ChatterBank0 min ago
Moon Landing Conspiracy
If NASA want to disprove the Moon landing conspiracy theorists, why don't they:
1. Go again; or
2. Just "drop in" on one of the Space Shuttle flights; or
3. Point a spy, sorry, observational, satellite towards the Moon and film all the bits that were left there - the flag, the bottom of the Lunar Module, the moon buggy, etc.
4. Let the Science Museum in London have a teeny weeny piece of Moon rock.
1. Go again; or
2. Just "drop in" on one of the Space Shuttle flights; or
3. Point a spy, sorry, observational, satellite towards the Moon and film all the bits that were left there - the flag, the bottom of the Lunar Module, the moon buggy, etc.
4. Let the Science Museum in London have a teeny weeny piece of Moon rock.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by winebuyer. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I was swaying, and more convinced that we did go there, until I just looked at clavius.org .
clavius.org proposes that Occam's Razor (which favours the less complicated of any two given explanations) must support the Believers, rather than the Conspiracists. In fact, the opposite is true.
Which is more complicated:
We flew 198,000 miles, dropped out of space in a capsule with a single thrust engine, plummeted down out of space (one sixth gravity, but no atmosphere to create a slowing resistance), used this one engine to control the freefall (avoiding the fractional degree of tilt which would have module into an uncontrollable spin), and gently settled it down on the Moon? Or
We did it in the desert?
Occam's Razor must favour the latter.
Another problem is this ...
The Believers hurl terms of abuse at the Conspiracists - they are mad, loony, wierdo, don't think rationally, got no brains, they're all talking crap, etc. It all sounds rather hysterical. It's no good claiming to be rational and scientific, acusing your opponents of being hysterical, and then being hysterical and abusive yourself.
NASA as an agency exist for one purpose - to conduct rational and enquiring research. But when their opponents meet them on those very terms, and say okay, let's have a good look at the events of 1969, do NASA welcome the interest? Do they take up the debate? No. They shout GO AWAY YOU MAD CRACKPOTS. LEAVE US ALONE (to spend your tax Dollars in peace).
So the Conspirators open the debate, and the Believers wave their arms and hurl abuse.
In the meantime, NASA say - we can't convince you that pigs can fly, but we can probably convince you that there's a man on the Moon.
clavius.org proposes that Occam's Razor (which favours the less complicated of any two given explanations) must support the Believers, rather than the Conspiracists. In fact, the opposite is true.
Which is more complicated:
We flew 198,000 miles, dropped out of space in a capsule with a single thrust engine, plummeted down out of space (one sixth gravity, but no atmosphere to create a slowing resistance), used this one engine to control the freefall (avoiding the fractional degree of tilt which would have module into an uncontrollable spin), and gently settled it down on the Moon? Or
We did it in the desert?
Occam's Razor must favour the latter.
Another problem is this ...
The Believers hurl terms of abuse at the Conspiracists - they are mad, loony, wierdo, don't think rationally, got no brains, they're all talking crap, etc. It all sounds rather hysterical. It's no good claiming to be rational and scientific, acusing your opponents of being hysterical, and then being hysterical and abusive yourself.
NASA as an agency exist for one purpose - to conduct rational and enquiring research. But when their opponents meet them on those very terms, and say okay, let's have a good look at the events of 1969, do NASA welcome the interest? Do they take up the debate? No. They shout GO AWAY YOU MAD CRACKPOTS. LEAVE US ALONE (to spend your tax Dollars in peace).
So the Conspirators open the debate, and the Believers wave their arms and hurl abuse.
In the meantime, NASA say - we can't convince you that pigs can fly, but we can probably convince you that there's a man on the Moon.
i have changed my mind..........................A long way away in a far corner of the sky, you can see, on a clear night, a faint blue-coloured star. It is really a planet but it is such a small and unimportant one that it doesn't have a name. For one family, however, it is a very important place. It is home....................................sorry
I saw Capricorn One at the pictures (Cinema) when it first came out, it was released in the late 1970s, about 10 years after the first Moon Landing (which i also watched live on TV), but only a few years after the Moon Programme had stopped. (1972) and so to the people at that time, the film was just entertaining and showed a fantastical scenario, very cleverly worked out, (Though I went to see it cos I like James Brolin cos Marcus Welby M.D. had been a fave show of mine). I didn;t watch it and instantly believed that it was trying to form a different truth about the Apollo Landings, cos you have to remember that there were afew landings, not just the fitsy one,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program#Ma nned_missions
It is only in the 1990s, when the term 'conspiracy theory' seemed to be bandied about, that people who had watched Capricorn One on TV, started to merge the truth.
The idea has grown and to new generations who discover the film and are lazy enough not to look at the historical evodence, the film is constantly referenced when the concpiracy is discussed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program#Ma nned_missions
It is only in the 1990s, when the term 'conspiracy theory' seemed to be bandied about, that people who had watched Capricorn One on TV, started to merge the truth.
The idea has grown and to new generations who discover the film and are lazy enough not to look at the historical evodence, the film is constantly referenced when the concpiracy is discussed
winebuyer
You evidently have a poor understanding of physics and the Lunar Module's control systems. The LM had an automatic computer guidance and inertial control system. This system was designed to measure the attitude of the LM several times per second using a system of gyroscopes. If it found that the LM was out of proper attitude it would make adjustments by gimballing the main descent engine and/or throttling it back, and firing control thrusters as needed to stabilize the spacecraft.
btw the reactions of the lunar dust in the videos of the mission clearly show they were not faked.
Forget Occam's Razor,
Just because it is to complicated for YOU to understand that does not mean that the event never happened.
You evidently have a poor understanding of physics and the Lunar Module's control systems. The LM had an automatic computer guidance and inertial control system. This system was designed to measure the attitude of the LM several times per second using a system of gyroscopes. If it found that the LM was out of proper attitude it would make adjustments by gimballing the main descent engine and/or throttling it back, and firing control thrusters as needed to stabilize the spacecraft.
btw the reactions of the lunar dust in the videos of the mission clearly show they were not faked.
Forget Occam's Razor,
Just because it is to complicated for YOU to understand that does not mean that the event never happened.
-- answer removed --
A triumph of faith over logic, Robb P.
My laptop has 256,000,000 bytes of RAM, and I'm not sure I'd trust it to get me to the Moon and back. I might want a bit of an upgrade
According to NASA themselves, their onboard computer had 2,000 bytes of RAM. Enough to do some simple word processing perhaps, but enough to control a "computer guidance and inertial control system" down on to the Moon?
Even the most hard line Believer must see the difficulty with that proposition.
The Conspiracists say: A computer with 2k of RAM can't run a simple spreadsheet, so how did it navigate to the Moon and back?
NASA say: You lot are too thick to understand.
For the record, I'm not a committed Conspiracist. But I am fascinated by the logical flaws which have to be glossed over, rather than explained.
Well NASA, why not provide a sensible (and maybe courteous?) explanation, rather than the usual abuse?
The problem with the Conspiracists is that they have that most unacceptable of characteristics ... enquiring minds. Shock, horror. How dare they challenge an established truth! They are heretics. Before you know it, they will start claiming that the world is round, and not flat. And then NASA will have to burn them all at the stake.
My laptop has 256,000,000 bytes of RAM, and I'm not sure I'd trust it to get me to the Moon and back. I might want a bit of an upgrade
According to NASA themselves, their onboard computer had 2,000 bytes of RAM. Enough to do some simple word processing perhaps, but enough to control a "computer guidance and inertial control system" down on to the Moon?
Even the most hard line Believer must see the difficulty with that proposition.
The Conspiracists say: A computer with 2k of RAM can't run a simple spreadsheet, so how did it navigate to the Moon and back?
NASA say: You lot are too thick to understand.
For the record, I'm not a committed Conspiracist. But I am fascinated by the logical flaws which have to be glossed over, rather than explained.
Well NASA, why not provide a sensible (and maybe courteous?) explanation, rather than the usual abuse?
The problem with the Conspiracists is that they have that most unacceptable of characteristics ... enquiring minds. Shock, horror. How dare they challenge an established truth! They are heretics. Before you know it, they will start claiming that the world is round, and not flat. And then NASA will have to burn them all at the stake.
winebuyer,
Since you don't seem to understand these complicated issues, just accept it and live with it-Man wen to the moon.
Anyway for your latest doubt,
Unlike general-purpose computers, the Apollo guidance computer had to perform only one task - guidance. Most of the number crunching was performed at Mission Control on several mainframe computers. The results were then transmitted to the onboard computer, which acted upon them. The Apollo guidance computer was capable of computing only a small number of navigation problems itself. Since the guidance computer had to run only one program, that program could be put in ROM, thus only a small amount of RAM was required to hold the temporary results of guidance calculations.
In fact, the Mercury spacecraft, 1961-63, flew into space without any onboard computer whatsoever, yet the trajectories were precisely controlled and the capsule was capable of fully automated control.
Computer companies of the 1960's had to produce general-purpose computers at a cost that would attract consumers. NASA, on the other hand, required a computer capable of performing only a single task - guidance - and could easily afford a custom designed and built system using cutting edge components and techniques. Although modern microprocessors did not yet exist, microchips performing simple tasks were available in the early 1960's, and these could be built-up into computer processors. By the mid-1960's several companies were producing commercially available integrated circuits.
Just because one technology is used to solve a particular problem today does not mean that problem was unsolvable before the technology was available.
There is NO credible evidence you can give. If it was indeed a conspiracy then the Russians would have uncovered it long ago.
Since you don't seem to understand these complicated issues, just accept it and live with it-Man wen to the moon.
Anyway for your latest doubt,
Unlike general-purpose computers, the Apollo guidance computer had to perform only one task - guidance. Most of the number crunching was performed at Mission Control on several mainframe computers. The results were then transmitted to the onboard computer, which acted upon them. The Apollo guidance computer was capable of computing only a small number of navigation problems itself. Since the guidance computer had to run only one program, that program could be put in ROM, thus only a small amount of RAM was required to hold the temporary results of guidance calculations.
In fact, the Mercury spacecraft, 1961-63, flew into space without any onboard computer whatsoever, yet the trajectories were precisely controlled and the capsule was capable of fully automated control.
Computer companies of the 1960's had to produce general-purpose computers at a cost that would attract consumers. NASA, on the other hand, required a computer capable of performing only a single task - guidance - and could easily afford a custom designed and built system using cutting edge components and techniques. Although modern microprocessors did not yet exist, microchips performing simple tasks were available in the early 1960's, and these could be built-up into computer processors. By the mid-1960's several companies were producing commercially available integrated circuits.
Just because one technology is used to solve a particular problem today does not mean that problem was unsolvable before the technology was available.
There is NO credible evidence you can give. If it was indeed a conspiracy then the Russians would have uncovered it long ago.
Robb P ... I don't need to "accept" or "live with" the fact that we went to the Moon. I know we did, and I always have known we did. Of course we did.
However, unlike NASA:
1. I enjoy a debate.
2. I am not afraid to examine my own beliefs.
3. I don't feel the need to insult people merely because they have the temerity to challenge my beliefs.
However, unlike NASA:
1. I enjoy a debate.
2. I am not afraid to examine my own beliefs.
3. I don't feel the need to insult people merely because they have the temerity to challenge my beliefs.
Conspiracy theorists are not challenging beliefs and all of the arguments made for why we didn't go to the moon are older than Status Quo, and less credible.
Believers are invariably copying and pasting from a website run by a social inadequate who derives kudos from their supposedly arcane knowledge and far from being enquiring, they see what they want to believe and then close their eyes and ears to anything that unmines their position; logic, facts, evidence etc.
They'd read Focault's Pendulum and think it was a factual account.
My absolute favourite conspiracy theory is the Paul is Dead nutters. They have the most wonderful long distance relationship with reality you have ever seen, and it's very amusing.
Believers are invariably copying and pasting from a website run by a social inadequate who derives kudos from their supposedly arcane knowledge and far from being enquiring, they see what they want to believe and then close their eyes and ears to anything that unmines their position; logic, facts, evidence etc.
They'd read Focault's Pendulum and think it was a factual account.
My absolute favourite conspiracy theory is the Paul is Dead nutters. They have the most wonderful long distance relationship with reality you have ever seen, and it's very amusing.
I hadn't heard of the Paul Is Dead one, until I looked it up just now. Surely it has to be just tongue in cheek? It makes a change from the one about Elvis not being dead.
As to Foucault's Pendulum ... challenging!!!
Maybe we could steer this thread away from:
"Who is right? NASA or the Conspiracists?"
And towards something like ...
Which is the better book? Foucault's Pendulum, or The Name Of The Rose?
As to Foucault's Pendulum ... challenging!!!
Maybe we could steer this thread away from:
"Who is right? NASA or the Conspiracists?"
And towards something like ...
Which is the better book? Foucault's Pendulum, or The Name Of The Rose?
Latest Posts
Crosswords1 min ago
ChatterBank2 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles3 mins ago
Food & Drink4 mins ago
