- Sep 28, 2009
- 23,171
- 32,550
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- Reading FC
I used to be interested in the moon landing hoax thing but there is too much proof we went
Conspiracy Theory If man never went to the moon...
- Thread starter Duritz
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #52
The term you're looking for is confirmation bias, link, and on watching those videos I thought exactly the same. The narrator in the second video even went so far as to use Armstrong's words that he was "some 130,000 miles above the earth" as damning evidence because given her theory he had to be in earth's orbit.
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #53
The second video had three or four interesting points, that I'd like to see rebutted, but a lot of rubbish ones. Still, you only need one compelling one to prove a case, too. The first video was absolute ******* garbage, in that the NASA guy never, ever suggested what the title implies. It was words taken out of context at its finest. Terrible, terrible, terrible video, and a prime example of (again) confirmation bias, and how people will interpret things to suit their own agenda.
- Apr 10, 2010
- 6,659
- 9,184
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Other Teams
- AFC Wimbledon
Yeah it was those videos I was referring to though like I said it's not so much the videos, I'm a definite moon landing believer but it can be interesting to debate what you believe, see if it holds up to criticism and think about what someone else is putting up as an alternative and so fair enough when people do the same thing starting with the premise that the moon landing seems suss to them.
Then there are the comments that just about use ignorance as proof that they are right and any other view means "Sheep!".
In the first video I don't hear it as a NASA engineer 'letting slip' that its not possible to pass through the Van Allen Belts he's talking about it from a risk assessment point of view and acceptable risk would be much lower now then it was in the days of the Apollo mission. Radiation from the Van Allen Belts is a known risk, it needs to be considered and things put in place to bring it within an acceptable level, there is nothing in that video that makes me think he's trying to say we can't or haven't already run that risk.
I honestly don't know enough about how the video recordings were done to add anything to the claims that circular windows were used but the claims about speeding up the astronaut's walk seems odd to me. The downward acceleration on the moon is roughly a sixth of what it is on Earth and so if you speed the video up the right amount of course you can bring the steps more in time with what we would expect to see with someone walking in the Earth's gravity but the video still doesn't look like someone walking in the Earth's gravity to me, there is a shuffling movement in the video as the astronaut creates almost no upward pressure with each step (no visible push off) that just looks odd for anyone moving in the Earth's gravity regardless of what suit they're wearing.
Edit: Watching it again and I know now what it's been reminding me of, someone moving downhill. It's got that same forward momentum created with minimal pushing off. So at the very least if that's not on the moon I reckon someone has tilted the sound stage
All just my 2 cents to the discussion.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #55
Exactly right re video 1. The claims by the poster of the video (the youtube poster) are ridiculous, the engineer suggests nothing that he implies.
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #56
For the "the space station is really just a facility in Canada" theorists out there, you'll be pleased to know that you can watch the space station pass overhead tonight. 6:05pm, if you're in southern Victoria it will appear overhead, big and bright, in the South East and will cross the sky to the north west, it'll be visible horizon to horizon for 6 minutes.
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #58
Not sure of the relevance to the moon...
I thought that window trick was an interesting point.
If we could go there in 1969.
Why does it seem so far away now in 2015
We should have a base there by now.
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #60
A base for what? It's essentially a desert. What is the gain?
A permanent human presence on a celestial body other than Earth would be great for our progression as a species and the potential for more discoveries is huge.
There could also be financial gains as I'm sure the moon could have mining opportunities.
Also we could put a high powered telescope there to see further into the cosmos and use the base as a launching pad to Mars and beyond.
It's hard enough having a base in Antarctica on Earth.
On the Moon there is no Oxygen, and temps range from over 100 degrees to -200 degrees. That and it's about 400,000km or so from earth as well so building something that big would be a monumental task. That's a lot of obstacles to overcome.
The telescope is a great idea and a job that could be attainable perhaps though.
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #63
Re telescope especially if remotely operated (obviously) and sends images back to earth. Very handy.
Maybe we could get the aliens on the dark side to build one for us?
We we're building large scale public housing in 1969, we're doing nothing to solve the housing crisis today.
Uni was FREE! in 1969, 10's of thousands of dollars now.
we had large scale manufacturing industry in 1969, almost existing in this country now.
We had large scale infrastructure building in 1969, now we don't even build dams required to see us through drought.
the answer as to why the yanks stopped going to the moon is the same answer as to why this country is heading towards a glim future.
Because we don't have people who have any interest in the future running the country.
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #65
Again, this is the nature of capitalism. Self interest.
BustedWing
Premiership Player
- Aug 29, 2013
- 3,091
- 2,038
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
Put a telescope on the moon, point it at a distant galaxy/star/something of interest, and you would get a picture....just like the one you would get from Hubble. These things are so far away from us, that moving a telescope to the moon doesnt achieve anything in terms of magnification/picture clarity etc etc.
Imagine you're on the beach, looking at a ship on the horizon. Now, move 0.000000000000000001cm closer. Does the ship look any different to you now you've moved closer?
Its the same principle. The reason Hubble is so awesome is it doesnt have to contend with earths atmosphere, not because its any closer to the stars.
A telescope on the moon would cost billions to build, send there and maintain, and it would give us zero gain.
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #67
So you're saying we should do it?
BustedWing
Premiership Player
- Aug 29, 2013
- 3,091
- 2,038
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
hah! Exactly!
- Jun 22, 2008
- 24,580
- 21,275
- AFL Club
- Geelong
There's a brilliant series on Foxtel atm called, Moon Machines. They say that there was 400,000 in the development of the Apollo missions.
The Saturn V Rocket
The Command Module
The Navigation Computer
The Lunar Module
The Space Suit
The Lunar Rover
- Jun 22, 2008
- 24,580
- 21,275
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Obviously a shooting star.
- Sep 21, 2009
- 16,746
- 14,954
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
******* Americans! They won't be happy until everyone has a gun!
- Jul 31, 2012
- 5,420
- 8,499
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Everton, Chiefs Kingdom
Apollo 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 & 17 all went to the moon. Of these only 8, 10 & 13 did not land.
So that's nine lunar missions and six landings.
It really was one hell of a hoax!
Don't lie, Apollo 13 was clearly a movie. It's even on IMDB!
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #74
Exactly! Tom Hanks was even in it ffs!!
I don't think it's a great idea at all. It is infinitely more cheaper and efficient to launch a telescope into space and placing it in a stable orbit, rather than transporting materials and building and/or assembling it on the moon. What point is there to have a moon-based telescope when you can have one in space?
Similar threads
