Comment Feed for 39 years ago today (Coffeehouse on Channel 9)

Re: Re: Re: 39 years ago today

Christian Liensberger — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 08:02:03 GMT

Oh damn.. you told them now ;)

Re: Re: 39 years ago today

evildictaitor — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 07:59:12 GMT

Surely you go straight through it, because no-one would be dumb enough to collision test on the skybox... surely?

Re: 39 years ago today

Bass — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 02:17:28 GMT

Everyone knows there is no such thing as space anyway. After about 200ft you hit the skybox.

Re: 39 years ago today

turrican — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 01:52:51 GMT

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4574387786893863155

Re: Re: 39 years ago today

PerfectPhase — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 23:37:19 GMT

My stock answer to this rubish.....

Re: 39 years ago today

me — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 22:58:48 GMT

lemon ... fresh.... doo dee doo dee...

Re: Re: Re: 39 years ago today

La Bomba — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 22:54:00 GMT

Too much free time on your hands Minh, go suck a lemon.

Re: Re: 39 years ago today

Ion Todirel — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 22:46:49 GMT

It's not like you have 40 or so, you know :)

Re: Re: 39 years ago today

Minh — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 15:53:55 GMT

Moon landing hoax supporters usually look like this. Is that you La Bomba? LOL!

Re: 39 years ago today

Bas — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 09:46:20 GMT

The moon landing is clearly fake. They already landed on Mars in 1962:

(Yeah, it's a hoax. It's from a British hoax programme called Alternative 3.)

Re: Re: Re: 39 years ago today

La Bomba — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 08:30:17 GMT

Interesting stuff, thanks for posting.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 39 years ago today

Christian Liensberger — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 08:28:18 GMT

And they still fear? Why hasn't somebody taked about until now; although they talk about everything else?

The government might have secrets. But usually there are a lot less people involved; otherwise it comes out through one or the other channel... there's always that guy who speaks when being payed enough.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 39 years ago today

Sven Groot — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 08:27:50 GMT

You think the US Government has no secrets....that the public doesn't know about??

Sure they do. The moonlanding isn't one of them. None of the claims made by any of the hoax-believers stands up to scrutiny.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 39 years ago today

La Bomba — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 08:21:46 GMT

You think the US Government has no secrets....that the public doesn't know about??

It was a different time back then people really feared the government, it was all about defeating the Soviets, they didn't want Ruskies to think they didn't really beat them.

Re: Re: 39 years ago today

Sven Groot — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 08:17:57 GMT

Every single argument the "moon-hoax believers" come up with is easily debunked. There is a lot of evidence to support the fact that they did go. For one thing, keeping all the hundreds of thousands of people who worked on the project in the dark (or keeping them quiet if they did know) would've been impossible. Just to touch on a few other common points:

Hoax believers like to point out that the flag is waving. It's not in fact waving: it's swinging around because Neil was rotating the pole to drive it into the ground, and it keeps swinging for a bit because there's no air to slow it down. In fact, the way the flag behaves is completely consistent with it being in a vacuum; if this was filmed in a TV studio, it wouldn't have moved like that. It looks crumpled because they couldn't extend the arm the flag was on fully which gives the impression that it's waving (later moonlandings deliberately didn't extend it fully because they thought it looks nicer).
Another good example is the lunar rover videos from later landings: the dust that billows up from the wheels is a perfect example of a parabolic flight path in a vacuum. In a TV studio on earth, that couldn't have happened. Nowadays we'd be able to fake that using computer animation. In 1970, they couldn't.
The huge quantity of moonrocks brought back: the largest payload brought back with unmanned missions is a few hundreds of grams. The manned missions brought back hundreds of kilos!
Some of the equipment they left there is still being used.
Often pointed out is the fact that there are no stars: that's because it's filmed in daylight, and stars are very faint compared to the foreground light. A camera set with exposure to film the astronauts wouldn't be able to pick up any stars (and the astronauts themselves commented that they couldn't see them).
Why are the shadows not completely black if there's only one light source? The moon's surface is highly reflective, it disperses the sunlight.
Why is there not a bigger crater created by the LM's descent engine? In a vacuum there is no shockwave to propagate the effects of the engine's exhaust. Therefore the only dust that would be displaced would be directly beneath the engine.
Why is there no rocket flame in the footage of the LM's ascent stage lifting off? The type of propellant used doesn't produce a visible flame.
And my personal favourite: if there was even the slightest shred of evidence that it was a fake, the USSR would've jumped on it. They would've loved nothing more than to expose the US as a liar.

And why haven't we gone back (in 36 years actually, the last landing was in 1972): money. Although they did some great scientific work on the moon, what you get in return really isn't that much compared to what it costs to put a man on the moon. As early as the second landing (Apollo 12) there were debates on whether it was necessary to go back now that they'd beaten the Russians. Public interest died out (Apollo 13 wasn't even broadcast on TV until it became a disaster; nobody was interested anymore) so the US government stopped funding the missions and the planned Apollo 18 and 19 missions were cancelled.

But now, NASA is going back. By 2020, NASA plans to return to the moon, and build a settlement there for long-duration stays. The main goal: to develop the equipment and experience necessary for a manned mission to Mars.

Re: Re: Re: Re: 39 years ago today

Christian Liensberger — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 08:16:43 GMT

Competiting against the soviets was: we are better then the rest of the world and especially better than these communists. That's what drove them and nobody thought about the money because the bigger goal was to reach!

Since the soviets are gone now and all know who is better (both sides reached the moon) people started to count money again...

On the moon there's also quite nothing; other than dust and stones. Why should you come back to dust and stones when it costs you each time tens of millions of dollars? There's probably nothing on the moon that you can learn that you can't do in an orbiter like the space shuttle. And they don't even have the money to build a new air craft that replaces the shuttle, well they only have the money if the split it up over several years.

I can't believe that people think this was a hoax. Do you know how many people were involved in this project? Do you really think that all of the stood quiet until today? Even Windows 7 leaks and there are less people involved in this project... it's nonsense!

It's also true that there are plans to go back to the moon now. But they are most obviously present because of the higher goal to reach the Mars. Otherwise nobody would go back to the moon because there's no point to proof.

Re: Re: Re: 39 years ago today

La Bomba — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 08:12:27 GMT

They can go every other year when they were competing with the Soviets but now nobody cares at all...

A "rock" my friend is a bit oversimplifying it, it's still outer space and you can still learn something. It's not going to the local beach and standing on a cliff exactly.

Edit: Wikipedia mama mia...I wonder if people from Nasa/Government have edited some of the article about it being a myth.

Re: Re: Re: 39 years ago today

La Bomba — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 08:10:37 GMT

Ok ok, but why haven't they gone back?

Re: Re: 39 years ago today

Christian Liensberger — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 08:06:41 GMT

It's not that they only went up there once... and what do you want to do all the time on a rock? There's probably no water there and it's hard build a settlement there... I can clearly understand why they didn't go back: it's a waste of money.

Re: 39 years ago today

La Bomba — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 08:03:07 GMT

You are a smart guy Sven, you don't have any doubts about it being a lie?

Some of the detracting information seems quite plausible.

Why haven't they gone back in 39 years? Validate that for me.

Re: 39 years ago today

Christian Liensberger — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 07:57:40 GMT

Wow. That was already 39 years ago... time flies by!

Re: 39 years ago today

Bass — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 07:36:26 GMT

Ah, the peak of human space exploration. It's all downhill since then.