I clicked this thread expecting sliderider to be the only person arguing for the landings being a hoax. I was not disappointed 😀 🤣

Stojke wrote:

Soviets would have made it earlier if they didn't have rocket problems 😀
Sergei Korolev was an amazing man.

Yes, Russians had problems with the N1 design, the politburo was not happy and funding became thinner and thinner.

Korolev was a genius, a man ahead of its time, he had been in my opinion treted unfairly.

But, Americans had trouble with the Saturn V engines too, and lost quite some time too.

DracoNihil wrote:

Don't creationists have similar views in regards to saying the whole "astronauts on the moon" is a hoax?

I'm curious about this part. Why would this be a creationist school of thought? Honestly, most creationists that I know (quite a few) argue in favor of the moon landing being real. Am I missing something?

Not trying to add to the flame wars that erupt from these discussions, but I'm quite baffled by that question myself because DracoNihil obviously had a reason for asking it.

DonutKing wrote:

I clicked this thread expecting sliderider to be the only person arguing for the landings being a hoax. I was not disappointed 😀 🤣

It's pretty OK to have doubts. NASA is not about education, so they don't feel they have to educate the world on how their stuff works or why things look like they do. But there is plenty of data, testemonials and third party evidence to corroborate the moon landings.

Stojke wrote:

Soviets would have made it earlier if they didn't have rocket problems 😀
Sergei Korolev was an amazing man.

I would say a lot of credit goes to A) Robert Goddard for his much earlier experiments with rockets and B) Wernher Von Braun, who really pushed Goddard's theories hard and made colossal scale rockets like the Saturn V and the Russian Energia possible. In fact, when Von Braun was ferreted out of his hidey hole at the end of World War II and was questioned about the V1 and V2 rockets he was surprised that the American government seemed not to know very much about Goddard's experiments. Von Braun credited much of what he knew about rocketry to Goddard.

Dominus wrote:

why waste time with tin foil hat theories?

Some of the "tin foil hat theories" are not a waste of time but this one is and have seen plenty of others that did have real facts behind them.

carlostex wrote:

Yes, Russians had problems with the N1 design, the politburo was not happy and funding became thinner and thinner. […]
Show full quote

Stojke wrote:

Soviets would have made it earlier if they didn't have rocket problems 😀
Sergei Korolev was an amazing man.

Yes, Russians had problems with the N1 design, the politburo was not happy and funding became thinner and thinner.

Korolev was a genius, a man ahead of its time, he had been in my opinion treted unfairly.

But, Americans had trouble with the Saturn V engines too, and lost quite some time too.

I know about the problems that the Russians had with their N1, it mostly with junk getting into the fuel pumps and the engines were direct cycle unlike the Saturn V. They sure did make great engines and they were more efficient for the thrust they gave out.

nemesis wrote:

I'm curious about this part. Why would this be a creationist school of thought? Honestly, most creationists that I know (quite a few) argue in favor of the moon landing being real. Am I missing something?

Not trying to add to the flame wars that erupt from these discussions, but I'm quite baffled by that question myself because DracoNihil obviously had a reason for asking it.

I was watching this one series on Youtube called "Why do people laugh at creationists?" and some of the stuff they believe would contradict us ever getting out into space. I don't recall all of it at the moment because I'm sleep deprived at the moment of posting this.

Ok i'm gonna talk a little more about this issue.

I believe that some people are too smart to believe that NASA faked the whole thing. But still some people i would consider intelligent, and that achieved quite some success and recognition for their work, do claim that the moon landings aren't real. Either these people are frauds at their supposed areas of expertise or they are blatantly lying. David S. Percy is one of such people.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsDy0bs1Veg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dejJmkYrynE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iw3RsmgmLzo

Just some examples of how this clown is a bald faced liar.

Try photographing yourself at night next to a streetlight. Notice how there are no stars. People who think Apollo or ISS photos should have stars don't get just how faint stars are and how human eyes can adjust to low light levels. Cameras usually don't have that luxury despite other advantages.

Consider, if NASA faked the Moon landing, and stars were supposed to be visible, wouldn't adding them be trivial? The truth is, for anyone who knows anything about photography, it would be a clear fake if the stars were present as opposed to not.

There is good evidence presented and brought to light by very intelligent people, that actually do more than look at photos on the internet to justify their opinion to support both sides of the moon landing hoax. The same goes for global warming believers and non-believers. Even if I provided my opinion here, even though I am a University graduate and am well educated, it really doesn't hold a light to the opinions of those individuals that have spent so much time researching evidence for one side or another.

I do have to say though, that it should not hurt to question things that we don't really know about for sure. For example, television footage is not enough in an age of advanced technology to draw a solid conclusion from...for or against the moon landing hoax or whatever else...you can't believe everything you see on TV. You have to take the emotion out of it....too many people may feel less patriotic for questioning the moon landing, but I don't see why....just because you question things based on some scientific proof or lack there of does not make you ignorant, what makes you ignorant is drawing concusions from things that you think you understand without actual direct observation. I guess it's a 'Plato's Cave' scenario in a sense. I wish I knew for sure about the Moon Landing, but I really don't and I really don't think anyone on Vogons can claim that they know either, so there's no point in arguing in a logical sense...these type of arguments seem to just be based on emotion and prejudice for the most part. You of course can have an opinion and be respectful of others who may have an opposing opinion as well.

In light of this I really don't see an issue with sliderider having an opinion that may differ from some of the others here, for example. I am not trying to be 'Switzerland' here, but if there was no differing opinion expected here by some people, then why was this topic even created in the first place? Makes you wonder.

This topic really should be about comparing scientific evidence, but it is always the same in the end, it always becomes an emotional political battle against those that believe everything they are told by mass media and those that are not afraid to question. This probably is not really the right forum for this type of dicsussion, but I'm obviosuly not against it or else I would have not responded...🤣...it's actually really interesting.

This superb visual spectre pic was taken in 2013 by the Cassini probe orbiting Saturn.

As the probe was positioned at the dark side of the planet (opposite the Sun), the Sun light was eclipsed by Saturn, allowing the stars to shine for the camera 😀 .

The arrowed dot is Earth.

Denial of the moon landings is one small step from belief in the flat earth theory or the proposition that the sun revolves around the earth or that the earth is only 6,000 years old. I ask myself "How can I respect a person who believes such falsehoods?" This is not a question where reasonable scientific minds can differ like "Is Global Warming a substantially man-made phenomenon or is it the result of centuries of natural environmental changes like the Little Ice Age?" Such views do not deserve respect.

The cranks who feel compelled to devote their lives to "exposing the truth" are very sad people. But they are also very loud, active people and their arguments often can have a surface appeal. They are helped in their cause when the other side does not provide easy answers (you can Google) to their points. And the answers to their questions may require quite a detailed discussion. To answer the question about the Van Allen radiation would require you to review material about the Van Allen Belt and discover why the radiation exposure is not as lethal as the conspiracy theorists suggest.

There is nothing wrong with asking questions about what generally is an accepted fact that man landed on the moon. Asking and answering questions is how people learn. A fifth grade student may ask his science teacher why the flag seems to be blowing in the breeze when the moon has no atmosphere and no wind, and his teacher may answer him or suggest to him that that is an excellent starting point for his next book report. Conspiracy theorists aren't really interested in objectively finding out what the answer might be, they have an agenda and their issues are designed to raise doubt.

snorg wrote:

Mythbusters debunked all these except maybe the Van Allen Belt one. I don't know the explanation for that but I'm sure it is something logical. Maybe they sent them during a period of weak radiation or had extra shielding or both. Or maybe there is some other explanation ...

At the worst point in their route thru the Van Allen belt the Apollo crews got 0.01 rad/sec of radiation for ~15 minutes.

1 rad = 0.01 sieverts

0.01 rad = 100 microsieverts

Now have a look at this lady on a brazilian beach enjoying her ~60 microsieverts 😀 : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvgAx1yIKjg

carlostex wrote:

Ok i'm gonna talk a little more about this issue. […]
Show full quote

Ok i'm gonna talk a little more about this issue.

I believe that some people are too smart to believe that NASA faked the whole thing. But still some people i would consider intelligent, and that achieved quite some success and recognition for their work, do claim that the moon landings aren't real. Either these people are frauds at their supposed areas of expertise or they are blatantly lying. David S. Percy is one of such people.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsDy0bs1Veg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dejJmkYrynE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iw3RsmgmLzo

Just some examples of how this clown is a bald faced liar.

"Science" is currently faking global warming, why wouldn't they fake a moon landing? And for the person who posted about the ISS, how do you actually KNOW it's real? Have you ever been there or do you just believe what someone tells you on TV? Without independent verification, you can never really know anything for sure. So called "experts" have been known to lie in the past when there is enough money on the line (or in the case of communist countries, when there is a gun pointed at their heads).

sliderider wrote:

"Science" is currently faking global warming, why wouldn't they fake a moon landing? And for the person who posted about the ISS, how do you actually KNOW it's real? Have you ever been there or do you just believe what someone tells you on TV? Without independent verification, you can never really know anything for sure. So called "experts" have been known to lie in the past when there is enough money on the line (or in the case of communist countries, when there is a gun pointed at their heads).

Why don't you ask Richard Garriott sometime whether the ISS is real? Although he is probably mellower than Buzz Aldrin, be careful what you say or be prepared to duck.

sliderider wrote:

"Science" is currently faking global warming, why wouldn't they fake a moon landing? And for the person who posted about the ISS, how do you actually KNOW it's real? Have you ever been there or do you just believe what someone tells you on TV? Without independent verification, you can never really know anything for sure. So called "experts" have been known to lie in the past when there is enough money on the line (or in the case of communist countries, when there is a gun pointed at their heads).

"Science" is faking global warming? And why should i believe you when you say that?

NASA is not god. There are certain things that can't be faked. How many people in the scientific community has stated the ISS is fake or fabricated? How about the third party evidence and independent astronomers that say they monitored some Apollo missions? The Russians did too you know?

You've got one thing right people have been lying when money is on the line. David S. Percy is one of such people, and others like Bill Kaysing, Ralph René or Jarrah White have other motives, like delusions of grandure, revenge, envy, pride and seeking fame by being rebels.

Do you at least understand now why sometimes is not possible to see stars? Why do you have doubts that moon landings might be fake? Did you thought about that yourself or were you influenced by other people? Tell you this, why don't tell us everything about the moon landing that is suspicious to you, and maybe we can have a good debate about it.

sliderider wrote:

... for the person who posted about the ISS, how do you actually KNOW it's real? Have you ever been there or do you just believe what someone tells you on TV? ...

Given the right location on earth and orbital parameters, you can spot the ISS with the naked eye.

To watch more than a moving dot of light however you'll need a telescope:

^ ISS & Discovery as seen from Earth thru an amateur 8.5" telescope in 2011.

(But wait, there are no stars, so it has to be a hoax!!! 🤣 🤣 🤣 )

While we're at it: If any of you still hasn't watched Gravity leave what you're doing and go run to the cinema, superb movie! 😎

TELVM wrote:

At the worst point in their route thru the Van Allen belt the Apollo crews got 0.01 rad/sec of radiation for ~15 minutes. […]
Show full quote

At the worst point in their route thru the Van Allen belt the Apollo crews got 0.01 rad/sec of radiation for ~15 minutes.

1 rad = 0.01 sieverts

0.01 rad = 100 microsieverts

Now have a look at this lady on a brazilian beach enjoying her ~60 microsieverts 😀 : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvgAx1yIKjg

Pretty much! The combination of the module shielding, avoiding the more intense areas and low travel time through the belts resulted in around ~2 rads for the whole trip. This is half the radiation a normal worker receives working on a nuclear plant or so during a year. Jim Lovell actually went twice through the belts, and probably his body absorbed less radiation than someone who works on a nuclear power plant over the course of the year.

That experiment in Brazil just shows how much probable is to find natural radiation on earth. There is radiation all around us.

So i guess we can put stars and radiation to rest. Next....

carlostex wrote:

... That experiment in Brazil ...

No experiment at all, she just visited Guarapari beach with a counter. Guarapari is a holiday resort that makes no attempt to hide it's 'radioactive secret' 🤣 :

Apparently it's even some sort of balneary for the local folk 🤣 🤣 🤣 : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Z5mRpFdT5I&t=33m22s