Wasn't me either. So lets just let it die again I have no intention of getting into an argument over something so silly.

sliderider wrote:

Who says a vacuum is required to fake a moon landing? Can you actually see a vacuum? No, you can't. To make the dust move, you just need a strong motor similar in principle to a vacuum cleaner motor blowing instead of sucking on the bottom of whatever you design as a lunar lander and that will blow the dust around like a retro rocket firing. The technology existed for this already. All this stuff could have been easily done using film technology from the 1930's, forget about the 1960's. They were already doing special effects well enough in the old Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers serials to pull off a fake moon landing. In the 1960's it would have been even easier.

A vacuum was required because otherwise everybody would see that it was a fake. Do you really believe that the real scientists, people who studied math, astrophysics their all lives all over the world wouldn't question if there were evident mathematical errors? Math itself proves the videos we see were done on the moon:

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

Do you understand that there were no high speed video cameras in 1969 to 1972 that would allow to simulate the necessary slowdown to simulate lower gravity. You say all you need is blow the dust? Don't you understand that on earth you would have dust clouds? You know all those nice dust particles scattering around your atmosphere, while you don't see any dust clouds in the Apollo footage at all? Yeah that's why you need a vacuum.

sliderider wrote:

As for the sound stage being massive, they could have filmed it in the Houston Astrodome for all we know. There are sports stadiums all over the country that could have been used for it.

As for all the scientific mumbo jumbo, do you really think the average TV viewer would have been sophisticated enough to tell the difference between a correct or incorrect approach angle? Do you really think anyone who did know the difference would speak out against the government? Odds are anyone who was sophisticated enough to know the difference would have been working for NASA and putting their job (and possibly their lives) at risk for speaking out.

Do you think the world is only the USA? There were scientists all over the world who did not work for NASA and that were interested in the Apollo program. Were the Soviets gonna keep quiet because their space program was a fake too?

sliderider wrote:

Oh, and for your entertainment and amusement, I give you an episode of Star Trek from 1967, two years BEFORE the moon landing

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

NOW tell me a moon landing couldn't have been faked using 1960's film technology.

I watched Star Trek, i watched 2001 and it looks nothing the the Lunar EVA's. Don't you see the difference between 2001 and lunar EVA's footage? Do you understand that it was impossible for Kubrick to replicate what was seen on Apollo missions? The technology wasn't there. And Star Trek looks silly in comparison. There was even Space: 1999 which was 1975 to 1977, and you see the problems of trying to replicate the moon on earth, dust clouds, earth gravity, earth atmosphere. Don't you see that you can't overcome these constraints easily today let alone from 1969 to 1972?

Why when astronauts kick dust there are no dust clouds, the dust rises in the air and do perfect parabolas. How the heck do you do that on earth today? CGI? How about 1969?

Short answer, you could try to fake it with 1969 technology, but the final result would be an embarassing fail.

King_Corduroy wrote:

Wasn't me either. So lets just let it die again I have no intention of getting into an argument over something so silly.

It was me. Why don't you ignore it? If you don't have anything relevant to say why did you think anyone was interested in your arguments?

Is there a reason I just got attacked for being a reasonable person and not trying to stir up animosity between the forum members? Seriously what is the point of this, most people will agree that it was not a hoax and we actually went to the moon, of course you will have that 1% that believe in aliens and moon hoaxes and other things like that but for the rest of us the moon landing was a real thing. It really happened, why even bother trying to stir up arguments unless you yourself have questions as to it's authenticity but why pester us with it?

King_Corduroy wrote:

(...)I just got attacked(...)

Attacked? You mentioned you have no intention to argument over this thread subject and to let the thread die. If the subject does not interest you, why did you come here and complain? If i see a thread where the discussed subject isn't interesting for me or i do not have any relevant opinions about the question i won't be complaining about the thread subject. Don't take this personally, i wasn't attacking you.

King_Corduroy wrote:

Seriously what is the point of this, most people will agree that it was not a hoax and we actually went to the moon, of course you will have that 1% that believe in aliens and moon hoaxes and other things like that but for the rest of us the moon landing was a real thing.

That's not the point. The thread title itself is a clue. The post i made which revived the thread, was to bring attention that the current proponent for the hoax was caught lying, twice! The person itself is trying to use math to deceive and convince the masses who are sensitive to the subject and/or know little of math themselves.

As long as there is relevant information to add to a thread there's no harm in reviving it, as long as you keep on the thread subject. That's why there are different thread sections, to start threads according to subject.

King_Corduroy wrote:

It really happened, why even bother trying to stir up arguments unless you yourself have questions as to it's authenticity but why pester us with it?

You see? That's the attitude. What makes you think i'm pestering anyone besides you?

The point of this thread is not to prove the Apollo program was real or fake, was to discuss the reasoning and motives behind the hoax itself. Because critical thinking matters.

To finish, if you didn't like me and sliderider having a go at arguments why didn't you ignore? The people around here who were not interested simply ignored. Why do you care if this thread is up or down on the list if it's not interesting? Just ignore it! And again, nothing personal.

I guess I don't care, go ahead and bash away at each other if that's what you want to do. It's your time. *shrug*

King_Corduroy wrote:

I guess I don't care, go ahead and bash away at each other if that's what you want to do. It's your time. *shrug*

Don't worry, it's just a thread in a forum, it seems more harsh than it really is. Again, no hard feelings.

I think this all started with that 'Capricorn One' movie in 1977. Did anyone doubt the moon landings before then?

2fort5r wrote:

I think this all started with that 'Capricorn One' movie in 1977. Did anyone doubt the moon landings before then?

It actually was started by Bill Kaysing, who worked for Rocketdyne between 1956 to 1963. He was head of technical publications although he had no scientific or engineering training whatsoever. He wrote a book in 1976, where he argues how the hoax was perpetrated. He became regarded as the "Grandfather of the moon hoax theory".

In the following video below if you start watching from 9:10 forward, he describes how he met a Vietnam veteran who was angry at the government, so he proposed Bill to write something outrageous like: "We never went to the moon".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJxHnpa90w4

Just to quickly provide my $0.02:

Don't these people realize that the Soviets would've tracked the apollo missions? This was a massive point of national pride and the competing ideologies, etc etc. If the soviets had found that we didn't make it to the moon, we wouldn't have heard the end of it.

carlostex wrote:

It actually was started by Bill Kaysing, who worked for Rocketdyne between 1956 to 1963. He was head of technical publications although he had no scientific or engineering training whatsoever. He wrote a book in 1976, where he argues how the hoax was perpetrated.

That's interesting. It was probably the other way around then: the movie was inspired by the moon hoax conspiracy.

meisterister wrote:

Just to quickly provide my $0.02:

Don't these people realize that the Soviets would've tracked the apollo missions? This was a massive point of national pride and the competing ideologies, etc etc. If the soviets had found that we didn't make it to the moon, we wouldn't have heard the end of it.

Some hoax proponents argue the Soviets either had no capability to track Apollo while others say the Soviets kept quiet because US knew they had faked a lot of stuff too. Loads of stupidity really.

2fort5r wrote:

It was probably the other way around then: the movie was inspired by the moon hoax conspiracy.

Probably. Wikipedia suggests that, although there's no way to verify the source, but in 1977 it was probably a hot topic, since Kaysing's book was published the year before.

A relevant quote from Boris Chertok's memoirs "Rockets & People" Vol.2:

Our successes were lauded around the world. Only those directly involved knew about our fiascos and failures. […]
Show full quote

Our successes were lauded around the world. Only those directly
involved knew about our fiascos and failures.

The history of the conquest of the Moon is an example of this. I was directly
involved with all the Moon launches up until 1966. If you were to piece together
and describe the entire history of humanity’s lunar conquest from our first failures
in 1958 until the American manned lunar expeditions, you would get a very informative,
fascinating book. It would be full of scientific information, tragic and comic
events, and adventures just as riveting as any mystery or science fiction novel.

It bears mentioning that over the 30 years since the six American expeditions
to the Moon, various characters have continued their efforts to expose NASA and
prove that the presence of the astronauts on the Moon was staged, that is, that it
was all Hollywood hocus-pocus. No one doubted our successful moon launches,
but fans of big news stories simply knew nothing about our failures. We knew how
to hide our failures. During the Cold War, disinformation was fed to the potential
enemy as actively as during wartime.

They didn't hide Apollo 1.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlqvlu_di6A

sliderider wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlqvlu_di6A

Seriously sliderider??? If you put just a little bit of research you would find that's actually a mockumentary...

carlostex wrote:

sliderider wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlqvlu_di6A

Seriously sliderider??? If you put just a little bit of research you would find that's actually a mockumentary...

Really? A mockumentary featuring Donald Rumsfeld and Henry Kissinger?

Besides, I didn't bring this thread back from the dead. When you necro a dead thread, you should expect to get trolled.

Really! Yes it's a French mockumentary made in 2002:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Side_of_the … Moon_%28film%29

The problem with your clip is that it is edited, so it seems serious. And that's how consparacies are made.

So what if someone brings a thread from the dead? If someone has relevant information to add according to topic then it should be revived. It's better than creating 100 threads on the same subject. Isn't this how forums work?

And you were trolling all this time? Or is it just a "save face" attempt argument?

This is a computer game forum and we're having debate about moon hoax? At least when I debated ADDiCT and dh4rm4 into oblivion, crushed their arguments, saw them driven before me, and heard the lamentation of their.... er, never mind. Anyway, the debates were about computer games.

Alright, whatever rocks your boat, people! *grabs popcorn*

Although this is "Very Old Games On New Systems", we talk about loads of stuff mainly computer technology. This is a topic suitable for the technologically and scientifically literate, since the moon hoax itself tries to disprove 1960's technology as being insufficient to achive what was achieved.

In fact, one of the arguments is that NASA computer technology, and the Apollo guidance computer was too slow.

Wow, that discussion of yours was quite heated there Kreshna. But that's not why this topic was created. What matters is critical thinking.

Enjoy your popcorn! 🤣

carlostex wrote:

Although this is "Very Old Games On New Systems", we talk about loads of stuff mainly computer technology. This is a topic suitable for the technologically and scientifically literate, since the moon hoax itself tries to disprove 1960's technology as being insufficient to achive what was achieved.

Like I said, whatever rocks your boat. 😉

carlostex wrote:

In fact, one of the arguments is that NASA computer technology, and the Apollo guidance computer was too slow.

Those are different kind of computers than the desktop PC we have today. Aircraft (and spacecraft) control computers are specialized components designed with very specific goal - unlike today's PC that has work to run Windows, play Blu-ray movies, FLAC music, and play games. Naturally NASA control computers don't need to have as much as 'computing power' as Intel i7 or AMD FX. What's more important in those computers are redundancy. Not only the computers, but even the joystick is required to be triple-redundant.

Just my US $0.02

carlostex wrote:

Wow, that discussion of yours was quite heated there Kreshna. But that's not why this topic was created. What matters is critical thinking.

Wrong! Critical thinking is only a tool - a weapon! Conan! What is best in life?

"To crush your debating opponent, to see him driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of his woman."

carlostex wrote:

Enjoy your popcorn! 🤣

When this thread becomes heated, then the popcorn would be much more enjoyable. Flame away! 😉