensively, the fact that no probe past or present has been able to retrieve that amount of samples is just one issue.
No probe past or present is capable of retrieving large, intact rocks.
No surface rover past or present is capable of working independently of control from a human.
For your conspiracy theory to work, the probe would have to do all of these things.
The technology does not exist now. It could not exist in the 60s.
If I am wrong, just dismissing it as my "opinion" without actually addressing my points does not prove this.
So then can you provide a reasonable suggestion for how it might have been possible?ShowMeTheCash wrote: »This just your opinion not a fact and albeit in the 1960s/ 1970s you may have a reasonable argument that yes it would of been difficult to do I would not go as far to say it was impossible.
Or would you agree that it is so difficult and improbable to the point where it's not worth considering seriously?
If not, why not?
http://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/lunar/lun-fac.cfmShowMeTheCash wrote: »This is a catalog of the samples, I asked where are they?
http://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/lunar/laboratory_tour.cfm
What is the point of your question?0 -
This is not the crux of my argument and it's not a matter of scale. You are misrepresenting my position or you did not read my post.
As I detailed extensively, the fact that no probe past or present has been able to retrieve that amount of samples is just one issue.
No probe past or present is capable of retrieving large, intact rocks.
This is what I saidNo surface rover past or present is capable of working independently of control from a human.
So the Russians did not get soil from the moon unmanned?For your conspiracy theory to work, the probe would have to do all of these things.
No it doesn't as already stated your argument is solely on the size of the rocks and the volume of material as the Russian where able to do the same unmanned.The technology does not exist now. It could not exist in the 60s.
Again your opinion, and as for it not existing now, I think you are on your own with that assumption
Your logic if completely flawed.
Just because something was designed to do a specific task does mean an alternative solution does not exist or the technology did not exist.
My car cannot fly but that does not mean we do not have the technology to make a plane!
If the mars rover was designed to take photos this does not mean we cannot design a rover to do something else.
If I am wrong, just dismissing it as my "opinion" without actually addressing my points does not prove this.
You do not prove this, it is your opinion valid opinion or not it is still just your opinion.So then can you provide a reasonable suggestion for how it might have been possible?
Or would you agree that it is so difficult and improbable to the point where it's not worth considering seriously?
If not, why not?
What is the point of your question?
We could flip back and fourth to what you think the capabilities where in 1969 on assembling a machine that could retrieve rocks. In 1969 it would have been difficult, I think today however they would have literally no trouble doing it.
Which leads me to the main alternative theory, they didn't bring back 22Kilo of material and or rocks.
As pointed out NASA still have the majority of the samples, of the samples sent as gifts a lot are unaccounted for and as you already pointed out they only made up a very small portion of the alleged 22Kilo.0 -
ShowMeTheCash wrote: »Your logic if completely flawed.
Just because something was designed to do a specific task does mean an alternative solution does not exist or the technology did not exist.
The tech to remotely get moon rocks up to 11kg in mass back to earth does not currently exist. It's therefore extremely unlikely it existed in 1969 - 1971
Also the below..Which leads me to the main alternative theory, they didn't bring back 22Kilo of material and or rocks.
is surely answered by what you say nextthe samples sent as gifts a lot are unaccounted for
i.e. they did bring back 22 kilos, but as explained, over the decades, samples have gone missing
"According to the Office of Inspector General, out of the 26,000 samples NASA has on loan, it has lost just 517," "That's not to excuse the space agency and its curators, but with so many samples spread across the globe, some losses are probably to be expected."
http://www.space.com/13878-nasa-apollo-moon-rocks-misplaced-lost-report.html0 -
You are misrepresenting my point because you can't address it.ShowMeTheCash wrote: »So the Russians did not get soil from the moon unmanned?
The Russian Probes were not independent. They were being controlled by humans back on Earth.
In your scenario this is not possible because any transmissions that were controlling the probe would have been picked up by the Russians.
So the probe in your scenario has to have been independent of human control. No surface rover has been able to do this. It is impossible for 1960s technology because even our best technology today is only just starting to be able to do this.
No it's not. I have given you several points beyond that. You obviously have not read them.ShowMeTheCash wrote: »No it doesn't as already stated your argument is solely on the size of the rocks and the volume of material as the Russian where able to do the same unmanned.
Again misrepresenting my point.ShowMeTheCash wrote: »Your logic if completely flawed.
Just because something was designed to do a specific task does mean an alternative solution does not exist or the technology did not exist.
My car cannot fly but that does not mean we do not have the technology to make a plane!
If the mars rover was designed to take photos this does not mean we cannot design a rover to do something else.
First I am saying it's the combination of issues and improbabilities.
I listed all of the things that the hypothetical rover would have had to be able to do. If the technology existed since the 60s to make such a rover work, then we would be using this type of rover all the time for everything since it would be superior to every single rover we've ever put anywhere.
So we aren't we using this type of rover now?
How come none of the rovers we've used have been able to do any of the stuff the hypothetical rover must have been able to do?
Also, I stated that it might be possible to make such a rover in the 60s given enough time and money. But I pointed out that it would be impossible to hide such a project.
Nasa still have the samples. But as the site (which I am sure you looked over after you asked for it) shows they give these samples out to research institutions all the time.ShowMeTheCash wrote: »Which leads me to the main alternative theory, they didn't bring back 22Kilo of material and or rocks.
As pointed out NASA still have the majority of the samples, of the samples sent as gifts a lot are unaccounted for and as you already pointed out they only made up a very small portion of the alleged 22Kilo.
The Goodwill rocks are irrelevant frankly.0 -
Advertisement
-
The tech to remotely get moon rocks up to 11kg in mass back to earth does not currently exist. It's therefore extremely unlikely it existed in 1969 - 1971
I am not sure where you are getting this data?
So what are you saying a lander could not do multiple recoveries or rock?
Or it cannot lift more than 11kilo in one sitting?
Please explain what you mean by this?
Have you ever seen the the Luna 16? it was sent up in 1970 by the Russian's it was essentially a large hook and a cup on the end of stick with a video camera.
Also the below..is surely answered by what you say next
i.e. they did bring back 22 kilos, but as explained, over the decades, samples have gone missing
"According to the Office of Inspector General, out of the 26,000 samples NASA has on loan, it has lost just 517," "That's not to excuse the space agency and its curators, but with so many samples spread across the globe, some losses are probably to be expected."
http://www.space.com/13878-nasa-apollo-moon-rocks-misplaced-lost-report.html
We have established it was possible to bring back samples unmanned the question is how much could of been brought back unmanned?
I am not sure where you get the figure max 11Kilos and 11Kilos where? Considering 11Kilo on the moon would be around 66kilo on earth.
The argument put forward was that the volume and size of the samples would have been impossible to do without a manned mission.
Let's say that is the case, it would now need to be established.
1. All the moon rock is authentic
2. And the volume alleged can be verified?
The gifted moon rock was only a marginal amount.
As for the moon rock on loan some has went missing and some of it has been found to be fake.
The larger moon rocks we have where not collected but fell as meteorites so we need to also rule them out.
Whatever we have left would still need to be an amount here you could say.
No way could we have gather that without putting someone up there!0 -
Simply not true. No moon rocks were found to be fake.ShowMeTheCash wrote: »The gifted moon rock was only a marginal amount.
As for the moon rock on loan some has went missing and some of it has been found to be fake.
If this is not the case, please provide a source.
Not possible. Because 1. lunar rocks have a different structure and features for meteorites and meteorites have different structure and and features from lunar rocks. One cannot pass off for the other to a trained geologist.ShowMeTheCash wrote: »The larger moon rocks we have where not collected but fell as meteorites so we need to also rule them out.
2. There isn't even enough meteorite samples to cover the amount returned by Apollo.0 -
Simply not true. No moon rocks were found to be fake.
If this is not the case, please provide a source.
Not possible. Because 1. lunar rocks have a different structure and features for meteorites and meteorites have different structure and and features from lunar rocks. One cannot pass off for the other to a trained geologist.
2. There isn't even enough meteorite samples to cover the amount returned by Apollo.
I know the moon rock gifted to the Dutch prime minister by Aldrin and Armstrong turned out to be fake ... Embarrassing story0 -
-
ShowMeTheCash wrote: »I am not sure where you are getting this data?
So what are you saying a lander could not do multiple recoveries or rock?
Or it cannot lift more than 11kilo in one sitting?
Please explain what you mean by this?
Data? we don't have any craft capable of doing the above. It would have to be researched, designed, developed, etc.We have established it was possible to bring back samples unmanned the question is how much could of been brought back unmanned?
I am not sure where you get the figure max 11Kilos and 11Kilos where? Considering 11Kilo on the moon would be around 66kilo on earth.
One single large rock - 11.7 kg "Big Muley"The argument put forward was that the volume and size of the samples would have been impossible to do without a manned mission.
Let's say that is the case, it would now need to be established.
1. All the moon rock is authentic
2. And the volume alleged can be verified?
The gifted moon rock was only a marginal amount.
As for the moon rock on loan some has went missing and some of it has been found to be fake.
The larger moon rocks we have where not collected but fell as meteorites so we need to also rule them out.
Whatever we have left would still need to be an amount here you could say.
No way could we have gather that without putting someone up there!
You entire argument hinges on the word "impossible", and countering it with hypothetical possibilities no matter how implausible
If I said right now, it was "very very very very difficult" (or next to impossible) to fake a manned mission to the moon and instead land a craft that was specifically designed and capable of bringing back 22kg/380kg of material, without any of this being leaked in any way - then you'd probably agree0 -
Can you provide a source for this? Picture of the rock?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/6105902/Moon-rock-given-to-Holland-by-Neil-Armstrong-and-Buzz-Aldrin-is-fake.html
There are more sources .. I googled it because I knew about this from a few years back0 -
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01471/rock_1471511c.jpghttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/6105902/Moon-rock-given-to-Holland-by-Neil-Armstrong-and-Buzz-Aldrin-is-fake.html
There are more sources .. I googled it because I knew about this from a few years back
This is the supposed moon rock.
No such rocks like that were ever given out by NASA and no rock matching that one appears on any catalog of samples.
These are the rocks gifted to the Netherlands:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Netherlands_Apollo_11_display.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Netherlands_Apollo_17_display.jpg
There is absolutely nothing at all to think that fake rock was ever presented to anyone as a genuine moon rock.
Here are some good videos detailing the story with a lot more depth that explains why it was falsely believed to be a moon rock:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHALUGcEEiQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGQhArtFqIM0 -
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01471/rock_1471511c.jpg
This is the supposed moon rock.
No such rocks like that were ever given out by NASA and no rock matching that one appears on any catalog of samples.
These are the rocks gifted to the Netherlands:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Netherlands_Apollo_11_display.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Netherlands_Apollo_17_display.jpg
There is absolutely nothing at all to think that fake rock was ever presented to anyone as a genuine moon rock.
Here are some good videos detailing the story with a lot more depth that explains why it was falsely believed to be a moon rock:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHALUGcEEiQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGQhArtFqIM
Like I said an embarrassing story ... It created quite a stir and was discussed in various news programs .... How the two got linked is still something no one knows ... But thanks for the related info0 -
ShowMeTheCash wrote: »A theory is just a guess the better the foundation for the guess the more probable and credible the guess is.
When making a guess you need to be careful with assumptions specifically assumptions around certainty.
My theory being if they had the ability to actually send a man to the moon, the expertise and money then they equally had the ability to fake it and make it convincing.
Mine is an opinion I've never tried to pass it off as fact, I've never pretended to be an expert in the fields necessary to confirm the theory or to rebuke it.
The other OP however tries to disprove it by saying it is impossible, well now not impossible but "impossible for practical purposes"...
To prove or disprove a theory requires actual hard knowledge in a sphere which I am pretty sure no one here really has.
I can state the theory, I am not trying to prove it simply that no one here can disprove it.
Does that make any sense to you?
Here's what I'm seeing:I can state the theory, I am not trying to prove it simply that no one here
can disprove it.
You're arguing against the conventional facts of the Apollo case, based on the semantics of another person, arguing quantum-physics level uncertainty principles, and you don't even support the conspiracy-theory necessary to even have this discussion?I agree it being faked is unlikely, but I do not think it is not worth any consideration.
Well, you see there, you spent a lot of electrons and time arguing with someone's use of the word "impossible" rather than yourself do any research. Let's recap:The OP is making assertions about engineering capabilities that only a trained engineer could possible if he is not a trained engineer then as I already stated it is just an opinion, the OP is claiming he is posting "facts".
I made the assumption that we are talking about the apollo 11 landing people would have educated themselves in the missions running up to the apollo 11 but here is the wiki link.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_missions_to_the_Moon
It gives you all the dates and details of the failed missions and successful missions
I see... :rolleyes:
I could argue that I annoy you and even though you are a mod your bias is more to try and score points because you find me objectionable.
Also your opinion which you are entitled too like the OP is just opinion but I need to question anyone who criticizes scientific method who show no aptitude to do any real research, providing the missions to the moon took me all of I dunno 3 seconds to google.
You then proceeded to say "the Russians put something on the moon" and also offered no citation. Further you didn't even provide enough of a reference in that statement for one to know off hand which mission or some-thing you are referring to. How is that at all academic? How is that not a double standard in the same manner as you criticizing another user's semantics?I am taking this from an acedemic perspective if was to write "impossible" in any scientific paper I ever submitted I would need to back it up with nothing less than concrete 100% proof and even then saying impossible would be a dubious choice of words.
Fact is if you aren't going to support the theory, and all you want to do is continue soapboxing the theory while trying to criticize anyone who offers a rebuttal, you are going to be asked to leave this thread permanently. Do you actually want to defend, research, and constructively discuss the theory that a remote/unmanned probe was used in a fake moon landing (or for that matter anything else to say the landing(s) were faked), or are you genuinely just wasting everyone's time? Think carefully. We will not waste any more time here entertaining 'this is a theory, I can't prove it I can't deny it and anything you try to say against it is invalid'0 -
Data? we don't have any craft capable of doing the above. It would have to be researched, designed, developed, etc.
One single large rock - 11.7 kg "Big Muley"
Firstly Big Muley was not taken back by the apollo 11 mission it was a later mission so was not part of the 22Kilo we are talking about.
Also 11KG on earth is just under 2Kilo on the moon so about the weight of 2 liters of Milk.
And I need to be clear on this, 22 Kilo on the moon is 3.65 kilo.
Are you saying we cannot and could not develop a machine to lift the weight of 3 bags of sugar from the moon?? Is that what you are saying?
Are you saying an arm like the one Lune 16 would not of been capable of handling the weight?You entire argument hinges on the word "impossible", and countering it with hypothetical possibilities no matter how implausible
If I said right now, it was "very very very very difficult" (or next to impossible) to fake a manned mission to the moon and instead land a craft that was specifically designed and capable of bringing back 22kg/380kg of material, without any of this being leaked in any way - then you'd probably agree
I would agree yes it was difficult and yes it would be difficult to fake.
But I am also weighing that against how difficult the moon landing was in the first place combined with the budget NASA had.0 -
Advertisement
Advertisement