Stanley Kubrick

Indeed so, MID! I think most people here would be more than happy to answer some questions

Best,
Badeskov

Sorry for stepping into the middle of the discussion, but I figured I'd drop my two cents here Radiation is not like condensation and it will not get trapped in magnetics fields! The Van Allen belts are just belts of high energy electrons and protons and they don't get stuck....

Best,
Badeskov

Did we land on the moon? Of course we landed on the moon; there's a mountain of evidence out there- you've just got to research and understand it.

I can see there's a reason why you've chosen that particular avatar...

Kubrick lived in England from 1962 until his death in 1999. He hadn't made a "Hollywood" film since Spartacus in 1961.
...p.s.

He shot 2001 in England too. He was no where near Hollywood during the Apollo Program.

And yet...





...you agreed with me on this thread!


Go figure!!!

For all those who still think the moon landings were faked, have a look this

http://www.filecabi.net/video/landed-on-the-moon.html

Thats Because GOOD disinformation specialists
only use information thats TRUE ...so in most cases its
easy to "agree" with a GOOD disinformation specialist.
as its not so much the material they post but the
context in which it is used

Posty:

I'll have to defer to your research in this matter. There's certainly no reason to doubt it!
I always heard Dr. Von Braun went on vacation in 1968 to Antarctica (of course, for him, working might have been considered a vacation!).
He was somewhat of a Rennaisance man, as well as a man possessed of incredible energy. He did all kinds of things like that in his day...out to sea, under the sea, Antarctica, in the air (an avid pilot as well as rocket designer), etc., etc. I can also see Max Faget doing something like that as well.

However, I never actually knew this (I didn't pay attention to everything everyone did ). Interesting, certainly.


And of course ...is a rather good point. And, it hasn't been explained away by HBs. There is an explanation, of course, which is rarely accepted, for obvious reasons.



Agreed!

Hmmm...

If "good disinformation specialists use only information that's TRUE" , then logically, they would be considered "information specialists" rather than DISinformation specialists, I should think.

And by extension, one would have to thus agree that it should be easy to agree with them, if their information is actually true.


You seem to be implying that the information posted regarding Apollo's obvious success and veracity is somehow presented in a context which is painting a picture of a falsehood. In other words, we Apollo people put forth information and explanations of the science and mechanics involved in man's most documented scientific and technical accomplishment, so as to show the HBs the actual facts concerning their mis-interpretations and erroneous assumptions about that which they have little if any understanding of, and you imply that although we're presenting factual or true information, somehow, it is presented in such a context thatit is perhaps covering up a hoax...maybe???

If so, I'd love to hear how we have ever done that here on this board as pertains to the subject matter at hand.

That is to say, how has this true information regarding the Apollo program been presented in a context that is painting any picture other than that which is documented, verified, and understood by the scientific community worldwide to have occurred--that we landed men on the Moon from 1969 to 1972, precisely as it has been described?

A clarification would be helpful.

So do you believe in all the CT's?

ummmmm where exactly are you deriving this from?
I never said i believe all Ct's? im thinking you completly
missed my point apprently? No i dont believe in all Ct's



thanks for posting

Quoting me is much appreciated, but that post is already on this thread.

Was there something you missed?

No problem - I shall try and get the full article posted somewhere sometime this week. Incidentally, the article dates from May 1967, and Von Braun refers to his trip as being "last January" - whether he means Jan 1966 or Jan 1967 I'm not sure.

I always thought he went down there in '68.
Well, I'll look it all up sometime, and look forward to your article.

...sounds like a conspiracy brewing here!

Correct.


RAMS

I take it that most of you on this subject were not alive during the landings, or if you were you weren't paying attention?
As for the Van Allen Belts, there is radiation in them, but fatal doses would require a long time exposure. Believe this or
not, they actually had people with brains back then that dealt with the radiation for the entire mission! They used a
magical thing called "Gold Foil" and "Gold Veritran" to shield the electronics and the astronauts from radiation. This
magical foil is not quite as protective as lead, but almost! The helmets worn on the moon had a flip down visor made
of gold veritran (a thin layer of gold impregnated onto it) which protected them from radiation to their heads when
walking on the moon. The suits had a gold foil layer impregnated into their construction as well. So, these guys
back in the sixties actually thought these things through and lined their equipment with radiation limiting gold foil
and gold veritran glass.

Back when the landings were taking place, I watched every minute of every single mission while they were on the
moon (less bathroom breaks and eating food). All I can say is to reproduce days of coverage of multiple missions
in 1/6th gravity conditions would have been monumental to create in any studio. One key element to watch for
IF you ever see them show footage from the moon, is that when the astronauts fall down, their arms are whipping
about at a normal speed to correct their fall. If you sped their arms up to compensate for "slowing film down"
to simulate 1/6th gravity, then their arms would go at a speed that no human could do easily in a bulky space suit.

Another point is the hours and hours of footage of the lunar rover missions that I watched. If done in a studio,
it would have been quite a large studio as I watched them bounce on the vehicle in 1/6th gravity until they were
miles away from the camera! Now that would be the biggest set ever constructed huh? A studio miles deep
with 9,000 foot mountains in it, that you see your astronauts drive up to? Also even the foothills that they drove
around would require more sand than you could put in a studio let alone fit the foothill itself into the studio as
they were quite high.

A final point that would be very hard to fake is when the ascent stage of the lunar module lifted off of it's base,
the debris flew off of it and scattered in a manner that showed no wind resistance for the type of material it
was. The lunar module was practically made out of heavy duty aluminum foil.. The bottom descent stage was
covered with foil (gold).. And when it blasted off, it shot out pieces of foil in vast distances that if there was
any atmosphere present, it could not have flown that far outward. The atmospheric drag would have stopped
it from going as far as it did.

I don't know why people want to believe we had never gone to the moon. The mission was done at a time
when we had great people and engineers from all walks of life working on the project. The entire nation
at that time was challenged by President Kennedy to achieve this task. The entire nation rounded up it's
best and brightest minds to meet the challenge put forth. It wasn't as though there was only NASA working
on it.. There were hundreds of thousands of Americans, and foreign people as well trying to get the mission
to work. Even my Father helped in manufacturing a trailer to help move rocket parts about! So, it was
an entire nation putting it's best and brightest scientists, engineers, and every other vocation that you
could dream of, together to make a major step for mankind. It was accomplished. Then some bright
guy who wasn't even alive during the missions see's some funny shadows out of place in the moon
pictures and decides that these are done in a studio. He presents some interesting points, but then
on a National Geo special, they reproduced the conditions to show that all of his assertions are all wet.
With a bright surface as the moon was, the camera is not able to pick up stars shining above. Anyone
who has owned a film camera such as myself (photographer) knows that to capture stars you must
open the lens for several seconds at a time in order to catch stars on film.. With a bright surface and
a shutter click of a split second, you are not going to get stars in the picture at all. The contrasts are
too great for even sensitive film to pick up with a shutter setting set to compensate for a bright surface.
So, even though the guy(s) that started the conspiracy were all wet, there are still millions that have
bought into this new hoax.. The hoax theory is the hoax!

One thing you may want to consider, is that the astronauts left several mirrors on the moon and
pointed them at the earth. To this day astronomers in major universities, and at the major
telecopes still bounce laser beams off of these mirrors! They judge the distance between the
earth and moon by using this laser and the mirrors. So there is another thing to show that
we went to the moon. Also, the technicians that packed the lunar modules into the Saturn V
rockets would ask, if they aren't now on the moon, then where are they? They crashed them
back onto the moon, when they were done using them. That is how we got the seismic data
from the sensors left on the moon! Where would that data have come from at the exact
moment of impact, had we not gone to the moon? We went there and I watched the whole
thing on television on all of the missions. I just want to ask how they could put a whole
series of mountains into a studio and drive around them in 1/6th gravity? (And if you watched
closely, the astronauts arms and legs all move at correct human speed, even though the
gravity was shown at 1/6th of the earths gravity.. That would be a real trick, as we had
no computer graphics back in those days to re-create what we have now. Entire mountains
on a set? Sand flying up from the wheels on the rovers way high up into the lunar sky in a way
not possible had it been on earth? (They even had to make fenders to put on it, as they
hadn't planned for the sand to fly up at them like that, so they made some out of file folders
or something they had on board). If it was faked, I would have to say that it was a more
monumental job doing the fake (as an earlier poster said) than it would have been to go
to the moon itself..

Excellent dissertation, balanced and accurate as well.

Kudos.

RAMS

gtars,

You make some good points in your post.

Something I think you will find, regarding people who have a "problem" with Apollo and the lunar landings, is that the vast majority of them are younger.
I have estimated that the majority of these people range from virtually children to people perhaps in their 40s. Anyone much older than that would have necessarily come out of a different generation, one in which education had more emphasis on science and mathematics than it generally does today, and one in which the Apollo program was happening.




Ah, the van Allen radiation issue....you're right, of course, we did have people with brains back then! This is essentially the entire worn out issue in a nutshell. You'd be amazed at the hoops we had to jump through on the radiation issue.



This rather reasonable logic was also something that escaped many people.



That too!



You would be right.
Neil Armstrong would also agree with you.


You might be interested to read through the original and massive Moon Hoax thread, which today is buried on page 25 of this Conspiracies section of the board. Over 4000 posts, which probably covered every aspect of the Moon hoax...

Why after the debarkation of astronauts is stopped Moon study? The Moon the whole have studied, it not interesting?

It would be interesting to get your perspective, Rusich. What is/was the opinion of people in your country as to whether the moon landing was faked? I hope I'm not being too forward, you needn't mention where you are from if you don't want to make it known.

MM

Study of the moon never stopped, only manned missions. Those stopped because they were incredibly expensive and the budget was taken and given to the shuttle program.

how about a new modern probe orbiting the moon taking high res pictures of the nine or so landing sites on the surface of the moon so we can end this ***SNIP*** debate . see it's very simple why dont we have a satalite like that ? maybe japan will get there probe up there soon or China or maybe India...seems there is a lot still we can learn from the moon and our wonderful government.

As people have remarked, a lunar mission is expensive and so one that is going to carry a hi-res imaging system has to be justified. There have been mapping satellites using IR, UV, radar, etc. There have been polar missions to look for evidence of water. There have been missions to study the gravity / magnetic fields. Other missions looked for commercial exploration possibilities.

As you say, perhaps future missions might give us images - the Japanese SELENE, planned for AUG 07, is carrying a terrain camera with a 10m resolution and a High Definition TV camera. You are not going to be able to see footprints in the soil but the images should be able to show something of the Apollo artifacts.

Well. I not hide that I russian. I become interesting, how a discussing this subject between americana pass.
Thesis: I think that between USSR and USA existed secret pact on the Moon.

Project an Apollo first of all political share. you it is necessary was distil us in that that did not become. Is necessary recall in what international situation passed a moon racing. Caribbean crisis, we were on galley proofs of war. Count on atomic warheads obviously was not in our profit that provoked you on resolute actions. News of that years on our cosmic achievements were perceived by you as reportings from wars. "Russian approach, here is-will here is hang a russian fcompanion (satellite) with the atomic bomb on americana heads straight!" But on the war heaven and earth good for the achievement of victory.
People USA lost confidence in its future. Lost confidence in its technical supremacy. Here is necessary add and unchancy war in Vietnam.
Draft "Apollo" was called to return american a faith in itself.
But here is problem, amount of money not all decides. And that term that has measured out a president Kenedi (10 years), was little that real to disembark on the Moon. Too difficult this problem of engineering. Then your government has gone on political way of deciding this problem.
You have offerred to return you a Moon in return for concessions on the Land. Brezhnev has thought and has decided:"Moon this well, but pacific life, without heavy arms race, better...", and has agreed.
So we "have divided cosmos": championship on the orbit - us, Moon - to you.
Not accidentally end of Moon odyssey has complied with signing an agreement on the strategic arms restriction. This agreement has stopped a present arms race.
Symbolically this agreement was supported by the link-up on orbit an Souz-Apollo.
Excuses for my english.

I had in mind, why you ceased to debark on the moon an automatic machins (lunohods)?

Mainly because the Apollo missions had brought back various lunar samples (rocks, soil, core) and left various experiments on the surface. The focus for robotic missions became Mars, and deep space probes like Voyager, etc.

If there was enough money, I'm sure the scientists would like to send some probes back to the lunar surface.

Lets throw this twist in..

I believe we never have even been outside of our atmosphere.

That's a good one.

Only manned flight outside the atmosphere, or including unmanned flight?

"Only manned flight outside the atmosphere, or including unmanned flight? " Can you reword that totally missed it lol.

Do you believe that we have sent unmanned craft outside the atmosphere?

Or simply that no human has gone outside the atmosphere?

all faked... that's why they shot their president for making them do it... coz they realise they'll be pretty embarrased when the truth comes out. i think the rockets went but without humans on board. apollo 13 was probably the first attempt with humans... and we've all seen the film on how that turned out... to all the experts out there, i don't believe it happened but if i wanted to i could still come up with a load of theories ***SNIP*** about who did what and how to prove it was real... c'mon this is 60s america we're talkin about... i.e. will do anything to look good. nuff said!

As a matter of interest, how old are you? Were you actually an adult before the end of the Cold War?

The biggest problem in getting a man to the moon is the great mass of equipment that has to be launched. The USA solved this with the Saturn V rocket. The Russian programme also attempted a similar vehicle, the N1, but for various reasons - lack of political/financial support, an over complex design, insufficient ground testing - it was never successfully launched.

The whole thing really developed because of nuclear weapons.

In the early post-war period, nuclear weapons were heavy. They required large bombers to deliver them to their targets. But soon, the bombers themselves became vulnerable. The rocket (ICBM) provided an 'unstoppable' means of putting bombs on target - if a big enough rocket could be developed.

The initial US and Soviet launchers were all man-rated versions of military designs for delivering nuclear weapons. Redstone (IRBM), Atlas, Titan, the R-7.. all originally meant as weapons of war. But a side benefit was that although designed for atomic warheads, they didn't have to carry a nuclear device. They could also carry other payloads such as spy satellites, scientific experiments... and a manned craft.

When the Soviet Union launched Sputnik, the achievement was two-fold; not only did it demonstrate the advanced technological capability of the USSR, it showed that they had the capability to deliver a nuclear warhead onto a target of their choosing. This caught the US off-guard, and so there was a concerted effort to close the 'missile gap'.

Even so, the advances in nuclear weaponry meant that more powerful weapons could be made that were smaller and lighter; a large booster wasn't really necessary any more.

In the 50s and early 60s, a massive part of the political game was to demonstrate which 'system' was better - capitalism or socialism. One way to showcase the advantages of a certain system was to demonstrate the technological capability of that system. The 'conquest' of space was an easily understandable illustration of this technology.

The Soviet Union took many of the space age 'firsts' and the US tried to catch up. They needed to make a big splash, something that would show that they were at least equal - if not more advanced - than the USSR.

That's where the moon landings came into play. The technology to put a man on the Moon didn't yet exist - but it could be made a reality... with time & effort. The thing was that it just didn't rely on heavy lift boosters exclusively; there was much more to it. That meant that the Soviet Union's lead in space technology was lessened, that both countries would be on a more or less equal footing. The USSR might win a short race, but over a longer distance they were both contenders.

Both countries took up the challenge, and developed manned lunar landing programmes. What caused the USSR to falter and eventually lose was the loss of a brilliant scientist - Sergei Korolev. His leadership - and ability to unite personnel towards a common goal - helped make many of the Soviet firsts. When he died, there was a split in top Soviet space designers, and major quarrels erupted. These disputes eventually meant that the powerful rocket engines required to launch a moon ship were not made. Instead, multiple smaller engines would be used.

Where the Saturn V had five powerful F-1 engines in its first stage, each developing 1.5 million pounds of thrust, the N-1 (the Soviet moon rocket) had 30 NK-15 engines with each only producing 350 000 pounds of thrust. To control all these engines meant a complex design, a design which was never fully perfected.

So Apollo won the race to the Moon - but the USSR took the lead in manned orbiting space stations with their Salyut programme. Each demonstrated advanced technological capability - but the cost took its toll. The US taxpayers lost interest in the space race, and wanted money spent elsewhere. They were seeing the results of Vietnam, wanted more funds for social programmes. Likewise, the financial cost to the USSR was enormous, military programmes needed money, the Soviet people wanted their own consumer goods, and demonstrating technological superiority to third-world nations was just not that important anymore.

During the race to the Moon, it was foreseen that greater co-operation was going to be needed in the event of a space 'disaster'; if something happened then the resources of both countries might be needed to save lives. Initial talks were held, and the best people to discuss such matters were astronauts and engineers - not politicians. And during these talks, a funny thing happened - these engineers and astronauts discovered that their counterparts weren't all that different from themselves! They had similar ideas, similar dreams, and found respect for each other.

When they reported back to their respective countries, they were enthusiastic. They could sell the idea of co-operation. Imagine the public relations coup of a Soviet spacecraft rescuing stranded US astronauts! Of course, the chance to check out the other guy's hardware was not lost on them, either. There were benefits to co-operation in space - and so the Apollo-Soyuz Test Program (ASTP) was born.

So when you look at it, the whole thing was made possible because of nuclear weapons. The need to demonstrate superior political systems provided the motive. And the notion that we weren't all that different from one another led to the co-operation.

IMO.

A new modern probe orbiting the moon taking high res pictures of the nine or so landing sites on the surface of the moon - it's no problem! We have saved and technologies and specialists capable to create new lunohod. It can consider place of boarding much close. It is no problem.
USA very strong and influential a state - here is problem.
Who to dare to spoil an attitude with USA, having taken pictures place of boarding on the Moon?
Europe? India? China? Exactly not Russia! Example this is a history of probe Smart-1.

That you consider an end of cold war? My age 45 years.
"The USA solved this with the Saturn V rocket." - You certain? But if Saturn V could bring on the orbit on five tons less, than announced, boarding on the Moon possible?

People, I have just had to waste my time editing posts because of bad language. May I remind everyone that this site considers itself suitable for families and as such does not tolerate bad language and that includes attempting to get around the language filters by use of * or #.

This is a reminder to everyone but in particular to auhsoj and chris0871.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Obvious I believe that no man has stepped outside the atmosphere and I would say no unmanned(Machine?) Has either but I get flammed for that lol...I think that our technology is just not suitable yet.

You really believe that? You actually believe that satellites are a hoax?

So every piece of photography -- still and moving -- has been faked since the 1950s?
And all the telemetry from satellites and probes, too?
Velcro?! Freeze-dried ice cream?! These are lies?! How cruel is fate!

*throws out all his his Tang in disgust

--Jaylemurph

I truly do believe that satellites are a hoax..

I believe that the pressures in outer space are to strong for metals and especially space suits.

LOL <3 you jay

You mean the 0 psi in outer space? Yeah, that's some high pressure.

So where do you point your satellite TV aerial? How does a GPS set work? Where do the weather forecasters get their pictures? I look forward to your detailed explanations with interest.

Like I said I get flammed for this all the time; so truly its not worth debating lol... I was just saying that I believe no man has stepped outside our atmosphere. And the 0 psi where did you get that. you do understand you implode in outer space. Or explode or what ever. Its like a balloon you let it go up to high what happens?

For the TV thing. I have cable.

And the forecast thing. Just because you look down on something doesnt mean you cant look up.

Very funny - how about your neighbours with satellite TV? And what are those dots of light that move across the sky at such a steady speed? Are you aware that amateur astronomers can resolve details of the larger satellites?

And I did say detailed explanations, not vague ideas.

No one is flaming you, they are just trying to explain why you are wrong.


psi = pounds per square inch. It's a measurement of pressure.


You do know that you implode at great depth in the ocean don't you? Does that mean you don't believe in submarines either?

SMART 1 was a small technology demonstrator that carried a low-res camera to get a bit of science return.

The Japanese SELENE probe will be launched this summer, NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter next year. Both should be able to detect the Apollo LMs and rovers on the moon. In addition, the last three Apollos all photographed their LMs on the lunar surface from orbit. If you consider these pictures fake, consider the following argument:
These Apollo pictures are the highest resolution images available for swathes of the lunar surface. Not just the LMs, but all the small surface features are only known from these pictures. NASA did not need to take these pictures or release them to the public. If they were faked, this could have been discovered at any time by any nation that flew a camera that gave just a bit higher resolution of these areas than was available from non-Apollo sources. What motive could a faking NASA have for releasing these pictures?

I witnessed the last Apollo launch, in the company of hundreds of thousands of other people. The Saturn V was certainly a lot bigger than any other rocket I've seen, and it certainly flew, most impressively. Why do you think it couldn't do the job? The uprating for the final Apollo missions, minor changes only, provided an extra 6 tonnes to earth orbit anyway. And then these was Skylab, launched by a Saturn V, certainly a very large payload, easily visible and giving tangible evidence of a lot of heavy parts aboard when it eventually decayed over Australia.