[Closed] Trying to settle an argument

Funnily enough they tend to place those spy satellites around Earth, not the moon! They are in low earth orbit, most are just a few hundred km above us. The moon, by contrast, is 384,000 km away.

Well wouldn't the atmosphere and polution make it way harder than looking through space, so i'd of thought it's maybe be possible, what would hurt giving it a go, it'd shut people up if they had some footage, maybe they could shoot up a copy copy of the wednesday sport to land near it for authenticity 😆

Also on Rudeboys point about speeding up the footage and it looking the same as on earth, can one of you arm chair experts tell me why things in space fall slower? I know things weigh 1/6 of that on earth, but all objsects on earth accelerate/fall as the same rate at any given mass in earths gravity, so why don't they on the moon?

Er... I wasn't claiming that that meant all conspiracy theories are true, just that you shouldn't unquestioningly accept the official version of events for everything

And you're quite right, but IMO that doesn't stretch to willfully choosing unlikley scenarios over the most objectively likely ones, which is what the moon landing lot are doing. They're unquestionably accepting the [i]un[/i]offical version, which is no better.

I'm not claiming that all conspiracy theories are untrue, but on balance the arguments for the moon stuff pretty heavily outweigh the arguments against it I reckon.

Er... I wasn't claiming that that meant all conspiracy theories are true, just that you shouldn't unquestioningly accept the official version of events for everything

I don't - and I don't think anyone here does.

I have looked at the evidence and I have not found it wanting. I have looked at the conspiracy stuff and found it to be a huge pile of bollocks (like RudeBoys flag objection).

This is exactly what I mean about "conspiracy theorists" having a superiority complex.

They believe that only they, the chosen ones, can see the truth that the unquestioning masses are blind to.

But the masses are NOT unquestioning.

I have questioned it and I'm sure plenty of other people have on here to. But a rational mind can see that the balance of evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of the landings occurring.

MrSalmon beat me to it. +1 for Occam's Razor!

>Also on Rudeboys point about speeding up the footage and it looking the same as on earth, can one of you arm chair experts tell me why things in space fall slower? I know things weigh 1/6 of that on earth, but all objsects on earth accelerate/fall as the same rate at any given mass in earths gravity, so why don't they on the moon?

Moon's gravity is 1/6th that of Earth so things fall slower.

v squared = u squared + 2 * a * s

v = final velocity
u = initial velocity (which is zero if you're dropping something from stationary)
a = acceleration due to gravity
s = distance the object moves

So as "a" is 1/6th that of the Earth value then you can see that the velocity of a falling object is always going to be much slower on the moon than on Earth.

+1 for Mr Salmon and GrahamS

Well wouldn't the atmosphere and polution make it way harder than looking through space

what would hurt giving it a go, it'd shut people up if they had some footage

Even the Hubble telescope doesn't have sufficient resolution to pick up the detail of the lunar landings. Even if it were possible those who are determined to believe in the conspiracy would only dismiss it as a fake so it wouldn't prove anything.

can one of you arm chair experts tell me why things in space fall slower?

Different gravitational forces.

but all objsects on earth accelerate/fall as the same rate at any given mass in earths gravity, so why don't they on the moon?

They do. I believe they actually did this "experiment" on the moon with a feather and a hammer and filmed it, although I'm sure plenty of people would believe that that was faked as well.

RB... what actual evidence do you have that 'quite a few of the images we've been allowed to see, are fake'?

Read my previous bit on film.

I don't - and I don't think anyone here does.

Apart from the person who said that all conspiracy theories were untrue.

You can never win with conspiracy theorists. Every piece of evidence that comes out in favour of "the event" is immediately dismissed as further evidence of a cover up.

Same with evolution - creationists will always point out the gaps in the fossil record but as soon as a gap is filled by the discovery of an intermediate they will now point out that there are actually 2 gaps!

But a rational mind can see that the balance of evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of the landings occurring.

Ha ha!

Nice one!

Truth is; you want to believe in them , because you [i]need[/i] to believe in them.

But you don't know, any more than I do, whether they did land on the Moon. You've just chosen to believe what you've been told.

Ah, whassamatter, you can't possibly accept your dreams might not be true?

Diddums.

[b]shoefiti said:[/b] Well wouldn't the atmosphere and polution make it way harder than looking through space, so i'd of thought it's maybe be possible, what would hurt giving it a go, it'd shut people up if they had some footage

As carefully explained on the [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_moon_landing_hoax_accusations ]Moon Hoax Wikipedia article[/url] I linked to earlier, Hubble has a 2.4 metre mirror and can see an object that is about 86 metres across on the surface of the moon.

To adequately see and identify the rover on the moon we'd need a new space telescope that has perfect mirror roughly 25 kilometres in diameter.

Feel free to check the maths.

Wunundred!

Read my previous bit on film.

I did. You said it was too cold on the moon for film.

Actually the main issue facing Kodak and Hasselblad was keeping it COOL enough in the intense HEAT of the moon.

Ok then; too hot for film.

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

Standard Blad with the leather peeled off. I don't see any extreme heat or cold insulation, do you?

Those cams never took any pics on the Moon.

Thanks andywhit, that kind of makes sence to a bad o-level physics grade slacker. I was wondering if the lack of atmosphere would have made the things fall quicker, even given the lack of gravity. My biggest problem with it all, and i'm sure someone will put me straight on this is:

When they take off again they do so in a pod thing yeh? it gets blasted off the top of the lander, yet it doesn't seem to have any thrusters, just the intial one, I know everything weighs 1/6 gravity etc, but this thing must weigh quite a bit, especially weighed down with all that cheese and moon rock, so given the tiny amount of thrust needed to bump this thing off the moon, and how light the buggy must of been wouldn't it of been at risk of getting some SERIOUS air, it looks like they are doing some hooning in the footage.

Feel free to check the maths

hahahaha - can't see how that would help, i can hardly work out how old my kids are! That's a shame about the hubble, i didn't realise it was so shonky, I guess we'll just have to wait for the chinese to verify all this for the non-believers.

(havent read all the above)

thats one of the conspiracy theorists ideas though, they knew it would be years before a telescope powerful enough could look at the remains of the landing.

the classic aswell, there is no wind on the moon so how can the flag be flying like in the wind? because it had a plastic rod in the top section to 'make it look like it was flying in the wind'

the whole 911 set-up is another classic, watch the video 911 'short change' on youtube, very interesting!

Standard Blad with the leather peeled off. I don't see any extreme heat or cold insulation, do you?

Indeed a [url= http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11-hass.html ]modified Hasselblad 500EL[/url].

And no there is no extreme insulation. When you have no atmosphere you have no air to transmit the warmth. All you have is radiative heat. So as long as you keep things suitably reflective and shiny, they don't get too hot.

Here's a nice explanation of heat transfer for you to completely ignore:
http://www.clavius.org/envheat.html

That's a shame about the hubble, i didn't realise it was so shonky

It's no so much that the Hubble is "shonky" - it is just a basic physical property of optics and lenses that even RudeBoy can confirm. Y'cannae change the laws o'physics Jim.

RudeBoy - Member

RB... what actual evidence do you have that 'quite a few of the images we've been allowed to see, are fake'?

Read my previous bit on film.

So, you read it somewhere on t'internerd then?

Or do you have actual experience/knowledge of the camera design and film stock?

I'm losing the thread of this, but I think the Rude One is claiming that they actually went to the moon, but then as a separate and unrelated exercise they also produced deliberately fake-looking pictures of themselves pretending to be on the moon while they were actually in America.

As long as the objective was to baffle people as to their motives, this was a success. 😯

""It's no so much that the Hubble is "shonky" ""

As i remember it aome guy cocked up the calculations on the mirror, then quit his job and went off to work in tescos deli or something before anyone found out, and it's been a bit crap ever since? (maybe he did it on purpose, ask rudeboy!)

Well it was a long time ago and I don't like to boast about it, but here I am on a trip to the moon. Look you can even see the craters, it was like South Bedfordshire District Councils car park up there I tell ya.
[img] [/img]

Or do you have actual experience/knowledge of the camera design and film stock?

Yes! 😀

Given the fact that there were two nations on the earth capable of tracking each others space flights, and that they were in competition, nay even conflict with each other, Do you think the other party might have just said something about the fact that it didn't actually happen?

.....waits for next addition to the conspiracy.....

as i remember it aome guy cocked up the calculations on the mirror, then quit his job and went off to work in tescos deli or something before anyone found out, and it's been a bit crap ever since?

Erm.. not quite.

One of the "null correctors" used in the assembly of the mirror was improperly aligned so the mirror ended up being ground to be 2.2 micrometres out of shape.

They later fixed it though:

[img] [/img]
(Before and After)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Space_Telescope#Flawed_mirror

I'm a bit disappointed that nobody's said 'sheeple' yet!

RudeBoy, I think you're really struggling now.

Ha ha!

Nice one!

Truth is; you want to believe in them , because you need to believe in them.

But you don't know, any more than I do, whether they did land on the Moon. You've just chosen to believe what you've been told.

Ah, whassamatter, you can't possibly accept your dreams might not be true?

Diddums.

Saying that nobody knows, which I guess is true if taken to the extreme view that anybody 'knows' anything about anything, isn't an argument about anything, even when it's chucking out time at the pub.

It's not a question about believing what you've been told- if it were your arguments are just as susceptible to it.

Now I'm just as willing as you to believe that Governments will go to any lengths to further their aims and will happily lie, manipulate and distort if they can get away with it. I expect we'd all be amazed by some of the stuff that's gone on and is probably going on right now.

But that doesn't mean that all rational and objective thought should be suspended. I can easily believe that the Americans would have given serious thought to faking the landings if they couldn't do it for real and they thought they could pull it off.

But looking at the evidence for and against it just seems overwhelmingly more likley that they actually did it.

Or do you have actual experience/knowledge of the camera design and film stock?

Yes! 😀

Wow! You've actually had access to the extra-thin polyester-based thin-emulsion double-perforated film stock that Kodak specially designed for the missions? And the modified Hasselblads? And you have knowledge of design for cameras to be used in extreme situations?

Or do you just mean that you once used a Hasselblad and you can develop your own film?

Yes! 😀

I see.

"""They later fixed it though:"""

just had a look at that, shame about the initial screw up, to be fair, and if your correct then i'm glad he's not working on the deli counter, some of that parma ham has to be cut pretty thin, and like a space telecope, it ain't cheap.

[i]Truth is; you want to believe in them , because you need to believe in them.
But you don't know, any more than I do, whether they did land on the Moon. You've just chosen to believe what you've been told. [/i]

Whilst not wishing to be drawn into Ruby's onanistic web of obstreperous BS, I must say that 'the everyday person' takes an awful lot of 'facts' on the basis of 'what they've been told'
I would guess that very few of 'us' have either the technical, financial or intellectual resources to 'prove' almost any of the everyday 'facts' we take for granted.
It's not about [i]wanting to believe[/i] more about getting on with your life and focussing your energy/resources on the things you can actually change and that make a diference to [i]you[/i]

It wooduv been pretty easy to get the astronauts out of any rocket, [b]prior to lunch[/b], as only a handful of people had access to anywhere near the rocket itself.

Quite RB - don't want to make a fake landing video on a full stomach do we..... 😀

I reckon going to the moon would be easier than faking it. Too many people involved for a start.

Kev

What I think Rudeboy is saying is that those films of Police brutality taken during the recent G20 summit were faked by anti-"The System" revolutionaries and the media was in on it to overthrow the dictatorship bullies running the country. Or something. 😉

As for questions about things looking the same as they do on Earth when sped up.....well, the laws of physics still apply on the moon so for something moving under the influence of gravity the same rules will apply just with different constants. If you speed up the film you are just artificially adjusting this constant.

And the whole camera thing......I am sure that if NASA can afford to do all that research into getting someone up there, they can chuck a fair amount of cash at the camera industry and say make us a camera that will work under X/Y/Z conditions.
If Scott was able to take pics in the antarctic & you can get camera systems that work inside nuclear reactors on robots for decommissioning, then someone can develop (pun) a camera that would work on the moon.

And after lunch presumably they launched an unmanned rocket that was entirely operated by remote control and secret sophisticated on-board computers that none of the thousands of designers, engineers, manufacturers, technicians, safety guys, etc knew anything about.

no GrahamS they all knew about the con but no one said anything ...keep up at the back will you. 😉

patrick moore says it happened and ill take his word over anyone on here!

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/archive/moonlandings/ ]sky at night[/url]

i watched this on tv the other night and loved it

"What's inertesting, is that any suggestion that the landings may have been faked, is met with loud shouts of 'conspiracy theorist!' Why are you shouting so loud, if you have nowt to fear/hide?"

What a terrible piece of argument! Poor show...

GrahamS - Member

And after lunch presumably they launched an unmanned rocket that was entirely operated by remote control and secret sophisticated on-board computers that none of the thousands of designers, engineers, manufacturers, technicians, safety guys, etc knew anything about.

Hold on... wouldn't that actually end up being more complicated and harder to achieve than putting a few blokes on a rocket?

Especially after a good lunch... 😀

He is a conspiracist Kimbers he helped to produce the maps for the landings as he was the leading moon expert at the time so he would say that wouldn't he.

I like this game no matter what logical well reasoned argument youcome up with it is so eay to counter it any fool could do it 😆

I would guess that very few of 'us' have either the technical, financial or intellectual resources to 'prove' almost any of the everyday 'facts' we take for granted.

any fool could do it

Where is RudeBoy anyway...?

[i]Where is RudeBoy anyway...[/i]

Taking a rather large portion from [i]'The Man'[/i] by the looks of it 😆