So you don't dispute that the Apollo missions happened, you just think that all the details of how it was done and equipment used were all fabricated, while a second secret mission to achieve all the same things without actually putting people in the spacecraft took place?
No I know people went to the moon, I'm simply playing devils advocate and saying it COULD have been faked fairly easily. (You are assuming I'm a conspiracy nut :P )
The complexities of sending an unmanned craft are far simpler than sending a manned one...and safer.
And you assert that would be somehow easier than the missions having being carried out as officially described?
Anything faked on Earth would be easier than actually going to the moon..for the first time. You then are dealing with knowns vs unknowns.
Not to anyone with an actual brain, who has read any of the points made above.
I've not actually seen any points offered that come close to proving sending a space vehicle to the moon and then sending it back is easier than creating it on a film set.
How is the moon mission and all that is involved in any way easier than creating a ****ty film set? :lol:
Again I cite 2001...far easier and cheaper than a moon mission....and that was just for entertainment...I'm sure a government backed project would look better...
The complexities of sending an unmanned craft are far simpler than sending a manned one...and safer.
Both the US and the Soviets had done that already and got all the data they needed to plan their manned programs. Obviously you don't just decide one day to strap three men to a massive bomb and hope they get to the moon. You do lots of calculations and experiments first :)
Anything faked on Earth would be easier than actually going to the moon..for the first time. You then are dealing with knowns vs unknowns.
Faking zero, and 1/6th gravity effects convincingly is not easy. Nor is faking the lunar surface. Doing both at the same time (i.e. running on lunar soil) may well be impossible to fake convincingly. (in the physical world I mean, it's trivial these days with enough computer rendering)
Perhaps the NSA had multicore computers with vast amounts of ram that they could render the whole thing on. Maybe based on crashed alien technology, who knows. I'm sure if you dug deep enough through the internet you'd find someone claiming that they did :lol:
How is the moon mission and all that is involved in any way easier than creating a ****ty film set? :lol:
I assumed you where suggesting it would have been possible to fake the whole thing to the degree that it would be as convincing as the actual Apollo missions (i.e. that it could have been faked even though you don't think it was). Not that "it's possible to make film that looks like it might be of someone standing on the moon".
I don't think you're even sure what position you're arguing yourself.
I
Both the US and the Soviets had done that already and got all the data they needed to plan their manned programs. Obviously you don't just decide one day to strap three men to a massive bomb and hope they get to the moon. You do lots of calculations and experiments first :)
As you well know all the theory in the world doesn't equal 100% success in practice...you still have unknowns to deal with in an environment you've never actually been.
Faking zero, and 1/6th gravity effects convincingly is not easy. Nor is faking the lunar surface. Doing both at the same time (i.e. running on lunar soil) may well be impossible to fake convincingly. (in the physical world I mean, it's trivial these days with enough computer rendering)
It's easier than actually going to the moon...and again I cite 2001...look
Perhaps the NSA had multicore computers with vast amounts of ram that they could render the whole thing on. Maybe based on crashed alien technology, who knows. I'm sure if you dug deep enough through the internet you'd find someone claiming that they did :lol:
2001...1968....made by non scientists....back a similar project with the gov, scientists...you have your 'effects'.
I assumed you where suggesting it would have been possible to fake the whole thing to the degree that it would be as convincing as the actual Apollo missions (i.e. that it could have been faked even though you don't think it was). Not that "it's possible to make film that looks like it might be of someone standing on the moon".
I don't think you're even sure what position you're arguing yourself.
There would be multiple ways to do it so there is no singular position...
unmanned vehicle backed by faked photos/movies/voice transmissions being the primary one.
Same reason we use unmanned vehicles now for a lot of space 'work'..it's cheaper and safe than putting an actual person in it.
There would be multiple ways to do it so there is no singular position...
unmanned vehicle backed by faked photos/movies/voice transmissions being the primary one.
Same reason we use unmanned vehicles now for a lot of space 'work'..it's cheaper and safe than putting an actual person in it.
Right, so you are arguing that the whole thing could have been faked by designing a mission that could have worked (i.e. with no holes in the science or engineering), creating a secret unmanned mission to do the actual scientific work, setting up experiments, and returning samples. And convincingly faking photographs, video, radio communication data. And this would be in some way easier than doing it for real?
Is that what you're arguing or not? To repeat myself:-
As you well know all the theory in the world doesn't equal 100% success in practice...you still have unknowns to deal with in an environment you've never actually been.
Well obviously, that's why it's called space exploration;)
Right, so you are arguing that the whole thing could have been faked by designing a mission that could have worked (i.e. with no holes in the science or engineering), creating a secret unmanned mission to do the actual scientific work, setting up experiments, and returning samples, and convincingly faking photographs, video, radio communication data. And this would be in some way easier than doing it for real?
Yes, you don't have to worry about the human factor.
Are you under the impression the first moon landing was about science? It was about the space race with USSR...wanting to be first etc...
If you could do a faked one 6 months before an actual one..it's not a stretch to assume you'd chose to fake it (the first one at least), to 'win' the space race...
Is that what you're arguing or not? To repeat myself:-
Ah, so now only Apollo 11 was faked and the rest were real?
That means that any arguments about radiation etc are automatically invalid if we're saying that landing a man on the moon is possible and happened eventually, just not on the Apollo 11 mission.
When was the first manned mission then? Cause they'd have to do some manned lunar transits first. Obviously in real life this was Apollo 8, but in the big Apollo 11 conspiracy alternate timeline which crew was the first to do an orbit of the moon. Apollo 11 went but was unmanned right? That means that the first manned lunar mission would have to be at least Apollo 12 presumably?
Are you under the impression the first moon landing was about science? It was about the space race with USSR...wanting to be first etc...
No, I am under the impression that the first moon landing returned hard scientific and engineering data and samples.
If you could do a faked one 6 months before an actual one..it's not a stretch to assume you'd chose to fake it (the first one at least), to 'win' the space race...
So you are (now) suggesting it would have been easier (safer? cheaper?) to convincingly fake it than actually doing it for real. As long as do an unfaked one 6 months afterwards.
As you well know all the theory in the world doesn't equal 100% success in practice...you still have unknowns to deal with in an environment you've never actually been.
Faking zero, and 1/6th gravity effects convincingly is not easy. Nor is faking the lunar surface. Doing both at the same time (i.e. running on lunar soil) may well be impossible to fake convincingly. (in the physical world I mean, it's trivial these days with enough computer rendering)
It's easier than actually going to the moon...and again I cite 2001...look
Perhaps the NSA had multicore computers with vast amounts of ram that they could render the whole thing on. Maybe based on crashed alien technology, who knows. I'm sure if you dug deep enough through the internet you'd find someone claiming that they did :lol:
2001...1968....made by non scientists....back a similar project with the gov, scientists...you have your 'effects'.
2001 was crap at simulating the 1/6 gravity of the moon, in that it didn't at all. It's blatantly obvious they were walking in a 1g environment when on the moon. Completely different to the videos from the Apollo missions where they "bounced" along.
Look at the rover videos on YouTube from the later Apollo missions, in particular how the dust is kicked up by the wheels and falls back in 1/6th gravity (not slowed down) and in perfect arcs (indicating a vacuum).
These videos show the rover travelling long distances, many 100s of metres if not kilometres. There's no way they could build such a huge intricate studio, and then evacuate all the air from it.
This video from Apollo 15 shows David Scott performing an experiment where he drops a feather and a hammer together from the same height. Due to the vacuum on the moon, they hit the ground at the same time. You really think they could, or more accurately, bothered to have built an incredibly large studio and evacuated the air from it?
Besides, I thought the conspiracy was that Grissom, White, and Chaffee were going to blow the whistle on the whole thing so NASA arranged for the capsule to catch fire to silence them.
If NASA were willing to murder three men to keep the fact that the whole project was a sham secret then surely they'd happily risk the lives of three men to do an actual moon landing ;)
2001 was crap at simulating the 1/6 gravity of the moon, in that it didn't at all. It's blatantly obvious they were walking in a 1g environment when on the moon. Completely different to the videos from the Apollo missions where they "bounced" along.
Look at the rover videos on YouTube from the later Apollo missions, in particular how the dust is kicked up by the wheels and falls back in 1/6th gravity (not slowed down) and in perfect arcs (indicating a vacuum).
These videos show the rover travelling long distances, many 100s of metres if not kilometres. There's no way they could build such a huge intricate studio, and then evacuate all the air from it.
This video from Apollo 15 shows David Scott performing an experiment where he drops a feather and a hammer together from the same height. Due to the vacuum on the moon, they hit the ground at the same time. You really think they could, or more accurately, bothered to have built an incredibly large studio and evacuated the air from it?
You missed the bit about 2001 being made by 'amateur' scientists...back a similar project by the gov and scientists..you have your 1/6 gravity effect.
The fact a silly movie made it look good shows it was quite possible to make it look even better with the right minds/skills behind it.
Besides, I thought the conspiracy was that Grissom, White, and Chaffee were going to blow the whistle on the whole thing so NASA arranged for the capsule to catch fire to silence them.
If NASA were willing to murder three men to keep the fact that the whole project was a sham secret then surely they'd happily risk the lives of three men to do an actual moon landing ;)
The risk was only part of it. The key factor in the first landing was being first....again the science behind an unmanned vehicle is easier and cheaper than a manned one.
The missions that followed after were 'also rans'.
You missed the bit about 2001 being made by 'amateur' scientists...back a similar project by the gov and scientists..you have your 1/6 gravity effect.
How? Having more money doesn't mean you can magically build a film set with one sixth of the normal gravity.
Well it does, you just have to build it somewhere other than Earth... Of course then you'd need a huge rocket to get the actors there so they'd have to be trained astronauts... :-)
How? Having more money doesn't mean you can magically build a film set with one sixth of the normal gravity.
Well it does, you just have to build it somewhere other than Earth... Of course then you'd need a huge rocket to get the actors there so they'd have to be trained astronauts... :-)
Did you miss the part about scientists being involved...not just money? you refine the effect with super duper elastic bands until the scientist nods his head and says..'yep that's it'.
But tell me, how do you know what walking in 1/6 gravity looks like...from the moon movies? :lol:
You missed the bit about 2001 being made by 'amateur' scientists...back a similar project by the gov and scientists..you have your 1/6 gravity effect.
And how exactly do you get your 1/6 gravity effect back in the late 1960s, without going to the moon, and without modern CGI effects? Cos it certainly wasn't present in the 2001 film.
The risk was only part of it. The key factor in the first landing was being first....again the science behind an unmanned vehicle is easier and cheaper than a manned one.
Um, no it isn't. That would have meant somehow making it able to fly to the moon and land by itself, collect rock samples, deploy experiments etc, then take off, auto dock with the command module, transfer all the moon rock to the command module, then fly itself back to earth.
Comments
No I know people went to the moon, I'm simply playing devils advocate and saying it COULD have been faked fairly easily. (You are assuming I'm a conspiracy nut :P )
The complexities of sending an unmanned craft are far simpler than sending a manned one...and safer.
And you assert that would be somehow easier than the missions having being carried out as officially described?
Anything faked on Earth would be easier than actually going to the moon..for the first time. You then are dealing with knowns vs unknowns.
..that's a no brainer.
If you fake the first trip to avoid dealing with "unknowns", you still have to deal with them on the second trip.
Have you not seen the 9/11 footage! :p
..looked like diehard to me!
I've not actually seen any points offered that come close to proving sending a space vehicle to the moon and then sending it back is easier than creating it on a film set.
How is the moon mission and all that is involved in any way easier than creating a ****ty film set? :lol:
Again I cite 2001...far easier and cheaper than a moon mission....and that was just for entertainment...I'm sure a government backed project would look better...
Both the US and the Soviets had done that already and got all the data they needed to plan their manned programs. Obviously you don't just decide one day to strap three men to a massive bomb and hope they get to the moon. You do lots of calculations and experiments first :)
Faking zero, and 1/6th gravity effects convincingly is not easy. Nor is faking the lunar surface. Doing both at the same time (i.e. running on lunar soil) may well be impossible to fake convincingly. (in the physical world I mean, it's trivial these days with enough computer rendering)
Perhaps the NSA had multicore computers with vast amounts of ram that they could render the whole thing on. Maybe based on crashed alien technology, who knows. I'm sure if you dug deep enough through the internet you'd find someone claiming that they did :lol:
I don't think you're even sure what position you're arguing yourself.
As you well know all the theory in the world doesn't equal 100% success in practice...you still have unknowns to deal with in an environment you've never actually been.
Faking zero, and 1/6th gravity effects convincingly is not easy. Nor is faking the lunar surface. Doing both at the same time (i.e. running on lunar soil) may well be impossible to fake convincingly. (in the physical world I mean, it's trivial these days with enough computer rendering)
It's easier than actually going to the moon...and again I cite 2001...look
Perhaps the NSA had multicore computers with vast amounts of ram that they could render the whole thing on. Maybe based on crashed alien technology, who knows. I'm sure if you dug deep enough through the internet you'd find someone claiming that they did :lol:
2001...1968....made by non scientists....back a similar project with the gov, scientists...you have your 'effects'.
There would be multiple ways to do it so there is no singular position...
unmanned vehicle backed by faked photos/movies/voice transmissions being the primary one.
Same reason we use unmanned vehicles now for a lot of space 'work'..it's cheaper and safe than putting an actual person in it.
Is that what you're arguing or not? To repeat myself:-
Well obviously, that's why it's called space exploration ;)
I have. It was boring and my camera wouldn't work.
Yes, you don't have to worry about the human factor.
Are you under the impression the first moon landing was about science? It was about the space race with USSR...wanting to be first etc...
If you could do a faked one 6 months before an actual one..it's not a stretch to assume you'd chose to fake it (the first one at least), to 'win' the space race...
Is that what you're arguing or not? To repeat myself:-
Already answered.
:lol:
..then your point was moot :)
That means that any arguments about radiation etc are automatically invalid if we're saying that landing a man on the moon is possible and happened eventually, just not on the Apollo 11 mission.
When was the first manned mission then? Cause they'd have to do some manned lunar transits first. Obviously in real life this was Apollo 8, but in the big Apollo 11 conspiracy alternate timeline which crew was the first to do an orbit of the moon. Apollo 11 went but was unmanned right? That means that the first manned lunar mission would have to be at least Apollo 12 presumably?
So you are (now) suggesting it would have been easier (safer? cheaper?) to convincingly fake it than actually doing it for real. As long as do an unfaked one 6 months afterwards.
I think you're a bit of a wally.
No it wasn't... You do lots of test and calculations and once you have a low enough calculated risk you take the next step.
You have to take a risk some time and strap people to a rocket. Unless you think *ALL* manned spaceflight is a hoax, and the ISS built itself...
2001 was crap at simulating the 1/6 gravity of the moon, in that it didn't at all. It's blatantly obvious they were walking in a 1g environment when on the moon. Completely different to the videos from the Apollo missions where they "bounced" along.
Look at the rover videos on YouTube from the later Apollo missions, in particular how the dust is kicked up by the wheels and falls back in 1/6th gravity (not slowed down) and in perfect arcs (indicating a vacuum).
These videos show the rover travelling long distances, many 100s of metres if not kilometres. There's no way they could build such a huge intricate studio, and then evacuate all the air from it.
This video from Apollo 15 shows David Scott performing an experiment where he drops a feather and a hammer together from the same height. Due to the vacuum on the moon, they hit the ground at the same time. You really think they could, or more accurately, bothered to have built an incredibly large studio and evacuated the air from it?
If NASA were willing to murder three men to keep the fact that the whole project was a sham secret then surely they'd happily risk the lives of three men to do an actual moon landing ;)
In relation to it being easier than doing it on Earth...your point was moot...The only risk on Earth is that you might spill your coffee on yourself.
You missed the bit about 2001 being made by 'amateur' scientists...back a similar project by the gov and scientists..you have your 1/6 gravity effect.
The fact a silly movie made it look good shows it was quite possible to make it look even better with the right minds/skills behind it.
The risk of doing it on Earth is that it would look obviously fake, and everyone would find out. Way to show the USSR who's boss...
The risk was only part of it. The key factor in the first landing was being first....again the science behind an unmanned vehicle is easier and cheaper than a manned one.
The missions that followed after were 'also rans'.
How? Having more money doesn't mean you can magically build a film set with one sixth of the normal gravity.
Well it does, you just have to build it somewhere other than Earth... Of course then you'd need a huge rocket to get the actors there so they'd have to be trained astronauts... :-)
No risk at all, if the finished product looked fake you just cancel it....
Well it does, you just have to build it somewhere other than Earth... Of course then you'd need a huge rocket to get the actors there so they'd have to be trained astronauts... :-)
Did you miss the part about scientists being involved...not just money? you refine the effect with super duper elastic bands until the scientist nods his head and says..'yep that's it'.
But tell me, how do you know what walking in 1/6 gravity looks like...from the moon movies? :lol:
And how exactly do you get your 1/6 gravity effect back in the late 1960s, without going to the moon, and without modern CGI effects? Cos it certainly wasn't present in the 2001 film.
But it didn't look good though, far from it. It's blatantly obvious that they are in a 1g environment in the moon scenes in 2001.
Um, no it isn't. That would have meant somehow making it able to fly to the moon and land by itself, collect rock samples, deploy experiments etc, then take off, auto dock with the command module, transfer all the moon rock to the command module, then fly itself back to earth.