Hi there, all you moon landing believers! - Page 4

glen4cindy · #91 (**permalink**) 03-July-2009, 11:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 777 geek

Ken,

The difference between technology then and now is that technology then was engineered to go to the Moon, while technology technology is not because until recently, no-one with the power to write cheques has written cheques for such a purpose. Even now, they're writing the cheques with less zeroes (in real terms of course adjusting for inflation) so the process of development takes longer.

There is a common misconception among lay people that our technology level is somehow generic. All our capability can be graded with a single number and all we can achieve is implied directly from that number. That is of course nonsense. Technology varies hugely from field to field and will vary depending on what we want to do.

An obvious example is that there is no aircraft capable of supercruising. We did however have one a few years ago. It was called Concorde. As a whole were we more technologically advanced when we had supersonic transport? No. Technology overall continues to move forward. It's just that in the particular field of the SST, we abandoned it so our capability have disappeared.

I'm glad someone finally brought this up. The technology to go to the Moon was SPECIFICALLY designed and build to do so. MIT built and designed the Apollo Guidance Computer for the sole job of navigation and that is all it had to do.

Take the Hubble Space Telescope. It is completely operated by a 486 computer. That is ancient by todays standards, but, it has sucessfully operated the HST for all these years, and is expected to do so for years to come.

The space shuttles were designed in the '70's and are still serving our space program very well, despite the fact that we are more advanced in many areas of technology now than we were then.

captain swoop · #92 (**permalink**) 03-July-2009, 11:29 PM

Another example is the Russian Soyuz, it's still in use after decades.

Gillianren · #93 (**permalink**) 04-July-2009, 12:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by R.A.F.

That's right..throw me under the "bad spelling" bus.

Well, it's only fair in this case!

slang · #94 (**permalink**) 04-July-2009, 12:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gillianren

Well, it's only fair in this case!

I'm sure it's fair in many other cases too! :P

Gharlane · #95 (**permalink**) 04-July-2009, 12:51 AM

Hi Ken

You are now back on line, can we have the evidence please?

I await with baited breath!

Gandalf223 · #96 (**permalink**) 04-July-2009, 12:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken from Dublin

Already we have photos of the tiny rover on Mars taken by orbiting satellites over a hundred million miles away, yet not one photo of any of the alleged far bigger six landing sites on the moon a mere quarter of a million miles away?

I'm only surprised they haven't faked them too by now, but maybe the will of the present generation working for NASA isn't up to promoting the lie any longer.

Okay........ a camera that is perhaps 100 miles above the surface of Mars can photograph a rover through that planet's tenuous atmosphere. So you expect Earth-based cameras to be able to photograph objects that are in reality not that much larger, from an average of 233,818 miles? That would require optics on Earth to be almost 2,500 times better than those NASA sent to Mars, not to mention better than the physics allow. The fact is that no telescope on Earth (or in orbit around Earth) is able to resolve an object the size of the LEM at that distance. Do the math.

Do you admit we've send unmanned missions to orbit and land on Mars, or is that also faked?

AstroRockHunter · #97 (**permalink**) 04-July-2009, 01:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken from Dublin

Well whaddya know!

I seem to have ruffled a lot of feathers here.

However, I have yet to read anything in your replies that rebuts what I stated in any convincing manner, but I will be back when I get a chance to address what are some pretty lame responses, what are merely your personal interpretations masquerading as general factual information.

To quote Shakespeare;

"Methinks you doth protest too much!" [not verbatim]

This may be because what you stated isn't convincing. You make a lot of claims (and, mind you, not one is original) based on your personal belief, but you fail at providing evidence/examples to back up these claims. I, for one, await just such examples.

BTW, a not verbatim quote is commonly called a paraphrase.

Alan G. Archer · #98 (**permalink**) 04-July-2009, 04:04 AM

I'm feeling much better now and Dr. Petrov was very kind to give me a fresh brain washing.

Thanks LaurelHS and R.A.F. for your concern!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken from Dublin

In 1994 NASA's chief administrator admitted/let slip in a British TV interview that no astronaut can travel above 400 miles until it can be figured out how to protect them from lethal cosmic radiation.

Daniel Goldin was interviewed by Sheena McDonald for the Channel 4 program, The VISION THING, that aired on August 29, 1994. The 30-minute interview is listed in BFI's database, but I have been unable to find any readily available online transcript of the interview.

Mary D. Bennett and David S. Percy supposedly made use of the Goldin interview in their book, Dark Moon: Apollo and the Whistle-Blowers. The chapter notes poorly cites the source of the Goldin interview. Their commentary regarding Goldin's statements begins on page 458 and continues into at least the next page. I don't have a copy of the book, and the two booksellers that I frequent in my area do not have the book available in-store, so I don't know what more the authors had to say. (I have thumbed through the book in the past.)

Ken from Dublin, can you help us?

JonClarke · #99 (**permalink**) 04-July-2009, 12:26 PM

Sagan referred to Apollo several times in Cosmos and devoted two pages of the The Cosmic Connection to it. So much for "never promoted the lie in his lifetime" (emphasis mine). Sagan certainly did mention Apollo several during his life time and did not think it was a lie. That's two errors by Ken.

Jon

Paul Beardsley · #**100** (**permalink**) 04-July-2009, 01:18 PM

Ever get the feeling that an HB has realised he's up against a bunch of people who a) know their subject and b) have heard it all before?

geonuc · #**101** (**permalink**) 04-July-2009, 01:24 PM

I recently watched both In the Shadow of the Moon and For All Mankind for the first time. The latter had some lunar footage I'd not seen before and the former had commentary from Michael Collins that was particularly thoughtful.

If it's all a big hoax, it sure is an awe-inspiring hoax. I'd love to have been there for a launch of one of the Saturn rockets. Oh, wait - maybe that didn't happen either?

Tedward · #**102** (**permalink**) 04-July-2009, 01:43 PM

Interesting watching these develop. Claims made, asked to verify claim, claim verification avoided and so on.

Ken, if I may add another question. If your claim that the the pictures are false is valid, where were they taken? This is something I find interesting when such claims are made. I try to follow the trail that will lead to a successful falsification. I never get there as more often than not such thinking turns up stumbling blocks that trip up reality flat on its face. In this case time is a big factor.

I should add I try this to follow the hoax thinking, not that I believe any of it.

Paul Beardsley · #**103** (**permalink**) 04-July-2009, 02:03 PM

Actually Ted, I already asked that - right at the start. He dismissed it as a silly question, surprise surprise.

Tedward · #**104** (**permalink**) 04-July-2009, 02:15 PM

Saw that and the avoidance (including answer 63), just trying a different take, I expect the same result though.

ToSeek · #**105** (**permalink**) 04-July-2009, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glen4cindy

Take the Hubble Space Telescope. It is completely operated by a 486 computer. That is ancient by todays standards, but, it has sucessfully operated the HST for all these years, and is expected to do so for years to come.

And the 486 was an upgrade!

Zvezdichko · #**106** (**permalink**) 04-July-2009, 03:26 PM

Sometimes I think you're too harsh to the hoax believers. They're rude and disrespectful, but a suspense or a ban will make them believe there's censorship here.

Plus, they are so funny, I enjoy discussing with them.

Starfury · #**107** (**permalink**) 04-July-2009, 03:38 PM

They're funny until they start using disrespectful terms like "astro-not" and using various expletives and epithets to describe people associated with the Apollo program. Then they fall into the category of "Crude louts who think insults help make their arguments".

Paul Beardsley · #**108** (**permalink**) 04-July-2009, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zvezdichko

Sometimes I think you're too harsh to the hoax believers.

Really?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zvezdichko

They're rude and disrespectful, but a suspense or a ban will make them believe there's censorship here.

Er, these are people who believe the moon landings were hoaxed. Honestly, I think we've got so used to this that we forget how insane it is. But it really is.

These get banned or suspended when they break the rules; they do not get banned or suspended for expressing their opinions. And so what if they think they're being censored? It's only the hardcore who get themselves banned anyway. The people who are unsure and genuinely curious have no reason to get themselves banned.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zvezdichko

Plus, they are so funny, I enjoy discussing with them.

Now that's an opinion I can respect.

Zvezdichko · #**109** (**permalink**) 04-July-2009, 03:41 PM

I wasn't a registered user of BAUT when Moon Man with his "astro-nots" was here, but I read the whole thread with a great interest.

Starfury · #**110** (**permalink**) 04-July-2009, 03:45 PM

As did I. I thought the moderators were very gracious towards him, but he abused their tolerance over and over again until the inevitable happened and he got bannned for good.

captain swoop · #**111** (**permalink**) 04-July-2009, 03:54 PM

We don't ban people for their ideas or belief, we ban them for not observing the rules of the forum. We warn and give short suspensions before moving to a perm ban. IF the Conspiracy people follow the rules of the forum by supporting their ideas and answering questions they are fine also retracting a claim shown to be in error is encouraged.

Zvezdichko · #**112** (**permalink**) 04-July-2009, 04:22 PM

That's always the hardest part. They believe against all logics. A friend of mine who believes in the hoax told me that it doesn't matter what I tell her - even if it sounds logical, she still doesn't believe that the whole thing happened.

AstroRockHunter · #**113** (**permalink**) 04-July-2009, 04:39 PM

Ken from Dublin

I'm still waiting for some evidence/examples of your claims.

LaurelHS · #**114** (**permalink**) 04-July-2009, 07:51 PM

I'm starting to think we've seen another hit and run here . . .

novaderrik · #**115** (**permalink**) 04-July-2009, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zvezdichko

I wasn't a registered user of BAUT when Moon Man with his "astro-nots" was here, but I read the whole thread with a great interest.

that thread was so awesome that i just had to link to it in my sig line, so that anyone that happened across one of my posts could read it and see what happens when someone comes here to try to earn some sort of "i survived the BAUT" badge of honor.
as i started reading this thread, i had great hopes that i had another link for my sig. but sadly, it seems that this person took their "banned from BAUT" badge and moved on before this thread could achieve interwebs greatness.

HenrikOlsen · #**116** (**permalink**) 04-July-2009, 10:24 PM

It looks like this thread has run out without Ken coming back after his suspension.
I'm closing it pending a request by Ken to open it again.

Ken, when you're ready to answer questions (providing it's before August) please use the report triangle to request that the thread be reopened.

Do not try to start another thread on the same subject.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
What Apollo treasures do you have?	Kiwi	Space Exploration	43	26-March-2007 06:37 PM
Atomic bomb on moon	suntrack2	Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers	54	28-November-2005 05:34 PM
The Sun and Moon	ramsquire	Astronomy	13	02-September-2005 06:31 PM
Is the moon hollow?	cheekychap	Conspiracy Theories	24	10-June-2005 12:11 AM
Target Moon: World Space Agencies Detail Lunar Plans	Jambaman	Astronomy	1	13-December-2003 09:58 PM