Russia Demands Probe into US Moon Landing...

drs101 said:
im not saying they did fake, more that its a possibility, but the idea that governments don't get involved in conspiracy's and people that entertain such ideas are juts nutters is just plain naive.
Click to expand...

This isn't an area where I'd claim any expertise but given that Russia didn't even attempt to claim the US faked it at the time (and let us not forget they weren't exactly on speaking terms back then), my understanding is that various people tracked it live as it went up via radio signals and you can still see the mirrors they placed on the moon that this perhaps isn't one of the things you should be claiming conspiracy theory on. If it's actually more effort to fake it than it is to do it then you'd have to question why they'd bother to do the faking...

Conspiracies can and do happen but they're pretty rare and you'd be talking about something on an absolutely monumental level for the moon landings not to be real while also assuming that people with absolutely nothing to gain from sticking to the story would do so.
 
glen8 said:
I'm not sure if I dreamt it, read it on the internet, or saw it on a documentary but there was a theory that back in the 50s the government detected an impact on the moon which was the catalyst for the mission (why the government spent millions on the space program). They wanted to beat the russians to find out what it was.
Click to expand...

I'll take 'What is Transformers: Dark of the Moon?' for £1000
 
stopper said:
And you need to watch how you talk to people.
The claims are not mine, and never said I personally believe them.
I was pointing out that Russia was probably investigating it based on some of those claims.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=cant+get+past+van+allen+belt

Rude ****** ******.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:
They Arendt even investigating it fir fake landings. They're investigating missing moon rocks and footage, nothing to do with any CT.

Secondly, it's complete rubbish and anyone should be able to assimilate that it's complete rubbish. No where has nasa or anyone else with any knowledge ever said you can't get passed the belt. "
So yeah perhaps you should read the link in the op which explains what they want to look at. And not pay such atention to such nonsense,
 
They got through the belt during the moon landings because the time the astronauts would spend travelling through said belt would be minimal and radiation exposure time would be within safe limits set by the AEC. Space components are hardened against radiation. How, are trade / state secrets (clearly a conspiracy and alien technology).

Beyond the belt, and outside the command module, in the thinner skinned and lighter lunar module, had they been caught in a solar flare or some other heavy radiation pass, they'd have been proper ****ed, as they say.

http://spacemath.gsfc.nasa.gov/Algebra1/3Page7.pdf

Of course, you should take all that factual math and science with a pinch of salt.
 
Glaucus said:
[..]
And what footage has been lost?
Click to expand...

Some of the higher-quality original recordings. Copies of them exist, but the picture quality is lower. The incoming transmissions were recorded and retransmitted in a lossy way - footage of the retransmissions exists but some of the footage of the initial recordings has been lost because NASA reused the tapes. So the footage isn't really lost, just sort of partly lost.
 
George Hincapie said:
i was clearly talking generally about the reaction to any topic where someone presents anything other than the accepted point of view. Don't be blinkered and keep an open mind is my position. There's nothing rubbish about that.
Click to expand...

There wouldn't be if that was what you're doing. But it isn't. You're dismissing all evidence solely on the basis of your belief that all governments always lie.

If I show you a £20 note and tell you that it's an 18p note, does that mean that the truth is that it's a £10.09 note? The truth is always in the middle, right? What if I show you a £20 note and tell you that it's a potato? What's the middle position then?

The truth is with the evidence. It's not always in the middle of whatever different people are saying - sometimes some people are lying, deluded, ignorant, misled or some combination of those things. As a result, their statements don't carry the same weight as those that match up with the evidence.

The evidence is extremely clearly in favour of the moon landings being real. I think it's fair to go as far as saying that there is no evidence that they were faked.

There is only one possible scenario in which they could be faked - some form of non-human power. Aliens, gods, whatever. Faking the moon landings would have required technology that was not even close to known human technology at the time, so faking it would have required some sort of superhuman power. In addition, the only reason for faking them that's consistent even with itself is superhuman power. The USA could have done a manned moon landing and they spent the money for making the the manned landings possible and for sending ships to the moon and back and they sent ships to the moon and back, so the only internally consistent explanation as to why they wouldn't have people in those ships is that a superhuman power stopped them doing so, then used their superhuman power (technology or magic) to create the fakes that human tech of the time couldn't have made and to alter the memories of the people involved.

Most people who believe in the evidence-free fake landings conspiracy faith are so utterly ignorant of the subject that they don't even know that there was more than one manned landing!
 
Glaucus said:
The most annoying one CTs have got in normal peoples heads is why no stars.
Well it's like cameras on earth, the moon's so bloody bright. The exposure can't do anything on the moon and stars.
Click to expand...

That serves as a good example of how some people are misled by conspiracy believers by not taking into consideration that the conditions on the moon aren't the same as the conditions on the Earth. They see a black sky and assume (consciously or not) that it's night (or possibly a full eclipse) because that's what it means on Earth. At night or during a full eclipse, many stars are visible from the surface of the moon. More than are visible from the surface of the Earth. The problem is that their initial Earth-based assumption is wrong on the moon. The sky on the moon is always black, even during the day unless you're looking directly at the sun, because there isn't any atmosphere to reflect sunlight. The photos were taken during the day (all the landings took place during daytime, which lasts a couple of weeks on the moon) so the stars aren't visible for the same reason they're not visible during the day on Earth. A photo on the moon during the night would show a multitude of stars. But it would be -170C and you wouldn't be able to see so you would fall over something if you moved. Which is why all the landings took place early in the lunar morning (before it got too hot - it's ~100C at noon).
 
Apollo 11 equipment transmitted fully progressive 320p footage at 10 fps, due to earths rotation this footage was being received by two observatories in Australia. One was responsible for recording the feed onto 1 inch tape analog telemetry data recorder exactly as received. The other was tasked with sending the feed to the world.

Because the footage was not compatible with any existing TV systems and real time standard conversion wasn't even an option back then, the conversion was done by "custom designed system" of basically pointing a TV camera at 10 inch screen receiving live feed from Apollo 11. The signal was then fed through analogue disk recorder outputting 20 fps and forwarded via satellite to Houston and from there via microwave relay to US stations the rest of the world, which though similar process would convert it to 25 or 30fps (yes, it's a true story, what the world saw, was literally that, someone filming TV screen several times over, with analogue transmission losses inbetween).

So, to cut story short - the recordings of TV broadcast were not lost, the analogue disc recordings from TV camera pointed at the screen were not lost, the super 8mm film made as a backup by filming another screen in the same facility as the TV camera - was not lost, but NASA managed to lose the only thing that mattered - the tapes of first generation 1:1 data recording of the progressive 10fps feed made by the second facility. Investigation concluded that the tapes were received at Goddard, then most likely the only first gen footage of the greatest achievement in modern history of human kind was promptly erased and recorded over.

It's like they wanted to feed the tin foil hat army for years.
 
Last edited:
Truth be told, as far as space exploration goes Russians should be careful with any finger pointing, because Gagarins first flight was actually rigged for media. It's a long story, look it up if you care, but effectively for the manned flight to count at the time the craft had to lift off and land with crew onboard, and landing with crew inside just wasn't possible in hard terrain scenario, so Gagarin had to parachute prior to damaged Vostok smashing into the ground and leaving massive crater. But because for Russians it was all or nothing - they lied about it for several decades. True story, not a conspiracy theory. They released documentation of real events after perestroyka - it's all there, signed and fully corrected now.

However, even in real life, corrected story, his parachuting involved leaving the half burnt Vostok capsule by manually releasing hatch and ejecting himself from the craft in direction of descent around 4-5km from the ground before Vostok's main parachute deployed. All of it happened at 8g, while the capsule was gyrating wildly after equipment module failed to separate upon re-entry, the pilot himself was head down, had a globe, watch and a pencil station to calculate his exit and was still telegraphing manual replies to ground station.

So, Ruskies, why poke at lunar landings, when you have something so irresistibly flawed in your own history books and you made the first man in space lie about how he landed the craft to the media. I'm just saying...
 
Last edited:
v0n said:
....
Click to expand...

I thought the original 1:1 tapes had actually been found a couple of years back when NASA were moving/sorting the contents of one of it's warehouses?
IIRC they have or had a massive problem with inventory tracking in their warehouses where they stored non current documents and materials, and were attempting to sort it (the curse of the old paper based indexes was always keeping them current, even in a small library that was not always an easy job, let alone somewhere like NASA with millions of items across multiple sites).

The standards conversion is pretty typical of the time. The BBC for example used to do something similar on a regular basis, and I think on at least one occasions where something was being broadcast in Europe that was of major interest (the world cup or olympics) had a building (or even just a shed) on the coast with a big aerial aimed at France, a TV tuned to the correct French station and a camera aimed at the TV (I can't remember if this was before satellite links became available, or when they were still too rare and expensive for anything but the biggest events).

Some of the old methods used in TV are pretty amusing, basic and blindingly obvious once you know about them, but not what you'd expect (there were a lot of old systems that had a certain elegance with their simplicity, such as when clocks needed to be exactly synced for broadcast and similar uses, there was a design that used a single master clock with a timing signal sent to each slave face).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom