I and others are so sick of this stupid and ignorant hoax thing that seems to persist to excite feeble minds, that I might publish this every day on yahoo answers.
Yes, it was just about feasible to film a fake moon landing in the 60s, but the concept of incorporating the created simulation in the systems at mission control so as to fool all those controllers for the several years of the moon missions is laughable. Anyone who thinks that is possible has not the vaguest idea of what it would take.
It would mean that the simulation would have to work perfectly in sync with the shots every second of the entire operation. One little blink in that, and the controllers would be onto it. They would literally see through the hoax in the first seconds of the first moonshot.
2007-02-28 12:38:13 · 9 answers · asked by nick s 6 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Astronomy & Space
Also, when would this simulation get put into the systems? The controllers were there every day, 50 of them per shift; 150 over 3 shifts. How could the creators of this simulation ensure that there “system” would work perfectly all the time?
The people who tout the hoax have absolutely no comprehension of the difficulties of system integration and how you have to test and test, and then systems still go wrong and have to be fixed.
And which part is faked? The giant Saturn V took off. The stages broke away, and the burn was made to break Earth’s orbit and head to the moon. When did the simulation kick in? How could that be made so transparent that 50 controllers never notice that suddenly the real thing has become a simulation?
2007-02-28 12:40:35 · update #1
Also, when would this simulation get put into the systems? The controllers were there every day, 50 of them per shift; 150 over 3 shifts. How could the creators of this simulation ensure that there “system” would work perfectly all the time?
The people who tout the hoax have absolutely no comprehension of the difficulties of system integration and how you have to test and test, and then systems still go wrong and have to be fixed.
And which part is faked? The giant Saturn V took off. The stages broke away, and the burn was made to break Earth’s orbit and head to the moon. When did the simulation kick in? How could that be made so transparent that 50 controllers never notice that suddenly the real thing has become a simulation?
2007-02-28 12:40:58 · update #2
Thank you, finally...make those idiots come up with real evidence FOR a fake, as opposed to me answering idiots that wont believe the good facts i cite.
I always say the most irrefutable evidence in my eyes that the landing WASNT faked was that the Russians didnt say it was. Do you know how closely they were watching that mission? They WANTED us to fail, dont you think if there was any kind of real evidence for a hoax the Russians would have let it go? At the height of the Cold War?
right...
Good post :)
From a systems engineering/integration standpoint i cant even imagine the scale of a hoax like that...my wife does systems engineering on satellites and she has horror stories about just doing those! Can you imagine an Apollo mission? must have been a nightmare! Theres no way you could pull that off...
2007-02-28 12:46:03 · answer #1 · answered by Beach_Bum 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Although my wife's father performed fuel calculations for the original Apollo landing, I'll spare you that speech. Instead, I will encourage you to watch two programs. The first show is called Conspiracy Moon Landing that it currently showing on the National Geographic Channel and it pretty much obliterates all of the popular conspiracy theories.
I would also encourage you to watch a movie called Capricorn One. Made it 1978, it is a fictional story about a fake mission to Mars. Although it is a science fiction story, it is a good example of how utterly impossible it would be to fake a moon landing for any length of time.
12 men walked on the moon from 1969 to 1972 and we have neither the resources nor the technology to pull off that big of a hoax for so long. Hundreds of thousands of people have worked on the space program. It would be far easier to put someone on the moon than to try and fake it and keep it secret for nearly 40 years.
The landings came at a time when our space program was ultra competitive with the former Soviet Union. Remember how big of a deal it was when Sputnik was put into orbit? They had the technology to monitor our moon shots and transmissions. Don't you think they would have called us out if they had evidence that it was all fake?
Perhaps the most definitive proof of our trip to the moon is what we left behind. For the last 35+ years, scientists have been beaming lasers to the moon and measuring the return times. How are they doing this? The beams are reflected back by equipment left on the moon on at 3 different locations.
Case closed.
2007-03-01 17:55:42 · answer #2 · answered by Carl 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Actually, you have it nailed pretty well. Faking would actually be a LOT harder than doing it for real.
Why are people doubting? I guess feeble minds have an issue with things that are beyond their understanding, and like to possess a "knowledge" that escapes other, even if that knowledge is 100% false.
Hence, we have this 9/11 conspiracy that has the CIA or the FBI doing it instead of Bin Laden, or the secret service shooting Kennedy, or what else ludicrous false rumors.
2007-02-28 12:49:02 · answer #3 · answered by Vincent G 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
They weren't faked. They happened. Just ask the Russians, they were tick off because they did not get there first!
P.S. Why not let the feeble minds produce evidence to the contrary?
2007-03-04 06:36:01 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
You're wasting your breath. These people do not let facts, or real physics/optics, get in the way of their paranoid delusions.
It's worse than Whack-a-Mole trying to fight them. That's why most reputable scientist have gotten tired of the fight.
2007-02-28 13:17:40 · answer #5 · answered by arbiter007 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Good luck. . .
Putting fact up will not change the mind of the people who believe that they were faked.
I have been trying that for a long time.
2007-02-28 13:29:17 · answer #6 · answered by Walking Man 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I really can't add much to this great question and these great answers. I'm glad to see so much reason in one place.
I'll just say that I answered two similar questions half a year ago and my answers were chosen best:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=An24wg8eHrlz4bdeq3n.EJDsy6IX?qid=20060804025511AAiy3UY&show=7#profile-info-AA12171014
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AnNavlw9UaznDFvl_OPEt6Dsy6IX?qid=20060705202210AAVSurf&show=7#profile-info-AA11172479
Great points, everybody!
2007-03-02 20:10:12 · answer #7 · answered by Question Mark 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They weren't. Your data is sound.
2007-02-28 12:56:15 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
they werent
2007-02-28 12:50:17 · answer #9 · answered by Ally 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋