The 1969 Moon Landings

145791012

Comments

  • edited November 2012
    beanz wrote: »
    You never responded to my fiver request..it's been more than 4 seconds...

    That's cause you edited it after I'd read it. :p
  • edited November 2012
    beanz wrote: »
    There is no massive delay...2 seconds to the moon, 2 seconds back.
    Plus the time taken for the transmissions to be sent by long-distance cable to and from California (I think that's where you said the astronauts would be). Of course nobody would question why the latency was ~150% greater than it should be, especially not anybody who works in a radio tracking station. Nor would they question why mysteriously similar tracking stations suddenly appeared next door to them all prior to the first moon landing.

    Yep, seems pretty water tight.

    Oh,and people "who disappear into the witness protection program" aren't usually internationally famous. And they normally have some motivation for staying in the witness protection programme and maintaining their cover other than "so NASA doesn't get caught faking our failed trip to the moon".
  • edited November 2012
    Plus the time taken for the transmissions to be sent by long-distance cable to and from California (I think that's where you said the astronauts would be).

    Small fraction of a second over land lines..speed of light etc.


    Of course nobody would question why the latency was ~150% greater than it should be, especially not anybody who works in a radio tracking station. Nor would they question why mysteriously similar tracking stations suddenly appeared next door to them all prior to the first moon landing.

    Nope they wouldn't....simply put it down to delayed responses..humans rarely start talking the very moment the other person stops...a 2/2.5 longer than expected delay isn't a big deal at all.

    Yep, seems pretty water tight.

    Waits 3 seconds...Yep.


    Oh,and people "who disappear into the witness protection program" aren't usually internationally famous.

    Some are...

    And they normally have some motivation for staying in the witness protection programme and maintaining their cover other than "so NASA doesn't get caught faking our failed trip to the moon".

    Let me assure you the US has no shortage of gungho, go USA, etc people who would happily spend the rest of their lives in witness protection if it make the USA #1 in the space race...

    Some Nazi war criminals did pretty good at it...Mengele
  • edited November 2012
    ....Anyone fancy a pint?
    '79:PrinztronicMicro5500> '83:Spec(48K)> '84:Spec+(kit)> '86:Spec128> '88:ST> '90:A500> '93:A1200> '93:SNES> '95:PS1> '99:PC> '02:PS2> '05:Xbox> '12:Xbox360> '14:PS4 XboxLive:messy73, PSN:mrmessy73, YouTube:mrmessyschannel
  • edited November 2012
    mrmessy wrote: »
    ....Anyone fancy a pint?

    Imperial or US?

    And what's the gravity of the pint? :lol:

    (Homebrewers may only understand)
  • edited November 2012
    beanz wrote: »
    Let me assure you the US has no shortage of gungho, go USA, etc people who would happily spend the rest of their lives in witness protection if it make the USA #1 in the space race...

    Gus Grissom was absolutely not one of those people though. I expect that NASA would have had to have him killed to keep him quiet. He was not one to take crap from people in suits.
  • edited November 2012
    guesser wrote: »
    Gus Grissom was absolutely not one of those people though. I expect that NASA would have had to have him killed to keep him quiet. He was not one to take crap from people in suits.

    Or he was playing a role given to him to make him seem more believable...

    Never met him so don't know if the public figure was the same as the private figure... :p

    Ted Bundy played a good role to many who DID know him...(as an example)
  • edited November 2012
    guesser wrote: »
    Gus Grissom was absolutely not one of those people though. I expect that NASA would have had to have him killed to keep him quiet. He was not one to take crap from people in suits.

    They killed Gus Grissom?! I knew it!
    '79:PrinztronicMicro5500> '83:Spec(48K)> '84:Spec+(kit)> '86:Spec128> '88:ST> '90:A500> '93:A1200> '93:SNES> '95:PS1> '99:PC> '02:PS2> '05:Xbox> '12:Xbox360> '14:PS4 XboxLive:messy73, PSN:mrmessy73, YouTube:mrmessyschannel
  • edited November 2012
    mrmessy wrote: »
    They killed Gus Grissom?! I knew it!

    Well they had to set fire to him as their first attempt at drowning him by sabotaging the door on Liberty Bell 7 failed ;)
  • edited November 2012
    beanz wrote: »
    Or he was playing a roll given to him

    Here Gus, do everything we tell you and you can have this delicious swiss roll!
  • edited November 2012
    guesser wrote: »
    Well they had to set fire to him as their first attempt at drowning him by sabotaging the door on Liberty Bell 7 failed ;)

    ^ Conspiracy theory!
  • edited November 2012
    beanz wrote: »
    ^ Conspiracy theory!

    No, it's true, I read it on the internet! ;)
  • edited November 2012
    Can we all just agree that the Moon is, in fact, real. And let that be an end to it.
    '79:PrinztronicMicro5500> '83:Spec(48K)> '84:Spec+(kit)> '86:Spec128> '88:ST> '90:A500> '93:A1200> '93:SNES> '95:PS1> '99:PC> '02:PS2> '05:Xbox> '12:Xbox360> '14:PS4 XboxLive:messy73, PSN:mrmessy73, YouTube:mrmessyschannel
  • edited November 2012
    guesser wrote: »
    Here Gus, do everything we tell you and you can have this delicious swiss roll!

    :lol: I actually spelled it right 'role' and then 'corrected' it because it didn't look right...more coffee.
  • edited November 2012
    Can we all just agree that the Moon is, in fact, real. And let that be an end to it.

    Which moon?
  • edited November 2012
    mrmessy wrote: »
    Can we all just agree that the Moon is, in fact, real.

    That's no moon, it's a space station! :p
  • edited November 2012
    beanz wrote: »
    Which moon?

    Earth's moon.
  • edited November 2012
    guesser wrote: »
    No, it's true, I read it on the internet! ;)

    Ah good, books never lie after all...
  • edited November 2012
    guesser wrote: »
    Earth's moon.

    But then I'd have to refer you to the Universe is a computer simulation thread...
  • edited November 2012
    moon-landing-is-fake.jpg
  • edited November 2012
    and joffa smith made it.

    talking about moons, i like this song:

  • edited November 2012
    beanz wrote: »
    Nope they wouldn't....simply put it down to delayed responses..humans rarely start talking the very moment the other person stops...a 2/2.5 longer than expected delay isn't a big deal at all.
    Of course it is, a factor of 2-2.5x larger is considerable when the starting point is already 1.3 seconds. Anyway, I assume you're either taking the piss and are fapping yourself senseless about the quantity of people's time and attention you're taking up with your nonsense, or you're serious and a bit thick. Either way, I'm done here.
  • edited November 2012
    ccowley wrote: »
    Of course it is, a factor of 2-2.5x larger is considerable when the starting point is already 1.3 seconds. Anyway, I assume you're either taking the piss and are fapping yourself senseless about the quantity of people's time and attention you're taking up with your nonsense, or you're serious and a bit thick. Either way, I'm done here.

    /pause 4 seconds....no it's not.

    Best have a hot cup of tea I think... :lol:
  • edited November 2012
    So who won? :-)
  • edited November 2012
    guesser wrote: »
    So who won? :-)

    The guys who make nonstick pans.

    EDIT:

    And as far as the space race goes...looks like China will win.
  • edited November 2012
    beanz wrote: »
    Multitasking, you work on both at the same time..the actual mission science would be needed for later missions anyway so the only redundancy would be if the faked ones looked crap...and they didn't ;)

    Yes! They would only try the real mission if the fake footage looked unconvincing with shadows in multiple directions or a waving flag!

    Oh wait...
    Creator of ZXDB, BIFROST/NIRVANA, ZX7/RCS, etc. I don't frequent this forum anymore, please look for me elsewhere.
  • edited November 2012
    guesser wrote: »
    beanz wrote: »
    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.

    That's a silly argument. They used robots of course!
    Creator of ZXDB, BIFROST/NIRVANA, ZX7/RCS, etc. I don't frequent this forum anymore, please look for me elsewhere.
  • edited November 2012
    Yes! They would only try the real mission if the fake footage looked unconvincing with shadows in multiple directions or a waving flag!

    Oh wait...


    So you're saying they were faked!
  • edited November 2012
    beanz wrote: »
    What if they talk? Or do you have teams of special agents patching their radio data on the fly to make them think their communicating with people on the moon? What if they talk, or fail to do a convincing job?

    See above..easy....6 agents sitting on their hotel balcony's strategically placed around the world...transmitting the live voices of the 3 selected 'space men' who are sitting in California to the capsule on an encrypted frequency which is then transmitted as if it's coming from the capsule....

    A relatively simple procedure....

    Well, no. The radio transmissions were received by highly directional antennas, in other words, someone on a hotel balcony on the same frequency wouldn't be heard at all.

    Not only would you have to get dish operators from many different nations in on the conspiracy, you'd have to also have the Soviets in on the conspiracy since their highly directional antennas are not under your control. And you'd have to fool all the radio hams that were undoubtedly listening in all over the world, with directional antennas. Supposing directional antennas were not needed, it'd still be a lost cause - because of the radio hams you'd need more than 6 agents, you'd probably need 100,000+ agents to get good coverage and fool all the amateur radio operators. And you can just bet that a significant minority of hams would also have direction finding equipment and would instantly smell a rat. That's before we even get into the problems where two of these hypothetical agents were close enough that the coverage from their transmitters would overlap and the dead giveaway the heterodyning squeal would be...

    As for all the other stuff, to make a convincing moon landing video with today's tech is possible because of CGI. Also, robotic missions are a great deal more advanced today - just look at Spirit, Opportunity and Curiosity on Mars. But in 1969, not a chance. Not only would you have to evacuate an enormous space (and think of how strong that structure would have to be, 14.7 psi * the surface area of a building large enough to drive a rover around in, with no support columns, or certainly few enough support columns not to get in the way). NASA do have a large vacuum chamber - I've actually seen it, when I lived in Houston I used to work opposite the JSC, and it's at JSC - but it's not nearly big enough, not by a long shot - and you still don't have 1/6th G. You can stick the astronauts on rubber bands, but not every dust particle, and the dust kicked up by the rover would be a dead giveaway. You can simulate 1/6th G in a "vomit comit" but that's only good for indoor scenes, the aircraft interior isn't large enough for outdoor scenes nor is it big enough for the rover, nor is a plane strong enough to have the cabin evacuated even when flying at 40,000 feet (planes are designed to have a positive pressure with respect to the outside). As already mentioned, 2001 didn't simulate 1/6 gravity in the film, only zero G and a fairly unconvincing zero G at that (we never saw floating people, only a few small objects).
  • edited November 2012
    beanz wrote: »
    So you're saying they were faked!

    OK let me tell you the truth!

    It all started in early 1960, when US government noticed a large dark monolith on the moon. They knew sooner or later people would start asking "Why the hell there's this shinny regular surface on the moon?". That would be embarrassing! So they started a long term plan to pretend they sent some people to the moon, then afterwards they could simply answer "Well that's just a mirror we left up there". Besides providing a credible explanation for the monolith's brightness, they could even claim this reflection was an evidence that the fake moon landing was real. Brilliant!

    The fake footage was also supposed to show astronauts sculpting a giant face on the moon just for fun, but unfortunately the fake sculpture was not delivered to the studio on time. So they missed the chance to also give a convincing explanation for that one... too late now!
    Creator of ZXDB, BIFROST/NIRVANA, ZX7/RCS, etc. I don't frequent this forum anymore, please look for me elsewhere.
Sign In or Register to comment.