PDA

View Full Version : Im-So-Confused



SeekingKnowledge
2002-Mar-24, 03:06 AM
Did we really land on the moon? Why would we spend millions on a space station when we could just use the moon? Why can't we just take a few new "close-ups" of the moon to show everyone the equipment that was left behind as proof we were there? Is it true (if we did go) that portions of the live audio from some of the apollo missions were censored becuase the astronauts were claiming they saw U.F.O's/Aliens?
Im just a crazy kid seeking answers but here are 2 conspiracy theories im making up based on absolutely nothing, maybe someone can "debunk" me before I become just another crackpot.
1)We never went to the moon, in fact the apollo missions never broke earth's orbit, except one. The only time man has been outside of Earth's orbit was the Apollo 13 mission and we all know how that ended up.
But if thats not true then I have this one
2)We went to the moon, but someone/thing else was already there and thats why we've never been back.
I look forward to hearing your responses

P.S. Anyone else think the challenger disaster caused a sort of "dark ages" with the NASA space program?

Comixx
2002-Mar-24, 04:25 AM
As far as I know, our trips to the moon are not really in question. The proofs are irrefutable when all is said and done. Someone once told me the reason we stopped going to the moon (and we did go several times, the first is simply the most famous because it was the first) was commercial viability: we cant mine there, we cant set up operations there, it costs too much and involves too much danger. As stated in other posts here and by BA himself, the Shuttles dont have the ability to go to the moon, and that is our only really commercially viable vehicle right now.

Of course, this is all my opinion and things I've heard...I could be way off base...I'm just a guy who likes looking up and wondering...not some science geek (and I mean that in the nicest possible way /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif).

David Hall
2002-Mar-24, 06:56 AM
Believe it or not, the main reason we aren't going back to the Moon now seems to be...because we went to the Moon!

Think back on the climate and reasons for the Apollo program. Amid the turmoil of the civil rights movement and the Vietnam war, we were also fighting a "Cold War" with the USSR. And we were very afraid that they were winning. So we had to show them (and ourselves) that we were the top dog. The real reason we went to the Moon was to "beat the Ruskies".

So we pumped 30+ billion dollars into the space program, hired the best minds, developed new technologies, and basically pushed ourselves to the limit to get there first. Sure we did some science on the way, but mostly it was just a mad trip to get there no matter what the cost.

But what happened after we accomplished the goal? Well, it was kind of an anticlimax. We'd shown up the Soviets, so what else was there to do? Popular support dried up. And with it went the political and monetary support needed to keep up a large space program. The feeling became a "been there, done that", and the nation turned to other worries. And all that specially-designed equipment was now useless because it had only been designed for one purpose: to get there as fast as possible.

So the situation today is this: We could go back if we wanted to, but we don't want to. It costs an incredible amount of money and effort to do so, and we'd basically have to start all over again from scratch (who's going to want to use 1960's technology today?). So until the people as a whole develop a burning desire to return to the moon, it just isn't going to happen.

Now as for your other questions, the quick answers are:

We can't take detailed images of the moon because none of our telescopes, not even Hubble, are able to see anything as small as the moon landers. You'd need a spy satellite in lunar orbit to see that much detail.

I doubt that it's true at all that anything was edited out because of "aliens". The Apollo Lunar Surface Journal http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/frame.html contains complete transcripts of all the missions.

The idea that something else is on the Moon is a central idea to Richard Hoagland's Enterprise mission, a well known crank site. http://www.enterprisemission.com/

The best way to get answers is to first read the Bad Astronomer's page on the hoax theory. http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html . Then if you want more detail head over to Clavius, http://www.clavius.org/index.html . They can answer most of the questions you have and some you haven't even thought of.

Good luck in your search!

_________________
David Hall
"Dave... my mind is going... I can feel it... I can feel it." (http://www.occn.zaq.ne.jp/cuaea503/whatnots/2001_feel_it.wav)
<font size="-1">(Fixed some bolluxed links)</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: David Hall on 2002-03-24 02:02 ]</font>

Kaptain K
2002-Mar-24, 11:36 AM
P.S. Anyone else think the challenger disaster caused a sort of "dark ages" with the NASA space program?
My personal opinion is that the whole Space Shuttle program has been one long, expensive side road that will (eventually) be seen as a dead end. At lift-off, it weighs 4.5 million lb. Of that, less than 300,000 lb. is Shuttle + payload. About 3.8 million lb. is fuel (most of which is needed to lift the fuel off the ground.
The science fiction writers of the '50s had the right idea. If you use a catapult (linear induction motor or "rail gun") for the first stage, you can leave most of the fuel on the ground, giving a much better payload to mass-in-orbit ratio.
A piloted, "scramjet" powered second stage would save even more.
Someday, NASA will figure this out. But it probably won't be in my lifetime.

2002-Mar-24, 01:14 PM
On 2002-03-24 06:36, Kaptain K wrote:

P.S. Anyone else think the challenger disaster caused a sort of "dark ages" with the NASA space program?
My personal opinion is that the whole Space Shuttle program has been one long, expensive side road that will (eventually) be seen as a dead end. At lift-off, it weighs 4.5 million lb. Of that, less than 300,000 lb. is Shuttle + payload. About 3.8 million lb. is fuel (most of which is needed to lift the fuel off the ground.
The science fiction writers of the '50s had the right idea. If you use a catapult (linear induction motor or "rail gun") for the first stage, you can leave most of the fuel on the ground, giving a much better payload to mass-in-orbit ratio.
A piloted, "scramjet" powered second stage would save even more.
Someday, NASA will figure this out. But it probably won't be in my lifetime.


Me ? agreeing with a Texan? Wheres Uranis at again?

Donnie B.
2002-Mar-24, 01:23 PM
On 2002-03-23 23:25, Comixx wrote:
...I'm just a guy who likes looking up and wondering...not some science geek.


Not that there's anything wrong with that...

/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

Roy Batty
2002-Mar-24, 02:53 PM
On 2002-03-24 06:36, Kaptain K wrote:

P.S. Anyone else think the challenger disaster caused a sort of "dark ages" with the NASA space program?
My personal opinion is that the whole Space Shuttle program has been one long, expensive side road that will (eventually) be seen as a dead end. At lift-off, it weighs 4.5 million lb. Of that, less than 300,000 lb. is Shuttle + payload. About 3.8 million lb. is fuel (most of which is needed to lift the fuel off the ground.
The science fiction writers of the '50s had the right idea. If you use a catapult (linear induction motor or "rail gun") for the first stage, you can leave most of the fuel on the ground, giving a much better payload to mass-in-orbit ratio.
A piloted, "scramjet" powered second stage would save even more.
Someday, NASA will figure this out. But it probably won't be in my lifetime.


I agree with the scramjet idea.. it seems to me this has been a far too long neglected area of research/practical experimentation. I'm curious about the 'railgun' approach, would'nt the acceleration force have to be v.large (or the rail very long)?. I read somewere earlier this year that NASA had put about 30k$ into this.. peanuts /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_frown.gif

JayUtah
2002-Mar-24, 03:30 PM
Did we really land on the moon?

Of course we did.

Why would we spend millions on a space station when we could just use the moon?

Because it's much easier and cheaper to get to the space station than to the moon, and because you can't do zero-gravity experiments on the moon.

Why can't we just take a few new "close-ups" of the moon to show everyone the equipment that was left behind as proof we were there?

Because the telescopes aren't powerful enough.

Is it true (if we did go) that portions of the live audio from some of the apollo missions were censored becuase the astronauts were claiming they saw U.F.O's/Aliens?

No, but plenty of people are willing to pretend that this happened, even to the extent of making up what was said in the interval.

1) ... The only time man has been outside of Earth's orbit was the Apollo 13 mission and we all know how that ended up.

Okay, technically "earth's orbit" doesn't define an altitude. You can be in as low an orbit as 100 nm, or as high an orbit as around 150,000 nm. Neither of these would be a particularly stable orbit, but you have to be more specific.

Unmanned Apollo spacecraft went as far as the geosynchronous belt. That's 22,000 nm out and through the Van Allen belts. The equipment seemed to work okay.

Nothing about the Apollo 13 accident has anything to do with distance from earth. It could quite literally have blown upon the pad, or in parking orbit prior to TLI.

2)We went to the moon, but someone/thing else was already there and thats why we've never been back.

Well, you can go over to the Enterprise Mission and let them try to convince you there are alien artifacts on the moon. Their evidence is not convincing to me.

If you're simply looking for a reason why we've never been back, then you don't need to look on the moon. You can look right here on earth. The public grew tired of Apollo and refused to support it further. End of story.

P.S. Anyone else think the challenger disaster caused a sort of "dark ages" with the NASA space program?

I'm not sure what you mean. There was obviously a period of investigation followed by introspection and revised engineering. Some opportunities were missed while the fleet was grounded. But that's all to be expected when you have a catastrophic, high-profile accident.

Roy Batty
2002-Mar-24, 04:48 PM
Always best to believe the best of course, but i have a nagging doubt we're feeding a troll.. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif

Magnificent Desolation
2002-Mar-24, 05:13 PM
One of the finest debunking pages belongs to Bob Braeunig. I fully recommend it:

http://users.commkey.net/Braeunig/space/hoax.htm

Also recommended is, of course;

Jay´s http://www.clavius.org

... and Phil´s http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

************

You ask:

"Why can't we just take a few new "close-ups" of the moon to show everyone the equipment that was left behind as proof we were there"

As Bob puts it (http://users.commkey.net/Braeunig/space/hoax.htm):

Quote:

"The theoretical resolving power of a telescope, measured in arc seconds, is calculated by dividing the aperture of the telescope (in inches) into 4.56. The largest telescope on Earth is the 10-meter Keck telescope in Hawaii. The theoretical resolving power of this telescope is 0.012"; however, the Earth's atmosphere limits the resolving power of any ground-based telescope to about 0.5"-1.0". The Hubble Space Telescope does not suffer from this limitation; thus, with an aperture of 94 inches, HST's resolving power is 0.05". At the Earth-Moon distance of 239,000 miles, the smallest object that can be resolved by HST is about 300 feet. The largest dimension of any hardware left behind on the Moon is 31 feet, which is the diagonal distance across the LM's footpads. No telescope, presently in existence, can see the Apollo hardware from Earth"

(End of quote)

****

"Magnificent Desolation"

Chuck
2002-Mar-24, 05:25 PM
Even if the Hubble could resolve the lunar hardware the hoax believers would say the Hubble images were faked.

Silas
2002-Mar-24, 05:40 PM
On 2002-03-24 11:48, Roy Batty wrote:
Always best to believe the best of course, but i have a nagging doubt we're feeding a troll.. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif



To quote someone I admire, "A troll is not a troll...even if he is." That is to say: always answer politely, as if there were no trolls, since, for every troll there may be ten lurkers who are judging us by our responses.

Silas

Kaptain K
2002-Mar-24, 06:41 PM
...I'm curious about the 'railgun' approach, would'nt the acceleration force have to be v.large (or the rail very long)?...
Well, the math isn't very difficult - v^2 = 2 x a x s.
assuming a take-off speed of 600 mph (880 fps) and 3g acceleration.
Solving for s (distance) gives 4000 feet for the length of the catapult. 1g would require 12,000 feet.

SpacedOut
2002-Mar-24, 06:41 PM
On 2002-03-24 12:40, Silas wrote:
....always answer politely, as if there were no trolls, since, for every troll there may be ten lurkers who are judging us by our responses.

Silas



Well put - That is exactly the reasion this is the only BB I have joined-I've been viewing other BB's discussing the Apollo Hoax theories but won't join because of abusive posters.

Jim
2002-Mar-24, 06:51 PM
On 2002-03-24 12:25, Chuck wrote:
Even if the Hubble could resolve the lunar hardware the hoax believers would say the Hubble images were faked.


And, when the Japanese satellite sends back pictures showing Apollo artifcats, they will claim that the Japanese were either duped or bought off.

Sadly, many HBers take the stand Kaysing voiced in the PAX show... nothing will ever convince them the landings were real.

SeekingKnowledge
2002-Mar-24, 07:19 PM
Well im not sure what a troll is but, I found a video clip that might be interesting in regard to my second made up theory of aliens on the moon, I'm curious what everyone else thinks about it, its bout 9 mins long and I think you need real player for it. Now im not sure how to make a direct link to it, but if you <a href=http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicvideos.html>click here</a>
then you should see near the top of the page, "the moon anomolies", its a upn news report.

P.S. what I meant by a "dark ages" after challenger was this: recently I rented a video from my local library all about the challenger disaster and this video was from around 1987 about, not 100% sure about that. But in the video, they mentioned alot of manned missions into outer-space up until the year 2000, and as far as I know there hasnt been one. Ironically, at the end of the video was a special message from President Ronald Reagan (so its made definately before '88) Proclaiming all these
missions, and saying how he was looking foward to the next decade and beyond in our space program. Well now were in the "beyond" stage and im getting a little impatient. Lets go somewhere. Im buyin /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

P.S.S. Recently I saw on the history channel, a very interesting piece. Some guy was working on a cannon, rail gun, shoot stuff really fast out of a barrell type experiments, "super-guns" and was mysteriously murdered in the eighties. Now he started working on this in the sixties if my memory serves me right (from watching the special I wasn't around in the 60's + early 70's, but would've given anything to see the apollo missions live on TV. My generation gets a remote controlled toy car that lands on mars and looks at rocks, im getting a little impatient. Lets go somewhere. Im buyin /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif ) Anyhow, he lived up north and was eventually shut down by the gov't. But his goal was to make a super gun that could shoot a satellite into orbit. Heres the kicker. He claimed he could do this, with this technology for under $50,000/launch. To fund this project he was working for the gov't, obviously, before they shut him down. Afterwards he became a private contractor for big countries, and my dad mentioned that this guy made some kind of super-gun for iraq or iran or something in the 80's? So all his funding was from these foregin countries, and he mysteriously died before completing his experiment. Finally I just want to mention this is all from my memory so I could be wrong on some things but this is to the best of my recollection, if anyone else saw the special or knows about this guy, feel free to correct anything I'm wrong about.

jagster
2002-Mar-24, 07:28 PM
Thankfully, the BA won't tolerate abusive posters and cuts them off at the knees.

SeekingKnowledge
2002-Mar-24, 07:32 PM
Just want to mention theres also a few other decent moon related anomoly and UFO clips on that direct link

Magnificent Desolation
2002-Mar-24, 07:48 PM
On 2002-03-24 14:19, SeekingKnowledge wrote:

But his goal was to make a super gun that could shoot a satellite into orbit. Heres the kicker. He claimed he could do this, with this technology for under $50,000/launch. To fund this project he was working for the gov't, obviously, before they shut him down. Afterwards he became a private contractor for big countries, and my dad mentioned that this guy made some kind of super-gun for iraq or iran or something in the 80's? So all his funding was from these foregin countries, and he mysteriously died before completing his experiment.


I am quite certain that you are thinking about Gerald Bull and Project Babylon.

For more info, click on this link:

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/other/supergun.htm

(A quote: "The high-ranking Iraqi defector Gen. Hussein Kamel al-Majeed said Iraq was working on a space weapon launched from the supergun.

"It was meant for long-range attack and also to blind spy satellites. Our scientists were seriously working on that. It was designed to explode a shell in space that would have sprayed a sticky material on the satellite and blinded it." )

***********

"Magnificent Desolation"

Magnificent Desolation
2002-Mar-24, 08:33 PM
On 2002-03-23 22:06, SeekingKnowledge wrote:
Is it true (if we did go) that portions of the live audio from some of the apollo missions were censored becuase the astronauts were claiming they saw U.F.O's/Aliens?


Let´s turn to James Oberg (superb UFO debunker almost hated as much as (yet another debunking Phil !!!) Philip J. Klass), who has dealt in great details with the rumours around the Apollo 11 mission.

In his article "The Apollo-11 UFO Incidents":

http://www.debunker.com/texts/apollo11.html

.... he writes:

"Another "inside account" appeared in the monthly bulletin of the well-known UFO group, APRO (Aerial Phenomena Research Organization). As reported in the February 1976 issue, three disc-shaped shadows paced the astronauts as they circled the moon, while NASA censors cut off further live comments from the newsmen. An APRO informant known as "Mister X" was allegedly present in the "inner control room."

(...................)

Claims that these voice signals were cut off from the newsmen who were present are also in complete contradiction with personal accounts of newsmen who were in Houston: There was no significant tape delay, and there were no silences indicative of censorship."

"Magnificent Desolation"

JayUtah
2002-Mar-24, 09:23 PM
Regarding the site whose address was posted here, I have a hard time accepting the theories of UFO "researchers" who see everything in terms of alien spacecraft to the seeming exclusion of other plausibilities.

UPN Channel 13. Local non-network news is almost never a source of reliable journalism. Recall that these are people who need to fill at least 30 or 60 minutes of "news coverage" each day, giving rise to the "news feature" -- not news, but rather some "investigative" piece which ends up being an unchallenged platform for some crackpot who contacts the reporter.

As soon as the report begins, we see a whole load of inexperience. The reporter says Frank Borman sees a "bogey" while orbiting the moon on Gemini 7. Of course Gemini 7 did not orbit the moon. It oribted the earth. Further, "bogey" refers to an object whose identity is uncertain. The "researcher" has carefully adjusted his definition of "bogey" so that it sounds like it must refer to a vehicle of some sort. The purported "confirmation" from Mission Control is simply an acknowledgement that they have heard and understood Borman's report.

The report of observed fluorescence does not indicate alien involvement. It indicates fluorescence.

The Apollo 18 mission was not canceled "abruptly". The crew was not "already trained".

The supposed artificial structures on the moon are either perfectly natural structures whose formation the UFO "researchers" don't understand, or the supposed symmetry and regularity is derived only through arbitrary numerology. The "researcher" admits these formations are hard to see for what they are. I interpret this to mean that people simply look for what they want to see, until they see it. It's simply the Seethruart methodology, with a little bit more sophistication.

The reporter makes a big deal of NASA researchers' general unwillingness to participate in the debate. This is the correct reponse. Mr. Ecker will simply continue to believe what he wants to believe and to see what he wants to see. UPN report Tammy Taylor has essentially produced an uncritical 8-minute commercial for Mr. Ecker. Ecker is quite prepared for NASA's response. He wants to characterize his work as a serious investigation in which NASA is unwilling to participate. In fact Mr. Ecker is yet another crackpot who sees alien spacecraft because that's what he wants to see.

A conscientious reporter would simply reject Mr. Ecker's work as that of a crackpot who makes his living writing about UFOs for enthusiasts. But since Ms. Taylor would otherwise have an eight-minute hole in her daily newscast, and since controversy tends to increase ratings, we can see why the story stands.

There is absolutely no evidentiary value or compelling power to Ecker's "evidence".

UFO captured over Area 51. This is very obviously an interreflection in the compound lens. There are two objects in this video: one bright object moving steadily against the background, and one dim object moving erratically. The motions of the dim, erratic object correlate via radial symmetry through the optical axis as the hand-held frame moves. The bright, steady object is likely a polished aluminum conventional aircraft (not a rare site around a military air base). The erratic object is the reflection of the conventional aircraft in the lens elements.

This is a good example of UFO enthusiasts being so eager to see UFOs that they interpret obvious, common, perfectly explainable phenomena as alien spacecraft. This lack of sophistication seriously cripples their arguments.

Apollo 16 UFOs described by NASA scientist. Dr. El-Baz most assuredly does not believe in UFOs, and at no time during his report or discussion does he use that term or indicate that the flashing surface phenomena are anything but a natural occurrence. Further, the objects seen in lunar orbit are obviously orbital debris caught either as shadows or as brightly lit objects. All spacecraft release small bits of debris during operation, and they frequently show up on film and video.

STS-73 report. Yes, the astronaut reports an "unidentified flying object". But in the UFO cult vocabulary, that universally means "alien spacecraft". This is one of their classic tools. They interpret "UFO" to mean alien spacecraft, but they don't realize that other people reporting such things don't follow that interpretation. Is the astronaut really reporting an alien spacecraft? No, she's reporting something up there that she can't immediately identify. That is no evidence whatsoever of "alien" involvement in outer space.

That's as far as I went with this site. It is obviously a UFO enthusiast struggling to interpret various phenomena invariably as some sort of alien involvement. It's not evidence in any normal sense of the word. It's just the delusions of people who see aliens no matter where they look.

SeekingKnowledge
2002-Mar-24, 09:36 PM
Ok first of all I want to thank everybody who responded, because you all know a heck of a lot more than me on this and have great answers, that are pulling me off the fence on this topic, but now I have something else.Im watching this webcast of <a href=http://www.connectlive.com/events/disclosureproject/>"project dislosure"</a>. I dont know if anybody knows what it is or has seen it. Im about 40 mins into a 3 hr broadcast and this is some good stuff. I keep noticing at the end of each person's story, they say that everything they stated is truth and they are willing to testify in a court of law to the statements. So I have 2 questions.
1)would these statements be considered more credible if they were sworn statements from a court of law?
2)if so then why not have someone purposely sue this project leader on grounds of defamation or slander, just to get the physical evidence and statements sworn as truth in a court of law?

P.S. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_eek.gif WOW /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_eek.gif JayUtah, your good, have you ever seen anything unexplainable?

The Bad Astronomer
2002-Mar-24, 10:27 PM
On 2002-03-24 16:23, JayUtah wrote:
STS-73 report. Yes, the astronaut reports an "unidentified flying object".

...

Is the astronaut really reporting an alien spacecraft? No, she's reporting something up there that she can't immediately identify.

Actually, it's better than that. She was inside the part of the Shuttle with no windows at the time. Another crewman was floating past her, and she jokingly made the report as he went by. I was told this by either James Oberg or Ron Parise (a 2-time Shuttle astronaut); I cannot remember which.

Yet UFO crowds still talk about this report as if she saw an alien spacecraft. That's the level of UFO reporting you typically see. It's like the HBs: only report as much as you need to to make it sound like you are right, but don't dig any deeper.

Donnie B.
2002-Mar-24, 10:33 PM
1)would these statements be considered more credible if they were sworn statements from a court of law?
2)if so then why not have someone purposely sue this project leader on grounds of defamation or slander, just to get the physical evidence and statements sworn as truth in a court of law?


1) Not necessarily. People often lie under oath, and others honestly swear to things that can be shown to be false -- that is, they are mistaken. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. Even expert testimony is often contradictory. That's why courts of law have juries (or sometimes just a judge) -- to weigh the evidence presented and make judgements about its truth and accuracy.

2) See (1)... /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif
It's quite likely that UFO-believers would swear under oath to what they believe to be true. That's not perjury, even if they're wrong. Others, who don't really believe or are just peddling something, might lie if they thought there was no way to prove their statements false, or might simply avoid the situation by legal maneuvering.

SeekingKnowledge
2002-Mar-24, 10:45 PM
ok im Exactly one hour into the project disclosure webcast and there is a man named Carl Wolf who says he was a "precision-electronics photographic repairman" w/ top secret crypto clearance in us air force in Langley VA in 1965.He was loaned to the lunar orbiter project at NASA on Langley field, he says they had problems with a peice of electronic equip that was bottlenecking their production of photographs, he walked into facility and saw scientists from all over the world, and was stunned to see scientists from all over the world at NASA, he was taken into lab where the equipment was malfunctioning, he asked to have equip removed because he couldn't repair it in the dark, an airman 2nd class was in the darkroom, he was interested in how the data got from lunar orbiter to the lab, asked the young man to describe the process, which he did, and about 30 mins into the discussion, the airman 2nd class "said in a very distressed way, by the way we've discovered a base on the backside of the moon" and he proceeded to put pictures in front of him and he claims he clearly saw structures,mushroom and spherical shaped buildings, and towers. He goes on to say at that point he was very concerned because he knew they were working on compartmentalized security and that that man had breached security and he was frightened and didn't question it any further.

This is 98% DIRECT translation of Carl Wolf's speech at project disclosure, although its not 100% word for word nothing has been embellished and nothing has been glorified, click <a href=http://www.connectlive.com/events/disclosureproject/>project disclosure</a> fast forward exactly one hour into the webcast and listen for yourself.

Kaptain K
2002-Mar-24, 11:43 PM
...have you ever seen anything unexplainable?
I am not Jay, but if I may paraphrase Auther C. Clarke:

If you haven't seen a UFO, you haven't been looking.

I have seen many things that I could not identify or explain at the time and a few that I never could identify or explain. Just because I could not identify or explain them does not automatically mean that they were "aliens".

SeekingKnowledge
2002-Mar-24, 11:45 PM
true

SeekingKnowledge
2002-Mar-24, 11:48 PM
but now this project disclosure got me going, there has to be something behind these hundreds of testimonies, and after visiting their site, they say they have more than 100 new gov't ppl that stepped up since that webcast from last May.

JayUtah
2002-Mar-24, 11:59 PM
but now I have something else.Im watching this webcast of <a href=http://www.connectlive.com/events/disclosureproject/>"project dislosure"</a>. I dont know if anybody knows what it is or has seen it.

Project Disclosure is an effort by ex-physician Stephen Greer to attract mainstream attention to the hypothesis that the U.S. government is hiding certain knowledge of alien visitation.

The people whom Greer has assembled do in fact stand by their stories, and I don't think they're necessarily lying. But neither do I feel compelled to take their testimony at face value. Because in each case there is the observation and then the interpretation. And while I can accept that these people had real experiences with real phenomena, I don't necessarily subscribe to the interpretation they've attached to the experience.

1)would these statements be considered more credible if they were sworn statements from a court of law?

The threat of punishment for perjury would make it less likely that they were outright lying, but that's not really the issue. The issue is whether they have interpreted their observations in accordance with an objective reality that can be tested.

If I see something in the sky that I can't identify, I can certainly swear out an affidavit or testify in court that I saw the object. I can certainly give my opinion that it's an alien spacecraft, although nothing I say could be legally construed as general proof of that interpretation. A statement of belief is not necessarily evidence.

There are numerous examples of mass sightings of phenomena whose explanations are not readily apparent. You can certainly state on this basis that some objectively visible phenomenon occurred. But just because the phenomenon does not immediately correspond to a familiar cause does not supply proof that it is necessarily the result of some other arbitrary hypothetical cause. Demonstrating that it isn't X doesn't prove that it must be Y except when X and Y are by all estimations the only possible causes.

Unfortunately Greer's star witness, a supposed former sergeant, is one of those Bob Lazar types -- someone whose story is just too good to be true, and who has supposedly been everywhere and done everything, yet no one seems to have known him or recognizes him. That sort of testimony is easily torn apart by opposing counsel.

2)if so then why not have someone purposely sue this project leader on grounds of defamation or slander, just to get the physical evidence and statements sworn as truth in a court of law?

Nothing prevents these people from swearing an affidavit to their story. A sworn affidavit is legally equivalent to "getting evidence on the record". Unfortunately a court trial exposes testimony to cross-examination. And during cross-examination a competent lawyer could completely tear pro-UFO testimony to shreds.

P.S. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_eek.gif WOW /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_eek.gif JayUtah, your good, have you ever seen anything unexplainable?

The question is misleading. If I interpret your question correctly, you mean to ask if I've seen anything that I could not explain. (This is different than something which is unexplainable.)

The answer is yes, plenty. But in general the evidence presented by UFO enthusiasts as proof of alien spacecraft does not fall into that category. I have seen many things that I cannot readily explain, but this does not necessarily require that I adopt some farfetched hypothesis to explain it.

I have made many observations which I could not immediately explain. However, blessed at the moment with spare time and a bit of curiosity, I was eventually able to explain them. A peculiar glow on a street sign, for example, might trace its way back to the windshield of a car a block away. Since the "anomalous" observations that I choose at random to investigate seem to be caused by mundane (albeit obscure) forces, I don't find it necessary to assume the ones I don't investigate must have some dark, sinister cause.

I tend to be observant. This annoys people who are with me. I am more driven than most, I suppose, to discover the causes behind apparently uninteresting observations. One of these stories has been immortalized in the hoax lore as "Wiggum Lights".

I have seen things which I could easily explain where others couldn't. I have seen things which I couldn't explain conclusively, but could formulate a plausible theory to account for them. I have seen things with I could not explain, but which others were able to easily explain.

People sympathetic to Greer's case tell me I have to open my mind. I'm supposed to be open to possibilities that I might not have considered. Unfortunately this kind of criticism doesn't go very far. You find that the UFO enthusiasts want you to open your mind only to their particular hypothesis. Any farther and you start to see where their hypothesis falls apart.

If scope of imagination is the issue, I can point to the fact that observations similar to the Greer witnesses have been around for thousands of years. Stripped of their socially contextual interpretations, the observations themselves are those which have historically been attributed to evil spirits, angels, satan, the gods, spiritualism, communists, and lately space aliens.

Further, the UFO phenomenon has been around in its current form since the 1950s and is pretty well documented. We find that the alleged "aliens" and spacecraft seen by these people look a lot like those coming out of Hollywood at the time. And this trend continues to the present day. So while there may be a core of actual phenomena at work, it is being wrapped in a facade probably generated by an unconscious intervention of popular culture. A truly open-minded approach to these testimonials would consider such things.

Now I don't go after every pseudoscientific postulate that comes my way. I'm really only interested in the moon hoax theory. Unfortunately the hoax believer aren't. It's very hard to discuss one alleged government conspiracy without discussing them all because in the hoax believer's mind they are all connected. This works to their disadvantage because they are constrained to proving something very, very large and far-reaching. And they get very frustrated and angry when they fail to do it.

SeekingKnowledge
2002-Mar-25, 12:29 AM
I understand where your coming from, but some of those people in project disclosure said they saw bodies. Would you classify this under the "interpretation attached to the experience" and maybe they were human bodies severly burned or something like that? And you honestly believe that aliens have as much a chance of existing as evil spirits or god(s)? I mean according to this "drake equation", theres a pretty decent chance its for real, I think.
If your referring to me as the moon hoax believer, i'm not. I am now going to subscribe to theory that we went to the moon but there was something there of an alien nature whether it was some base or ship or ET or even an inanimate carbon rod not of this earth, there's something up there, maybe.

Peter B
2002-Mar-25, 12:59 AM
SeekingKnowledge

I might be able to help with the bodies business.

I forget where I read it (could have been the Australian magazine "the Skeptic"), but I understand that the US Air Force used a number of monkeys in various trials of equipment.

After the tests, the bodies of the (now dead) monkeys were frozen and shaved. The question was put, "What do you think the frozen and shaved body of a metre tall monkey would look like?"

I could certainly have a deeper look around, but I think the "alien" bodies these people saw could be explained by this.

JayUtah
2002-Mar-25, 02:21 AM
and was stunned to see scientists from all over the world at NASA

Why is this so odd? It was the scientific extravaganza of the century. Why wouldn't the world's scientists be interested? Why wouldn't NASA be interested in the world's scientific opinion? Look at the list of Apollo experiments and you'll find they come from all over the world. The solar wind experiment was performed on behalf of a Swiss scientist, giving it the astronauts' nickname "the Swiss flag".

This is the first warning signal. Anyone who is legitimately familiar with Apollo shouldn't be surprised that lots of scientists participated.

the airman 2nd class "said in a very distressed way, by the way we've discovered a base on the backside of the moon" and he proceeded to put pictures in front of him

Second warning signal: why would such a sensitive and earth-shattering (moon-shattering?) fact be entrusted to an airman second class?

he knew they were working on compartmentalized security and that that man had breached security and he was frightened and didn't question it any further.

Third warning signal. Why would an airman second class, the dregs of the Air Force authority structure, risk summary imprisonment without trial and possibly a capital court martial to blurt out such a momentous secret to someone he's only known for thirty minutes? For all the airman knows, the man he's talking to could be an undercover FBI agent looking for leaks.

You must learn to think critically. Do you believe this man because his story is plausible, or because he's telling you want you want to hear? This story lacks "prima facie" plausibility. The story itself is implausible. If we are forced to accept or reject it as it stands, without the opportunity to corroborate it, we must reject it. Unless he can supply evidence -- produce the airman in question, or the photos -- then it just ain't evidence.

David Hall
2002-Mar-25, 02:35 AM
and was stunned to see scientists from all over the world at NASA



Besides, how would this person know that these people were from all over the world? Were they each wearing name tags with little flags on them?

Maybe they were all dressed in costumes from their respective homelands? (Japanese kimono, French striped shirt & beanie, German leiderhosen, etc.) /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

JayUtah
2002-Mar-25, 03:00 AM
but some of those people in project disclosure said they saw bodies. Would you classify this under the "interpretation attached to the experience" and maybe they were human bodies severly burned or something like that?

The observation: you see something that resembles a body.

First level interpretation: the object is a body. It might seem like this is a no-brainer, but it is nevertheless an interpretation and must be considered as such.

Second-level interpretation: the object is the body of an extraterrestrial alien organism. This is a huge leap. You can say it doesn't look like any earth organism you've ever seen. But that's still a specious argument. You can't derive what it is based on what you think it isn't.

So this definitely falls under the category of an interpretation not being properly segregated from the observation.

I'm sometimes accused of being pedantic about observations, but this is natural to the engineer's trade. Engineers are often called upon to analyze failure and thereby to assist in assigning blame. The language of failure analyses must be very careful not to convey an improper impression. For example, when you analyze a cockpit voice recorder, you don't identify a noise as, e.g., slat deployment. You say, "noise consistent with slat deployment." That may be your expert opinion, but it's not a fact -- it's an interpretation and you must phrase it as such. If you convey a wrong impression of fact, that's the stuff lawsuits are made of.

And you honestly believe that aliens have as much a chance of existing as evil spirits or god(s)?

No, that is not my argument. My argument is that the same observations being presented here have been various attributed to other phenomena that were in the social or psychological foreground at the time. People in different times and places firmly believed in evil spirits, gods, and angels. Their existence was considered a virtual certainty, and so it was automatically plausible in that context for the phenomena in question to have been caused by such forces.

Nowadays we would tend to dismiss, on scientific grounds anyway, angels and gods, but the point is that we simply can't take interpretations at face value.

I mean according to this "drake equation", theres a pretty decent chance its for real, I think.

No. The so-called Drake Equation discusses the probability of intelligent life communicating with earth (intentionally or otherwise), not visiting it. The UFO phenomenon is caught up with visitation, which is an entirely different question.

Supposing, as do many, that intelligent life exists or has existed elsewhere, the probability that they have visited earth (and perhaps do so regularly) depends on a great many factors that Drake's equation doesn't consider:

- whether intelligent aliens are sufficiently curious to investigate other planets,
- whether they can develop the technology to actually travel such great distances,
- whether they choose earth as a subject,
- whether they choose to leave evidence of their involvement.

UFO enthusiasts tend to ascribe human-like motives and characteristics to beings which are not likely at all to resemble humans in psychological construction. This goes back to the point I made earlier; people tend to describe aliens in terms of what popular culture tells them aliens should be like.

If your referring to me as the moon hoax believer, i'm not.

I was not. I was simply pointing out that one cannot easily refute only a portion of the Grand Unified Conspiracy theory. I have little interest in arguing whether UFOs exist or have visited earth. I am trained as an engineer. I am most interested in arguments that question the technological issues of space travel.

Earlier you said there must be something to all these reports.

The simple answer is, no. There mustn't. That line of reasoning is wrong for several reasons.

First, it's common practice in this sort of argumentation to inundate the reader with a huge volume of alleged evidence precisely so that something can be speciously read into the volume itself. In fact, they don't want you examining any one point too closely. They want you to skim the surface and then make up your mind, not ask too many questions.

Second, much of this evidence contributes to the hypothesis only because it's interpreted to do so. Seeing bodies, for example, is evidence of extraterrestrial intelligence only when the bodies are interpreted as extraterrestrials.

Third, much of the testimony is simply not plausible. I spoke a little hastily earlier. Clearly Greer's witnesses fall into different categories: there are those who are simply recounting experiences to which they have attached UFO-sympathetic interpretatations, and among the rest there are also those who are simply lying because they know it's impossible to prove them wrong and they want the publicity. The UFO phenomenon has been plagued by these types for years.

Once you subtract away all the testimony which is irrelevant, falsified, or inconclusive, you are left with very, very little. The thinking person realizes that an argument founded on a thousand flawed bits of evidence is no stronger than a case founded on one such flaw.

I'm not necessarily out to get Dr. Greer. All he wants is to investigate the question further, with more support and greater rigor. If we pare away the irrelevancy and there remains a nugget of ambiguity, I'm not opposed to making a proper investigation.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: JayUtah on 2002-03-24 22:12 ]</font>

JayUtah
2002-Mar-25, 03:02 AM
Besides, how would this person know that these people were from all over the world?

I'm assuming he knew them by name or face.

SeekingKnowledge
2002-Mar-25, 05:45 AM
On 2002-03-24 22:00, JayUtah wrote:
[b]...I am trained as an engineer. I am most interested in arguments that question the technological issues of space travel.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: JayUtah on 2002-03-24 22:12 ]</font>

Based on this I have a new question. As an engineer do you think its possible to make human beings travel at 186,000 miles/second?

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Mar-25, 08:31 AM
On 2002-03-24 17:27, The Bad Astronomer wrote:
Actually, it's better than that.
It doesn't get any better than that--debunking a claim by showing that the original was made with a sense of humor.

And, I want to add some fireworks (http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap020325.html), and congradulations to the BABB's latest (soon to be) PhD--which everybody knows means Puns Higher and Deeper.

SeekingKnowledge
2002-Mar-25, 03:42 PM
I won't lie. Im trying to get 40 replies so my folder is on fire as Im BRAND NEW to this site, and the flaming folders look cool. Anyone care to help? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

JayUtah
2002-Mar-25, 04:02 PM
As an engineer do you think its possible to make human beings travel at 186,000 miles/second?

I assume you're trying to ask whether I believe it is possible to accelerate a human being to the speed of light. 186,000 m/s is actually somewhat slower than the speed of light and in this type of question the difference between the two is significant.

In theory it is not possible to accelerate anything that has mass, whether it's an electron or a linebacker, to the speed of light. Einstein says that it requires infinite energy to do that.

In theory it is possible to accelerate a mass to 186,000 m/s. It would simply require more energy than we can produce currently with our technology. As your velocity increases it requires increasingly more energy to attain that next velocity increment.

The velocities that we deal with in space travel are very small percentages of the speed of light, and so Newton's equations work just fine for us. If you want to learn more, do some research on Einstien's special theory of relativity. That will explain why we won't be having warp drives any time soon.

SeekingKnowledge
2002-Mar-25, 04:08 PM
of course I could always just help myself to 40 but again, I have some statements for anybody willing to confirm. So it seems your all telling me:
1)We in fact DID go to the moon
2)There has never been Extra Terrestials UFO's, Bases, Artifacts etc... on the moon or at least no viable proof of such.
3)There has never been Extra Terrestials that visited this planet or at least no viable proof of such.
4)There has never been UFO's of origins other than earth that visited this planet or at least no viable proof of such.
5)Most of the hundreds of Greer's witnesses in Project disclosure consist of "those who are simply recounting experiences to which they have attached UFO-sympathetic interpretatations, and among the rest there are also those who are simply lying because they know it's impossible to prove them wrong and they want the publicity"

JayUtah
2002-Mar-25, 04:34 PM
1)We in fact DID go to the moon

If you consider all the available evidence, the best single explanation for it is that the moon landings happened substantially as NASA has claimed.

2)There has never been Extra Terrestials UFO's, Bases, Artifacts etc... on the moon or at least no viable proof of such.

Correct. There is no objective evidence which can only or best be explained by a hypothesis that non-earth intelligence has visited the moon.

3)There has never been Extra Terrestials that visited this planet or at least no viable proof of such.

Correct. There is no objective evidence which can only or best be explained by a hypothesis that non-earth intelligence has visited the earth.

4)There has never been UFO's of origins other than earth that visited this planet or at least no viable proof of such.

Correct, if by "UFO" you mean artifical objects of non-earth construction. There is no objective evidence which can best or only be explained by a hypothesis that artifices of non-earth origin have visited earth.

Now we must qualify thost statements. First, it is not proper to say we have proved there is no such thing as aliens simply by showing that there is no viable evidence for them. We cannot conclude that the inability to prove they exist proves they don't exist. The proper course of action in this case is to suspend judgment.

We reject the arguments that say aliens definitely exist, but we don't go to the opposite extreme and say they don't or can't exist.

Further there is the issue of objective evidence. There is much eyewitness testimony which claims interactions with aliens, etc. We cannot simply ignore or dismiss this evidence. But because it's not something we can examine objectively (that is, with instruments or with other methods that minimize human interpretation), we can't always take it at face value.

If someone comes up to me and says, "I was abducted by an alien last night," I can't say he is lying, but neither must I believe him. I can believe that he believes it, but I am not necessarily compelled to accept on that basis that the event actually occurred. I would want some corroborating physical evidence, things I can examine and which aren't necessarily open to interpretation.

Did anyone else see anything? Are there inexplicable physical marks on the person's body? Is there inexplicable evidence of disturbance in the apartment? Is there radiation, chemical residue, or other evidence of interaction? Can sources of hallucination be eliminated: chemicals? magnetic fields? psychological stress?

This is what I'm thinking of when I speak of objective evidence: evidence that has the power to convince someone other than the participant.

5)Most of the hundreds of Greer's witnesses in Project disclosure consist of "those who are simply recounting experiences to which they have attached UFO-sympathetic interpretatations, and among the rest there are also those who are simply lying because they know it's impossible to prove them wrong and they want the publicity"

That may be jumping to a conclusion. The point is that not all of Greer's witnesses have the same type of testimony. Thus they fall into various categories. And some can be categorically dismissed. Ideally we would want to carefully examine the particulars of each witness and make a judgment based solely on the merits of that person. And that's possibly what Greer would want too.

But the categories nevertheless exist: e.g., the category of people whose testimony is indeed unusual, but which does not itself point to alien intervention; it's simply interpreted along those lines. Without loss of reason we can categorically dismiss that class because the relevance of the testimony has yet to be determined.

My warning is simply to think critically when examining this kind of testimony, and don't be bowled over by its sheer volume. You are expected to draw your own conclusions about the credibility of these witnesses, and yours may differ from mine. I'm simply telling you how I react to them in case you may see in my thinking something that appeals to you that you did not see earlier.

SeekingKnowledge
2002-Mar-25, 04:40 PM
NICE. Im on fire /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif Time to put this baby to rest.

The last thing I want to ask is how old are you JayUtah? Feel free not to answer if this is inappropriate or if you just don't want to.

SeekingKnowledge
2002-Mar-25, 04:50 PM
and now after reading the faq's I see the flaming folder is a bad thing due to the slower connection speeds, oh well it still looks cool.

JayUtah
2002-Mar-25, 05:15 PM
I'm old enough to have watched Apollo missions live on television.

SeekingKnowledge
2002-Mar-25, 05:20 PM
good 'nough

johnwitts
2002-Mar-25, 09:50 PM
I'm old enough to have watched Apollo missions live on television.

Which ones? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif

JayUtah
2002-Mar-25, 11:02 PM
My most vivid memory of Apollo missions is watching the Apollo 16 and 17 liftoffs from the lunar surface. I didn't fully understand at the time how the spacecraft were put together and the spray of debris looked to me like the ship had exploded.

And I distinctly remember hearing Jack Schmitt singing. I wake up nights in a cold sweat hearing that voice. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

DaveC
2002-Mar-26, 02:48 PM
I watched them all. I also remember the media coverage of Sputnik, Laika, Yuri Gagarin, Valentina Tereshkova, the Mercury Redstone missions and every other step in the US space program leading up to Apollo. I still have a big scrapbook of news clippings starting with April 1961's "He's Back - Feels Fine" report on Gagarin's orbital flight.
I think having followed it as closely as I did - even though I've forgotten more than I remember - gave me a perspective on the evolution of manned space flight that cements the Apollo program as a logical step in the spectrum of achievements.

With respect to aliens visiting our locale, I'm with Jay on this. Not only is there no objective evidence, logic says it is so unlikely that it probably will never happen. Earth occupies an orbit around a very average star in one arm of a very average spiral galaxy. Unless intelligent life is extremely common in the universe, the chance of an alien species happening upon this planet is vanishingly small. What, other than E.M. radiation (radio waves or anomalous infrared radiation), would signal an alien race to visit this planet? And if it is radio waves that would draw them here, we are resticted to a sphere of space less than 200 light years in diameter. I'd guess the odds of another intelligent lifeform within that 17 million cubic light year sphere are essentially zero. In order for them to have arrived here - let's assume they mastered travel at virtually lightspeed - they would have to exist within a sphere only 100 light years in diameter.

I just think it's too farfetched to assume intelligent life out there (which is almost a certainty) would accidently stumble upon our planet. It's the eqivalent of going to the beach and finding a particular grain of sand that has an identifying feature that can only be seen from 1 inch away.

Thumper
2002-Mar-26, 05:42 PM
On a particular summer night in 1969, my sister was two months old and fast asleep. My Mom got me up and we sat in front of our 13" black and white TV (I remember the TV because we were still using it in 1980). She later told me she wasn't sure what we were going to see or how much historical impact it would have, but she thought I should see it.

Strangely, I never forgot that evening. I don't remember exactly what I saw, but I remember being there watching and listening. It's probably the second clearest memory in that two year period next to the birth of my sister, that I have. I believe it sparked a (to this point) lifelong interest in space travel and astronomy.

I was explaining something about Apollo to my Mom recently and realized that she didn't know too much about the subject, but at the same time she was responsible for me knowing anything about it.

DaveC
2002-Mar-26, 06:03 PM
Thumper, Your Mom obviously had an instinctive sense of the historically significant. I'm not sure my mother ever understood my obsession with space exploration. She suggested several times that I quit littering my room with newspaer and magazine clippings - hence the move to put all my stuff in a scrapbook starting when I was barely a teenager.
I remember July 1969 being at my girlfriend's summer cottage and trying to convince her that we should bring the TV outside so we could look at the moon and the coverage as the Eagle touched down. She didn't have that sense of history and wanted to watch Johnny Carson or some such late night drivel - probably why our relationship didn't last. I remember that night like it was yesterday!

SpacedOut
2002-Mar-26, 06:41 PM
Like Dave C – I too remember watching the early launches – my dad would wake me for the night ones – I’m a bit younger and started really following Space flight with Shepard’s launch and have also forgotten more than I now remember. Gemini really sparked my imagination and built several models (of different sizes) of the Gemini. To be honest – my most profound memory (good) in all missions (Mercury to STS) was the Apollo 8 Christmas eve telecast – I can still remember being awestruck knowing I was watching men orbiting another celestial body. I can still hear Genesis being read by Borman, Lovell, and Anders.!

More to the point (maybe not of this thread but of HB’s in general) – by following the early space program as closely as I did, the stepping stone nature of the space program is something that I am fully comfortable with and appreciate. Unlike what the HB’s want to believe, we didn’t just go to the Moon on a whim, unprepared for what we would find, there was a very systematic approach. During every flight, I can remember commentators discussing what was new about that particular flight and what NASA hoped to learn.

SeekingKnowledge
2002-Mar-26, 09:04 PM
I'm sure this has been asked before, so I apologize in advance, but for all of you who remember the apollo missions, was the hoax theory as big back then as it is now? Were people running around in the late 60's early 70's screaming hoax like today? Does anyone remember people trying to convince them them this was all fake back when it was happening? Does anyone remember if the US newspapers had articles saying that Russia or China or Cuba was claiming this was all fake?

Donnie B.
2002-Mar-26, 10:09 PM
Seeking: No. The "Moon Hoax" is a relatively recent phenomenon. Probably got started back in the 80's or so... I'm sure Jay knows better than I do.

Russia, China, et al, never tried to claim that the Apollo landings didn't take place, for the very good reason that they knew they were real.

Unrelated question: does anyone know if models of the LM, Saturn V, and other Apollo hardware are available anywhere? I'd be interested in either kits or assembled models. I'm kicking myself for not keeping the ones I built back then!

I'm envisioning a "kit-bashed" LM model with gold-leaf to represent the mylar insulation... /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

JayUtah
2002-Mar-26, 10:39 PM
The movie Diamonds Are Forever (1971) contains a scene which some believe is a suggestion of falsification, but it's unclear whether the intent is falsification or simply training.

Bill Kaysing published his book We Never Went to the Moon in 1974 but it was not widely known. Yet most of the charges he brings up (flagwaving, no stars in the sky, etc.) are still found in the various publications released recently. (Basically the hoax believers pay absolutely no attention to refutations.)

The Chinese simply ignored the effort. The Soviet Union actually congratulated the U.S. on its achievement, although felt the Apollo equipment was unsafe compared to Soviet space technology.

The main criticism of the Apollo program in the 1960s and 1970s was that it was perceived to be a waste of resources that were better spent helping improve the plight of poor Americans.

DaveC
2002-Mar-27, 02:32 PM
When I was in university working on my engineering degree, there was a debate between the scientific faculty and the arts faculty students about whether the moon landings were real. I think that was probably about 1971 and was prompted by the same kind of things Jay alluded to - the belief among the left wing liberal arts types that NASA was a waste of money that could better be spent on feeding the poor.

I'm not sure how serious the "hoax" side was, but some of the same arguments we see today were used - waving flag, no stars, lack of suitable technology etc. I don't recall "photo anomalies" being used, although it was argued that the photos were fake. The engineers threw themselves into it and set up a number of demo projects (flag in an evacuated bell jar with a cam arrangement to twist the pole back and forth, artificial reduced gravity chamber, photos of night sky and a bunch of other stuff I've forgotten).
My recollection is that the engineers won the debate pretty handily - maybe students are more open-minded than adults - and the arts team conceded that the missions did in fact take place. I think being able to see how difficult it was to fake a reduced gravity environment (we dropped a counterweighted chamber from the roof), coupled with the complete absence of any realistic computer animation technology, convinced the "doubters" that there was only one explanation for what we'd all seen on TV and in photos - the Apollo missions were real.

I guess this goes to show that cynics and conspiracists are not a new phenomenon. The seeds of doubt were there almost as soon as the missions took place.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: DaveC on 2002-03-27 09:36 ]</font>

JayUtah
2002-Mar-27, 02:39 PM
My brother-in-law teaches high school science and used the Fox program (which most of his students had seen) as a framework for teaching the correct scientific principles. He's been pretty successful; the students seem more interested when they can relate what they're learning to something they've experienced outside the classroom.

JimB
2002-Mar-27, 03:05 PM
On 2002-03-26 17:09, Donnie B. wrote:
<snip>
Unrelated question: does anyone know if models of the LM, Saturn V, and other Apollo hardware are available anywhere? I'd be interested in either kits or assembled models. I'm kicking myself for not keeping the ones I built back then!

I'm envisioning a "kit-bashed" LM model with gold-leaf to represent the mylar insulation... /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif



Here's a site with plastic and paper models.
http://galacticvoyager.com/

Silas
2002-Mar-27, 04:20 PM
On 2002-03-26 17:09, Donnie B. wrote:
Unrelated question: does anyone know if models of the LM, Saturn V, and other Apollo hardware are available anywhere? I'd be interested in either kits or assembled models. I'm kicking myself for not keeping the ones I built back then!

I'm envisioning a "kit-bashed" LM model with gold-leaf to represent the mylar insulation... /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif


Grin! Me too! I remember trying to find a gold-colored paper for just that purpose...and found it at last, wrapped around a McDonald's hamburger!

Silas

ToSeek
2002-Mar-27, 04:27 PM
On 2002-03-26 17:09, Donnie B. wrote:
I'm envisioning a "kit-bashed" LM model with gold-leaf to represent the mylar insulation... /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif



I had a model back in the seventies that came with some sort of gold foil - might be one of the best I've had, though my favorite was always my three-foot-high Saturn V model.

JayUtah
2002-Mar-27, 04:39 PM
Either Revell or Monogram (I forget which) has re-released its classic Saturn V plastic model. I built models voraciously as a teenager. (Engineers in training tend to have solitary hobbies.) The only skill that remains from that is the ability to identify just about any aircraft instantly on sight. But I digress.

I never had any problem locating metallic foil for lunar modules. I've always been blessed with well-stocked hobby stores. I have to admit the McDonalds solution is quite resourceful.

Several years ago I consulted on a 1/4 scale model of a lunar module for an exhibit. I already had the detailed drawings from Grumman and/or NASA. They ended up leaving off most of the detail, which saved them a lot of time.

I would be very interested in finding a 1/32 scale styrene model of the lunar module. Okay, I guess I could build one from scratch, but I don't have that kind of patience anymore. But I do have lots of gold foil. And with a few phone calls I bet I could actually get some aluminized kapton or mylar.

jagster
2002-Mar-28, 07:27 PM
Way off topic.

I still build models and have been getting the discontinued items through Ebay. I recently bought a Revell 1/96 scale (almost four feet tall) Saturn V just like the one I received brand new for Christmas in 1969 or so. I also just received in the mail today (again through Ebay) a Monogram 1/48 scale LM that includes the foil in the kit...just like the one I had way back when.