[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Serry... wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Togg wrote: [/QUOTENAME].
Also the cold war would have been very different if the USSR had got there first, they basically gave up on the moon once they discovered how far ahead the US was, up to that point it could have gone either way.[/QUOTE]
Have you ever heard of the guy named Yuri Gagarin, the world's first artificial satellite "Sputnik", of the woman Valentina Tereshkova, of space station "Mir"? Or studying of space exists only inside problem "Who was first on the Moon"?[/QUOTE]
I secon dthat.
PLUS- yes of course the moon landing changed our lives regardless of whether we were born or not- BUT what I meant it wouldn't change my life if now they found out that no-one landed on the moon back than and it was only a hoax.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Serry... wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Togg wrote: [/QUOTENAME].
Also the cold war would have been very different if the USSR had got there first, they basically gave up on the moon once they discovered how far ahead the US was, up to that point it could have gone either way.[/QUOTE]
Have you ever heard of the guy named Yuri Gagarin, the world's first artificial satellite "Sputnik", of the woman Valentina Tereshkova, of space station "Mir"? Or studying of space exists only inside problem "Who was first on the Moon"?[/QUOTE]
Yes of course I have, that's what I was refering to, the USSR was the first in space, the first with a man in space and the first to have a viable space staion, however in the 1960's the focus was on the Moon, until America just pipped them to the post, after that point the USSR switched it's attention to understanding how man could 'Live' in space for long periods.
Also the cold war would have been very different if the USSR had got there first, they basically gave up on the moon once they discovered how far ahead the US was, up to that point it could have gone either way.[/QUOTE]
Have you ever heard of the guy named Yuri Gagarin, the world's first artificial satellite "Sputnik", of the woman Valentina Tereshkova, of space station "Mir"? Or studying of space exists only inside problem "Who was first on the Moon"?[/QUOTE]
Yes of course I have, that's what I was refering to, the USSR was the first in space, the first with a man in space and the first to have a viable space staion, however in the 1960's the focus was on the Moon, until America just pipped them to the post, after that point the USSR switched it's attention to understanding how man could 'Live' in space for long periods.
Can I say, there isn't really a discussion when it comes to whether or not the lunar landings were hoaxed.
To this day, the odd scientific experiment is still carried out by shooting out a laser signal at mirrors at one of the landing sites, the scientists observe some characteristic of the way the signal returns... tell me, if they didn't land on the moon, how did the mirrors get there??
Let's not talk about the way dirt gets thrown up from the wheels of the lunar rover - the way the dirt behaved in the vacuum environment, we were able to observe the parabola of fine lunar soil in a frictionless atmosphere and 1/8th earth gravity environment! Isn't this shit fun???
There is some marvellous literature out there, by the wayside... I think even the initial question posed about the camera has been answered before. I'll have a look, I enjoy reading this stuff quite a bit.
To this day, the odd scientific experiment is still carried out by shooting out a laser signal at mirrors at one of the landing sites, the scientists observe some characteristic of the way the signal returns... tell me, if they didn't land on the moon, how did the mirrors get there??
Let's not talk about the way dirt gets thrown up from the wheels of the lunar rover - the way the dirt behaved in the vacuum environment, we were able to observe the parabola of fine lunar soil in a frictionless atmosphere and 1/8th earth gravity environment! Isn't this shit fun???
There is some marvellous literature out there, by the wayside... I think even the initial question posed about the camera has been answered before. I'll have a look, I enjoy reading this stuff quite a bit.
I'm glad to hear you have an open mind on this by the way, but I don't quite understand the following:
"If you are familar with both the cameras and the technology of the day, you will see this is impossible."
What was impossible about it?
The remote control part? I don't see the problem with that; remote controls are very simple things really. Point a remote control at a DV camera and make sure you're taping while you start pushing buttons. You can actually see the light flash heaps - that's all this digital bunk is, just lots of on and offs.
As for the camera mechanism - it surely can't have been *that* far beyond 1969 technology for them to build a thing that could tilt the camera a little.
And the returning signal? You can thank Canberra for that one!
"If you are familar with both the cameras and the technology of the day, you will see this is impossible."
What was impossible about it?
The remote control part? I don't see the problem with that; remote controls are very simple things really. Point a remote control at a DV camera and make sure you're taping while you start pushing buttons. You can actually see the light flash heaps - that's all this digital bunk is, just lots of on and offs.
As for the camera mechanism - it surely can't have been *that* far beyond 1969 technology for them to build a thing that could tilt the camera a little.
And the returning signal? You can thank Canberra for that one!