1969 First Moon Landing - FAKE

Radio frequencies act the same as they did in 1800 as they do now.

Please stop commenting on the radio signal part if you don't know how RF works.

originally posted by: ViXxeN
a reply to: CaptainBeno

I'm a skeptic, I don't mind admitting it.

It's possible too that we did make it to the moon but they did studio shots to make sure it happened so far as the public might be concerned. We HAD to succeed after blowing so much of our National budget. Some of this material may have leaked out (intentionally?) to muddy the waters, who knows?

Technologically speaking, making a moon landing at that time was a fantastic jump. So many things scientists never had to deal with before. An incredible number of departments coordinating efforts and every last part and calculation had to work. I think they were afraid it wouldn't work as well so they hired Stanley Kubric.

a reply to: Asktheanimals

That's a solid alternative, you may be right, they may have used a back up in the off-chance it didn't work the way they anticipated it to.

a reply to: ViXxeN

Except, the effects in 2001 A Space Odyssey really are pretty cheesy. Though state of the art.

a reply to: Zaphod58

We don't have any technology to go to the moon? We haven't "been" there since. Nor has anything else it seems....apart from that dodgy Chinese thing AND WE ALL KNOW HOW THAT ENDED...."Can we look at the photos please?".....No.

a reply to: Phage

If we compare it to our perception of real life today, the world of computer tech has come a long way since 1969. The movie they made may have been made that way on purpose.

a reply to: ViXxeN

The movie they made may have been made that way on purpose.

Yes. It was purposely made as realistic as possible. Or perhaps you have an example of something more realistic from the time?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: ViXxeN

The movie they made may have been made that way on purpose.

Yes. It was purposely made as realistic as possible. Or perhaps you have an example of something more realistic from the time?

It was purposely made as real as possible i'm sure, as far as the public were meant to perceive it.

a reply to: ViXxeN

Oh. I gotcha.

Super secret special effects. But Kubrick didn't want to use them for his movie.

a reply to: CaptainBeno

We don't have anything to stay long term I said. If they wanted to recreate Apollo, and stay a couple days and come back, then it could be done. But if they want to stay weeks, or even months, then there's still a lot to be done for that to happen.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: ViXxeN

Oh. I gotcha.

Super secret special effects. But Kubrick didn't want to use them for his movie.

I don't know, we'd have to resurrect Stanley and ask him.

a reply to: ViXxeN

Good thing he's dead. Can't have a conspiracy theory when there are still people who can say, "No, I didn't do that, sorry."

a reply to: Zaphod58

Oh really? So, why haven't we sent anything (even a small probe, drone, crawly thingo) anything? Oh that's right, we've been there, done that. The moon and all it's secrets is soooo 69.

a reply to: CaptainBeno

So, why haven't we sent anything (even a small probe, drone, crawly thingo) anything?

Because Mars is more interesting.

a reply to: CaptainBeno

You mean these missions? These are both NASA and international missions that went to the moon, from the 1960s, until just a few years ago. Everything from flyby missions on their way to somewhere else, to orbiters and landers and impact missions.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: ViXxeN

Good thing he's dead. Can't have a conspiracy theory when there are still people who can say, "No, I didn't do that, sorry."

Unfortunately I wouldn't know, dead men can't talk.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: CaptainBeno

So, why haven't we sent anything (even a small probe, drone, crawly thingo) anything?

Because Mars is more interesting.

According to this pinned thread, there are people who think Mars is a dumb idea.

a reply to: Phage

Because Mars is more interesting.

What? Seriously?

A heavenly body that bears zero resemblance to our planet with no discernible features except hills and craters isn't interesting. By all accounts it's the oddest thing in our solar system? And the fact it's apparently soooo close should by rights make it more accessible.....but no. No base, no colony, no return.

a reply to: CaptainBeno

Because, again, we don't have the tech for a long term stay outside of our orbit yet. We didn't in the 60s, we don't yet now. We're much closer but we aren't there yet.

originally posted by: CaptainBeno
a reply to: Phage

Because Mars is more interesting.

What? Seriously?

A heavenly body that bears zero resemblance to our planet with no discernible features except hills and craters isn't interesting. By all accounts it's the oddest thing in our solar system? And the fact it's apparently soooo close should by rights make it more accessible.....but no. No base, no colony, no return.

I think you are misunderstanding what in my opinion the real reason for going to the moon. And what Zaphod said is entirely true. Do we have the capability of developing the needed technology to go and stay a while, yes we do.
Has it been developed, no. But we are definitely getting close.
For the most part all first and most second stage engines work with VERY old tech. Just look and ULA and do some research on the used engines origin. Then you will see what I am talking about.