So the moon landing was faked!

Dimple said:
WHY?
This is one of the best threads ever and an amazing source for ignorance.
I'm now eagerly awaiting groens reply to why he thinks he should be able to photograph stars if he was on the Moons surface.
Click to expand...

I'm still waiting for a reply about the VLT and the Soyuz launch.
Seeing a s the first cant resolve and that latter is below the van Allen Belt.
So wondering why he hasn't looked up these simple details, but instead he's just believed BS like normal and now it's been pointed out, won't reply.
 
Freefaller said:
but that's not to say this is now getting rather tedious.
Click to expand...

Like the bi-monthly OcUK religious threads? Those are tedious in the extreme.

At least this doesn't argue 18 versions of the same thing and contains some actual evidence and first-hand accounts. ;)
 
Dimple said:
Good grief how hard is it not to click on a thread you think is tedious?
It's embarrassing to think that grown adults don't know how to do this.
Click to expand...

That echos my thoughts, if you don't like a thread don't read it. It's not compulsory. Read the stuff you do like. Simples...;):)
 
Still waiting for Gillywibble then?
Instead of him posting replies why doesn't he structure his 'will prove the whole thing is a hoax reply'?
 
I know the OcUk forums do not represent a standard cross-section of the UK populace, but some of the comments and beliefs in this thread are mind blowing.

We have some right odd types on here, that is for sure.
 
Combat squirrel said:
Yes that question was answered by Neil Armstrong in the interview autobiography I was reading, in short, he said, in those days, when there was a clear goal, when they were competing in the cold war, the whole USA got stuck in with the hard work...........he also said in those days, unlike today, when the 'end of the day' bell rang, everyone just carried on working because they were:

1) Dedicated
2) Interested
3) Motivated

He also said it was successful because everyone on every part and every nut and bolt on the entire system made it better than they could have done.........because no one wanted their particular assignment to fail and be the cause of a mission failure, the entire system was designed to be 99.9996% reliable (which is plausible on an 'unlimited' budget), also as said, everyone was ON IT, so to speak.

Apparently in the amount of parts the entire Saturn V stack, an acceptable mission was 1000 component failures, post Apollo it was concluded on average on each mission approx 150 failures occured.

1) Dedicated
2) Interested
3) Motivated

Does a lot.

I think the Apollo was the greatest organisational and managerial feat ever done by humans - it showed.
Click to expand...

gillywibble said:
It is being written. I will spend more time on it tomorrow. Finding source material can take time.
Click to expand...

Any thoughts on that point ? From the horses mouth so to speak.
 
Dimple said:
I hope this source material is completely new and not the old 'Why aren't there any stars in the photos and you can't fly past Eddie Van Halens belt'
Click to expand...

After watching independance day just now, the first shot (ship travelling over the apollo site) that image DOES have stars in it.

So either the moon landing pictures are fake, or the independance day ones are . . . . :D
 
PhillyDee said:
After watching independance day just now, the first shot (ship travelling over the apollo site) that image DOES have stars in it.

So either the moon landing pictures are fake, or the independance day ones are . . . . :D
Click to expand...

However, the main point was that the cameras were set on one setting and I don't know anything about cameras. What I do know is that last night I took about 10 photos of the snow falling and not one picture contained snow falling so I was either on the wrong settings or there was no snow falling (but there was).
 
G1vTKWa.png
 
So in 1969 man landed on the moon, 250,000 miles from earth and in 2013 no manned spacecraft can go more than 400 miles from earth. Lol, pull the other one.
 
Last edited:
G_Wizz said:
So in 1969 man landed on the moon, 250,000 miles from earth and in 2013 no manned spacecraft can go more than 400 miles from earth. Lol, pull the other one.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if you're being serious or not.

But the main reason we haven't been back is fairly simple.
Without the cold war (or a similar situation) there is zero political will to spend the money on going back to the moon (it was effectively a huge willy waving competition to show which political view point was "better").

On the other hand we rely quite heavily on things in near earth orbit/a few hundred miles up for everything from weather tracking, communications, astronomic observations and finding the nearest curry house, to spying on other countries to see what they're up to...(IIRC NASA is currently thought to be involved in the launch/recovery of a reusable minim shuttle for the US military).

In short going to the moon was of scientific interest, but didn't really require manned missions (that side of it was effectively PR, and given today's tech much of what can be done by a manned mission can be done remotely*), whilst actually maintaining stuff in earth orbit is of economic and military use, and as a side effect is also very handy for science, not to mention easier and cheaper than returning to the moon.



*Back in the 60's there were no real remotely operated probes that could have done what the manned missions did, now it would probably be simpler and cheaper to send a robotic probe, or several of them with distinct tasks (if for no other reason than you don't need to lug a load of life support systems around, and only need to worry about lifting any samples back to earth).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom