First man on the moon... real or hoax

[mancroft]

I remember the Moon landing of 1969 when the first man landed on the Moon (http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/july/21/newsid_2635000/2635845.stm). Or did he?

Nobody has adequately explained to me why there are no stars in the sky of the Moon landing pictures.

So was the Moon landing real or a hoax?

[meshou]

I'd imagine because it was bright on the surface of the moon, either by way of lighting or the sun, and the cameras were shitty quality.

If you're taking pictures of a person near a tree, you tend not to see individual leaves on that tree, more sort of an impressionistic mess.

I don't know why you'd expect to see pinpoints of light on the far background of a photo if you have trouble making out similar sized details on their landing suits when that was what was in focus.

Edit: Just to give you an example of how strong the light was in the photos: The dirt on the lunar surface is black, not light grey. It's ungodly bright on the moon. You're not going to see stars in that kind of light, the light of the sun reflecting off the surface and off the suits is just absurdly brighter than any star, and of course would not show up in a photo.

Maybe if we'd landed on the dark side of the moon, it'd be reasonable to expect to see stars.

[MacGuffin]

Not to disparage anyone personally, but when someone says they believe the moon landing was a hoax, I automatically think they are an idiot. It takes a lot to make me reform that opinion.

http://www.dave.co.nz/space/moon-hoax/missing-stars.html

[demagogic_schizoid]

Not to disparage anyone personally, but when someone says they believe the moon landing was a hoax, I automatically think they are an idiot. It takes a lot to make me reform that opinion.

http://www.dave.co.nz/space/moon-hoax/missing-stars.html

you seem pretty keen to debunk conspiracy theories all the time, don't you MacGuffin? I wonder why.:ph34r:

[MacGuffin]

you seem pretty keen to debunk conspiracy theories all the time, don't you MacGuffin? I wonder why.:ph34r:

I work for the the man. Ever wonder why I live in D.C.?

I get annoyed when I see people waste their time on foolish ideas.

[Ellipsis]

I work for the the man. Ever wonder why I live in D.C.?

I get annoyed when I see people waste their time on foolish ideas.

......


Anyway my dad thinks it was hoax....I don't think so....the biggest reason is that the Soviet Union...the Enemy of the US at the time did not say or even suggest that it was a hoax (though be feel to review the information)...

Another thing is that there is intruments that were set up on the moon that have been used for science, I think it is just foolish to think it is a hoax...though the idea is nice and the thought of someone going back to it 5-20 years after the fact to double check is always a good idea....

[mancroft]

you seem pretty keen to debunk conspiracy theories all the time, don't you MacGuffin? I wonder why.:ph34r:

Yea, MacGuffin, you working for Charlie?

PS

That web page says

"One more thing: If the photo above was taken in an elaborate studio setting designed to look like the surface of the moon, are we to believe that the set designers simply forgot there would be stars in the sky?"

The designers could not have put the stars in the right places. Astronomers would have spotted that. So they left the stars out.

They could do it nowadays with a computer simulation but could not do it then.


EDIT 2

Ok... so why are there no stars in this pic then? There is light reflected from the Earth, so why are there no stars? Some of them would surely be bright enough to show up as pinpricks even.

http://www.geography4kids.com/extras/dtop_space/moonearth_580.jpg

[meshou]

The designers could not have put the stars in the right places. Astronomers would have spotted that. So they left the stars out.

They could do it nowadays with a computer simulation but could not do it then.Hahahah, bullshit. If astronomers could have figured out that a depection of the stars were wrong, they could have easily used an astronomer to figure out the right layout of stars in the sky and retouch the photos, and have had the "live" video at too low a resolution to see stars.

The real answer is the one I gave-- it was NOT faked, and stars do not emit very much light. Even the ambient light of a city at night can drown them out.

Again, the ground was black, it had to be ungodly bright. Stars are not very bright at all. The film they would've had to have used to get a clear picture of the astronauts had to have been very insenstitive to light in order to get any sort of clear photo. The stars are not bright enough to have shown up.

If they had had film sensitive enough to capture the stars, the astronauts and ground would have shown up as a bright white glowing smear. Seeing as the point of taking a photo of the moon landing is "HEY WE LANDED ON THE MOON," and not "OH HAY PRETTY STARS," they opted for photos of the event at the cost of the putry stars.

[rek]

Stars are not very bright at all.

I agree with your argument but I found this statement oddly amusing. Especially when taken out of context :grin:

Ok, but anyway, meshou is right. As for that other picture you just edited in mancroft: the light of the earth in that picture is MUCH brighter than the light of any stars which would have been in sight.

Go outside and look at the difference in stars you can see on a night will a full moon compared to a night with a dark moon. Or just go outside right now before the sun sets and notice you can't see any stars (except the sun) - the stars are all still there, they don't go away during the day, the sun is just so bright you can't see them.

[Dunearhp]

This is the laser reflector they left behind. You can bet the Russians were some of the first people to use it.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5952.jpg
Amateur astronomers still use it regularly.

Look at the shadow of the landing module in this photo.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5927.jpg
There does not exist a light source that could create such a shadow in a sound stage setting. The rays of light are bright and parallel.

[sorabji_66]

the thing that upset me most was that Armstrong turned into the biggest sell-out when he returned. there wasn't a thing that man wouldn't put his name or face on for a quick $.

[outmywindow]

Apparently, with a strong enough pair of astronomer's binoculars and an inkling of where to look, even an amateur can spot the landing site on a clear night if there's a full moon.

Also, I've personally walked inside the huge vacuum chamber at the Johnson Space Center which was used to pressure/temperature test the lunar lander. You don't build something that huge and expensive just to go fake something on a sound stage after things don't work out. If faking it is your backup plan, and said backup plan costs only a fraction of doing the real thing, don't you think that backup plan would quickly become the Plan A in the minds of those in charge? I mean, this is just the hatch:

http://coop.jsc.nasa.gov/photo/2005/fallwork/Vacuum-Tour.jpg

[sorabji_66]

Apparently, with a strong enough pair of astronomer's binoculars and an inkling of where to look, even an amateur can spot the landing site on a clear night if there's a full moon.

Also, I've personally walked inside the huge vacuum chamber at the Johnson Space Center which was used to pressure/temperature test the lunar lander. You don't build something that huge and expensive just to go fake something on a sound stage after things don't work out. If faking it is your backup plan, and said backup plan costs only a fraction of doing the real thing, don't you think that backup plan would quickly become the Plan A in the minds of those in charge? I mean, this is just the hatch:

http://coop.jsc.nasa.gov/photo/2005/fallwork/Vacuum-Tour.jpg


very cool, on both anecdotes!!

[Chaselation]

I agree with your argument but I found this statement oddly amusing. Especially when taken out of context :grin:

Ok, but anyway, meshou is right. As for that other picture you just edited in mancroft: the light of the earth in that picture is MUCH brighter than the light of any stars which would have been in sight.

Go outside and look at the difference in stars you can see on a night will a full moon compared to a night with a dark moon. Or just go outside right now before the sun sets and notice you can't see any stars (except the sun) - the stars are all still there, they don't go away during the day, the sun is just so bright you can't see them.

The reason you can't see stars on earth is because of our atmosphere. The astronauts could block out the sun with their thumbs and would be able to see the adjacent stars very clearly.

Photographing any bright object in the same field as any stars would require an exposure to short, or an aperture too small to image any stars. All the moon landing photos I've seem invariably have a bright object in the image. Most of those were of the astronauts, this would also leave stars grossly out of focus.

I find it odd no photos of stars were taken this was the first Hubble type opportunity for astronomy. I would have snapped a picture or two of the stars.

[intpgolfer]

Inquiring minds want to know (need to know) the answer to this ...?

[meshou]

The reason you can't see stars on earth is because of our atmosphere.The atmosphere does scatter the light more, but it also blocks some light as well. Dust being kicked up, and indeed, the dust which wasn't kicked up, also would scatter the light.


The astronauts could block out the sun with their thumbs and would be able to see the adjacent stars very clearly.Probably not.

Note that the dark ground was made nearly white. It was so bright, the ground was reflecting back light, and was, in essence, another light source. In addition, their own suits were white or reflective. There'd have been a lot of light even if they'd kept the sun out of view. Litterally blinding without protection.
I find it odd no photos of stars were taken this was the first Hubble type opportunity for astronomy. I would have snapped a picture or two of the stars.It might have been an interesting photo, but think if it this way: In the course of a year, the position of the stars themselves do not change all that much (yes, yes, the Zodiac moves across the night sky; but the shape of the stars in the consellations themselves in relation to one another do not change).

The earth itself moves quite a bit more in a month than the distance from the earth to the moon. Chances are, the stars might look different in a sort of a novelty way (like how they'd look different if you went to South America or something), but the general layout of them would be the same.

I'd imagine due to weight restrictions, things like water and air may have trumped the fairly heavy equipment it would have taken to take clear photos of the stars, and especially on the first trip out, they had higher priorities.

On later trips, I imagine, they were already dealing with what would get the best photos of space. The answer, obviously, were space probes, and not cameras with nearly all the problems of an earth-bound cameras, but with less ability to fix them if they break.

</ former space program/ astronomy/ physics of light nerd>

[CoHo]

The whole thing is a scam. There is no moon

[Chaselation]

The atmosphere does scatter the light more, but it also blocks some light as well. Dust being kicked up, and indeed, the dust which wasn't kicked up, also would scatter the light.

Probably not.

Note that the dark ground was made nearly white. It was so bright, the ground was reflecting back light, and was, in essence, another light source. In addition, their own suits were white or reflective. There'd have been a lot of light even if they'd kept the sun out of view. Literally blinding without protection.
Agreed, if their pupils were pin pricks then then star watching would be impossible. Removing bright objects from your field of view like looking straight up in the sky would remove this problem.

It might have been an interesting photo, but think if it this way: In the course of a year, the position of the stars themselves do not change all that much (yes, yes, the Zodiac moves across the night sky; but the shape of the stars in the constellations themselves in relation to one another do not change).

The earth itself moves quite a bit more in a month than the distance from the earth to the moon. Chances are, the stars might look different in a sort of a novelty way (like how they'd look different if you went to South America or something), but the general layout of them would be the same.

I'd imagine due to weight restrictions, things like water and air may have trumped the fairly heavy equipment it would have taken to take clear photos of the stars, and especially on the first trip out, they had higher priorities.

On later trips, I imagine, they were already dealing with what would get the best photos of space. The answer, obviously, were space probes, and not cameras with nearly all the problems of an earth-bound cameras, but with less ability to fix them if they break.

</ former space program/ astronomy/ physics of light nerd>I was thinking of photographs that couldn't be taken from earth at that time. Pictures in the infrared, the earth. Weight restrictions were the likely the reason dust wouldn't help either.

[Dunearhp]

The reason you can't see stars on earth is because of our atmosphere. The astronauts could block out the sun with their thumbs and would be able to see the adjacent stars very clearly.

Photographing any bright object in the same field as any stars would require an exposure to short, or an aperture too small to image any stars. All the moon landing photos I've seem invariably have a bright object in the image. Most of those were of the astronauts, this would also leave stars grossly out of focus.


The only way to get a good shot of the stars would be to point the camera into deep space. Too much ambient light meant that any object in frame would eradicate the stars. Without a viewfinder, how would you place the thumb?



I find it odd no photos of stars were taken this was the first Hubble type opportunity for astronomy. I would have snapped a picture or two of the stars.

Altering the exposure that drastically may have been considered risky. Keep in mind that the camera was mounted on the guy's chest and had no viewfinder. Getting the ground out of the shot would have required either unmounting the camera, or lying on his back.

It was not a missed opportunity, a hand held 70mm camera could not compete with a large aperture earth based telescope, even if it is on the moon.

[dubbeltop]

First man on the moon... real or hoax

Lets go to the moon and find out!!!!

[rek]

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/conspiracy_theories.png

[shum]

i must post this. it has some very special meaning to me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkuEbQ57o3g

dave hook was an awesome guy and so funny ( which is a good thing for a comedian). haha. he didnt like it when i tried to be funny.

anyway please enjoy this video. he is no longer with us. i am fortunate to have spent the time with him that i did.

omg! i am making this all personal. haha. sometimes things just go that way. it is natural.

[Apostasius]

Not to disparage anyone personally, but when someone says they believe the moon landing was a hoax, I automatically think they are an idiot. It takes a lot to make me reform that opinion.

http://www.dave.co.nz/space/moon-hoax/missing-stars.html

I tend to think the same thing. Whether it is a moon landing hoax, holocaust denial, AIDS denial, anthropogenic global warming denial, alien abduction, or ID/creationists rejecting evolution, many otherwise intelligent people somehow "reason" themselves into strange positions.

No amount of argument is likely to change their minds as intellectual attribution and confirmation biases seem to be overly active in such individuals. Michael Shermer has elaborated on this in his book Why People Believe Weird Things.

For creationists, Glenn Morton calls such information bias, "Morton's Demon"
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/feb02.html

[sorabji_66]

I tend to think the same thing. Whether it is a moon landing hoax, holocaust denial, AIDS denial, anthropogenic global warming denial, alien abduction, or ID/creationists rejecting evolution, many otherwise intelligent people somehow "reason" themselves into strange positions.

No amount of argument is likely to change their minds as intellectual attribution and confirmation biases seem to be overly active in such individuals. Michael Shermer has elaborated on this in his book Why People Believe Weird Things.

For creationists, Glenn Morton calls such information bias, "Morton's Demon"
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/feb02.html


with what powers are you so convinced you can judge the opinions of others?

i go the opposite way, every time i add to my mind i become more convinced how little one can truly know compared to what's out there.

and i try to further refine what is important. media fads aren't.

[omnirook]

I'm cynical. I'm skeptical. I'm willing to attribute the worst motives, the worst actions to governments and large corporations, etc - but I have never doubted that humanity has made it to the moon or that we have sent probes further into space. Why? Because getting to the moon and getting further into space would serve the interests of governments and large corporations far better than faking such accomplishments ever could. Do I believe in space exploration? Yes - up to a point. What is that point? Militarizing space. That is what is going on now. It gets very little attention, but the world, including China, has begged the United States to stop its attempts to establish military hegemony in space. Will we listen? I doubt it.

[meshou]

with what powers are you so convinced you can judge the opinions of others?The moon landing, a scientific basis for creationism, and alien abductions are not opinions, they are assertions of fact.

By the power of Greyskull, he has a mind and a faculty for logic, and the ability to asses the logic laid out by others.


i go the opposite way, every time i add to my mind i become more convinced how little one can truly know compared to what's out there.Those "how little I really know" frontiers, I tend to leave to the unknowable. As for what I can understand, like the moon landing, I won't be ignorant just because some people are.
and i try to further refine what is important. media fads aren't.What are you talking about?

[AMDG]

I reckon it happened... though I do wonder where the 'wind' came from that blew the flags on the moon...

[rek]

I tend to think the same thing. Whether it is a moon landing hoax, holocaust denial, AIDS denial, anthropogenic global warming denial, alien abduction, or ID/creationists rejecting evolution, many otherwise intelligent people somehow "reason" themselves into strange positions.

Human caused global warming "denial" isn't a strange position, it's science. Don't believe everything you see on TV or in docugandas.

[Tayshaun]

Being skeptical is one thing - and an indispensable quality - but unlearned speculation is another.

Before calling something a hoax, you must be competent in the required fields for analysis.

Had an entire body of astronomers/physicists (who have studied radiation, optics, etc. in depth), photographers, astronauts, determined the absence of visible stars on the picture to be incoherent, the claim would be legitimate. This is not blind SJ faith in established authority, but belief that in some cases, without proper knowledge, you must accept the judgment of those who have the knowledge.

[Ellipsis]

I reckon it happened... though I do wonder where the 'wind' came from that blew the flags on the moon...

You are joking right?


Human caused global warming "denial" isn't a strange position, it's science. Don't believe everything you see on TV or in docugandas.

....why would it not be true? Are you arguing that we can't affect a planet? My God....that is a stange postion...

Why can't even you INTPs agree on both subjects...*sigh*....I think it is a mere desire to be diffrent ( a noble ambition) but in the end as I say to certain non-conformist people(my EXXP friend) in the end you are conforming to a non-conforming postion(or ideal)... it just takes too much effort to sustain such ideas...and face it they ussally are proven wrong....

Plus with the majority of such ideas what is the worst that could happen in believing it is true? A lie the breeds hope and moment of human unity is possibly the greatest kindness done to us all...

[Stoned_Rider]

I reckon it happened... though I do wonder where the 'wind' came from that blew the flags on the moon...
Planting the flag on the moon in a twisting motion would have caused the flapping effect, especially since there is no atmosphere up there i.e. no air particles to resist the motion of the flag.

Edit:

Hahahah, bullshit. If astronomers could have figured out that a depection of the stars were wrong, they could have easily used an astronomer to figure out the right layout of stars in the sky and retouch the photos, and have had the "live" video at too low a resolution to see stars.
:theclap:

[rek]

....why would it not be true? Are you arguing that we can't affect a planet? My God....that is a stange postion...

Why can't even you INTPs agree on both subjects...*sigh*....I think it is a mere desire to be diffrent ( a noble ambition) but in the end as I say to certain non-conformist people(my EXXP friend) in the end you are conforming to a non-conforming postion(or ideal)... it just takes too much effort to sustain such ideas...and face it they ussally are proven wrong....


No that wasn't at all my argument. I was simply making the point that anyone who believes we can currently attribute our climate change to anything human related is greatly misled. Current science simply does not support the theory that current warming is caused by the greenhouse gas effect (temperatures at high altitudes are not rising at a higher pace, as would be the case under every greenhouse gas model).

It's all politics, it's not science, that's exactly why you get clueless people wandering around claiming that it can't be denied. That's how politics works, not how real science works, real science is always asking questions.

I wouldn't have said anything but it annoys me when I see people compare statements about real science to denying the holocaust, like Apostasius did. There are PLENTY of very good scientists and plenty of solid test results which point in different directions. It's not worth arguing now, believe what you want, but the point is there IS an argument - just give it 10-15 years for more real science to come out and you'll see what I'm talking about.

[C.J.Woolf]

I reserve judgment until I know the whereabouts of the Impossible Missions Force in the period ending 20 July 1969.

[Apostasius]

Human caused global warming "denial" isn't a strange position, it's science. Don't believe everything you see on TV or in docugandas.

From the perspective of climatologists, anthropogenic global warming denial is a strange position and has little if any peer-reviewed scientific data to support such a position. I'd be happy to read such papers if you can provide them.

As for not believing everything seen on TV, I think the channel 4 documentary on the great global warming swindle is an example of why you are correct on this point. By "docuganda", I am guessing you are referring to Al Gore's documentary. Personally, I don't give a rat's ass about his documentary. Peer-reviewed research by qualified scientists in relevant fields (i.e., not economics or some such) is far more persuasive on this subject.

http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=19881


I wouldn't have said anything but it annoys me when I see people compare statements about real science to denying the holocaust, like Apostasius did. There are PLENTY of very good scientists and plenty of solid test results which point in different directions. It's not worth arguing now, believe what you want, but the point is there IS an argument - just give it 10-15 years for more real science to come out and you'll see what I'm talking about.

Yeah, right.

The "argument" is what has been created by the very politics that you dislike. Denialism is not real science; real science is what scientists do.

You are correct, however, in that AGW denial is not quite in the same category as some of the other things that I listed. Nevertheless, my point was that people can be skeptical about the wrong things for the wrong reasons.

One can deny the IPCC 4th report composed with the input of over 2500 scientists or the numerous articles in Nature and Science, but that, to me, is not a reasonable position with regard to the scientific consensus. Perhaps in 10-15 years that will change. Until it does, I will side with the scientists and with what my limited scientific training has allowed me to understand.


with what powers are you so convinced you can judge the opinions of others?

The powers I gain from my foil hat.


i go the opposite way, every time i add to my mind i become more convinced how little one can truly know compared to what's out there.

and i try to further refine what is important. media fads aren't.

Are you saying that you'd like to deny the holocaust or that HIV causes AIDS? Perhaps you have been abducted? Forgive my lack of sensitivity.

[rek]

One can deny the IPCC 4th report composed with the input of over 2500 scientists or the numerous articles in Nature and Science, but that, to me, is not a reasonable position with regard to the scientific consensus. Perhaps in 10-15 years that will change. Until it does, I will side with the scientists and with what my limited scientific training has allowed me to understand.

Yes, the IPCC, what a wonderful organization of "scientists" to put your faith into. Like I said, trust whoever you want, the real science is starting to be done now and we will see soon enough. My point was simply that there are good reasons for such a "denial" there is plenty of logic and plenty of science which points in other directions and it makes logical sense to believe that the human element is very, very, minor (especially compared to the harm we'd cause ourselves by following recommendations from say.. random international political bodies of "scientists").

Sure my view isn't in favor, thinking the world was round wasn't in favor at one point either, my point is arguing science (or rather, the lack of science) is much different than saying we didn't land on the moon or that the holocaust never happened.

[Apostasius]

Okay... back on topic.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast23feb_2.htm

[kuranes]

I don't think it was faked.

[Apostasius]

Yes, the IPCC, what a wonderful organization of "scientists" to put your faith into.

:offtopic:
Okay, one last post on this topic.

I mentioned the report, not the organization.

"The IPCC does not carry out research nor does it monitor climate related data or other relevant parameters. It bases its assessment mainly on peer reviewed and published scientific/technical literature."
http://www.ipcc.ch/about/about.htm

Now about all those "other scientists" and all that "other science"--perhaps you'd like to start a thread about that? Perhaps you can start with http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics and follow up with why the climatologists at http://www.realclimate.org/ are wrong.

/:offtopic:

[Dunn]

......


Anyway my dad thinks it was hoax....I don't think so....the biggest reason is that the Soviet Union...the Enemy of the US at the time did not say or even suggest that it was a hoax (though be feel to review the information)...

Another thing is that there is intruments that were set up on the moon that have been used for science, I think it is just foolish to think it is a hoax...though the idea is nice and the thought of someone going back to it 5-20 years after the fact to double check is always a good idea....

Exactly, that first point is what drives it home for me. If it was a hoax, the Soviet Union would do everything in their power to tell everyone.

[fripping]

the "fake" moon-landing is just a false conspiracy planted by the reptillian government to distract everyone from the real truth- all of the astronauts on apollo 11 were gay and performing amoral, ungodly acts on each other all the way to and from the moon

[MacGuffin]

fripping comes up with a conspiracy theory I can get behind.

heheheh

[Mr.Miagi]

I was under the impression that Stanley Kubrick constructed the first moon landing. Apparantly, NASA was so impressed with Space Odyssey 2001 they contacted Kubrick to help them out, for they were pressed for time, fearing the Russians may beat them to the moon. That's why the moon landing looks so visually stunning. Only a theory of course.

[Jennywocky]

fripping comes up with a conspiracy theory I can get behind. heheheh

Considering the situation he describes, being behind everyone is the only safe place to be.

[Hermione]

"If you believed they put a man on the moon,
If you believe there's nothing up my sleeve, then nothing is cool."

[mancroft]

http://xkcd.com/202/

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/youtube.png

[Meliora]

hilarious comic

:rofl: Louis Armstrong...to his face...haha...

I've always found it absurd that every dang video on youtube devolves into some kind of petty debate about politics/race and it's funny to see the people who are obviously trying to sound smart with the words and phrasing that they use, but their actual arguments consists mostly of ad hominem's and such.

And I haaate those "blah blah people are such sheep...blah blah blah you're all blind blah blah...I'm better than you because I see through the lies! balh blah blah" people

[nonperson]

http://stuffucanuse.com/fake_moon_landings/images/moonlanding01.jpg
http://stuffucanuse.com/fake_moon_landings/images/moonlanding02.jpg
http://stuffucanuse.com/fake_moon_landings/images/moonlanding05.jpg

The proof is here (http://stuffucanuse.com/fake_moon_landings/moon_landings.htm). Of course this means nothing to you Yanks, so for completeness see here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clangers)

[mancroft]

nonperson, you have convinced me.

The moon landings really happened.

I must try not to be so cynical in the future.

[Biff_Loman]

I just refuse to believe that, in the '60s, someone could get a vessel all the way to the moon using such a sophisticated device as

a huge, enormous fucking rocket aimed right at the moon.

It just doesn't seem plausible that kind of thing was possible, forty years ago. You'd think it'd take present day computer software to be find such a refined approach as the Saturn V rocket. And to think: the lunar lander! It's another rocket, this time with legs.

How? How???? I don't see how the top minds of the '60s, with the incredible resources of the world's richest nation, could possibly have pulled it off.

In all seriousness, I'm more amazed that Toyota can produce what appears to be an immortal car for $20k.

[Hermione]

I think it's a very valid question. I have no opinions other than the song by R.E.M. 'man on the moon' has wonderful lyrics and music to it. Always loved that song alot and still do. It's a classic.

[Oso Mocoso]

How? How???? I don't see how the top minds of the '60s, with the incredible resources of the world's richest nation, could possibly have pulled it off.

If you take a course on astrophysics, you'll realize how uncomplicated it is to blast some stupid motherfucker to the moon on a rocket. The more challenging part is to figure out how to get them back alive. That part is actually impressive.

That took doing some more advanced calculus, but it's still not what you'd call complicated by the standards of modern science. My advanced math background is pretty pitiful, and someone was able to explain it to me. Fuck, I could wrap my mind around the math needed to detect extrasolar planets, and that's actually hard by comparison.

But that whole getting back to Earth in one piece - that's why it took some serious balls to be an early astronaut.

Why do people always think that everyone forty years ago was stupid?

--Oso

[Accidental]

Why do people always think that everyone forty years ago was stupid?

--Oso

Facetiousness is beyond you.

[mancroft]

Why do people always think that everyone forty years ago was stupid?

Perhaps because the suitcase on wheels was not invented until the 1970s.

[EL84]

the thing that upset me most was that Armstrong turned into the biggest sell-out when he returned. there wasn't a thing that man wouldn't put his name or face on for a quick $.


a huge, enormous fucking rocket aimed right at the moon.

Classic!


Anyway for those who might be interested, NASA has put a bit of material up including media that isn't widely broadcast.

Apollo Lunar Surface Journal:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/frame.html

Apollo 11 Video:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/video11.html

[Oso Mocoso]

Facetiousness is beyond you.

Oh, no. I agree with the facetiousness of the post I was responding to, and I'm annoyed by the stupidity it waking fun of. Accidental, there's a subtlety in the use of layered sarcasm that you have to study for years to fully understand. It's like appreciating wine or jazz music.

Keep trying, you'll get the hang of it eventually, and then you can venture beyond the kiddy end of the sarcasm pool. See Maccroft's response for reference. He's good at this sort of thing.

--Oso

[Eli]

Perhaps because the suitcase on wheels was not invented until the 1970s.

:rofl:

[Zergling]

a huge, enormous fucking rocket aimed right at the moon.


HA! Those nifty government agenst fooled you. The rocket was NOT faimed at the moon, it was just aimed into orbit, THAN to the moon. Thus, because you as a supporter of true moon landings have missed a little detail, you ENTIRE viewpoint is WRONG, and the moon landings were FAKED.

:theclap: