When did Neil Armstrong find out it was all a hoax?

Quote from: SpaceCadet on October 29, 2018, 01:26:47 AM

There are just too many people who would have to be in on a conspiracy, most of them not even Americans or Westerners for such a conspiracy to be possible. I mean, this super secret organisation that controls the world is so good at hiding the shape of the earth, so good that in 200 years no one has come out to claim to be a part of this conspiracy, or at least in the last 500 years, but this same conspiracy cannot hide the fact that the US president left cum stains on an intern's dress? Come on!

From the Rosenbergs to Watergate, from Iran Contra to White Water, from Valerie Plame to Abu Ghraib to Wikileaks.  Throughout history people have never been able to keep secrets and bigger the secret the more likely it is to be leaked  With Wikileaks someone could leak anything they wanted to and the dumps would be happening for years before anyone found out who the leaker was; it we found out at all.  Yet to this day there has never been a single leak.

There currently 73 government space agencies.  There are six capable of launching and routinely do launch satellites.  There are three with the ability to launch humans into space.  There are hundreds of private contractors providing equipment and services to all these agencies.  Additionally, there are eight private spaceflight companies.

Collectively, all these agencies and companies have employed millions over the decades.  Not a single leak...no deathbed confessions, no one over hearing a conversation they shouldn't have, nobody finding a stray document, recording, or video they shouldn't have.  Even with tight compartmentalization you’d still be looking at tens of thousands over those decades and yet nothin’ but crickets.

Not to mention universities and colleges.  If we consider only astrophysics/cosmology; every university department would have to be in on it, every university doing research would have to “read in” every professor and grad student involved in that research, and every graduating PhD in history would have to be involved at some level.  How many other degrees would involve some aspect of outer space that would require at least some small portion of the graduates needing to be “read in” on the conspiracy?

The number of people who would have to be in the know over all this time is staggering.  Yet, somehow, we’re to believe this has been successfully kept secret for centuries without even a inkling that anything was ever leaked.

This is just a small segment of those areas that would need to be involved.  It stretches credibility to the breaking point.

My 2¢ FWIW.

Mike

And FE'rs will say wikileaks is part of the conspiracy.

It's so improbable that it's ridiculous.

Quote from: MicroBeta on October 29, 2018, 06:06:44 AM

Quote from: SpaceCadet on October 29, 2018, 01:26:47 AM

There are just too many people who would have to be in on a conspiracy, most of them not even Americans or Westerners for such a conspiracy to be possible. I mean, this super secret organisation that controls the world is so good at hiding the shape of the earth, so good that in 200 years no one has come out to claim to be a part of this conspiracy, or at least in the last 500 years, but this same conspiracy cannot hide the fact that the US president left cum stains on an intern's dress? Come on!

From the Rosenbergs to Watergate, from Iran Contra to White Water, from Valerie Plame to Abu Ghraib to Wikileaks.  Throughout history people have never been able to keep secrets and bigger the secret the more likely it is to be leaked  With Wikileaks someone could leak anything they wanted to and the dumps would be happening for years before anyone found out who the leaker was; it we found out at all.  Yet to this day there has never been a single leak.

There currently 73 government space agencies.  There are six capable of launching and routinely do launch satellites.  There are three with the ability to launch humans into space.  There are hundreds of private contractors providing equipment and services to all these agencies.  Additionally, there are eight private spaceflight companies.

Collectively, all these agencies and companies have employed millions over the decades.  Not a single leak...no deathbed confessions, no one over hearing a conversation they shouldn't have, nobody finding a stray document, recording, or video they shouldn't have.  Even with tight compartmentalization you’d still be looking at tens of thousands over those decades and yet nothin’ but crickets.

Not to mention universities and colleges.  If we consider only astrophysics/cosmology; every university department would have to be in on it, every university doing research would have to “read in” every professor and grad student involved in that research, and every graduating PhD in history would have to be involved at some level.  How many other degrees would involve some aspect of outer space that would require at least some small portion of the graduates needing to be “read in” on the conspiracy?

The number of people who would have to be in the know over all this time is staggering.  Yet, somehow, we’re to believe this has been successfully kept secret for centuries without even a inkling that anything was ever leaked.

This is just a small segment of those areas that would need to be involved.  It stretches credibility to the breaking point.

My 2¢ FWIW.

Mike

And FE'rs will say wikileaks is part of the conspiracy.

I see your point but even if we take wikileaks out of the picture we're still left with there being no leaks of the so called "truth".  IMHO, it's just not logical.

Mike

Some flat earthers try to pretend that only the "higher ups" know the "truth". I guess most of them cannot envision a situation where people on the lowest rung of an organisation e.g look-outs on a ship, would need to understand very well the shape of the earth in order to do their jobs. Radio operators, ship and aircraft navigators. Even college astronomy students  can very easily confirm the distance of the moon and from there, the distance of the sun.

No. A conspiracy is asinine. And assuming all these people are wrong in their understanding is even more moronic.

Perhaps it's like that episode of Doctor Who where U.N.I.T. has a facility in London so secret that the security guards have their memories wiped after every work shift so that every day is their first day.

My 2¢ FWIW.

3.64¢

What a major let down...... i was hoping for some new insight from deconverted Apollo believers.
My fault i should have known better.....
Even in the year 2169 their 'offspring'  will still cling on to the fairy tale of 1969.
When someone asks 'them' why no one has returned to the moon for 200 years they will probably still claim a lost of interrest, crossing the boundaries of the multiverse is what humans do in 2169, the crypto currencies only allows for earthly transactions therefor spacetravel doesn't receive proper fundings ....big scale pollution like a huge fossile fuel rocket is forbidden to save what's left of the earth.....
And they think it's a very reasonable stand like those in 2018 as to why nobody went back to the moon.

If someone in 1974 would read the bizare cheap excuses of 2018 why no one has gone back , let alone a moonbase or commercial fly by,  it would surely shed a different light upon 'their' recent moonlanding claims.

Now you can show me your resentment 

What a major let down...... i was hoping for some new insight from deconverted Apollo believers.
My fault i should have known better.....
Even in the year 2169 their 'offspring'  will still cling on to the fairy tale of 1969.
When someone asks 'them' why no one has returned to the moon for 200 years

But numerous uncrewed spacecraft have flown past, orbited and landed on the moon since 1972.
So what will you say if "they" (NASA, SpaceX or someone else) returns to the moon in 5 years. Since 1972 it has been lack of finance and nothing else.

Are you expert at wiping egg off you face by now?
But you'll just deny it anyway and claim that " it doesn't look right " to your " self-trained eye " that has never see it in real-life anyway.

they will probably still claim a lost of interrest, crossing the boundaries of the multiverse is what humans do in 2169, the crypto currencies only allows for earthly transactions therefor spacetravel doesn't receive proper fundings ....big scale pollution like a huge fossile fuel rocket is forbidden to save what's left of the earth.....
And they think it's a very reasonable stand like those in 2018 as to why nobody went back to the moon.

If someone in 1974 would read the bizare cheap excuses of 2018 why no one has gone back,

Thers's nothing cheap about crewed space missions. Life support is extremely expensive financially and in the required launch mass.

But always I have to ask "why go back?" when most things can be done with uncrewed missions for a minute fraction the cost in money and resources.

let alone a moonbase or commercial fly by,  it would surely shed a different light upon 'their' recent moonlanding claims.

Why? You still wouldn't believe it?

Now you can show me your resentment 

Sorry, all I can show you is amusement that anyone can be so close-minded!

What a major let down...... i was hoping for some new insight from deconverted Apollo believers.

There are apparently no insights, new or otherwise.

<ramble>

If someone in 1974 would read the bizare cheap excuses of 2018 why no one has gone back , let alone a moonbase or commercial fly by,  it would surely shed a different light upon 'their' recent moonlanding claims.

In 1974 it was more obvious than it is today. The conditions that led to the abandonment of manned lunar flights were quite obvious back then, and they're still true: they were very expensive and extremely risky, necessarily of short duration due to the high effort needed to sustain life, with little immediate or even intermediate possibilities for practical sources of income to offset the high cost and risk of "routine" operations. Even if the surface of the moon were littered with gold nuggets, it would still be vastly cheaper to mine gold here than travel to the moon, pick them up, and bring them back. By the time of the Apollo 13 launch (spring, 1970), the main impetus (get men to the moon first!) had been satisfied, most of the US population had lost interest, and they were the ones paying for it. Apollo 13 rekindled some of the awareness of just how difficult this was to do, but at the same time reminded everyone about how dangerous it was. Through Apollo 11, the manned space program had the country's rapt attention and enthusiastic backing, with each mission trying new things and taking bold new steps. After that, not so much, and the taxpayers' objections to the cost were heard.

The big change since then? The capability and relative cost-effectiveness of robotic exploration. That's where the bulk of the effort goes now, and we've (as in humanity) been back to the moon many times, and continue to do so.

Why is that so difficult for you to understand?

Quote from: dutchy on December 04, 2018, 11:54:49 AM

What a major let down...... i was hoping for some new insight from deconverted Apollo believers.

There are apparently no insights, new or otherwise.

Quote

<ramble>

If someone in 1974 would read the bizare cheap excuses of 2018 why no one has gone back , let alone a moonbase or commercial fly by,  it would surely shed a different light upon 'their' recent moonlanding claims.

In 1974 it was more obvious than it is today. The conditions that led to the abandonment of manned lunar flights were quite obvious back then, and they're still true: they were very expensive and extremely risky, necessarily of short duration due to the high effort needed to sustain life, with little immediate or even intermediate possibilities for practical sources of income to offset the high cost and risk of "routine" operations. Even if the surface of the moon were littered with gold nuggets, it would still be vastly cheaper to mine gold here than travel to the moon, pick them up, and bring them back. By the time of the Apollo 13 launch (spring, 1970), the main impetus (get men to the moon first!) had been satisfied, most of the US population had lost interest, and they were the ones paying for it. Apollo 13 rekindled some of the awareness of just how difficult this was to do, but at the same time reminded everyone about how dangerous it was. Through Apollo 11, the manned space program had the country's rapt attention and enthusiastic backing, with each mission trying new things and taking bold new steps. After that, not so much, and the taxpayers' objections to the cost were heard.

The big change since then? The capability and relative cost-effectiveness of robotic exploration. That's where the bulk of the effort goes now, and we've (as in humanity) been back to the moon many times, and continue to do so.

Why is that so difficult for you to understand?

Sorry, the financial cost argument doesn't slide. If going by the money from the Apollo missions, than adjusting for inflation and the fact that a lot of the components are cheaper (such as computers and other technology), It's far cheaper to land a person on the moon than it is to drop a rover on Mars or any other Mission NASA pretends to do. Flying past the moon is one thing. But if you put a person on the moon and that person could mine the rocks or get a more through scan and a closer look, their yet yields many benefits of using an actual person than a shitty probe. Also people would pay a pretty sum for a piece of moon rock or even dust.

And I'm sure there would be wealthy billionaires who could be tempted to pay for a ticket too. After all these decades and no one can think of a net benefit for going back? Perhaps we never went there to begin with given the 'too hard basket' a journey is even 50 years later

Sorry, the financial cost argument doesn't slide. If going by the money from the Apollo missions, than adjusting for inflation and the fact that a lot of the components are cheaper (such as computers and other technology), It's far cheaper to land a person on the moon than it is to drop a rover on Mars or any other Mission NASA pretends to do.

I'd love to see the detailed analysis behind that assertion. Let's see some real numbers instead of just a vacuous claim! Are you considering getting that person back, or just landing him on the surface of the moon and leaving him there? It makes a very big difference! It's probably still not cheaper, but let's see your analysis.

Computers and other technology are indeed cheaper and more capable now but you still need rocket engines, fuel tanks, pressure vessels, valves, pumps, telemetry and communications systems, and a myriad of other never inexpensive (especially when flight qualified) things. Those most assuredly aren't cheaper now. There was an adage in the 1980s: "iron is expensive, silicon is cheap", was a plea for replaceable processor boards in a standard chassis with standard peripherals for home computers because the cost of computational power dropped rapidly while the cost of hardware was rising. It's still true in general. Meanwhile, our tolerance for risk has dropped, meaning system redundancies, inspection, analysis, and review efforts have ballooned.

Flying past the moon is one thing. But if you put a person on the moon and that person could mine the rocks or get a more through scan and a closer look, their yet yields many benefits of using an actual person than a shitty probe. Also people would pay a pretty sum for a piece of moon rock or even dust.

People can indeed make more subtle and informed decisions than machines can in a lot of (but not all) cases, but how long can they stay there, how much does it cost to keep them alive for the trip, and how much of the carrying capacity of the return vehicle is used up by their mass and mass of their life support systems and supplies? You can leave a "shitty probe" behind, and it doesn't require life support.

Why would anyone pay much for genuine moon rock or dust? Because they're very expensive to fetch! You're still talking mills (tenths of a penny) on the dollar compared to the cost of getting it here. If they were nuggets of lunar gold, you might realize cents on the dollar.

And I'm sure there would be wealthy billionaires who could be tempted to pay for a ticket too. After all these decades and no one can think of a net benefit for going back?

If you sold a ticket to the surface of the moon to some billionaire for $10 billion, you might have a taker or two. You'd also have a several hundred kg of ballast instead of a competent crew member you could count on in an emergency, and would most likely be a liability.

Perhaps we never went there to begin with given the 'too hard basket' a journey is even 50 years later

It took a lot of effort, money, and skill, and a willing acceptance of risk to get there. And no "paying passengers". Those would have gotten in the way, big time. They still would.

[Edit] cleanup of syntax.

If someone in 1974 would read the bizare cheap excuses of 2018 why no one has gone back , let alone a moonbase or commercial fly by,  it would surely shed a different light upon 'their' recent moonlanding claims.

Why so hung up on Apollo and your need for moon colonies? Remember the space shuttle? That's where NASA moved to next after the moon: Putting a crew and goods up into space and gliding them back down in the same vehicle to be re-used again. Amazing. There were 135 Shuttle missions. 135!  355: The actual number of individual astronauts and cosmonauts to have flown on shuttle missions. Tragically, 14 killed.

Probes, landers, re-usability, ISS, LEO, cost all seem to be factors in shaping the course of space exploration. So just b/c you think we should be racing back to the moon doesn't mean that's the appropriate strategy we should be taking. 

What a major let down...... i was hoping for some new insight from deconverted Apollo believers.
My fault i should have known better.....

Haha.  You’ve been Bullwinkled.

However, I’m happy to oblige, and I’ll do you one better than new insight.  So buckle up and prepare to wrap your tortilla mind around my very own...

Conspiracy Theory.

[bah-bah-bammm!]

Please note: This is my original musings, so don’t expect to find this elsewhere on the web. No copy pasta here.  As if They would ever allow the real truth to be told.  If you don’t hear back from me, you’ll know my fate.  Just kidding, no one is coming to get me.

What can pretty much everyone agree on?

The internet, once heralded as the ultimate platform for the free exchange of information and ideas as been at least in part corrupted by shadey groups pushing their own agendas.  Fake news, use of social media algorithms, data mining, etc. are all real things.  As well as in other media, of course.

There is however disagreement about who’s doing what.  The NSA?  Russian Internet Research Agency? Private businesses interests?  The Illuminati?  All of the above and more?

Things you need to ask yourself:

- Who else encourages people not to trust in mainstream science?
- Who dislikes “big government” and their “meddling” agencies?
- Who has most to gain from discrediting NASA and other space agencies?

The fossil fuel lobby, and other businesses interests with questionable environmental records.

Not just space agencies of course, also the likes of NOAA, the Met office, the EPA, etc, etc.  But hang around Climate Change “Skeptic” websites, and NASA is often used as a byword for mainstream (“alarmist”) climate science.

I have often seen people use the argument that NASA shouldn’t be trusted on climate change, because of the allegedly fake moon landings.  As well as Chemtrails, HAARP, etc presented as the “real” reason for climate change.  The “ skeptic” websites themselves don’t tend to make these connections, that would be too obvious.  It’s usually in the comments.

What if there is a financial link?

What if Landers, Flat Earthers, Chemtrailers, HAARPers, etc. are all the unwitting pawns of the likes of the Heartland Institute?