• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion - continuation thread

alexi_drago said:
Did they know from the start (1961) that it is impossible and the whole thing was a planned hoax or did they start off with good intentions only to find out later that it's impossible but decided to carry on with it as a hoax anyway for whatever reason, to save embarrassment? or some other reason.
Click to expand...

That information is on a need-to-know basis.
 
abaddon said:
True. Where does one draw the line?
Click to expand...

In the sand, presumably.

If one wants to strictly restrict then Project Apollo dates from 1961 at least.
Click to expand...

If. I got the impression that you were refering to the actual landing as "the main event happened" 60 years ago. In fact, your next post mentioned 1969, calling others numerically challenged. When others disagreed with your math (arriving at 47 years), you switched to the project start and the 56 year figure to somehow maintain your 60 year approximation instead of admitting that you had made a mistake:

abaddon said:
Yes. Project Apollo started in 1960, not 1969. They didn't actually start with a ready built spacecraft. Why would you think that?
Click to expand...

Why not admit that you misspoke either when you mentioned "1969" or "60 years"?
 
alexi_drago said:
Did they know from the start (1961) that it is impossible and the whole thing was a planned hoax or did they start off with good intentions only to find out later that it's impossible but decided to carry on with it as a hoax anyway for whatever reason, to save embarrassment? or some other reason.
Click to expand...

Both have been claimed. Neither, of course, lasts very long when confronted with the actual historical record.
 
Argumemnon said:
So did the V2 rockets and ancient Chinese fireworks.
Click to expand...

The V-2 and Chinese rockets weren't intended as part of an American crewed moon landing, though.

Mercury likely predated it as well, but my understanding is that Gemini was intended, very specifically, to rehearse and test various operations that would need to be carried out as part of Apollo, most obviously with orbital rendezvous. The long duration Gemini was intended to prove that space crew could function in space for the entire period of a lunar mission.

When you have different projects building on one another there is no unambiguous start date.
 
alexi_drago said:
Did they know from the start (1961) that it is impossible and the whole thing was a planned hoax or did they start off with good intentions only to find out later that it's impossible but decided to carry on with it as a hoax anyway for whatever reason, to save embarrassment? or some other reason.
Click to expand...

If it were impossible, no one would've been too scared of the Ruskies' missiles. That's the reason the whole deal got started.
 
John Nowak said:
The V-2 and Chinese rockets weren't intended as part of an American crewed moon landing, though.

Mercury likely predated it as well, but my understanding is that Gemini was intended, very specifically, to rehearse and test various operations that would need to be carried out as part of Apollo, most obviously with orbital rendezvous. The long duration Gemini was intended to prove that space crew could function in space for the entire period of a lunar mission.

When you have different projects building on one another there is no unambiguous start date.
Click to expand...

Ok, so I guess you missed the sarcasm, there.
 
AdamSK said:
What's the hoaxers' typical explanation for the retroreflectors?
Click to expand...

Either they were placed there with some unmanned probe they have no evidence for or the signal is just being bounced off the surface (which is possible though it requires more power and you get a more diffuse return). Point out the last part to them and they'll just ignore it.
 
Trebuchet said:
I've actually read the US Navy's "After Action Reports" of the event. A surprising number of personnel DID report seeing German bombers. That does not, of course, indicate there were any present.
Click to expand...

Say what??
 
Jrrarglblarg said:
And the American reflectors are more accurately positioned.
Click to expand...

Indeed, we get a much stronger signal from the Apollo retroreflectors than we do from the Soviets'. And to address AdamSK's question, there's a minority of claimants who say the lunar surface is naturally reflective enough to reflect a laser for the purpose of rangefinding. When confronted with the evidence that the Moon is somehow orders of magnitude more reflective where the LRRRs are, they say NASA must have searched for some naturally reflective spots and then claimed missions landed there and placed retroreflectors.
 
JayUtah said:
Indeed, we get a much stronger signal from the Apollo retroreflectors than we do from the Soviets'. And to address AdamSK's question, there's a minority of claimants who say the lunar surface is naturally reflective enough to reflect a laser for the purpose of rangefinding. When confronted with the evidence that the Moon is somehow orders of magnitude more reflective where the LRRRs are, they say NASA must have searched for some naturally reflective spots and then claimed missions landed there and placed retroreflectors.
Click to expand...

All this trouble you might as well go to the ******** Moon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom